We looked at two scenarios. It would have been almost natural for a union organization to tell you that it would be preferable to enhance the public plan, but that's ultimately not the scenario we chose. That's essentially because the mere fact of going back a little in time brings the risk of extremely high costs for future generations, given the demographic context.
We also believe in the need to offer coverage for the entire working population. We use the legislation passed, in particular, in the Netherlands, Australia and England as our model. It has the effect of forcing all employers to allocate a portion of their payroll to pension plan contributions. That subsequently makes it possible to establish good supplementary plans, among other things, if that can be done on an inter-sectoral basis, hence the need to establish an inter-corporate base.
This makes it possible both to limit the risk and to be realistic, in view of the fact that the industrial structure includes an enormous number of small and medium-size enterprises. We are more interested in this model than the idea of enhancement. This should be substantial so that real income protection at retirement is guaranteed. We think that by acting retroactively we would shift a very heavy burden of costs, which we consider prohibitive, onto future generations.