Tag: James Cartlidge

The statement made by James Cartlidge, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 22 March 2022.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) has made the following statement:

I announce today the publication of Part 2 of the Government’s response to the ‘Reforming the soft tissue injury (‘whiplash’) claims process’ consultation paper on www.gov.uk.

In November 2016, the Government published a consultation that set out proposed measures to tackle the number and cost of road traffic accident related personal injury claims. This consultation covered both legislative proposals for tackling the number and cost of whiplash claims, and a ‘Call for Evidence’ on several related issues.

The Government response was split into two parts, with Part 1 covering the primary and secondary legislative measures which made up the Whiplash Reform Programme, and Part 2 covering the ‘Call for Evidence’. Part 1 of the response was published in February 2017, but a decision was taken to defer work on Part 2 to enable focus on developing and implementing the significant whiplash reform measures.

Now that the whiplash reforms have been successfully implemented, it is appropriate to revisit the issue of publishing the deferred Part 2 Government response. The newly published response includes a summary of stakeholder views and specific analysis of the responses received on issues relating to credit hire, rehabilitation, early notification of claims, recovery of disbursements, Insurance Fraud Taskforce actions, and consideration of a Barème scheme. It also details the next steps to be taken in relation to these topics.

In considering the responses received, we have acknowledged that these were views provided in 2016, and that in some areas, developments in the sector have altered the position considered in the ‘Call for Evidence’. We will continue to monitor several of the areas identified and remain open to working with specific stakeholder groups to develop and implement industry-led solutions to issues in areas such as rehabilitation and credit hire.

The consultation response paper can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-the-soft-tissue-injury-whiplash-claims-process.

The speech made by James Cartlidge, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 19 January 2022.

As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for the Adjournment debate, especially as you served on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as recently as 2017, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) observed.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on the quality and detail of his speech. I value his insight into the problems that face the Strasbourg Court given his twin roles as chair of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and vice-president of the Assembly. I commend his work in both roles: he and the rest of the delegation do a fantastic job representing our Parliament in Strasbourg.

My hon. Friend is widely recognised at the Assembly as a champion of democracy and transparency, the latter of which is particularly central to the debate. To highlight just one of his achievements in Strasbourg, he co-authored two important reports that pointed out issues affecting the rule of law and democracy in Turkey. The reports led to the Assembly’s adopting two resolutions, the most recent of which was adopted in April last year and called on Turkish authorities to take steps to address the issues that my hon. Friend had raised, including the need to refrain from incriminating, prosecuting and arresting peaceful demonstrators, students and LGBT people.

I mentioned transparency; in June last year, my hon. Friend supported the motion introduced by one of his co-delegates, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), that called on the Assembly to set up a transparency register to address concerns about the influence of some NGOs in the Assembly’s decision-making processes. I heard the similar concerns that my hon. Friend expressed in respect of the Strasbourg Court and will in a moment touch on the issue of the selection and election of judges to the Court, which made up much of the substance of his speech.

The Council of Europe, and the European Court of Human Rights in particular, has played a leading role in the protection and promotion of human rights across our continent. The Court now has jurisdiction in respect of no fewer than 47 countries and is widely recognised as one of the most successful regional human rights courts in the world.

The UK, of course, has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected both at home and abroad and, as my hon. Friend knows, was instrumental in the drafting of the European convention on human rights and in the setting up of the Council of Europe, the primary statue of which is still known as the treaty of London.

As we have previously assured the House, the Government are wholeheartedly committed to remaining party to the ECHR and will ensure that our obligations under it—including those relative to the execution of judgments of the Strasbourg Court against the UK—continue to be met. It has long been a UK objective to strengthen the Strasbourg Court and the convention system, both to improve the efficiency of the European Court of Human Rights in the light of its continued backlog of pending applications and to ensure that it can focus on the most important cases before it, underpinned by the principle of subsidiarity to which my hon. Friend referred in detail.

It is true that the Court, having become a victim of its own success, continues to face significant challenges, with its case load having grown exponentially in the past 20 years. As a way to address this, in 2010 ECHR state parties adopted the Interlaken declaration, a 10-year programme of work known as the Interlaken process that set out to reduce the Court’s backlog of cases and allow for all cases, especially those that concern serious violations of human rights, to be adjudicated within a reasonable time. That was followed in 2012 by the Brighton declaration, which was adopted under the UK’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers.

As my hon. Friend will recognise, the UK has been at the forefront of efforts to reform the Strasbourg Court following the Interlaken declaration, and the Brighton declaration went further than Interlaken in a number of respects. Notably, it called for the stronger application of the principle of subsidiarity and the doctrine of the margin of appreciation. Those calls were, of course, aimed to address the Court’s growing case load, but they also served as a reminder of the paramount role of national courts in the enforcement of human rights.

One of the major achievements of the Brighton declaration was protocol No. 15 to the convention, which came into force in August 2021. Not only does protocol No. 15 add the principle of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation to the preamble of the convention, but it will improve the efficiency of the Strasbourg Court by shortening the time limit for applications, ensuring that all applications have been duly considered by domestic courts and ensuring an appropriate upper age limit for judges, so that they can serve for the full term of their tenure and provide continuity to the Court. We also welcomed the adoption in 2018 of the Copenhagen declaration, which carried forward some of the initiatives begun in Brighton.

Although it can be said that the Interlaken process has been partly successful—the number of applications pending before the court in January 2021 was 62,000, which is down from a record high of just over 150,000 applications in 2011—the Court’s caseload is still stubbornly high and some other issues remain. Although state parties agreed in November 2020 that no comprehensive reform of the convention was needed, there was a recognition that further efforts should be pursued, and I very much agree with that assessment.

My hon. Friend has already alluded to a specific area that is worth highlighting: the selection and election of judges to the Strasbourg Court. In my view, it is crucial that judges in Strasbourg are of the highest calibre possible and independent from any political influence, as we aim to have in our system in the UK. As my hon. Friend has already mentioned, judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as stipulated by article 22 of the convention. As part of that, the advisory panel set up in 2010 gives a non-binding opinion on whether countries’ candidates for judges, provided as a shortlist, meet the necessary criteria set out in paragraph 1 of article 21 of the convention.

I am aware that the panel is one way in which the Council of Europe has tried to improve the standard of judges elected to the Strasbourg Court in recent years, with the aim of increasing confidence in its judgments. However, consideration must be given to whether the process undertaken by the advisory panel is sufficiently robust to ensure that all candidates meet the requisite suitability criteria. I particularly note the concern raised by my hon. Friend about the calibre of some candidates put forward and their affiliations, be they political activists or academics who have limited experience in the practical application of the law. I would therefore welcome the Parliamentary Assembly’s exploring ways in which to share best practice with state parties to assist in that regard.

John Howell

Is my hon. Friend aware that Russia recently put forward three Russian candidates to be judges? They were considered so inadequate that even the committee responsible for them sent them home without seeing them.

James Cartlidge

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Russia has already had quite a lot of mentions in the debate. I am sure that will continue on matters affecting the ECHR, but as I said, we need to look at the issue of judges, which was such an important part of his speech.

I am particularly pleased that, at our Government’s request, state parties have agreed to ask the Steering Committee for Human Rights to take a further look at the effectiveness of the system for the selection and election of judges at the Strasbourg Court. The report will also look into the need for additional safeguards to preserve their independence and impartiality, and it may well explore some of the areas of concern raised by my hon. Friend. I know the committee will undertake other important work concerning reforms of the Strasbourg Court, including a review of the first effects for protocol No. 15 to the ECHR.

Although the focus of the debate has quite rightly been on reform at Strasbourg level, it is worth noting that our proposed reforms of the Human Rights Act 1998 should help to address the systematic reliance on Strasbourg jurisprudence by our domestic courts. Among other measures, we are consulting on options for reform of section 2 of the Human Rights Act that will emphasise the primacy of domestic precedent. These options will set out a broad range of case law, including, but not limited to, Strasbourg jurisprudence that UK courts may consider.

As the title of the debate is “European Court of Human Rights: Reform”, let me sum up by reiterating the UK’s commitment to its obligations under the European convention on human rights and that we will continue to abide by the Court’s judgments. We will continue to work with our Council of Europe partners to pursue ongoing reform of the Court, both to improve the Court’s efficiency in the light of its large backlog of pending applications and to ensure that it can focus on the most important cases before it, underpinned by the principle of subsidiarity.

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He put his case eloquently and in great detail, and I pay tribute to him again for his work. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to respond for the Government.

The speech made by James Cartlidge, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 2 December 2021.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on bringing forward this incredibly important subject for debate. I know that she has long championed the victims of online abuse, and I would like to thank her for her efforts, which have contributed greatly to the Government’s thinking in this sensitive area and indeed to the reform of the criminal law itself. I shall try to summarise how I feel on hearing her speech and the contribution she has made by saying that she has an enduring passion for protecting society, especially women and girls, from the dark side of digital. I think that is the best way to describe what is so powerful about the way she speaks on this subject.

Turning to the specifics, deepfake is a term used broadly to describe software or processes used to splice or superimpose existing images on to source photographs or videos. My right hon. Friend has explained that this technology is now being used to create fake pornography, often without the agreement or knowledge of the victim. The images, though in themselves fake, can appear realistic, and their sharing can understandably cause deep distress. She rightly used the word “grotesque” to describe this practice, and she spoke movingly about the real-world impact that it has. She referred to the cases of constituents, and let me express my sympathy for every one of them. This must be harrowing and distressing for them, and we need to tackle it and stamp it out.

I should like to begin by assuring the House that the existing criminal law is fully equipped to deal with instances where the manipulated images depict children, who of course are the most vulnerable. These pseudo-images can cause real-life harm, as I said. They can be created from real images where a child was abused, and viewing the images creates a demand for those pictures, which leads to further abuse. I realise that my right hon. Friend did not primarily talk about children, but because of the issue of vulnerability, I think I should put this on record.

The Protection of Children Act 1978 criminalises the making, taking, sharing and distribution of indecent photographs and indecent pseudo-photographs of children. A pseudo-photograph is an image, whether made by computer graphics or otherwise, that appears to be a photograph. This offence carries a robust maximum 10-year prison sentence. Similarly, section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 captures the mere possession of such images, and that offence is subject to a five-year prison sentence. Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 created a new offence of possession of a prohibited image of a child, punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. In addition, it created a new criminal offence to make illegal the possession of non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse, including cartoons and computer-generated images of child abuse, with a three-year maximum prison sentence.

Although it is right that there are specific and robust provisions in relation to faked indecent images of children, I share my right hon. Friend’s concern at the distress that the non-consensual creation and sharing of deepfake images can cause to adult victims. I assure the House that a person who shares such images of adults may—I stress may—in some circumstances be committing an existing offence. A person who shares deepfake images of adults may in some circumstances be committing an existing offence. For example, against a background of domestic abuse, the posting or sharing of faked images could be captured under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. That offence was created specifically to target controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, including when the victim is an ex-partner. We are aware that deepfake images are being used for such disturbing and cruel purposes.

In addition, section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 prohibits the sending of an electronic communication that is indecent, grossly offensive or false, or that the sender believes to be false, if the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the sender is to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. Furthermore, section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send or cause to be sent through a

“a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”.

The same section also provides that it is an offence to send or cause to be sent a false message

“for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”.

Such behaviour may also amount to harassment, which is also already an offence.

There has been a successful conviction in which a person was found guilty of harassment after uploading images of a colleague, fully clothed, alongside images on a porn site of women of a similar shape and build as the colleague. Additionally, those who encourage others to commit an existing communications offence may be charged with encouraging an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007.

I stress, though, that the Government recognise the concerns, set out so eloquently and clearly by my right hon. Friend, about the existing communications offences. The Law Commission considered the specific offences I have set out as part of its “Modernising the Communications Offences” review, to understand whether they needed to be reformed to better tackle abusive and harmful behaviours online. The Commission has now published its final report and recommendations for reform, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has indicated that she is minded to adopt the harm-based offence, the false-communications offence and the threatening-communications offence.

Alongside the use of existing and established criminal sanctions, there is a major role for the websites that host the images. It is encouraging that sites such as Pornhub, Twitter, Reddit and several others have all announced bans on deepfake images. Such images already violate community standards on major social media platforms such as Facebook. Some sites are already beginning to turn to artificial intelligence to police the images, rather than rely on users reporting them—an example of the determination to find effective and new ways to restrict the practice. For example, Facebook uses machine learning and AI to detect near-nude images or videos shared without permission on its platforms. Bumble, a dating app, has its own “Private Detector” safety feature, which automatically blurs a nude image shared in a chat. These are important steps to protect user safety and ensure that the images are tackled head on.

I hope that my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the law can, in most scenarios, deal with this behaviour, and that non-criminal interventions are developing all the time, but it is of course crucial that the criminal law keeps pace with new technologies as they emerge. We continue to keep these issues under review and when we see a problem with the criminal law, we act.

This Government have a strong record when it comes to protecting the public from the abuse of private, intimate imagery. For example, much as a result of my right hon. Friend’s assiduous campaigning, as she said earlier, in 2015 we created the so-called revenge porn offence at section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, and only recently, during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, we listened to the voices of victims of image abuse and supported provisions to extend that offence to capture those who threaten to disclose private sexual images with an intent to cause distress. That change has now been implemented and I am sure that my right hon. Friend, having fought so hard for the creation of the original offence, welcomes that significant extension of the protection of victims from image-based abuse. In addition, after listening to the victims of upskirting and the excellent campaign for change headed by Ms Gina Martin, we created new criminal offences in the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 specifically to address that intrusive and distressing behaviour. Offenders now face up to two years behind bars, and the most serious among them will be subject to sex offender notification requirements. We do listen and we do respond.

Mrs Miller

My hon. Friend has clearly gone through the shopping list of laws that can be used to try to guard against the misuse of intimate images, but in having a shopping list we have created a lot of gaps, too. For instance, upskirting may be unlawful but down-blousing is not. It is very difficult when we have law that is so prescriptive. Does he have sympathy with the need to have something more encompassing so that we can capture all forms of intimate image abuse and not have to play whack-a-mole by outlawing the latest devious way in which people try to abuse women and girls online?

James Cartlidge

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and once again she highlights her incredible expertise on these matters. She will be aware that the way Parliament often works is that individual campaigns generate momentum and become specific offences—I would not use the phrase “ad hoc,” which is almost demeaning to those campaigns, which are incredibly important and powerful. That is the reality of how this place makes law at times, but she is right that we need to consider the broader picture. I know where her focus is, and I will be coming to the Law Commission, which will feed into that point.

My colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are busy preparing the online safety Bill, which will include provisions to tackle illegal and legal-but-harmful content, including criminal deepfake pornography, sexual harassment and abuse that does not cross a legal threshold. Under the Bill all companies will need to take action against illegal content and ensure that children are protected from inappropriate material. Major platforms will also need to address legal-but-harmful content for adults, which will likely include online abuse. Ofcom will have a suite of enforcement powers to deal with non-compliance, including fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying annual turnover.

The Joint Committee that is scrutinising the Bill is due to report before recess—by 10 December. We will table the Bill as soon as possible, subject to the parliamentary timetable, but we must not rest. I assure the House that we do not take concerns in this sensitive area lightly.

It was with those concerns in mind that the Government asked the Law Commission to review the law on the taking, making and sharing of intimate images without consent, to identify whether there are any gaps in the scope of protection already offered to victims. Importantly, the review has considered the law on manipulated images such as those created by deepfake technology and the protection that the existing law affords.

On 27 February 2021 the Law Commission published the consultation paper on its review, and the consultation ended on 27 May and put forward a number of proposals for public discussion. I understand the Law Commission is due to publish its final recommendations by spring 2022.

Although I welcome this opportunity to discuss the nature of developing technology and the production and sharing of explicit manipulated images and other offences, this is a complex area and it is right and proper that we should take time to consider the law carefully before deciding whether to add further to the raft of existing legislation that already addresses these issues. It is important, therefore, to allow the Law Commission to finish its work and to consider in detail and with care any recommendations it produces. The Government await the Law Commission’s findings with interest and will consider them carefully.

I believe my right hon. Friend has previously met the Law Commission but, if it would be of interest, I would be more than happy to arrange for her to do so again, based on its latest position.

Mrs Miller

I am slightly taking advantage of the fact that we have a little more time this evening. The Minister will know that the Law Commission has made its recommendations, which have gone out for consultation. That consultation finished a month or two ago, so it is not that the Law Commission will finish its deliberations in the spring; it has already finished its deliberations. Those recommendations, subject to any input from the consultation, should be available shortly. I still do not understand why he is not able to bring these recommendations forward at the same time as the online safety Bill.

James Cartlidge

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I wish to clarify this, as a lot of Law Commission reviews are taking place over time. There are two in this regard. The one I believe she is referring to is the one I mentioned earlier, which is the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport one. I believe that has reported and that the Department is now considering it, and it concerns malicious communications and other offences to which I referred earlier. The review on taking, making and sharing is ongoing and will report in spring next year. The point I was making to her was that if she wanted to contribute to that and meet the Law Commission—

Mrs Miller indicated assent.

James Cartlidge

My officials have noted her positive nodding of the head, and so I would be more than happy to set that meeting up, because she has great expertise. I can assure her that her concerns, and the views and issues raised by this House, will be taken fully into account when the Government consider those findings and the issue of whether reform to the criminal law is necessary.

The speech made by James Cartlidge, the Conservative MP for South Suffolk, in the House of Commons on 25 January 2021.

May I begin by associating myself with the remarks of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), about those workers who continue to go to their physical workplace during the pandemic? We should all pay tribute to them and share that noble sentiment. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his promotion to the Cabinet—it is well deserved. I know he will champion business in these challenging times and, in particular, the principles and practice of free enterprise.

We may not be moving the amendment, but I am particularly proud that it contains two words that we did not hear at all from the Opposition: job creation. Let us be clear: no matter what anyone says, there is broad consensus now across the House and the country about keeping the fundamental employment rights we have. Employers are familiar with them, employees understand them and the country generally supports them. However, it would be quite extraordinary, facing the economic pressures that we do, if a Conservative Government did not look at what supply-side reform, including deregulation and cutting red tape, could be brought forward so that we can strengthen our recovery as we eventually come out of lockdown, and there are two key reasons why they should do that.

The first is obviously the strength of the challenge. I am very proud that, as the Secretary of State said, we had the lowest unemployment since I was born in 1974 before we went into the pandemic. However, covid and the action that we have had to take have created inevitable economic pressure, and the impact on jobs will be seismic. In that context, the Government should use every lever at their disposal to strengthen the recovery as we move out of lockdown. That must include looking at what areas can be deregulated, while keeping fundamental employment rights in place.

The second reason is that we have to understand one of the most important assets of our economy. One of the key strengths of UK plc is that we have a flexible labour market. The World Economic Forum and others have recognised that. It is a key factor in why huge multinationals like to invest in the UK, and inward investment will be a crucial part of our recovery. It would therefore be deeply unwise if we were now to send a message to the rest of the world that we were going to unwind our flexible labour market.

This is about the message we send. If we had a four-day week—it seems that the Labour party is still considering that—there are many who would support it, but the message that that would send is that we were not going to be pro-business or to drive a strong recovery. Instead, the message we should send is that we will look at every single action we can take across Government, in every Department, to prioritise jobs, jobs, jobs and to achieve the two outcomes we must achieve above all else: reducing the risk of long-term scarring from covid to the economy and, most important of all, maximising those two great words—job creation.