Yn y blynydd i'r rhwng o'r awrgol, yw'r newid o'r 17 yma yw yw 2014 yw'r Ffostructuren i'r Cwmifrif Llywodraeth Cymru? Yn y fawr yw'n rhaid hynny'n ymddiw'r ffaith bod ydych chi'n hynny'n rhaid o'r cyfnodd y dyfodol sy'n edrych. Y genddau ffadol 1 yn ddiweddolu sefodol wedi'i ddweud o'r ffodol. Yn gyflym maen nhw, yn y Cymnol Cymru, yw'r Ymddiannau M9A9 Fion Gwlllwyr Cymru, 2014, gyda Keith Brown, Minister for Transport and Veterans, Scott Lee's Head of Network Operations and Stuart Wilson, Development Management and Strategic Road Safety Manager for the Scottish Government. The instrument is laid under affirmative procedure, which means the Parliament must approve it before the provisions may come into force. Following this evidence session, the committee will be invited to consider a motion to approve the instrument under agenda item 2. Can I welcome the witnesses? Minister, can I invite you to make any opening remarks? Thank you very much, convener, and I'm delighted to speak to the proposal to promote an HDV 50mh speed limit in the regulations, which have been mentioned. We're doing this for a number of reasons. The expected benefits of the proposed HDV pilot are spread across four key areas, all of which are considered to be significant to road safety, but also for business in the highlands and connectivity to and from the central belt. The main areas are, first of all, improved journey time reliability, a positive economic impact across a range of indicators and wider road safety improvements, as well as environmental benefits. The A9, as everyone will know, is one of Scotland's most important links. The pilot really is just one of the many engineering enforcement and education measures that are being introduced to improve the safety and operation of the routes ahead of dualling. An extensive view of the available evidence has been undertaken in considering the pilot, and we've also taken the views of A9 users, the business community, and hauliers into account. The raising of the speed limit for HDVs is an integral part of the wider A9 safety initiative, and it's linked directly to the introduction of the average speed camera system. The strategy for the deployment of the average speed camera system is that it will provide 100% cover of all single carriageway sections of the A9 impacted by raising the speed limit. It's also clear that the speed camera systems will bring safety improvements to the route and the pilots will bring operational benefits. It may also further improve driver behaviour by reducing driver frustration. The Road Hologis Association has assured me that they will also work with their drivers to make sure they adhere to the most professional standards for the duration of the trial, hopefully in perpetuity. They will be customising their training with regards to the A9 as well as implementing an education campaign themselves. The pilots for the raising of the speed limit is dependent upon the introduction of the average speed camera system, and we will be using several measures to judge its success, including before and after surveys, as well as monitoring changes in overtaking behaviour. The speed limit, just to be clear, has not been changed for vehicles other than HDVs above 7.5 tonnes, so there will be no confusion to other motorists or tourists, and the revised speed limit will be signed and used as part of the wider interim safety plan proposals to improve safety for all users of the A9. Thank you. Thanks. Adam, would you like to start off the questioning, please? Thanks, convener. Good morning, Minister. Everything else has been equal. It's a wee bit counterintuitive to suggest that road safety would be improved by increasing a speed limit on HDV vehicles on the A9. Could you perhaps develop your thoughts on why this would actually be of significant benefit? Because according to the Transport Research Laboratory, who did a report for Transport Scotland back in 2009, they concluded by saying reduction in the number of accidents is likely to be greater if the speed limit is retained at 40mph for HDVs rather than increased to 50mph. Yes, I've seen that study, and I think our point is that the way in order to improve accident statistics and the safety of the road is, first of all, by reducing the levels of queuing, which you currently see, and overtaking associated with slow-moving HDVs. We appreciate just now that you have quite a substantial differential between the 60mph limit for other vehicles and the 40mph limit for HDVs, and that differential, we believe, causes frustration, and also we can reduce frustration by taking this measure. Also, it's true to say that this measure has been introduced, as I've said, along with the average speed camo system, which I think is very important. One of the main representations that I had received was from hauliers who regularly obeyed the speed limits, even had limiters in their vehicles to make sure they couldn't exceed the 40mph limit, and they felt, given the fact that the average speed for HDVs coming down that road before this introduction was 56mph, and that it wasn't a level playing field. Obviously, it's a competitive environment for hauliers, and they want to see it leveled, so if you could increase the speed limits, reduce the frustration, reduce some of the overtaking manoeuvres which are undertaken, but also make it a level playing field and one which is enforced, then it means it's better for the industry generally. As I say, the current average speed limit on the single carriage with parts of the road is 50mph on that for HD vehicles, and we also believe there can be substantial savings in terms of 150,000 vehicle hours per year of journey time. Going back to the point about TRL, it's also worth saying that they highlighted the use, highlighted the A9 as a suitable location for an HDV speed limit pilot, given the levels of monitoring which will be put in place and the presence of the average speed camo system. I'm familiar with the average speed camo system given that it's a feature of the A77 south of Comarnac down on the bypass through air. Is what you're suggesting predicated on the camo system in up and running before you actually introduce the pilot? It's predicated on happening simultaneously, and you've mentioned the A77, which I think is an important point. The studies which have been done on the effect of the average speed camo system, they are recording two less fatal accidents per year. Apart from the personal tragedy involved in any fatal accident, there's also a cost of around £2m to the public key agencies each time that happens. But in terms of reducing accidents and especially fatal accidents, it's proven to be extremely effective, and that's why we believe the two things should happen at the same time. We shouldn't really have one without the other. I think there's a point made by Alex Johnson publicly as well that you should consider these two things together, which is what we've done. Along with another number of other measures, for example, you may have heard the campaign about overtaking, quite a graphic campaign on radio, the tick tick tick of the indicator, and people saying this could be the last sound that you hear, because we know that is a cause of accidents on that road. That's why we think the two things should go together that we properly enforce the speed limits which were there, but we try to reduce frustration and the platooning and the queuing which goes on. Thank you. Minister, you mentioned the potential economic increase or impact of the increasing the speed limit. Could you maybe expand on that a bit? What were you thinking of in terms of economic impact? I suppose two main aspects. One, in terms of journey time, which can be reduced for HDVs previously travelling at 40, they've been able to travel at 50. I think I mentioned 150,000 hours has been a reduction now. That obviously factors through to time spent for drivers, fuel, but having that journey time reliability as well as the reduction is very important, so people can make an estimate of what it will take to go the length of what's one of the most important economic routes in the country. It's both in terms of journey time savings and the savings that can produce for companies and ultimately customers by bearing down on costs of transportation, but also in planning being able to have more certainty as to how long it will take you to use that road. Mark? It's part of that economic model and has there been any assessment of what the impact will be on rail freight by increasing the speed limit for HDVs? We have in the STPR in 2008 undertaken work since then to highlight the commitment to both road and rail freight, and the STPR highlighted the due dualling of the A9 and improvement to the Highland mainline, both of which are being progressed. We're working closely with Network Rail and developing phase two of the Highland mainline improvements project, and rail enhancements include provision of biodirectional sign that signalling to reduce the impact of engineering works on the route, increasing the length of freight loops, and also removing speed limits below 70 to 85 miles per hour for freight trains, so it's not the case that we're just looking at the road option here, but we're also improving the rail option, and I think those improvements which we've talked about should help to increase the attractiveness of rail, and we've also seen, I think, one or two pilots, particularly the whisky trains that you may have heard about, especially coming from Murray, but using the A9, where the whisky industry has got together with the support of the Scottish Government to take freight from road and put it onto rail, and we're hopeful that these kind of pilots and the increasing awareness of the benefits of using rail will factor through, so we're not just taking one side of this, we're trying to improve both routes, including the attractiveness for rail. Can I ask if a climate change impact assessment has been done on changing the speed limit? Well, it's certainly true to say that we expect it to be environmental benefits from this, so I wouldn't be a scott to come back on the assessments, the detailed assessments which have been done, and the reason for that is just as you've seen when you come across the new, when you come across the fourth road bridge just now, the alleviation of the queuing, and I just used that route myself this morning, so it's not completely alleviated, it does mean that the traffic passes more freely and you don't have the same stop and start, which is extremely damaging to the environment in our cars having to accelerate and stop and start and so on, so we know that that will reduce all the beneficial impact on the environment, I don't know if Scotland should want to come in on the others. I'll take that for me, Minister, morning everybody. There hasn't been a specific assessment of how much CO2 might be saved, for instance, by the journey to saving minister spoken about. We have done a lot of environmental damage to speed cameras and the 50-metallire monitoring. One thing to say, from experience of other average speed camera systems, which the 50-metallire pilot sits in the context of, the smoother traffic flows and more organised speed for want of a better description means typically that engines are running more efficiently. Also, when we're speaking to the Rhotology Association and Freight Transport Association, one thing they've made quite clear is that an HDV running at 40 and modern HDV isn't running its engine efficiently, they're much more comfortable running at 50, 55 miles an hour because that's what they're designed for. There will be savings, but I can't quantify precisely what it would be in that sense. Again, the dynamics of the United Traffic Floor are quite unique in many respects, so on an annual basis it's not really possible to say that. Okay, thank you. Jim? Just on that last point, Mr Wilson, you said that no specific assessment on the CO2 emissions have been undertaken. Can you ask why and if that is something that will be done in the future? We won't be doing it specifically, but the A9 dualling team are doing a much wider assessment of how the A9 will perform into the future with differing speed limits. Given the relatively small numbers of HDVs, if you imagine right now 95% of the HDVs on the A9 are speeding, as the minister said, the average speed is already approximately 50 miles an hour. The number of HDVs whose speed characteristics will change is relatively low, so 150,000 vehicle hours is what we'd expect in journey time savings, but in terms of carbon savings, it's too small a number to be accurate on. Is it not possible to undertake the assessment then, is that what you're saying? You could do number crunching, but the validity of the number would be questionable. I think what we can do... We're going to have quarterly assessments on this, and what we can do is, for the benefit of the committee, at least do the calculation on the 150,000 hours which we expect to save. I mean, that will be a judgement on what the average cost in terms of the environment is of that 150,000 extra hours being used by HDVs, but I think it's probably harder to quantify exactly what we save, not just in terms of the hours, but in terms of the profile of the traffic. If you think back, for example, to the M74 extension, before that came in, I think we'd all experienced the pretty horrendous conditions on the Kingston bridge with traffic back for many miles, and what you had was traffic moving forward, stopping and starting, and that's extremely damaging. Probably harder to quantify that, but I think we can, for the benefit of the committee, look at extrapolating the 150,000 hours for a figure in terms of what we expect to save in terms of environmental emissions. Thank you for that. That's very helpful. You've already said, you've talked about the importance of introducing the increase in the HDV speed limit at the same time as the use of average speed cameras, and you've said that it's necessary to do those two things in parallel in order to derive the benefits that you've outlined principally around safety, but the Transport Research Laboratory report that Mr Ingram referred to, which was commissioned by Transport Scotland states, and I quote, it appears that there would be a safety benefit associated with the installation of average speed cameras whether or not the speed limit applicable to heavy goods vehicles were increased. So I'm just keen to understand better, given that you could have the benefit without the installation of the average speed cameras why you are convinced that that's something that has to happen together, rather than waiting for an assessment of the impact of that before increasing the speed limit. I know what we're going to do both simultaneously, so both things will happen at the same time, and the reason why we link those two things together, there is a benefit, we believe, economically and in terms, to some extent, in terms of safety by introducing the speed limit, because they're both sides to it, the TRL report, which you mentioned, will also say an increase in speed limit can cause an increase in accidents, it's possible that can happen, but if that's mitigated by the fact that you have proper enforcement bearing in mind what's been said already about the actual average speed of HDVs on that route at the present time, if you have that enforcement and if you can take away some of the things which are causation factors for accidents, I've mentioned frustration, but some overtaking moves when people become exasperated and they undertake an overtaking manoeuvre which you wouldn't otherwise do, but the frustration drives to that. We believe there's savings in terms of accidents that can arise from that, but we do also believe that it should be properly enforced, and the enforcement of the average speed cameras I think sits with the increase in speed limit, but that's not the only reason for the introduction of the average speed cameras, and it's worth bearing in mind that our intention to, and all the work that's currently being done to dual the A9, that will in itself, because of the 12 different phases of that, would have required average speed cameras in any event. When you're undertaking that kind of online work, you have to have that if you think back to the M80 work, so there's an average speed camera system on there for the duration of the work that we're undertaking, so we would have to have had average speed cameras on different sections of the A9 in any event. We just believe it's sensible for us, given what's been said, I think Mr Ingram mentioned the benefits in the M77 to do both things, and that's got a wider application, the application of the average speed cameras than just relating to the increase in the speed limit for HDVs, it's got other benefits as well, so that's why we think both things are best done together. And just finally, what is the evidence base for the conclusions that you've reached on what work has been undertaken to arrive at these conclusions? The financial work undertaken by the A9 safety group, which includes, for example, the safety camera partnerships, Police Scotland crucially who've got the expertise in this area, and also taken into account the statements made and views of road users, so the RHA are involved in this as well, and the rail freight group, sorry, the transport freight group are also involved in this. So we've taken the most experts, people we can talk to in relation to this, but we've also paid heed to the views expressed by users. I think it was a petition in relation to this before. Certainly there have been representations for a number of years in the road haulage industry making these points that they believe this would actually improve safety. I mean the other thing can start to tackle this, things like elephant racing whereby when you suddenly come across a dual carriageway section an HDV pulls out to overtake another HDV travelling slower, and the traffic which is looking for that relief from the dual carriageway to get past is unable to do that, and this if you increase the average speed of these vehicles being able to do 50mph an hour before that it reached that point, it reduces the elements of that. And I should also just say that I've mentioned Police Scotland. There's been quite a change in how the A9 is policed with the advent of Police Scotland. You've now got a dedicated trunk load police monitoring unit. There's a greater presence now. In the past there had to be coordinates between different police forces, and now you've got one unified police force there. So we've taken the advice of these people in relation to that, and also looked at that as you've mentioned already in the TRL study, and such evidence is out there already. So HDVs will now be allowed to do 50mph along the route. What is the average speed, but the average speed cameras are going to apply to all vehicles. So what is the average speed that you expect people to do on that road? The legal speed limit or less I think is the short answer, but of course there's still that differential between all other traffic which can travel at 60mph, and you've got the HDVs which are currently restricted to 40mph on the single dual carriageway, it's 50mph on the dual carriageway. So we expect with the application of the speed cameras to have people obeying the speed limits so we're looking for average speeds. Just now you've got an average speed in excess, 10mph in excess of the legal limit, that's the average speed for HDVs, so we're looking to try and reconcile those two figures. On the schedule it's the A9 from Lunkarty to Moe is divided into about eight parts. Does that mean that there will be average speed over each of these eight parts? The average speed cameras that allow us to get some information as to the average speeds, and the survey work that we're undertaking will allow us to get average speed right across the length of the A9 from Perth Timberness, that's the intention behind it. That's coming to Stirling because average speed cameras will cover Stirling to Perth as well. So that's information, and I should just point out that the cameras are the latest digital cameras so they're able to differentiate between types of vehicles to make sure they're travelling at the correct speed. But that will give us much more information about what the average speed is along the length of the A9. Before you bring in Mr Wilson, so I'm just trying to get how do you police it and you find people for going above the average speed over a stretch? Is what I'm trying to get at, could you get three or four different fines or tickets because you're travelling over the limit, if you like, on different stretches? Obviously it's possible for somebody to use part of the A9 so the average speed that they've used on the A9 will be taken into account so you could be fined for one part, you could go along the A9, come off, done care, come back on, go back. So yes, you could be fined more than once for that. I don't know if you want to say any more mechanics about those two. Yes, thanks minister. The eight sections which are set out in the schedule are the single carriageway sections between Perth and Inverness. Between Perth and Inverness, the average speed cameras only apply to the single carriageway sections. Now the operating strategy in terms of what sections are live and what sections are will fall to the safety camera partnerships. Transport Scotland won't know what sections are or are not under enforcement. The point for drivers is you shouldn't know you should drive at the speed limit. Not all of the sections will be alive and the home office type approval for the system requires that you have to enforce within a single geometry in the sense you can do single or dual carriageway but you couldn't enforce over a combination of the two. The strategy for Perth and Inverness is very much based around the accidents currently on the single carriageway sections therefore the average speed cameras are devoted to enforcing on the single carriageway sections. They won't enforce on the dual carriageways, and the safety camera partnership can deal with that as part of a separate strategy. In terms of could you pick up more than one penalty if you like for driving at excess speed? Yes, you could. If you passed through two live sections and you were recorded twice as having driven at excess speed, average speed cameras are fairer than the fixed-gatsel cameras. You can adjust your speed over a long distance simply to maintain an average. Quite often you can make a mistake over a relatively short distance past a fixed camera site and you have points. It allows the driver to be more disciplined in terms of how they use the route. Drive at a fixed speed, which is 60mph up to 70mph for cars on the dual carriageways, you can do Perth and Inverness comfortably in two hours or less. There's a lot of evidence from what we've collected of what the A&E team have collected. Some folk are achieving that trip in 90 minutes. We've seen average speeds of 80mph, 90mph, point speeds of 125mph. We've just recently completed some driver surveys where three quarters the people we interviewed admitted having sped at least once on their most recent trip on A9. Most of that was a relatively low three or four miles an hour above the speed limit. A third admitted 10 miles an hour above the speed limit. A fifth admitted 15 miles an hour above the speed limit. That was car drivers, that was an HDV drivers. That was just folk that we spoke to and credit their candor. That's what a lot of people do in the A9. Not the majority, only a third of cars are speeding. Two thirds are driving on around the speed limit. Reinforcing the point that the minister has made. By raising the HDV speed limit on the one hand and introducing an average speed candor system on the other, the current legal speeds range, if you like, is 40mph for HDVs, most of them don't do it, to 60mph for cars. A third of them are travelling faster than that. The desired speeds closer to 70mph to 50mph to 60mph can travel within relatively small speed range. Anyone who does that, the average speed cameras are irrelevant. If you're obeying the law, they don't exist. It simply requires you to obey the law and think about what you're doing. If you don't do that, you've got every possibility of picking up penalties for driving at excess speed. You'd have to be doing that over a long distance and consistently. Those are exactly the people we want to moderate the behaviour of. In our local paper in the north-east nest camp published where the speed cameras are going to be operating in the following week, will that happen on the A9? It could be substantial signage in a public education campaign to let people to the existence of the average speed cameras, but the ones you're talking about are the ones on mobile which the police can move around so they'll let people know that they're trying to prevent speeding rather than collect fines. Just to kill off one myth, we don't get the cash from the fines. The Government doesn't get that. The camera safety partnerships don't get that directly as well. It goes back to the Treasury. No, because these cameras will be at fixed points and they'll be well advertised before that, so it won't be the same situation as you mentioned in the north-east. Okay, thanks. Alex. I was allocated the issues enforcement and a couple of points I'd like to clarify. First of all, are you confident that the electronic measures, the average speed cameras, will in themselves be the main enforcement measure for this change in the rules? No, we've not said that that should be the main enforcement measure. It is genuinely a suite of different measures and it started already. We've talked about the education campaign for overtaking for all drivers. We've also mentioned the education campaign and training that will be undertaken by the RHA of their members as well. These are really important, plus the additional policing that I've mentioned, a much more coordinated way of policing the A9 in particular. They'll still be police on the road, they won't be left just to the speed cameras. So the speed cameras are an integral and very important part of it, but they're not the only part of it. I was going to go on to the issue of policing and the numbers of police officers that are likely to be involved. Do you envisage the introduction of this measure requiring additional police presence on the road, or will the police presence on the road remain as it has been since the last reorganisation? You know that the levels of policing and the deployment of police forces is not a matter that we have any control over. It will be for the police to decide upon that and they will take that decision based on what they perceive the problem to be. What we've been told by the police is that the change to Police Scotland has got ahead of road safety for the whole of Scotland now, Chief Superintendent Ian Murray. So he has control over this and he thinks it's a much more effective way of dealing with this. I mean in the past we've had Tayside, Highland and even Central Scotland police involved in this. So whether it was a case that they always allocated the resources to their part of it I think is open to question, but what they can do much more effectively now is police the entire route in that sense. Of course they'll have an idea of which are the points that they want to put particular police presence on. I mean it's also not just in relation to safety in terms of speed and so on it's when there's bad weather and so on the police will up their presence here, but that will remain a matter for the police. But they think it will have a more intensive policing now than it has had in the past because of the structural changes that they've had. We've all very carefully alluded to the fact that prior to this measure it was possible that some HGVs have been exceeding the speed limit and we've suggested that what we envisage is perhaps not much change in the speed that vehicles are actually travelling at, but that it will be required to regulate that new speed. Do you envisage at the outset a requirement to intensify policing activity to ensure that we don't see drivers simply exceeding the new limit by the same margin they exceeded the old limit? Of course that I think would be the danger if you didn't have the average speed cameras, because if you suddenly increase the speed limit if people have become used to the idea they can exceed the existing speed limit by 10mph an hour then intuitively you might think well the same drivers might make the same calculation they can go 10mph above that speed limit. I'm not saying they would, and also it's not just an intuition that they're currently exceeding the limit I think they're pretty established there that the severity of HDVs do exceed the current speed limit. And also for the reasons which I think Stuart mentioned where it is quite frustrating on two levels, first of all that you can see your competitor whizzing by you if they're breaking the speed limit and you're obeying the speed limit so that frustration is less but also if the vehicle you're driving is designed to go at a higher speed more comfortably at a higher speed in the 40mph an hour that you're limited to that will help reduce frustration as well and the operation will depend obviously the introduction when it happens will be a high point I would imagine for a greater police presence when people are becoming used to the system as I said bad weather will mean I think in more intensive policing but I think in general terms they've made a commitment and to be honest I travel at A9 pretty regularly myself and I've seen that to increase presence since the advent of Police Scotland and I've travelled the road in a police car as well and they will tell you that they've made a place now to have a coordinated policing of that road but also to make sure they can allocate additional resources when there's particular issues caused by bad weather or even an accident as well I mean in the past you had a think I'm writing saying one police force may have had laser equipment to deal with an accident afterwards by taking the measurements so they could deal with it more quickly it will have helped to fund the police to get more laser equipment for Police Scotland generally so they'll have that availability across the A9 so I think you'll see real improvements to the policing I think we're seeing them already and I think you'll see that through this pilot and also the average speed cameras something you could perhaps clarify for me that maybe I should know but I'll ask the question now so that I'm better informed the resource requirement for running and monitoring the average speed camera system does that come through the Police Scotland budget or on terms of the budget stream to cover that? Well it's partially funded by obviously the fines I mean I mentioned the fines go to the Treasury but the Treasury give back money for the running of these systems as well so that's partially how it's funded what we will fund is the I've mentioned the laser equipment already but also I think £245,000 for the increased signage and so on that's associated with this I don't know if you would say any more about that in Scotland Yes the safety camera partnerships are funded through Transport Scotland we currently cover the eight partnerships around Scotland any changes in resource because of this scheme will be covered by Transport Scotland They are currently being reviewed obviously with the eight that are there currently they have to reflect the changes which have happened in terms of policing so I think I've been seeing the camera safety partnerships just now are being reviewed the structures of them Mary, have you got anything to... Thank you convener and good morning Minister I wonder if you could give me some detail around the procedures that will be put in place for reviewing the increased speed limit you mentioned in your opening remarks before and after surveys I wonder if you could give me a bit more detail around them but also what other procedures will be put in place to review it Well that's right first of all the before and after surveys if you take a judgement on the effect of a particular measure you really have to have that data to make an assessment but over and above that I've mentioned the fact that we'll do three monthly surveys and evaluation of how this is progressing but as to more detail I don't know if it's true or not I'll take the minister A Llyri Deller to the driver interviews we've just completed those were part of the before survey we're doing a lot of operational work as well given there's quite an extensive available data set both from what we had previously and for the due line works we've felt it was appropriate particularly given the structure of the average speed camera system to get a bit more detail on that so we're looking at the speed along sections of the A9 and overtaking and accidents and other figures which we'll be able to monitor and report quarterly we'll repeat the before survey six months after the average speed cameras on the place so that'll be in April or May of next year and again that's very much based around people's experience of using the route themselves and how they feel other people use it and there is a section in there on how they feel that various enforcement measures would contribute to the safety of the route and some of the initial feedback we've had people wanted more enforcement, they wanted more place they wanted more cameras that's what they said in the context of the feedback we've had but still we'll be one of the most intensively monitored routes both in terms of what we're doing for the interim safety plan and to support the due line as the A9 evolves into the future it will change, the dynamics of the route will evolve and we're very conscious that the baseline strategy and the future strategy have to reflect that so we can take individual sections that haven't been drilled and still make a definitive comment on the speeds, the overtaking, the accidents in this section have changed or not changed and we can relate it back to other things be it the fact that the section south is now drilled where five years previously it was not perhaps so there's an awful lot of work going on just in terms of getting the baseline right asking the right questions now asking it how we go three, five, ten years on in the future with it so will the service be done on the different sections on the route or across the whole route the driver interviews were done at various points on the route where the Perth Binvernes pitlockery done killed the main places where the users of the A9 can actually be interviewed in context it was very important to get the right number of people we also sought to get leisure users business users, commuters and we're setting quota set up by the people who did the surveys just to ensure a degree of robustness and again when we do that next year we'll repeat that same place we won't get the same people obviously but it's very much round trying to get the same spectrum of people asking the same questions and doing analysis of the answers and in terms of the operational service yes they can be done on a section by section basically effectively they have to be as the A9 gets drilled some sections effectively will be lost so you need to be able to distill down what happened in the other sections and make an informed judgement on those and will you be monitoring accident levels in the different sections of the route and how the speed cameras or the average speed cameras actually operate in the different sections and doing comparisons between them yes it will be monitored extensively it's one of the most extensively monitored routes we will have both in terms of our ability to get information on it and the need to answer questions on it okay thank you thank you convener thank you very much convener when you're opening remarks you referred to the introduction of the 50ml an hour as being a pilot scheme I'm just wondering if you are if this proves to be successful in the number of accidents and injuries and fatalities they've reduced if you're intending to roll it out to other trunk roads like the A70 or A71 that runs through my constituency no I have no intentions and no plans through that and the reason for that is I think the A9 is a bit unique in respect of that and actually we've had a substantial number of representations from people on other routes that felt this may happen there that we're very concerned about that they don't have the same characteristics as the A9 so no this pilot is for the A9 specifically and not for wider use how do you measure that it's unique given that you know drivers frustration is common in all single carriageway trunk roads like the A70 or the A71 and if you look at the injury stats for roads in Scotland you find that the A70 and A71 are both consistently higher than the A9 in terms of injuries per kilometre and you know surely if we want to address the idea of driver frustration trying to overtake at dangerous bends dangerous junctions like the Dalmauhoi junction etc then it would be sensible to roll it out if it proves successful in the A9 well I don't think that that roads which I don't use as much as the A9 has the same characteristics as the A9 you may mention the Dalmauhoi junction that's a comparable junction on the A9 in that respect it's also worth looking at the UK government had looked at this issue of a general 50 increased to 50mph for these vehicles across the rest of the UK at least in England and they've now come back from that position and said they don't intend to do that I think that's their decision but I think our decision is very much based on the fact that the A9 is unique I think you make a very good point though about the accident stats because the perception has grown that the A9 is worse than any other road and that's simply not borne out by the statistics but it is simply the fact that people do feel worried on that route just to go back to another point if I could that it's not just for those that would not want to have a speedcam was having the ability to do the overtaking manoeuvres that they do or to drive in the way that they do you can say well that's their decision and they're putting their lives at risk there's many people and I think the majority of people want to travel that road safely and feel sometimes worried by some of the behaviour that they see on that road so it's trying to address those concerns those safety concerns so I think the A9 is unique in that respect and it's also a hugely important arterial route for the north of Scotland coming to the south and vice versa including the one that you mentioned which have the same characteristics but I don't know if there's more technical explanation that the guys would want to give on that Adam Ebert for me minister part of the consideration for the A9 in terms of the single carriageway is it's a much better engineered single carriageway than you would typically encounter elsewhere in the trunk road network as a single carriageway it's relatively wide and yes it does weave about but it's relatively straight those aren't the circumstances you typically encounter in many other parts of the trunk road network such as the Highlands 828385 by the base 70871 even the A75 down south they don't have the same wide expans if you like also as a pilot we're comforted by the fact that we are dualling the A9 so if we're not setting a precedent that perhaps isn't defensible and with the average speed cameras in place we can vote in force speed limits generally and target any unacceptable behaviours when they do arise there are many things which have come together to make an appropriate place for a pilot but perhaps don't apply in other routes so are there any other steps that you'd be taking or considering to take in order to address the fact that there are other roads that are higher up in terms of stats, in terms of injuries per kilometre or fatalities per kilometre you know to address it if we're not going to address it through increasing HDV speeds on the road and to make these things under review the criteria that is normally used and again the guys can keep me right is I'll look back over the past three years in terms of the accident rate reported accident rate that we have for those roads and also another roads, non trunk roads we just had a major review of all the roads in Scotland where we look at the speed limits in relation to that but yes there are reviews so there's constantly been improvements done around the trunk road network because we believe that's a particular issue right the way across the trunk road network it changes over time and then there's another road that comes up in terms of priority so it's not the case that we're forgetting about these other roads they are constantly monitored worth bearing in mind that the trunk roads comprise is it 6% or even less than that of all the roads in Scotland and those are the ones that we're responsible for primarily so yes the entire trunk road network is kept in the constant review I'm just going to say briefly convener that of all the roads in Scotland the one that perhaps shares characteristics with the E9 is actually the E1 south of Edinburgh towards the border might that be a possibility for consideration in future? Well again, I think as I've said what you have to do when you consider investment decisions is look at the evidence and the evidence is that the E1 is fit for its purpose and it's safe route I'm not saying it's accident free there are no roads which are accident free but the E1 is fit for its purpose there have been improvements there and part of it is duelled as you know but we believe given the evidence that we have that it is fit for its purpose just now and finally just for the record when you do a pilot you normally have an end date but can I confirm that what you're saying is the end date will be when the E9 is duelled completely no obviously the two things will start to come together as a duelling gets underway we've said this will be a three year pilot that's what we've started off by saying but in any case it will certainly decide at the end of it based on the evidence what should happen it will be doing this right the way through that three year period but in any event as I've said this had we not done this in terms of the average speed cameras we'd have ended up doing this so much of the route as we duelled those parts of it which are single-clinus routes but it's a three year pilot and it's been proposed so you will have some reporting back that have been made by some of the members about the evaluations and the surveys that we do happy to come back at any time to say as we go through the process where we're at with that okay that's fine thank you does anyone else have any questions okay so we move to agenda item two the second item is the formal consideration of motion S4M10171 calling for the committee to recommend approval of the HGV speed limit M9 A9 trunk road regulations 2014 draft invite the minister to speak to and move motion S4M10171 happy just to be with the motion community okay thank you anyone else want to make any further comment very briefly I think this is an excellent decision to go ahead with this pilot I think it has been fully justified by the Government and has been handled in an excellent way and I hope this committee will give it unanimous approval to the measure okay so I now put the question on the motion the question is that motion S4M10171 in the name of Keith Brown be approved are we all agreed we are all agreed that concludes the consideration of this affirmative instrument and we will report the outcome of our consideration to the Parliament and that concludes the committee's meeting today next week the committee will hear evidence from the Scottish housing regulator on homelessness as part of the committee's follow up to its inquiry on the Scottish Government's 2012 homelessness commitment and we will also consider our work programme and I close the meeting thank you


and say Lord help me to be obedient whatever that is help me to be obedient miracles is your specialty obedience is mine come on just tell it to God maybe you're believing for healing maybe you're believing for deliverance maybe you're believing for a breakthrough maybe you're believing for a husband or a wife maybe you're believing for this harvest and you say this is not pot there is no way this can happen leave the miracles to God promise him to be obedient just tell Jesus in Jesus I will be obedient miracles is your job obedience is mine I will serve what you want me to serve I will love I will forgive I will give I will be molded to your image Jesus promise him your obedience right now


But, for the time being, I'm so pleased to introduce you to our next speaker who believes as I do that the future is not coming, it's already here. Garrett describes himself as a futurist, humanist, keynote speaker, author, filmmaker, and musician. This is a gentleman who will never run out of great stories to tell and wisdom to impart. So I think we're going to have some good dinner conversation later this evening. Garrett considers himself a musician by origin connecting technology and humanity, algorithms and andro-rhythms, which I think we're going to hear about, for a 360-degree coverage of the multiple futures that present themselves at any one time. In his work with his team at the Futures Agency, he turns futurism into a very pragmatic science. My purpose is to master the complex challenges that dictate evolution or extinction in the digital age. His newest book, Technology vs. Humanity, he's going to talk a little bit about over the next 45 minutes, and all of you will get a copy as you leave tomorrow. So let's welcome Garrett to the stage. All right, thanks very much. Thank you, Vale. So I was born in Germany, I live in Switzerland now. And I did spend 17 years in the US. So if I speak too quickly, that's because that's what I'm used to in America, you know, if you don't speak fast, people leave. So if I speak too quickly, just kind of wave, we're going to distribute the slides later as well via the organization, maybe via Twitter if desired. I'll talk about the future. The thing about human resources I noticed, you know, I've been working on this for a couple of years now, I think we're really approaching the time where the end of business as usual is happening, and human resources follows as a consequence. The end of business as usually you can see everywhere. Now I used to be in the music business, we sold music. Well, that's kind of an obvious thing, right? But today you don't sell music, you know, Spotify doesn't sell music. I mean, Spotify's 10 euros for 21 million songs, right? It's free, basically. My song sounds Spotify, and I get like $40 a year. But I love Spotify anyway, because Spotify is great, it sells the interface, the peace of mind, the ease of use, the social media, the playlist, right? Spotify doesn't sell music, it sells access to music. In the future, the car companies will not sell cars, they will sell mobility. That's a completely different cup of tea. So when we talk about people, what do we do in the future? All the mechanics of today's business, you know, salaries, hiring, firing, vetting, taxes, you know, what have you, I think machines can do a lot of that, right?  I mean, a machine could calculate, but it would have to be programmed, that it certainly wouldn't understand anything, and would just do stuff. Now we have this thing called machine learning, cognitive computing, IBM, many others. Machines that can think, not at all like us, so no worries there, right? But this machine can learn something, so a machine can look at 100 billion data feeds about everyone you've hired, everything that they've said, whatever you have, and they can find a pattern from it. And then they can say, well, if we do a little bit different, then we have a better outcome, right? Just like a machine can look at 100 billion traffic sensors in Amsterdam and reroute the traffic, and now humans can't do that, right? So now that a machine can learn, what do we do, right? And our machine's actually intelligent. I'll talk about that a little bit at length, because I think it's very important to realize human intelligence is not an algorithm, right? I mean, there's no processor in here that when I think of my wife, it pulls up a photo and pulls it outside like a computer, like a JPEG, right? It's not like this, you know, we think with the body.  So our intelligence is really quite different, and I talk about this quite a bit in my book. Start with chapter three, that's the most important one when you pick it up on the way out, I think, today or tomorrow. I just made a new movie called We Need to Talk About AI. It's a five-minute movie, and this is the URL, We Need to Talk About AI.com. But it's actually on YouTube, so you just look for the title on YouTube. And feel free to use that pretty much wherever you want. So I want to start with one thing. You know, I've been doing this now for 15 years. I have about 40 colleagues that talk to companies and governments about the future. In the last two years, I've noticed people are worried about the future. Why are they worried? You are not just Donald Trump and the Brexit. They're worried because of machines. They're worried because of technology, and for good reason. Not always for good reason, but I mean, just look at the recent thing with Facebook, right? I mean, that is really a reason to worry, because the funny part about Facebook is Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook are not criminals. They didn't do any crime, right? They weren't hacked. It wasn't an accident. It was the system worked as designed, right? That is what scares me the most. The system was used in exactly the way that they programmed, which is to run ads and manipulate people as everybody else does on Facebook, except that it happened to be the wrong people. So that kind of worries me, right? But a lot of people are saying, well, the future is so bad because of robots, but I think the future is better than we think. We have to give ourselves a bit more credit. We used to work, 90% of us used to work in agriculture 100 years ago. That's 2% now. If 90% of us today work in services and running numbers and doing data spreadsheets and doing real monkey work, routine work, right? Can we not move up and reinvent ourselves again? I think we can, because after all, we do have a few things that computers don't have, a few tiny things. We just need to make sure that we have the right priorities. And that to me is the difference between what I talk to my clients about whether they're going to be on Team Robot, automating everything, or on Team Human, and even a company that makes robots, like ABB or others, they can be on Team Human. That's a very simple equation.  And that's really what human resources is all about. I mean, in the end, it's the humans aren't equations. You know, we can try that, but it's a bit more complicated than that. We have to have the right priorities. So when we look at our current world, we have this obsession with technology. In fact, you can safely say technology is the new religion. The mobile phone is the new cigarette. Actually, they go very well together, smoking and working on the smartphone. And we can laugh about that today, but we have to ask the question, is that sustainable? Well, you know, it depends on, of course, how old you are, what your average user is, but, you know, you're looking at artificial intelligence telling us what to do already at every turn, you know, which street to take on Google Maps, who to date on Tinder, where to invest the money, which music to listen to, the AI tells us everything. And what does the AI know of the artificial intelligence? It knows the explicit facts. Like, don't like, have been there, have not been there, zero, one, zero, one. Well, life is a lot more complicated than zeroes and ones. You must don't think binary. In fact, we change stuff all the time. We say, OK, maybe that's a zero point zero four seven, right? And tomorrow it says zero point zero eight five. It's a bit more complicated than that.  Don't watch that, by the way, it's a waste of time, but virtual reality. I mean, imagine this is coming. This is definitely coming. It's getting really cheap, really powerful. I've used it several times. I'm sold.  You know, there's the first company that are saying we're going to limit how much you can use that. You know why? Because when we do this, it's going to be so powerful, we don't want to take it off. It's like crack as a headset. That's that's an interesting question, right? How can we actually make this work? How can we live in a world where this is the new normal? I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm just saying I think it's a question of balance. I mean, Steve Jobs wouldn't let his own kids have the iPad. Because it's too good, he said, it's too good. So the question is, you know, we can't really say, well, we're not going to let our kids have iPads or so, you know, we're not going to do the cloud computing. That's not going to happen. So we have to find compromise. We have to find a balance because, you know, here's the bottom line. Many philosophers have said over and over again, for humans, because we make technology, technology is not what we seek, but how we seek. Well, what do we seek in our humans? You know, simple question, our purpose, happiness, contentment, whichever way you want to put it. But we don't seek tech. You buy a new iPhone, you're happy for about two hours. But you go hiking with the kids in the mountains for a week.  It's completely different. That's not actually either or, but in positive psychology, they say this is really what people are looking for to get from tech, positivity, engagement, relationships, meaning. And then we have to ask the question, is technology going to make us happy? Well, the answer is, yeah, I can, you know, I make free phone calls to my kids in New Zealand using WhatsApp, you know, that makes me happy. But that's not the same kind of happen as we're talking about here, right? That's actually sort of a medium that I'm using. So really where we're going to is this this brave new world where we have new relationships of humans and machines. And some people would argue that we are converging with machines. Well, I think that's probably right, but I don't think I want to. But if you are taking your mobile device, right, this is your external brain. This is your second brain. And for some of our kids, it's the first brain.  But I mean, this this machine now that I have here is as powerful as the computer that brought the Americans to the moon. Same computing power. You can only imagine in 10 years, this will be a million times as powerful. Quantum computing, 5G, unlimited battery life. This will be our brain.  Could be also some great opportunities, of course. I mean, just look at this graph shows, because of technology, we can unrestrain ourselves from work. We can work from anywhere, which of course we work too much as a result, right? But we can be in the gig economy on a global level. But we don't want the gig economy that's going to abuse us. We need to find one that's actually going to work for everyone, not just for, you know, Ubers and Airbnbs. It's an important question. But in 10 years, some people are saying, 50% of us will work in the freelance economy. 50%. Now think about the social consequences, the contracting, you know, all of those things. I mean, this is going to be your job to preside over all those satellites, people that are virtually in the clouds, so to speak, right? Internet penetration doubled in just a few years. In five years, we'll have 80% of the world population. That's roughly 8 billion people then. I mean, imagine the amount of resources we can get from that. That's both terrible and frightening, but also really exciting, all the things that become possible. But I would say that it's quite clear for us, you know, I've observed going around Africa and Asia, you know, everybody who's not connected wants to connect as fast as possible with the best device so that they can get on the internet. And people like us who have it all the time, they want nothing more but to disconnect, to get off it. So it's just as bad to be overconnected than to be disconnected. Overconnected means you can't make a decision without looking something up. You can't improvise anything because everything is planned. You don't leave anything to chance. You don't decide anything without your second brain. That's the symptom of overconnectivity. Yeah, humans are not designed to connect to that kind of information 24 hours a day. We need time to contemplate. This is what I call digital obesity, right? In fact, it goes well together.  Fat in your head, so to speak. So to that I sometimes say that offline is the new luxury. This is the kind of feeling that we'll get when we're somewhere where we're not actually busy doing something else. And this is going to be a growing motivation for tourism, for example. We have places already in Switzerland where they guarantee you that the internet will not work. And if you move to a certain part of the house, they actually disconnect the GSM Tower. They block the phone calls. You pay a lot for that. That's a, of course, you pay a lot for everything in Switzerland, but that is the new luxury. So as everything is moving into the cloud, I mean, this is our future. What do we have in the cloud today? Well, we have our computers, of course, our emails and our Dropbox and our files. But in the future, we're going to have our smart homes, smart cities, our cars, our clothes, our banking, digital banking, blockchain, everything in the cloud. Because guess what? When we use the cloud, it becomes hugely more efficient, more powerful, more scalable. Moving health care to the cloud could result in solving huge medical problems when we have the combined intelligence of symptoms called cloud biology. Cancer research in the cloud, yeah, that's maybe 10 or 20 years away. But so when it's all in the cloud, what do we do then? Well, clearly, the more connected we become, the stronger we must think about responsibility, ethics, design, social contracts. When HR moves to the cloud, and many of you are already in the cloud, right, doing HR analytics, the possibilities are endless, but the responsibility is also increasing. It's a very powerful tool. So if something goes wrong, it can have also very powerful consequences. So again, here, the primary moving count should be that we should put human flourishing first, put the human inside. We should never ask the question if technology can do something just because it can. Because right now, that's still a question, but in 10 years, technology can literally do anything. I mean, once we have quantum computing, which is 3D cubic computing, IBM and Microsoft and many others are working on that. That's roughly five, seven years to really happen. Then we have unlimited juice. We can do anything. So basically, you're like a Star Trek pilot in your HR center.  Because clearly in this evolution that went, humanity will change more in the next 20 years in the previous 300 years.  Yeah, okay, I understand why, but if you think about this for a second, you're 300 years ago, the printing press, maybe a couple of hundred years before that, the steam engine, the car, the television. But now technology is actually going inside of us. It's not staying outside. So we have nanobots in our bloodstream that's already being tested, brain-computer interfaces, augmented reality. That's quite different because it changes us, not our outside. So the steam engine was great, we could transport more stuff, but we're still human. And here now we're becoming superhuman in a way, you could say, we're becoming completely different. So we have to ask the question, how far is too far? If you could be superhuman and connect to the internet with your neocortex, which people are working on? This is not a joke, it's a serious effort in Silicon Valley to make us superhuman. In fact, you could say that's the biggest business ever, is to replace humanity with technology. So we have to be very careful, because I think ultimately, as I think Marshall McLuhan once said, every extension of man is also an amputation. So when we use a tool that extends us, we also cut a piece of us. So when you use Tinder for dating, I mean, I'm married, so I don't use it, but if you were to use Tinder for dating, you're cutting off the process of actually dating as we used to, and maybe you forget how to do it, like a pilot forgets how to fly that uses the automatic pilot. So it's this amputation challenge that is quite strong here. So on the one hand, I think in this future, we are facing major challenges and people are concerned about this, for example, climate change, water resources, the dying of the species, long list, I'm sure you're familiar with that. And then we have the current challenges, demographics, we're all getting older. Automation, I'll talk about that shortly, inequality. That's on the one hand, but on the other hand, we have this. Extremely positive outlook on the future, we may be able to transcend some of our limitations. And for that, I would emphasize some of our limitations. I don't think we should transcend our human limitations as such, but longevity, if your kid is born in 2007, it's very likely going to live to be a hundred. I mean, that is 120 is sort of the cut-off for natural without genetic engineering. But we have this, right? Now we have CRISPR-Cas9, a technology that can actually edit the human genome. In all reality, that's 20 years away to scale to that level. But sooner or later, we're all gonna be 120. So you can be a human resource, as a people manager for people between 17 and 110 in their career. Or you can retire at 65 and go on a cruise ship for 35 years. So new capabilities, but clearly, the question is, are we going to become sort of superhuman? Become as God, as some people have said. I mean, I'm not religious. I'm not gonna go in that direction, but this is a key question. What do we want? Where are we going with this?  So clearly what we're seeing here is that it could be heaven, it could be hell, depending on how we do it. I mean, let's make no mistake about this.  I mean, we've invented all this stuff. I mean, if you want to get away from technology, you can move to the Amish country, or you know, the mountains of Switzerland, but even there, impossible. So we have to find a way to think about this. So no longer thinking about if technology can do something, but why. This is the key question you have to ask yourself in HR when you're looking at all those fancy tech tools that make your life supposedly easier. Why are we doing this? Are we using this to make our lives easier and to actually increase benefit to the people we work with? Or we're just doing it because it will save a few dollars or euros? I mean, the most famous example really is the airlines, in my view, because I travel a lot, right? The airlines use technology not to the benefit of the customer, but to the benefit of themselves, by and large. KLM is actually one of the few exceptions. I love what they're doing there with lots of tools enabling the customer, at least trying, right? But most airlines use technology just for one thing, which is to charge you more wherever they can, right? Using analytics. That's sort of the wrong way around. But anyway, what we really need here because of technology is an ethical compass, right?  Now, today, you're just worried to see if it works because we're still in the beginning. I mean, today, artificial intelligence is essentially a promise, right? It's a huge promise, and I really like the promise that it puts out, right?  But we're still a little bit away. But when those machines, roughly seven years, eight years from now, have unlimited firepower, then it's gonna be about this. I mean, who's in charge? Who's in control? Who says what's right or wrong? You know, just a couple of days ago, Google went through a major conflict internally because they have an artificial intelligence that the Army, the Defense Department in the US, wanted to use to put that into drones to better find out the targets and do their work, right? And Google went for the contract. It's called Project Marvin, Maven, Project Maven. And so when people found out that Google, well, 100 people quit at Google out of protest because this was like a $2 billion contract for Google to sell their AI to the Defense Department to achieve a more effective killing ratio. And then they went through all this debate internally and Google decided to drop the contract because it was an ethical issue. We're gonna see this every single day. So my view is also in parallel to this. If Facebook does not figure out how to finally find some ethics somewhere, right? They're toast. So if you have Facebook stock, you know what to do, right? I quit Facebook four weeks ago because I can't figure out how they are going to change their business model that does not include abuse. I mean, the whole design is based on abuse, essentially. Anyway, bottom line on this is, you know, this is gonna be our challenge when we think about humans and machines. You know, technology has no ethics. It has no beliefs. It has no values. It is numbers, right? And it shouldn't. And nobody is to blame if it does or not. This is a machine, right? If you tell the machine to make, you know, paper clips from us, from anything that goes, they would make paper clips from us, right? It has no concern about any of those things. We have to put this in. We have to take leadership in the ethics of technology. And I will, I tell you, you will get tools to use in HR that you can't even imagine. I mean, they will put minority report to shame, right? The tools that are already there, you know? It's quite clear. So just as a definition, right? Ethics is the difference, knowing the difference between what you have a right or the power to do and what is the right thing to do. Now, that's a tough one, right? But it was how in the world would you know what is the right thing to do, right? That is the question, right?  I mean, Google had to figure this out in this debate, right? They finally found out the right thing to do is for Google not to license their stuff to the Defense Department. Even though, of course, many people from Defense Department are on the board of Google, that's a different story. So technology is now transforming every single sector of our society. I started with music where I was part of this, media, advertising, publishing, transportation, mobility, cars, right? And now we're finally here on the beach. We have education, the banks, insurance, the military, energy, food, right? That's all in the next waves. And education is currently heading into that wave right after transportation. So here's the key point on this, you know, as we're moving into the future, it's an exponential change. You've heard about Moore's law, Metcalfe's law, the power of networks. It's an old story, but here's the bottom line. We are actually at the takeoff point of this curve. You're 10 years ago when I was, or 15 years ago when I was doing internet startups, we were in the beginning of the curve and then you double 0.01, you have 0.02, 0.04, it's still nothing. But now we're at four, four, eight, 16, 32, five years, a hundred times as far, 30X of the scale, right? One billion. One billion. So we're gonna have a world that's one billion times is different in roughly 40 years. That's hard to imagine. The kids of my kids will not know how to drive a car because the car will just do it. They may not know what a book looks like. They may not learn languages because they can just get the app to do it. Well, they don't know what an app is by then, right? But we need a future mindset. And I would propose to you that in HR, you have to be the leader on the future mindset because nobody else can do it. Because guess what? This is not a mindset of productivity, of efficiency, you know, of margin of increasement of the CFO, right? We have to think exponential. We have to think combinatorial, which combines all the things going on around us in all of the industry segments, conversion of the industry, interdependent, and finally, holistic. The only business model that will work in the future is one that puts together all of the pieces of the puzzle, not just disruption, not just progress. I mean, you can clearly see how we're moving into a society that's going to head in towards a different direction than just, you know, straight-out profit and growth because we're sort of at the peak of this. So that's the future mindset, and that's the question of how do you build the future mindset and which way do you go? And I think it's very important to keep in mind as we're assembling this mindset, what exactly that could mean for us. So part of that is the hybrid thinking. So I've put together two worlds here. On the left, you have the old world and the new world. As companies are reinventing, we have to have this hybrid approach, right? We have to focus on what is and also explore what might be. As Peter Drucker once said, and Scott Fitzgerald started the conversation here, the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to have two opposed ideas in mind at the same time. So today you have this job, you have to execute whatever the KPIs are, and tomorrow you have another job at the same time. You're fixing the airplane as you're flying. And that is, I think the job is to think of those two things at the same time, the hybrid world. And part of that is this concept here. If you work for a larger company, it's a very narrow focus a lot of times, revenue's growth, quarterly reporting, GDPR, compliance, whatever you have there, it's just practical. And then you have to have a larger focus to think of the future at the same time. How do you take a wider view? So in the music business, the wider view was from the CD to the cloud. That was the view that we're seeing now. And the car industry from the car to mobility, right? To autonomous driving, to car sharing, and banking from the building to the blockchain and digital money, taken a wider view. So I would guarantee you that very few people in your company can afford to take a wider view, right? Because it takes time. Usually you would get that from a CIO maybe, or the CMO for that, you know, sometimes. That's something I think it's very important. So let me talk about humans and machines and where that's taken us. I play a short clip, you know, whenever I'm reminded of humans and machines, I go back to the very first science fiction movie that made deep impact on my work, even though I didn't know it back then. And that was the original Blade Runner. Not the new one, no. The original one, okay? I play an interesting scene, I think you'll get the drift on this. I'm impressed. How many questions does it usually take to spot one? I don't get it, Tyrell. How many questions? 20, 30 cross-referenced. It took more than 100 for Rachel, didn't it? She doesn't know. She's beginning to suspect, I think. Suspect, how can it not know what it is? Commerce is our goal here at Tyrell.  That's the bottom line, right? More human than human. It's interesting how that movie actually speaks to exactly what we have today. This is what technology is promising us, to be more human, to be superhuman. Is that a good idea? What we really want technology to do is to make us more human as humans as we are, not to remove or to add things that we may not want to be. More human than human, that is truly science fiction. It's a great opener for what I already explained, right? What are we seeking here? Are we seeking to become technology or go beyond technology? I mean, we clearly are living in a world where technology is exponential, but humans are not. I mean, try multitasking, it doesn't work. Even if you're 15 years old, and you can dabble with that a little bit, but multitasking is not working. We can't do it. It's been proven in many trials. And we can't upgrade our brain. We can do drugs and take all these funny things, but it's not really actually do much, right? We can try to sleep less, doesn't do anything, it's actually worse. So we're not gonna be exponential. And just a little time, like roughly five years, technology will beat us hands down at anything that's about computing. Anything. So financial advice, right? Robo-advisors, right? Anything that's about data calculation, fact-checking, e-discovery, legal work, NDAs on the lower level. So a very interesting decode here from Arthur C. Clarke, who's really my idol as a futurist. You probably know his work from science fiction. He says, before we get too enchanted about all this great stuff, right? He's reminding us that information is not knowledge, and knowledge is not wisdom. In other words, a machine that has a lot of information needs to first have knowledge. And they're working on that. But can a machine reach understanding and wisdom? I think that's at least a hundred years away. To reach wisdom, it would have to be conscious, right? We certainly wouldn't want that, you know? I would agree with Elon Musk on this one, right? But that is a huge difference, right? So great summary here, I think, is really this, this is going to be our future, right? We're going to work a lot more with machines if there are real machines like robots, or software, or AI, or whatever you call them, right? That is definitely our future. That's going to be a bigger change in our lives than any other invention in human history. And I would maintain it could be about 90% positive if we do it correctly. One thing we need to avoid is to say, well, this skin job, as they say at a Blade Runner, this machine is always right because it is a machine.  And we tend to think of it this way because we're humans and we look at the algorithm and we're saying, oh yeah, it must be better because it doesn't have bias, you know? It's not man or woman, but is that really true? I mean, if you look at the definition of human intelligence, this cuts very close to HR, right? I mean, you know from your daily work that it's very hard to define intelligence. Gardner and many other researchers saying, we have about eight to 10 different kinds of intelligence. So we have social intelligence. Some of us, mostly women, have emotional intelligence. Just joking, we have some of that too. But kinesthetic intelligence, our body, right? Musical intelligence and many more. And here is the machine. What does the machine have? It has one kind of intelligence. Unlimited computing, soon. Could that be dangerous? Absolutely, but yeah, why don't we use that? Why don't we use unlimited computing to go through 500 million oncology reports and find the right way to address cancer?  We can use that information. So those entire different things, I think what we need to do is focus on intelligent assistance, what I call IA. And that's machine going through all the logical processes, you know, to augment humans but not replace them. I think that is the key to how we can use technology in the future.  The most advanced one, well, you always do that, but now the most advanced one is a million euros. And the most advanced prosthesis for your hand can do 1% of what your real hand does. Can pick up a gas, maybe steal the car, 1%. We have no idea how we're going to get this machine even if we spent a billion euros to do 100% of the real human hand. Can you imagine how long it will take us to actually replicate the human thinking? Never mind the hand. So I think it's a great achievement that we have the prosthesis. It doesn't have to be like a real hand. It's okay if it doesn't, you know, it still works great. But more of edge said, a famous scientist, whatever is very simple for a human is very hard for computer and the reverse. Keep that in mind when you're using software. Let the computer do the work that's hard for us, which is mostly large amounts of data. But don't let the computer do things that are easy for us, which is relationships, trust. In the average human takes 0.4 seconds when it meets the other human, when we meet other humans, to recognize they are the person. Are you, can you be trusted? Are you a threat? Are you interesting? So when you do an interview and an HR, right, you know it's 0.4 seconds you already done. The rest is just sort of added information. Some people are quicker at that than others, but you know, it's a quite human accomplishment. So when we look at AI, we see movies like X Machina. I think they're interesting, but don't let yourself be influenced too much by science fiction here. Dennis Wasabi is the founder of DeepMind, says that AI means computer systems that turn information and data into knowledge. That could be a real threat for us, right, considering that we consider ourselves knowledgeable. But is it really? I mean, what we have today in AI is this, right? I mean, this is what AI is being used today, and I'm sure you're familiar with this, right? It is used for crunching purposes, right? Image recognition, trading strategy, efficient text queries and so on and so on, right? It's not used for anything that we can do better. And the financial industry is these things, right? Risk assessment, analysis, right? Crunching. Could that eventually change, yeah? But I think we have a long way to go. I mean, this is the low-hanging fruit. That's what you should be using. Intelligent assistance. And don't think of the machine as being some miraculous lord that knows everything, right? This is just assistance, augmentation, like this thing is being used in newspapers now to write stories, right? To scrape stories on Twitter. Also a great tool, but now here's Ginny Rometti. She's the CEO of IBM. She talks about the future of managed machine in a particular way. And I wanna say, IBM is one of my clients. I'm not playing it because of that, but in fact, I will have some critique on that, but you will see shortly. This is a world that's gonna solve so many problems that aren't solved. And so, as I always say, we'll solve the unsolvable, like healthcare, like risk, like food safety, and on the other side, everyday life. In fact, I've really been bold. I think in the next five years, you'll use this kind of technology to make almost any important decision. And it... Well, that's interesting, right? I mean, of course, you heard about IBM before in U-Turf, a very prominent offering there, right? To solve the unsolvable with data. To quote, big business decisions will not be made by experts or intuition, but by big data and predictive analytics, such as politics, probation, immigration. I mean, there's already the first bots that do probation courts, right? Is that really true? And I would say, no, IBM is doing a fabulous job with a lot of their stuff, but take it with the grain of soul, saying that half of that is true because it could be very helpful. The other half is like, okay, I think there's things that we should decide, that we should keep.  Well, you can already do that, it's too expensive, but in a couple of years, quantum computer in the cloud, 10 seconds, your DNA. So you're going out on a date, you have a nice evening, it's getting further along. So you compare your DNA before you proceed to the bedroom, you check your DNA to see if there's a potential conflict, right? And then the machine says, oh, you should not, you know, because that will not come out well, right? I mean, is that something that the machine should decide for us? I feel that that's kind of a strange direction, right? So my colleague, Luciana Ferreira, who's an AI researcher says, algorithms out before human intelligence, HI, when it is not about understanding anything human, emotions, intentions, interpretations, right? And how much of our life is not explicit, right? Think about that for a second. When you go and somebody says, answer, yes, no, you can do that, that's explicit, right? Or you can say, I went to MIT, but everything else between us is implicit. In fact, you're learning more about people when they don't say something than when they do. Can a machine really do that? So let the machine do all that obvious stuff, yeah? You see how many emails you've written, how valuable you are for the company and so on, right? But there's a few things that we need to also look at ourselves when we look at this. We need to be very careful about this thing that I call machine thinking, right? I mean, the world isn't a machine. Humans are machines. Human relationships are not apps. Happiness is not a download. It's a bit more than that, right? So as I like to say, data is great, but dataism is not. Dataism is adoring data. Everything has to be data. Well, life doesn't work that way. And in fact, you could say data is really amazing, but it's like TripAdvisor. I know how many times have you used TripAdvisor where it was just totally wrong? I mean, if you did everything that TripAdvisor told you, you'd be in deep trouble, right? Nevertheless, it's a great tool. It's like Google Maps, right?   So because, you know, it's just an algorithm. It's not human. Great saying here from Ronald Cesar says, if you torture data long enough, it will confess to anything. That's so true, yeah? So a little bit of torture is okay. I mean, of data, I mean. So we can think about that. Most important bottom line here is machines don't do relationships. They don't understand them.  This is not data. This is completely the opposite of data. It's what I call an andro rhythm, right? A human rhythm. So let's get that in mind when we talk about technology and where it's going and in which direction we wanna take it. Because as Picasso already said, I think he said machines are incredibly fast, but in the end, they're stupid because they don't ask questions, right? Kevin Kelly from Wired Magazine said, machines are for answers. Humans are for questions. Let's not forget that we need the questions. We need the answers, but you know, this is of course within a large organization, you always want answers and action, right? But you know where you're going to end up if you're just going for answers and actions, right?  So it's very important to keep that in mind where we're going with this and how we can put this together. I'll talk briefly about automation and then we'll do some questions.  We see the employment growth or decline by occupation, mid-level automation, and you know, we see a predictable physical work is declining a lot and office support work is declining a lot. Interesting to see that India is increasing pretty much across the board, right? On the positive side, when you see the PDF later, right? Care providers exploding. Now here's a solution for our new workforce, right? If there's no more taxi drivers, let's have them become care providers. We just have to find a way to pay for that, right? I mean, the demand is here, right? And the demand is of course with technology, also usually explosive for the next decade. The best one however is this, you know, I love this one, creatives. The world needs creatives. I think this is clearly showing us where we're going. We want creative people. People have creative skills to battle automation because it's really quite clear. McKinsey study also says, as opposed to most other studies, it's only very few occupations, less than 5% where everything can be automated. Everything, like a driver, right? You can automate some of it, but not all of it. So it's not as bad as it always sounds that we're going to have everything automated, but we're going to have our tasks automated, right? Pieces of what we do. So what we really need is what I call transition support. That's going to be your job to transition people who are outmoded.  And that is what's called transition support, you know, rescaling, upscaling. That will become essential I think for our future because this is really where it's going and it's quite obvious, you know, we're heading into a future where more and more of our work is human-only work. Human-only work, I explained in a second, but that's work that only humans can do. Not left-brain, you know, logic, routine, robotic, automated work. It used to be very little, but in the future it'll be close to 100%. We're just going to do the work that the machines can't do. That could lead eventually, even to the fact that we may work two or three hours a day and get paid the same. It could lead to the basic income guarantee in 20 years that we already discussed in Switzerland. Larger discussion here, but quite clearly, you know, we need to close the skills here.  I mean, is there a university for emotional intelligence? A college of compassion, probably in India that exists. But here's the important part. Again, don't misunderstand this, because machine learning is essentially the idea of machine's learning context and patterns and then simulating what we would do with that information if we could actually read it, right? And that's going to happen everywhere, in the legal system, in driving, in flying, in financial negotiations. So we're going towards the end of the knowledge economy. Machines will have knowledge. That's about 10 years. So our future is to go beyond the knowledge, understanding, imagination. You know that the human species is one of the only species that actually thinks about the future the whole time. Animals don't think about the future. Well, we don't know, really, no way to tell if the whale thinks about the future. I don't know. Interesting thought. But we constantly think about the future, so it's really, this is what's going to make us different, what already makes us different in the future. I'll talk briefly about the future of work. You know, many people ask this question all the time. To me, as jobs are being automated, like receptionists or judges, doctors. Are we the horses of the digital age? You know, in the old days, the horses, especially here, you know, they were transporting stuff, we're using them for transportation and so on, right? But you know, who has horses? I mean, I don't know if you have, but you have horses to pet them or to, you know, to ride them on a Sunday or something. But they're toys, right? So are we going to be the pets of the robots in the future?  But I think really it says, you know, machines will replace some, not all of our tasks, but not our work.  Well, we can go above that. We just have to learn it. And the taxi driver that loses a job because he's no longer driving to the airport, that's a job that's going to be gone. And even though it's a routine job, it's still going to be a job for the taxi driver, right? We have to think about where that's going. So I really think what's happening is that machines are learning routine and the imminent definition of work is ahead. I think this is a positive thing. Just like the agricultural shift that we went through was in the end, the positive thing, but we have to be ready for what it means. For example, we have to stop teaching our kids that life is a machine. You know, most of our kids are learning in school that the more they behave like a robot, the safer it is. We don't want kids that behave like robots. You want them to behave the opposite, right? To understand what it means to be human so that they will not become useless humans, as Noel Harari says in his new book. So not the end of human work. I think ultimately we're looking at this being the future of what we're essentially going to be. Anything that cannot be automated or digitized becomes more valuable. And that is going to be the tough part for HR. I mean, how in the world would you measure people based on those KPIs, so to speak? The KPI of compassion? Well, in a way you do that now, but you do it in a non-scientific way. You do it personally, right? And how do you teach somebody emotional intelligence? You know, it's interesting when you do experiments and this is quite clear that the only thing that counts in terms of that is the actual experience with others, right? It's not theoretical. It's the immersion in that field of this, right? So the study of the economists already showed what's happening here is we're moving to a world where EQ, emotional quotient and IQ are moving on the same scale. And I think IQ of course is always great if you can know a lot, right? No doubt about that. I think with a low IQ you will have issues there anyway, but clearly Jack Ma said at the World Economic Forum, right? We need to invest the same in EQ, then we spend on IQ. So very important in this direction and then we can discuss it a little bit later. I think we're gonna need to upscale and reskill and think about lifelong learning. The World Economic Forum has a great chart as how that moves over. So critical thinking, creativity, emotional intelligence, the bottom line in the organization of the future, you want troublemakers. You want dissenters. You want weird people. You want people who fit that agenda and that's gonna be, of course, their very large degree, also a lot younger people now which is having brought those kinds of skills into organizations, moving from the left brain to the right brain. That's a very old fashioned image, but moving to the side of the brain that's not just logical. Okay, so I'm gonna wrap up by saying that basically the future of Europe and our future is to think about two different things. One is, we have thought in the past about STEM, science, technology, engineering and that was the education that we thought would be the future.  Now, Nicobet, which one is more important? Today, if your son or your kids are scientists, programmers, tech people, they have a pretty good future for a while, five to seven years, until the computers do their job. I mean, do you really think we're gonna have programmers programming apps in five years? I mean, I just speak to my computer and say, make an app for me, and it just does it, right? I mean, this is, after all, it's not necessarily about inventing, it's about doing things. So we're heading in this direction. So we need more philosophers, more artists, more people, more free thinkers, more writers, more lyricists, more inventors. And that is gonna be very important. We have to invest as much in humanity as we invest in technology. Because I think in the end, if you only invest in technology, you will do great for a couple of years because everybody's pretty behind still. But then you are a commodity. You're like a telecom, the cheapest way to make a phone call. So let's think about this where this is going. The future, in my view, is awesome humans on top of magic technology. Let's make no mistake, if we don't have magic technology, your future is dim. Because everybody wants it. Everybody wants convenient magic technology. But let's not use technology that's toxic. That's spoiling our relationships, that's forcing us into patterns that we don't want to do. So awesome humans on top of technology.  Human beings are incredibly slow, inaccurate, and brilliant. Together, they are powerful beyond imagination. That's the balance we have to find. That is the balance that I'm trying to describe with my scheme here of exponential combinatorial. So I think that's where we headed, and I close, don't have time to play this one. I'll skip on this one, it's kind of a tear-jerker anyway. We'll stop with this, right? So in my book, my final message is, we should embrace technology, but not become it. I think that's very true for us personally, and also for our lives, and I think for HR, that holds the key to the future. Embracing technology, but keeping things in such a way that we can still serve humans. Thanks very much for your time and for listening. Thank you. Thank you, Garrett. I think you have very successfully achieved one of the objectives that we had for the day, which was to push ourselves outside of our comfort zone. So thank you for that. You're welcome. We have time for just one or two quick questions. Does anyone have in the back? Yep. Okay. So I'm interested in what your governance of the world looks into this present and future, and whether, so if you create a world FX committee of philosopher kings, whom should be on it? Or should it rather be multiple committees across companies through organizations and institutions and whom should be on that? Good question, thank you. Of course, I'll be on it, I'm just kidding. But no, I think ultimately, no, it is the role of the government and the state is to balance between the achievements of science and the power of industry, which is huge now, data industry, and everything we do over there and the needs of the population and the citizens. The human needs of the citizens. That's the role of the government. That's why the government needs to get involved with the likes of Facebook, because we have this huge economic power, trillions of euros. We have a exponential gain in science. And then we have humans here who are still the same, not understanding what goes on. And the choices that we can do is to quit Facebook, for example, to not use those tools. But those are hardly choices. How would you have a life without Google? That's impossible. It's impossible, I tried. And it's one of my clients, it's a weird thing. But so basically the government needs to make sure that technology is put in its place and we sustain what we want, which is human flourishing, human happiness. And that's a tough job for government, but that is the only job. We think about this, there's three sectors, artificial intelligence, human genome engineering, changing our genes, and geoengineering, which is to change the world, the nature. If we don't find a way to balance what we can do there, we'll talk about an arms race. I mean, China, India, Russia, the US are already in an arms race on artificial intelligence. I mean, it's still pretty far away from being a reality, so I don't want to paint a dark picture. But the government has to find a way to negotiate between those two, just like they did with nuclear power and genome, DNA editing and so on. And the second point is if we're going to have a global, sort of a, as I say in German, like a council of people who would know what to say, we have to look outside of where we are now, right now we have lobbyists, we have academics, all of that is not bad, but let's look beyond. I mean, how are we going to figure out what is the right thing to do if we don't have a debate on the very top level? And every single politician needs to be judged by his understanding of the future, whether it's the mayor or the local, but of course the question is if we did that currently, they will all fail, right? So we need to apply a different matrix there. So I always say, we should get more young people into politics, we should get more professionals into politics to pay them to do the job to understand what goes on. So that's a huge challenge, but I'm confident that we have roughly 10 years left of understanding this before it really takes off. So right now that technology is not quite there, we have a 10 year runway, right? And I think that I'm quite confident that we can handle this, but it will be a challenge. So can I ask a question about that because if you feel like we have a 10 year runway, how big do you think the gap is that we need to close to achieve this future mindset that you talk about that allows the workers in 10 years to really thrive? Well, a mindset is like culture, you know? You don't just go and say, well, let's have a different culture today, right? How do you change your mindset through experience? I mean, there's only only two ways that people change, right? If you look at the bottom line, and that's pain and love, right? That's why, that's the human way of change. We don't change if there's no reason, we just keep on going. And big companies have the symptom, you know, they don't feel very much about anything anymore, so they just keep going. And so what we need to do is to find a pain point, like loss of revenues, you know, dead relationships and so on, right? And then fall in love with a new idea. And that's the job of HR, right? It's to say, okay, we have a new idea what we could be doing here, right? And I think this is very important to affect change. There will be no change until you have either one of those two. And pain will be the German way, but I think about more, you know, the love part of this is more the American way, right? So I think this will be very important for us to find both and to excite people about the future.  You say it's very important for me to understand the future, because the future is not tomorrow, is today, right? It's already here. I mean, I think you'll find in just a couple of years, people who don't have this future mindset will eventually be phased out from companies. Because, you know, we think of the future as hypothetical, right? But none of that is hypothetical. It's here, right? Just we haven't noticed. Okay, thank you. You will be around for dinner. So I know that there are about 100 people in the room with questions for you. So we thank you very much. Thank you, thank you. Thank you.