View more on these topics

MPs set to debate impact of the RDR

The House of Commons’ debate about the impact of the retail distribution review on financial advisers will be held on November 30.

Conservative MPs Harriett Baldwin and Mark Garnier have been strong advocates of the debate and pushed for it in Parliament.

Baldwin and Garnier are both urging IFAs to lobby their local MP to speak on their behalf at the debate.

The announcement was made by the backbench business committee last week. The time of the debate will depend on other Commons’ business.

Baldwin says: “This is a huge milestone for the many thousands of IFAs across the country who fear their livelihoods will be ruined by the implementation of the RDR.

“It is also important to highlight the reduced access to financial advice for so many people.”

Anand Associates Wealth Management managing director Bhupinder Anand says: “I am happy to support the debate. If the RDR can be stopped in its tracks for a comprehensive and sensible review of its dangerous implications, that would be the wisest decision since Solomon.

“However, in the absence of confirmation that the RDR will not happen, you have to assume it will and prepare for it.”


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There is one comment at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. As I understand it, the debate is being held today, the 29th, not tomorrow. Whether or not the FSA takes any notice of anything anybody else has to say remains to be seen. On the strength of its track record to date, the likelihood of this has to be doubtful.

    Sants will doubtless claim that the FSA has “consulted” the industry on the RDR, but whether or not the FSA’s idea of consultation is what anybody else would consider satisfactory is another matter. Comment may have been invited but if none of the comments submitted are published for all to see and to debate, then of what value is such a consultation exercise? All the FSA has said is that it has “taken on board” the comments received but has offered no examples of just which comments. Many people might reasonably suggest that the only comments the FSA has taken on board are those which happen conveniently to accord with its own predetermined agenda. The whole process seems to be completely one-sided with the FSA, as usual, holding all the cards. What kind of consultation is that? Just a sham.

    The FSA hasn’t even deigned to reveal what proportion of the submissions received have been resoundingly pro or anti RDR. The very fact that the FSA refuses to give any indication of this must surely suggest that the majority of submissions has not been pro-RDR and quite possibly strongly anti-RDR. Were this not the case, then surely the FSA would be happy to publish all the submissions received. What does it have to hide? Massive opposition, I suggest.

    Again, we are reminded of the FSA’s phoney claim on its website to being an open and transparent regulator.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm