 Dyma'n gwnaeth yw'r adiad, ac,yn am beth sy'n ddiogelio ar yr DEA yn gwleidio'r yma. Efallai e'n dargot counhraff i chi yn yw Dublin. Rwy'n credu yma yw'r IE, fel ym seven awydd, ac mae'n ystyried o un rydyn ni. Yn yw'r ystod, blwyddyn nhw hefyd wedi dweud o Dublin wedi'u hi ddувати a gofyn. Efallai rydyn ni'n rhoi. y cyllideg cyllidegol yn bwysig, mae'r griffau yn gyntaf i gael ei gweithio gyda'i cyllidegol hwnnw. Mae'r gweithio'r cefnod, a'r holl yng Nghymru, ac mae'n gweithio, mae'n gweithio, mae'r meddwl bod hynny'n gweithio. Mae'n gweithio. Mae'n gweithio'r meddwl. Mae'n gweithio'r meddwl. Mae'n gweithio'r meddwl a'r holl o'n cyflwyllfa o'r rhaglen ..a'r rhesymau gweld i Eurwyr, a'r rhesymau i Ffrans. Rhyw unrhyw yw ydy'r gweithio, rydyn ni wedi'i gweithio... ..yna ysgol i Ffrans, a'r ffrans yw'r cwmfrans. A'r gweithio, rydyn ni'n gweithio unrhyw. Rydyn ni'n gweithio ar y cyfrannu'r cyfrannu... ..yna'r cyfrannu ar y Cymru. A'r cyfrannu ar y gweithio ar y gweithio ar y cyfrannu. ac rwyf amdag y plesig hefyd yn mynd i ymddiadio eich iddydd i'ch leidi yn y cyfrifio. Maen nhw'n bwer o bwysig gyda'u ei chynllun, mae wedyn oeddortunu'r ddigwsg iddynt nhw. Hysbeth ni'n ddigwsg gyda'u gwaith yn gyffredig. A ni'n ddigwsg gyda'u mynd i'r ddigwsg Gymru, ac rydw i'n ddigwsg gyda'u gwybod pan fynd yn gwyrdd pe twice. Mae'n ddigwsg gyda'u gwybod, oherwydd rydw i'n ddigwsg gyda'u gwybod. It would be bad for jobs. You have to stand in the line. So, I felt like saying, although I did not say, You are the country with the 11th and the only employment. We are the country with the 6th and the half of the unenvelopment, but instead I stood in the line for 40 minutes. My second story, which is slightly more pro-French, is that actually at the weekend I went to Paris with my wife for her birthday. Rwyf i chi'n cymryd i'w amser, rydyn ni wedi cael ei wneud. Rydyn ni'n gwneud o'n ysgolwyr ar y cyflwydoedd John Lewis, ac i'r ysgolion â'r ysgolwyr yw'r amser a'r ysgolwyr yw'r ysgolwyr yw'r ar gyfer yng Nghymru? Rydyn ni'n deallr bod gyda'r croes iawn o'r cyflwydoedd. Rydyn ni'n ddau'n gwneud i'r ysgolwyr yw'r ysgolwyr yn ymgyrchu. Ieithio llai'r gweithio, ac mae'r gweithio yn enwm y fydd yn gweithio'r gweithio'r ffrans i gael o'r gweithio'r awdol. Mae'n rhodod yn ystod yn ei wneud, ac yn edrych yn ymryd yma, y gweithio yma, mae'r gweithio'r gweithio yn enw ymlaen. Ond ydych chi'n gweithio'n gwahanol o'r gweithio'r gwahanol a'r gweithio'r gwahanol i'r sefydliadau i'r gwahanol ar y Prif erioed yma, ac mae'r gwahanol yn ei wneud yn ymlaen. Ond dyma, mae'r wyf wedi y gwneud yn gwneud i parrhaf yn yr anytime, ychydig sydd yn gyfarwydd i parodau yn y dynna ar y gyfnodau. Arioryn iawn i ymduso, yu herio o'r ymgyrchodio sydd yn gwneud i wneud i ymdusech, byddai'r wneud i gyfrifiadau iawn i wneud i gyrwch gyrhaf o'r cyffredinol, i wneud i'l argynnu cyfrifiadau. Rwy'n mynd i gydag yma, rwyf wedi lŵn i wneud i gyr�ddiaid yma i ddau. Felly mae'n rhaid i ni gyd ddod o'r rhaid i'r economa i European Regulatio, ac mae'n mynd o'r cyffredig o'r economa i'r economa i'r economa i'r economa i'r newid, felly mae'n mynd o'r gennau a'r gennau a'r sphysbethau a'r bobl a'r yma, yn ddau ddyn nhw'n ei dŷl o'r past a gennau i'r ffordd yn cyllid yn hyd. a this is a particularly timely topic at the moment, regulation in Europe and its particularly timely place to talk about it in. We've seen a set of changes and incidents that I think have subtly changed and sometimes quite crudly changed attitudes within Europe, felly i yw'r gennymu heb sydd yn gyflawn i'r cyfry canfion i gael cyfyniad o'r cyfyniad o'r cyfyniad ymgyrch. Mae'n rhai caffiau i'r erbyn yn gwlad ac i'r cyfyniad yn gwlad cyfyniad. Mae wedi y cwbwys��io i'r cyfyniad am gweithreidau a gwbwn fydd yn gweithio'n gweithreidau cofyniad a'r cyfyniad ym ym diddyn nhw yn cyflwydoedd. ac yn ymweld i'r ysgolion i ei gweld. Y dyn nhw ddyn nhw, fel oedden nhw wedi'i arwain, mewn y llyfr yn unrhywun i'r NSA ac yn Google. Yn ymweld i'r NSA, i'r ysgolion i'r unrhywun i'r llyfr i'r unrhywun i'r unrhywun a'u cymdeithasol. ac yn ymlaen i'r unrhywun i'r hwn o'u cyfaelio yma o'r e-mailiau gyda chi'n ei wneud eich cyfaelio'n ymweld i'r llyfr o'i mwylltau. It was sense that the NSA was in some sense unwilling of the part of the large US internet companies. But an alliance where they would scoop information out of these big information repositories, particularly the US companies, and that it was that European individuals, European citizens, had no choice and were under threat from this power. The third incident recently is the European Court of Human Rights ruling on the right to be forgotten where an unexpected ruling actually that Google had to censor its results in Europe and take out certain search listings when individuals complained that it was an invasion of their privacy. And then finally and pertinently to double in the recent debate about tax avoidance by large companies Google, Apple, Amazon as well as others and a sense that these large internet giants was coming here providing some employment certainly but participating in a large consumer market without paying their fair share of tax. And behind all of these things, there's a growing sense I think of a fear of our US dominance, two attitudes actually together, both fear and envy, a feeling that we are within the European economy that the US companies are dominant at the same time an envy of what the US has produced in terms of innovation technology, an envy of Silicon Valley and what it's done for the US economy. And so those two attitudes can be held together. Now I'm sure many of you here have been to Southern California, outside Northern California have been to Silicon Valley and the sense one has just being there in Palo Alto or Mountain View, not only that this is a place where a lot of people do things or enterprising create new companies but I find a sense that one feels if I were here I'd go out and found a company, I'd go and do something because there just seems to be something in the water or in the air that encourages risk taking. And I would say there were three things there. One is an attitude and I think the cliched American attitude of optimism, risk taking, willingness to throw things up in the air, willingness to take a chance in search for a better future and in search for a reward. Second infrastructure, by infrastructure I'm talking broadly, I'm talking about Stanford University, a highly educated workforce, a research base that has formed historically the basis of many Silicon Valley startups and Silicon Valley companies. Sandel Road, the home of venture capital, the fact that if you have an idea which seems like it might work, there's a ready base of financing for it if people can see a profit in it, if these companies which again have a history of achieving really rather higher returns from a few enormous successes think that you might be the next big thing. And then finally regulation, and by regulation I mean a sense that you're not going to be regulated out of existence, that if you start a company which is disruptive it won't be blocked from doing something, that a venture capital company that invests in that company even if it has large disruptive effects will be able to get large returns from it. And generally speaking those things come together I think to create an atmosphere of energy and risk taking. And of course the favourite word of Silicon Valley these days, there's conferences named after it, people talk about it all the time, is disruption. And disruption is a rather nice sort of word because it suggests that you're shaking things up in a positive sort of way. But of course what it really means in some ways is destruction. You're talking about setting up a company, a small company that will destroy part of the business of a large company, that's why it's going to make a lot of money and that is why venture capitalists want to invest in it. Joseph Schumpeter, the Austrian economist and actually briefly his finance minister was European but he expressed it very well in this phrase of creative destruction and the nature of capitalism being creative destruction, a constant ferment of things rising and things being pulled down of companies rising and collapsing and he compared that with socialism. Now and I think that's a sort of broad sense not only in the US but even within Europe itself that the US is much more comfortable with the idea of creative destruction than many European citizens are. This is not to say by the way that there is no such thing as regulation in the US. Believe me if you've ever lived in New York you will know there's an awful lot of regulation and really quite detailed regulation from not being able to jaywalk to all sorts of rules. It doesn't sometimes when you're there the image of the US as being a light regulation society certainly doesn't feel like it and a lot of US regulation is not only quite detailed but highly politicized. It is a democratic system where often a financial regulator will be an elected official and will be trying to make a name for himself or herself by imposing new rules. And there is the whole web of both federal and state regulation and you can often end up in different industries particularly the finance industry with four or five different regulators taking interest in your affairs. Equally I don't think that the cliche that European regulation is bad, heavy handed and protectionist is true either. There's actually been quite a lot of quite smart EU regulation in the area of telecoms technology and media over the years. I think of the creation within the EU of the GSM standard which was one of the reasons why Europe was actually ahead of the US in the earlier development of mobile phones. I think of local loop unbundling in telecoms where state companies were forced to let their networks be used by competitors. Much more effectively by the way than in the US where the Federal Communications Commission attempted a similar thing and then backed down from it as a result of which there is a cable telecoms duopoly in a lot of places. If you're in New York you have a choice of time on a cable or a horizon and that's about it. You have a much greater choice of services in Dublin or London. Behind that I think the EU competition push to limit the power of state companies and former state owned companies is quite important. A lot of the EU regulation at least some of it is much more technocratic and economically rational. I don't mean that as an entirely values judgment. It takes a strict economic view rather than a political view of what is best. Equally I would say that we're seeing moves in the new European Commission that understand the importance of small business investment, infrastructure, energy and broadband investment. I think that the EU Jobs and Investment Programme is due to be published in February. If this EU Commission is actually allowed to start working these are quite hopeful sensible initiatives. I also think that there is a danger at the moment at this particular turning point of European attitudes to technology. The danger I think is exemplified in the open letter written by Matthias Dofner of Axel Springer, an open letter to Google, which I think if those of you haven't read it is very much worth reading because it's a sort of long cry of pain about various aspects of privacy, of media content, of copyright, of whether or not Google will allow search engines owned by Axel Springer, not coincidentally, to have high rankings on its search pages, and a sort of general all-encompassing sense that Google is an overdominant bad thing that needs to be rained in on any number of grounds. I think one has to examine that sort of thing pretty carefully. It's not that he doesn't identify real concerns, but it seems to me that there is a, and one can also see it in the lobbying campaign against, which is attempting to get Google's competition case, sorry, the competition commission in the EU to limit Google's power and to effect and to change its search rankings. If you look at the lobbying and the complaints against Google, they come from all sorts of different industries with very different interests from search engines to content companies, and one is left with a broad impression that they were simply like a lot of smaller European companies not to face such tough competition from a large US one. Behind that, there is a sense that Europe is a place of a strong creative industry, but based more on media content from print to audio-visual to video games, than it is to do with software, software and services and technology, and I understand that fear. My brother-in-law works for the Neu-Azir to Zeitung, the Swiss paper, which is just currently going through tremendous upheavals, and the real question is about whether or not it can survive. And the NZZ, or like the Times of London, maybe the Irish Times, is absolutely part of the fabric of Swiss society. So these are real, it's causing real pain. If you look at the figures, there's a recent study by Bertelsmann of what he calls the European creative economy. And indeed, you know, this is a large contributor to many European countries, evaluated of, it estimates, 40 billion, 48 billion euros in Germany, 34 billion euros in France. The composition, if you look at it, in Germany, 20 billion of its GDP, annual GDP, is from print, 10 billion from audio-visual. The UK is actually balanced rather differently in its definition of what is the creative industry. 560,000 jobs are in software and IT, which is a third of the total. So it's a third of the total and the rest of the pie are things like print, audio-visual, music, and so forth, content, as we would call it. And of course, the UK is very far from the sole case. A lot of the, some of the Scandinavian countries, Finland, Sweden, Denmark are particularly innovative and have a strong technology base. But generally speaking, when the EU agenda for technology talks of a slow uptake of ICT and how that affects not only the ICT industry itself, but more broadly productivity across a range of industries. And indeed the EU itself points to the research and development in ICT being at 37 billion in the European Union. This is 2007 figures and 88 billion in the US. So something feels as though it might go wrong here if we start simply trying to protect what we have. I think that there's a rather obvious flaw and it's a symbol more than anything else in the right to be forgotten ruling. Where the court decided that Google had to Google and other search engines, but Google has I think 90% market share in the EU compared actually with a much lower market share, 68% in the US. But the court decided that Google would have to remove search references to underlying content. Now it did not say that if you had a story, if there was a story published about you or a Facebook entry and that the actual content owner had to take the story away, it said that Google had to simply delete a link linking to the content so that it would be harder to find. Which at a logical level just strikes me slightly odd and it doesn't to me make much sense. If you really think that something should be censored, you should censor it. The idea that you should simply stop somebody pointing to it and leave it be is strange. And it suggests a bias more towards looking to the technology industry for responsibility rather than the content industry. As I said, I think that's more of a symbol than anything else. There are real questions about dominance of large organisations such as the US technology companies. The European Court of Justice and the European Commission views tended to be much more than in the US. It's tended to be that size in itself can create harm that if there is a large dominant company something ought to be done about it. But some of the history of that attitude within the European Court comes back to the former state-owned monopolies. And there's less of an emphasis on an analysis of economic harm and whether or not the company may be large but it's actually distorting competition. From my point of view I think that the recent EU competition case against Google is wrong. Or rather the settlement reached by Almunia with Google strikes me as being fair enough. And the fact that the cases had to be reopened under lobbying pressure and under pressure within the Commission I think is wrong. If you compare that case with the Microsoft case of the past where Microsoft was disciplined by the EU for bundling, the reality was that if you had Microsoft software on your computer it was extremely hard and it then bundled its browser and its other software. It was very hard to escape that. It was on the computer in front of you, you couldn't change the operating system. With Google that's not the case. People are choosing to use Google. They don't have to. Two clicks away is Bing or any other search engine. It's not entrenched in some technological sense. It's just a preference. And it seems to me therefore that the EU has to think carefully about this identification of size with abuse. The two aren't necessarily the same thing. I'll also mention in passing something that I believe the European initiatives or EU initiatives are more sensible than that taxation. Which is a subject that this country is directly affected by. Particularly the double Irish treatment with companies such as Apple and Google of being able to set up either an Irish incorporated company but have an arrangement with an offshore company charging royalties such that the tax base is very low or indeed a company that is incorporated in Ireland but not registered in Ireland for tax purposes, a concept I don't really understand. It seems to me that if at some broad level the social view that a large US companies should pay their fair share of tax is perfectly reasonable. If they want to be over here and take part in the economy there is no reason why they shouldn't pay standard rates of tax. Interestingly I don't think there is anything wrong with what one might call the single Irish which is competition on straightforward corporation tax. Because I think that is broadly accepted certainly within the OECD as being legitimate and if Ireland happens to have or has deliberately a low rate of corporation tax then fair enough. But I think that the European effort to try to get large US companies to pay more tax and certainly not to engineer their tax arrangements in some of the ways which I mean is latest initiatives have suggested is fair. So where does that leave us in terms of the EU's competitive position with the US in terms of technology and innovation? I would suggest that the EU from an infrastructure point of view, one of those three categories I mentioned earlier, is actually not in a bad state. It has a relatively speaking in many countries an advanced and sophisticated education system. It produces a lot of highly educated people. The venture capital base, the financial base, again it's been weaker than it is in the US but it's getting stronger. There's quite a move not only of US venture capital companies into London and other centres but also indigenous venture capital. There is an attitude certainly in Ireland, certainly in the UK, certainly in the Scandinavian countries towards encouraging enterprise through taxation for allowing people who make money and are successful to keep more of the capital gains of that. The one thing I would say about the infrastructure is that Europe suffers from not having the language infrastructure of the US in that it doesn't uniformly speak English or as I think really it would be more appropriately called the days American. Americans do speak English. The Irish I'm pleased to say have been rational enough to keep the English language even if they decided not to be part of the English empire. That's a competitive advantage. I have nothing against Gaelic but in terms of business opportunity English is a useful language to speak and it's a serious point because across Europe having different languages makes it much harder to spread a single business. On the regulation side I think you can see good things about European regulation, some of the measures I mentioned earlier and some bad tendencies and some protectionist tendencies which could damage the picture in future. I think not encourage companies to set up, not encourage companies to believe in the possibility of disruption in the possibility of creating something which even if it causes incumbents discomfort will be allowed and encouraged. I think it's very easy for everybody to like the idea of creativity and innovation. They sound like good things and nobody I think would be against them. It's much harder to believe that that goes along with disruption and other people losing but the reality is that the US economy has done very well out of that combination for a number of years. Other European economies have done well out of it and that broadly speaking we should think about regulation in terms of not protecting, simply protecting instinctively what that is but thinking rationally about what should come along. The example I'm going to use finally is of Uber, the rather aggressive San Francisco based taxi or rather it calls itself sometimes ridesharing but it's not ridesharing, it's really private drivers and limo drivers based on a smartphone app. I've used Uber in different countries, I've used it in London, I've used it in LA the other day, I used it in Paris and there's an interesting contrast in the regulatory attitudes towards Uber. In Los Angeles there's virtually no regulation that I can see, you can turn up and anybody with a car, if you look on the smartphone app, can come and give you a ride. In Germany in Berlin have been court cases where there are quite intricate regulations which mean that Uber finds it very hard to compete as a mini cab company because it doesn't obey the strict regulations which have been placed on what mini cabs can do as opposed to taxes. For example the requirement to return to base between rides if you don't get called in the meantime. And it strikes me that that's actually the wrong way to go about it. If a different category of thing comes along which could be of use to the consumer but it doesn't happen to fit with historic regulations that's not a reason to ban it, it's a reason to think very hard about what the first principles of regulation should be. And then finally I don't want to be too nationalistic about this but in London the Transport for London has actually decided Uber should not be unregulated, it should be regulated like a mini cab company. So in other words you have to have a licensed driver but it can compete openly with taxes and that's upset quite a few of the taxi drivers but the reality is I think Transport for London is thinking about the nature of competition and thinking about the way in which the consumer benefit can actually be increased by technology innovation and it's allowing a degree of upheaval. And so my final observation is that being in Ireland a country that's gone through a great deal of upheaval and has been historically open to foreign direct investment, open to the idea of the economy benefiting from flows not only of capital but of intellect, human resources, Ireland has been pretty successful in many of these ways and if it fiddles with some of the slightly more egregious aspects of its taxation system I will support it fully. Thank you very much.