|
|
Communications Bill
|
The Government's White Paper on Communications, posed the question should the BBFC remain independent of OFCOM and retain responsibility for the classification of videos, or should video classification pass to OFCOM. The BBFC response presents clear and compelling reasons for the Board remaining an independent body responsible for video classification.
The Board takes the view that, far from reducing the regulatory burden on the industry and making things simpler for the public, transferring video classification to OFCOM would create the 'double jeopardy' and confusion the Government seeks to avoid. The BBFC's Director, Robin Duval said when the Board published its response:
"People regard cinema film and video content differently from what they receive on television. A small, dedicated, sector-specific regulator like the BBFC is not constrained by concerns that are irrelevant to the industry it regulates. It can be more flexible and sensitive than a single regulator dominated by wider broadcast issues. This must benefit both the industry and the public.
"The White Paper's concern that over regulation is holding back the communications industry ignores the fact that the BBFC is already a 'one-stop shop'. By making the industry go to the BBFC for the film classification, but to OFCOM to get the video version classified would impose the very 'double jeopardy' the White Paper seeks to avoid. Cinema audiences are now nearly three times greater than in 1984, rising from 135.5 million in 1998 to 143 million last year. The film industry will continue to want theatrical release first followed by video/DVD, with electronic distribution some way behind. The intervention by OFCOM at the video/DVD stage, after the original classification of the same work for cinema had been determined by the BBFC, would create confusion.
"The BBFC is the only regulator which regulates before the material is seen by the public. Introducing a pre-regulation element into OFCOM's remit will give rise to conflict. A content regulator may not be able to take an independent and detached view of the performance of those it regulates if it has already involved itself in the decision-making which has contributed to that performance, that is by classifying films in video format later transmitted on TV. It was precisely in order to avoid similarly becoming judge and jury in its own case that the ITC dropped its role of prior regulator or censor in 1993.
"A single regulator would have sole authority over a wide range of cultural output and will become monolithic and - in fact - over powerful. An independent BBFC would represent a degree of plurality in content regulation. As an independent body, the Board could use its experience and expertise to advise on the development of classification systems and could provide consumer advice about films to broadcasters. It could take on further classification duties for new media entering the market and wanting the benefit of an already recognised and understood classification system. OFCOM could not enter into commercial transactions with the companies it regulates.
"The BBFC would expect to work alongside OFCOM, as It currently does with the present broadcast industry regulators. The Board's Guidelines, which are the result of extensive public consultation, could easily be allied to those of OFCOM so that the differences between film, video and television could be taken into account. The BBFC strongly recommends that the Government does not dismiss the Board's many years of unique experience and expertise by separating two inextricably linked media."
To view the BBFC response click here.
|
|
|
