Today's inaugural RDR debate in Westminster Hall finished just moments ago. Here is the best of what was said...
Conservative MP Harriett Baldwin:
"According to House of Commons library, this is the first time regulation of financial advisers has been debated and you have to ask why. I anticipate this is not the last we will hear on this issue.
"The market for financial advice suffers from low consumer trust."
"Along with banks, IFAs have been guilty of selling a product because they get a better commission.
"There is no doubt the industry has a reputation that can be improved.
"I share the FSA's goal to improve consumer access to the industry."
Talking about the cost of the RDR, she said net compliance cost is now £1.4bn-1.7bn. Baldwin said this is an "astonishing" 180% increase compared to a forecast made in 2008.
She then talked about the unfairness of imposing higher qualification requirements on older, experienced IFAs.
"My constituents have raised concerns about taking exams. Most of the advisers I have seen are in their late 50s or 60s."
Baldwin said she had received "unprecedented correspondence" on the impact of the RDR in her constituency from IFAs with "unblemished" track records and years of experience.
"In financial markets wisdom and experience are valued."
She added no exams can be a substitute for experience.
"A lot of the advisers have been in their late 50s or 60s. I know I will not be as good at taking exams today as I was when I was at university, but I would like to think I have accumulated other things over the years, such as experience."
"Experienced IFAs will find it hardest to pass exams. Someone who has just graduated with a batchelor's in financial markets will be immediately accredited."
She added the FSA is imposing a one-size-fits-all framework on education.
Baldwin also said RDR proposals would hit the rural population disproportionately, where access to financial advice could be massively reduced.
She added she has written to the chief executive of the FSA - referring to her as Mr Baldwin in the response - who simply reiterated the regulator's position.
Turning to Treasury Financial Minsister Mark Hoban, she said:
"I would like to ask the minister if it is consistent with UK regulation to retrospectively change qualifications."
She asked Hoban if he agreed the RDR was a "sledge hammer to crack a nut".
Treasury financial secretary Mark Hoban:
"The RDR is the responsibility of the FSA, but I fully appreciate its objectives and I hope it will lead to increased confidence, simplicity and clarity."
On the subject of qualifications, he said almost half of advisers have already met the required level two years before RDR.
On grandfathering he said: "How do we know how good these advisers are?"
He added whilst they may have been in the industry for a while, that does not necessarily guarantee expertise.
He noted Consumer group Which? thinks current qualification levels are not sufficient.
"It's worth bearing in mind that the current minimum adviser qualification is at the same level at a diploma in shift management offered at McDonald's.
"Now I think we'd all just reflect and think for a moment the products being sold by IFAs are infinitely more complex and long lasting in their effects than a Big Mac"
He added increased qualification requirements will lead to a level playing field, with customers having increased confidence in their advisers.
On remuneration, Hoban said:"It should be noted consumers already pay for advice through commission structures in products - we are not doing anything new.
"I think it is good we create a more transparent market where advisers compete on cost and quality."
Finally, the Treasury Financial Secretary underlined the challenges facing small firms, noting they are "likely to struggle" with the RDR and could exit the market.
First mentioned in Cridland Report
Second acquisition of 2019
Guy Opperman has rejected calls to speed up changes to auto-enrolment (AE) despite increasing pressure to boost contribution rates and overall savings pots.
Four key areas to focus on
And 94% for critical illness