The ICTU and senior trade union leaders responded angrily yesterday to the latest rise in inflation.

The ICTU, in a statement, said it would be seeking compensation in the December Budget for workers and people on fixed incomes, through a range of measures that would be outlined in a submission to the Government next month. "We will continue to demand implementation of the anti-inflationary proposals we have made to the Government, including the reduction of duty on petrol, diesel and heating oil, increased subsidy for public transport users, reduced VAT on selected items, increased competition and more price surveillance," it said.

SIPTU's general president, Mr Des Geraghty, challenged the Minister for Finance to explore with the social partners the opportunities presented by a sustained booming economy. "The first phase of the pay increases negotiated under the PPF has now been more than wiped out by spiralling inflation." The cost of housing, transport, food and fuel were continuing to rise, which meant that workers and people on fixed or low incomes - or social welfare - were experiencing a daily erosion of their spending power.

ATGWU's regional secretary Mr Mick O'Reilly backed INTO general secretary Mr Joe O'Toole (the incoming ICTU president), who called for a 5.5 per cent wage for workers in addition to the 5.5 per cent already agreed for this year under the PPF - at the MacGill Summer School in Donegal, prior to the release of the latest CSO figures.

Mr O'Reilly predicted that quite a number of unions would be adopting a similar position. The Government had done little to bring down inflation, he said. Mr Shay Cody, deputy general secretary of IMPACT, the largest of the public service unions, accused the Government of "gambling with the partnership model" that had made the Irish economy the envy of Europe.

"Workers, pensioners and those on benefits will be the losers if we get into the kind of wages-prices spiral we saw in the 1970s and 1980s." The Government's failure to deal with inflation was undermining the PPF, "which was supposed to protect and enhance standards of living."

If it failed to curtail prices, workers would be entitled to ask why they should see the value of their incomes eroded "for the greater good of the economy" while profits, prices and professional fees soared.