 Rwy'n gobeithio, i fyddo. Ac mae yn cyfnodd, rwy'n cyfnodd, sy'n cyfnodd ddechrau'r cwmffordd, mae'n cyfnodd i'r ffordd. Yr 1 ddau yw'r ymgyrches yn ychydig i bwysig ymddangos yn y cyfnodd. Byddwch â'r ffordd o'r ffordd. I want to tell you a little bit about the perspective that we're taking at the OECD, and it's a little bit different, I would say, certainly from the central bank perspective and from the IMF perspective. We, in terms of our levers and our influence, we rely enormously on the trust element because we effectively trade off our reputation, our good name. We don't provide any money, we don't have formal legal powers, and so our reputation is effectively what we use to be able to work off. Now, I'm not going to take a risk with a word cloud and mentee, and I'm actually going to give you some of the elements that people would tend to use to describe the OECD, objective analysis, evidence-based, standard setting, and best practices. Now, we've confronted, or rather, thank you very much, we've confronted a rather difficult situation recently, which I'm going to tell you about, but I'm going to kick off firstly by telling you who we are and what we do. Many of you know the OECD and you've known it for years. The thing is, your entry points are all very different, and we actually recast the mission of the organisation in the light of the global financial crisis that hit in 2008 when I walked through the doors of the OECD. It said for a better world economy, and the world economy, excuse the phrase, was going down the toilet. So, what could we do about that? Try and recast it, go back to our origins, the convention of the 1960s, and actually distill it down to better policies for better lives. Great. The problem is that a little bit like with depression, and we're all suffering it to a certain extent, I think we would all agree right now, the policies are not getting through to the lives. So, we have problems with synapses, and we have problems with neurons. That's my mentee word cloud. I'm not taking a risk with you. You would put boring and all sorts of other things in there. Now, when we look at this concept of trust and an organisation that has those elements around it, authoritative, evidence-based, et cetera, well, it's logical that we should be entrusted by an entity like the G20 to develop international standards to address tax avoidance, both illicit and licit. Illicit tax havens, licit multinational companies, parking their operations, intangible operations, injuristictions where they pay incredibly low tax or no tax at all. So, that's great. You've got Mr. Goehr on the right hand side, you've got the G20. Odea. What do we confront? We are very happy at the OECD because we begin moving on tax havens as of 2009, but suddenly we get brought down to earth by revelations along the lines of paradise papers that you all followed last week and a couple of weeks ago. So, the problem is that citizens are looking at these issues whilst we are busily trying to fix the problem, and Jerry used the image of the sunshine and repairing the roof. The problem we had was that we didn't repair the roof when the sun was shining. We had the seeds to solve the problem back in 1998. As this is on the record, I won't go into the details as to why those seeds weren't planted in 1998. I think you can understand probably the reasons why we're a member-driven organisation. Perhaps our members didn't feel the appetite at the time to go down that road, but the elements to address tax havens existed as early as that. What does it take to make the ground fertile? It takes the proverbial shit to hit the fan. Shit is a very good fertilizer, as we know. So, you can go in there and you can start sowing your seed, but remember it's 2008 and it's 2009. It takes a hell of a long time to harvest things. Now, we may think that things in terms of years are very short. The problem is everybody's time span, whether it's a citizen, particularly an angry one, who's now come to the end of their tether, perhaps after 20-25 years' worth of dissatisfaction. They don't have that level of patience. So, we're busy being very proud of the work that we've done with the G20 in order to address tax havens and base erosion and profit shifting. We're caught, as we were last Monday, Monday before, at the CBI conference in the United Kingdom, with the revelations around the Paradise Papers. We weren't in the front line in terms of criticism, but a lot of people are looking and saying, well, I thought you'd fixed that problem. I thought you sorted it all out. The problem is that what we're doing is we're fixing it so that it can't happen again. But all the bits that people are focusing on are the world as it has been. So, we have a major problem of temporality. First one. Second problem we have. You recognise this picture? Those of you who are fans of Monty Python. Right. What have the Romans ever done for us? All apart from sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, et cetera, right? The thing is that what citizens really like is the ends. They're not so big on the means. So, the Romans are the ones who deliver certain things for that perm, the EU, or for that perm, the ECB. And I know because I know how important the role of the ECB, I can say it because I don't work for the ECB. The ECB has played an extraordinarily important role in the last few years in managing the eurozone. But the problem we have is that people and citizens, they love ends. Look at the figures around this on our analysis on trust and public policy this year. They're into education, they're into health care, they're into even the local police. But national government that delivers many of these outcomes, that's not really something that people are into. So, you know and we struggle with this. At least we take solace in the fact that what we do is appreciated. But the means in order to get to that point, there is a disconnect there. So, we have a temporality problem in terms of gap and we also have a problem in terms of people not really being into the means. What delivers? They like the delivery element. I think we're seeing a lot of that around Brexit in the United Kingdom right now. Okay, now if that weren't enough, those of you who are surfers may think that's a wonderful picture and a really exciting thing. I wouldn't like to be the surfer going down that wall. This is in Portugal, it's one of the most scary places that you could possibly do this. What you're looking at is a wall of water that is absolutely coming towards you. And we have all been living this now. I would trace this back in our case to April 2016. And we confront a situation which is not new in the sense that I think I would contend that post truth has been with us all the way back historically. You could trace it back to English Monarchs in the 12th and 13th centuries. But what we are living is something that is very turbo charged right now. And we haven't lived anything like that not only in our lifetimes but I think historically. So how do you confront a situation like this? Quick story on our story of Brexit. So the OECD does not normally get into political debates and environments. So we stay away from comments prior to elections. But we were put in a very difficult situation when it came to the referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. Why? Because it was a very sui generous situation. It wasn't just about the impact that this could have on one member of the OECD, the United Kingdom, or indeed on 22 members of the OECD who are also members of the European Union, but a massive impact on all of the members of the OECD and I would contend beyond that in terms of the global economy. Because in the language that I don't understand but that people use, this would be termed an event. We should think about that when we use words like that, an event. We all know what an event means in this room but people outside, they're not so clear. And what did we do? We produced a learned report as the OECD. We had, I think it was a 50 page report, managed to keep it down to that. We had annexes. We probably had a few equations in the back as well. Where did we present the report? Wonderful. We went to the London School of Economics in the heart of London. Excellent place to do that, right? We got wonderful coverage in the financial times. Damning report on the effect of Brexit. Marvelous. I'm doing my job. OECD slashes growth forecast. Even the Guardian. The telegraph, you know, a bit more on the right side of things. Global chain reaction. Sky News. And David Cameron. Excellent. We've got the full sort of establishment support for our operation, haven't we? Job done. Okay. Now it gets interesting. The Sun decides to write an editorial. They do have editorials in the Sun. They're incredibly short. And in the first paragraph of the editorial, what they said, as the OECD says today, a net migration in the United Kingdom is incredibly high and this is going to be quite appalling for the United Kingdom, as we and the Sun believe. Therefore, vote leave. Second paragraph, those bits that they say about economic forecasting and the fact that you're going to be far worse off, well, you know, we know that we can't possibly trust any of that stuff. So they cherry pick the bits that they quite like and then they dismiss the other bits. The Daily Telegraph. More on the opinion side, starting to question us. And now this is the kicker. Those of you who have read Tim Shipman's book on the campaign in, on Brexit, you will see that this was a well-planned tactic by the Leave campaign that did an excellent job, by the way, professionally. I didn't like it, but it was an excellent job in terms of the professionalism. EU funded. What were they trying to do? Immediately delegitimize us. Oh, well, we are paid for by the European Union. Therefore, anything that is said by us shouldn't be worth the paper that it is written on. And I go back to the issue around our reputation, our brand is everything. And if we didn't need it, there we have Nigel Farage saying wonderful things about the leaders of the World Bank, the IMF and others. ECB was saved on that one. You all know that. Michael Gove. Well, not necessarily the best place person to do that, given that he was Minister for Education. He was also Minister for Justice. Suddenly, he forgot that those expertise areas were areas of relevance. OK. Now, I'm going to shift through quickly because I'm already out of time. So, I'm in Fergie time, which Adrian's kindly given me. What do we do? Six things that we can start doing. Use a language that people understand. It is jog and monoxide. Now, I'm going to take advantage of being in this room, and I'm going to tell you I've always had a problem with a particular term, negative growth. It is a contradiction in terms. I've been saying for the best part of 10 years at the OECD, do not use the word negative growth, but we continue to use those terms. We have to be really careful. I know we're laughing in the room and I laugh, but don't just laugh, stop using it. Find another way. Be more honest about things because this is the sort of stuff that does get us into trouble. But we've done a certain amount of this ourselves, and I'll come to it. Certainly, we have to move from books, from reports, from the reading that Jerry was talking about. People are too long to read. They're not reading. Part of it is also that. We have to be aware of that. They will be viewing, and if they view, they will read. I'll give a little example. The other day, we visited the Bank of England and we had some time with Mark Carney. We gave him two elements. We gave him a series of slides of SlideShare, and we gave him the book of the economic survey of the United Kingdom from the OECD. He grabbed the SlideShare. He started looking at the visuals. He started circling them. The book was over here. I think he probably would have taken a look at the book afterwards, but that was really what was grabbing his attention. We got his attention for a short period of time, and we had 15 messages that we got through really well visually. Listening and talking to the right people, and Christine has mentioned, people like us in this room, how often do we get out and about? There's a really good example that I picked up on recently. He had a chance to talk to Andy Heldain yesterday evening. He's getting out and about. We all need to get out and about to the places that we wouldn't normally go to, to meet the people that we wouldn't normally speak to. That's a really difficult exercise, but it's a very necessary exercise. We may not like what we hear, but it's very important that we actually hear what concerns people out there, rather than what we think they're concerned about. Respond to the geography of discontent, get out into those zones and areas that we normally don't get out to. We don't go beyond capitals very much at the OECD. It's all capital-based. Public engagement, co-creation and co-construction. Examples on geography of discontent, bringing people into the OECD who have been out and about. A young guy called JD Taylor took his bike, cycled all the way around the United Kingdom, Midlands, the North, in France. La France Periferic, Christophe Guyill, very similar exercise. I'm almost there. When you're talking about international trade, it's this sort of stuff, short videos that we did around an award that we were given for international trade. If it doesn't improve the well-being of people, it ain't worth it. We have to be saying this stuff. These are means. They are not ends. That's the sort of language we are capable of using at the OECD. Oh, dear. Yes. Yes. When you want to get inside people's heads and you want to say that NAFTA can be actually helpful, talk about a relay race. You're all in it together. You drop the baton, you all lose. You all get through, and there are three or four of you, you can all win. I know the simplification there, but at least people understand what you're talking about. When we are talking, listening to the right people, that's the outer analytics, analytics of social media and our impact, the impact that we had in the Brexit debate. We were nowhere. We were absolutely nowhere. The audience was 35 million people, 0.08% was our audience share. Take a look at that. I showed that. I'm in triple foggy time. That was the reach of the OECD, and I did it deliberately to shock the OECD, because that is the world that we inhabit now. If you want to influence, unfortunately, it's a very difficult thing. Use visual arguments. Left-hand side, parental leave, huge retweeting around something like that. We produce good visuals. Ed Conway at Sky News grabs them, and he puts them on national television, which again, as Christine showed, has real impact for us. We need to be thinking in terms of that. What is the real world impact of the policies that we put in place? Like PISA and the transformation that's taken place in this country in Germany, when many of you may remember, 10 years ago, Germany wanted to take away Andreas Schleicher's nationality because he had the temerity to rank Germany 10th out of the countries that were involved in this project, or indeed addressing telecommunications or in Israel, rent levels. There's loads of real world impact stories. On civic engagement, we've done something pretty cool at the OECD, the Better Life Index, we put citizens at the centre. You actually have to be the ones to say what's most important to your well-being. On the basis of that, we are then able to capture that information first, foray into big data. Last but not least, when we're thinking about communication, bear one thing in mind, the thing that you've been doing over the last 12 minutes, and that is listening to me. Thank you very much for doing it. Keep doing it because that's probably the key to success in the future.