Whitehaven and Workington MP's 'Safer Phones Bill' has second reading
A bill that aims to tackle the harms caused to children and young people by excessive smartphone and social media had its second reading in Parliament on Friday.
The 'Safer Phones Bill' was put forward by Josh MacAlister, MP for Whitehaven and Workington.
According to the MP, this was the first time the issue of excessive smartphone and social media use by children has been debated in the House of Commons in this Parliament.
The bill commits the Government to return within a year with a decision on raising the digital age of consent from 13 to 16.
It also requires the Government to instruct the UK Chief Medical Officers to update and reissue guidance for parents and professionals about the impacts of excessive screen time and social media use on children.
Furthermore, it calls on the Government to conduct more research and further develop the evidence and guidance that is important for future action.
According to the MP, the average 12-year-old now spends 21 hours a week on a smartphone, equivalent to four full days of school teaching time per week.
Ninety-three per cent of 12 to 15-year-olds are active social media users, and for 76 per cent of 11 to 18-year-olds, most of their free time is now spent on screens.
Josh MacAlister described this as "a fundamental rewiring of childhood itself", warning that children are spending less time outside, less time reading, less time exercising, exploring, meeting people, and communicating in person.
A spokesperson for Mr MacAlister said Friday sittings in Parliament are usually very quiet, but, on this occasion, dozens of MPs from all parties returned to Parliament to speak in the debate.
Responding on behalf of the Government, Sir Chris Bryant MP, digital minister commended Mr MacAlister for bringing the bill forward and leading the debate.
The Minister agreed that excessive smartphone usage is detrimental to the physical, mental, and spiritual health of children and young people and confirmed that the Government intends to deliver on the recommendations made in the bill.
Summing up the debate, Sir Chris Bryant said: "There is no option of inaction for this House or for this country.
"There has to be action."
Speaking after the debate, Mr MacAlister said: "When I launched my Safer Phones Bill last year I said it was the start of a debate and a campaign of persuasion.
"Over the last few months, we've had a very lively national debate and persuaded many people that it is time to act on the negative effects of excessive screen time and social media use on children's health, sleep and learning.
"Private Members' Bills often go nowhere and so from the start my focus has been on securing government support for action.
"The final bill I published last week was one I was hopeful the Government would back and I'm pleased that the Government indicated that it will act on the measures in the bill.
"This will be the first meaningful step from the UK Government to engage with the widespread impacts of excessive smartphone and social media use by children.
"But it must not be the last step."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Travel Weekly
30 minutes ago
- Travel Weekly
Report: Trump administration mulls expansion of travel ban
The Trump administration is weighing a travel ban expansion to include 36 additional countries, according to the Washington Post. The Post reported that according to a State Department memo it reviewed, the expanded ban would impact 25 African nations and countries in the Caribbean, Central Asia and several Pacific island nations. The possible expansion comes after the Trump administration banned the entry of citizens from a dozen countries earlier this month. According to the Post, the expanded list would include Angola; Antigua and Barbuda; Benin; Bhutan; Burkina Faso; Cabo Verde; Cambodia; Cameroon; Democratic Republic of Congo; Djibouti; Dominica; Ethiopia; Egypt; Gabon; Gambia; Ghana; the Ivory Coast; Kyrgyzstan; Liberia; Malawi; Mauritania; Niger; Nigeria; St. Kitts and Nevis; St. Lucia; Sao Tome and Principe; Senegal; South Sudan; Syria; Tanzanial; Tonga; Tuvalu; Uganda; Vanuatu; Zambia; and Zimbabwe. The memo said the governments of these countries had 60 days to meet new benchmarks and requirements established by the State Department, the Post reported. The countries have until 8 a.m. on June 18 to provide an initial action plan to meet the State Department's requirements, according to the outlet. Reasons behind the added bans According to the Post, the memo listed the reasons for the expanded ban to include these countries as some of the countries having "no competent or cooperative central government authority to produce reliable identity documents or other civil documents," or suffering from "widespread government fraud," or having a large number of citizens who overstayed their visas in the U.S or "antisemitic and anti-American activity in the United States" by citizens of those countries. The Trump administration's initial ban applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, although there are some exceptions for people with dual citizenship or legal residency in the U.S., some athletes, some refugees and some people who have worked for the U.S. government. It also restricts entry for travelers from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who do not hold a valid visa.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
Ditching a strikes law meant to curb the impact of walkouts on key services is 'recklessness', Tory critics have warned at Westminster. In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Everything we know about the new grooming gangs inquiry so far
A new national inquiry into grooming gangs will go ahead, the government has confirmed. The Home Secretary set out details of the inquiry in Parliament today (June 16) alongside a series of other measures, including a new nationwide operation into historic cases. Yvette Cooper told MPs that she expects more than a thousand such cases to be reviewed. It follows a 'damning' report by Baroness Louise Casey which identified a 'continued failures'. Describing the findings as 'deeply disturbing', Ms Cooper offered an 'unequivocal apology' to survivors, vowing there will be 'no hiding from justice' in the inquiry. READ MORE: Devastation as boy, 12, dies hours after telling parents he was going for 'rest in bed' READ MORE: 'This is war... lines have been crossed, all my condolences to your family' She revealed that the inquiry, which will have powers to compel those involved to give evidence, is expected to last three years. However, she said that further details of the inquiry, including who will lead it and which areas it will cover, are yet to be determined. The government has accepted all 12 recommendations in Baroness Casey's report, including for a new nationwide statutory inquiry. The Independent Commission on Grooming Gangs will have statutory powers to direct 'targeted investigations' in local areas with the aim of 'holding institutions to account for current and historic failures' in their response to 'group-based' child sexual exploitation. The commission will have the powers to compel local organisations to comply with its investigations, the government has said, including providing information and summoning witnesses where required to 'get to the truth and learn lessons from the past'. Once an independent chair is appointed, the commission will look at evidence to decide the first local areas to be investigated. It comes six months after the government announced a £5m fund to help set up local inquiries in five areas, starting in Oldham. Tom Crowther KC, who led a local inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Telford, has been appointed to chair the inquiry in Oldham. Oldham council has said it is now working with the Home Office to understand how this will align with the new national inquiry. Ms Cooper told MPs that local investigations are needed, but should be overseen by the national commission with statutory powers. She also revealed that the inquiry is expected to take around three years, but said that finer details still need to be determined. The Conservatives have called for the inquiry to start with 'known hot spots' like Rochdale, while one Tory MP said it should be held in the North of England. Ms Cooper said: "We will not restrict where the inquiry goes or where the commission chooses to investigate." She added: 'Baroness Casey is not recommending another overarching inquiry, of the kind conducted by Professor Alexis Jay, and she recommends that the inquiry should be time limited. "But its purpose must be to challenge what the audit describes as continued denial, resistance and legal wrangling among local agencies.'
