Public service pensioners have accepted that parity has been maintained in the application of increases due to them due under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
The chairman of the public service pensioners committee, Mr Sean Geraghty, said after a meeting at the Department of Finance yesterday: "We have apparently misread the situation. According to the assistant secretary, parity is being maintained on allowances."
On Wednesday, members of Mr Geraghty's organisation picketed the Dail and accused the public service unions of selling them out. Their response after meeting officials was muted.
The group now welcomes the new agreement, although he said some outstanding issues like long service increments still had to be fought for. He was concerned that there was no written agreement detailing the terms. "We asked for it," Mr Geraghty said, "but we were told it was too complicated to give us in writing."
He refused to accept that the public service unions had secured the deal and safeguarded the interests of pensioners. "It was because we kicked up such a fuss that the Government delivered," he said.
However, the general secretary of the Irish National Teachers Organisation, Mr Joe O'Toole, said he had secured categorical assurances from the Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, and the secretary of the Department responsible for the public service, Mr John Hurley, that parity for pensioners would be maintained and improved in many instances.
There were some technical difficulties but "this is the best deal ever negotiated for teachers in Ireland", Mr O'Toole said. In some cases, pensioners would gain increases above parity.
The general secretary of the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland, Mr Charlie Lennon, said that "contrary to statements made in the media" retired teachers would see the 28 per cent increase in allowances granted to serving teachers reflected in retired teachers' pensions on a strict pro rata basis.
For many retired teachers the minimum 3 per cent increase would ensure them compensation for the fact that some aspects of the restructuring deal could not transfer to them automatically through the normal application of parity increases.