---

Internet and Video Games

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. To a certain extent, it is in big brands’ self-interest to self-regulate. For example, in some instances, blogging has become the equivalent of the green-ink letter. On newspaper sites, the comment pages are moderated. When I post one of my superb articles on ““Comment is Free”” on The Guardian website, very kindly its staff protect me from the most aggressive and lewd comments that might be posted, because it is in the interests of the website and The Guardian brand not to have a complete free-for-all in terms of swearing or libellous comments. However, internet service providers, and some of the enormous companies that we have been talking about, such as Google and YouTube, must show a sense of social responsibility. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Those organisations say, ““We are the pipes, and we cannot regulate the content that passes through those pipes.”” They say that it would be like asking Royal Mail to check the contents of every envelope. Well, it is not. If, for example, I decide to send by direct mail a letter to every household with ““Open this envelope for really hardcore pornography”” written on it, hon. Members and the Government would be perfectly within their rights to say to Royal Mail, ““Do you mind intercepting this material and ensuring that it is not posted to every household?”” It is perfectly possible to use search engines to track down unacceptable internet sites. As has been said, we are not talking about checking every 12 hours of video content uploaded on to YouTube. We are talking about using common sense to ensure that the worst material is targeted and taken down. In that sense, some of the recommendations in the Select Committee’s report are right. The Government must take a lead clarifying the e-commerce directive so that internet service providers know that they will not be caught inadvertently by it. Moreover, we need to work harder to get a common set of terms and conditions and to ensure that there are quicker take-down times for some of the more unacceptable sites. I want to make a number of general remarks about how we promote internet safety, particularly for children. All of us have talked about our children and grandchildren. I do not want to be left out of that debate, so I can now inform the Chamber that I, too, have children. One is two years old and the other is eight months old. My two-year-old introduced me to YouTube, although not personally; we had watched the DVD ““Ted the Tractor”” 15 times, and I was running out of inspiration. I remembered the website YouTube, went on it and typed in ““tractor””. I can assure hon. Members that, as far as I am aware, there is nothing obscene to do with tractors on YouTube, and Joseph and I had a very nice time watching tractor videos. If I wanted to regulate Google or the computer in our sitting room when Joseph is slightly older, I would not have the first clue how to go about it or where to start, nor would I know how to access information on the number of concerns that have been raised. I typed ““child internet safety”” into Google. The eighth site that came up was CEOP. I happened to know what CEOP is because it falls within my brief and I have read up about it. I hesitate to say this because it might appear rude or patronising, but I suspect that the average man or woman on the street—