Primary school pupils using screens for tests is ‘normalising' use, Tories claim
Shadow education secretary Laura Trott said the Government was instilling screen usage for children as young as four, as the Government came under pressure to ban smartphones in schools.
Ms Trott said the policy was supported by teachers, health professionals and parents.
She said: 'Every day we have new evidence of the harm screens are doing. So why is the Education Secretary (Bridget Phillipson) ignoring this, and still pressing ahead with screen-based assessments for children as young as four from September?
'Does she accept that this is normalising screen time for young people, which is the opposite of what we should be doing?'
Education minister Stephen Morgan said: 'Is this all she can go on? Frankly, after 14 years, they broke the education system. As I said, there's guidance already in place for schools, the majority of schools already have a ban in place on mobile phone use.'
Earlier in the Commons, Mr Morgan had told MPs mobile phones had 'no place' in schools. He said Government guidance said schools should ban the use of smartphones during the school day. However ,he said it was up to schools to use their powers to take them off pupils.
Shadow education secretary Laura Trott claimed the Government was normalising screen time for young children (Stefan Rousseau/PA)
Conservative MPs raised the links between mobile phone usage and violent behaviour, as well as schools with bans having better grades on average.
Conservative MP Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) said: 'Schools with smartphone bans were rated higher by Ofsted, and their students achieved better GCSE results. So all the evidence shows the benefit of banning smartphones in schools.
'But the Government is simply issuing non-statutory guidance and passing the buck. So does the minister not understand the evidence, need more evidence, or do you not trust the Government to be able to implement a ban on smartphones in schools?'
Meanwhile, John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) said: 'Mobile phones in classrooms are linked to disruptive and violent behaviour. So does the minister agree with me that mobile phones should be banned in all schools, so the children are focused on their education and not glued to Instagram and TikTok?'
While in government, the then Conservative education secretary, Gillian Keegan, sent guidance to schools that told headteachers they could ban mobile phones during the school day. However, this was short of an out-and-out ban.
Since their election defeat last year, the Conservatives have pushed for Labour to introduce a full ban. In March, it tried to amend Labour's flagship education policy to legally prohibit smartphone usage. A Government spokesperson said the existing guidance meant about 97% of schools restrict mobile phone use in some way.
Studies are unclear on the impact of a smartphone ban. One by the University of Birmingham, published in the Lancet earlier this year, suggested there was no link.
Replying to Ms Bool, Mr Morgan said: 'I'll take no lectures from the benches opposite on this. When in government, they exclaimed the same guidance meant a consistent approach across all schools. So you have to ask, were they wrong then, are they wrong now?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
19 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Louise Casey to appear before MPs after major review of child grooming failures
Baroness Louise Casey will appear before the Commons Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday morning, after the Government set out plans to launch a new nationwide inquiry into grooming gangs following her rapid review of the scandal. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper claimed officials have dodged the issue of ethnicity among the groups of sex offenders for fear of being called racist, even though available data showed suspects were disproportionately likely to be Asian men. Speaking in the Commons on Monday as the review was published, the Home Secretary said 'much more robust national data is needed' on the ethnicity of offenders, adding that the authorities 'cannot and must not shy away from these findings'. Doing so would allow 'the criminality and depravity of a minority of men to be used to marginalise whole communities', she added. Lady Casey's report found that: 'The appalling lack of data on ethnicity in crime recording alone is a major failing over the last decade or more. Questions about ethnicity have been asked but dodged for years.' It added: 'We found that the ethnicity of perpetrators is shied away from and is still not recorded for two-thirds of perpetrators, so we are unable to provide any accurate assessment from the nationally collected data.' Multiple convictions of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds should have 'warranted closer examination', it said, adding: 'Instead of examination, we have seen obfuscation. In a vacuum, incomplete and unreliable data is used to suit the ends of those presenting it.' Former Tory government adviser Dominic Cummings meanwhile claimed in an interview with Sky News that officials from the Department for Education were supportive of Rotherham Council's suggestion of going to court in 2011 to prevent the Times' initial reporting of the scandal in Rotherham. Lord Michael Gove, then the education secretary, rejected the request for a judicial review on Mr Cummings' advice, the broadcaster reported. Ms Cooper said the Government would take action 'immediately' on all of Lady Casey's recommendations, after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer committed to launching a national inquiry into the abuse. The recommendations included: – Making it mandatory to collect ethnicity and nationality data of all suspects in child sexual abuse cases – A new national inquiry into child sexual abuse with statutory legal powers, which will co-ordinate the efforts of local investigations led by councils and set out 'strict timescales' for them to follow. – A nationwide National Crime Agency operation, targeting people who have sexually exploited children, and following up on an estimated more than 1,000 cold cases where no one was convicted. – A change in the law so that all adult sex with under-16s is considered rape. – A review of criminal records held by victims of child sexual exploitation. In the Commons, Ms Cooper 'unequivocally' apologised for the failings which had led to grooming and child sexual abuse. The Home Secretary also pledged to exclude convicted sex offenders from the asylum system, while the report warned 'a significant proportion' of live investigations into grooming gangs 'appear to involve suspects who are non-UK nationals and/or who are claiming asylum in the UK'. In her report, Lady Casey said it is time to draw a line in the sand and take action over the issue, which she called 'one of the most heinous crimes in our society'. She also urged opposition politicians not to use the scandal as a 'political football', adding there was a chance to 'create a national reset'.
Powys County Times
20 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Poll suggests support for better end-of-life care over assisted dying Bill
More than two thirds of people feel the assisted dying Bill should be replaced with a plan for better end-of-life care, according to a survey published days ahead of a major vote on the issue. The polling, commissioned by a group opposed to assisted dying being legalised, 'blows apart the arguments that the public are desperate' for a change in the law, a campaigner claimed. Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater said last week that MPs should not have to choose between supporting assisted dying or palliative care as it is not an 'either/or' conversation for dying people. She said palliative care and assisted dying 'can and do work side by side to give terminally-ill patients the care and choice they deserve in their final days', and urged MPs to support 'all options available to terminally ill people'. An amendment to the Bill, requiring the Health Secretary to publish an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of palliative and end-of-life care one year after the Bill passing into law, could be voted on on Friday. Friday is also set to be the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill's third reading stage, which is likely to see the overall Bill voted on for the first time since November's historic yes vote, when a majority of 55 supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales. The latest polling, commissioned by Care Not Killing and carried out by British Polling Council member Whitestone, saw 2,089 UK adults surveyed online between May 30 and June 1. Respondents, who are said to have been weighted to be a representative sample, were told of concerns raised by the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Psychiatrists and the Association for Palliative Medicine about the Bill in its current form as well as opposition from disability campaigners. In this context, they were asked about replacing the Bill with a plan to improve and invest in palliative care – to which 69% agreed, and about a Royal Commission being set up to consider and make recommendations for a holistic end-of-life and palliative care service – with which 61% agreed. Almost two thirds (65%) said the Government's priority should be sorting out palliative and social care before changing the law – down very slightly from 66% last year. Gordon Macdonald, chief executive of Care Not Killing, said: 'This major new poll blows apart the arguments that the public are desperate for a so-called assisted dying law. 'The public want the Government and MPs to focus on fixing the NHS and palliative care which they know are broken. After all one in four Brits who would benefit from palliative care aren't currently receiving it, while in many places services are piecemeal, part-time or facing cuts.' It comes as former prime minister Gordon Brown repeated his opposition to assisted dying. Writing in the Guardian, he said: 'It has become clear that whatever views people hold on the principle, passing the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill into law would privilege the legal right to assisted dying without guaranteeing anything approaching an equivalent right to high-quality palliative care for those close to death.' He said MP's personal preferences 'cannot be separated off from the duties they have as members of a community to ensure that the way we treat the dying reflects the values of a decent, compassionate country'. He added: 'That should mean upholding the role of the medical professions as care-givers, and exclusively care-givers; avoiding the possibility of private profiteering by legal-medical consortiums which might well commercialise assisted dying as a lucrative business; safeguarding vulnerable people about whose fate the royal medical colleges have all expressed concern; preventing unacceptable coercive pressures that can be brought to bear on disabled people, and those who are incapacitated or mentally stressed; and thus showing that as a society we value life above death.' Dozens of Labour MPs called for Friday's overall vote to be delayed, asking for more time to scrutinise a Bill they brand as 'perhaps the most consequential piece of legislation that has appeared before the House in generations'. Writing to Commons leader Lucy Powell, they said: 'We implore you as the Leader of the House to allocate more Parliamentary time to the scrutiny of this Bill, the valid concerns that members have about its implementation, and the consequences it could have on vulnerable populations.' A Government spokesperson said: 'This Bill has been brought as a Private Members' Bill. The amount of time for debate is therefore a matter for the House.' The Bill's sponsor, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, has repeatedly stated that her proposed legislation has been strengthened since it was first introduced last year, insisting it is subject to robust safeguards. Medical staff are among some of the MPs who back the Bill. As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally-ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer voted in favour of the Bill last year, but said the Government remains neutral on the issue.
Powys County Times
20 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
MPs to debate and vote on decriminalising abortion
Pro-choice campaigners are urging MPs to vote to decriminalise abortion, but those against a change in the law have warned 'unborn babies will have any remaining protection stripped away'. The issue looks likely to be debated and voted on on Tuesday, as part of amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. The latest attempt follows repeated calls to repeal sections of the 19th-century law – the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act – after abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019. MPs had previously been due to debate similar amendments removing the threat of prosecution against women who act in relation to their own pregnancy at any stage, but these did not take place as Parliament was dissolved last summer for the general election. Earlier this month, a debate at Westminster Hall heard calls from pro-change campaigners that women must no longer be 'dragged from hospital bed to police cell' over abortion. But opponents of decriminalisation warned against such a 'radical step'. Ahead of debate in the Commons, Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi said her amendment would result in 'removing the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment' of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. Ms Antoniazzi said the cases of women investigated by police had motivated her to advocate for a change in the law. She said: 'Police have investigated more than 100 women for suspected illegal abortion in the last five years including women who've suffered natural miscarriages and stillbirths. 'This is just wrong. It's a waste of taxpayers' money, it's a waste of the judiciary's time, and it's not in the public interest.' She said her amendment will not change time limits for abortion or the regulation of services but it 'decriminalises women accused of ending their own pregnancies', taking them out of the criminal justice system 'so they can get the help and support they need'. Her amendment is supported by abortion providers including MSI Reproductive Choices and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) as well as the the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). A separate amendment has also been put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy and goes further by not only decriminalising abortion, but also seeks to 'lock in' the right of someone to have one and protect those who help them. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) urged MPs to vote against both amendments, saying they would bring about 'the biggest expansion of abortion since 1967'. Alithea Williams, the organisation's public policy manager, said: 'Unborn babies will have any remaining protection stripped away, and women will be left at the mercy of abusers. 'Both amendments would allow abortion up to birth, for any reason. NC20 (Ms Creasy's amendment) is only more horrifying because it removes any way of bringing men who end the life of a baby by attacking a pregnant woman to justice.' Ms Creasy rejected Spuc's claim, and urged MPs not to be 'misled'. She highlighted coercive control legislation, which would remain in place if her amendment was voted through, and which she said explicitly identifies forcing someone to have an abortion as a crime punishable by five years in jail. Abortion in England and Wales remains a criminal offence but is legal with an authorised provider up to 24 weeks, with very limited circumstances allowing one after this time, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. The issue has come to the fore in recent times with prominent cases such as those of Nicola Packer and Carla Foster. Ms Packer was cleared by a jury last month after taking prescribed abortion medicine when she was around 26 weeks pregnant, beyond the legal limit of 10 weeks for taking such medication at home. She told jurors during her trial, which came after more than four years of police investigation, that she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than 10 weeks. The case of Carla Foster, jailed in 2023 for illegally obtaining abortion tablets to end her pregnancy when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant, eventually saw her sentence reduced by the Court of Appeal and suspended, with senior judges saying that sending women to prison for abortion-related offences is 'unlikely' to be a 'just outcome'. A separate amendment, tabled by Conservative MP Caroline Johnson proposes mandatory in-person consultations for women seeking an abortion before being prescribed at-home medication to terminate a pregnancy. The changes being debated this week would not cover Scotland, where a group is currently undertaking work to review the law as it stands north of the border. On issues such as abortion, MPs usually have free votes, meaning they take their own view rather than deciding along party lines. During a Westminster Hall debate earlier this month, justice minister Alex Davies-Jones said the Government is neutral on decriminalisation and that it is an issue for Parliament to decide upon. She said: 'If the will of Parliament is that the law in England and Wales should change, then the Government would not stand in the way of such change but would seek to ensure that the law is workable and enforced in the way that Parliament intended.'
