Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am not going to. If abolished, the class K contribution of 4% made by a range of public officeholders, including the President, Members of both Houses and members of the Judiciary, would result in increases in net pay of up to €8,000 for some politicians and judges.

The class K contributions were introduced at a time when the State was experiencing an unprecedented financial crisis. Payment of class K contributions was one of the measures that ensured that public officeholders contributed to the resolution of that crisis. In particular, the introduction of these contributions meant that officeholders in general paid the same marginal rate of all statutory deductions from their salaries as most employees.

It is not clear if the Senators submitting this amendment envisage any other change in the PRSI liabilities and associated cover for the relevant officeholders. The amendment does not provide for this. It only provides for the abolition of the levy. Even were that not the case, I am unsure as to whether it would be appropriate for the State to extend additional cover.The key benefit available under the social insurance system is the State contributory pension. As I have said, most officeholders have very generous occupational pension arrangements already. Any extension of cover for the State contributory pension to officeholders would have to be done in conjunction with the examination of the current occupational pension arrangements. Again, it is simply not sustainable or desirable that public officeholders would gain a State contributory pension on top of their existing occupational pension.

As I indicated previously, I will be speaking to my colleagues, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, on this issue. It is complex and does not relate solely to PRSI. It would have to be examined having regard to occupational pension entitlements generally and the potential alternative that Senator Craughwell suggested, namely, replacing the measure with a tax. I understand the value of public service pensions, including the faster accrual schemes, is something the Public Service Pay Commission has been asked to take into account in its work. Accordingly, it is not opportune to start recalibrating and enhancing the benefits for officeholders at this stage.

I can understand the valid point the Senators are making, which is that officeholders must pay class K PRSI at a rate of 4% but receive no benefits from it. Senators are asking whether it should be a matter of not receiving the benefits or replacing the system altogether with a tax. That is not something I can deal with in isolation. It must have regard to the whole issue of public sector pay, pensions for public servants and tax. I really need to have a conversation about this with the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform to determine-----