I'm Stephen Caroll of the Bloomberg New Economy Gateway Europe event at the Powers Court of State just south of Dublin in Ireland. We've been here for the past few days having some really interesting conversations about the big issues facing the continent of Europe, and we want to bring you some highlights from those interviews in this special podcast. Let's start with one of the most important people in Europe when it comes to tech regulation. Helen Dixon is
Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner. She's the point person when it comes to enforcing the EU's data rules.
For the big US tech companies.
You have an absolutely massive job in enforcing the gold standard of Global Data Protection Rules GDPR.
The e rules in.
This area give us an idea of the scale of the work that your office does in terms of monitoring these big names in tech.
Well, the scale of the job is vast. Exactly as you said, the form of one stop shop that was set up under the GDPR means that the regulator in the country in which a company's main established is the lead regulator for Europe. I suppose because we're English speaking in Ireland, we have a young workforce and Ireland attracts many of these companies. We have by default at the Irish Data Protection Commission ended up with the line's share
of responsibility and work under the GDPR. You named out some of the big companies that are located here, but also smaller platforms are located here like Dropbox, Salesforce that
are less spoken about. So on a daily basis, the role of the Irish Data Protection Commission is both to handle complaints from individuals, often about these platforms that you mentioned, but also to look at the more systemic issues, to look at breaches notified by the platforms themselves to us, but also to look at media reporting, academic reporting, issues that come to light through other regulators that may need investigation.
So at this point in time we have over twenty large scale investigations ongoing into various aspects of the different platforms. We're looking at issues like data protection by design and default in terms of how the platforms are engineered. We're looking at very technical issues like legal basis that's been used. We're looking at whether it's transparency to users. I should say the GDPR is now coming up to five years
in application. Last year was the biggest year for enforcement of the GDPR to date probably not a surprise as some of the large scale investigations come to conclusion of that record year for enforcement. Last year, two thirds of the enforcement was delivered by the Irish Data Protection Commission. Across the EU, UK and EA over a billion in fines levied, So that gives you some idea of the scale. And of course it's not all about enforcement either.
Is your office a match for some of the richest companies in the world.
We are a match for the rich companies in the world, and we've demonstrated that through key cases that have already been concluded and through litigation that has already happened. You'll recall that my office in twenty sixteen, on foot of a long standing complaint about this issue of EU to USA transfers of personal data, made an application to the High Court seeking a reference to the CJU, which we obtained in order to have the CJU rule on the
validity of the legal instrument that was being used. And all along the way we saw Facebook challenge the DPC right up to the Supreme Court on that and we succeeded.
So we are a match.
Of course, it's a never ending battle.
And the scale is vasts.
In the past though about the resources that your office has to be able to do that is that issue being addressed.
The issue is being addressed a year on year. The government has granted us more budget, so the issue is necessarily a commitment to budget. It is around absorbtive capacity when you're increasing the size of a very niche specialist organization like the Data Protection Commission, and it can be around the availability of resources. So we've found innovative ways
as the years go by. As well as expanding our staff now to over two hundred experts that we have directly employed, we've also put in place contracts for services so that we can draw down in particular state of the art technology and forensic services as required in investigations. And that's sensible because it means we're always up to date.
I want to ask you about some of the investigations that you've been working on TikTok's processing of children's personal data. Has there any progress made agreeing with other EU member states on a penalty for that.
No, there hasn't, but I suppose we've come to a point of certainty that we cannot reach agreement with the two and there were only two data protection authorities that objected to elements of our decision on that, a German authority and the Italian authority. We spent several months trying to reach a point of agreement and consensus with them.
We have not achieved that, so we have now invited TikTok to make its submissions on the objection so that we can transfer the file to this dispute resolution mechanism under the GDP or so we'll have a final conclusion on that in a short number of months.
That was Helen Dixon, Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner. So from regulating tech to funding it. Elaine Cochlan is the co founder and managing partner at Atlantic Bridge. They have a billion euros and capital under management and investments in one hundred companies. After the financial turmoil of recent weeks and the backdrop of higher interest rates, we've been discussing the investment and funding landscape for European tech companies with her.
Your focus is technology. A lot of the sectors that European countries are very interested in now, the likes of semiconductors and quantum computing. How much have those sectors been affected by the downturn that we're talking about more broadly the economy.
Well, absolutely there has been an in fact, we're probably more than twelve months now into the slowdown in the downturn in the technology industry. But you're absolutely right to
highlight sectors. So it is not across the board. What I would say is about two years ago the biotech industry started to have quite a pullback in terms of valuations post COVID, and also, you know, investment and technology obviously with the you know, with the fangs et cetera in early twenty twenty two, and that in private markets fed into are in public markets fed into the private markets, but a lot of it around consumer bt C tech, obviously,
social media, you know, e commerce, all of those sectors that got a massive run up through COVID. If you look at the fundamental technology sectors of foundational technologies, quantum, semiconductors, cybersecurity, those areas actually have performed very well and there's still a lot of investor demand. So it is a tough market.
The difficult equity markets last year followed by now, as you said, the SVB collapse has definitely dented confidence and so now we have you know, a difficult situation in raising both equity. Companies have both raising equity and this
so it is in the short term a difficult market. However, in the nearer term and the longer term, I would be very positive because for those particular sectors that we just talked about, because of the involvement of new entrance into the market, which across Europe is government and also in the US.
Which is interesting because you think government funding is going to squeeze businesses like yours. If you're the one who would in traditionally have been involved in fundraising or investing in these companies, are you being squeezed out.
By government money?
No, far from it, because I think the fundamental problem which sometimes it takes a crisis or a catastrophe for us to make the right decisions. But if you look at historically in European companies great research, great research institutions, great educational institutions, some of the top universities in the world, all in the EU and in the UK. But wherever we've struggled is in scaling up those companies. And the US out invests US by four to one in all
of those companies. So every dollar we put into the
companies in Europe. The US is putting in four. So if you add up things like the EU Chips Act and the Green Deal and the EIC programs and the climate programs that the EU has brought out in the last two years alone, there's about one point five trillion of capital that is going to be deployed over the next five to eight years in these sectors, and that is going to make a phenomenal difference to the development and scaling of companies, knowledge intensive companies in Europe in
those sectors. And of course we now have supply chain resilience as a key concern, strategic sovereign autonomy and key sectors. These are all really important. So the government involvement along with the private industry, along with the industry is going to mean that Europe has a great chance of building champions.
Yeah, but can those companies be international or European wide champions Because we've traditionally seen, particularly in the tech sector, companies having to go to the US to expand beyond a certain level.
Is that going to change?
I think if companies and founders have access to capital within Europe for that scale up, peace it will be less essential. I suppose for them right now, they've no alternative because a lot of If you look at the size of the VC markets Europe has actually dramatically improved over the last few years. The US VC market is about two hundred and thirty three billion, and we almost crossed one hundred billion in Europe for the first time last year.
Can I briefly ask you about listings.
We've been talking a lot about ARM, for example, choosing to list in the US rather than the UK.
Can that change? Our company's always going to have to go to the US to list.
It's a fundamental part of the problem in Europe. I think ARM is a symptom of a much deeper, deeper problem that we have in Europe. And Minister Pascalodnahuo, our finance minister here and Eurogroup president last night spoke about capital market union and the banking union that needs to happen in Europe. So if you look at London losing ARM.
If ARM does not list in London, it's somewhere between a thirty and seventy billion market cap, I think that'll be a terrible loss for the UK and for Europe. A semiconductor company with probably the deepest pool of ip and talent in the world, and if we look at companies like CRH and Flood, there's been a trend right to the top. Well, I think we will have to deepen the capital pool in Europe. We will have to
encourage pension funds. Pension funds in the UK used to own forty fifty percent of pension funds owned UK equities. That's now four or five percent. So I think there will have to be government changes to the regulation and to the ability for these pension funds and local investors to take risk. Right now, US investors it's a deeper capital pool. They understand growth and they're willing to pay
for it. So European companies get higher valuations and they get investors that understand growth and they are willing to back them.
That's Atlantic Bridges, Elaine Cocklin. They're talking about the challenges Europe faces in scaling up its tech sector. Our next guest, Pam Cheng, is the executive vice president of Global Operations at AstraZeneca. As a key figure in the role out of the COVID vaccine, she sees the global supply chains in a different light after the pandemic and had some interesting comments about investment prospects in the UK. Obviously, your business has had a transformative couple of years because of
the rollout of the COVID vaccine. How different do your supply chains look now compared to that they did three years ago?
Great question. So, first of all, hello Stephen, thank you for having me here today. I think you know, I think we can all agree coming out of COVID nineteen, the role is a different place, right and particularly as we continue to whether I'm presidented, challenges like the war in Ukraine and the geopolitical tension, we are in a very different place. I'm a believer that global and open
supply chain is critical for our business, right. So if you look at the importance of trade, innovation and technology, that's made us a more connected and more interdependent world. And I don't think that's going to go away. I do think that COVID NINETEENNX, we kind of emerge in this new world moving forward sort of the term of reglobalization.
It's going to take on some new rules by some of the countries and key players around how to maintain some sort of control, bringing back control as well as making sure that we continue to open the doors for trade to make sure that we don't stifle that innovation.
So today our supply chain largely hasn't changed that much. However, we are taking steps to make sure that we are increasing supply chain resilience because in the end of the day, in life science and pharmaceutical supply chains, we are talking about patients' health, right, so we want to make sure that our supply chain continue to be resilient in.
Terms of agility.
Obviously, you have a massive production shift to produce your COVID vaccine.
Do you have now an ability to do something like that? Again? What if you learned learn from that experience?
And I think the prerequisite of that is having a global and open supply chain environment. That's a perfect example why we cannot localize or regionalize medicine supply chains, right, I mean, we commercialize, so we develop and supply over three billion doses of COVID nineteen vaccine. We supply over to one hundred and eighty countries, two third of which are low and middle income countries, and not to mention,
it had no profit during the pandemic. We would not have been able to do that if we had local and regional supply chain and we're unable to kind of leverage that scale and capability and resources globally. We had supply chain in Asia, in Latin America, North America and Europe for examble that kind of pulled together to make this happen.
You announced just about eighteen months ago that you were going to locate at three hundred and sixty million dollar findhuction plant here in Ireland, something that was controversial in British political circles because they had hoped to be able to attract that investment as well.
What's the latest update on that Irish side.
So the final decision was to cite it in Ireland co located with our Alexion manufacturing facility in College Park. Citing of a pharmaceutical, medicine or facility is a very complicated decision, right. It's it's not just about tax, It's not just about the financial implications. It's about the resources, the capability which is very very important, and the operating environment.
Having that friendly operating environment and with Ireland sort of operations climate around, focus on climate change, focus on green energy, focusing on capabilities, and in the UK part of it, you can, but I think we look at the total package. And if you look at the financial implications along with all the things I've talked about, this is what this was the right place. What could facility the UK do?
I mean you mentioned tax there as well as something goes to your CEO. It highlights is the reason for locating that plant in Ireland. What could the UK do to better attract businesses like yours?
I think we've publicly said that we you know, we will like the UK government to really sort of focus on innovation, value innovation at faster around innovation and some of the regulatory means and really give incentive to drive for companies to be driving that innovation, initiating that innovation within the UK.
Does that mean financial incentives?
It could include that not only financial implications, but it can include that. But the more importantly is that overall operating environment.
Okay, on a more broad issue, where what is Astroseneka's view of COVID nineteen Now is it something that is still a large portion of your business is focused on.
So we have a new therapeutic category that we've co vaccines and immunology that we are looking into, as you know, above and beyond the COVID nineteen vaccine. We also have an antibody for the immunal compromise population, so we continue to work on that. We continue we have a large research pipeline in looking at continue vaccine for the next pandemic or the next evolutions of of COVID nineteen or similar,
as well as antibodies for the immunocompromised patients. So we continue to do that research such that Gappha bit if should there be a need, we are ready to support.
That's as senecas Pam Chang.
There now one person who is very much related to the trade aspect of that conversation is Denny Redone. He is the Chief Trade Enforcement Officer at the European Commission, responsible for enforcing the EUSE trade deals with the rest of the world. Are you the person the trading partners need to be scared of when it comes to doing business with the EU?
I don't think it's a matter of being scared. I don't think we want to be punative, closed, or for that matter, protectionists in any way. That's not in the US interest. What are we trying to do. What we're trying to do is are two very basic things. One is we want to make sure where we negotiate trade agreements trade treaties, we maximize for all firms in all member states the potential benefits from those agreements, and that requires engagement with third country partner. A trade treaty is
a piece of paper. You need to inject some life into it. And yes, indeed we're necessary. We have to ensure the compliance by our third country partners of their commitments, and there from time to time we have to be assertive in ensuring that compliance of commitments. So you continue to basically have a policy that stands on three legs. One is openness, second one is sustainability because that is
important for Europe. And the third one, yes, is a form of assertiveness that enables us to navigate a world which is a bit more adverse, a bit more fragmented in some cases in certain jurisdictions, a bit more protectionist against you interests, and we need to push back.
We don't hear from you very often when it comes to your role as Chief Trade Enforcement Officer.
I'm wondering in this role.
Which, if the EUS trade deals do you kind of generates the most work for you?
What sort of issues are you working on?
Look, we have a network of free trade agreements, probably the biggest in the world. We have some forty six trade agreements with seventy eight partners, so that requires constant attention to make sure that in all these jurisdictions, EU firms,
EU investors are basically not being discriminated. So we're looking, of course at some of the big markets around the world where we have a relationship based on WTO terms, the US China, but we're also looking at all of these preferential agreements, including in our neighborhoods close to the European Union, where we make a lot of trade and we make a lot of investment, and where it is necessary to maintain our footprint on a non discriminatory basis
and ensure that the rules based relations that we have with these countries is upheld.
Can you give us an example of some of the enforcement actions that you have been involved with in some of those recent tradetails.
Well, look, we use a continuum of tool so in some cases it's about being prevented, it's about engaging with third country jurisdictions even before they take measures regulatory measures that are going to create discrimination or create a market access problem for our firms to make sure that that doesn't happen. And that's the kind of market access work that you will not actually see that it is the
most effective. We solve problems before they actually emerge. In some other cases, we have recourse to the dispute settlement, the enforcement mechanisms that we have under our trade agreements or under the WTGO. We keep using the wto dispute settlement. We have prevailed a number of trade disputes that we have, and that's the civilized way of dealing with trade problems.
State to state.
We have recourse to third party adjudication to clarify what is the nature of the commitments and therefore to solve the problems that we may have in one of the other jurisdictions. We have prevailed, for example at panel stage this week in a dispute with India over their tariffs in the information and technology area.
That is important.
It's a basic commitment. We believe that countries should abide by their bindings in terms of tariffs, and this is why we have decided to adjudicate this in a wto dispute.
One of the things that we talk about when we talk about regulation by the opinion is the Brussels effect of how is it set standards for the world. I'm interested in how the trades aspect of relationships and forces sustainability and labor standards. That that's something that's difficult to enforce the new dealing with very diverse raisions in the world.
Well, obviously it is difficult because you dookie get issues which are deep behind the board and have to do with production methods and standards. So it is complex, but we basically unsustainability achieve sustainability in our trade relations in different ways. First through the trade agreement. You're right. We have trade agreements that have ambitious binding provisions in the area of labor, in the area environment, and we're putting a lot of focus on the actual concrete implementation of
that through primarily cooperation. We also have autonomous instruments in the EU carbon border adjustment, deforestation legislation. This complements what we can do in trade agreements. And finally, I think we must continue to engage in international regulatory cooperation. Yes, the Brussels effects place it is important, but we cannot
export wholesale to the world our regulatory models. We also have to engage with countries in order to make sure that they converge voluntarily in these areas and avoid therefore trade and investment frictions.
I wanted to ask you about your work in terms of sanctions and Russia since the invasion of Ukraine. From a trade point of view, what sort of work have you been involved in there.
So the trade sanctions are an important part of the economic sanctions that we have taken in the face of russia segration against Ukraine. You have to realize that we have in a sense severed our trade links to the tune of about fifty percent of what we were exporting to Russia pre war and perhaps sixty five percent of
what we were importing pre war. So it's a significant deintegration, de coupling of our relationship with Russia, and it is having an impact because what it is doing is degrading the capacity, the military, industrial and technological capacity of Russia over the medium term and therefore its ability to continue to wage its war in Ukraine. So the trade sanctions on the technology side, through export controls in particular on trade are playing their role as an element of our response.
So now you have us from data protection to venture capital supply chains to trade regulation. The gears of the world economy are turning to adapt to new challenges and geopleesic challenges here in Europe as well, as well as, of course those new opportunities like artificial intelligence. Thanks for listening to this special podcast. I'm Stephen Carroll at the Bloomberg New Economy Gateway event in Ireland.