Comment: Newspapers, Consumer Choice magazine and just about anybody can gather information about service product prices and characteristics and publish them.

Yet it seems that this has become a priority for the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority (Ifsra) and the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs, which are uniquely given policing and standard-setting roles in their respective areas.

It has become fashionable for them to invest in meticulous research and then publish banking charges, mobile telephone charges, car insurance charges etc from the few suppliers in the market at present and to translate the mish-mash of data into a glib assertion or two, for example that a 35-year-old civil servant from Bantry can save €150 a year on her car insurance if she shopped with X instead of Y, provided she garage her car, doesn't carry goods in it and undertakes windscreen cover herself.

Last week (The Irish Times, July 12th), it was Ifsra's turn to tell consumers that they could save up to €100 a year if they choose the right account and/or bank and, one presumes, was the perfect fit with some unspecified number and mix of transactions. The long table of charges covering five suppliers' products is full of caveats, with no less than nine footnotes and more in the table. I noticed two omissions: no reference to free banking for those over the age of 60 (with one supplier at least); and no reference to privileged treatment for loyalty customers - eg, graduates of UCD - which some banks provide.

What consumer in their right mind is going to compile all this stuff to save €100 a year? Even if they compile it, or Ifsra compiles it at everyone else's expense, how will they compare the products for unforeseen changes in the mix of their usage of banking services, without a computer suitable for the space shuttle? And these prices are changing over time. The same may be said of mobile telephone charges. Who knows what the mix of calls is for next or any month?

The most significant piece of information in all these tables for consumers is this: there is no uniformity in the pricing structure of the service product they are being offered; the deliberate lack of harmony prevents consumers making rational choices between so-called competing products.

The charges' confusion lets suppliers off the hook; they cannot be compared on an equal footing in any instance.

Of course, the comparability-opacity provides employment opportunities for financial service gurus. It is clear that there would be opposition to harmonious service product standards from more than one quarter in the services' marketplace.

If Ifsra or the Director of Consumer Affairs want to best aid consumers, let them foster or establish standards for core service-products. Consumers could then shop predominantly on the basis of price, structured the same way for each supplier. A harmonious pricing structure would not inhibit extra frills services, provided the latter were separately and independently priced. We already have mandatory product standards for non-service products, such as electrical plugs and sockets, and car tyres. Alas, they took years to effect.

Consumers know that when they buy a three-pin plug anywhere in the Republic, it will meet the core product characteristics of safety, durability etc, no matter which company made it or what colour it is: that's the law. They can safely shop on price alone. The same is true of car tyres, which are made to agreed standard specifications. These are distinguished in both instances by codes printed on the product.

We have some measure of standardisation in food products; they are required by EU regulations to be sold in metric weight sizes, even if the Government still allows some products, such as butter, to be sold in imperial sizes in the Republic; they are not allowed in the North.

There is an abject lack of balance of power in the contracting for financial services. This is done with the acquiescence of regulatory and policing bodies.

It is often demonstrated by unilateral decisions made by suppliers in contracts with their customers. Last week, a Bank of Ireland advertisement informed customers of the bank's decisions on laser card security measures.

In a fair society, suppliers would seek the prior consent of their customers for changes of this kind. In a fair society, contract documents which issue from financial service providers would be legible by all without recourse to a magnifying glass.

Ifsra is not too long in business; it is still finding its feet. It has yet to be seen whether it will remain as conservative as it is now.

The same may not be said of the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs; it has held a much wider remit in services largely outside of the financial area since 1978.

It receives more than 4,000 complaints a year from consumers. It is little better than a sink for complainants.

Fewer than 40 prosecutions ensue and there is no feedback to complainants. Ironically, the office says that it is too busy to provide complainant feedback.

John Colgan is an independent consumer advocate and writes in this capacity. He was the inaugural chairman of the Council of the Insurance Ombudsman of Ireland and was appointed to the Financial Services Ombudsman Council by the Minister for Finance last October