Commentators have referred to Government charges constituting a large portion of the increases identified in the report. Some say such increases amounted to 50% of the total increase. Government charges did not account for more than 50% of inflation in the past year. As the Forfás report clearly states, the Government influenced category includes excisable products where price increases have occurred without an increase in excise duties. A significant proportion of the contribution was due to increased tobacco duties, which were more than justified.

I accept that inflation is a problem and that all businesses are affected by inflationary pressures. The disequilibrium between our inflation level and levels elsewhere in Europe has the potential to undermine our internationally traded sectors, in particular, and put at risk employment and growth. I, therefore, welcome the sharp decrease in annual inflation to 3.7% in May.

The key to reducing inflation is to improve competitiveness. The Government is already taking measures to improve our competitiveness in key areas. These include strengthening competition throughout the economy, implementing specific measures to tackle cost pressures in key areas such as insurance, increasing investment in research, technology and innovation which will provide the basis for future growth in productivity, and continuing to invest in key infrastructure such as broadband telecommunications. On the specific issue of enterprise competitiveness, Enterprise Ireland has recently introduced a special competitiveness fund designed to help firms improve productivity and strengthen their overall competitiveness.

All economic stakeholders have their responsibilities in tackling inflationary pressures. The Government, for its part, will meet its responsibilities and its actions will be informed by advice from, for example, the National Competitiveness Council, as manifested in its recent statement on inflation, and by the anti-inflation initiative provided for under the national agreement, Sustaining Progress.

The Government is dealing with the important issue of high insurance premia. The Tánaiste is undertaking specific measures to address the issue, such as the implementation of the recommendations in the Motor Insurance Advisory Board action plan within a target timeframe and the establishment of the personal injuries assessment board. The chairperson and ordinary members of an interim PIAB board were appointed on 27 November 2002. The Government recently approved the drafting of the general scheme of the Bill to place the PIAB on a statutory footing and it is hoped to enact the legislation by the end of the year.

My Department, in conjunction with the Competition Authority, is undertaking a study into insurance. The study will identify and analyse barriers to entry and limitations on rivalry in the insurance marketplace. It is envisaged that the bulk of the work will be completed this year and that a report will be produced in the early part of 2004. The Government is also taking action in a number of other areas to help tackle the high cost of insurance. This includes action in the areas of road safety and driver behaviour, reform of the law in relation to personal injury claims, including supporting of claims by sworn affidavits, and in the area of advertising by solicitors.

The Forfás report is a valuable contribution to public debate on issues relating to inflation. It underlines the importance of the commitment of the Government and the social partners to tackling inflation and monitoring our competitiveness. I assure the House that the Government will meet its commitments under the social partnership agreement in all the policy areas concerned.

The impact of other Government decisions on pricing policy has also been clearly illustrated. The cost of third level education has risen by 12.1%, bus fares are up by 13.3%, rail fares by 11%, motor tax by 11.9% and health insurance by 18.7% – it was announced on Monday that is to increase further – while dental services have risen in cost by 11.4%, electricity by 13.7% and water and sewerage charges by nearly 20%. The traded sector is suffering a severe squeeze. The prices Irish manufacturers are getting for their products fell by 7.5% in the last 12 months. By contrast, almost all their costs have increased, particularly those costs imposed by Government. The implication is clear – the Government must get its house in order.

That is why I said this well-meaning Minister of State is on a sticky wicket. He has a difficult position to defend today and I hope some good comes from his well-intentioned actions. It behoves us all to wish him well in that regard. However, the Government has clearly failed to deliver services efficiently at a competitive cost – there is no denying that. It has lost sight of the crucial requirements for price competitiveness. There are continuing concerns about the extent to which cuts in prices at the factory gates are being passed on in shops. Manufacturers are clearly protecting their margins by not giving the price reduction on sales in the domestic market that they apply to their export sales. Export prices fell by 10% while prices in the home market increased by 1.4% in the last year.

The Government is responsible for more than half the current inflation figure. Too much money was squandered before the election last year and economic indicators of the approaching downturn sadly were ignored. The Minister for Finance gave assurances that all was well and that no cut backs were planned. We know what has happened since. The Government did nothing to ensure value for money and, as a result, it has nothing to show for its reckless indulgence. No attempt was made to reform the public service when the funds were available and now we are facing the consequences. We lack the infrastructure to attract and sustain foreign investment and congestion brings our towns and cities to a standstill each day.

Does the Minister of State have something to say? This is like speaking on the Order of Business.

Concern has been expressed regarding inflation in food products but on a current monthly basis the rate of inflation in food products remains much lower than the general rate of inflation. That has been a consistent trend over recent months, with inflation in food prices at 1.6%. Most commentators expect retail food prices to reduce even further as a stronger euro impacts on exchange rates with sterling, which is to be welcomed. The low level of inflation in food prices is indicative of a sector that enjoys a real competitive dynamic. We are fortunate that every town and village in the country, unlike parts of Britain, has a food shop, which is to be welcomed. The emphasis on price competition in the sector is palpable, clear to consumers and can be seen at every level in the retail grocery sector. I very much welcome this. The rate of inflation in food products, at 1.6%, remains lower than the general rate of inflation and has been a consistent trend.

I do not agree with all the criticisms of the groceries order. The problem has been in the non-traded sector, as the Minister of State admitted. I fully support this. Whatever the inflationary pressures in the economy, the retail grocery sector has not contributed to them.

I wish the efforts the Minister of State has outlined well and hope they are not too late, given the bad practice we have witnessed on the part of the Government in all these areas.

The evidence that we are being ripped off is overwhelming. We are being robbed in the shops. A recent Sunday Independent shopping basket survey by business correspondent, Martin Fitzpatrick, found that a basket of household goods which cost €16.41 in January 2002 now cost €21.70, a 32.2% increase. In another excellent article in the business supplement of last week's Sunday Independent, 29 June, he described how he went on a shopping trip. I would not like to name or shame any particular supermarket but he does name the supermarket in question in the article. The supermarket chain involved, Superquinn, has an excellent reputation. I dealt with it when I was Minister of State with responsibility for trade. Its supermarkets sell quality Irish food and in that sense are not comparable with any others. If Martin Fitzpatrick was to check all of the other supermarket chains, he would find that Superquinn is one of the most competitive. I am delighted Senator Quinn is present in the House and that he will have an opportunity of discussing these issues because he, more than anyone, would know what is happening. While it is unfair to compare different products in a shopping basket, I hope the Senator, wearing his other hat, will respond to the article by Martin Fitzpatrick in last Sunday's Sunday Independent.Ireland's rapid rise towards the top of the European pricing league could pose a significant threat to maintaining the economic success of recent years. As a nation, we are far too complacent. As consumers, we never exercise our right to make complaints, which is vital. When I launched my name and shame, price-busting campaign in May, I said we would choose the month of June to examine prices in shops and services.

The Consumers' Association of Ireland has kindly leant its support to this campaign and I thank Dermott Jewell, the chief executive. I also express my thanks to the Minister for providing funding in his Estimates for the Consumers' Association of Ireland. The amount allocated is over €60,000 per annum. This organisation is working under extreme pressure and I believe the Minister should strengthen the association so that it is in a better position to work with his Department in highlighting rip-off situations.

My own research throughout the country over the past four weeks, in so far as it was possible – I ask people to contact me or other public representatives in this regard – focused on petrol and diesel prices. The lowest petrol price in Ireland this morning is available at Colman Neville's, Midleton, County Cork, where a litre of unleaded petrol is 79.9 cents. He does not come first for diesel, which is 71.9 cents, a price that applies throughout Midleton. Mr. Neville, to whom I spoke this morning, said the fact that the terminal is close to the refinery possibly helps to make him more competitive while another factor is that he is not aligned to any big company. Therefore, he has freedom of movement as far as supplies are concerned.

The lowest diesel price in Ireland today is available at Anthony Browne's Texaco station in Moate, where he is quoting 70.9 cents per litre of diesel. The higher prices today are running at 89.9 cents per litre for petrol and 79.9 cents per litre for diesel. I will not list the highest because that would require a more extensive survey. I hope there will be an opportunity during the summer to review the situation.

In relation to the Electricity Supply Board, a strange situation exists where the standing charge in rural areas is €10.57 compared to €6.12 in urban centres. There should be an equalisation in relation to the standing charge. The charge relates to infrastructure, such as poles which were installed during the rural electrification period, and it is extremely high. There is also a public service obligation levy of €1.92 on the bill.

For the benefit of Senator Coghlan, the price of petrol at the Tesco filling station in Killarney is 81.50 cents per litre.

In relation to airlines and competition, Ryanair has played a particularly important role. Further to a discussion yesterday on the Order of Business, where I brought to the attention of the House the outrageous attacks by Michael O'Leary, chief executive of Ryanair, on the Taoiseach, the report has been suppressed in The Irish Times today. I am appalled that the editor, Geraldine Kennedy, would suppress a report from this House because I attacked Michael O'Leary. I know there is enormous clout in so far as advertising is concerned. This advertisement in the Irish Independent cost in the region of €50,000. I assure the House that Ryanair shareholders – I am not one – are deeply concerned about the abuse of Mr. O'Leary's power and the spending of money in a wrong fashion. I hope the Revenue Commissioners will not allow this type of advertisement to be charged against the profits of the company. The advertisements being placed in relation to the second terminal at Dublin Airport constitute an appalling attack on the Taoiseach and democracy. The use of bully-boy tactics to try to blackmail the Government into granting the second terminal to Ryanair will not achieve results.

I highlight this issue because we have reached a strange position when the power of advertisers is sufficiently strong that one of our finest newspapers, The Irish Times, which, I am aware, has financial difficulties, will suppress a report. In fairness to the Irish Independent, it published today the statements made in the House yesterday by the Leader and me, despite continuing to feature the advertisements in question. Furthermore, the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland has informed me it cannot do anything about this type of advertising. New legislation should be introduced to strengthen the right of consumers in respect of advertising.

I thank the Minister of State for coming before the House and the Leader for her willingness to allocate time for this debate. It may be unusual that these kinds of requests are emanating from the Government side of the House as opposed to the Opposition benches, but we are here to speak up on behalf of our constituents, the people, and highlight issues which arise.

Whatever decisions the Government takes – the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment is currently grappling with the issue – they will impinge on individual freedoms. It is now possible to take a claim to court where a judge decides on compensation. The Government is free to try to stipulate amounts claimants will receive for various injuries such as a broken leg or arm, but it may have to change the Constitution to do so, as such a system would possibly interfere with rights and freedoms afforded under the Constitution.

I now turn to the issue of health, specifically as it is affected by tobacco. Yesterday, I referred to a British company which had decided to target this country to bring down the price of tobacco. Having asked whether the company would sell tobacco to under age children, given that other retailers must avoid breaking the law, I returned to my office to discover an e-mail from the company in question, which I will not name as I do not wish to give it publicity. As the message was also sent to other Senators, including the Leader, the company is clearly mailing it to as many addresses as it can find. It stated:

Dear Sir/Madam

With the price of cigarettes in the UK and Ireland costing up to £5 and as much as 7 Euros a packet don't be ripped off by the government anymore!

We can send you legally, by registered airmail direct to your UK or Irish address, 800 cigarettes – all your favourite brands and whatever brand you smoke we charge from 170 Euros fully inclusive of postage, packing and all taxes – this equates to 4.25 Euros per packet and at current exchange rates this works out at approximately £3!

We also sell all your favourite brands of rolling tobacco, again from 170 Euros for 30x50g pouches – that works out at less than 6 Euros per pouch or approximately £4 (about half price!)

To find out more and to order securely visit our website . . . .

Do you really want to pay more?

Kind regards [The company's name follows]If you are not a smoker, and find this e-mail offensive, we sincerely apologise! We will be only too happy to take you off our mailing list. To remove yourself from our mailing list, please go to . . . .

I mention this solely because while there are ways to reduce prices, a decision will be required in each individual case. Some decisions have already been taken, for example, on the deregulation of the airline industry discussed by Senator Leyden. At that time, certain vested interests argued that the Government's proposals would lead to job losses. Deregulation in that sector resulted in many more people travelling, while the forces of competition caused air fares to decline. It has, therefore, had clear benefits, perhaps even to those working in the airlines concerned.

The same applies in many other areas. However, when deregulating the telecommunications sector, instead of appointing a regulator charged with ensuring fairness and competition, the Minister, as I argued at the time, should have retained powers for the State to encourage greater competition. One of the reasons access to the Internet is relatively expensive here is our failure to gain the required acceptance or usage of broadband. This can be done by encouraging competition rather than providing that the regulator must ensure fairness.

There is little doubt that decisions must be taken regarding the grocery business. I have believed in competition all my life. I started my business in the 1960s when the Fair Trade Commission was in place. I gave evidence to the commission and strongly argued that below cost selling should be allowed and that customers should have the right to avail of it. I continue to believe in open competition, although I am aware that many of the interests involved would not welcome it. It would have to be in the interests of consumers if, for example, a supermarket decided to sell below cost instead of spending money on fancy advertisements. Nevertheless, it would be unfair to some traders who would argue that big traders would take their business. The Government would be required to make a decision in such circumstances.

There are ways it can address the issue, one of which is to insist that there be no limit on what could be purchased. This means that a trader selling below cost to generate publicity could not prevent another trader from buying his stock and reselling it at a slightly increased price. No matter what happens, some traders will argue there is unfair competition. In view of this, a Government decision to abolish the groceries order would create many other problems.

Another aspect of the groceries order deals with attempts by firms to bargain, cajole and bully their suppliers. Such an approach would not be in the interests of indigenous suppliers because purchases can be made elsewhere. In making a decision on this, the Government must balance the long-term interest to the State of lower prices against the likelihood that such an approach will mean the loss of indigenous suppliers.

Senators Coghlan and Leyden referred to the cap on the size of stores. I believe in open competition and have argued that there should be no such cap. There is little doubt that if competition allowed for the creation of super-stores and hypermarkets, it would reduce inflation. However, it is also argued that it would lead to the closure of smaller stores, which would discriminate against those who are unable to travel. Senator Coghlan referred to this. Having visited the United States, France and other countries where super-stores and hypermarkets are allowed, I have seen towns with no shops left in them. As legislators, we must make decisions that are in the best interests of citizens.

The Government has decided that a cap on the size of stores – 3,500 sq.m. in Dublin and 3,000 sq.m. beyond Dublin – is the most balanced approach. These limits probably reflect the size of existing stores in Ireland and are probably acceptable in the light of the balance the Government wishes to strike. However, in taking this approach it is indicating that the balance of its decision favours those who are less fortunate, have less ability to travel, may not have their own means of transport and live in towns that would be denuded of shops and supermarkets were large hypermarkets allowed to develop. Decisions of this kind will have to be made.

Senator Leyden correctly indicated that the best way to deal with competition was to allow for open publicity. Gay Byrne was a great driver of competition in the 1970s and 1980s. On Wednesday or Thursday mornings he published a list of prices on his radio show. All those involved in the business listened to this item to ensure they were not charging the highest prices and if they detected the products to be surveyed, they made sure to respond accordingly. It was a great game but it acted in the public interest and those companies which were unable to survive went out of business.

This approach is also open to criticism, however. Last year the Director of Consumer Affairs published a list of prices for the top selling grocery items which were identical among the three major supermarkets referred to by Senator Leyden. That is what happens in competition, because none in our business can afford for our competitors to charge lower prices. My first supermarket in Dublin in the 1960s was located in Finglas where two other supermarkets were also located. In those days the vast majority of shoppers were full-time mothers at home. They would leave their children to school and, before attending 9.30 a.m. mass, check the prices displayed in the shop windows. We watched each others' prices. If, for example, a competitor advertised a pound of tomatoes for one shilling and nine pence, we reduced our price to one shilling and eight pence before mass was over. It was open competition and activity of that kind continues today. When last year the Director of Consumer Affairs expressed concern because the supermarkets were selling at the same price, they did so for that reason. Nobody can afford to have their competitors charging lower prices for identical products, be it butter, milk, bread or whatever. It was very difficult to explain to the director that this kind of outcome would be the result of competition.

I am delighted with what has happened regarding the price of petrol and was even more impressed with Senator Leyden's survey. Another survey has been undertaken by a newspaper of the price of a cup of coffee while others are being done of the prices of other items. Openness, transparency and publicity are vital, as long as it is done fairly.

The grocery business is being subject to new entrants from non-Irish companies. There is a problem because the groceries order legislation, which inhibits Irish companies, is practically unenforceable against companies based outside the State. This create unfairness. Many of the products sold by the foreign companies are not Irish based, nor are they are Irish brands. While they are probably of very good quality, the public must decide what products to buy.

The answer is to create and encourage competition. In doing so the State must make decisions which will have consequences. For example, in the area of health I was stunned to discover that the VHI was sending people abroad – Spain, France or even South Africa – to have operations because it was cheaper to have them done there than here. These are the kinds of decisions we will have to make if we are to have open competition. I am a great believer in competition which we must encourage. In doing so we will have to balance the benefits to the State against the costs. In doing so it may be decided that the benefit of low inflation is not worth the other consequences of deciding to take a course of action. For example, there is little doubt that it is State policy to have a high price for alcohol and tobacco products, which we would all agree is acceptable, but when we blame the State for being a major cause of inflation, we must recognise that we, as legislators, have made such a decision. We must ensure we strike the right balance when making future decisions.

It has not yet been mentioned in this debate that last autumn, when it framed its budget and took part in social partnership negotiations, the Government judged correctly that the rate of inflation would reduce despite increases in indirect taxation and charges. There were those in the markets who said we were failing to get inflation under control and who predicted a 5% rate. Low inflation growth is essential given that we are in the euro zone. For many of the Celtic tiger years, up to and including 1999, the rate of inflation was kept at the 1.5% to 3% level. While subsequently the rate went considerably above that, it never achieved – if that is the right word – anything like the heights inflation went to in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Part of the problem has been too much demand in the economy. In future budgetary management, we must pay more attention to managing demand to prevent pressures building up. Such pressures were particularly obvious in the construction industry where tremendous demand to develop infrastructure drove up prices and resulted in less bang for our buck. We have discussed in this House over the last few days the different estimates of the cost of a metro system. Differing estimates are part of an era in which a sum considered sufficient one month would be too low compared to a few months later. We must get away from that mentality and leave this era behind.

House prices remain high and it is entirely unclear whether they are stabilising, rising or, as some have suggested, about to fall. The Government must find ways to take the heat out of the house price market. I am not concerned about the builders, the developers and the landlords, but about the accessibility of houses to those on what are, by today's standards, relatively modest incomes.

Competition is important. As the report points out, many price increases have occurred in the sheltered, less trade-intensive areas of the economy. It has been a source of frustration to successive Ministers for Finance that while for many years there was no increase in the excise duty on alcohol, it did not prevent an increase in its price. When a modest excise imposition was made in one or two out of every four or five years, it was used as an opportunity to ratchet up the price considerably more. The point that the rise in the price of drink is not even mainly due to the Government is entirely well taken.

Most of us have plenty of experience of having our hair cut and will have found that the price of the service has escalated enormously over the past five years. The insurance industry has used 11 September 2001 to ratchet up prices in a wholly unacceptable manner. I cited earlier the 600% increase in the profits of Irish Life in 2002. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment should examine this matter closely and publicise the actions of insurers. A committee of the Oireachtas is to discuss banking soon. We focus very much on the mortgage interest rate while paying little attention to the fact that interest rates for business and farming have hardly altered despite the steady reduction in base rates.

The Houses of the Oireachtas have been debating problems which have arisen in the context of the resignation of Mr. Justice Flood, but most of the problems are actually the result of exorbitant legal fees. Exorbitant legal fees must be due to lack of sufficient competition and restrictive practices.

I have no patience with ideological agendas being inserted into this debate, even if it is the ideological agenda of, for example, public sector transport employees. I recently attended my first Labour Party national conference. At the time I was the party's transport spokesperson in this House. During the conference I had the usual meeting with the CIE group of unions. I have a strongly developed view on public transport and was looking forward to a dialogue with them. They told me, however, that the first thing they needed was a price increase. They could only say that because they knew they had an effective monopoly. If they were involved in Senator Quinn's business, for example, and demanding an increase in prices, the immediate response would have been that Dunnes would undercut them and they would lose their jobs.

The fundamental problem with public transport is not that workers are overpaid but that we are trying to do the impossible, make public transport operate as a commercial service. No country in the world has ever succeeded in doing this. The only debate is about how to quantify the public good of public transport and how to put prices on its benefit to the environment and other benefits. That is a difficult area about which I know a little. Environmental accounting is extremely difficult and dubious. The justification for subsidising public transport is overwhelmingly environmental. In order to quantify the benefit, therefore, one must be able to quantify the environmental benefits. We know they are real and tangible but whether it is possible to put a cash value on them at this stage in an underdeveloped science like environmental economics is doubtful.

We will not get to grips with our public transport costs by introducing more competition. There is not a scrap of evidence throughout the world that quasi privatisation or any of the other experiments being mentioned will do much to change the cost of public transport. The only way to do it is through a deliberate public policy of keeping the prices at levels which will attract consumers to use it. We are in danger of pricing public transport out of the market. Whether public transport is provided directly by State owned companies or by franchise private companies is a secondary issue. I am sceptical about competition because I do not believe it is possible to have real competition in this area.

I agree with Senator Quinn that the maximum quality and quantity of information should be available in an easy form to consumers. Car dealers can take a half or quarter page advertisement in a newspaper advertising the cars they have for sale without mentioning a price anywhere. If one cannot tell one's customers the price one is expecting for something, one is immediately involved in a little deception. Imagine Senator Quinn taking a full page advertisement in the Sunday Independent, for example, showing all his products but not including the prices. Car dealers do this on a regular basis. In the motoring supplements there are many pages of advertisements which do not display any prices.

The most important issue is that people know the prices. The second is to identify the sectors where there is manifest and unjustifiably rapid inflation. It is clear from the report that the restaurant and bar business is another sector of extraordinarily high inflation. Nobody has yet explained how it is possible that the price of eating out in Germany is lower than in Ireland, given the fact that wages per hour in Germany are higher and the employer's social costs in addition to those wages are the highest in Europe. Nevertheless, one can still eat out in most countries in Europe for a price considerably lower than in Ireland.

It is not enough to claim it is related to the cost of insurance, which is a recent additional cost. I have every sympathy with small businesses with regard to the way the insurance burden has been landed on them but do not believe the increase is risk related. As Senator Mansergh said, it was an opportunistic misuse of the events of 11 September 2001. The margins expected by many at the middle level of the pub and restaurant industry and the lifestyles they have from the business in which they are involved have lost all relation to reality.

I recall a few years ago being in an expensive restaurant in the south west – those who know my holiday habits and my preferences will easily guess where – and I happened to overhear the proprietor in conversation. He was moaning about the difficulties of making a living from what is a well-known restaurant. The restaurant opened in May and closed in October and, as the conversation developed, it emerged that from October to May the proprietor lived in the Canaries off the proceeds of the previous five months. His only child was attending the most prestigious and expensive boarding school, but he was able to convince himself, and moan to his friends who were also customers, of the difficulties of "making a living" out of the business.

I am convinced that every builder now believes that if he or she is not driving a 2003 registered Mercedes, he or she is not making a living out of the building industry. Are there aspirations and expectations of a quality of life, and a return on business, that are out of tune with how the rest of us live? I am not by any means badly off but there is a question about the presumption of what one is entitled to as a return for running a business.

The third issue that arises from the Forfás report is the comparative cost of rented housing in the eurozone countries. With Ireland at 100, for example, the cost of rented housing in Luxembourg is 79% of the rate here. It is the richest country in the world and must therefore have what we would regard as high property prices, but its rate is 79%. Finland, which is a notoriously expensive country, is 74% of our rental cost. The nearest to us is Luxembourg. In Portugal it is 19% so if one pays €100 a week in Ireland, one would pay €19 a week in Portugal. Italy, which I would have regarded as comparatively expensive, is 43% of our cost. We need to do two things. First, we must get intelligent, objective analysis separate from ideology. I am tired of the Competition Authority saying repeatedly that more competition will solve the problem. If we allow some of the plans for the ESB to be carried through, we will end up with more expensive electricity. If one reads the reports one discovers that it cannot get entrants because it cannot get a price for electricity that would justify the investment. Somehow that is because the ESB is abusing its position. I do not understand that logic but ideology can cloud people's judgment. Second, we need to maximise information to people. My daughter in Italy tells me that she can buy contact lens cleaning fluid for one third of its cost here. She noticed immediately how expensive it was because when she was home I was paying for it and over there she is paying for it.

Many of the agencies which are supposed to protect consumers, in particular the Director of Consumer Affairs and her office, let this country down during the transition to the euro because she was convinced by the banks of a scale of charges that turned out to be both unnecessary and a rip-off. She accepted their argument and it took the European Commission's intervention and effective dawn raids on the Bank of Ireland and AIB to "persuade" them that they were ripping us all off. I have reservations about the capacity of the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs to really let consumers know what is happening, to inform them and to ensure that they know what is happening, what prices are and therefore have some influence over how they spend.

Ireland was the most expensive country in the eurozone for foodstuffs from low-priced outlets in 2002, the second most expensive for foodstuffs from mid-priced outlets and the third most expensive for foodstuffs from high-priced outlets. It was also found to be the second most expensive country in which to buy non-food consumables in the eurozone across all retail types.

We are about to become the most expensive country in the eurozone. Why as shoppers do we not complain more? If people thought Ireland was an expensive place to live, this report from Forfás has proved them right. We are now the second most expensive country in the eurozone, marginally behind Finland.

The report also predicts that we will become the most expensive eurozone country later in the year. Eating out, drinking out and groceries are the items that hit the wallet hardest. As a nation we probably do not complain enough. We are too laid back. We notice groceries getting more expensive all the time. Every week something seems to go up, but we are a dead loss at complaining. Eating out and socialising are the worst value for money. One expects to pay high prices at the top restaurants but one is badly served in middle range restaurants. One ends up paying above premium prices for an average return but nothing ever happens for we are not a nation of complainers.

People are being overcharged constantly and we whinge about it but do not complain. At work, we complain all the time to each other about how expensive everything is – eating out, property, the pub – but do not complain in shops or restaurants. I do not know the reason for this. It appears that Irish consumers do not like to complain; they find it unpleasant. The message is, therefore, that if one believes one is not getting value for money, one should tell the restaurant owner or the shopkeeper instead of one's friends, complaining to the source. It will not ruin one's night or day out, and will make a difference. Furthermore, one should complain to the Director of Consumer Affairs. We must use that office more efficiently and give it more teeth.

There are many areas over which we have no control but there are some. We should bring control back into our lives by ensuring those who need to know – the greedy ones who are overcharging – are made aware. Much of what Senator Leyden is doing is correct.

I again thank all Senators for their enlightening and valuable contributions. It has opened up discussion on a subject with a wide impact. We hope more people from every walk of life will take note of how they can influence prices in every part of trade. They should not hide their light under a bushel but speak out when they believe they are being wronged.