Mandating age ratings to help parents trust the safety of video-on-demand content
In late January I supported new clause 6 and amendment 17, both in my name, through which to require the same standards of child protection be applied to on-demand video as are applied to cinema releases, physical DVDs and linear TV.
Media Bill | Tuesday 30 January 2024
I rise to support new clause 6 and amendment 17, both in my name. The Bill is a substantial piece of legislation and I fully support what the Government are seeking to do through it to bridge the gap in regulation between linear television and internet-based on-demand platforms.
Nobody would argue against the principle that we want to protect children from watching age-inappropriate or harmful content. That is, after all, why Parliament over many years has brought in legislation that mandates age ratings on cinema releases, restrictions on children buying DVDs and videos and, importantly, until the relatively recent past, a watershed for broadcast TV. The watershed, of course, ensures that programmes broadcast before 9 pm are generally suitable for children.
However, now that the vast majority of content watched by children and adults is accessed through on-demand streaming services, the watershed has become increasingly redundant. It does not matter if a programme was originally broadcast live after the watershed; once it is available to stream online, it can be viewed by anyone of any age at any time. That is why we urgently need to apply the same standards of child protection to on-demand video as we do to cinema releases, physical DVDs and linear TV.
While a time-based watershed clearly cannot be adapted for video on demand services, we are very fortunate in this country to have world-class expertise in applying age ratings to video content. The British Board of Film Classification has been empowered by Parliament, through the Secretary of State, to apply age ratings across all cinema and DVD releases in the UK. The BBFC does an excellent job of this, as colleagues have mentioned, and is a global leader in its field. It has produced a system of age ratings that the vast majority of the British population recognises, trusts and understands.
Importantly, its ratings are based on regular consultation with thousands of people across Britain to ensure that they meet audience expectations.
We have the relevant age rating expertise already in this country, but as it stands, the Bill will not make use of that expertise. Amendment 17 would address this matter very simply by explicitly requiring Ofcom to consult the BBFC when drawing up the video on demand code. The code will set the rules for streaming platforms, including in relation to age ratings. Why would we not want to ensure that our world-renowned, Government-appointed experts are consulted as part of that?
There was a similar amendment to the Online Safety Act 2023 that required Ofcom to consult with the Children’s Commissioner, and I can see no argument against applying the same principle here. Getting age ratings right is incredibly important, as they will likely become one of the main audience protection measures that platforms employ and will, of course, future-proof the Bill. If parents do not trust the ratings, they will ignore them, and we will then not achieve our aim of protecting children.
That brings me to new clause 6 in my name, which is similar to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter), and I will reiterate some of his points.
Kit Malthouse MP: I am very supportive of the theme of my hon. Friend’s amendment. She made an extremely important point about consistency for parents. Those of us who are lucky enough to have children find ourselves in a forest of different media that they consume, some of which seem to decide the rules and ratings on their own—of course, there are websites to go to for third-party reference. Does she agree that it would be sensible to have a standardised view for parents, to manage consumption by their children, as it is the parents’ primary duty to manage that? We have seen in the past that the wider media industry will constantly push the boundary to try to get more under the wire for consumption by younger and younger people, such as in the deterioration of the watershed on terrestrial television. If an organisation such as the BBFC sets the tone and the standard, that must apply online as much as offline.
...I agree with every word. The very important factor behind the BBFC is that parents trust it.
It even has an app to search for any film or DVD, and it will tell parents not only the rating but exactly why it is there—swearing, violence or whatever. That detailed knowledge is crucial not only to gain parents’ trust but to create an industry standard, as my right hon. Friend said. If we have no industry standard, some companies will try to get around the requirements if there is a commercial advantage. The Bill should set out exactly that.
The Bill lists age ratings as one of the options that tier 1 platforms, such as the providers we have talked about, can use to comply with their audience protection requirements, but it shies away from setting the minimum standard that my right hon. Friend just mentioned for what those ratings should be. The Bill is right to recognise that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. Research has shown that audiences have different expectations of video on demand services than they do of those operated by public service broadcasters. But where age ratings are in use, is it not common sense to expect a consistent standard? My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon talked about Disney+ and the fact that the film “Avatar” has a 16-plus rating, even though most parents would think it suitable for much younger children, whereas a series that has scenes of sexual coercion is apparently suitable for nine-plus.
The outcome is that parents just turn off the security settings, because they do not trust the ratings. How are parents supposed to understand and apply them if they are not consistent across different platforms and providers?
New clause 6 would set a minimum standard for tier 1 providers that choose to use age ratings, by allowing them to use either the BBFC’s system or one of equivalent transparency, clarity, rigour and objectivity that has been approved by Ofcom. The new clause does not seek to mandate the BBFC system, although research has found that 90% of UK parents want on-demand age ratings to be consistent with those for cinema and DVD. Rather, it would set a minimum standard across platforms that parents can trust. We have proof already that that works. Netflix and Prime Video have both voluntarily set up innovative partnerships to include BBFC ratings in their content. That kind of collaboration is in the interests of everyone—parents, children and the platforms themselves. It shows that this can be done without high costs or a reduction in consistency. But the reluctance of Disney+ and others to follow suit shows why this kind of regulation is needed.
The BBFC’s system fits the Government’s own definition of best practice for age ratings. It would surely be preferable for all platforms to follow the example of Netflix and Amazon, but we do not need to be overly prescriptive in imposing solutions. Instead, I ask the Government to accept that it is the role of Parliament—not Ofcom—to set minimum standards to ensure the protection of children from harm. New clause 6 would achieve that by requiring tier 1 platforms to apply either the age rating classification system used by the BBFC or a system based on a transparent set of appropriate standards applied consistently. If this House really wants to protect children and wishes to see a trusted, effective regulatory landscape, it is hard to envisage what objections there might be to this provision.
My amendments are focused on that specific aspect of the Bill, but they speak to my wider concern about the approach to digital media regulation in recent years. In both this Bill and the Online Safety Act 2023, on which I worked with colleagues across the House and in the other place to secure strengthening amendments, we have given far too much power to Ofcom—not enforcement powers, which are needed, but the responsibility to determine regulatory policy. In this Bill, as in the Online Safety Act, Parliament is setting out only the very basic principles through legislation, leaving it up to Ofcom to draft and consult upon the vast majority of the detail.
I have nothing against Ofcom as an organisation—we must have an official regulator to ensure that broadcasters and providers adhere to standards required by law. However, when it comes to setting policy, I subscribe to the perhaps old-fashioned notion that it is our job as elected Members of Parliament. We cannot leave something so important up to the consultations of an unelected body, especially when the vested interests at play are so substantial. As other hon. Members have mentioned, once we pass the Bill, Parliament will not get another chance to set the parameters of the video on demand code, so we must ensure that the final text of the Bill sets out what Parliament believes to be the appropriate standards of audience protection.
Sadly, my concerns in this area are well founded. In the recently enacted Online Safety Act 2023, Parliament decided that age verification checks for sites and platforms hosting pornography must be “highly effective” to address the significant problem of young children accessing violent pornography on social media and websites. “Highly effective” is an outcome measure. Just trying hard to prevent children from accessing pornography does not make a platform compliant under that Act. Compliance means actually stopping under-18s from coming across porn. In other words, this Bill requires effective outcome measures and must not give prizes to the tech companies just for taking part.
Yet in the draft consultation that it published last month, Ofcom does not set out what the “highly effective” standard means, so platforms and users are none the wiser when it comes to what does and does not meet the required legislative standard. Instead, the consultation outlines the kind of activities that Ofcom would like to see, rather than the outcomes that it demands. Given that Parliament has tasked Ofcom with adjudicating on what meets the “highly effective” standard, failing to set a clear definition is completely unacceptable. If Ofcom fails to meet the highly effective outcome standards that are clearly laid out in the 2023 Act, it will leave itself open to judicial review from those who take the view that the will of Parliament is serious and who wish to see age verification applied in a way that makes children safe.
That very concerning but current example demonstrates what may sadly happen to the measures in the Bill if Parliament leaves it to Ofcom to decide what constitutes effective age ratings for video on demand services. We cannot say that we were not warned. I do not intend to press my amendments to a vote, because I very much appreciate the Secretary of State’s continued engagement, but I urge the Minister and their lordships to consider the principle of the amendments. They are designed to set minimum standards for child protection, which are currently lacking. That is our responsibility as legislators, so let us do it thoroughly.
