This week's meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group to discuss the impact of the RDR on IFAs attracted a lot of interest from MPs and a full public gallery.
The meeting of the APP Group on Insurance & Financial Services heard from four different perspectives in the form of AIFA's director general Stephen Gay, CII CEO Sandy Scott, principal policy adviser at Which? Dominic Lindley, and Sheila Nicoll, the FSA's director of conduct policy.
But there was an underlying consistency around their messages: RDR is going to happen and happen largely in the form now proposed.
MPs were given a more balanced view of RDR than their own debate at the end of last month when the fierce lobbying by some smaller IFAs produced a very one-sided debate.
We still have the Treasury Select Committee (TSC) set to take evidence and produce a report and we have already seen the FSA get in with a blunt opening salvo on that front.
This enquiry will produce a report that will also be debated in Parliament and which, unlike the November debate, will probably lead to a vote.
Just because nobody apart from Treasury minister Mark Hoban rushed to the defence of the FSA and RDR in the last debate shouldn't lead to the conclusion that a vote on a TSC report (which may or may not come out against RDR or certain features of it) will result in triumph for the opponents of the perceived harsher aspects of the regime.
If there is any real danger of that happening the government whips will be out to ensure it doesn't. They will have their work cut out, however, judging by the success of the lobbying that has been done to date.
There are IFAs strongly committed to RDR and obtaining their Level 4 qualifications and this was an opportunity for their voices to be heard.
With around 89% of IFAs already on course to reach the requirements this is an important group.
At this week's meeting, AIFA rejected calls for 'grandfathering' of experienced IFAs into the new regime without having to take the new qualifications.
This had been one of the most prominent themes of the November debate.
Stephen Gay claimed MPs would have many more emails and letters from angry IFAs if grandfathering was allowed, firstly because they would resent people being allowed to get away without having to take and pass the qualifications and, secondly, because it would also mean that experienced bank and other tied advisers not popular with IFAs would slip in too.
The meeting was also important because it heard the consumer viewpoint that was strangely absent from the debate in the House.
Which? praised IFAs over tied advisory channels but it made clear there was considerable scope for improvement if the sector was to move on from the dark days of mis-selling and enter the bright new world of genuine professionalism.
Did all of this persuade MPs like Harriett Baldwin, Mark Garnier and Heather Wheeler that all is sweetness and light with RDR? No, far from it so the debate will run for sometime yet in Parliament.
IFAs do have a chance to extract some concessions from the FSA and the agenda put forward by AIFA looks sensible, realistic and achievable.
Of course, it is not backing those IFAs fighting a broader front against RDR but it has them to thank for the fact that there is a fresh engagement with their agenda.
Indeed, I would go as a far as to say that the whole industry owes the anti-RDR IFAs a debt of gratitude.
There have been very few times in the 25 years plus I have been covering the financial services sector and its relationship with Parliament when so many MPs have been willing to attend and speak in a debate on an issue of genuine concern and importance to the industry.
David Worsfold is group editorial services director at Incisive Media and
Two-thirds cannot evidence compliance
'Elaborate breach of trust'
'How to buy protection insurance'
As this year has proved
European markets down after Brexit news