We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS said it will not realise its savings targets for 2012 following the outcome of the review of public service allowances and premium pay.
It had planned to save about €75 million this year by reforming allowances paid to public service workers.
Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin said that given the size of the review undertaken, targets for this year will not be met. However, he said that it will not impact the achievement of the pay bill budget for the year. He insisted that this will be fully realised.
Howlin has published all 800 business cases submitted to his department by public sector management for retention of allowances. He has been notified of more than 1,100 allowances.
Following the review, a number of changes have been decided. Allowances currently payable to officials who travel abroad to represent Ireland at meetings are being abolished for both new beneficiaries and existing staff.
The payment terms of a further range of allowances with an annual value of €245 million will be subject to modification and certain allowances will not be paid to new beneficiaries. The annual cost of paying these allowances to current incumbents is in the region of €475 million.
The Minister indicated that sectoral management will being the process of engaging with staff about allowances currently held but that require change.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
You seem to be presuming women are secondary earners, Jon. Besides that, the beneficiaries of the cuts identified here are women – not men. So, as it stands, the cuts would be based solely on gender. That is sexist.
Introducing more affordable child-care services would be infinitely more reasonable, as it would better enable parents – of either sex – to be involved in the workforce.
Also, if you wish to discuss cutting the taxes of secondary earners you are free to do so… this is the forum for it.
have your say