Justice Questions House of Commons

Questions to the Secretary of State

for Justice. Mr Damien Moore. I'll

take questions one and 17 together.

The government has made it a top

priority to make it a smooth legal

transmission.

Could I ask what steps

will his department take to ensure a

review and possible reversal of ECJ

rulings that affected our citizens

once we have left the EU?

We are

taking back control over our laws,

that's what the EU withdrawal bill

does. The Supreme Court should have

the last word on the law of the land

and from that point we can retain,

revise and repeal any pieces of law

as we see fit in the national

interest.

The Minister may have seen

the city UK report that underlined

the importance of the legal sectors.

Could they answered the principal

concerns over whether contracts can

continue to be enforced and

respected across the EU as we leave.

We have made clear in our position

paper that we want to make sure we

maintain that win- win position that

support businesses and individuals

on all sides.

With the minister get

out and meet more people. I've been

talking to judges, barristers,

campaigners, they all are terrified

about what is going to happen if we

leave the European union to our

justice system. Who is he talking to

and why doesn't he broaden his

circle?

Can I suggest that he

doesn't engage in that kind of

scaremongering. I have been talking

to practices, judiciary, and through

the withdrawal bill, I will make

sure we have a smooth legal

transition.

Will the Minister

confirm to the house that it is his

policy that the European Court of

Human Rights will have jurisdiction

over Britain after we leave the EU?

The honourable member will no

because it has been in our manifesto

we have no plans to withdraw.

With

the Minister agree with me that we

have a very effectively consistent

before we joined the EU and we will

have one for many years after we

leave.

My honourable friend is

right. I do take very seriously the

concerns of those who think we need

to mitigate the risk, that's what

the negotiations and the withdrawal

Bill will do. We should grasp the

opportunities as well as managing

the risks.

Last month, just two

weeks ago, well this house was

debating the EU withdrawal Bill, the

Prime Minister's spokesman said that

they expect the European court's

role to remain unchanged during the

process. Is that mean that many

parts of the withdrawal at will not

be brought into force until after

the intermediary period.

She will

know from committee stage debates we

have made it clear that we're not

going to pre-empt or prejudge the

outcome of the negotiation on eve of

the withdrawal Bill or the

fermentation period.

Last week Sky

News reported that after Brexit, the

government wishes to stay in the EU

safety body and accept that this

will mean remaining under the

jurisdiction of the EU court of

justice, the ultimate arbiter of

those rulings. Will the Minister

confirm that the Prime Minister's

red line that there is no European

Court of Justice jurisdiction is

untenable.

The honourable lady is

relying on second-hand reports. We

are not going to pre-empt the

negotiations and I hope she will

support is in getting the very best

deal.

The honourable member for

Clacton has an exactly similar

question. He wasn't standing so I

didn't call him.

Can the Minister

confirm that elements of civil and

criminal law go back to Magna Carta

in 1215 and earlier and our legal

system is is far more long as

established than any EU legal system

and we have one of the most

respected legal systems in the world

and regs it holds no fear as far as

future laws are concerned.

We have

actually got rather different system

through our common law system and we

should have the courage of our

convictions and courage in our

democracy and who want to see the UK

Supreme Court have the last word on

the laws of the land.

Question

number two please.

The government

has published a post-legislative

memorandum and we have launched a

review of the act which will be

thorough and will report by the

summer recess.

Recently I visited

whole chamber of, is and a solicitor

there was explaining how the cuts in

legal aid actually costed the court

so much more money because in hole

so many people are trying to

represent themselves. The president

of the Supreme Court said that the

legal aid reforms are false economy.

Does the Minister agree that

restoring early legal advice would

not only help solve legal problems

but save taxpayers money?

I

understand the point the honourable

lady is try to make in a

constructive way. I'm not sure that

the evidence is there to back up the

assertion she has made. We have made

available a wide range of legal

help, for example in family

situations, that involves practical

support and telephone helplines.

There is also online tools to make

clear when legal aid is available.

There are other sources of legal

advice available to them as well.

When changes to legal aid in family

matters were made it was anticipated

that they want be a considerable

growth in mediation, in fact, it has

dropped considerably. That is

because early legal advice is a

gateway into mediation and reduces

the burden of litigation in the

courts. Isn't it time to look at

that again?

We need to be

encouraging more alternative dispute

resolution and there is an agreement

that we want to incentivise cases to

be settled not through the courts

because of the costs and the trauma

for those involved. I don't think

the answer is a exclusively going to

be around money. It is also going to

be the positive incentives we put in

place.

Providing early legal help in

family court cases would cost less

than £14 million because as the

honourable gentleman has said many

cases would be resolved before

getting to court. Why does the

Minister continue to insist that

this is not a cost-effective way of

dealing with cases? Does he actually

know how many cases are proceeding

with litigants in person and how

much it is costing the court system?

There is a range of support as I've

already detailed, £100 million of

support in terms of early legal help

that can be online telephones and

representation, in terms of in

purpose. There is a range of support

available. We can look at that in

the review.