Mr. Shay Cody:

Let us be clear, the decision was not only to cease the payment to new recruits but to cease paying it to anybody who was not already in receipt of it. That could include people who were already in the system. If an allowance was appropriate for a particular duty and somebody was promoted into it or moved sideways into it, they would not receive it either. I draw that distinction between new recruits and existing staff. We have taken the view that if a union disputes the position of the management, whether it is with regard to existing beneficiaries or indeed new beneficiaries, it is open to those unions to take the matter to a third party to argue that the allowance should be paid. Clearly they are going to have to stand up such an argument, that is, justify that the circumstances that gave rise to the allowance continue in the main, and therefore, there is a good case to argue for the continuation of it, not just for serving staff but for new people. We have not agreed to, or engaged around drawing up the moat as has been painted. The first opportunity the trade unions have had to engage with this matter was at the beginning of October. We would expect that in some or many cases, unions will argue directly with the employer and before a third party, if need be, that allowances should be paid to new beneficiaries.