The report is entitled ‘Safer Children in a Digital World’ and takes a look at the internet and video games and their impact on society and children today.

Dr Byron has presented a string of recommendations to the government on both the internet and video games.

While I have not read the full report in its entirety yet, I have looked at the sections relating to video games.

Dr Byron has certainly provided a balanced report in regards to video games. She looks at two methods of research and provides a balanced report on their analysis.

The overall recommendations for video games are as follows:

Video Games Recommendations

By Autumn 2008

Consultation on changes to classification system underpinned by clear plans
for potential legislative change.

Industry commits to develop minimum standards for parental controls.

Campaign to raise awareness of age ratings and parental controls underway.

Retailers make improvements to in-store information.

UK Council for Child Internet Safety establishes sub-group on online gaming
Industry and classification bodies commit to develop single set of standards
for managing safety in online games.

By Spring 2009

BBFC and PEGI agree and publish standards for managing safety in online
games.

Research into role of video game advertising on underage game play
completed.

Industry guidelines on advertising of video games produced.

Summer 2010

Changes to classification system in place.

Ongoing Monitoring and enforcement of sales of age-rated video games.

Government identifies ways for game based learning to be evaluated in
different educational environments.

These are very good recommendations. There is no hint of increased censorship of video games, Dr Byron simply recognizes the need to provide clearer rating systems and provide more information to parents so they are able to make a more informed decision regarding how their children approach and play video games.

However Dr Byron is in favour of a hybrid-system of games ratings, she recommends using both the BBFC and PEGI rating systems.

To address these concerns I suggest that a partnership approach between the BBFC and
PEGI should be pursued. I recommend a hybrid classification system in which:

BBFC logos are on the front of all games (i.e. 18,15,12,PG and U);

PEGI will continue to rate all 3+ and 7+ games and their equivalent logos (across all
age ranges) will be on the back of all boxes.

7.48 This system would involve BBFC rating games from 12+ upwards (under the extension of the statutory underpinning from this age recommended above). Ratings for 3+ and 7+ games, where the evidence of potential harm is weakest, would continue to be voluntarily classified through the PEGI system. These are also the ages where context is less relevant, as evidenced in the child development literature, which means the approach of the PEGI system would be most appropriate. However, to make this work for the UK consumer, the PEGI ratings should be translated into BBFC symbols and descriptors. To achieve this BBFC and PEGI would need to work together to agree on alignment between the criteria for PEGI rated 3+ and 7+ games and BBFC’s ‘Universal’ (U) and ‘Parental Guidance’ (PG) categories respectively. Consideration could also be given to using the ‘Uc’ category for games that are particularly aimed at pre-school children. Online games should also be classified in
accordance with this division.

7.49 However, I am also clear that there still has to be consumer awareness and understanding of the PEGI system in the UK, given that video games will continue to receive PEGI ratings across the rest of Europe, and the consumer will be presented with these ratings online, which will increasingly become more prevalent. This is why I am also recommending that all UK games are supported by the corresponding PEGI age ratings and descriptors, which should be shown on the reverse side of the packaging.

7.50 In the context of this Review, where my remit has been solely to consider the interests of children and young people, I recommend the hybrid classification system set out above, with a BBFC consumer facing element in the UK. However, there are other perspectives, and different possible approaches. Implementation of change will require full public consultation.

I personally fear that this compromise is not going to be beneficial to many people. Dr Byron makes many references in the report to the fact that consumers are often confused by the different rating systems. This is something which will not be achieved by using both the BBFC and PEGI rating systems.

The PEGI system should be recommended as the sole body to rate video games in the UK. The PEGI system is pan-European and it makes sense that as a member of the EU the UK should look to bolster ties with Europe. The adoption of the PEGI system as the sole body to rate games would be in the best interests of all involved.

While I myself accept that there are people who would be confused by the rating systems the dual approach put forward in the report is only going to further this confusion.

The PEGI system should be adopted as the sole ratings body for video games in the UK and there should be a massive effort to better educate UK consumers. This should be led by the retailers who would have to make the rating system clearer to consumers, and enforce PEGI ratings as they should be.

Overall though the Byron Review seems to be a very positive report. While some of the recommendations may not be going towards the best future, many of the recommendations are going to improve the games industry and the internet especially in relation to young people in the UK today.

To find the full report simply head over to the home page of the Byron Review here.