 I'd like to say a lot of what I'm going to talk about is very much in concert, I think, with previous two speakers. And I'm coming at this in the background of having worked in open data when I worked for the mayor of London and set up the London data store in 2009, and also now as part of SME in public transport data. And I'm heartened to hear the kind of emphasis on the human side of things because too often the whole future cities rhetoric is very technocratic and you don't hear the human voice very much. But we've got to remember the whole future, the whole kind of smart city, future city concept goes back over 20 years now, and that's a long time. And really fundamentally, although there's lots of different definitions of what it means, it really boils down to three dimensions that I'm going to talk about today. So technology, the human element and the institutional element. And in terms of the technology, I mean obviously we're talking about infrastructure. So whether that's sensors or it's broadband or it's Wi-Fi, we're talking about open data, whether that's from public sector or private utility companies, and also handling kind of emergent propositions that come into the mix. So the idea of sensors, for example, 10 years ago, was nowhere near as developed as it is now. So there's a constant iteration actually about the smart city means because the technologies are emerging and changing. So coming up to the Olympics, for example, in City Hall, we were very concerned with Wi-Fi availability in the city during the Olympics. So we had a mad sort of push to get 120 underground stations of Wi-Fi enabled before the Olympics. Of course, as we were doing that from a state, sort of regional city point of view, smart phones and availability of Wi-Fi and peer-to-peer Wi-Fi sharing networks were already happening as well. So my point is that the narrative of the smart city changes because the technology is emergent. But also, we talk about smart cities, but less about smart citizens. So the capability of the smart city idea to scale, and that's the question we're looking at today, how does it scale, is very dependent on what citizens understand and know, for example, about data and what are the discussions that we need to have with citizens about rights and responsibilities, you know, about surveillance, about pervasive technology, about invasion of privacy. And so that human knowledge, education about data, education about technology, and an understanding of the city and its challenges. And the last element of that is institutional. So what we're talking about are there, you know, is the policy and governance in place? You know, in London, there was a very clear mandate from the mayor of London to open data. That is not always, you know, clear elsewhere. I'll talk a bit more about that on the next slide. One of the things that fascinated me when I was in City Hall was the smart city debate is being driven largely by companies who have an interest in selling products and services in that area. And that's fine. That's what the market does. However, in order to get to the smart city space where you have the integration of these three things, there has to be a massive amount of collaboration. And I don't see the ability in the private sector, nor in the public sector to be that collaborative, to understand what collaboration is. You know, it's a compromise for everybody. It's not a first to market advantage. So there's a critical problem there, I think, in terms of the collaboration space. And lastly, of course, there's trust. So if smart city initiatives are being partly driven by our institutions, what is the level of trust in the citizenry that these institutions are doing these things for our goods? So the debate is largely framed around efficiency, driving out efficiency. But we really need to look at, you know, what is the trust question? And so if I was to frame that in terms of tensions, going back to the question of how do we scale, my point would be it'll probably be another 20 years, if we're already 20 years into this debate before we're even at a stage where we can talk about scaling. What we need to talk about is how are we going to confront the very clear tensions there are between these three elements. And I say that as somebody who was there at the beginning in terms of trying to establish this and is now trying to sell in and co-create a market from open data. So from the technology point of view, if you look at the existing incumbents in local government, right, in lots of public sector agencies, in cities where we're trying to sell in, we're looking at, you know, proprietary relationships that already exist. You've got to understand local authorities very often will negotiate contracts that can last for 10 to 15 years, okay? So some of these contracts just get rolled over and there's no entry point in for a change or for disruption. Many, both in the private and public sector, organizations are dealing with threats to existing business models. So when we look at the kind of agile propositions that come in in a smart city space, they're often exponentially cheaper, okay, but they're also a threat to business models. So companies, large consultancy firms are saying, how can these smart city, small agile people do this for this cost? What does that do to our day rate? Well, it blows a big hole in the day rate is the answer. And that's, you know, asking you, you know, turkeys to vote for Christmas. So there's a natural resistance to that because you're changing the status quo. So this is not just about how do we make the city better. It's how do the existing incumbents try and develop a new business model, which of course is the threat of the digital economy. And of course, you've got procurement. Let's not even go there. So, you know, you never get fired for hiring IBM. Isn't that the statement? But for procurement cycles and timelines for local authorities, it's very hard for the public sector generally to engage because it's a different procurement model. We're asking people sometimes to take data, for example, in Transport API and a subscription model. You know, that's very low cost. That looks completely different to an EU tender process that usually takes about 18 months by which time you've got to the end of the 18 months you've gotten something that doesn't fit for purpose anymore. So there's an inherent tension within the technology space in the current space. If we look at institutional and policy, even when you have policy, the will is there, there's an institutional blockage in terms of hierarchies. So people do not want to be open in bureaucracies, okay? If the mayor says, you've got to open your data, you'll have public officials who really don't want to do that. Or you'll have such a dissonance between the policy wanting to do right, and I'll give you an example of that in my own hometown in Dublin, where the four local, the four Dublin authorities have all worked together with the National University of Meneuth to establish something called Dublin, ostensibly an open data platform for the Dublin region. Brilliant, okay, so far so good. But it's there four years now and the innovation is not happening on the data. Okay, and I was recently asked by the Dublin City Manager to look at why that might be. And when you look at it, and you look at it, there are a number of reasons and this is the dissonance between the policy and the reality on the ground. You know, it's governed by a license called Public Sector Ireland Information License, which actually has a clause in it that says, you cannot use this data for anything immoral, only in Ireland. You cannot use this data for anything illegal. And it also has fairly chilling clauses in relation to sub-distribution, okay? So the policy intent is there, but the reality in terms of what we're actually, how you're licensing things, the knowledge internally in the authority is not there to understand that technology simply will not reuse data that has that kind of chilling caveat in terms of usage, why would they? Okay, apart from other problems. The second problem with it, for example, is you have to become a member of Dublin to access the data and then you have to download two forms that you sign and post back to the National University of Maneuth to get access. So I did write to them recently, I emailed them recently and said, I'm guessing they'd rather just scrape it. So there's a whole kind of tension there. If we look at risk-averse organizations, I think that Rick mentioned that. And I think the whole space is lacking leadership, certainly at a local government level, and I'll talk a bit more about that in a minute. And then on the human side, I think we've got a whole lot of challenges because essentially the discourse has to be and Tom referenced it and Rick as well, the human outcomes for people. We don't want to be done too, right? So there's a whole lot of who is taking my data? Who is using it? What are they using it for? And I do think there is going to be a lot of tension coming around the digital economy because if we look at something like Instagram, it's bought over for whatever number of billions, okay? There are 13 employees in that organization using my data, our creativity, but we're not getting any of the shares, right? Nothing, any comeback for all of the content that's been created. And when you match that with the sort of levels of disadvantage that are growing, we're now going to reach shortly one million people using food banks in this country, one million people using food banks, okay? When you have that level of disadvantage and that sort of lack of opportunity in the hollowing out of jobs that are happening in a digital economy, we're into some serious friction in coming. And that's a difficulty when you need to have conversations with citizens about let me use your data. I'll do stuff with your data. It's like, well, what do I get back? Not to mind the whole surveillance and forcing. So if you look at, for example, the universal job match for benefits in this country says people have to go 35 hours online to prove that they are applying for jobs, right? Which is all right if you have a computer at home, but if you've got to get it to the library, then you spend half your benefits on getting there. So I think we've got very serious issues coming up and I think we need to look at what are the needs, we will see developments in the city space that are citizen driven because they will be driven by what they want to achieve. But I also think we have to look at that whole nexus around lack of trust and disadvantage. And this is a general point I would make that in relation to technology and new business models, there's a crisis in thought leadership. And I think that's why I'd very much echo the point Rick made about the need for us as a community. We are the people who know a lot about this. There's so many other people who don't that we need to work together. And given the time that's in it, I thought I'd do a little search. That should say smart cities is zero through all of the manifestos. Well, if you think smart cities is anywhere on the landscape, you would be sorely mistaken because the word smart barely appears, not to mind cities. So it is worth taking a look at that and that's what the leadership, the future government, whoever it is, this is not an agenda that they're really strong on. But in thinking about that, I thought, well, if there was a challenge of leadership to come and I was to look for something disruptive, what might I conclude? And I might conclude that, the person on the left might be closer to the understanding of a kind of smart city only because he understands the effects and power of a digital age and he has built his influencing role in that. But he's kept very close to disadvantage and to trying to use his celebrity for good. So I just thought I'd put that there as the last slide of maybe it's not as mad as it might look. Thank you very much.