I raise an issue that goes to the heart of the fairness and equality of public service employment, which is the treatment of single teachers under the revised spouse and children's pension scheme, introduced by the Department of Education and Youth under Circular PEN14/05. Since September 2005, every teacher appointed in the public service has been automatically enrolled in the scheme. Membership is compulsory. It deducts 1.5% of gross salary from take home pay every month to fund the benefit, payable only to surviving spouses, civil partners and dependant children, yet under section 6 of this same circular, the right of the single person to a refund that existed under the previous scheme was abolished. Today, a teacher from Carrignavar or somewhere else in my constituency with no dependants, who paid for benefits throughout their entire career will not receive one. There is no refund, no opt-out and no credit at retirement or death. That means in real terms that teachers on €55,000 per annum pay almost €825 a year, or almost €29,000 over a 35-year career deducted from their salaries with no possible return. To my mind, that is not contribution; that is an inequitable levy imposed on those through either choice or circumstances who are unmarried without children.

It penalises the single person, predominantly women, and sits uneasy with the values of a modern republic that claims to guarantee equality before the law. Article 40.1 of the Constitution enshrines equality. The Employment Equality Act 1998 prohibits discrimination on marital status, yet here we have the State acting as an employer, forcing a deduction that treats single people differently from married people. It is totally unequal. I ask the Tánaiste and his Government if they will intervene and lead a cross-party departmental review with the Ministers for education and public expenditure to examine the operations and fairness of the revised spouse and children's pension scheme, access to mechanisms to refund an opt-out credit for those who are contributing without dependents, and engage formally with unions and equality bodies to deliver a fair and modern reformed system. This is not about money; this is about fairness, respect, and equality for every public servant - married, single, gay, straight, male or female. It is about righting the wrong of an injustice that has persisted for almost two decades.

The Deputy raises an interesting point. He has raised somewhat similar points about inheritance tax and the likes in the past as well. It is about fairness and equality in how our tax systems, schemes and the likes treat people. It is a debate that is genuinely worth having and it is certainly thought-provoking. It is quite a technical and complex area. Obviously Deputies do not have to give notice of the issues coming up on Leader's Questions, so allow me to do my best on it. Should we have a conversation about it and scrutiny of it? Absolutely, we should. I balance those comments by saying that equality is absolutely vital and I am proud of the journey this country has been on regarding equality and many of the positive changes we and the people of Ireland have taken over recent years. We also need to look at another important word, which is "sustainability" of pension schemes, particularly when the demographics of our country and indeed world are changing, with an ageing population and more people relying on that.

Not to take away from the Deputy's specific query, but I make the broad point that often in a republic, we pay into things that we may not necessarily directly benefit from but we do so because we believe there is societal good, perhaps for dependants or children left behind. There is a debate about what I get in return for what I am paying into and whether there is a case for an opt-out in certain schemes versus what we should all be expected to pay into to create that sort of republic that plans and prepares for the future and those left behind.

The Deputy has certainly provoked a thought in me. It is an issue that merits further consideration. Maybe at the relevant Oireachtas committee, we could ask that there be a presentation or a degree of scrutiny. That is a matter for the committee, but I would certainly be supportive of that. This changed quite a number of years ago. My understanding from general recollection is that it changed on the grounds of ensuring the scheme could be sustainable. The Deputy is asking how that compares with the equality obligations and that merits discussion.

I thank the Tánaiste for his reply. The policy itself offends the basis of fairness in the State. I am delighted that the Tánaiste has recognised that I have brought up in this House the unfairness when it comes to inheritance tax and when it comes to single couples. There are 36,000 single couples who do not enjoy the same benefits as the married couples, and 1 million people are childless in this country. If this was a private company doing this to its employees, there would be hell to pay, because it would be in breach of the Employment Equality Act. I am asking the Tánaiste to lead a delegation across Departments to see where we are in breach of equality.

There is a constitutional test when it comes to equality, whether it is an inheritance tax or the opt-in or opt-out in this particular circular. I accept what the Tánaiste is saying about what we pay in and pay out and what we get for things but in all fairness, charging someone €55,000 over 35 years that no dependant, no family member, can benefit from does not seem fair at all to me.

Like I said, these are debates worth having because the composition of families and households has changed significantly in our country in relatively recent times. Sometimes schemes and legislation can take time to catch up with that changing reality. These are always issues that we, as legislators and policymakers, should scrutinise.

When that opt-out was ended quite a number of years ago, long before my time in government, the grounds were also expanded to include more categories through which more people could benefit but I am open to correction on that. There is a broader point that two citizens could pay into a whole variety of schemes, including PRSI and the likes, and then at the end of a lifetime when you tot it up, one person may have derived more benefit from it than the other. We are not a private company in that sense. We pay into the central pot for the benefit of having that safety net and the provision of services and the likes. Let me reflect on what the Deputy has said today and revert to him directly.