Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee also accused me of dwelling in the past, because we have an irritating habit of reading all the Governments failed
amendments in the constitution negotiations. We shall continue to do that, so that the British people understand the extent of the volte-face that has been carried out. Indeed, the Governments position this evening has been to criticise us for having the temerity to table an amendment very similar to one that they attempted to press some years ago, but failed. It is rather rich of them to criticise us for trying to put right what they did wrong.
Amendment No. 237 would prevent the Commission from having exclusive competence in the area that we have debated tonight, so that if this House needed to legislate to maintain areas of competition, it could still do so. That seems to me eminently sensible, not least because the Government failed to do it. That is why I shall press the amendment to the vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made:
To report progress and ask leave to sit again. [Mr. Blizzard.]
Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),
That the draft Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 7th January, be approved. [Mr. Blizzard.]
That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary James Purnell relating to Social Security and Pensions not later than Six oclock; and proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption. [Mr. Blizzard.]
Mr. Jeremy Browne (Taunton) (LD) rose
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Will Members who are not staying for the petition and the Adjournment please leave the Chamber as quickly and quietly as possible?
Mr. Browne: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I wish to present a petition about the widespread concern in Somerset about the post office closures proposed for later this month, which will have a major impact on isolated communities, local businesses and vulnerable people, particularly pensioners. The petition reads:
The Petition of residents of Taunton constituency and others,
Declares that the government are proposing to shut 2,500 Post Offices which represents 1-in-5 of the present total. This will hit local communities in Somerset hard.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to save our vital Post Offices which offer an essential service to communities across Taunton constituency.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Blizzard.]
Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): Seven or so years ago, a Home Office Minister said in a parliamentary answer on the taskforce for child protection that the
aim is to make the United Kingdom (UK) the best and safest place in the world for children to use the internet.[ Official Report, 4 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 671W.]
Last year, however, 32 per cent. of children said that they had received unwanted, nasty or sexual comments while on the web. Freedom of information and the unhampered exchange of that information are, of course, at the heart of a free world. What we do not want is Government control of the internet, such as exists in China and elsewhere. The internet is a space for creativity, communication and a fantastic tool for use in education. Too often, any discussion of internet safety leads to the internet being labelled as a bad thing. Clearly, the reverse is the case, but internet users should expect a degree of protection not least from fraud and illegal content, and, for our children, from harmful content.
I start by paying tribute to the impressive work of Dr. Tanya Byron and her Byron review, and I look forward with interest to her recommendations. The Culture, Media and Sport Committeewhose Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), is presentis about to start taking oral evidence on this issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has put forward a private Members Bill to classify video content downloads, in order to help protect children, among other things. So I believe that this subject is topical.
Tonights debate takes on increasing relevance given the recent spate of suicides in Bridgend. Today, we awoke to the tragic news that there had been a 14th victim. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) has raised this in Parliament and has secured an Adjournment debate tomorrow, which I am sure will be well attended.
The Government have the option to make content illegal, as they have with extreme pornography, race hatred and child abuse. The Government also have a role to protect children, and that is what I want to focus on this evening. Schools hard-pressed IT departments do not have the resources, nor parents the know-how, to protect our children.
Another problem is that eight Government Departments have an interest in internet content: the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health, the Foreign Office, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. There is a real lack of ownership within Government of internet content regulation.
The Government can solve that by establishing a lead Department and developing a co-regulatory structure to regulate internet content, bringing together, for example, charities, parents, academics, relevant Government Departments, law enforcement agencies and the industry
itself, to decide codes of conduct in grey areas. That could work along the lines of the Advertising Standards Authority or the Press Complaints Commission, and would replace the current piecemeal and knee-jerk codes of conduct and self-regulation; let us call it the internet standards authority. Harmful contentthat is content where cultural, taste and decency judgments have to be madewould come under the internet standards authority remit and could include glorification of violence and terrorism, pornography, cyber-bullying, suicide, internet gambling and anorexia websites, some of which Members might think are worth banning. However, the list is not exhaustive.
The internet standards authority would build a dynamic filter and create a blacklist database which would be updated hourly. Internet service providers would then offer two choices of content, one for adults and one for children. I envisage the child content would be the default, with adult content accessed with a pin code, or some such protective device. South Korea is an example of where that ISP regulatory system has been successfully implemented, and Australia is considering it. Further filtering could continue at the personal computer level on the fly which would look for unacceptable terms and images.
Robust internet filtering is a technological area that is fast developing, although it is not there yet, which is why I believe ISPs should take the lead in filtering at the network level. I know the British Standards Institution is developing a kitemark, which is a welcome, if belated, development. Hopefully, technological progress will solve some of the issues that we cannot control now. Webcams and peer-to-peer and encrypted content will always present challenges. I do not intend to predict future technological innovations, but filtering web 2.2 generation content when, for example, eight hours of footage per minute is uploaded on to YouTube, will present challenges.
An internet standards authority would be more responsive to new internet trends and lighter on its feet than Government legislation. Perversely, ISPs are being held back from implementing best efforts to protect customers and children lest they be held liable for overblocking or for harmful content being accessed. A number of ISPs do offer content-filtering for children, such as AOLs KOL Jr. pre-school, KOL ages six to 12 and RED ages 13 to 17, and I welcome that, but ISPs are as concerned as I am about the low take-up of available tools. That is why I believe my opt-out approach has merit. An internet standards authority would have the ability to promote its work and improve transparency while also educating parents and ensuring that children surf responsibly.
Promoting a safer environment and raising awarenesswhat I describe as soft power improvementsalso present challenges and will cost money. Internet playgrounds should be supervised in the same way as parks used to be supervised. We need to empower parents and teachers so they are able to supervise, advise and guide children in exploring the online world.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |