Ms Karen O'Leary:

Deputy Pringle originally inquired about the price differential between Ireland and other countries. It has been well flagged that this is an issue about which people are becoming exercised. Ms Goggin outlined more recent statistics which show that the differential is narrowing. Forfás produced a report on this matter. The Deputy asked whether it is justified, which is a very fair question. There are two issues which arise. First, it has narrowed - which is good - and, second, the justification for it outlined by the industry relates to a higher cost of doing business here. The latter has been substantiated but not to the extent of the differential. It is narrowing and what we feel happens in markets of this nature is that there is supplier and retailer behaviour and then there is consumer behaviour. Where the two actually interact is where one gets the end price. Ms Goggin also referred to other matters such as resistance to the discount multiples - such as Lidl and Aldi - when they first entered the market. Something of a stigma attached to these retailers but that has now gone away completely and most of us understand that. Our research has shown a very big shift in consumer shopping behaviour.

People are much more conscious about where they spend their money and that is a positive development. It is one of the factors contributing to the price differential. Another factor is that we are talking a good deal about this and people are rightly exercised about it. Even if one accepts that the cost of doing business here is higher than in other countries, that does not explain a price differential that is above that.

Deputy Deering asked about the horsemeat scandal and food labelling. When we talk about consumer choice and value in a market, we are talking about products being what it is stated they are. In theory, if it was indicated on the label on a packet of burgers that they contain 15% horsemeat and one was willing to pay for that product, that is fine, but that is not what consumers were told. The inclusion of horsemeat in those products constituted fraud in terms of how this has worked out. Even in a market that is not competitive and where there is not a concern about a race to bottom and price pressures, fraud can still be practised because more money can be made from such practices. I would like to address the issue that it is perceived it is consumers who are driving this, but I do not believe it is. It is bad practice that is bred in the supply chain and operators may use that argument as an excuse to do things that they should not be doing. We would hope that it is concentrated in particular areas and is not a widespread practice. It has focused consumers' minds on that fact that there are consequences to the way they shop and where they buy their food.

Most consumers understand that even if they have to be careful in how they spend their money their shopping choices have consequences in the short and long term for the food sector and for the economic recovery of the country. Most people do not have the luxury of paying more for a product simply because it is Irish but, all things being equal, most people would opt for that product.

On the question of whether retailers should be forced to display their profits, we believe that, on balance, it would be better if they were forced to do so. That may require legislative change. Where retailers advance the argument that the cost of doing business here is higher and that is the reason they have higher prices, it is in that context that they should give that information, but if they are not making that argument, that is another ball game. It would be useful if retailers did this in terms of debate on this area, particularly given the power they exercise.

Labelling is a complex area and I will ask my colleague, Mr. Shine, to speak on it. The vast majority of food labelling is overseen by the Department's Food Safety Authority but from a consumer's perspective, people should know what they are buying. It comes down to a question of fairness.

On Deputy Barry's comment on the accuracy of price promotions in terms of the money savings for customers, of the 520 complaints related to pricing that we received last year, some of those related to price offers that did not quite stack up or that were potentially misleading. The cost per unit of a product must be displayed. There may be varying sizes of a product as in the case of nappies or washing-up liquid, but the price per unit must be displayed. Unfortunately, that information is not always clearly communicated. The writing on the label can be quite small. We tell people to make sure they check the cost per unit and that can involve a customer having to get down on their hands and knees in front of the shop shelve to check it. The price per unit should be displayed there but where it is not we can take action.

On the issue of alcohol products, our normal approach when we are asked for a view on grocery issues or policy decisions is that we would give a view in terms of the consumer's choice and value. When we were asked to comment on this issue, we very consciously said "No" because we felt this is not a consumer issue but a public health issue and, therefore, we would step back from that. In that context and speaking as a parent, I would support that approach. I will ask Mr. John Shine to speak about labelling.