Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I found this submission interesting. It challenged one of the central tenets that has been put across, which we have not heard challenged before, namely, the 25% top-up. The ESRI states fairly boldly that it does not seem to have a huge impact on people's decisions when you make it a default pension option. That is probably the most interesting point for the witnesses to expand on, alongside the research the ESRI relied on in making that assertion and what it found from that.

Building on that, if we remove the assumption of the 25% top-up, what are the implications for the tax liabilities or what are the tax implications? Are we saying the relief should only be 20% or are we reflecting on how some of the auto-enrolment will behave under a 20% relief? There is also the 40% tax relief regime. That has implications for an employer's obligation to provide an occupational scheme, which is presumably supposed to be superior to an auto-enrolled scheme. Will it remove some of that obligation from an employer's point of view? Will it suggest to them that they can step back and leave auto-enrolment to do the heavy lifting?

In the context of another issue, which has been raised many times, it seems to me from my first glance at the ESRI's submission that it may address some of the flexibility issues regarding the movability of that pot subsequently and the ability to top up all of those things.

I am also interested in the other points the ESRI made around affordability and compulsion. If we have time, I might come back and ask the witnesses for their opinion around environmental, social and governance concerns. The ESRI did not address them in its submission but the witnesses may have thoughts on them.

The thing that jumped out most at me, because it runs counter to much of what we have heard at the committee, is the point about people's understanding of the 25% top-up. Additionally, if we were looking at that 6-6-2 breakdown to get to the 14%, what would the implications be if we just moved to a 20% relief?