What expenses are to MPs, commission is to financial advisers: a flawed system of payment that has been widely abused for financial gain and has been jealously guarded by those who have done very nicely out of the arrangement.

Commission may not have dominated the headlines like expenses, over recent months. But commission payments have been at the heart of some of the biggest mis-selling scandals in financial services, from precipice bonds to personal pensions.

So, let's hope that when the Financial Services Authority (FSA) publishes its Retail Distribution Review (RDR) tomorrow it will deal a killer blow to commission-based financial advice.

When the FSA announced its initial thoughts for the RDR in November it signalled that it was prepared to be radical in its approach (politicians, who are engaged in their own review of expenses, take note).

Its stated aim was to end the existing set-up, where product providers such as unit trusts and insurance companies decided on what level of commission they pay advisers for their products - with those keen to attract business paying the highest amounts.

Instead the RDR proposes that the customers and advisers should first agree on the amount of payment without any outside influence from product providers. Jon Pain, the FSA's managing director of retail markets, said: "We want to see an end to commission playing any part in the choice of any investment product."

The other main proposals were that:

- any advice business that calls itself "independent" truly deserves it.

- all advisers, whether independent or not, reach a minimum qualification equivalent to the first-year level at university.

- ongoing charges will only be allowed where there is an ongoing service.

Such aims are laudable, as the current system, where 80 per cent of advisers' payments come from commission, is too easily abused. Any attempt to water down the proposals, under pressure from some industry commentators, would be a mistake.

Even better would be a ban on commission altogether. In its initial proposals the FSA said it would still allow planners to take commission, but only if the customers is happy beforehand with such an arrangement.

I'm sure some unscrupulous advisers are already devising clever ways to trick customers into signing up for the commission route. One of the lowest ploys has been to suggest that if you opt for commission the advice you receive is essentially free - after all the payment doesn't come directly out of your hands.

Outlawing commission would, at a stroke, remove any suspicion that recommendations to consumers are influenced by the size of the commission payments from companies desperate for their business.

The argument commonly wheeled out against a total ban is that the commission system is the only way for those on low incomes to afford advice: fees are seen as too expensive. But, unfortunately, those on low incomes aren't taking advice anyway. If the current system is supposed to make advice available to everyone then it clearly isn't working.

We will have to wait until tomorrow to find out what is actually in store - and until 2012 before the reforms are implemented.

In the meantime, if you want independent advice you can do your bit by seeking out a fee-based adviser. There are plenty out there, so there is no excuse. The Unbiased website is a good place to start.

Times Recommends

• How to sell your home in a downturn
• How to boost your spending power
• Unemployment benefits explained