| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Boateng: No, I do not have time to give way. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity--hopefully in Committee but, if not, on Report--to make his points.
We believe that our proposals are in the interests of justice, and we believe that the balance is right. That is why we will be seeking to proceed, and why we will seek
in Committee to reverse the defeat on mandatory referrals in another place. That is not an attack on judicial discretion, but a way of taking forward our radical and appropriate proposals.
The measures to protect witnesses are again about getting the best evidence. There is flexibility in the measures, and that is why it will not be mandatory for the courts to make any particular safeguard available to a witness. Having seen and heard the witness and assessed his degree of vulnerability, and being aware of the evidence that it will be required to handle and the nature of the charges, it will be for the court to determine what measures should be put in place.
Those measures will be about protecting the vulnerable, including the very young. We take the point about concerns in relation to young witnesses of, say, five years old, not being able to give their evidence. The court will have discretion to admit such evidence where it is satisfied that the evidence is of value and will serve the interests of justice.
On cross-examination of previous sexual behaviour, there is a need for balance. We believe that we have got the balance right, and there will be an opportunity to test that in Committee.
Some of the judicial attitudes that have been exhibited in relation to promiscuity, for instance, are simply not acceptable. That is why the Bill does, indeed, to some extent fetter and limit the discretion of the Bench. In the past, that discretion has been exercised in a way that has not been compatible with the public interest.
The measures in the Bill will have a real impact on the way in which the criminal justice system serves society. If we can prevent young offenders from becoming tomorrow's career criminals, we will have done society a real service. If we treat witnesses better and improve the quality of evidence that they can bring to trial, we will improve confidence in the criminal justice system. Building that confidence and creating a climate in which people can support the criminal justice system is central to preventing and reducing crime. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Mr. Bermingham:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has come to my notice over the past few weeks that, when there are curtailed speeches--that is, a limit of 10 or 15 minutes--and when Front Benchers are replying to debates, there has grown up a practice of refusal to accept interventions. I have not suffered from it personally but I have sat in my corner and watched it on many occasions. Perhaps you could discuss with Madam Speaker the fact that that practice destroys debate and detracts from the value of the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Today's debate was not time-limited. Interventions are accepted at the discretion of the hon. Member speaking. On time-limited speeches, although it may not be popularly known, interventions can be taken and injury time can be given to the hon. Member concerned.
Mr. Bermingham:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard that yesterday for the first time. Perhaps it could be made more widely known throughout the House, because many hon. Members are unaware of it, and that has restricted their ability to give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The ignorance of some hon. Members is absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.
Mrs. Gorman:
Further to that point of order,Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that the Chair, quite rightly, gives preference to hon. Members who have attended the whole of the debate, so that they can get in their 10-pennyworth, so those who would like to contribute would be well advised to come and sit through the debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Patience is always a virtue in the House, as the hon. Lady well knows.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Pope.]
Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney):
The request for this debate originated in the findings of a mystery shopping exercise carried out by Suffolk county council trading standards officers, published at the beginning of this year. But this is not only a Suffolk issue; it is of widespread interest and national importance and concerns millions of people.
A mortgage is the biggest single financial commitment in most people's lives. For most of the British people, more of their money is wrapped up in mortgages than in anything else. Ours is a country with a high percentage of home ownership. It is essential to have a system that is fair to consumers, providing them with good value for money and protecting them from being misadvised or exploited in any way.
A mortgage today is a complex product that comes in a bewildering range of varieties. As the National Consumer Council says:
The establishment of the Financial Services Authority, the regulation of the sale of investments, and the work done so far on recovery in pensions mis-selling cases, have all been heartening for our people. Yet the question of extending that regulation to mortgages, mortgage lenders and intermediaries, whom I shall call brokers, remains undecided.
In the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill, the Government are taking reserve powers that would enable them to do that, and I welcome that more. However, because the mortgage code was introduced in July 1997, so soon after the Government came to power, it is understandable that they wish to see first whether a voluntary approach can work, so as to avoid the need for legislation and regulation if possible.
However, I find it surprising that mortgages were not automatically included, as many mortgages involve a combination of products, including insurance endowments, personal equity plans and so on--products covered by the FSA--and the broker will be selling such packages.
The key questions are: is the code working, and will it work? The Government will have to decide that later this year. Those who operate the mortgage code register of intermediaries are trying hard. So far, they have registered 20,000 firms and 47,000 brokers, and lenders say that they will not accept business from non-registered brokers.
Copies of the code have been produced, too, with a useful leaflet called "You and your Mortgage", which, by the end of the month, will be given out at the first point of contact. Qualifications have been devised, and many people are registering to take them, but they are not currently mandatory.
An arbitration scheme for handling complaints has also been set up, and compliance monitoring strategy is being developed. Some sanctions will be introduced at the end of the month, including formal warnings, fines and deregistration, plus some naming and shaming. Eight brokers have been deregistered so far.
That is all reasonable and responsible action, but one still has to ask: is it working? Will the code really give the protection that people really need? The only way to find out is to test it, and that is what Suffolk trading standards officers did through their mystery shopping exercise, following an increasing number of complaints.
The county trading standards officers' findings paint a worrying picture. None of the 31 brokers whom they interviewed complied fully with the mortgage code of practice, and more than half of them failed to promote it or even to mention its existence. A similar proportion failed to disclose whether they would receive a fee for arranging the mortgage, and a similar number failed to declare whether they were acting independently or had access to only a restricted number of lenders.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of--
(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown under the Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.--[Mr. Pope.]
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.--[Mr. Pope.]
Question agreed to.
6.39 pm
"Our research shows that the whole business of getting a mortgage is an absolute minefield for consumers".
After the scandal of the mis-selling of financial products under the previous Government--in conditions largely generated by them--people are now delightedand relieved that the new Government's manifesto commitment to clean up the mess and provide protection is being implemented.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |