I have many answers here to the noble Lord’s questions. It is vital to understand the full implications of any actions that we take and whether they are likely to be effective. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that it is vital that we encourage parents to talk about these important issues with their children. Parents told us that they do not always feel aware of the risks that their children face when online. This is why, in May, the four major ISPs launched Internet Matters, a multimillion-pound campaign aimed at helping parents to understand filters and a range of issues related to online safety.
Education is key in all this and we are doing more to educate children. Since the start of the school year in September, the new computing curriculum has included information for five to 16 year-olds—key stages 1 to 5—about how to stay safe online. Some schools are also promoting child safety at special events for parents. As the noble Lord said, children are often savvier than their parents. Ofcom is monitoring progress in this area. Its latest report, published in October, showed that nine in 10 parents mediate their child’s access to the internet in some way, with most parents using a combination of approaches.
4.30 pm
The noble Baroness’s amendment proposes an expansion to Ofcom’s remit, with an enhanced role to regulate standards of filtering and age verification, requiring further legislation. Ofcom continues to monitor and report on many of the issues in this area and the industry-led approach has already resulted in excellent progress. The Government do not feel that an expansion to Ofcom’s role is currently necessary.
While the development of the internet has brought many fantastic opportunities for children, we are under no illusion about the fact that it has brought risks. While we encourage children to take advantage of the many educational and social benefits online, we want to make sure that they do so in a safe and supported way. Over time, the UK has developed an effective and world-renowned self-regulatory approach to online challenges. The UK Council for Child Internet Safety—or, snappily, UKCCIS—brings together the key players from industry, the third sector and indeed government to work in partnership to help to keep children and young people safe. It develops and promotes tools and information for children and parents. The UK is a global net exporter of internet safety best practice, according to the Family Online Safety Institute—FOSI—whose website state:
“Since the emergence of the Internet in the mid-1990s the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of online safety and best practice”.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree with the intention behind the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that children should be protected from harmful digital content. However, the many recent achievements stemming from the Government’s self-regulatory approach, such as the rollout of free, family-friendly filters in the home, default filtering on mobile phones and filtered public wi-fi with an accompanying logo in stores such as Tesco and Starbucks, should reassure noble Lords that the Government’s current approach is already delivering significant progress.
Let me answer questions posed by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked why we do not provide statutory protection online just as we do offline, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, proposed. Progress in the past year has been significant and demonstrates the value of the current approach—working with industry. We believe that offering customers an unavoidable choice on filters—it is not an option; it is unavoidable—is delivering effective progress and we are continuing our work with industry. The noble Baroness also inquired whether we have any information about child exposure to adult content. The problem is that there is a wealth of competing data, with many surveys and many questions asked. The exact effects of exposure are difficult to confirm.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked how many families and children are covered by the ISPs that refused to accept child filters. We estimate that around 10% of households—I am sorry that I do not have the number of households in the UK off the top of my head—are served by smaller providers that may not have filters available. He said that more than 10% of ISPs are opposing child protection and will not do it
voluntarily. This is not the case. We are working with smaller ISPs and some progress is being made. We can provide more detail in writing.