Advertisement

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.

Photocall Ireland
Croke Park

Fine Gael TDs challenge Government stance on Croke Park

The eight TDs argue in today’s Irish Examiner that “protecting core pay” does not equate to supporting incremental pay increases and allowances for high earners.

EIGHT FINE GAEL TDs have voiced criticism of the Government’s stance on the Croke Park Agreement – saying that while the core pay of low-earning public servants ought to be protected, incremental pay rises and allowances for those at the top should not.

In a co-authored piece in today’s Irish Examiner, the eight TDs – Sean Conlan, Paul Connaughton, Pat Deering, Brendan Griffin, Noel Harrington, Sean Kyne, Anthony Lawlor, and Eoghan Murphy – raise a number of challenges to the Government’s position.

They argue that pay increases for those on higher wages “must be put back on the table” if the Government is serious about tackling the budget deficit, claiming that such increments will add at least €170 million to the public sector pay bill by next year.

They also highlight the “hesitation” in tackling the subject of public sector allowances, which they claim are worth €1.5 billion, when allowances are not addressed in the Croke Park Agreement.

The actual savings being made under the deal is also questioned – with the TDs asking whether the figures have been overstated.

Read: Government insists Croke Park savings are not overstated
Read: Coveney – Department ‘was being accurate’ in rejecting government’s Croke Park criteria

Your Voice
Readers Comments
43
    Submit a report
    Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
    Thank you for the feedback
    Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.