Secure Connections: Ireland’s Digital Infrastructure and the Resilience of European Connectivity

[music] most welcome uh to our event today. My name is Ora Quinn and I am the interim director general of the Institute for International and European Affairs. I'm delighted to welcome you to this symposium on Ireland's digital infrastructure, the resilience of European connectivity and we are greatly appreciative of the support provided by Vodafone for this event. Just to start, we have both people here in the room. You are most welcome and we also have our audience online. Again, you are also most welcome. We have a great panel who I like I I will introduce as we as we move along through the event. Um also please note this event is on the record for your um for your information. So today we're launching a really important report that has been prepared by the Institute of European International and European Affairs. Um it's the paper as you will know is called secure connections Ireland's digital infrastructure and the resilience of European connectivity and clearly in today's world where we face many geopolitical connections challenges. This is of particular importance to us today. Um the paper is available. You will also be able to read it by scanning the QR code on your lanyard. And this research project took many months to uh complete and it saw contributions from senior leaders in industry, government, former politicians and academia all of whom played a key role in shaping the content and the recommendations of the report. I think this really is where the institute excels in bringing people together on common problems and those which are of huge importance to us in Ireland. So today we'll discuss how to protect our digital infrastructure. Um, again a topic that's particularly to the for at the moment when we see suspected in in incidents of sabotage on subc cables in Europe, drone attacks on data centers in the Middle East and just how vulnerable we are now to targets in a more dangerous world. It must be said building that robust telecommunications ecosystem that is resilient enough to withstand shocks will require all of us to work together and that includes obviously government, industry, academia and society. We need to find new ways to work together to share information and to share responsibilities. However, we always from the institute present solutions. We will describe problems but we never leave it there. So the two researchers that we have that did this uh research today, Keen Fitzgerald who's the senior researcher at the IEA and Barry Culur who's our head of research um who worked together collectively to produce this report um have I as I say outlined the severe challenges for us but also given us optimism in terms of possible solutions. So conversations like today are really important for us. They help us to identify where we need to go, how we will get there and how we can work with common purpose on a topic as I say that is so important. And as the paper concludes, when we work together, it works. And so that is why I am so delighted to welcome such a diverse group of you all here today. So to start off today's uh event and to provide warm welcome from this lovely building, I would like to call on Sabrina Kazalta who's the CEO of Odafone Ireland for some words of welcome Dr. Queen uh and dear colleagues from the government, the academia, the industry and security expert. Thank you all for joining us to today here. Uh of course, thank you Fergal for stepping in with such a short notice. We uh all wish Minister Donovan well uh and a speedy and full recovery. Uh and thank you the IA partners uh for uh supporting us in uh in this journey. It has been a pleasure working uh with all of you and thank you for uh all of you that contributed to the discussion in uh the past few months. Uh as we just heard has been a very constructive, lively and and productive uh discussion and uh and conversation. Uh you are all very welcome in our uh still brand new office in in the city center. uh and I think that uh when last year we decided that we would we would have moved our office into the city center, one of the reason to do it was to really be uh had the art of this kind of conversation that talk about uh and shape the digital future for uh for Ireland. Uh and I'm particularly glad today to to be here. 2026 marks the 25th anniversary of Vodafon in Ireland. 25 years in which we have contributed more than 20 billion to the Irish economy and we have built the digital infrastructure for the countries. And when I think back about 20 years 25 years ago uh I think uh uh connectivity uh was about people uh and enabling people to talk to each other. Today connectivity is about people but is also about object systems and country to be connected. 25 years ago, connectivity was a means of communication. Today, connectivity is the backbone of the digital society and the economy we live in. And 25 years ago, the discussion in the investment around connectivity was about uh coverage, was about availability. Today, as we said, as and we hear today is about resilience, is about security and is about competitiveness. So as Borafon we we are really committed to uh invest and keep bringing the best secure and reliable infrastructure digital infrastructure to the country because we fully appreciate the role that we have and this infrastructure has as a critical national infrastructure to enable the prosperity and the competitiveness of the country. But resilience and security do not come just from an industry on a company. They really required the full echo system of government, academia, security and different industry to collaborate and work together and coordinate. And I think the discussion and conversation we uh will follow today comes to a particularly significant moment in time. Ireland is holding the presidency of the European Council at the moment. uh in a moment where uh Europe is debating such important topic like the digital network act, the cyber security act and Ireland it says has to go through some key decision for example around the spectrum policy in the near future. All this topic together will really define what is going to be the framework, the context and the terms for which we can build and we can invest in digital infrastructure and I strongly believe that Ireland has not only the opportunity to strongly contribute as always to the discussion but really to lead the way potentially and ideally by example in taking the decision that we really shape the competitive of the countries and the continent in the near future and that's are the reason why uh we decided to partner with the IIA to talk about resilience and uh our objective uh since the very beginning was not just to assess the role of the resilience and security was not to define or discuss if it's important but to talk about how and what resilience would look like not only for the industry and the infrastructure but for the economy. and the society in the country in the near future. And as a CEO of one of the leading infrastructure player in in the country, I'm really glad to hear that the conversation almost immediately moved away from talking and defining the problem where there is broad consensus into discussing solution into finding way all together bringing all the key stakeholders at the same table to share idea to discuss about responsibility to cover all the aspect that can really influence how we build the digital backbone of the society and the economy in uh in in the near future. So I think that uh uh today is going to be uh a very interesting discussion. I really hope you will read the report that is very pragmatical is very strong and very specific with actionable actionable proposal for for the future because what we need now is to move from discussing the problem into taking decision and uh and to act and that's exactly what we need because all the decision that we take today will really shape the u competitiveness of this society and this economy for the next 10 years and potentially over. So, thank you to IA for partnering with us. Thank you all for joining us today and contributing in a factual way to what is going to be a very constructive conversation that I'm really confident will move ahead will move us ahead to build the digital future for Ireland and potentially for Europe. Thank you. Many thanks Sabrina for that lovely warm welcome and for your support for this work that we have all been involved in. I'd now like to call on Ferglo Quigley uh to join us. Fargle is the secretary general of the department of culture, communications and sport, a post he was appointed to in 2024. Again we extend our warm wishes to Minister O'Donovan and wish him a speedy recovery. Um the department has a broad range of functions. Um no doubt Fergle you are busy right across the arts, culture, the cultural institutions, media, telecommunications and sport and obviously the telecommunications is to the forefront of our discussion today. Fergle has worked across a range of Irish uh the civil service in a range of challenging positions both in terms of environmental and infrastructure. Most recently before his current appointment he was in the department of housing, local government and heritage working on water and housing policy. Fargle will talk to us for about 15 minutes and then he and I will have a discussion uh and that essentially then will start the beginning of the event for us. Fargle, you are most welcome. >> Or thanks very much and thanks from the good wishes for Minister O'Donovan. As many people know, he was he's taken ill in Brussels uh a fortnight ago. He's he's making a good recovery. He's actually at home working, but he's not allowed to come to Dublin. So, I've had to to fill in uh for a couple of events. And in the best uh traditions of a minister, I'll be here for today and for discussion and then I will I'll disappear to another ministerial function that I'm filling in for uh but I have my colleagues um Tim and Brefney here uh who will be joining you for for the full day. So none of none of the messages that come out of today's uh meeting will be lost. So I'd like to thank Ora and the IAA for the invitation uh to speak here today and for organizing event and actually for for organizing the paper to Sabrina and Vodafone. Uh thank you uh very much as well uh for partnering with the EA in preparing the paper. uh you mentioned the 25 years anniversary of Vodafone, the investment of Vodafone in in Ireland and the journey that communications has taken and I just have to pay a uh a tribute to you for the TV advertisement campaign which is a fantastic uh illustration uh of that journey in ter certainly in terms of the the the customer um uh Keen and Barry thank you very much for preparing the paper is actually very very clear recommendation is very very clear uh very very well laid out. The increased national and European focus on resilience and security reflects the growing frequency and severity of real world disruption, many of which have been experienced directly in Ireland. War and the increase of protectionist trends has changed the conversation radically. Meanwhile, climate change long talked about is making itself felt. Storms like Aoan and 25, Dar and 24, Bibet and 23 have exposed our vulnerabilities. Damage to communications and power in infrastructure has given rise to real impacts on people and communities. So resilience is no longer a theoretical concern but a practical reality. The department recognizes the key challenges set out in the IAA paper around balancing investment and resilience with continued in investment in innovation. We are all growing with the comp growing complexity of regulation. trying to catch up with the acceleration of change in the technological environment, the cost of regulation, and the balancing of investment, consumer protection while supporting security, resilience, and innovation. Strengthening networks against physical, cyber, and climate related risks requires significant long-term investment in redundancy, protection, and maintenance, which may not deliver immediate commercial returns. It may also require investments in completely alternative systems such as satellite connectivity. At the same time, investments in innovation in areas such as 5G, fiber, and emerging technologies is essential to support economic growth and competitiveness. Successfully marrying these priorities requires clear policy direction, stable regulation, and close collaboration between government and industry to ensure that resilience is embedded into digital infrastructure from the outset. Rather than being treated as a separate or competing objective, the EU preparedness union strategy sets out a framework to strengthen the EU's ability to anticipate, prevent and respond to major crisis, including cyber events, cyber incidents, and geopolitical shocks. It promotes an allhazards whole of government and whole of society approach with a strong emphasis on protecting critical infrastructure, improving coordination, coordination and strengthening public private cooperation to ensure essential services can withstand and recover from disruption in Ireland. the establishment of the telecommunications response and resilience group in September 2025 uh an ask of minister of Dunovan is making a positive contribution to public private cooperation. This group's acts as a conduit for industry, government and comrade to consult and exchange views on issues related to telecom's response and resilience. This includes where appropriate relevant standards, policies and procedures. It provides a framework for cooperation between all members in emergency situations. It also has this potential to serve as a mechanism to develop emergency exercises between industry and government. And that was one of the issues that the task force uh the report touches on. Investment in digital infrastructure is incr is crucial to improving resilience through state funding. As of last week, 15th of July, over 500,000 premises are now passed by the National Broadband Ireland Plan across 26 counties and available for immediate connection. Over 182 premises are already connected. That that investment has involved an extensive program of pole testing and replacement to ensure that the network is resilient to the threat of extreme wind. and the state's investment. It complements of course as Sabrina pointed out the major investment by by the commercial sector open air cyro and version media. Additionally, the transition from copper to fiberbased fixed line networks over the coming years is a resilience building exercise. Fiber is more resilient to the effects of weather. It's lighter, non-conductive, less affected by rain and temperature changes, and requires fewer immediate exchanges between the core network and the customer. In terms of future government's initiatives, in June, the government approved the procurement of a cell broadcast public warning system. This system will allow for emergency alerts to be sent directly to mobile phones in affected areas during major incidents, ensuring the public can receive timely, reliable information when it is most needed. The public warning system will help to improve societal preparedness and resilience. And finally, government has announced funding for satellites based quantum communication infrastructure as part of the Euro QCI program which aims to bring quantum level security to Europe's proposed Iris squared satellite project. Subc resilience is a is a key uh element in the in the report. Since 2024, Ireland has supported the work of the European Commission submarine cable infrastructure expert group. Since its formation, the group has produced the EU's first mapping of existing and planned submarine cable infrastructure, a coordinated EU wide risk assessment identifying key threats and vulnerabilities and guidance on stress testing these systems. In May, the department established the subc communication cables industry forum. This includes the cable owners, developers, suppliers and repair industry. We have a common interest in ensuring a deep working relationship between the sector and to assure ensure its views are inputed into the major and strategic emergency management frameworks. On the government side, we're not just convening stakeholders. We are taking action. For example, on submarine subc infrastructure, we seek to improve the resilience and security and choice through additional routes to Ireland. The Irishled PC's Pisces project was recently awarded 19 million euro under the European connectivity facility to connect all the way to France and onto Spain and Portugal connecting into routes to Africa and South America. We also we also will pursue additional connectivity to Europe via northern route and and ensuring that that facility is well funded under the next multi-annual financial framework is is one of our priorities. Finally, in line with our commitments uh under the UK Ireland 2030 joint statement, the department is also strengthening coordination with the United Kingdom Kingdom to improve our preparedness for incidents affecting Telecom's infrastructure of mutual interest and we will be conducting uh a joint exercise of our arrangements later this year. We are of course seeing significant change in the regulatory landscape. The critical entities resilience directive commit to force at the EU level in 23 and its full implementation is now in train led by the department of defense. Comrade has been designated as the national competent authority for digital infrastructure under the sair. The complimentary NIST 2 directive will be given effect in Ireland through the national cyber security bill being progressed by the department of justice and again comragg will be designated as the NCA for national for digital infrastructure sector under this too. The implementation of these framework frameworks represents a step change in the way the state focuses on ensuring that the digital infrastructure sector systematically identifies and manage manages risk undertakes stress testing and invest in continuous improvements to withstand all hazards man-made and natural. The department is aware that these changes place significant capacity building demands on both on both comrag and the sector and we will support comrag and the industry in meeting these enhanced requirements recognizing the scale and complexity of the transition involved. The successful roll out of these measures will require strong cooperation, coordination, and consistency across state entities to ensure clarity of roles to avoid duplication of effort and to deliver a coherent and effective resilience and security regime for the sector. On national security, the department is also supporting the Department of Defense's first national maritime security strategy published in February, which places a particular emphasis on critical undersea infrastructure. Earlier this month, the Department of Justice published it draft national cyber security strategy which is now open for consultation. This strategy emphasizes the commitment in the program for government to put national security authority on a statuto footing ensuring that it has the legal authority and resources to provide the full spectrum of security clearances required to meet the current and future needs of government departments, public sector bodies and commercial entities. Again, the issue of security clearance is uh an issue identified in the report. The strategy includes measures to build institutional capacities to strengthen the ecosystem. And just a word in relation to Ireland's EU presidency. Um our team in Dublin and in Brussels are working full tilt right now in terms of uh delivering u the EU's agenda, not just Ireland's agenda. uh helping to chair chairing meetings to deliver on major packages such as the digital networks act and the mobile satellite services decision. And these these decisions these legislative proposals uh will have fundamental impacts on on our sectors in the coming years. So just to conclude, we are collectively putting the building blocks in place that will ensure that the sector both public and private entities improves its cap capabilities to be resilient. That involves continued investment in infrastructure that it is and that it is designed with hazards in mind. It also involves investment in organizational capacities to be better prepared for crisis. As committed to under digital Ireland, the department is now working on updating the sectoral strategy for digital connectivity and infrastructure. In addition to the focus on networks and connectivity, it will also address issues around resilience and preparing for emergencies. So today's secure connections paper from the IA will be a very useful input to that strategy which will be issued for public consultation in the coming months. So again to thank IA to to thank Barry and Keane to thank Vodafone today for all your works in preparing that paper which will be I say very very useful for us as we carry our work forward. So thank you very much. >> Thanks Marvel. I I think your speech actually just highlights what a complex >> world we're living in and how many pieces there are of this. It's funny when I was secretary general for the department of enterprise I remember somebody asking at one stage who speaks for digital in Ireland >> and I think you now are speaking for communications but it's a it's a complex it's a complex weave. How do you ensure that there is a and I don't mean a single voice but a a coherent and uh approach to to the complexity of the world you're you're managing. >> Yeah. And look or this is I think because the situation is involving the question is evolving and the answer is is is evolving. Uh and I'm not sure we have a a perfect uh answer to that right now. Um if you look at some of the directives we've mentioned how functions are being distributed across regulators, how functions are distributed across uh departments. Um we all have a part to play. I I I heard a t-shirt recently talking about the need for more ministries to bring together a department of the marine. You you might remember that old canard which was done before and then it was realized actually marine touches so many areas that you can't bring everything together. >> Yeah, >> digital is ubiquitous. Uh so all departments are now grappling uh with digital. >> The department of teacher has does take a a strong lead in terms of coordinating uh but we all have a role. It was very very interesting yesterday uh in Andy Bernham's new government uh DEA the department for uh uh uh digital and uh technology was uh taken apart where a lot of the conversation you know even among ourselves is well actually do we need a department for digital >> and uh which the UK put in place I don't know seven right now that was a few years ago now taken apart on the basis that actually digital needs to be close to the sectors that it supports. >> Right? >> You can argue these you can argue these uh things many ways. So like I was down in Kenya uh at the at a closeoff event mark uh marking the completion of the national barban plan roll out the first event and the people on the stage were people from the creative sectors working in rural Ireland depending on the connectivity. So I thought for my for me as >> seg department of culture that was great to see but anyway it just shows the complexity. >> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And I mean clearly it is so important for Ireland to in terms of maintaining our position at EU level globally um I suppose we carry such a weight now in Europe. We do >> both in terms of the the companies that are invested here in Ireland um and the cables and etc. So I'm I'm just wondering in terms of and you mentioned obviously the EU presidency being really important just how do we continue to maintain and create those conditions for competitiveness for innovation? >> Well I I think we have to always show we're serious that we take our responsibilities seriously. There is one thing setting up uh a taxation arrangements which makes it attractive uh for companies to uh HQ in Ireland. Uh they're the they're the backbone of so much of economic success but the corery of that is we have a responsibility as a government to ensure uh that all all sectors are properly reg regulated that they play their part. The sectors themselves want proper regulation. >> Uh we again no more than your question on digital or these responses are are cross government. Is the taxation system right? Is the regulation fit for purpose? >> Is our education system providing >> the right graduates with the right skills? >> Yeah. >> That we require. And then if you look at it maybe in this conversation, one of our weak spots has traditionally been the department the the government's or the nation's view of defense uh of international security on the basis that well you know we're only a small player uh we're neutral country we're out there nobody's interested in us and actually no lots of people are interested in us and >> and I think >> government recognizes that you can see transformation happening in in in the world of the of defense. The fact that we have a new national time maritime uh security strategy for the first time, it's it's changing. And it's funny when these things change, you kind of ask yourself, well, this was so obvious. Why didn't we do it before? And you you feel we're catching up. But look, we are catching up >> and we are putting in the the investment. So anyway, so it's it's the totality of the of of the package and securing our cables carrying so much data from North America to Europe is is is key part of that. >> I I was struck recently we had um another seminar in the IIA and we had the EU um representative for the Horn of Africa and she spoke about 90% of cables coming from Asia into Europe come via the Red Sea. And again, most recently, we've just seen the extension of conflict into the Red Sea, including as well as the Straits of Hormuz. I suppose what keeps you awake at night, Farle? What's what do you sort of really worry about Ireland and the risks for the the telecommunication sector? Uh I I think I think it is that I mean we heard I mean Keane was on the radio this morning talking about uh rogue Russian ships. >> Yeah. >> Uh uh traveling the seas and you know that is that is a huge worry. We were at a at a conference in quote park um I can't on telecom's car uh the year before last or last year probably and this was a natural disaster was about the the the earthquake in Japan and said that was it seven of the eight cables connecting Japan were cut during that earthquake I know that's a natural disaster but that's the first time >> it hit me how vulnerable these systems uh can be >> and this time we're it's it's a global security threat that that issue of being peripheral and people don't bother about us that we might have had in our heads um is is is turned upside down. the sec our old colleagues or the the full team of secretaries general went to Brussels in January as a pre-presidency uh trip to meet our counterparts to meet all the institutions and what struck me from all my work in Brussels over my career is that every single topic every single conversation every single area was prefaced or was seen through the framework or the lens of security. Yeah, >> that had never happened before. And suddenly Ireland as a kind of peripheral country was now seen as a weak point on the western side of the EU, >> right? Uh >> so we now have to respond to that and we are beginning to respond to that. But it is it is a huge worry. >> It is huge. Yeah. I somebody asked me once, what do you call a group of secretaries general? what's what what's the collector term and and the answer was a worry [laughter] I think across the group it's it's so much >> just turning and again to to another aspect of the report it talks about regulation >> and and certainly we've had many discussions um in the in the institution on regulation and simplification rather than deregulation >> um and and I just again you you highlighted some of the areas of regulation coming from from the EU. Um I'm just wondering how can we collectively share responsibility with the regulatory system that we have? Yeah, this is this is this is really really tricky because if you look at the the march of technology like as a department we have responsibility for social media uh as well as as a communication system AI um um AI false generation of images [snorts] the GRA issue uh We're responding tech society I'm not saying government society is responding with new regulations all the time and the complexity is astounding and I find it difficult to understand even within the regulators within my department of comrade guard here and commission the man who's doing what and you know >> so it it it is very very difficult even the simplification agenda I heard somebody refer to it as the complification agenda >> the what >> the complification agenda Oh. Oh dear. >> Uh, no that's sorry that's that's a little bit little bit trite. I mean there is there is >> goodwill to to simplify as far as possible but sometimes at the EU level you see layers on top uh to speed up processes without fundamentally changing the laws underneath and and and that's very much intention. Um when I was speaking to guard before uh we come up here this morning and he's on where we are in terms of our resources for our new functions. Uh this is an issue for government that you can see in the department of public expenditure pushing back the sector uh who's asked to pay for the cost of regulation uh is probably also pushing back having those conversations as well. So this is a difficult space. What I what I would say is if you know if people see opportunities where there is legacy regulation uh which is no longer no longer required are there things that we can strip back because we have to respond to the new challenges. >> Yeah. [snorts] >> But maybe we can drop some of the regulations and and the old challenges. >> Yeah. uh we've seen like in the postal services for example which comes under comrade uh the old model has gone >> but the regulatory framework is is still there >> G might say that's probably marginal in in terms of business but you know are there other examples >> uh where some of the older >> world can can be set aside but the reality is the world's getting more and more complex yeah I suppose one of the advantages for Ireland is that we are all and we tend to know each other and people engage more. >> Um so you have that input and indeed our report is a a classic example of um everybody's voice coming through. >> Yeah. >> And and so and I and I absolutely welcome the fact Virgo you know that you will find this useful and helpful. So is there anything that collectively we can do to help you in your role? >> Well, just maintain the dialogue. I mean, we have I mentioned some of the structures there that exist already >> uh for dialogue between the department uh and industry. Uh if there's ways of improving that or different structure to enhance that absolutely uh look we we everything we do we will we'll we'll follow a period of public consultation. But if there are any other ways of enhancing the structures, the dialogue, absolutely. >> Okay, great. Well, that's obviously an invitation to us in the and to others in the room. Um, just maybe and I and I know you're under time pressure and the presidency consumes so much um of the the public sector capacity uh during these few months. Um just you mentioned the national broadband plan as being a particular success. Are there lessons that you've drawn or we can draw from that? >> People need to be careful what lessons to draw from that because I see I see I see I mean a lot of issues uh you know a lot of the report talked about the cost who's going to bear the cost >> and uh obviously the state stepped in uh where the commercial sector said it wasn't viable uh to serve our citizens. Um that's you know we we're not here to be a soft touch because it's the tax payer that pays uh but we are here for a dialogue you know where where there are gaps. So I mentioned like this the subscripture is a fantastic example because that's been put in place completely by the uh the commercial sector by by big players but now we're looking through using European funding at how to enhance that. So look >> there is a role for the state uh but the state's not a soft touch e either. >> Okay last question before we let you go Fergle um and you have talked about state capacity expertise there is always I suppose that push to have more expertise more uh officials more regulators or less regulators indeed. Um just again just that complexity do you think we're well shaped to to manage that complexity? >> I I think um that issue of the the the pace of change. Um comrad you're completely different than you were 5 years ago. Commission the man used to be the broadcasting authority of Ireland with 60 staff. Now it's now now it has a whole lot of functions with 300 plus staff >> both regulators under the ages of the department are looking to expand significantly right >> uh I I think we need to stop every so often every couple of years need to stop and think well how are how are these structures >> working together the data commissioner all the regulators >> uh how are the functions distributed um I I think that's something we have to absolutely keep keep in mind all the time. >> Yeah, >> I was astounded. I was looking at the paper yesterday or um I always had in my head for most of my career the civil service is around you know 30,000 workers for most of employees for most of your career and went up and down a little bit in terms of recession. Yesterday we were 58,000 >> in the last from >> from 2016 last 10 years >> and >> they're all roles uh put in place to fulfill functions >> that government has asked us to to do but it just shows the the growth you know and the regulators are the same. >> Yeah. And and the growth of the population >> and the growth of population >> has been really enormous as well. >> Virgo thank you very much. Thank you for your time, for your interest, for your commitment and we wish you every success for the next few months and in particular success on this agenda and the institute is always there to help you where we can. >> Really appreciate that. Thanks very much. Now we move from that which sets us up very nicely I think um to the next part of our event which is the actual presentation by one of the researchers Keen Fitzgerald of the paper. Um Keen and Barry have been working on this for many many months and I think it's a really good opportunity for Keen to now give us um an overview of the paper as presented. He's he's just fiddling with his mic. So we're just ready ready to go. I'm sorry. Oh, I'll sit down. Yeah, that's all right. I don't want to block anybody's view. Make sure that the PowerPoint presentation was was working, which it seems to be doing, but if if anything isn't working, please please do let me know. Um, I guess the first place to begin here is is is actually with with words of thanks. uh not only just the people who directly contributed to this paper as a part of the uh research roundts which which we hosted two of them but also I can see a lot of faces in here who you know privately on the sides or at different conferences I met who were I was able to ask questions of both in government academia and industry who provided a lot of guidance and so I'm this is it's the it's the this is really where I think the IIA's research is is at its best when it has every single when it has every single bit of society's voice in our in our research and and that's that that's that's what's produced this paper here. So in terms of the the key takeaways just to to save you having to to read the paper though I really would hope that you would read it that the first is that telecommunications infrastructure is essential to daily life that this is this is this is our our first principles beginning that it underpins banking healthcare everything you do is often mediated by the infrastructure that telecommunications operators provide. Secondly, the telecommunications infrastructure is now a target in a more turbulent world. We've seen this with threats around subc cables that we've spoken about quite a bit, but also what we've seen in the Middle East with data centers being directly targeted. And I'll discuss discuss this a little bit later. Third, that competitiveness and security are now intrinsically linked. That this is not especially when it comes to telecommunications. This is not just a telecommunications story. This is also a societal and economic story that these are these are this is the infrastructure that underpins our ability to communicate, your ability to go to work, your ability for again banking, tech, all of our all of the pharma, all of the critical services in our society. So this is not just a telco story. This is an economics an Ireland economic story. It's no longer just about security. Um it's no longer just about making sure that we can protect the infrastructure, but it's about resilience is now also going to be more important. So being able to navigate the shocks after they happen, that's going to become increasingly essential and it's it's the foundational pivot point of our report. Fifth, that regulatory complexity at risk undermining the investment in this res resilience in this additional redundancy and resilience. Oh, sorry that hasn't come up. There we go. And then finally, the government industry are going to need to work in tandem to navigate these challenges together. So Ireland's defense limitations are no longer just necessarily uh an Ireland problem. That this infrastructure is not just uh this isn't just Irish infrastructure. This is is European infrastructure. And so you as so you can see that 75% of all transatlantic cables run through or near Ireland and that in 2019 30% of all EU data was held in data centers in Ireland. That that number has has has grown since then. And there's also there's been the problem is Ireland is not immune from from these trends. There's a growing number of suspected sabotage incidents in Europe. We uh or cable damage uh such as the Baltic connector uh cable damage in 2023 between Finland and Estonia and the Sparbard cable damage in 2022. Um I was reading a report as a part of this this this as a part of the research for this that that's between 2023 and 2024 Russia increased its its um sabotage operations on European critical infrastructure. So not just telco but also energy but over 246%. So uh there's a substantial growth and as mentioned earlier Ireland's not immune from this from this from this from these trends that we already see Russian vessels uh I was glad to hear that people were listening to me on the radio this morning that uh Russ that the Russian vessels such as the Antar Russian scientific vessel that can be used to map cables has been spotted in and around Ireland repeatedly. Um, one of the difficulties that and this emerged during the roundts uh discussions that Ireland's present military investments are focusing on on sensing. Uh, so this is radar and sonar acquisitions. And while this is very good for detecting and and also for attribution of actors of of who might have carried out a cable a bit of cable damage, it's unclear as to whether Russia or maybe any other geopolitical actor are meaningfully deterred by by attribution. They certainly Russia has not been deterred in the past from carrying out other incidents throughout Europe by uh by by having it by being you know suspect number one and not being made public. And finally, as a as a risk, it's it's there's a potential for these sabotage risks and Ireland's known limitations in being able to defend this infrastructure for the viability of future projects. This may weaken investment in future projects if there's a risk that Ireland will not be able to protect that infrastructure. And that just infects and this might be sounds pretty pretty dull but it affects the risk registers of these projects but also the insurability of these projects. So our round table identified several strategic level risks. The first and foremost was the growing risk of kinetic attack on telecommunications infrastructure. So we've seen just this year in the in the in the 2026 war in the Arabian Gulf uh Iranian drones uh Iranian Iranian drones hitting data centers in the UAE and Bahrain that knocked out people's ability in the region to access banking certain services. I think Deliveroo might have been affected or a couple of the food ordering sites, but this is very real consequences h for this is very real consequences and this that was a a relatively limited limited conflict and in 2024 we saw during the French Olympic games we saw long-distance land-based cables being cut and what's important throughout these roundts was that the the threat actors was considered to be very very very diverse. So when we spoke with industry, there was concerns of of lonewolf attackers maybe targeting 5G infrastructure on land, but there's also the risk of intelligence services such as the Russian Federation targeting subC cables, but also what happens during armed conflict. And we're seeing that in the full range of possible threat actors, telecommunications it telecommunications consistently is being targeted. Third, uh what was identified by by expressed by the roundts were supply chain risks. In particular, a number of representatives expressed concern over the growing dominance of US hyperscalers in the market in in the provision of cloud computing services and cloud computing services and cables and sec separately also representatives expressed concern over over Chinese 5G products. What was interesting was that this particular point was contested amongst multiple participants with other participants saying that Europeans deserved access to the best technology at the best price. So this really this is going to be a really interesting piece of this puzzle around questions of security, digital sovereignty and economic competitiveness. And finally, and most interesting, this is not feature as much as I I would love to have spent more time teasing this out, was that the AI boom was actually viewed as a physical risk to resilience that it has absorbed much of the spare capacity in terms of extra fiber optics, memory, and chips, and that should an incident occur, it's that it's making projects more expensive and could also slow down um slow down repair time should an incident occur. So throughout the discussions and it's been mentioned several times today this question of the costs have to fall somewhere and so a key part of this discussion was around resilience regulation and planning and multiple representatives expressed a concern that there a sense that that maybe industry was being asked to do too much at the same time decarbonization industryled growth resilience security and this this was causing uncertainty which which was seen to be reducing investment and there's There's a number of EU regulations. We've spoken quite a bit about the uh the updated cyber security act CSA2 which has significant financial costs for industry. The estimated number by the European Commission's own estimates are between 3.4 billion to 4.3 billion per year for three years. And I can see there was a colleague in IBEC. IBEC earlier earlier also identified that the number just for Ireland could be 730 million euro a euro in Ireland alone. Separately around permitting, representatives expressed concern around that that per that permitting was causing projects either to be delayed, canled or relocated and that some more critical representatives uh from from industry did state that the time frame for new projects was seen as as a black hole and that this was causing new infrastructure not to be not to be built. And in particular of most interest because it features in our recommendation letter later that there were significant concerns over the judicial review process that representatives are concerned that they could get quite adv quite far into the approval process and then find themselves in the high court quite late uh quite late. Um and so ultimately what the current regulatory regime and permitting environment does or at least according to our roundts and the evidence and the data that we had access to is that it was reducing redundancy which in turn reduced resilience but there was acknowledgement across the board from government to industry to academia that this will need to change. So the question is how how can we increase resilience and this is maybe if I've described as as said if I' if I've described the problems to you though I love as a defense analyst I often do enjoy just describing problems um what what what what what are the solutions so we try to identify several several actionable solutions primarily focused on policy makers so the first is that Ireland should develop a clear framework for uh balancing these responsibilities and allocations as I mentioned earlier the significant financial cost significant regulatory complexity and we need to think about how do we allocate those responsibilities in a way that is equitable in a way that is that has the best possible outcome for resilience and for our societies. Um, in particular, what was quite interesting around the where do the costs fall question is that representatives from from industry expressed that telecommunications is different to other essential services such as as as electricity which which are stateowned enterprises and that in that government has a greater capacity to to uh provide support to the energy sector rather than telecommunications which is held in private hands. So, a possible answer to the where should the cost fall question that we identified was whether or not there could be a tax credit similar to the research and development tax corporation tax credit. There it is. Um whether or not that could be whether or not that could be used to help to support industry as it makes investments in resilience. Number two, um we number two as our from the round table is that Ireland should seek to provide greater long-term certainty on spectrum policy. As mentioned, the digital networks act is is coming down the line. This this this is this explicitly says that that that regulators should encourage great longer longerterm contracts. And so this this is potentially this could provide greater certainty which could mean more investment and more investment in redundancy and resilience. Three, I just have to make sure it appears we should exploit the creation of a security clearance system. Um this is this is this was repeated throughout the roundts. What's important is that government and the private sector have access to different but equally essential information. Importantly, uh the private sector has access they they know their business. They know the risks that they face. They they know the risks that their organization faces. At the same time, government has access to more more secret or classified information related to perhaps adversarial intent. Um as well as also to a to a deeper network of of of of other states. At present, Ireland does Ireland has a limited capacity to share this sensitive information around geopolitical risks in a in a structured way and we see that we see security clearances as a key strategic enabler for this. Fourth, um, and we can discuss this later, there's there's a need for for more crisis simulations. And I I was quite pleased when when Secretary General or colleague quickly mentioned that there's that they are going to be doing more exercises, but there is certainly a need for this. And I can I can I can make practical and also I can make several practical recommend reasons for this. The first is for the exchange of information and to bridge the gap between government and industry. In particular, we see that in particular throughout the roundts, but also throughout just several conferences I've been there's there's this sort of gap between government industry are seeing the same problems, but they have very different approaches as to how to resolve these as to how to resolve these issues. Trying to work together through exercises is a could play a key role in bridging those gaps. Secondly, it would allow us to identify unforeseen risks and to test our responses to these unforeseen risks in in what we would in what is often called a safe to fail environment that you're able to that you're able to identify where your systems might have gaps, where those systems might break down, uh where the systems might break down. And finally, and this is often maybe the softer part of the recommendation, but I really can't stress how important it is, is that it it does develop peer-to-peer relationships amongst key decision makers. Uh this is particularly important for crisis response that if you it's simply about knowing knowing it's simply about knowing who to pick up the phone to and the first time you're talking to them is not there's a big problem that you can actually that you've actually you you're familiar with one another and finally as as as mentioned here it's about developing that shared risk perception and common purpose in response. We only have seven recommendations so I'll go through this quickly. Um, fifth, there's a need for to increase institutional capacity and and capability as as mentioned during the as mentioned during the by Secretary General Owigley that regulatory complexity has outpaced the the has outpaced the ability of the state to manage it. It's becoming increasingly complex. That's a quote that's a quote that came from from one of our roundts and that there's a need for more civil servants. And what was really really interesting is that the establishment of the maritime area regulatory authority which gave the state more more capability for speeding up approval for for permits and approvals. This was seen as a very positive case by industry as as a very positive case study. So there's certainly an appetite for more for more capability more people who can be over over an increasingly complex complex uh policy environment. Six, national security should be directly reflected in judicial review reform. In particular, this would provide greater certainty for projects that would enhance resilience. Um, we'd include this at the in the reform process that's currently ongoing. We'd be including this in the public interest test. And it also stresses the importance of sort of building in national security for overall uh national government planning. And finally, space is essential for resilience. So this this came up repeatedly throughout our round tables. The space-based systems are are essential for delivery of services but often do not feature prominently enough. So systems such as GPS but also increasingly the role of uh position navigation and timing systems are not just are not just essential for for guiding for guide for your satnav or for using Google maps. It's also essential for the operation of our financial of our financial system. Um and what's also important is that EU programs such as Irish squared they do represent an opportunity for Ireland. Ireland is geographically quite well positioned to participate in these programs and we also have a burgeoning space industry that we that will be able to support some of these uh some of these projects and access some of this funding. What's quite interesting just as a as a slight aside the security clearance problem is also directly related to this is that many of the organizations that might participate in these projects uh cannot access that funding due to the lack of security clearance system. And finally, we we we believe that a new office for space could play a critical role in coordinating efforts across government, not just in not just in being able to access the economic opportunities, but also playing a greater role in coordination across national resilience. So, thank you. That's our paper. I I really do hope you read it. Um and um thank you so much. Okay. Thank you very much, Keane. We're very lucky in the institute to have Keen as a senior researcher and as he has clearly demonstrated he has uh our leading and a leading Irish expert on uh national security and the role of the private sector in defense and indeed he has covered areas such as the EU common security and defense policy and many matters pertaining to Ireland's national security. So thank you for that overview. I think it sets us up very nicely for our panel discussion with the experts that are joining us and again we're delighted to uh have them and we're delighted to uh welcome uh our three experts today and I will briefly introduce them if I may. So we will be joined by Rebecca Nottingham and Rebecca is an expert on critical infrastructure resilience, international defense and security and government policy and strategy. And Rebecca I know you have extensive experience leading policy development for the UK government. Um and indeed you culminated as head of policy for subc fiber optic communications and previous roles on critical subc infrastructure and uh most recently you have uh set up and become director of bright subc consulting and again advisory projects including work with the crown estate on subc communications and and again looking at the long-term which we talked about earlier out to 2050 and working with the National Oceanog Oceanography Center um and many other uh partners in terms of resilience for small island states. So again very directly uh related to our discussion this morning you are most welcome Rebecca. Um and if you'd like to join us and indeed Garrett join us and Ben and I can uh intro introduce you as we go along. I'm going to take the last seat over there. So um if that if that helps. So we're also joined by Garrett Blay who's the chairperson of the commission for communications regulation comrag more commonly known. Um again Garrett has been chairperson his second chairperson commenced in January 25. Um previously a member of the commission for the regulation of utilities. Um so strong very strong regulatory experience. um currently the chair of the agency for the cooperation of energy regulators, the Acer board and also indeed president of the council of the European energy regulations um as well in 2017. 20 years experience working in the industry. So again, huge experience both across industry um working for Vidian Power and Energy, uh Huntstown Power, um and also now, as I say, um very lucky to have him as chairperson of Comrade. And then finally, we're joined by Ben Wrencher. Rer, I beg your pardon, Ben. Um he's the government relations director at Vodafone Group and he's reg obviously steeped in regulation policy director. Um he is leading on all external aspects um of Vodafone's M&A and market entry related activity including the satellite proposition in conjunction with Space Mobile. Ben has worked in the digital sector for over 25 years um as a consultant before joining Vodafone and indeed as we were talking earlier he spends a lot of his time in the Brussels environment um working with uh representing Vodafone and working with EU institutions. So we're really pleased to have you all and uh you are most welcome. So what we propose then is that each of our panels will address you for maybe four, five, six minutes and then we will open for questions. Uh and as I mentioned earlier, this session is on the record. Those of you online, please put your questions online and we have a um we will we will take both questions from the floor and questions from our online audience. Thank you. So now I shall sit down and I will call on Rebecca first if you would like to make some opening comments. Rebecca, >> of course. Um firstly, thank you so much for inviting me. It's a pleasure to be here and it's really lovely to be here particularly to help support the launch of this fantastic paper. So congratulations Kian and Barry for your outstanding work. um and uh for a fascinating sort of set of of questions and topics that we can lean into on on this discussion. Uh so in our uh discussions and premeates ahead of this panel we were talking about uh the sort of changes that we have seen over time uh and the nature of of the threats and I was thinking about how I would answer those from different perspectives if I lean into government or academia or industry and I realize they're all slightly different answers but I think it very much touches on the the holistic nature of these issues and these considerations. So if you'll indulge me, I will touch slightly on each of those different lenses because I think it's it gives that perspective. Uh so from an academic perspective, um I I really resonated with the discussion in this paper of the uh the change in the sort of the international order, the way that cables 5 10 years ago, if I was writing a paper on whether cables would ever be considered a military target, I would have put it in the highly improbable possible but improbable sector. That dynamic is very clearly changing. We're seeing, you know, open discussions of things like data centers being uh considered a target for military attack. Now, whether or not that's still considered legitimate in the international order is a very complicated legal question, but the fact is that state behavior is changing and behavior around it is changing. Um, so from a sort of an academic perspective, the the dynamics of the structures around telecommunications, how we perceive it as a military target, but also how we interact with it as part of our everyday life is a really interesting and complicated topic and I think we will continue to see some quite rapid change in that space. From a government perspective, um, certainly cables have really increased in awareness. I think we can all very much agree that telecommunications risks um and particularly the the risk dynamics around subsidy infrastructure have dramatically come to the four. I've seen the change since my time in what was DCMS uh which became DEIT while I was in tenure um and is now sadly no longer DESIT. Um but yeah over that time I have seen a dramatic change from being the person who was going cap in hand to different government departments going subsidy cables really have an impact on you as defense leads as you know as leads in sort of energy sector how can we work together to now the conversation is is very dynamic and it's very security focused so I think that comes with opportunities uh for governments and industry alike and I'll I'll touch on that again um but I think it comes with risk as well um you know we we heard the secretary general say that from a European perspective things are seen from a very security focused lens and that can give a lot of attention. It can give a lot of oxygen to to risks. Uh it can help get you know measures through much more rapidly than we might have otherwise seen. It certainly attracts more sort of economic power and resource weight behind things which is always an asset but it also gives us complexity and that problems are then primarily seen through a security lens and that isn't necessarily the best way to resolve. uh so you know for example I think resilience is one of the the critical factors that is a strong theme of this particular this partic you know this particular paper but also a lot of the conversations of how do we communicate better how do we work collaboratively and how do we collectively build resilience in all of the everyday measures so that when crisis happens we can carry on dealing with it with the structures already in place and I I worry that when security is the primary topic of conversation it lifts the discussion very very high so that you are focused on the military threat, you are focused on high-end crisis, you are focused on a very significant event. Whereas actually we see you know a whole range of threats, hazards, sabotage, um potential sort of low-level events that could have varying impacts. So I'll wrap up then with a sort of an industry perspective because I think that that gives a really nice rounding off in that for the industry in some respects this is business as usual. Obviously there are changes over time. There's significant develop developments in innovation. There's changes in technology. Then there's changes in good practices. I think a really nice example is the uh the statistics from the International Cable Protection Committee. Uh every year they produce uh an overview of uh the the faults that have happened on subcables worldwide. Uh and as far as can be determined the cause. Uh and that has held fairly stable. So the 2025 figures that 86% of all faults to subca infrastructure to subca cables were caused by either fishing or anchorage and that statistic has held pretty even you know give or take a few percentage um for the decades since they've been running this particular analysis. What has changed is that the distance of cables the the distance of cables covered in the repairs has increased significantly. So we have much more infrastructure that's been protected. Um and the number of faults has stayed roughly level. So in real terms there's actually almost a decrease in fault level compared to the the distance of cables that we have covered. Um so for the industry you have better protections, we have more awareness, we have newer cables that are potentially subject to less faults. Um and therefore there is a really good level of resilience. But in you know that that practical measure that day-to-day conversation isn't always being held in the same rooms as the people who are talking about the military threats. Um so to kind of close with a reference back to the report I really loved that consistent throughout there is a real emphasis on how do we put together practical steps and how do we work collaboratively to tackle these because as you say there are different perspectives all of which have value and bringing those together is where we'll really find our strength. So that's me. >> That's great. Thanks so much, Rebecca. That really sets out many of the the key questions and actually and is very reassuring, too. So, thank you very much for those words. We're going to hold questions till the end. So, um we'll ask um Ben to speak next and then followed by Garrett. Thank you, Ben. >> Thank you, thank you, and good morning to everyone. And firstly, congratulations to IEA for a really valuable report, very timely and and very well put together. And also thank you Sabrina team for giving me the opportunity to be here today. One of my one of my favorite cities if not my favorite city outside of London. Um >> extra brownie points for that then. >> Exactly. It is fantastic. It's it's rare that it's nice and sunny and just the perfect temperature here. No, as as Sabrina said earlier, you know, we're talking about Vodafone Ireland now being 25 years young. I like to think um and in in those 25 years really we have changed as a as a company here in Ireland but as a as a group almost beyond recognition. Um we started off as a mobile phone company as Sabrina said connecting people um with phones that gradually got smaller and smaller eventually got slightly bigger again but from something which was a a small part of our lives to now something which is an absol absolutely fundamental part of our lives and how we position ourselves as Vodafone is also changing over time and in fact some our most recent positioning um which hopefully you'll see more more of going forward we talk about from the seabed to the stars and that is in fact who we are now as a company we're no longer a landbased mobile phone network company. We we are operating on the sea or on the seabed. We're operating on the ground and increasingly we have ambitions to operate not quite at the stars but somewhere towards the stars. Um and that is because we become such a fundamental part of the economies the societies within which we operate in. And with that um comes obviously more responsibility and and I I just want to touch on some of the themes that have been referred to already today with one which Rebecca you almost you almost referred to but I I'll expand on it. We talked a lot about security. We talked about a lot about resilience. Of course, this is fundamentally important. The other side of this is also competitiveness, and we cannot lose sight to the fact that the one of the reasons we want to be secure and resilient is because we want Ireland and we want the whole of Europe indeed to be competitive in what is increasingly a global economy and a global economic race. Um and therefore as our infrastructure, as our our connectivity, as our services become more entrenched in each and every one of our everyday life, our businesses, their everyday life, our governments, their their everyday life. So that the need to be secure, the need to be resilient, and the need also to have that within the context of competitiveness becomes ever more um evident and obvious. And we've seen we see some of the numbers that are um estimated in terms of the economic loss when networks go down. And they're not always within our control. Our networks rely on the energy networks. We have storms. We have man-made disasters. But that when when these networks do go down, the cost runs in the billions. And it's a cost which um economies do not want to and should indeed shouldn't have to absorb. Um but there's an additional dimension which I think has been almost missing from from this morning, but let me just bring it in now. And then I was I was struck with the question of why is this so difficult? You know we talk about security and resilience and of course there's complexities around where where does the role lie with the private enterprise where does um the role lie with um with the state but but what really makes this such a difficult question within our sector is because of the dynamic nature of our sector. Now you did use the word dynamism earlier and I want to expand on that and you know what one can talk about security and resilience measures um for pretty for static sectors. I mean the energy sector is relatively static. The water sector is relatively static. They're not fully but they are you know still utilities and one can talk about the need for physical security for cyber security of their systems but the not fundamentally changing every single day. The the connectivity sector is fundamentally changing every day and the the difficulty is trying to build security and resilience measures today that will also work in five years time, 10 years time where we know we're going to be fundamentally different again. and the services we provide and the the systems that we support will not be recognizable from where we are today. You know, we talk about satellite, you know, there's a whole new world of security and resilience of satellite systems which we're only just scratching the surface of when it comes to integrating into everyday connectivity. >> So, we really have a challenge to to work out how do we make sure that we take the sector forward and this comes to the I mean we was all you've talked about the amount of time I spend in Brussels. We have so much European legislation at the moment which is overlapping um should be working in tandem. that sometimes works in different directions and without in my view a sign sufficiently overarching vision of where does the sector need to get to today, tomorrow, 5 years, 10 years time and making sure that within the context of an extremely dynamic sector. Can we ensure that we have the right level of security measures, resilience measures also allow operators like us because we are at the driving um force of innovation to innovate to invest to build the new networks to build the new systems which make sure that competitiveness is not viewed through a static lens but through a dynamic lens but one which is done in in true harmony with security and resilience where we ensure that the costs are you know well distributed. um we have to ensure that um the where state has true capacity and capability they need to lean in and there are certain things that we as private enterprises simply cannot do. I mean there is you know physical security is an obvious example we can protect our sites to a certain extent but when they become truly critical then we need the state to to lean in as well. Um but making sure that all of the legislation, all of the regulation of which is highly present and um something which I deal with literally every single day um is not just about how do we make sure we are secure and resilient today. How do we make sure the sector as a whole in Europe can go forward, invest in confidence and make sure that we have the networks of tomorrow with the same security and resilience which we will need and to make sure that our economies and our societies um have connectivity the best the worldass which is critical for global competitiveness but also that they're secure and resilient and they so they shouldn't fail. And for me that's that's we're we're having that conversation and I think that's why this report is so good because it so so much it's not a question of do we need security and resilience that that question has long gone that ship has long sailed the questions being answered is how do we ensure that we have the right approach how do we ensure that the responsibilities are equitably shared and how do we make sure that we're taking European connectivity forward in a way which is fit for the the true digital age which we are well and truly in now. >> Thank you Ben. You're really setting out big challenges for us indeed. Thank you, >> Garrett. You'll answer some of those. I've no doubt. >> Well, let's see. Let's let's let's try and just what to say first is it's a great report and it's very helpful, I suppose, as we take on new functions particularly around resilience. It's very helpful to have a report like this that has good engagement across sort of many parts of society as part of it. There was probably three things that we wanted to just raise in respect of the report and if the first one related to what you were saying Ben is what what's the cost to society. We had done a report on this the cost of a of a network incident for society. This was back in 2023. So I was rereading our report in the context of of today's discussion and actually it's quite interesting. I think it was very clear there's a significant and growing cost. The pidemic was probably a sort of a gamecher. We we suddenly realize it's not loss of connectivity. It's the glue that breaks the digital infrastructure work. It's become something that's not just loss of entertainment that it might have been in the past to something that's loss of livelihood. It's absolutely essential to and customers tolerance of loss of connectivity is dropping all the time. They expect it to be there all the time for good reason. >> So the cost is there. I think what we probably underestimated in that report looking back in 23 is the threat landscape. I think we talked about, you know, AI is AI used by operators and maybe it doesn't quite work the way you expected. I'm not sure we fully anticipated AI used by threat actors. I mean, the discussion yesterday, people reading in the paper about the open AI Zentic broke out of its sandbox and went out onto the internet and attacked someone and you're just going, gosh, this is like science fiction stuff. So, we really are seeing quite and this AI component is a massive change. I'd argue it's quite a change for the energy sector and water sector as well. So it is having an impact and will have massive impact for for connectivity. But we need to look at that sort of you know and keep coming back to the cost to society. The cost to society is probably higher than the cost of the companies. So we'll need to make sure that we can you know uh that there are the standards there that meet society's needs not just the commercial needs for the company. I think that's that that's part of the challenge of making sure we act on resilience. Just in terms of the report, there's a sort of that section around um spectrum. We're probably not going to see II on on the spectrum side, you know, and and we're reflecting a position here that you know the the the regulators across Europe. This is Beric, the telecom regulators also RSPG. We've been very clear. We think the current mechanism it's a scarce resource spectrum and it needs to be efficiently allocated and we think the efficient allocation of that and done in a way that meets society's needs and in fact we need to reset that every so often but reflecting that it needs to have a long time frame to meet your investment needs but arguably investment needs 10 15 20 years should cover equipment goes through a much faster cycle which is back to your point about the constant change in in the telecom sector. So we we'll probably agree to disagree on on on what needs to happen on Spectrum. We're quite happy with the current arrangements we think that they're delivering. And the third one then is really just around you know I I think in the report it talks about returns and and and I think there was a reference to a good return and I think that was probably my fault. I might have said that and I I'll go back and sort of correct myself. I think we we don't as a regulator want you to get a good return. It's a reasonable return and a reasonable turn I think is is is but good sign could be a bit too good and I think there's there will be an imbalance. I'm not I'm sure you don't think you've got two good returns at the moment but it's it this is it you know let's make sure efficient return is is where we try and get to the sort of the the optimal perfect. So that's probably enough of initial thoughts for me. >> That's great. Thanks Garrett. >> Ben, you were itching in there. I could see you go for it. >> I want to respond on the spectrum point because I I do feel there's there's important nuance here. Maybe we do see more eye to eye than actually um is suggested by what is currently a quite a public debate. Um but but I in fact we had a meeting um last week not not secret as such with the MEP Kosco who's the the lead rapper in the European Parliament on this file and we had a very constructive conversation with him. Um I'm on the record here so I won't go into all the details. Um but on on the spectrum point which um was an area of of discussion he he made the point that he's unsure about this terminology about indefinite licenses which is something that um the European Commission has proposed in the digital networks act and does does it give too much effectively too much power back to the operators and as you say this is something should be under the control of of regulators um and and our response and I think this is really important nuance to bring to this debate is we actually don't feel like the proposal to have indefinite spectrum licenses is giving us more control on the contrary we think it's giving control back to regulators for the simple reason that as of today we take us say a 20-year license in you know in some of our best cases sometimes 15 but let's say 20 um to a large extent the regulator then sits back and says okay towards the end of that 20-year license let me assess what's going on and I will determine if we need to make change or or otherwise what the European Commission has actually proposed is a far more stringent regime whereby at every single point in time the regulators given the power to to assess the market um to determine whether the operators in the market are behaving themselves and if they're not can start a process to take the spectrum away. So to some extent we have less control not more control. So why are we so happy about the proposal is because we have to back ourselves to behave ourselves. Now if we and we do back ourselves and if we are behaving um we actually get the spectrum for um for as long as we are behaving and that gives us far greater um confidence to invest and we don't get into the Mexican standoff where 5 years before a license is to be renewed. We don't know what the conditions will be. I I was with in Paris yesterday talking to the um the single market sherbet for the French government and saying it is absurd that after years of spectrum licenses I can look across our European footprint. I can look at all of our spectrum which expires between now and 2035. I haven't got a clue what mechanism we use to renew any of those spectrum licenses. It could be entirely different in every single one of the member states within which we operate. And that's not the the regime which we want to give us the certainty to invest. But we're have so we're happy to trade off control. We'll give you control. You can you can do a market review every single year and tell us whether we're behaving ourselves. And part of this discussion today, the behaving ourselves is about are we sufficiently secure? Are we sufficiently resilient? Are we driving investment and competitiveness forward? And that's a that's a grown-up conversation to have after say what now feels like a 25 year marriage. We're at the point where we're not we're not talking about divorce. You know, it's great. We were here for the long term. Um and but we need to have that grown-up conversation. Okay, let's assess every year what we doing. Are we doing things in the right way? Um and we're confident we'll back ourselves that we will do things in the right way because we always work hand in glove with governments on security on resilience and indeed on on um economic competitiveness and that way we get a far more um certain landscape for us to invest with confidence and to give economies and societies what they need. >> Okay, that's a that's an ask Ben. We will I'm sure Garrett will uh bank that one. >> I mean I I think if you don't mind me just coming back quickly. Look, this is about evidence. All good regulation is about evidence and good policym is about evidence. I'm not sure we've seen any evidence to back all these sort of ideas and I'm not sure I even understand the concept that we would constantly make her change our mind and you'd be happy with that. It doesn't I don't see how that provides regulatory certainty. But let's maybe park it because we could end up having you know is a much broader discussion just allocation >> for for future discussion and always when we have these events we leave with topics and subjects and questions and that's obviously a really good sign of continuing engagement and continuing stakeholder engagement. I have questions to ask but I'm also conscious of time and people have been very patiently listening. So before I ask anything, I'm going to just see who in the audience would like to ask a question. I have one person here. I have over here a lady over here and I have here. I'm going to start over here at this side of the room if I may. And if you would perhaps introduce yourself and if you have an affiliation, you might let us know. Thank you. >> Thanks very much Roland. My name is EA Langford. I'm from the Central Bank of Ireland and firstly I do want to say thank you for the report, the event and all the experts today. The financial sector is one of the sectors that relies heavily on a robust and resilient digital infrastructure as does all of the economy and services and this is only increasing. So this is a really interesting conversation for us. I suppose I've heard common themes today of building increased resilience is a priority. Everyone's agreed on that. There's a wide range of stakeholders involved and they all need to work together. But resilience and increasing resilience is not cost-free. So I suppose the question that comes to my mind is given the different stakeholders and different perspectives, do we have a common understanding about what we mean by an appropriate or adequate level of resilience? And maybe the panel stakeholders could tell us what their view on that is. And if we don't, how do we come to a common understanding? because there's always going to be tensions and how do we agree who does what and who bears cost. So a nice easy question to start with. >> Thanks very much for that EA and maybe Rebecca can I turn to you for that one first. >> It's a great question and it's a really really important question and I suspect it's a question that will never fully truly be answered. Um but I so in terms of defining it I think we can get to a place that is good. I don't think we can ever get to perfection. Um, and I believe it's recommendation six. Ken, you'll know for sure, but uh if we look at options around dialogue, specifically looking at things like crisis resilience and crisis planning uh and about building those peer-to-peer relationships, about building those established mechanisms, so you do know who to pick up the phone to and you have a relationship with them and you're not, you know, when you're in a critical resilience juncture where suddenly things have gone wrong, you're not trying to build from scratch the team to deal with it. So I think it's it's about keeping those common conversations going so that while everyone in the room may have a slightly different perspective on resilience, you can agree collectively what the the action is and what the best way forward is. And that at least gives you to you you can certainly have an agree to disagree perspective as long as you're consistent on the the actions that you will be taking collectively. Um, which also you mentioned costs and I think that's a really good way to also help manage that incredibly difficult linked but separate conversation of if something's resilient who pays for it. Um and I think sort of the big handful themes of actually if if government thinks that something is critical national infrastructure if it wants to you know harden a particular bit of that infrastructure as being nationally critical then there is definitely strong conversations to be had about government support to that hardening to that support to that resilience and what that looks like. Um but the conversations need to be had in the first place. So I think this this next sort of step is to make sure that those really difficult sometimes contentious never comfortable conversations people get round a table talk together and work out a common way. >> Okay thanks for that Rebecca Garrett or Ben did you want to come in on that? >> Yeah I I might come in. So I think it raises I mean this idea of what what is resilience? How do you get to that standard? I think we need to be sort of you know there's a lot of discussion about compliance. If we take like sort of cyber security, there's lots of standards out there for cyber security. I think compliance is necessary but not sufficient. I think it we have to reflect a very dynamic threat landscape. So I think probably the word assurance might be better. What we need to do is we need companies companies understand their risks better. Now there may be some element of commonality sort of cross- sectoral risks we should look at as well but companies need to be able to look from a risk perspective analyze those risks and make sure that they've captured those risk to a reasonable level and there's always you'll never be get 100% resilience. So you need to get to that reasonable level. There's a discussion about what that level is, but we as a regulator need to make sure that somebody is not sort of getting competitive advantage in the market by running fast and loose on on resilience and saying a sure will avoid those costs and should we don't care about the consequences. That's that will be a bad outcome. So we need to protect against that in terms of the cost. I mean I think that there's this genuine question about where the costs get recovered. What should the state do versus you know what should the sector do? we're into sort of economic theory here. But in theory, if those if there's a common sort of uh obligation across the sector, then that can't be competed away. That's not something that there's sort of that that's subject to competition. So, it should in due course then flow through into the prices seen by consumers. Consumers there's a massive cost to consumers of not having resilience and it's unfair for the consumer to try and make some sort of competition decision on the basis of I think company A is more resilient than company B. that's too complicated for a consumer to try and do. So that's where regulation is saying we you you can guarantee that that resilience is there but the cost of that resilience then flows through to the consumer and only if there's a failure in the market and sort of the national broadband plan you know the secretary general talked about you know that as a success there clearly there was a failure it was very there was a lot of work done to demonstrate the fact that it was a failure not just nationally but actually to convince you know state aid processes at a European level this is definitely a failure in the market that was accepted and it was a good intervention but I think the state needs to be very careful you know that that it's not seen as a sort of a soft touch in this process because it'll distort markets and distort incentives you know the market let's let let the market work the market will also drive innovation in this process innovation and resilience will be good just as much as is in everything else >> thanks Garrett >> yeah that just build some some complex themes I mean one the one thing on the if if there's a level playing field and everyone has to incur the same cost in theory yes it should then all be passed through to consumers in the same way. The only thing I' I'd caution on that point is because of the nature of our industry as a an industry with very high fixed costs. To the extent these costs are fixed and sunk, but some of the resilience costs are fixed and sunk, we've we've got repeated evidence of the the industry not being able to recover those fixed and sunk costs because of the highly competitive nature of the of the retail market. And that's just something we need to be mindful of in terms of say we say where state intervenes through market failure. That could be another example of market failure where either we don't have the ability to pass those costs on on a on a repeated basis and either you then cut corners elsewhere because you have to earn a fair and reasonable return on capital. Um that can that can slow the innovation cycle and the investment cycle elsewhere. So it is one we just need to be very careful about. The only other the other thing on the on the Brazilian side which I find interesting is when you know when the when we had the start of the the Russian invasion into Ukraine and the energy crisis through the EU there was there was a lot of um a lot of focus on how to prioritize energy in in the event there would be a shortage of of supply. Um and I care what I wish for but we it's almost we need the same in reverse on on telecoms. we, you know, we need to then think about what are the critical um applications that need to be prioritized in the event there would be an attack. We know we can try and be as resilient as possible, but as Rebecca said, you were never going to get 100% security. Um, so also we need to have a a grown-up conversation about how to prioritize um and it sort of runs runs contrary to the sort of the mo the mindset of the of part of the regulation around open internet where everything has to be treated equally. Actually in in a modern network we shouldn't be treating everything equally. We should be treating missionritical um applications, banking um applications also where we provide security through drone applications. These all need to be have a system of prioritization which ensures that we're ready in the hopefully unlikely event that we have a crisis of of supply. >> Okay. Thank you, Ben. We had two questions over here. So I might take the two together if that's okay. Gentleman at the back and then gentleman here in the front row. >> Balcon. I'm a member of the uh IA. Um I just want to ask uh want to make a point about uh the call for more civil servants in this report. I just don't believe it. At various stages in the development of this state um wasn't more civil servants were brought in. For example 100 years ago when the ESB was being set up the then minister Patrick Gilligan decided that civil servants were not the appropriate forum. Similarly uh some years ago when the um Boston Telegraphs uh department were making a mess of providing telecoms it had to be taken out of the state. Key characteristic of civil servants is and I mean civil servants is that the minister must never be embarrassed and the truth of the matter is that they are not good at market design. They always like to interfere in the market and they don't ever try to um create a new market or design and the >> Can I check have you a question on this? >> The question is is this a serious proposal given our history of civil servants having to be I'll use the word overridden by the political system. Even Lamass did it. He called for development corporations and I and the market design question is important uh if you don't mind my saying so the renewable energy industry here emerged >> from the liberalization of the um EU electricity market when the um >> sorry I just want I want to get people in and we're under a little bit of time pressure so can I take that question as read >> thank you so gentleman here at the front. >> Uh Steven Breen, TNS Europe. Um the conversation today is very much about our critical national infrastructure across Ireland, Europe and and globally and the investments and the collaboration how we protect um and and monitor. Um my question is whilst many of these decisions are taken at national and European level many of the actors with whom we have to pay a close eye we've referenced Russia China for example their political systems are dynasties whereas in our democracies we work in four-year cycles and Ben used the term from the the seabed to the stars lovely way to look at it. I wonder do any of you as a panel have a view in terms of how we make sure that these commitments and decisions and investments go beyond four-year cycles to make sure that they aren't interrupted, adjusted unnecessarily because these are essentially seismic shifts that we really have to get right over decades as opposed to over electrical electoral cycles. If if you have a view on that please. >> Great. Thank you, Stephen. Right. Two somewhat related questions but not quite. Um well I start with you Garrett. I'll come the the opposite way this time. >> Yeah. So well look I'll try and answer to that. I mean and you might be better or than I am giving the question away to civil servants. I think numbers actually is probably not a great way of what we need is is very clever people with lots of experience that are involved certainly in in in terms of you know and and I'm not a civil servant. I'm a a sort of a public servant and working for an agency and I think the allocation you know spectrum was done by the department. know what done done by us as an agency. Agencies tend to have more expertise. We have a lot of industry people. Um it's a great place to work. So if anyone's looking for a good good job, you know, sorry for the pitch, but but it it's the quality of the people. It's not just the number of the people that you know, in fact, with technology and the use of, you know, AI and all these other things. What we need is really clever people, not just a a large volume of people. that doesn't doesn't work for for for me. I think coming back to that sort of broader question about the four-year cycle, I think again I'm making a pitch for for the value of agencies. We as a regulator, we're independent from government. You know, we're not I I've seen many different ministers over my period as a regulator and they'll all have slightly different views. Sometimes they try and get you to do something that's good for constituency and you go, "Sorry, no minister, that's not possible." You know, we're here to do a job. And so we are landscape and I think it's important that you have regulation that thinks about the long time scale and we've had this argument about spectrum but we look at spectrum over a 20-year cycle. We're not saying what spectrum is needed in one year or two year. You need to have confidence society needs to make investments in a much longer time frame. So I I do think agencies and and the structure of independent agencies supports that. >> Okay. >> Thank you Gar. >> I certainly echo that. I mean and it sort of links the two questions. The fact that we do have a civil service which is that sits outside of the political cycle gives us a consistency that helps us for us with an industry we we plan yeah 10 20 years into the future um it gives us that consistency and now look in the UK we've worked under in recent memory a Boris Johnson government Richy Sunnet government you know we've got a K star government now we've got D6 going into DBIS going into DCMS so even the civil service is a little bit in flux but yet the people we talk to stay relatively constant of course it's changed over and and that because of the nature of our sector, I don't feel that we have a massive change in conversation from from one administration to the other. Same is true in the European Commission. You know, we have the change of, you know, we've got Vanderlay and from taking over from say say say say say say say say say say say say say say say say say say say say say the junka regime different political personalities but underneath it at DG connect you have a lot of the um the the workh horses are the same people with the same the same drive and the same vision around how how our sector is critical national infrastructure needs to embed into all other sectors in the economy and that those conversations don't change drastically with the political cycle but the other thing say which I think it is referenced in the report is just to highlight it again in terms of the difference between short-term political um cycles we have in in Europe and and the West versus longer term um noncycle shall we say um say Russia and China, North Korea and how that plays into the threat landscape. That's why I think one of the recommendations on the report where private sector and public sector have to come together share the different bits of information they have you know we have to it has to be that one plus one makes four in this case because otherwise we fragment ourselves and we can't we can't meet um the level of threat that we will be facing. >> Great. Thank you, Rebecca. >> Um, Ben, I think you said beautifully uh exactly the point that I was going to emphasize on the nature of sort of having a political civil servants is a real asset. Um, and so in a returning the compliment, I thought I might speak slightly on the commercial aspect. Um so to the question on sort of market dynamics and and the civil service involvement in that I think you don't want your civil service to be involved in market dynamics because you don't want them to have a commercial or competitive mindset because that brings you into conversations around advantage and you know potential benefits for one organization over another and you want that level of political neutrality. You want that impartiality. You want that level of distance. You obviously need a level of understanding. You need to be able to engage. You need to be able to have a conversation and to understand what drives the sector and and how sort of specific dynamics and targets and progression and innovation is shaped. That's really important. But you don't need to be involved in those processes in order to support the environment that helps those flourish. So I I'd say sort of the the neutrality point I think is a really critical one. Um I won't comment specifically on numbers but I think it it generally needs to be adaptable to the dynamics in the environment that we see. uh and that will be set sort of by each government in each organization. So I will leave that one there. >> Okay. And maybe just I'll add to that because I can't resist as a secretary general for seven years and I worked with five government ministers and 10 junior ministers during that seven-year term. Um I would agree with Garrett in terms of the the policy direction didn't change overly sometimes absolutely change of emphasis. Um but we had four I within the department of enterprise trade and employment we had 14 offices and agencies. Um and actually what the civil service can do and can do very well is um coordination. Um and quite often you will find and particularly in Ireland which is a small country um we some people will argue are over aensified um and so I think there's a role between the private sector the civil service and indeed the agencies to try and best manage and there is no doubt we are living in a far more complex world than we did 10 years 20 years ago and our population has almost doubled in the last 25 years. So, I'm I can certainly see the point what you're making. I could certainly um agree with aspects of it, but I don't particularly agree with your point about um civil servants saying what the minister wants because certainly I have never worked with a minister that I didn't give advice that was absolutely 100% independent and correct and that was based on advice working with stakeholders such as are in this room and and getting the benefit of all views and that is the benefit of pulling together the different adviserss. So that's I suppose my tuppens haply worth on that question. We're coming to a close but I'm just conscious is there any burning questions left in the room? We have one person here um and let me just ask you to again if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself. >> Thank you so much Ora and thanks to the panel and especially thanks to the speakers very interesting paper today and I think a lot of great reading for us. So I'm on Kina from Atlantic Technological University. I'm the head of research and my question is kind of a simple one based on where we are at the minute for the university sector at the moment. There's massive interest in us in in defense and intelligence and technical networks funding particularly with the last 12 months. This is significantly ramped up. So our national universities are now in a position that we're responding. We already do work in underwater acoustics and space technologies scale composites and different universities research institutes and research centers are involved in looking at the problem space. So can I have the panel's views on the role of the universities at our research centers and institutes in being the bridge between enterprise and also government in terms of how we're going to move forward in providing that resilience. >> Great great question. Any final one before I go back to our panel? We have a lady over here on the right and you are going to be our final question of the day. Thank you so much. >> Hi there. Um just it's Nicola Cook here, director of telecommunications industry Ireland at IBEC. Just want to say thanks for a fantastic discussion, brilliant paper and I suppose um as the organization that represents most of the industry I think this has come up a lot of times today there seems to be there is that gap there between the industry getting its point across or engaging um I think Fergle said it a lot of people have said it look we're we're very willing to engage if you just take something out there there's obviously the national context and then there's European context like The cyber security act is going to affect uh cyber security act 2 is going to affect 18 sectors. Uh we came up with that figure of a rip and replace costing 730 million. Now forget about investing in 5G and 6G if you have to pull all your equipment out of the ground. There wasn't a proper impact assessment done around that. It's going to affect everything from inverters and solar panels to sensors in the pharma sector. So again there's all this kind of regulation and there's a resilience but what about innovation and competitiveness looking at the US looking at Asia and I do think that the the big piece missing here is that kind of stakeholder where everybody's voice is at the table and I do think there needs to be a bit more engagement on that front and that's something that we would look to as TII engagement and and I know um most of you sitting up there um so just to say that kind of The big takeaway from today I think is is that point and I think there's some brilliant recommendations in the report and I suppose just to ask the panel do they think that wider piece that Ben spoke about that vision is the thing that can can bring us all together and bring us to that place. >> Okay, two final questions to to finish up with. Rebecca, do you want to start or no? I'll start with yourself then. You haven't started yet. I'll give you the the floor first. >> You are very democratic. Thank you very much. [laughter] So in bad form I I'll take the first first question second and the second question your first but uh so thank you on the cyber security act. So a couple of points I just want to to raise. So firstly K on your slide you you you put the numbers of the impact assessment of the European Commission actually helpfully just yesterday the GSMA our industry association published a research report which had actually used operator data to estimate the cost as opposed to um what we um believe is were very high level estimates which were provided by the commission's consultant and that shows that the actual cost will sit between 30 to 40 billion euros for the telecom sector. So orders of magnitude greater than the commission um had first um estimated and we think that's a really important um piece of evidence to bring into um the debate which will rage in the months ahead on on how to take the CSA2 forward. But it does link certainly to what I said earlier which is we want policy to be joined up and to take the the industry as a whole forward in in a correct and appropriate manner. And for us as a as a private sector company, it is not is not up for us to decide what the ultimate landing zone should be for for Europe and European institutions have to decide what the relationship with China will be. Whether that's on equipment and whether it's on trade more broadly that that is something that we have to um take as a as a decision a political decision which we have to respect. But what we are asking for is that when policy decisions are made, they are deliverable and feasible. And the issue we have with the with the cyber security act is that we'll be asked to remove all high-risisk vendors from our networks within a three-year period. These are live networks which cannot go down. They cannot fail. And that's been the whole nature of the discussion today. So having a policy on the wire which tells you to absorb a huge amount of cost in a time period which has never been done before and is not really feasible. That flies in the face of what long-term security and resilience and joined up policym should be. So we're all in we're in favor of having a very clear landing zone which the European institutes need to decide what that is but the decision need to be risk based proportionate and actually deliverable. And then going just to the to the first question on on collaboration with um um universities. So it's it's a more complicated question than I can then cover but in a small way I can have a small contribution which is we're actually doing a collaboration right now with the University of Bon and we have based out of Berlin we have something called the Vodafone Institute. It's our sort of in-house think tank and we asked the University of of Bond to do research for us on a variety of topics relating to digital dependence and they've just published a the second policy brief this week which looked at the issue of IP and licensing. Um and what what we see is a a frightening trend of European the European role in IP and licensing on um techn connectivity um standards and patents dropping massively. Obviously, China's taking over. Um, and for us this this what they highlight is is two things. Number one is we're not spending enough time at the research level, you know, innovating, but also where we do we don't license, we don't patent, and even when we do patent, we don't make it commercially um viable. So, we we have to have a much um more um forward-looking and really given the the risk we see in the world, a much more joined up way of working with universities and with governments to say, are we innovating? are we actually um actually licensing what we innovate and using that as a a means of being more financially secure and being just more in control of our digital destiny. So I'd encourage people to look it up on the University of Bon um very interesting research on on IP, but it goes to the heart of how we need to work together more with with industry and and research to put Europe into a stronger place on connectivity and and on innovation. >> Thank you Garish. So I might start with the the sort of the the whole the value of of of having really good institutions working on really important stuff and I suppose we feel a lot of commonality with institutions you know you're evidence-based you know you're independent in your your decisions that's something that feels very comfortable for us you know engaging with institutions you know um I think the focus on what's important that's a tough decision and I think that's you know again that you know the relevance you making sure that it's relevant, making sure that it's that it's genuinely benefiting benefiting society. I mean, I'm on a board in in Europe of SAR, which is a regulatory think tank, and it's a an institution that has an multis sectoral. So, it's not just the telecom sector and digital infrastructure, covers quite a few sectors, but we have a really good mix of academics, regulators, and industry. And that sort of mix of getting those three groups working together get get some really fantastic results. So, you know, we we it's also a great source of talent as well. So, if you're looking for good staff, it's always a it's a it's always a a good thing. But sort of coming back down to the sort of the question and >> I do think you picked on something there that is really relevant which is back to you we're saying what are the standards for resilience. We need to be risk based. We need to go back to what's the underlying risk. You know, let's be careful about not imposing unnecessary costs. Now that's a policy matter. So we're just sort of in a sense sort of an observer as we may be involved in some elements of delivery of that policy once it's put in legislation. So getting the legis good if you want good regulation you need to start with good legislation. So you know it's really important to get that legislative piece right. I think it's important debate and I just I sort of you know do have a lot of sympathy the idea that it's risk based. Let's be clear about what the underlying risks are. We've heard certainly people say, "Oh, this sounds more like policy dressed up with security." I don't know whether there's valid validity in that or not, but I think it's an important, you know, it's important debate. Um, but in a sense, whatever the legislation is, if we have a role in implementing it, we'll implement it. So, you know, at this point, it's it's, you know, an important debate to continue to have. >> Thank you, Garrett, Rebecca. >> Uh, so I will also take the questions in left to right order for me. Um and I very much support what both of my fellow panelists have said. Uh I think you know it's a really critical relationship and it is it's a critical enabler for the sector and the sector's future in ways that we don't yet understand that because the research is still ongoing or it hasn't happened yet. Um but to sort of look slightly retrospectively um so some of the work that I do uh in support to suboptic UK foundation as a trustee uh is work on the the education side. Um, and I was recently on a panel with Dame Paulina Bavil um, of UCL um, and you know, researching her work. I'm not a scientist. I'm not a sort of a a technical specialist, but seeing the pattern of her research and how it has essentially enabled the fiber optic networks that we know today along with, you know, the work of her colleagues and peers is a really incredible insight into how a very small collective of people can have incredible impact based on the research that they do. So I'd just sort of reinforce what my fellow panelists have said of it is vital for future innovation for future technology in ways we don't yet understand which is why it needs to continue to be supported because the sector of the future is in the hands of people who are doing research in this sort of space. So very much supportive of that. Um and then to the the final question I believe it was Nicola. Um it's a really really complicated problem and I very much hear in what you said um I think this happens across a lot of government technology interfaces. I previously worked on cyber resilience for defense organizations um for for the UK and it was exactly those conversations of immense amounts of regulation, very complex problems um very high costs, very high requirements and it just was yeah it was a huge set of tasks to be tackled and no clear pathway through. Um, and it took probably a good decade to unpick some of that complexity and some of those problems. And it was done through through conversation and through sharing what the risks are. Um, I wrote a comment earlier which I think is very very timely here that no single entity has a clear view of risk including their own. No single company, however insightful it is, however good its analysis is, it operates in a complex world and changing environments and changing threats and it's it's not possible for any of us to have a clear view of our own risk profile. So working together is essential to help tackle it. Uh and governments sometimes are a very blunt instrument in terms of that, you know, they're trying to address a complex problem details of which may not necessarily be sharable. So again, it comes back to the point of the report of the more we can have dialogue, particularly in secure spaces and with the necessary clearances on really high-end and complicated threats, the better outcomes we're going to have. But it does involve being able to have those conversations, being able to collaborate, and being able to you feel comfortable enough to to share those risks and threats, which particularly when they're commercially sensitive, can be very uncomfortable. And it comes back again to building those peer-to-peer relationships and you know creating space for for discussion. So a complicated problem with no no clear answer I'm afraid but I very much empathize with where you're coming from. >> Thank you Rebecca. And normally at events like this we usually have quite a number of online questions and interesting for this particular occasion. We've actually one has just come in and I'm not going to put it to the panel but it really relates to your final comments because it's from Kohl Fitzgerald who's from the NES and he asks given the complexity and need for coherence should we have a national security and resilience authority to develop a strategy. So it kind of in some ways KHL we won't answer it for you but I think you've certainly heard from all the discussion everybody has talked about the importance of uh dialogue partnership and then how best we can do that will be the subject of another discussion and many discussions I have no doubt so we have gone slightly over um thank you for your patience I think it has certainly been well worth the discussion just to sum up can I thank our contributors um Fergle from earlier, Rebecca, Garrett and Ben. Your expertise, your contribution has been wonderful. Can I thank particularly our research uh our senior researcher Keen and Barry our head of research for the report. Can I thank all of you for your contributions? Can I thank Vodafone and Sabrina and wish you success on your 25th anniversary and for hosting us and partnering with us. This is what the institute does. It prepares really good research. It partners. It engages. It leads discussions and it connects. As a as an independent agency, we do depend on members and member subscriptions. So any of you in the room that are not already members, either at a corporate level or an individual, I would really encourage you to join us and be part of these discussions for the future. Any of the team here you could talk to afterwards. Um this conversation will continue. I have no doubt it is extremely important to our country to Europe and globally. Um can I wish everybody involved in this sector every success and every good wish because you have very very responsible jobs in in taking that discussion forward. Thank you for your participation today and I close. [music]