I would agree with you in the following way.
I just want to put on the table that with the Americans, it is far from clear that wage-fixing is going to be a slam dunk. So far, we have preliminary decisions. They are not in sectors that are analogous to what happened here with the hero pay, something that I think could have been coordinated without communication. That's something we have to realize. When you have strong market players—a few dominant players in a market—it's not that hard, necessarily, to pick up signals without communicating directly, so I think we have to put that out.
With the Americans, it's far from clear. They are going on the basis that the Sherman Act has always prohibited buy-side cartels. There is a fairly strong opposition to that on the part of those who are being accused.
We're not at the stage where I can say we have a ton of evidence. They're talking strong talk, and I'm not disagreeing with them on the principle that if there are deliberate attempts to fix wages that it isn't a bad thing. However, I really wonder whether we're going to see that. It's new. The memo that came out in the United States is from 2016.
This is not actually the area in which I think we're out of step with the rest of the world. I think we're out of step on a lot of other things. With wage-fixing, I think we need to take a serious look. I agree with you that there can be serious conduct and it can be problem. Perhaps exploring a civil remedy might be a good idea. I wonder whether that's actually the problem that's being put on the table.
I worry that we're making a promise about solving a problem that in fact is not a problem that can be solved by the criminal law. That's my first worry.
The second thing is that we have no—