 Rydyn ni'n gwneud i'r sgwyl o'r sgwyl roi Robert Madeline. Roedd gennymeth ar y cyfaint gwasanaeth i'r IA i'r ffordd i'r cyfrifiadau. Felly mae'n gwelio'r rôl i'r sgwyl. Robert yw, sy'n gobeithio fod y sgwyl yn y cyfrifiadau, yn ychydig i'r rôl i gael y cyfrifiadau. Ond mae'n meddwl, mae'n gweld. A gwnaeth cyfnodd iawn o'r director Jenarle Llywodraeth o'r ddigie'r ddigie'r ymddangos yn ateamd a gwneud ar gyfer dysgu galla cyfnodd. Ac yn ddigie'r ddigie'r cyfnodd iawn i'r Gagor Gwff ASU yn gynyddiad a dywed o'r cyfnodd iawn, dywed o'r ddigie'r cyfnodd iawn yn y bobl yn gwefwng ac yn gwneud y drafodaeth y ddigie 다ethau oedd. Felly, yn ymdegon i'n ei gyrnodd diogel i'r ei gyrnodd iawn byw ac mae'r ddigie'r ddigie rwy'n eu cyfrddurol as you were talking earlier, it's also about kind of public policy as well, and is visiting fellow in Oxford. So, we're really looking forward to your presentation, which I think is very apt the Vice-President Anse produced his review of the digital single market yesterday, and we're particularly luck as I said to have you here with, what a wonderful title... Digital Single Market Act II Data Robots Platforms and Brexit. Yn y gallwn cyfnod i mi yw'n gwneud o'r gweithio ar gweithio i ddod y cyfnod, ac mae'n mynd i'n rhoi'n fawr a'r teimlo yn gyfnod gyda'r gweithio, felly rwy'n go iawn i'n meddwl i'r cyfnod. Ond rwy'n gweithio y gallwn i'n meddwl i'r gweithio ddod ar y tweld i'r gwahod. Fynd yw'n meddwl i ddweud i gyd yw'n meddwl i'r gweithio ar y tw mang 24 ymgyrch, Oh...wyddech chi'n gwinio mi, beth eich rhyfel y Cymru oedd ydi'r Rheiddiol sydd gennym nesaf y cyfle dim i fod. Yr hyn yso, mae'r amser nad oedd yn edrych o'r mai pecyn ychydig ysgolol o'r llwythau yn ymgrif tonnes. Roedd eich ddwy—wfish, mae'n arweinydd arfer, ac os nid oherwydd cysylltu am ysgrifennu probono academig ar Oxford, ac nid oed yn ystafell ffer mwyawr, a yn ystafell Cymru mae'r ystafell yn y Brasl. Felly, y cyfrannwch cyrnyddol yn y cyfrannwch cyrnydd, y cyfrannwch cyrnydd yn 2010, y gol yw'r gael yn ymwybodol. A byddwn ni'n digwydd roedd yn y cynnod i gyffredinol iawn o'r ysgolau cyrnydd yma, sy'n 135 gynhyrch o'r pwynt yma sy'n gallu yr unrhyw ychydig allan, rydyn ni'n clywed o'r wneud yn gwneud o'r llunau sy'n cyrnydd, oherwydd mae'n credu'r gyrdd, ond mae'n adrodd i'r cyfrannwch. Dyna neid oedd sy'n ddadig werth o'r ddweud, a yn fynereal sydd yn gwneud godiihau hefyd. Felly mae ganddo sy'n gwneud bod, y dywed y mynd i gyd, i'r wybod yn yn ein gart metres ysdyn nhw, sydd pobl yw, sef ddweud, nad ym wneud hynny'n bob ni ein fyddiol. Mae ysdyn ni'n dyma sydd pobl mewn bod ni'n gweithio fel ymgylchedd, ble mae hynny'n adiliau sydd yn ceisio. A sy'n ddweud i eich phobl ar y cynnig. Ond hynny'n cael ei wneud o'r modd, ddiweddol a i wnaeth i rywbeth ymlaen nhw i amlwgol a bod yna ddim yn gwneud rôl i Romyn. Roeddwn i'n ddweud bod y gallu gweithio eich cymdeithas yng Nghymru ar yr oeddennod oedd o'r ymddur i'r newid y Comisiwn i'r ymddir iawn a'r rheifft i'r wyf yn ystafellau a'r ddechrau o'r ddwyliad mewn cyfwyr yma. Rwy'n dechrau'n ddwylo'n ddwylo'n ddwylo'n ddwylo'n ddwylo i'r Cwmfwysiwn, yng Nghymru, y cyfnod a'u cyfeirio i ddigital warai. The biggest tragedy, and you can put a big number on it, is spectrum, where there has been essentially a decision that, even if you guarantee that all the benefits of spectrum auction flow back to national treasure is, those who manage spectrum at the national level do not quite feel ready, if I put it in more strongly than that, to put the allocation of spectrum together ac ei wneud yn gweithio at 28, wrth gwrs, ac roedd I27, fel gyda cymdeithas a'i hawddai! Yn ystafell ar gyfer cymryd a cynhyrchau gwahanol niferio'r cyffredigau, rydyn ni'n gweithio o'r Smartphone ar gyfer y gwirio gwheilio yn gweithio ar gleithu, Ond moddwyd ni wedi cael ei wneud yn cael bod y cyflwyno'r defnyddio, fe ddim yn gwneud o'r llawontin yma yn ei ddweud. Algu o fe wnaeth, os rwy oed yn ddetöch yn sgadiad i gweithrexio'r Minister yma yw'r iaith ar gyfer dechrau felly dyna beth sy'n gyflasgau byw a gweithrexio yma. Mae'r cyd-nwys yn adkersio'r mynd i'r byw yn ddefnyddio'r cyryngau. Mae'n ddefnyddio'r cyfrif yn gyflasgau'r cyfrif yn feddwl. mae'r gwlad ac byw diwethaf gymrygaeth hwn. Mae beth mae cynnwys am wahanol gyda thre mig numbers to help a lot from the Estonian presidency. It's mere existence is driving the Maltese to do a good job in the last week's. and I think we can actually help for some really good things because the good presidency understands the goal because it's been there. And Estonia is a country which many digital things has been there. DSM on track but it needs more support. Dail. Mae'r dail yn y stym ni. A'r dail y ffordd maen nhw, sydd oedd hynny'n gwneud i'r ddefnyddio'r defnyddio ymlaen, ond yn ymlaen i'r ddaeth gyrfa ddaeth bwysigol, sydd wedi'i gweithio'r cyfrŵr o'r ddweud i'u cerddwydau i'r ddaeth bwysigol, ac i'r ddaeth bwysigol i'r ddaeth bwysigol. Mae'r ddaeth yn gweithio ar ysgolwch hefyd i'r Gwyrdion sydd os ymdrydd o'r llwyll maedd yn y ddweud y GDR, ac mae'n dwi'n gweld yn ystafell ar gweithio yma ar gyfer y Llas Yng ngyfyniad, ac mae'n ddweud ffrind i'r ysgrifennu i'r hynny'n gweld. Mae'r cyfrifyniad ymddangos, oherwydd'r ddweud eich ddweud y GDR, yn ystod y bwysig i'r ymddangos cyfnodau yng Nghyrch, o'r cyfrifyniad, oherwydd y gyrhaf o'r rhaid, is probably the most thought-through framework we have in the world, not the first time. But can we implement it in a way that is challenging but feasible for others? And when I say others, I think of the US Privacy Shield, I think of my own British compatriots as they step out of the European Union and investigatory powers as well as what it says in UK law about protecting personal data. And I thirdly I think about cyber security because it's one thing to have on paper good legal assurance of personal data. Most of the breaches of personal data as opposed to the abuse of personal data take place through hacking. And just a personal anecdote, when I joined the health DG in 2004 with David Byrn, you arrived, we have pandemics, you know, birds falling out of the sky and we weren't ready. Health security was poor. Now we're in a much better place. And then I moved to digital arrive in 2010. I said, wait a minute, viruses, threats, we're not ready. It's the same. And I think that we're getting better. I think that there is now legislation on the statute book, coordinating national cyber security plans, coordinating national response mechanisms. So beginning to mirror what we did for pandemic preparedness, but we're still not quite there. And there's a very good, almost more interesting read out of the European Political Strategy Centre yesterday on a new cyber security strategy. And there I think we have to work pretty hard as well. The third point I wanted to make about data is data localisation. So in a way GDPR is aiming to solve data localisation by making data so well protected everywhere that nobody wants to localise it. In practice, and we learn this through just being human, we like local, we can trust it, we want to touch it. And so I don't think that any particular piece of law, however perfect, will overcome the tendency of governments at all levels to say I want to keep my data, not just private, but next to me. And Arkansas famously has data localisation requirements, even though President Clinton was a great advocate of an open internet. So with the internet of things, the cost of data localisation, the opportunity cost to our economies and to our families and to our businesses is going to go on increasing. And how can we fix that? One of the good news pieces I think in the digital single market is the commission saying we're going to try a piece of legislation to strengthen the, not to prohibit data localisation, I don't think that's what it's saying, of course we haven't seen a draft yet, but to strengthen the presumption on the free flow of data. And the interesting thing there is that it was a quite late addition to the text. For a long time the commission has been saying that we're legislating less and so we'll study this to death, but we're not going to do anything about it. And now you see a signal which I think reflects the leadership of Vice President Anson personally that data localisation needs a bit of law. And then the final question I'd like to address under data is data what's it for? It's not just, it's not neutral. And a lot of people say data is the new oil by which they mean it's an asset we can exploit it and we will be rich. I like to think about data especially but not only personal data as the new blood. Certainly personal data in my view is the new blood not the new oil. In other words there are ethical questions about it. If by giving my whole genome to a university research department and they put it on a big computer, if by making that gift I can actually help them to save lives, is it ethical that I have the right to refuse? So it's my data, it's like my kidney I have the right to refuse. In the UK at least I can opt in to organ donation. I can voluntarily give blood neither for money. In Spain kidney donation I have to opt out. By default my kidney is available if I run into a brick wall to help somebody else. I think we should try to think about personal data up at that level because certainly in the health space and also in other broader sort of data for good contexts if you believe that data analytics can drive better things for society then somewhere we need to think about the opportunities and the benefits and then the duty to contribute. So what stands between us and this sort of ethically positive vision of data? It's trust and control and there's just one interesting data point there or example that I would encourage you to have a look at or remember that you heard about it here. Takeda as a pharmaceutical company has built a bit of software that enables individual patients to share their own data about their course of treatment, their experiences and to pool it. And why is it taking off? Because the next thing Takeda did was to give it to the patient organisation in a particular disease space and say you run it. We don't want to run it, you run it. So you be responsible for the aggregation of data and decisions about its future strategic deployment. So once you've got a nice big anonymised data set you patients decide what to do with it. And that in a way that's again the gift relationship just like data is the new blood maybe giving away control will turn out to be one way in which more data is available because individuals think that they are more in control. So I think data is the most exciting aspect perhaps of all of this because it's the most different, more different than robots. But robots are interesting as well. We care about robots because we think of them as anthropomorphic. If I said to you draw a robot we'd all draw a humanoid robot. Robots of course are not all anthropomorphic, they are autonomous and intelligent. And the ones that will come after the jobs of the doctors and lawyers or are coming after the jobs of the doctors and lawyers and maybe even the public affairs and analysts and economic affairs thinkers are not humanoid but they're very clever. So what do we do about this? I personally think and this is not very explicit in DSM, it's a longer deeper study. I personally think that we have to firstly assume that the future really is going to come upon us quickly. And secondly, to decide what future we want. So the first point was very well addressed in at least the annex to Professor Schwab's 2016 Davos forum book on the fourth industrial revolution and the annex was entitled Deep Shift meaning you have to embrace the Deep Shift or you end up somewhere which sounds similar. And the Deep Shift was basically saying here are 25 things which are going to change much quicker than you think. And it was sort of comparing popular opinion as to how quickly will we have the first autonomous car, the first personless bank and what the experts are actually planning should happen. And I think that that's the first paradox. Usually we pretend that things that worry us are a long way away and I think to get society ready for change you have to pretend that it's happening now. So that needs leadership, you have to create a safe space to play futures, to play scenarios and to think about it. The second thing about robots I think is like any other aspect of technology, take charge of your own future. So the way our future will look whether this is in Ireland or Brussels or the world is not going to be determined by technology, it will be determined by the interaction of technologies with us as society. So let's concentrate on us because we know who we are and work out what we want. So in the debate about robots will take our jobs or even in that debate, instead of worrying about how probable that is, what is it we want our jobs for? What we want is decent work for decent remuneration. There's a longer story but think about those things. And instead of saying the robots will take our jobs or the gig economy will take our jobs, think about how blockchain-enabled smart contracts can make individual gig economy workers and individual robots work together according to a contract which is agreed as contracts are, but also perhaps subject to legal framing with minimum clauses and prohibited clauses. And the nice thing about that is not only can that make the robot pay tax if you want to, but it can make sure that the Uber driver pays tax too and contributes to social security and so on. And so I think that autonomy and artificial intelligence hiding under the label robots worry us a lot, but it's actually an opportunity to redesign our future. And if we knew better what we wanted in simple terms, we would be better placed to lead a debate towards that future. At the moment we just have, I'm frightened of the wolf. The wolf is a long way off. I want to shoot the wolf. We don't want to shoot the wolf. I mean we have a series of black and white exchanges which are not leading to any new vision of the future. So among this list, robots for me is the greatest example of where there's a social market failure. We're not talking about it in the right way. Platforms, I've already mentioned unfair contracts and I haven't mentioned, and I've mentioned I think fake news as well, but let's take those two examples. So people think that platforms are bad news because they're powerful and in economics that means we think they're going to cheat and take advantage of their dominant position and in social policy we think it means they're going to flood the world with child pornography, fake news and hate. On the first piece, again the DSM is saying, yep, the commission is going to edge towards action, so we're going to have a, in the B2B space or in the P2B space, platform to business space, we're going to have an investigation which will I think lead to guidelines that people are better follow, otherwise the competition authorities come after them on transparency, what is fair dealing, what are prohibited unfair contract terms, what dispute resolution shall we make available. I think that's good news. That actually proves that the competition authorities remain relevant in the digital age. On the fake news side, Vice President Zansip's best soundbite in his press conference yesterday was, yeah, fake news is bad, but trust me the ministry of truth is worse. And what that means is the commission is not going to follow the sort of gathering rush which we see in Berlin towards immediate legislation to prohibit something that we'll call fake news or hate speech. That's quite interesting. So the commission is saying we will put back on steroids, the self and co-regulatory mechanisms that we've done in the past, the better internet for kids, anti-counterfitting, maybe even notice and take down type mechanisms, but we're not going to legislate. Germany's in a different space and France will by the end of the legislative elections have a new government. So I think that's a piece which is extremely interesting. And where actually I think what we're doing makes more sense. So the platform thing worries people. We have a much more sustained and operational debate about what can public authorities do. There are things public authorities are going to do, the competition stuff, they're not going to do the Niger legislation. I think that's in a good place, much better place than you'd have guessed two years ago. Now, finally, I said I would talk about Brexit. Mr Bannier has probably stolen all the best lines in this town today, but let me give you in five, six points what I think. Firstly, as a trade negotiator, you read Mrs May's Lancaster House speech, you read Mr Bannier's negotiating mandate, it's all perfectly doable. Now, that's a very dangerous position because it's very rational, but it is important to know that there are no gaping holes between the different positions. Where there are gaping holes, this would be my second point, is the tone. We have uneven, unstable, dangerous movement of tone from confidence to introversion to fear would be my triangle. What we need is a clear statement that the goal of the Brexit negotiation is to maximise the mutual benefit of the parties. Mutual benefit is the key word in every piece of post-war trade law, and we don't yet see it. In the Bannier mandate, you have the goal as a balance of rights and obligations, so that might lead to mutual benefit, but it might be a zero sum game. On the UK side, you have a deep and special relationship, you have a bold and ambitious free trade agreement, that sounds good, but then you have also quite a lot of sort of scratchy stuff about they're trying to influence our election, which is completely nonsense. I mean, you can't detect that, but eight out of 10 Tory voters believe those statements. So the tone is bad. I think that the variability of tone is a material risk for any company beyond the corner shop, and I observe that most companies' boards they get reports about Brexit, but they haven't thought about the material risk seriously yet, usually saying it's too early to tell. A stellar exception that I'll mention is Fiona Dawson of Mars, who made a great speech in March in Brussels, saying, we need mutual benefit, so she's my poster child for corporate engagement there. So that's where I think we are, and what it means is that I think it behoves leaders in any sector, but especially in corporate, to think about slightly turning up the volume. Do not trust the process to save you, and it's not enough to brief officials in private. My second sort of cluster of points is the media won't help, so don't believe anything you read, or most of what you read. There will be an explosion, the thing that people will fight about most visibly are the things you can count, people and money. So how many people, how many euros? Of those two, I think it's easier to fix money than it is to fix people, because when you take apart these big numbers, 100 billion or whatever you think the number is, it's composed of a lot of different components, some of which are small amounts of money for decades, some of which are slightly larger amounts of money for manageable periods of time, some of which are significant amounts of money that the UK wants to go on contributing, like on research and development. So I think money is fixable. People is a huge problem because the moderates say, of course we'll deal with high skills and inter-corporate transferees. They don't say, and their families, and they don't recognise that the hotel that I was at in Scotland over the weekend with my family will not function this year unless they get some East European short-term trainees coming in. Every year they've had two to one applications. This year they don't have enough applications, not because there's any new prohibition, but people aren't sure that Scotland's a friendly place anymore. I can confirm it's a friendly place, but I say that to illustrate that the tens of thousands mantra of which the Prime Minister of my country has repeated and which we might see in the manifesto is way away from what the country needs, which was David Davis's slightly more encouraging thing, so people could be a problem. And the final point, because you should have finished with an opportunity, not a problem, is digital borders. And I was saying to some of you on the way in, I actually think that in a way the digital opportunity is the missing 13th point in the Lancaster House speech. It's not the point about Brexit is wonderful, I'm not sure it is personally, but new technologies and innovation can help us to achieve that mutual benefit and a smooth transition and a low friction future if we choose to take those opportunities. And I think that's true for the land border in this island, for people and for goods, I think it's true across the channel as well. And there are little sort of green shoots of reflection on that, but it's just an illustration that even if you didn't want history to go in this direction, it's not just a question of making the best of, it's also an opportunity for out-of-the-box thinking. And that's probably a very good note on which to end in this out-of-the-box thinking place. Thank you very much.