Senedd debates call for smartphone-free schools in Wales
Carolyn Thomas, who chairs the petitions committee, led a debate in the Senedd on May 14 amid a growing chorus of calls for restrictions on mobile phone use in schools.
The committee launched an inquiry in response to a 3,369-name petition submitted by Zena Blackwell, publishing a report with recommendations for the Welsh Government.
Ms Thomas told the Senedd her committee found no clear consensus, urging Welsh ministers to introduce national guidance rather than an outright ban.
Natasha Asghar, the Conservatives' shadow education secretary, similarly said: 'We cannot continue with the… status quo – something needs to give.'
But Ms Asghar went further than the committee in supporting an outright ban on smartphones, save for exceptional circumstances such as medical needs.
She told the Senedd: 'Mobile phones can indeed be a major distraction, taking our students' focus away from learning, which is exactly what schools are for.'
Ms Asghar pointed to research showing pupils in schools with an effective ban achieved GCSE results up to two grades higher compared to children in schools with laxer policies.
Criticising plans to let Welsh schools set their own restrictions, she said: 'The evidence shows that simply doesn't work, with one in eight pupils saying schools never confiscate phones even when rules forbidding them are indeed ignored.
'I believe a ban, which sees phones locked up at the start of each school day in lockers and retrieved at the end of the day, is the best approach. It's the right thing for teachers, it's the right thing for children and it's the right thing for parents.'
John Griffiths emphasised the importance of considering screen use at home as well as in school, with children from 'alarmingly' young ages spending a lot of time on smartphones.
The Labour Senedd member, who represents Newport East, expressed concerns about psychologists being drafted in to make mobile phone games as addictive as possible.
'I see evidence of that in my own family, as I'm sure just about everyone else does,' he said.
Lynne Neagle set out the Welsh Government's formal response to the report, accepting three of the committee's five recommendations in full and the other two in principle.
Wales' education secretary said: 'Like the committee, I recognise that an outright national ban does not allow the space for schools to manage the needs of their learners."
Ms Neagle told the Senedd an expert group will examine mobile phone use, developing national guidance and exemptions alongside the wider school community.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
All change after Hamilton – but not perhaps in the way you expect
To elect is, literally, to choose. And people in this by-election have chosen, narrowly, to put their faith in Labour's Davy Russell, who fought a doorstep campaign, remote from media concerns. This was the change contest. Understandably pleased, the Prime Minister hailed a 'fantastic victory' for Labour – before adding that 'people in Scotland had once again voted for change.' Read more Brian Taylor I think that is true but I suspect it may not be quite the change advanced by Sir Keir Starmer. I understand his perspective. He is seeking to fit Hamilton into the wider Starmer narrative. You will recall that, at the July UK General Election, Sir Keir repeatedly offered 'change'. His aim was to gain from the discontent – no, the loathing – which had attached itself to the Conservatives. To posit Labour as the remedy, without being all that specific about details. So, with these comments on Hamilton, he is seeking to suggest that Davy Russell's victory is, in some way, continuity: an endorsement of the approach pursued by his government. To repeat, I understand his motivation in so doing. But I am certain that this is awry. You have only to listen to senior figures from Scottish Labour to grasp that Hamilton disquiet was aimed at incumbency. The SNP at Holyrood, yes. But also Labour at Westminster. Broadcasting to an astonished nation on the wireless, I was most struck by Labour MSP Paul Sweeney who disclosed candidly that he had experienced 'pretty grim conversations' with voters. Despite those doorstep difficulties, Labour contrived to oust the defending SNP. Incidentally, only the third time the incumbents have lost in the twelve Holyrood by-elections which have taken place since devolution. But Labour's Scottish leader, Anas Sarwar, knows this fell far short of an enthusiastic vote of confidence. He knows people want much more from Team Starmer. He knows they are upset over the economy and benefit curbs. Still, that Labour victory does represent change. The ousting of the SNP. Which itself demands a further change. John Swinney acknowledged as much at his news conference. His party, he said, had made some progress – but not enough. The aim now must be to address the priorities of the people, specifically the cost of living and NHS waiting times. He was accused by Labour's Anas Sarwar of seeking to drive voters towards Reform UK. Again an understandable point, but not entirely valid. Certainly, Mr Swinney suggested that the by-election was a two-horse race between the SNP and Nigel Farage's party. In so doing, he was seeking to polarise the contest, to pitch his party as the ones to stop the seemingly resurgent Reform, aware that Labour had comfortably outpolled the SNP at the UK election last year. Sir Keir Starmer is keen to tie the by-election into a wider story about Labour (Image: free) It was, in short, a strategy rather than a forecast. Nevertheless, the SNP came up short – and a degree of humility can now be expected from the First Minister. So he too must change the SNP formula. To a substantial degree, he already has, concentrating upon popular priorities such as the NHS, while sidelining issues such as gender. Some within the SNP may question Mr Swinney's own judgement. I suspect, however, that the majority will back his determination to focus firmly upon the economy and public service delivery. If there was even a fragment of complacency in the SNP leadership, it has been utterly expunged by Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. Might this result also sideline the issue of independence, as the campaign group Scotland in Union suggest? Not in those terms. John Swinney will continue to pitch independence as a solution to persistent problems. But I expect he will primarily concentrate upon the problems themselves. Listening, in short, to voters. That emphasis may further disadvantage the Tories who tend to do well at Holyrood when they can depict themselves as the stalwart defenders of a threatened union. However, there are other changes to consider. Labour's vote is well down on the UK General Election in this area and on their by-election showing in Rutherglen and Hamilton West. Folk are scunnered with the SNP. But they are also unhappy with the PM and the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves. If she doubts that, perhaps she could have a word with her Commons aide, Imogen Walker. The MP for Hamilton and Clyde Valley. So Anas Sarwar will pursue a twin strategy. Gently, diplomatically urging his Westminster colleagues to pursue policies which palpably help voters. While at the same time offering to change the government at Holyrood. Pitching himself as the sole contender to oust Mr Swinney. Seeking to marginalise rivals. Another change is the emergence of Reform. They came a creditable third, consigning the Tories to a whimpering fourth. Indeed, they got a higher percentage in this area than the Tories have historically managed. A sign perhaps that Reform can appeal to a wider range of voters, also eating into Labour and SNP support. Read more But will that endure? Or will Reform fall back again, perhaps beset by the internal divisions which emerged sharply on polling day itself when their chairman, Scots-born Zia Yousuf, resigned? On quitting, he said that he no longer wished to devote his time to installing Nigel Farage in Downing Street. He was also less than delighted with the new Reform MP Sarah Pochin who said in the Commons that the burka should be banned. However, the Tories are not exactly exempt from internal division, at Westminster and Holyrood. They must simply strive to recover from this by-election nadir – and hope that Reform will subside. Does this by-election change expectations of the Holyrood outcome next year? In itself, no. It tells us that voters are scunnered. But then you already knew that. It tells us that folk want and expect change. They want an easing of this age of anxiety. But then you knew that too. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC
South Wales Argus
3 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Welsh Government funding of £19m will help protect ancient woodlands
The funding aligns with the government's newly-outlined strategy to enhance the protection of Wales' ancient woodlands and trees. Huw Irranca-Davies, deputy first minister and cabinet secretary for climate change and rural affairs, said: "Wales' ancient woodlands are of international importance and have an important place in the landscape and history, protecting carbon-rich soils and seed banks beneath them. "They take centuries to form and are an irreplaceable resource." As part of this new approach, the government will focus on improving the resilience of temperate rainforests, as pointed out by the Alliance for Wales' Rainforests. Mr Irranca-Davies said: "Planning Policy Wales has been strengthened to provide a stronger framework for local planning authorities to secure the protection of ancient trees and woodland. "We are revising our Tree Preservation Order regulations as part of the work on the Planning (Wales) Bill." The Welsh government also made recent amendments to forestry legislation, which now allows Natural Resources Wales to better protect veteran trees and ancient woodland during felling operations. Further initiatives include the implementation of recommendations from the four-year review of the Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021. These will introduce measures specifically designed to contribute to achieving statutory emission reduction commitments. Under the Sustainable Farming Scheme proposals, optional actions will be provided to manage existing woodlands, including ancient woodlands, to increase their condition and resilience. The government will engage with stakeholders and consider budget availability before implementing these actions. The strategy also includes initiatives to improve air quality and reduce air pollution's negative impact on ancient woodland sites. The National Forest for Wales programme has provided support to restore and maintain ancient woodland through various schemes. Mr Irranca-Davies said: "Our approach does not intend to be an exhaustive list of all the possible threats and interventions, but a focus on the strategic priorities. "It brings together work across government departments and their stakeholders which strengthen protection for our irreplaceable ancient woodlands."
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Immigration warning over 'less than welcoming' statements
The tone of Sir Keir's remarks on May 12 was, as observed by Mr Sheerin and many others, surely something of a surprise. And it was unexpected even with an awareness - having covered this key issue closely over months and years - of Labour's developing and lamentable stance on immigration. The Prime Minister declared: 'Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they're written down, often they're not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to one another. Now, in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' The 'island of strangers' was a striking turn of phrase. Sir Keir went on: 'So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse, that encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you're not championing growth, you're not championing justice, or however else people defend the status quo. You're actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.' Maybe with the benefit of hindsight the Prime Minister's remarks, even though they could have been uttered just as easily by the Tory Brexiters, should not have been quite so much of a shock as they were. After all, Labour has embraced the key elements of the Conservatives' hard Brexit: loss of free movement of people between the UK and European Economic Area nations and the ending of the frictionless trade from which the country previously benefited enormously when it was part of the single market. Nevertheless, Sir Keir's tone was surely surprisingly dismal, even given all of this. Not only did we have the reference to 'an island of strangers' but also this declaration: 'This strategy will finally take back control of our borders and close the book on a squalid chapter for our politics, our economy, and our country.' What seemed clear from Sir Keir's utterings was that populism most certainly did not end with the exit of Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak from the prime minister post. Sir Keir's tone contrasted so starkly with Mr Sheerin's reasoned appraisal of the Prime Minister's remarks and Labour's plans on immigration. We had this from Sir Keir: 'We do have to ask why parts of our economy seem almost addicted to importing cheap labour rather than investing in the skills of people who are here and want a good job in their community. Sectors like engineering, where visas have rocketed while apprenticeships have plummeted.' You would imagine Mr Sheerin, as a veteran of the engineering sector, knows a lot more about the specifics than Sir Keir. And it is worth observing the Scottish Engineering chief executive is passionate about people in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK being trained as engineers. He would love to see the skills shortages which are posing such a challenge to member companies of Scottish Engineering and others in the sector solved. Mr Sheerin is not a politician - just someone with deep knowledge of the Scottish engineering sector. So what did the Scottish Engineering chief have to say in his quarterly report published on Friday? Read more He declared that he found the UK Government's 'latest pronouncements on immigration disappointing', highlighting the detrimental impact on companies of 'statements that feel less than welcoming'. Mr Sheerin hammered home his view that raising minimum qualification levels from Higher equivalents to degree level would 'leave out the skilled trades and crafts roles where we are already in shortest supply: welders, fabricators, electricians, pipefitters, CNC (computer numerical control) machinists to name a few'. That is surely a crucial point. And it is worth emphasising Mr Sheerin's observation that people skilled in these roles are 'already in shortest supply'. Mr Sheerin also noted: 'The shortening of the graduate visa scheme reducing the right to work from two years to 18 months after graduating will not only hit our education sector but also reduce the attractiveness of the scheme for companies who will have a shorter timeline to decide whether to invest in the process to extend the visa of the employee.' This is another good point. And the Scottish Engineering chief executive declared: 'Whilst I recognise that this [immigration] is a contentious political issue across the UK for a whole range of reasons, in engineering and manufacturing in Scotland the reality is that immigration is a vital source of skills and experience that cannot be replaced overnight. These skills levels take years to build - and we should be building them - but closing off the supply before putting in place the actions to do that is another example of an action that will challenge the stated ambition of growing our economy.' The time horizon with regard to building skills levels is important. It might not chime with that of politicians such as Sir Keir, who seems at pains to bang the drum on immigration as Nigel Farage's Reform UK makes a big noise on this front. However, it is a simple factual point that engineering skills do take years to build. Mr Sheerin declared that a frustration for him in Labour's immigration pronouncements was that 'whereas there is considerable detail on how we plan to restrict and close this supply of skills, on the laudable stated aim that we will replace the loss with trained or upskilled UK-born workers, the detail is missing on how that will be achieved'. He added: 'And there is no detail that recognises that engineering skills take between four and six years to get to a starting level of competency. It does not seem an unreasonable request for the get-well plan to carry at least the same level of detail as the take-it-away plan.' This seems like an absolutely fair summation of the problems with Labour's populist immigration proposals. If you were asked to choose whether you think it is Sir Keir or Mr Sheerin who is on the money in relation to immigration policy and its effect on engineering and the broader economy, it would surely be the easiest of questions to answer, any day of the week.
