UK Government Watch

Internet sites could be given cinema-style age ratings as part of a Government crackdown on freedom online to be launched in the New Year, the Culture Secretary says.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Andy Burnham says he believes that new standards of decency need to be applied to the web. He is planning to negotiate with Barack Obama's incoming American administration to draw up new international rules for English language websites.

The Cabinet minister describes the internet as quite a dangerous place and says he wants ISPs to offer parents child-safe web services.

Giving film-style ratings to individual websites is one of the options being considered, he confirms. When asked directly whether age ratings could be introduced, Burnham replies: Yes, that would be an option. This is an area that is really now coming into full focus.

ISPs, such as BT, Tiscali, AOL or Sky could also be forced to offer internet services where the only websites accessible are those deemed suitable for children.

Burnham said: If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that Governments couldn't reach. I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now. It's true across the board in terms of content, harmful content, and copyright. Libel is [also] an emerging issue.

There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That is my view. Absolutely categorical. This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; [...BUT...] it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it.

Burnham reveals that he is currently considering a range of new safeguards. Initially, as with copyright violations, these could be policed by internet providers. However, new laws may be threatened if the initial approach is not successful: I think there is definitely a case for clearer standards online. More ability for parents to understand if their child is on a site, what standards it is operating to. What are the protections that are in place?

He points to the success of the 9pm television watershed at protecting children. The minister also backs a new age classification system on video games to stop children buying certain products.

Burnham also wants new industry-wide take down times. This means that if websites such as YouTube or Facebook are alerted to offensive or harmful content they will have to remove it within a specified time once it is brought to their attention.

He also says that the Government is considering changing libel laws to give people access to cheap low-cost legal recourse if they are defamed online. The legal proposals are being drawn up by the Ministry of Justice.

Burnham admits that his plans may be interpreted by some as heavy-handed ...BUT... says the new standards drive is utterly crucial . Mr Burnham also believes that the inauguration of Barack Obama, the President-Elect, presents an opportunity to implement the major changes necessary for the web: The more we seek international solutions to this stuff – the UK and the US working together – the more that an international norm will set an industry norm.

Rules that allow jobcentres to advertise sex related opportunities are being reviewed by the Government, Commons Leader Harriet Hatemen said today.

Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell is looking into guidelines that allowed more than 350 sex industry jobs to be advertised in Jobcentre Plus offices across the country last year.

Shadow Commons leader Theresa May said jobs included topless semi-nude bar staff and nude cleaners.

During exchanges on future Commons business, May told MPs of Harman's quest to stop local newspapers advertising the sex trade.

She told Harman: Pity you can't persuade the Work and Pensions Secretary to join your campaign. A new report shows that Jobcentre Plus advertised 351 vacancies in the adult entertainment industry last year, including adverts for topless semi-nude bar staff and nude cleaners.

Two jobseekers complained - they were asked to perform sexual services after contacting an employer about a vacancy advertised at Jobcentre Plus.

May demanded an end to this hypocrisy within Government.

Harman, who is also Women's Minister, said: I absolutely agree with you that there is no way that job centres should be used as a place for advertising jobs for sexual services, for lap dancing, for sex encounter establishments. I raised this with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - he is reviewing the situation. We don't want any of those sorts of jobs in our jobcentres.

Jack Straw plans to overhaul the Human Rights Act amidst claims that it has become a charter for criminals.

The Injustice Secretary wants to reflect complaints that the act protects rights but says nothing about responsibilities.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, he says he is frustrated by the way the legislation he introduced ten years ago has sometimes been interpreted by the courts. He blames nervous judges for refusing to deport extremists and terrorist suspects despite assurances by ministers that their removal is in the national interest.

In a move which will alarm the civil liberties lobby, Straw reveals that he is studying whether the act can be tightened and has taken legal advice.

In due course I could envisage that there could be additions made to to work in the issues of responsibilities, he says.

He tells the Mail that he wants to rebalance the rights set out in the Human Rights Act by adding explicit responsibilities , specifically to obey the law and to be loyal to the country.

He is also looking at ways of promoting social rights such as access to health care, as well as social responsibilities such staying healthy or the education of children.

In addition to banning free drinks for women, and big glasses in pubs, the government has made it known that Wednesday's Queen's Speech contains notice of legislation to prevent criminals profiting from their crimes by writing memoirs. Sounds well and good. Lot of cobblers, though.

This is not to say that I'm in favour of criminals making money from their memoirs. There is a moral or ethical problem here, clearly. On the one hand, it is bordering on the absurd to imagine that the prospect of a book deal will incentivise people to commit crimes: if you're doing the sort of crime that would really command a big advance – a kill-hack-and-eat job, say – you're unlikely to be the sort of person for whom the book deal is the big thing.

On the other hand, nevertheless, it's not nice to think of vicious killers ending up on the chat-show circuit. Try the thought experiment. Harold Shipman: I Did It My Way. Dahmer: The Cookbook. Manson: My Family And Other Animals. You think: disgusting, yuk, why in any civilised society would these beasts be heard from again?

You think: O J Simpson (obviously, he didn't do it, but profiting from the titillating speculation that he might have done it is unattractive, no?); you think "Mad" Frankie Fraser; you think Ronnie Biggs. No need for books from them, you think.

Then you think: Jeffrey Archer, Nick Leeson, Howard Marks, Jonathan Aitken. You say: "hmmm." Then again, you think: conscientious objectors, metric martyrs, foxhunting men, repentant members of the Weather Underground or former Islamists like Ed Husain. You say: "hmmmm" with even more "m"s. And then again, you think, Jean Genet. You think William Burroughs. Perhaps if you have that cast of mind, you think Aung San Suu Kyi or Nelson Mandela.

You think... well, you end up thinking that this is a law – or a provision in law – designed to sound good and serious, but whose implementation is so impossible, whose ambition so fuzzy, as to be no more than a calculatedly fatuous electoral gesture.