This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.

Full Parliamentary RDR debate secured

  • Print
  • Comments (34)

Backbench MPs have secured a full Parliamentary debate on the RDR.

The office of Conservative MP Harriett Baldwin says the back bench committee agreed yesterday to hold the debate in the next few weeks.

Baldwin and Conservative MP Mark Garnier had an application to hold a full RDR debate rejected last month as the subject had recently been debated in a Westminster Hall debate and Treasury select committee meeting.

At the Westminster Hall debate, a number of backbench MPs expressed concerns that the RDR could lead to an advice gap. Treasury financial secretary Mark Hoban responded by comparing the current IFA qualification to a diploma in shift management from McDonald’s.

Baldwin says: “I really do hope that we will now get the chance to influence the independent statutory regulator to take the right steps now to mitigate the impact of their regulations on the provision of much-needed financial advice.

“The FSA is keen to raise the standards of financial advice but is doing so in a prescriptive and heavy handed way. I share their goal but I fear that requiring even very experienced advisers with unblemished track records to pass exams may have a negative impact on those of my constituents who are financial advisers and will reduce access to independent financial advice for many people.

“At a time when the FSA is being abolished it seems like an appropriate time to debate this issue. IFAs should now write to or visit their own MPs and ask them to speak in the debate on their behalf.”

Garnier says: “IFAs across the country have been calling for a debate on this for years, yet throughout the whole process of RDR, there has been just 30 minutes of debate on this important subject. IFAs are an incredibly important asset when striving to improve savings and pensions, and it is important that they get their time in Parliament.”

  • Print
  • Comments (34)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

Money Marketing Awards 2015
Put your firm forward as the leading practitioner in your field. Adviser and Advertising categories are open to entries - Enter Now.

Readers' comments (34)

  • Good. Let us all remember as we lobby our MPS this is about consumer detriment. Not whether its fair that we have to take some exams. Focus on the impact on the public if they cannot access Independent Advice.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I should like to be in the house to put the question to Mark Hobo, and what qualifications are required to be an MP ? apart from how to fiddle expenses that is.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • At last,some common sense. We have all read about MacDonalds qualifications and I would like to know just how many of these Treasury officials and MP'S would qualify to work for MacDonalds.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The FSA has been the only voice on the RDR for too long and this debate may mean that we finally get a consultation where we are listened to.

    Whatever your view on the RDR I urge you to contact your MP's and express it so that they know that this is an important issue and we can have a full and proper debate.

    Find your MP and email them at

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Congratulations to all who have worked hard to acheive all they have so far. The RDR needs to be put under proper scrutiny and questioned and if parts need adjusting then there is still time to to so if it found to be robust and for the benefit of the mass consumer then it will stand.
    If not then for the good of the economy as a whole and the drive to restructure it towards saving, investing and wealth creation rather than one that just constantly borrows more and more just to stand still it need changing to allow for a more tempered and tapered change increasing choice and competition rather than rigging the retail distribution market towards a cosy cartel.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is an opportunity to prove that democracy can work in reality rather than mere theory.

    Every adviser (except perhaps the two Mr Bamfords) should contact their MP and stress the importance of attending and contributing in the interests of consumer enfranchisement.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thankyou Harriet for having the strength to push for this debate.
    Maybe some MP's may start to understand that they MUST NOT give away their parliammentary powers to unelected and overpaid grey people, who are not liable or accountable for their actions.
    I demand my Human rights back and access to the law courts of England and Wales along with the 15 year long stop.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I would not hold your breath!! MPs do not even reply.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is great news for all free thinking IFAs and not the 'vested interests'. AIFA the so called representative body should be ashamed of themselves. Those who value democracy, moral and principle regardless of whether pro or anti RDR should be extremely happy.

    Now lets make sure that the MPs argue from a point of understanding the issues including the legality aspects.

    CPD to ensure ongoing up to date knowledge of already authorised advisers not cliff edge exams and certainly not the illegal de-authorisation of already authorised individuals.

    Recognition of the statutes of Limitation and Latent Damages like every other man woman and child have (unlike those authorised by FSA)

    There is absolutely no proof that commission bias exists or is rife in any independent survey carried out - even by FSA themselves.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If this leads to level 4 compulsion being kicked into the long grass it will be the biggest mistake in the history of financial services. It angers me that sales people hiding under the guise of financial advisers and the customers friend. I will accept grandfathering and exam exemptions for 5 years + experienced advisers but not staying with a numpty multi choice set of papers as the base level for new advisers.

    I feel the public became disenfranchised with IFAs a long time ago, becoming fed up with high commissions and heavy sales techniques. I do agree the FSA have over egged the RDR but without some parts we are doomed to stay a sales industry instead of developing into an advisory profession.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick


How do you plan to vote at the general election?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments