 So welcome everybody to our panel on how we restore economic growth. My name is Jeff Cutmer. I'll just say very briefly I think we all understand from that small piece of tape and from what we see around us How sizable this challenge is the UN has talked about 255 million people Losing their jobs in 2020. We know the World Bank projection for growth in 2020 is that most countries will experience Recessionary like conditions. So I'm very pleased that we've got a terrific panel just to focus on Actually, how we might think about sustaining and restoring economic growth for 2021 and the years beyond. Let me introduce Bruno LeMairn, Minister of Economy Finance and Recovery for France. Peter Altmaier, Minister of Economic Affairs and Energy for Germany Christine Lagarde, the President of the European Central Bank and member of the Board of Trustees for the World Economic Forum. Herbert Deese, the CEO of Volkswagen and of course David Solomon, the chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs. President Lagarde, maybe I can start with you. Given the recovery is clearly most dependent on the path of the virus at this stage and the lifting of lockdowns in 2021, what is the immediate priority in terms of any further macroeconomic intervention at this stage? Have we reached peak intervention in reality at both a monetary and a fiscal level? And actually, it's the path of the virus now that will matter most. Jeff, let me divide 2021 into two sequences, if I may. I think our hope is still that 2021 is the year of recovery but in two phases. And phase one is clearly one that is still plagued with a very high level of uncertainty as vaccinations are produced, supplied, distributed. As we see more lockdown measures, sometimes more stringent as the variants are also now being rolled out in our societies. And the latest data that we have for the euro area indicates that growth for Q4 is going to be negative, which clearly will have an impact in the first quarter of Q1 in 2021. So we're really looking at a phase one where it is still about crossing that bridge to the recovery, but where the journey seems to be a little bit delayed but should not be derailed. And in terms of policies, what it means for this phase one, it means that fiscal still has to play a dominant role and has to be very active. At the moment when we look at the numbers for the euro area in particular, we see that the net balance from a budgetary point of view is going to be negative 6.1 percent. That's in the cards and in the books. On the monetary front, I have said repeatedly, and I'm happy to repeat, that our goal is to continue to support all sectors of the economy and to make sure that financing conditions remain favorable. And that means, you know, from an abandoning point of view, bond yields point of view, but that financing conditions continue to be favorable or preserved as such. So that's phase one really where we have to stay the cause and make sure that the situation is favorable. If you then cross that bridge and get to the second phase where we are on the other side, economy is reopening, then the challenges are different. Because it's not the economy stupid, I was going to say, but it's not the same economy that we are talking about. And it's most likely going to be a new economy which will be associated with positive developments and also with challenges. I'll mention four of each. In the positive development, many of our advanced economies, particularly in Europe, have leapfrogged by about seven years in terms of digitalization. Second, when you look at the way people actually work, it's very likely that about 20 percent of the time that was worked in offices will be worked from home. Third, technological changes are really affecting and for the better, the pandemic affected sectors. And when you look at the VC capital that is being spent on those particular sectors that are affected by social distancing, it's up 56 percent since December 2019. And finally, and I think that's a critically important point for the longer term policies that have to be adopted now, there is a very strong awareness by people that climate change is an issue that must be dealt with as a matter of priority. There's been a survey which was recently conducted by IBSOS which indicates that more than 70 percent in the 16 largest countries want climate change and the fight against it to be their priority. So those four factors are clearly positive developments that will have to be taken into account. On the other side of the challenges that we see going forward, number one, people. When you look at the unemployment numbers, it is not so bad. It's up by about 1.1 percent in the euro area. But that is really hiding actual numbers that are a lot worse because a lot of people are being discouraged from showing up as looking for jobs because they know that they will not find those jobs. Second, when you look at the low-skilled versus high-skilled workers, it's the former who have been most affected rather than the latter. You have minus 6 percent of workers in those low-skilled jobs up to the third quarter and you have 3 percent up more skilled workers that are being hired in our economy. Third one is that lockdowns that are affecting the economy are affecting all companies. Typically, when we have a recession, it plays as a cleansing element. The pandemic is actually hitting the productive and the non-productive operations and that is also going to have an impact in terms of scarring going forward. And fourth, when we look at investment in innovation, that has gone down as well. R&D numbers have gone down by 14 percent in the euro area this year in 2020. So those four factors are going to be challenging when we look at policies going forward, which will have to factor in what needs to be done. And for that purpose, in the beautiful presentation that we saw, digitalization, green development and the financing that goes with it, focus on education, helping for the longer term. But it means critically favoring and supporting investment into this new economy. So while both on the fiscal front and on the monetary policy front, authorities will have to stay the course and to continue support. At the same time, investment will have to really be focused in order to lay the ground for a new economy where scarring will have to be hopefully avoided or reduced by the measures that will be taken. As you point out, in the short term, monetary policy must hold the course. Can I ask you, there was a change in language around the PEP statement last week. We seem to move from target to envelope on the PEP and the market took that as hawkish. And then we saw things like Italian yields trade higher on the back of that. Was that just a misunderstanding on the market's behalf as to to what extent the PEP, the full 1.85 trillion euros could be used? It was not a new development by any account because it was clearly stated in the statement, as you mentioned, of December. And there has been no particular change in that respect. We took the view that the driving, the compass that we need to have is favorable financing conditions and making sure that in this world of high uncertainty that we have around related to pandemic related to vaccinations related to lockdown measures and so on and so forth. Financing conditions should be a certainty. And investors, whether, you know, be they consumers or corporates or sovereigns should feel confident that the financing would be available for consumption for investment. So it there is no change in what we decided in December. It is still still the concept of an envelope that will be of the appropriate demand dimension in order to preserve the financing conditions and make sure that they are favorable for consumption for investment by all sectors of the economy. And that will continue to be the case. I think I've said very strongly and I'm happy to repeat that number one, the ECB will be in the market for an extended period of time and the ECB will make sure that financing conditions are preserved at a favorable level in order to make sure that we ultimately deliver on the inflation target that we have. So it's no change in that respect whatsoever since December. And the envelope, as I said, can be smaller if financing conditions remain favorable, but it can be larger if it needs to be larger to maintain those favorable financing conditions. There is no ambiguity and no doubt in our minds. Thank you so much for that. Minister Altmaier, if I could come to you as we look at this pandemic, it's extraordinary that tariffs are a tax on trade and a tax on growth. How will Europe and Germany specifically persuade the new Biden administration to roll them back? Well, I do not believe that we will have to persuade the new administration. My personal belief is that many of the people I know personally at least from the past are already persuaded that we have to rely more on open markets, that we have to rely again on multilateralism. This was something that was highly controversial in the inner U.S. debate for four years. And now we should give them a chance of not only developing but also implementing their ideas. We will engage in a very intensive exchange of views and ideas. It is a critical situation. On the one hand, we have a recession worldwide as the poorer countries are suffering much more than the wealthier ones. The second thing is we have learned something, some lessons from the past recession and the banking crisis. International finances, Christine Lagarde has pointed out, have remained stable during the pandemic. We have been able, after the first wave of the pandemic, to re-establish supply chains. And now the question is, can we encourage economic growth despite the ongoing pandemic? And this is something that we should have in mind, even if some countries like Israel or the UK will manage to have a vaccine for most of the population within a month, for others, for poorer countries. It will take not only months but a year or two until this pandemic gets over. And what we have to learn is, how can we organize economic growth and success during the pandemic, without a further distortion of level playing fields? And I see as Christine Lagarde has already said, I see a good chance to create synergies, synergies between economic growth and climate protection, climate policy, implementation of the Paris climate agreement, to give one example. And this relates to green hydrogen. We have realized that green hydrogen is a missing link of energy transition in most of the industrialized countries. We will have to import it from other countries. So if we could organize an international green hydrogen infrastructure, where it is produced in countries with lots of sunshine and wind, and when it is shipped to other countries, or even where in those countries, because some of the green products will be fabricated with the green hydrogen in southern America, in other countries, developing countries, then it could have a very stimulating effect to the world economy as such. Minister, many of these projects require close coordination among Western governments and Western powers. Do you think it was a tactical mistake to sign the China-EU finance deal ahead of the inauguration of the Biden administration? No, I think this was not a mistake, because what we have signed is, I would say, a twin, in large parts of the twin of arrangements the U.S. already have with China. And it's about creating a level playing field. So I'm very optimistic that we can develop and negotiate and sign more similar agreements worldwide, and that the U.S. will also follow this path in their negotiations with other countries worldwide. Minister Lamar, let me come to you. You said last week that you see a change in position in the U.S. on taxing tech giants structurally. Clearly, this is part of the restoration of growth. But surely any new taxes at this time send a negative message to all businesses about them investing for growth. How do you balance the two things? I think that you can have two objectives for the short term. The first objective, as Christine Lagarde just explained, is to continue supporting the sectors that have been the most severely hit by the crisis. And I just want to insist on the fact that fiscal has to remain, the fiscal policy has to remain very active since this is not the end of the pandemics. And many sectors, the erotic sector, for instance with Airbus, is still asking for more financial support. And it must be clear in all the open countries that till the pandemic is still striking our economies, we need to have a fiscal support to these sectors. But we also have to think about the future. And as Peter just said, we have to, first of all, invest on innovation, new technologies, and do our best efforts to keep the same level of investments. Otherwise, we clearly run the risk with European countries to go out of the technological race of the 21st century. And we have to think about the kind of economy we want to build. We want to build a sustainable economy. We want to reduce the inequalities among nations. And we want to reduce also the inequalities in the international taxation system. The winners of the economy crisis are the digital giants. How can you explain to some sectors that have been severely hit by the crisis and that are paying their due level of taxes that the digital giants will not have to pay the same amount of taxes? This is unfair. And this is also inefficient from a financial point of view. And I think this is very good news that the new Secretary for the Treasury, Janet Yellen, just explained to the US Senate that she was open about the idea of thinking about a new international taxation with the two piters, first of all, digital taxation, and of course also a minimum taxation on corporate tax. So I think that we are on the right track. There is a possibility of finding an agreement on this new international taxation system by the end of this spring 2021. And I can tell you that we will do our utmost efforts to pave the way for an agreement. And as I introduced this panel, I mentioned the need to get the vaccine programs running smoothly. Is there a risk that France's slow rollout will delay the speed of the recovery there? So I think that President Macron made very clear that we want to accelerate on the vaccine because we are fully aware that there is a direct link between vaccine and economic recovery. And I also want to make clear that the key challenge that we all have to face is to give a short-term response to the consequences of the crisis. I mean, the social consequences, the economic consequences on some very specific sectors while building the future. And that's clearly the most difficult challenge that we have to face. Because of course, the easy solution would be to focus only on the short-term responses. It would be a strategic mistake for all Western countries and especially for European countries. We have to give our short-term response while thinking about the future, remaining in the investment race and the innovation race, while building new technologies, funding disruptive technologies, and thinking about the kind of economy we want to build together. And can I just follow up on that? If regulatory reform and restructuring is part of the key to lifting growth, is it time for France to embrace foreign investment, even if it means that you lose a supermarket or a yoghurt maker to a foreign buyer? I can see what is behind your question. I want to be very clear on the question of Carrefour. Everybody can understand that it was not the right timing, and it was not the right way of approaching an investment of such an importance in France during an economic crisis. Everybody can understand that. And I can assure you that I'm deep convinced that the U.S., if a foreign investor wanted to buy Walmart, for instance, would have given exactly the same response. No. And if in Germany, someone wanted to build, for instance, Volkswagen with a Herbert attending our meeting, I'm deeply convinced that the response would have been from Peter. No. So our response was quite clear. It was no. It does not mean that we are not willing to be the most attractive country in Europe. And I just can confirm that we want to be the most attractive country in Europe for foreign investment. We have decided with President Macron to maintain all the fiscal measures and all the reductions of taxes that we had planned from the very beginning of the mandate of Emmanuel Macron. And we are just out of a very important meeting called Choose France, where many CEOs of all the planets decided to attend the meeting because they want to invest in France. And I want to tell them you are most welcome in France. Please, come in our territory, invest in France. You are much welcome. And do not mix the single question of Carrefour with the bigger question of France and our attractiveness. Minister, thank you so much for your answer. David Solomon, let me come to you. President Biden appears to be now getting pushback on the need for another 1.9 trillion package at this stage. We've heard a lot of the other speakers talk about the need for fiscal support still through the first half of 2021. But in America, is it actually necessary with consensus GDP forecasts running anywhere between four and six and a half percent? I think your own bank is towards the upper end for 2021. Is it necessary for another 1.9 trillion to be directed at the economy? So I appreciate that question. And there's an enormous amount of focus on the size of additional fiscal stimulus that's necessary here in the US. I think one thing is for clear, one thing is absolutely clear, we do need some more fiscal stimulus to continue to bridge the gap, to continue to allow us to move through this tunnel and get to the other side. There's still an enormous amount of uncertainty, as other panelists have talked about in the context of the vaccine rollout and how that will proceed. I do think that it's appropriate, though, to think about things in the context of that stimulus that are really necessary right now to drive us through that bridge. There are broader policy issues, some of which we've been discussing here so far in the panel, about more inclusive participation over time that clearly need to be addressed but don't necessarily need to be addressed right now at the end of January. And so I think in the context of bipartisan progress, it would be important to focus on those things that are necessary to get money where it's needed to continue to create this bridge so that we can have more sustained economic recovery until we can get to the other side, until we have more people vaccinated and then that trajectory can continue. In the near term, I think you've expressed some reservations or should I say concern about the froth around SPACs and other capital market activity. How real is the risk to financial stability as you see it at the moment? Because obviously dealing with one crisis, we certainly don't need another. Well, I think you need to separate the context of the potential for volatility and some excess in markets with the word crisis. And so at the moment, I certainly see things in the market that are concerning to me. We have very, very low rates and we're clearly going to have low rates for a long period of time. When you have low rates and capital is very inexpensive, it obviously does fuel some speculation. There's benefit and we need it during the time of the pandemic of this very, very loose monetary policy, but there's consequence on the other side. I do think that it's appropriate to be looking at something like SPACs and thinking about what the consequence of this capital markets innovation can be. As I said last week on our earnings call, there's benefit. I think this is a good capital markets innovation, but like many innovations, it can go too far. And I think at this point, there's an enormous amount of capital being accumulated and the incentives may need to be rebalanced and that needs to be rebalanced over time. I think at some point, the market will naturally flush some of this excess out, but that doesn't necessarily mean when the market flushes that excess out that we have some sort of a market crisis, it can be just a rebalancing of markets over a period of time. Herbert Dees, the pandemic has exposed supply chain fragility, particularly for you with global chip shortages. Is the right answer going forward now to manufacture closer to home and with, say in your case, German or European suppliers mainly? No, I wouldn't say so. We are also in the future relying very much on open supply chains and shared distributed labor all over the world. And there are manufacturing sites for specific computer chips, which you wouldn't find in parts of Europe, but not even in the United States. So we have to make sure that the markets remain open. The supply chains remain intact. And even this pandemic was tough on logistics. No, we basically, we could manage to get through it. And we have many parts which are really traveling across the world. So our target should be not to become, let's say, regionally fully independent. I think there's a bigger advantage for the world to produce in this, in different locations, wherever there's competitiveness. So that's clearly a vote for an open trading system here. Let me ask you a slightly different question. Christine Lagarde and a lot of other speakers have talked about Build Back Better with a focus on the climate and ESG more broadly. You are grappling with chip shortages. You are grappling with a pandemic. You are electrifying as quickly as you can to meet the new demand for electric vehicles, greener vehicles. But at the same time, you're going to be fined 100 million euros because you missed a climate target. Does that make any sense to you? Isn't that 100 million euros you could better spend in investing in offsets or indeed in electrification? Yeah, definitely. We wouldn't say we didn't like to pay that fine of 100 million. That happened because we just launched a few of our electric cars in the midst of the COVID pandemic. The Porsche Taycan, for instance, the Audiatron. But we missed the targets by a very minor amount by half of a gram basically. We reduced our CO2 footprint by 20% or close to 20% and we will fulfill the targets in 2021. We think that, let's say, the new targets of climate change is an opportunity for innovation, for, let's say, producing cars and mobility with a lower CO2 footprint. I think for the innovators, we consider ourselves as innovators in that industry. It's a chance. Let me bring the conversation then back to you Christine Lagarde, Madam Lagarde, President Lagarde. Constantly trying to work out what is the appropriate approach these days. President Lagarde, let me bring this back to you. We need to see clearly a change that brings about a more equal sharing of the resources and the profits that we generate through global growth. So my question would be, how do we make sure that the climate-related spending that's being touted now as a pathway to growth is not just another cynical transfer of public money to consultants, lawyers and private companies? That's a really good question, Jeff, because I think that a lot of work has already been done and we've covered part of the journey. In other words, there is a political impetus. There is a momentum. The regulators and the policymakers seem to be aligned, certainly in this part of the world, and determined to address the issue of climate change. The situation that we face is that there are multiple dimensions that need to be addressed. I would mention three of them. The first one is including, and by that I mean all these externalities that we have tolerated for such a long time. In other words, the price of destruction of our environment and the cost of climate change, that has to be included so that we have a pricing mechanism and prices that actually reflect the reality. The second is informing because it's also called disclosure in proper parlance, but it means essentially respecting the same principles and indicating what efforts are being made in order to reach the net zero levels that is the target. Three, investing. I think investing in innovation and the three of them actually come together. We all have in the back of our mind very difficult experiences of trying to price carbon, trying to put in place carbon taxation, and clearly if those measures were taken today, we would be in a different place because there has been more investment in innovation and the cost of non-fossil energy that are now produced has gone down significantly. In those days when carbon taxation was a burden on those who needed the energy today, that energy is a lot cheaper and available. These informing, investing in innovation and including they come together and then they interact together. But you're right that we need to measure, we need to rate, we need to understand exactly on a granular and standardized basis who is doing what in what sectors. And the last thing that we would need is the kind of greenwashing that would be based on uncoordinated, non-standardized measurements. So as a result of that, we need to have concerted action by all. Whether it's the rating agencies, whether it is the regulatory principles that apply, whether it is the kind of disclosures that have to be made, all of that needs to work in tandem in order to produce what people actually want. And I think the last thing that they would like to see is that all the public money be actually spent for the benefit of some standard setting processes and mechanisms that would actually give no results. So it needs, it will not be only achieved by the public sector, but it needs to be driven, measured, aligned and set in terms of principles and targets by the public sector so that private participants can actually understand what the prices are, what the markets recognize and how risks are managed. And central banks are not policymakers in that respect, but they will do their share as well. And Minister Altmaier clearly what's critical for the private sector is access to capital and yet as we as we compare Europe and the recovery with the recovery in the United States, its clear bank lending in the Eurozone, a main source of capital is contracting at this point. Structural shifts to market sources of funding seems to be very slow at the EU level and the UK financial services approval process appears to be now being deliberately delayed. Is politics at risk of strangling access to sources of credit for European companies who want to make these investments? Well, I'm, fortunately, I'm not the minister of finance, I'm the minister of the economy. So let me, let me put it like this. What we have very successfully organized in Europe over the last six, seven months is solidarity with regard to support measures that were taken. That was to avoid harm for the economy, for large parts of the economy. And we were quite successful in this and that means lower unemployment, it means lower recession. And that was quite well done. The second point is we have to unleash investment. We have to unleash structural reforms in order to generate the capital and the finance that we need. And this is something that is not yet, not yet fully achieved because we have to restore trust in the capacity of Europe to defend its industrial base, in the capacity of Europe to compete with regard to digitization, with other regions worldwide, with regard to innovation. I mean, we have a situation that we have produced excellent startups in Israel, in Europe, in Germany, but most of them became American citizens after a while. So we have to make sure that the European model becomes, looks more attractive than it has looked for quite some years. That is the big challenge ahead of us. The equality of opportunity as we restore growth is critical, it seems to me. David Solomon, Wall Street has done very well, less so the real economy. Wall Street and the so-called 1% did very well from the GFC recovery. As we look further out, what is the right way to level the playing field when growth comes back strongly? Well, I think, and we talked about this a little bit earlier, Jeff, we've got to continue, we've got to separate actions that are necessary right now from a monetary or fiscal perspective to bridge and get the economy going, and then we have to consider very carefully policies that are more inclusive and allow, as we go forward, broader participation in the economy and solving some of the disparities in the economy that have really been laid bare by the crisis. I think one of the places, for example, that there's no question from a policy perspective, we need to continue to focus is when we look at small businesses, which are such an important part of the economic engine of all economies, and in so many communities play such a vital role, how do we make sure that those businesses, which have so badly been hit by the pandemic, are supported and that we have the right policy to allow them to thrive as we move forward? I think we have to continue to think about policy that's sustainable, that brings more people along, that creates the right distribution, so to speak, but also allows the free markets to innovate, bring investment capital into places where you can create new technologies and spur growth. We've got to get that balance right. And I think that's a policy focus that's going to require a lot of work as we come out of the pandemic and continue to focus in the years ahead. Bruno Leman, you spoke very eloquently about the need for this and how you see digital taxes as playing a role in this. Can I just ask you to pick up the point from the back of David's comments? Would you argue? I know there was a lot of talk about how the employment support schemes in Europe seem to be stronger and more efficient than we saw very early on in the United States in the early days of this pandemic. Do you think Europe can actually show America something when it comes to guaranteeing a more equal sharing of profit to labor rather than just back to capital? I think that we all have to do the lessons from the crisis and we all have to learn from one each other. We have to learn from the U.S. And I think that the U.S. also have to learn from the way we faced the crisis at the European level. And one striking point is that for the first time in our recent history, we have taken, I mean, all the 27 member states and especially the 19 members of the Eurozone the same kind of measures to face the crisis. We have decided to support the employees. And I think it was the right decision. And it will allow us to have a quick rebound as soon as a growth will be back. The same for the private companies. We have decided to provide state-guaranteed loans to the private companies. And it will be very efficient because it has avoidance to have two important numbers of bankruptcies. And it will allow us as soon as growth will be back to have a quick rebound. And thanks to that kind of measures, I think that we have been able to build a kind of new European economic model which could maybe inspire the United States. On the other hand, we all have to do the lessons from the lack of capital and you just raised the issue and David also the lack of capital in Europe. This is a major issue. If we want to have more important companies, if we want to be able to fund the new technologies, I mean, hydrogen, artificial intelligence, the new companies in the field of disaster rates, for instance, we need to have a better access to finance and to capital, which means that we have to accelerate on the capital market union and on the banking union. That's clearly a point on which we are too weak. We have to accelerate. I know that Christine shares exactly the same point of view. And we have to do really our best efforts to build a capital market union as soon as possible, to build a strong banking union as soon as possible, and to make Europe an international currency as soon as possible. And I want to thank Christine Lagarde for all the efforts she's doing on that direction. Herbert, let me give you a tricky one just before we wrap up here. China has just overtaken the United States in terms of attracting FDI. I think 40% of your sales now are into China. China is not going away. In fact, as part of the path to recovery in the West, it seems to me more engagement with China has to happen. How do we negotiate the challenge, though, of engaging with a partner who at times doesn't seem to play fair and crosses the line when it comes to the treatment of many of its own citizens? I think that China is moving in the right direction. I think the treaty between Europe and China is a good move forward. Just last year, 2020, we could make sure that two of our joint ventures are now majority owned by Volkswagen, which was over 30 years, basically, since we are there, impossible. We have bought a major stake in one of the major battery suppliers. So actually, for me, it feels that it's easier to invest in China than China is allowed to invest here in Germany or in some other places. We are clearly advocating for a further opening up of China, for further commitment towards China, and for multilateralism, which also allows always on a fair basis. I think always we have to negotiate hard with China, because it is an imbalance. It's a huge market. They have their own interest, but they're also depending on the West. We are depending on China. Let's get back to a world where we benefit from each other development and not just try to isolate and make things for ourselves. First, China is a huge opportunity. China also technologically is advancing fast. We are the biggest automotive or car manufacturer in China. We have a strong asset there. We have many development engineers there. We are developing in China also technology, which we are then using in Europe and in the United States. I really have high hopes that after that, hopefully, it was a transition period where, let's say, the world became smaller and more isolated and polarized again. We are hopefully heading back to a more open world with free trade and hopefully at least bilateral agreements, but hopefully worldwide agreements for open trade. I think it's much better to try to cooperate and work with China than try to isolate China. Also, at the last point, as this was probably your point, addressing our set also, and we cannot, let's say, we share not the same value like in China. We see clearly that democracy is not probably developing fast enough, but still, I think trade, communicating, being there participating, is much better than moving out and leaving China. Let me finish with an audience question. Thank you, everybody, for tuning in to watch our panel here. The question is for you, President Lagarde. Jody Padilla writes from Global Shapers. How do we build this new economy, this recovery that recognizes the importance of women's contribution and reinforces its economic value? Certainly by bringing more women to the table. And various countries have demonstrated through the use of quotas, of targets, of minimums. France is one of them that actually now has 40% of women on the board of companies. That progress can be made and that women can do the job just as well as men. Thank you very much. And thank you very much. And thank you to Minister Le Maire, Minister Altmaier, Herbert Deese and David Solomon for joining us on this panel. And thank you, everybody, for tuning in.