Mr Shay Cody:

Defining an allowance as being part of core pay, in my judgment, is not the only justification for its continuation. Allowances can be paid to either individuals or small groups and, frankly, it would not be tenable for us to argue that they are part of core pay, but it would be tenable for us to argue that they were justified. For example, in the support grades in the Civil Service some staff are in receipt of a key holder allowance, in other words, they can be called in early or late to open a building if, say, there is an alarm going off. Everybody does not receive the allowance. It would not be possible to argue that it was part of core pay, yet at the same time the Minister has accepted that because it is a particular duty and responsibility that must be performed, the allowance should continue to be paid, not only to existing beneficiaries but also to future beneficiaries.

To deal with the issue of core pay, if an allowance is paid to all or almost all staff and has been seen as part of the remuneration package, whether it is described as an allowance on top of basic pay or as being part of core pay, it is part of the way one remunerates somebody. A classic example - the one which has been used on many occasions - is that of school principals. For some odd reason, they are on a salary and in receipt of a school principal's allowance, whereas if they worked anywhere else, they would be on a consolidated salary for the grade of school principal. There are many similar examples. Frankly, in the great majority of these cases, there would be no issue between the employer and the unions because, as Ms Nunan stated, it has always been so. Perhaps we can tidy matters up but not as part of this do-away-with-allowances initiative.