Mr. Fergal O'Brien:

There were two specific questions. Ms McFadden may want to come back in on some of the labour cost issues we have touched on to add a bit more colour. On the salary range, our main focus is on trying to eliminate unnecessary administrative burden, where possible.

I believe the Vice Chairman is right in that once we go above a certain threshold in terms of tax treatment, it will be more beneficial for employees to go the more traditional occupational route. It is really important that where we have those schemes, we are not doing anything that undermines them. We also note that our coverage challenge is predominantly in the lower- and middle-income brackets. For us, it is about limiting the administrative burden. It is a question of meeting our objective of growing coverage rates while getting the balance right by not imposing excessive administrative costs on employers in managing opting in, opting out and re-enrolment.

There are two other issues we would like to discuss in this regard. Ms McFadden may revert to the first of these, which is about the initial enrolment from day one of employment. This is significantly different from existing occupational schemes and does not fit with probationary practices in the workplace. That is something we would appreciate the opportunity to comment on. Ms McFadden might do so.

The second factor is obviously re-enrolment after two years rather than three. Again, this is all about trying to minimise the administrative burden while not damaging the policy on growing coverage. That is very much our view on the income threshold. We do not believe we will lose much coverage by having a threshold of €50,000 rather than €80,000.

On engagement, under the workings of the Labour Employer Economic Form, LEAF, we have had, probably in pre-Covid times, a subgroup on pensions. The key actors – the employers and the trade unions, working collaboratively with the Department of Social Protection and the Government on the issue – were engaging. We found that to be a very positive experience. That structure has now been re-established, just in very recent months. The group is actually having its first meeting in this iteration next week. We see that very much as a positive. It is about having a constructive two-way dialogue. We are significantly interested parties. We and the trade unions want to make this work but in a way that balances what will be additional costs and an administrative burden against our objective of improving coverage. That engagement and communication would allow us to engage with our members and bring them on this journey towards improving pensions coverage. This is incredibly important. Ultimately, it is an issue for employers and employees. The employers are the ones who will have to pay for and administer this along with the State. They are the key players, so we would very strongly support the further development of the LEAF model.