 Thank you, Peter. Afternoon, everyone. It's been marvellous, hasn't it? It's been great. So well done to Christine and the team for putting this on. In fact, round of applause actually for Christine and the team. So that's enough. Hold some back for the end of my speech. The there's been a revolution. We've heard about the revolution, haven't we, the last day in a bit? A revolution. It's not a word you typically associate with central banks, but it's happened, and it's happened in the communications area. We've heard lots about the scale of that revolution. So an example of that, I will utter more words by way of public communication today than the governor of the Bank of England would have 50 years ago in a whole year. In a whole year. So 50 years ago, the governor would issue one speech a year in the city of London to an audience about this size with some differences. They were all men, without exception. They were all white. They were all at least middle class. They were all at least middle aged, and many of them were drunk. And I look at you today and, you know, some of you aren't men. Some of you aren't white. Some of you aren't middle aged. Some of you might not be middle class, and some of you, I think, are sober. So that's a, I mean, that's how far we've come. And the volume is also impressive. One speech a year. These days, every central bank on the planet, I would say, is issuing probably multiple communications every day of the year. So last year, give an example, Bank of England published four and a half million words, four and a half million words, over 600 publications, so that revolution has happened and it's good news that it has. The bad news is, has that really moved the dial when it comes to the things that really matter? And Christine and others have made the point very eloquently that on some dimensions it has not. We are still living, are we not, as central banks with a twin deficits problem? There is a deficit of understanding and there is a deficit of trust. And despite that revolution, those deficits have not shrank over the last 20 or 30 years. If anything, they have widened a bit. So when it comes to understanding, it's still the case, if you ask the general public, that a very small minority would understand even what the core concepts of GDP or inflation mean. And the self-same is true of the policies that central banks are carrying out, be interest rates or QE or forward guidance. That level of understanding has flatlined at the same time as our communications have exponentiated. And in the sphere of trust, if anything, the line has been moving downwards over time rather than upwards, at least as far as the general public is concerned. Which begs the question, at why? There's no one answer to that. We've been given several answers already. But one of mine would be that for all of that revolution in communications, it is still largely the case these days that central bank still talk almost exclusively to men. But by men I've now capitalised because the M here now is markets, the E is economists and the N is news agencies. When it comes to our channels of communication, we are still principally working the M, E, N channels, using existing information intermediaries as our conduit to the broader public. And that I think needs to change for three quite distinct reasons, one of which is that we're really doing more than enough to cater for the needs of markets, of economists and news agencies. For sure we can refine our messaging so that they understand better, but that's not really where the action and returns are highest. Not least, this is the second point, because those information intermediaries are increasingly being disintermediated from various sources, including social media. The third point would be that those beyond the intermediaries, in other words, the general public, what Jerry called the new audience, are the ones that matters. They are the ones that central banks serve. They are the ones spending in the economy. They are the ones forming expectations in the economy. Those are the ones whose trust we need somehow to recapture. And there are lots of examples of why we're talking past the public. I mean language is one. It was mentioned just yesterday that most of the words and sentences we communicate in are talking past most of the general public. My stylised fact here is that at least 95% of what central banks say is inaccessible to at least 95% of the population. I am being charitable with my fractions when I say that. It is changing, but there is a long way still to go. Let's take this conference. We look around the room. How many representatives of civil society are here? With the possible exception of Sylvie, not many. We are all pretty much drawn from the same pool, pretty much talking to each other about pretty much the same things. So how to change? Let me mention three areas all of which have been touched upon already and just give my take on each of those. They are communications, conversations and education, as three from what could be a potentially very long list of things we might do somewhat differently. First communications. On that, it's a point that's been made repeatedly, but of the long list of things that could be done communications-wise, I think two Ss, simplification and storytelling, I would give a position of real prominence, much further to go on the simplification front. Mark mentioned yesterday, we started a couple of weeks ago to provide layered content to our regular inflation reports, so still the technical stuff's there, but two simpler layers sitting above it. Let me tell you, doing that is not an act of communications. It's not an act of communications, it's an act of policy. This is an old Marshall McLuhan point about the medium really can be the message and nowhere is that more true than the sphere of central banking and the sphere of monetary policy. In agreeing those simplified layers of messaging, the one-line layer, that's not a job for the communications department, it's a job for the policy committee. That's because it is a policy message first and foremost on which they must sign off. To the conversation that occurred in the previous panel, how do you get buy-in from other areas of your central bank? You tell them it is policy. It's not a nice to have, it's a have to have. These words are what policy is, so you'd best tune in otherwise you'll miss it. If you go from simplification to storytelling, again, there's much further we could go and there's distance travelled already, of course. Let's take yesterday. Yesterday, in the first session, we heard about Delphic and Odyssean forward guidance in a way that is storytelling, that is drawing upon Greek mythology to tell a story about monetary policy. Let me tell you, that leaves most people completely cold. The stories at land need to be localised and personalised, but most people, Greek mythology, is neither localised nor personalised. So we need to think of stories that are going to land, working backwards from what impact we want to have. Let me give you an example. QE, QE, OK? We all did it, including the Bank of England, where did great efforts try and communicate what it was about at the outset, because it's quite complicated. The aim in all this, to be clear, was to try and boost confidence in the economy and get people to spend. So conversations on QE early on were like this, and lots of them, as I've mentioned in many of you. Member of public, what is QE? Is it money printing? Bank of England? No. It is definitely not money printing. But let me explain to you, what we do, simply, is that we purchase a range of assets at various maturities using our open market operations, typically from non-bank financial institutions, whose accounts at the central bank are credited in a way that creates central bank money. Did that inspire confidence, do you think? That encouraged you to spend? Well, I mean, you could reach your own conclusion on that. He's a different conversation we could have had. Andy is QE money printing. Andy, yes, yes, and spend it, you know? Now, of course, there's risks of oversimplifying, but there's also risks from overcomplicating. And from where we start, I would err on the side of simplifying. Second, conversations. He didn't talk about this listening as much as talking. Really important for Heunion reasons, Heunion reasons, which is not polluting the message. That's very important. There's a simpler reason why we should listen a bit more, though. That's because we might find stuff out about what's happening in the economy. I said, economists, this isn't second nature. This requires social skills, right? You can spot an economist with social skills because they're the ones staring at your shoes rather than their own when they're talking with you. This is not on the bloodstream. Typically, as economists, the way we ask questions is in a very closed fashion, right? We frame the questions to fit our facts, to fit our theories, to fit our conjectures. We ask Henry Ford-type questions, which is, would you, Sylvie, would you like to buy a red car or a black car? And Sylvie answers a red car. No, I'm a model. See, that is the right answer, but we ask it. We ask the survey question, like you say red, we say red. Sylvie's a red person. But Sylvie's asking, I don't want a Ford car at all. I want a bicycle or a beer or some bitcoin. The question is framed when it comes to asking those we don't typically ask questions of. We don't know what issues matter most to them. And by framing the question, we get an answer that may make no sense to them. Asking open questions in a listening fashion is absolutely fundamental. And I think it was answered earlier on, mentioned that lots of ways of doing that. It is not, by any means, easy. One way that we're experimenting with or that I'm experimenting with is to go on a tour around the UK with very different sets of groups, charities, faith groups, community groups, and serving in listening mode. By the way, lesson to me and to all of us, I committed publicly to do this, to visit every county in the UK on my tour before checking how many there were. Error, so there are loads. So on current schedule, I will finish my tour about 2078. Nonetheless, the key is asking those open questions. To have economists, here's the point, act like anthropologists, okay? Anthropologists in the room, they listen. They act as the fly on the wall. Where economists' inclination is to act as the wasp in the room. And the change we need to affect is to become more fly on the wall-like when it comes to the act of listening. Final point, three minutes. Education, what's interesting is despite those twin deficits of trust and understanding, the general public, when asked, readily accept that economics really matters to their everyday lives. You know, 80, 90% believe this is really important. They don't understand it, but they recognise it as really important. And when asked, would you like to see more of this educationally, almost all of them say yes? And on this front, our educational systems nationally right now are not doing the job they need to do. Very few people are given any formal training in the early years in the economy, in the financial system, in terms of what it matters to them, how it might shape and influence their decisions. And that's a big deficit. That is a big deficit to fill. And to study economics at 16 or 18 or later, you've effectively had no exposure at all. When it comes to issues of literacy and numeracy, our educational systems require, typically, universality. But when it comes to issues of financial literacy, we're very happy, very selective, and that, on average, is not serving us well when it comes to individuals making decisions every day that involve the economy and finance. And when it comes to them understanding what it is that we, as central bankers, do for a living, that deficit in understanding can be filled and ought to be filled. And we're at the bank starting this week, later this week, are making some strides to fill that gap by serving up some material that might form part of the core curriculum in schools between the ages of, say, 11 and 16. And we'll see how that lands. That's one of a number of educational initiatives that we are putting in place to seek to fill at an early year's level that understanding deficit. Let me end, if I may, with a story, actually. So I do a lot of talking in schools for all the reasons I've mentioned, and one more besides, actually, which is it is the best media training known to man or woman. You know, trying to hold the attention of 50, 13-year-olds for an hour. I mean, that's a tough gig, right? They don't care. They don't care. Their feedback is instantaneous and absolutely brutal. This has brought home to me, as up in the Northeast England, one of the poorest towns, actually, in the EU, widespread poverty, low aspiration into the school. They're 50% teacher turnover in the school. 50% teacher turnover. Amazing. And terrible, and terrible. So it's going to be a tough gig. It's 11 or 12-year-olds for an hour talking about the economy, right? So I end with some trepidation. Usual stuff. This is why it matters to you. It matters to you. This is what the Bank of England does for a living. This is what I do for a living, but about my background, which it turns out was very different than theirs, which helps. Helps a lot. It's gone pretty well. We're 59 minutes in. It's all gone pretty well. I think that they're nodding. They haven't nodded off. No one's walked out. No one's thrown anything. This has been all right. Last question. Last question. It was a, I remember to this day, she was in the far, where you are there, she said, last question, she says, I've got two questions. Two questions for you. Who are you? And why are you here? So, see, at that point, that was a pretty good question, actually. Why am I here? And after many hours of introspection and therapy, it all boils down to how you keep score. So you've got an audience of 50 school kids. How do you keep score? How do you measure success? Well, one way of measuring it. Imagine you've 50 kids and one gets it and 49 don't care. What's the score? Have you lost 49 one? No, you've won 1-0. And that applies in schools. Everybody's a much as it applies in societies when central banks speak. We cannot and will not reach everyone. But that's no excuse, no reason not to try and reach someone. And one is enough. One is a start. So should we widen our gaze? Should we extend our reach? Should we make more inclusive our language? Should we make more appealing our personalities as central bankers? Well, if we are to close those twin deficits, we must. Thank you very much.