Examination of Witnesses (Questions 600-619)
KEVIN BRENNAN
MP, RT HON
MARGARET HODGE
MP AND MR
VERNON COAKER
MP
14 MAY 2008
Q600 Alan Keen: Unlike the ticket
touting inquiry we did recently where not all the industry wanted
to eradicate the problem even though this Committee wanted to,
everybody has the same aim, thank goodness. The differences will
be at what level. Jim Gamble himself said that he feels that the
law will have to be changed or that new laws introduced. What
is your view on that? You have already mentioned sites promoting
suicide and even the computer-generated images of paedophiles
abusing children in Second Life time games. That sounds so appalling
and must be damaging and Jim told us that that was somewhere where
the law should be changed. Have you had time in your department
to look at these aspects?
Mr Coaker: I would like to mention
a couple of really important points around this. First of all,
I think that there is a need for us to clarify, which is again
another recommendation that Dr Byron made [...] It is clear if
you talk about child abuse that that is illegal and we start from
what is illegal offline is illegal online. When it starts to get
near the margins, people become a little bemused as to whether
it is illegal or whether it is something that somebody finds offensive
and does not like. I think that there is a need for us to look
at the law and clarify exactly what we mean. Not at the extremes
because it is obvious with some, but sometimes there is a need.
So, there is a need for us first of all to clarify some of the
laws. With respect to avatars, Second Life, it is the case that,
frankly, we would not have asked this question two years ago or
three years ago. We can argue what that was but, two, three or
four years ago, nobody would have had a clue what Second Life
or avatars were. I would not, to be honest about it. This is a
really deep philosophical question and the Government have consulted
on this about the cartoon depiction or fantasy sort of world of
Second Life and whether the law should be saying anything or doing
anything about it. We consulted on it—we consulted on it
for a few months at the beginning of 2007—and we had 87
responses and a few different responses as you can imagine came
back and we consulted again and we are now considering as to what
law, if any, we should come forward with. It is very difficult.
In reading the Committee's deliberations—and I think that
the Committee recognised this—it is a completely new area
of work to actually say, should the law intervene in an area where
nobody has been harmed. It is a fantasy world; there is no criminal.
On the other hand, if you imagine it at its worst, a paedophile
or somebody decides, I know, I will become a paedophile as my
avatar; I will sexually abuse children; I will create all sorts
of images on the Internet; I will buy and sell" and whatever
in that virtual environment, I find that as an individual a disgrace
and disgusting. The problem then becomes, as I am disgusted, appalled
and outraged, does that then mean that that should be made illegal?
I am just posing the arguments here. That is what the Government
are considering. That also then brings in the question, if somebody
is acting that out in a virtual environment, what does that do
for them in the real world? Does that make them more likely or
less likely [...]? I think that the evidence is mixed. The social
scientists and psychologists disagree as to that link. We would
probably disagree as individuals as to what the impact is of watching
this or acting in this. This is a long-winded way—and I
apologise for being longwinded—of saying that we are looking
at this whole area because it raises fundamental, philosophical
questions for us to actually resolve as to whether this is an
area about which we would never have thought in which the law
should intervene. My final point on that is on suicide because
it makes the point very well for me. The Law Commission was clear
that aiding and abetting suicide, whether it be online or offline
but in this particularly with respect to online, is illegal, something
should be done about it and it should be taken down, and there
are other areas where there is illegal content which we need to
ensure is taken down. We have improved law enforcement with regard
to child protection through CEOP and I think that the task for
us is to ensure that the law is in force with respect to that
and I think that is something that the new Council will have to
look at.
Margaret Hodge: I am going to
add very little because I thought that covered most things. The
only thing I wanted to add was where Vernon ended and that is
to say that because it is such a complex issue, this is precisely
one of the key roles that the Council will have in considering
difficult issues like this and then making recommendations. That
is the first thing. The second thing is that, when much of this
law was established, we did not have chat rooms and social networking
sites and it is what emerges on those sites and how we deal with
potentially harmful content on those sites, where the boundaries
are and what is permissible and what is not permissible. It is
fantastically complex stuff and I think that we need to give that
really, really serious consideration. The third point to make
is that one of her recommendations—it comes back to something
we were discussing earlier—is that what we need to think
about is, if there is that sort of content, how can you give people
the quick link to The Samaritans or ChildLine or one of those
supportive organisations that can help people through the harm
that might be created either through content on a site itself
or through the content that is emerging in conversation on the
social networking sites. This is really tough territory. I suppose
the final thing I would add is that, with all these things, we
have to keep looking at the evidence and we have to make sure
that any decision we take is evidence-based and we have to keep
revisiting the evidence of links between what people see and experience
and how they behave because, as we well know, very little of this
is proven and the area where we have proven it is done on sexual
activity and it is very much Vernon's role to take that through.
Mr Coaker: Very much so.
Margaret Hodge: Just to show how
cross-Government we are on suicide, of course the new MoJ is currently
reviewing the law to see whether or not it is appropriate in the
new world of social networking sites and the Internet.
Q601 Chairman: That is the fifth
government department that has become involved.
Margaret Hodge: It does take you
back but let me just say this to you. Many of the issues with
which I have dealt in Government always require cross-Government
action. Very often people say, "Let us set up a special [...]
Let us give it to one department" and the only thing you
always do on this in my experience is bring some things together
and then you create new difficulties which you have to tackle
by cross-Government action. At the end of the day, rather than
spend your time fiddling around, should we set up an Internet
Department or an Internet Agency, I think that what we should
do is tackle the actual issues and make sure that the way in which
we work is properly co-ordinated and linked.
Q602 Alan Keen: I am very pleased
but we know very well that there will not be a definite answer
and it would be wrong if there were. Out of interest, have you
discussed with the industry what even greater fears there may
be for the future with the very quick evolving of the technology
in these twisted people's ideas?
Mr Coaker: One of the things that
is worrying in terms of this whole area of technology and new
technology—and we have Second Life and avatars—is
the increasing mobility, the mobile phone and what is available,
such as Blackberries, and what is essentially becoming a mobile
terminal. The fact is that people will very soon be able to get
out from their pocket access to all of the things about which
we have been talking. Again, I do not know exactly where we have
got to with these mobile platforms but, as I understand it, that
is of increasing concern as well. Similarly, the increasing move
from the use of peer-to-peer connection so that you are not going
through a central connecting point, if you like. So, there is
the peer-to-peer transmission. Also, when I was at CEOP, the use
by paedophiles of games consoles to send bits to each other but
it was not sent as a whole, it was something which you collected
from one game and you went to another game and collected another
bit. These are criminal and immoral people whose expertise in
that warped sense is at the forefront of all of that technology
and the last point I would make is that, in a sense, it is the
success of some of the work that law enforcement has done which
has forced these people to be ever more inventive.
Kevin Brennan: I think that we
should give some credit to the mobile phone industry for what
they have done so far to protect children from some of the images
that might be more easily available elsewhere and in fact I think
that in many ways they are leading the way in making sure that
some of this unsuitable content or even 18-rated sites are not
available when phoned from a mobile platform and they have co-operated
across industry to achieve that.
Mr Coaker: I congratulate all
of the industry for the work they have done. They have worked
very closely with us on a whole range of things to try and move
this forward. It is always the next step, is it not?
Q603 Alan Keen: Am I right in presuming
that the increased numbers of prosecutions is because of the efforts
that have been put in to catch people doing this and may I also
presume that there is an increase in people getting involved in
this?
Mr Coaker: I think that it is
both those things. We are talking about section 127 of the Communications
Act and there has been a quite significant increase in that from
2003 to 2006. It is, as you say, the increase in use of the Internet
and the increase in use of all of the various sites as we know
and, alongside that, an increased awareness of that offence and
an increased use of it by law enforcement.
Kevin Brennan: I am sure that
it is well known to this Committee that about two thirds of households
now have an Internet connection but in fact, in households with
children, that figure rises to 80%. So, it really is becoming
close to universal when you consider the availability in public
libraries and so on as well for those who do not have usage and,
as we know, the big users are children and young people.
Q604 Chairman: Will the measures
in the new Criminal Justice and Immigration Act help in this?
Mr Coaker: Are you referring to
the email addresses that have been made available?
Q605 Chairman: The whole position
with extreme pornographic images.
Mr Coaker: The whole range. That
new offence will help. It is another tool in the box. It is a
possession offence that is not there. I think that the change
to the notification requirements for sex offenders will help where
they will now be required, once we have passed the secondary legislation,
to give email addresses to law enforcement. I think that will
help. Of course, if they choose not to or give a false one, that
is a criminal offence with imprisonment of up to five years, so
I think that will help alongside that. Of course, more generally
with sex offenders, we have changed the rules with respect to
dual criminality. So, if somebody now goes abroad—just as
a piece of information to the Committee but I think there is an
interest—say to Thailand to commit an offence that is not
an offence in Thailand but would be an offence if it were committed
there, we have ended the dual criminality of that so, when they
come back, we can prosecute them for that and I think that is
again something that generally people would welcome, although
it is perhaps slightly outside the remit of what we are talking
about.
Q606 Chairman: Before I bring in
Paul Farrelly, we still have a little way to go but are the three
of you content that we should continue?
Mr Coaker: Yes, absolutely.
Q607 Paul Farrelly: Quite apart from
the Byron recommendation on the Internet Child Safety Council,
there have been voices that have called from time to time for
an Internet standards authority insofar as it can help with a
firmer base in this country rather like the model of the Advertising
Standards Authority or perhaps the Press Complaints Commission.
What are the different departments thinking over that issue?
Margaret Hodge: We have our convergence
think-tank which is considering issues such as this and we always
keep an open mind, should it become appropriate we will do so.
At present, I think that we do not want to over-regulate, we want
to do as much as we can through voluntary mechanisms and we think
that the Internet impacts on all of us and the fact that we have
gone through probably five departments or six departments—you
could have brought a number of departments here today to give
evidence to you—and we think that it is better to work through
existing structures at present, but of course you keep an open
mind on this and I think that this is an issue that will emerge
in the convergence think-tank. I do not know if you have come
to a view on it? No doubt you will tell us your view.
Q608 Paul Farrelly: In a debate on
cyber bullying back in February, Beverley Hughes made the statement
that she thought that business needed to raise its game and we
have just discussed one example where Jim Gamble thought that
business could raise its game in terms of following Microsoft.
We have listened here, just one further example and a horrific
example, to Google admitting that YouTube had nobody pro-actively
monitoring what went on site and in fact, to the extent that complaints
were made, the unspecified number of people responding to those
complaints completely missed a video which portrayed and depicted
in its content as a gang rape. The portrayal and content is of
importance because I know that there are issues about the police
taking up about what actually went on. Is that sort of practice
acceptable? Do you expect businesses to do more?
Kevin Brennan: I think you are
right, we should not comment on what actually happened in that
video but that is not the point, the point is that it was flagged
and how quickly it should have been taken down and how these things
are dealt with. On the issue of cyber bullying and the comments
you made about my colleague in the Department, Beverley Hughes,
she is right in a sense and that is why we are working with the
industry in relation to cyber bullying to see what more can be
done. In fairness, they have done quite a lot so far to work with
us. They have provided free advertising space for our digital
information campaign on cyber bullying; that reached 6.5 million
unique IP addresses as a result of that and had 98,000 different
users visiting the website. Vodafone and O2 have made financial
contributions towards our cyber bullying resource pack and Google,
YouTube, Piczo and Myspace have all been working with us and we
are having another meeting on 4 June of the Cyber Bullying Taskforce
to actually see what more we can do. The evidence that you took
in the session which I have read was very interesting, that revelation
that there was not a single person employed to preview rather
than to review user-generated content was quite an interesting
revelation. What I would say is that what the Byron Review does
and what the Council will do is shine a light on this whole issue
of the extent to which—not that you can preview all user-generated
content, I do not think that is a realistic prospect—you
can spot potentially unacceptable content through words or through
flesh tones, through that kind of technology and then screen it
down for preview rather than review. That perhaps is the issue
that really needs to be explored with people like YouTube.
Q609 Paul Farrelly: If you do not
have a single person you are not making any effort whatsoever.
Kevin Brennan: Yes, and that is
a legitimate point to draw to their attention and to press on
with, with the Council, and to engage them on because it is very
important that the industry is engaged on this. As you all know,
this is a worldwide business and industry and there are different
jurisdictions, different rules and regulations, so it is particularly
suited to getting an engagement, getting an acceptance of what
corporate social responsibility—particularly where children
are involved—means, getting acceptable use policies that
are monitorable and then holding those industries to account for
their own policies to ensure that they are following that. When
you put people together in a room—children's charities,
government ministers and industry—that is where the dynamic
tension that creates progress comes in this, rather than having
a shouting match—enjoyable as that may be, I am not sure
that that is what produces the outcome. I thought that that was
a very, very interesting piece of evidence.
Q610 Paul Farrelly: This is one area
where, as you have said, it really is relevant to question whether
there should be some sort of minimum standard, however applied
and enforced, as to what efforts firms should be expected to make.
As an alternative though, if you take the happy slapping case
where the young girl was convicted for having videoed it as if
she was part of the crime, then by admission of the minister without
the outlet of the likes of YouTube—
Kevin Brennan: That crime would
never have been picked up.
Q611 Paul Farrelly: You could go
along and create criminal sanctions for those firms as accessories
after the fact if they did not do certain things as well, but
that would be the last resort. Surely, this sort of thing, when
people complain it is entirely voluntary as to how the firms treat
the complaint and react afterwards.
Kevin Brennan: The strength of
Byron is exactly that, that it actually holds the industry to
their own voluntary user practices and shines a light on those
user practices so that they are public and clear, not only to
the users or the community as they tend to call them, but also
to the advertisers who are very concerned and pay for these sites
to work. We are all clear, I am sure, that the virtual world is
not a valueless world and that where these things are happening
there does have to be a light shone upon it and effective action
taken, but there is a pretty broad consensus, backed by the evidence
in the Byron Report, that the right way to do it is the way that
she has suggested rather than trying to use the big stick of regulation
and the law which, at the end of the day, is not fleet of foot
enough, frankly, to deal with this ever-changing world.
Margaret Hodge: Could I just add
two things? One is that we have always got to be mindful of the
European E-commerce Directive which has quite a clear view of
what should or should not be on the net or on particular sites,
and the other thing is that there is, which you in particular
will appreciate, always a balance to be struck between freedom
of expression and protection from harm and we have always got
to be beware of trying to walk that tightrope to protect our freedoms
as protecting from harm.
Mr Coaker: As a final point, the
point is very well made that at the end of the day we have social
networking guidance and we have guidelines. We have lots of other
guidelines and I know there was the debate with Dr Byron about
co-regulation or self-regulation; at the end of the day what everybody
was trying to arrive at is if we are going down the self-regulation/co-regulation
route, the documents that are produced and the warm words that
are said, all of those issues are actually reflected in the practice.
All I can say is that I think there has been considerable progress
right across, which has been brought about by the self-regulatory
framework. That is not to say that there is not more progress
that needs to be made—that was the point I made to Mr Farrelly
earlier on about the need to write and say we have agreed these
guidelines, how are we going to ensure now that we bring about
a step change in what we are doing. I also think that the success
of what we have done and what we are doing is reflected in the
fact that other countries are actually coming to us now and asking
about how this self-regulatory framework is working. When we launched
the social networking guidance the Americans came, the Australians
came and only this morning I met the French to talk about what
we were doing with respect to this. We can look at what we have
done and say so far so good but now—I think this is the
point Mr Farrelly is getting at—how do we then bring about,
again, the change that we need so that we have got people proactively
seeking out some of these things, not just reacting, and how we
get the reporting systems consistent and right across the system
and how we deal with the other issues that Mr Keen raised about
advertising and all of the other issues, how we deal not only
with illegal content but harmful and inappropriate content, and
the vehicle of the Prime Minister's taskforce gives us an opportunity
to build on good practice and, as Kevin Brennan said, to take
it to that next stage, that next level.
Q612 Paul Farrelly: I just have three
quick factual questions to conclude. Firstly, when the Government
submitted its evidence there was a tail of 5% of broadband providers
which had not been signed up to taking the Internet Watch Foundation
list of barred sites. Has the target of 100% been reached now?
Mr Coaker: No, it has not been
reached. I set the target of 100% by the end of 2007 and said
that if that was not reached we would then have to consider what
we needed to do. That is what we are currently doing, we are not
satisfied with the 5% that have not put in place blocking mechanisms
as the other 95% have so we are looking at what we need to do
with that.
Q613 Paul Farrelly: Are you considering
naming and shaming?
Mr Coaker: Most of them are very
small companies and all sorts of things are being considered,
whether we need to go down the legislative route, whether we need
to take other action, whether there are other technical solutions
that we can come to, whether just by meeting again with them we
can say you need to conform in the way the others have done. There
are all sorts of things being considered, but it is not satisfactory
that we have still got 5% that did not take action.
Q614 Paul Farrelly: The second question
is again a Home Office one: what is CEOP's budget going to be
for 2008-09?
Mr Coaker: It is £4½
million from the Home Office.
Kevin Brennan: We provide some
in kind help in staffing secondments.
Mr Coaker: It is £4½
million from the Home Office and it gets about £3 million
from children's charities. It then gets a little amount from DCMS.
Q615 Paul Farrelly: Is that the same
then as last year or has it increased?
Mr Coaker: I will drop you a note
about it, but let me just say that in the future, clearly, we
are going to make sure that it is continued. The CEOP funding
is guaranteed until April 2009 but it is inconceivable that the
Government will not fund it in future.
Q616 Paul Farrelly: Finally, if you
could let us have by way of a note the total Government spending
for internet-related child safety and protection.
Mr Coaker: We will have to write
to you about that. It does not answer the question about what
the budget was last year so I will drop a note to the Committee,
Chairman, if that is okay, just to clarify the budget figure,
but this year's figures are £4.5 million from the Home Office,
charities, industry and EU £3.22 million, additional Government
funding (FCO and DCSF) £0.16 million. I will write to the
Committee about how that compares to last year's budget and I
will also send you the details about the budgetary figure for
child protection.[3]
Q617 Paul Farrelly: Very finally, on
that, when we visited CEOP we saw the fantastic work that they
were doing and one of the things we saw was a very measured advert
that runs in Australia frequently, along the lines of the sort
of frequency that we see asking people to slow down to 20 mph
because the chances of killing someone, especially a child, are
far less. In terms of the advertising budget of CEOP, they did
not feel they had sufficient support to extend their activities
in terms of advertising the dangers and also warning people off.
Kevin Brennan: We are committed
to a big public information campaign as a result of Byron and
the Staying Safe Action Plan, which I mentioned earlier on, because
it is not just a case of warning children, and I have seen some
of CEOP's very effective stuff. In fact, my daughter has seen
it at school and told me that she had seen it there too, but it
is also a case, obviously, of closing that knowledge gap amongst
parents because 81% of people say that principally it should be
parents' responsibility to protect their children when they are
on-line but only 25% of parents say they are confident about how
to do that, so the information campaign has to be targeted at
the parents also—as Byron puts it, they have the wisdom
but not the technological knowledge, the kids have got the technological
knowledge but they have not got the wisdom, so that is the gap
that we have to close through an information campaign.
Q618 Paul Farrelly: The way they
put it to us was that they could not find it in their budget but
actually in terms of publicity it is really a departmental and
Government issue of priorities really.
Kevin Brennan: Yes. Could I say
there is a huge amount spent, obviously, throughout Government
and particularly in our department in relation to child safety,
staying safe and safeguarding children, and in terms of children's
services the spend has gone up 7% per annum in real terms over
the last few years from £2.2 billion in 1997 to £5.6
billion now, but on top of that there are all sorts of other measures
like the £30 million we have supplied to NSPCC to run and
expand ChildLine into some of these new technologies over the
next few years and we are also spending a lot of money to try
and get kids out and away from the computer through the £235
million that we are investing in our play strategy, and I know
Dr Byron also mentioned in her evidence that it is important that
we do not have battery-farmed kids locked up because all they
will do is play and explore in the internet rather than playing
safely outside in their community.
Q619 Paul Farrelly: If you let me
have some money now I will invest it wisely on behalf—
Kevin Brennan: I am sure you will
be chivvying your local authority to make a bid for the money;
it is still there.
3 Ev 402 Back
| 
