We need robust age-ratings on children's books

It's incredibly naive to assume that no book targeting children could make them believe nonsense that is not true or could encourage them into risky behaviours.

On the one hand, the powers-that-be seem keener than ever to keep us all safe. From banning cigarettes in communal outdoor spaces, to 20mph zones in towns and cities, to the Online Harms Bill conceived by the last Conservative government and about to be implemented by Labour. We are all required to constantly moderate our behaviour to keep ourselves and others safe. It’s the law.

The one thing that does not require moderation, it seems, is literature. I have some sympathy with that. I’m all for book reviews and recommendations but I don’t want some busybody telling me what I can and cannot read. Book banning is in nobody’s best interests.

But I’m an adult, capable of making my own decisions and living with the consequences of bad literary choices which generally amount to little more than wasting my time. Because, as an adult, I’ve learned not to believe everything I read even if it is in the local library and catalogued as non-fiction.

It's different for children, though, because they’re, well, children. They do believe what they read in books, especially if they find them in the local library and they’re marked non-fiction. Children are entitled to expect that books which have been provided for them at public expense, and which they’re encouraged to read, have been vetted for accuracy and suitability and carefully selected by adults who have their best interests at heart. Unfortunately, that’s a mistake.

You might be surprised to learn that unlike films, social media platforms, and online or video gaming, there is no legal requirement to age-assess books. I know that all children’s books are age-rated, but that rating is given by the publisher and is based on how difficult the book is to read and the publisher’s target customers. In other words, it’s there to help with sales and marketing. There’s no panel equivalent to the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) that independently assesses the suitability of books, nor is there any legal requirement to ensure that literature is appropriate for the age group it is aimed at.

This is at best a gap and at worst negligent.

Haven’t we all read disturbing books that we couldn’t shake off? As a teenager I read a horror story about a malevolent doll – I forget who wrote it now – that gave me nightmares for weeks. There’s no doubt in my mind that book should have had an 18 rating. And there are plenty of “adult” magazines (or at least, there used to be) that were placed on the top shelf in the newsagent with good reason.

So it seems an incredible omission that, despite decades spent promoting the consumption of literature by children because it is transformational and inspirational, nobody has considered the possibility that there might be books that could inspire children to engage in behaviours or take on beliefs that are not in their best interests. Or that the transformational impact of those books could be potentially devastating.

Curiously, there seems to be a general belief that although great books can take children on a life changing journey to fantastic places, there aren’t any books that could damage a child.

Perhaps there’s a naïve confidence that no author would write a book that aimed to disturb, mislead or corrupt a child. Or that, if such a book was written, it wouldn’t be published. Or if it did get published, teachers and librarians would weed it out and make sure it didn’t find its way into school bags or onto library shelves. And if all that happened, then surely parents would notice and stop their children from reading it. And yet it happens ALL THE TIME with films and digital games, websites and internet forums.

There’s a tendency to think, too, that reading is inherently worthy. Aren’t we told that it doesn’t matter what children read as long as they are reading? But it does matter. And plenty of people have taken steps to ensure that children don’t read material that they consider unsuitable. It’s why publishers took it on themselves to edit Roald Dahl’s classics, or recommend that they are not reprinted. It’s why Enid Blyton’s Noddy was deemed offensive and why sensitivity readers are A Thing even for adults.

There are people who want to subvert our children’s understanding of the world, and it looks very much as though they are leveraging the trusted status of libraries and school books to sell children a set of very bad ideas and promote some extremely risky behaviours. Books that tell children that it is possible to change sex, that everyone has a gender identity, that anal sex is normal for heterosexual couples, and instruct girls in how to make their own breast binders.

And because those books are in schools and libraries, and some are even recommended as part of national reading programs, everyone assumes that their content must be fine. But nobody is checking, nobody is accountable and there is apparently no penalty at all for promoting damaging material to children as long as it is in print. Added to which, it’s seemingly impossible for parents to convince teachers, librarians and local councillors that any of this stuff is damaging anyway.

The authors and publishers probably didn’t write the books knowing that there would be no legal challenge, after all, children are having these message pushed at them via every medium. But I imagine they’re delighted by how easy it has been, and how little pushback they’re getting.

Compare the lack of safeguarding in libraries with the Online Safety Bill which requires those hosting content to be responsible for the safety of children with draconian penalties for those who do not comply.  

The bill takes a zero-tolerance approach to protecting children and makes sure social media platforms are held responsible for the content they host. If they do not act rapidly to prevent and remove illegal content and stop children seeing material that is harmful to them, such as bullying, they will face significant fines that could reach billions of pounds. In some cases, their bosses may even face prison.    

The only protection for children in respect of printed media is the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955:

This Act applies to any book, magazine or other like work which is of a kind likely to fall into the hands of children or young persons and consists wholly or mainly of stories told in pictures (with or without the addition of written matter), being stories portraying—

(a) the commission of crimes; or

(b) acts of violence or cruelty; or

(c) incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature;

in such a way that the work as a whole would tend to corrupt a child or young person into whose hands it might fall.

It’s something of a blunt instrument; it treats children as one homogenous group and was explicitly aimed at comics. But at least it recognises that printed literature can be harmful, something we appear to have forgotten.

It’s time for us to look again at protecting children from terrible ideas and dangerous practices. We need robust age rating on children’s literature.