The FPA says its failure to include an exemption for certain advisers from completing a compulsory exam proposed in the education standards bill was not due to “one specific individual”.
In November last year, sister publication ifa reported on comments from FPA chair Neil Kendall at the association’s Professionals Congress, saying the reason the recommendation was unsuccessful came down to “an issue of politics”.
“We have a very strong view that if you’ve done the CFP certification, which is at a master’s level, you shouldn’t need to do a lower level exam to prove your competence,” Mr Kendall told ifa.
“However, it became too messy and it simply just didn’t get through. We saw it as redundant, but unfortunately there were a lot of things muddying that water.”
In response, FPA chief executive Dante De Gori said on a recent Risk Adviser podcast that Mr Kendall’s comments were not referring to a particular individual, but the overall political process.
“There wasn’t one specific individual per se. I think it’s more the concept [of politics],” Mr De Gori said.
“I think there was potentially ... a fear that if you do provide some avenues for exceptions to the rules that people then cast doubt on whether or not everybody has passed the same level and whether or not it reduces the integrity of the new framework.
“We argue that the framework could be completely robust and the integrity maintained by enabling the independent body to have the power to decide on what they thought was appropriate to provide exemptions or to provide an alternative pathway option for those people that have met certain standards.”