Two hour screen time limit and curfews for children being considered by government
Social media limits for children are being planned by the government to tackle "compulsive" screen time, the technology secretary has told Sky News.
Peter Kyle said he was concerned about "the overall amount of time kids spend on these apps" as well as the content they see.
A two-hour cap per platform is being seriously considered after meetings with current and former employees of tech companies. A night-time or school-time curfew has also been discussed.
Children would be blocked from accessing apps such as TikTok or Snapchat once they have hit the limit, rather than just reminded of how long they have been scrolling, it is understood.
An announcement on screen time is expected this autumn.
Mr Kyle said: "I'll be making an announcement on these things in the near future. But I am looking very carefully about the overall time kids spend on these apps.
"I think some parents feel a bit disempowered about how to actually make their kids healthier online.
"I think some kids feel that sometimes there is so much compulsive behaviour with interaction with the apps they need some help just to take control of their online lives and those are things I'm looking at really carefully.
"We talk a lot about a healthy childhood offline. We need to do the same online. I think sleep is very important, to be able to focus on studying is very important."
He added that he wanted to stop children spending hours viewing content which "isn't criminal, but it's unhealthy, the overuse of some of these apps".
"I think we can incentivise the companies and we can set a slightly different threshold that will just tip the balance in favour of parents not always being the ones who are just ripping phones out of the kids' hands and having a really awkward, difficult conversation around it," he added.
Mr Kyle spoke exclusively to Sky News after meeting with a group of pupils from Darlington who have spent a year participating in regular focus groups about smartphones and social media, organised by their Labour MP Lola McEvoy.
They took part in a survey of 1,000 children from the town, mostly aged 14 and 15, which found that 40% of them spent at least six hours a day online. One in five spent as long as eight hours scrolling.
Most of the under-16s (55%) had seen inappropriate sexual or violent content - often unprompted. And three-quarters of the under-16s had been contacted online by strangers.
In the session in parliament, in which the children were asked what they were most concerned about, Jacob, 15, said: "A lack of restrictions on screen time I would personally say, which leads to people scrolling for hours on Tiktok.
"People just glue their eyes to their phone and just spent hours on it, instead of seeing the real world."
Tom, 17, said: "I get the feeling you have to be quite tech savvy to protect your kids online. You have to go into the settings and work out each one. It should be the default. It needs to be straight away, day one."
Matthew, 15, said: "I think because everybody is online all the time and there's no real moderation to what people can say or what can be shared, it can really affect people's lives because it's always there.
"As soon as I wake up, I check my phone and until I go to bed. The only time I take a break is when I eat or am talking to someone."
Some of the teenagers had spent 12 or even up to 16 hours a day online.
Nathan, 15, said: "When, for example, a 13-year-old is on their phone 'til midnight, you can't sleep, your body can't function properly and your mind is all over the place."
But there was scepticism about what could be done.
Charlotte, 17, said: "If your parents sets a restriction on Instagram and say, 'right, you're coming off it now' - there's TikTok, there is Pinterest, there is Facebook, there's Snapchat, there so many different other ones, you can go on, and it just builds up and builds and builds up, and you end up sat there for the entire evening just on social media. I think we need harsher controls."
Several of the pupils who met Mr Kyle detailed being contacted by adult strangers, either on social media apps or online gaming, in ways which made them feel uncomfortable.
How could the ban actually work?
The tech already exists to make a ban like this a reality.
On Friday, rules will start being enforced in the UK that will mean sites hosting harmful adult content will need to properly check the ages of their users.
There are a number of ways companies could do that, including credit card checks, ID checks and AI facial age estimation.
It is likely these are the same systems that would be used to keep teenagers off social media during certain hours, as suggested by Peter Kyle to Sky News.
It's how Australia is looking into enforcing its total ban of under-16s on social media later this year - but the process isn't without controversy.
Concerns around privacy are frequently raised as internet users worry about big tech companies storing even more of their personal data.
There are also questions about just how effective these age verification processes could actually be.
Tech like AI facial estimation can reliably age-check users - but teenagers may quickly work out how to circumvent the system using plugins and settings that could be a mystery to all but the savviest parents.
At the moment, a lot of age-checking AI systems are trained to spot the difference between an adult and a child, and can do that to a high degree of accuracy.
But while telling the visual difference between a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old is much harder, AI learns fast.
Officials working on the UK's age verification scheme have suggested AI will soon be able to accurately verify the ages of under-18s, making a ban like this much more realistic.
Mr Kyle said: "It is madness, it is total madness, and many of the apps or the companies have taken action to restrict contacts that adults - particularly strangers - have with children, but we need to go further and I accept that.
"At the moment, I think the balance is tipped slightly in the wrong direction. Parents don't feel they have the skills, the tools or the ability to really have a grip on the childhood experience online, how much time, what they're seeing, they don't feel that kids are protected from unhealthy activity or content when they are online."
The tech secretary is in the process of implementing the 2023 Online Safety Act, passed by the previous government.
From this Friday, all platforms must introduce stronger protections for children online, including a legal requirement for all pornography sites accessed in the UK to have effective age verification in place - such as facial age estimation or ID checks.
Mr Kyle added: "I don't just want the base level set where kids aren't being criminally exploited and damaged, that shouldn't be the height of our aspirations. The height of our aspirations should be a healthy experience."
Labour MP Lola McEvoy, who organised the focus group, said: "I knew things were bad online for children and young people but their testimony revealed the extent of explicit, disturbing and toxic content that is now the norm.
"Their articulation of the changes they wanted to see was excellent and they've done our town and their generation proud."
Tiktok, Pinterest, Meta and Snapchat were contacted for comment, but none provided an on the record statement. The companies have accounts for under-16s with parental controls and some set reminders for screen time.
TikTok has a 60-minute daily screen time limit for under-18s after which they must enter a password to continue, and a reminder to switch off at 10pm. The company say this is to support a healthy relationship with screen time.
Pinterest have supported phone-free policies at schools, in the US and Canada and say they are looking to expand this elsewhere.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
I just found a life-changing car gadget at Kmart for $49 - and I had no idea such an item existed
Australian shoppers are heading to Kmart Australia stores in droves to snap up a new car transforming tech gadget. Cars fitted with wired Apple CarPlay can now be converted to a wireless Bluetooth set-up with the aid of the nifty Kmart Wireless CarPlay Adapter $49. The popular item has already sold out online and is listed as 'out of stock' at several Kmart stores. The online product description for the Bluetooth enabled device explains that it's a simple way to 'upgrade your drive' by offering an 'effortless way to enjoy CarPlay without the cables'. A recent viral TikTok video highlighting the ease of use of the device has delighted legions of shoppers. A video shared by Australian woman Jas to her TikTok account sees her explain that the bargain tech find is ideal for anyone who's 'sick to death' of having to use cords to connect their smart phone to their Apple CarPlay. In place of the messy cord set up, the video demonstrates how the compact Kmart Wireless CarPlay Adapter can simply be plugged into the car's USB portal and then connected to your smart phone via Bluetooth. Once set up, the phone will automatically connect to the in-car screen anytime you hop into the car. This means the instant ability to do things like change songs or adjust the volume using the steering wheel controls - just as you would if the device were plugged in and connected via a cord. The nifty and compact gadget plugs into your car's USB outlet. Once it's set-up and connected to your phone, it will recognise your device on CarPlay - without the need to plug it in via a cord The video quickly amassed over 672,000 views and 27,000 likes. The comments section was also filled with replies from excited shoppers who planned to upgrade their in-car setup with the clever device. 'The way I sprinted to the Kmart website!' read one reply. 'This is lifechanging,' added another. One already convinced customer wrote: 'I bought one a month ago. So good! Jump in and instant connection. Don't even take phone out of pocket. It's instant with no lag. Fantastic.' Those who had struggled with various issues while using a cord for their CarPlay were also pleased to learn about the Bluetooth adapter. 'I hate having the cord so this will be awesome,' replied one person. Another explained that their wired CarPlay regularly 'cuts out' on 'every bump or corner' while using a cord. 'I was livid but now I have hope,' they added. Other replies noted that the budget retailer's adapter was well-priced compared to similar ones on the market, which are generally upwards of $80. For Android phone users, commenters noted that the device appeared to be similarly compatible with Android Auto - despite the product name. However not everyone was convinced that switching from a wired to a wireless CarPlay set-up was a great idea. One person wrote: 'Wireless CarPlay delivers lower quality music. If you use Apple Music, wired CarPlay delivers CD quality audio.' Another agreed, explaining that they'd previously tried wireless CarPlay but reverted back to using the cord 'because of lag with music playback'. Others noted that they relied on the cord not only to connect to their CarPlay but also to simultaneously charge their phone, because their car didn't feature an in-built wireless charging pad. 'I use my cord to keep the phone charged,' confirmed one person. 'I hate the cord but it's the only thing keeping my iPhone 13 from running flat throughout the day,' read another reply. A third person noted: 'Wireless will chew ya battery. Use the cable and use the CarPlay and keep the phones battery full.'
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Zero-hours contracts: peers accused of ‘trying to block stronger UK workers' rights'
Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers have been accused of trying to block stronger rights for millions of workers amid a growing campaign by business leaders to water down Labour's zero-hours contract plans. In a blow for the government, the Lords last week voted to curtail the manifesto promise to give workers a right to a guaranteed hours contract and day-one protections against unfair dismissal. Setting up a showdown with the upper chamber, the Lords passed a series of amendments to the employment rights bill that will must be addressed by ministers when MPs return from their summer break. In an angry intervention on Monday, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, Paul Nowak, said the Lords was 'doing the bidding of bad bosses' and ought to 'get out of the way' of the plans. 'The sight of hereditary peers voting to block stronger workers' rights belongs in another century. It's plain wrong,' he said. Under the Lords' amendments, a requirement for employers to offer zero-hours workers a contract covering a guaranteed number of hours would be shifted to place the onus on staff to ask for such an arrangement. Protections against unfair dismissal from the first day of employment – which the government plans to reduce from the current level of two years – would be extended to six months, and changes to free up trade unions would be curtailed. The bill will return to the Commons in September for MPs to consider the amendments. The two houses then continue to vote on the changes in a process known as 'ping-pong' until a way forward is agreed. The amendments were put forward by the Lib Dem Lord Goddard, a former leader of Stockport council, and two Tory peers: Lord Hunt, who is a shadow business minister, and Lord Sharpe, a former investment banker. Hunt did not respond to a request for comment. Sharpe said: 'Keir Starmer's unemployment bill is a disaster for employees as much as it is a threat to business. Labour politicians who have never worked in business are destroying the economy. Only the Conservatives are listening to business and making the case for growth.' Goddard said he feared Labour's 'rushed bill' would be bad for workers in small businesses and on family-owned farms. 'They were badly let down by the Conservatives, and Labour seems to have a blind spot when it comes to farms and small businesses, too. 'We support the bill as a whole and have worked constructively to try to improve it. It's a shame to see the government getting upset that we didn't simply give them a blank cheque.' Employers groups welcomed the changes, saying the Lords was responding to business concerns. Helen Dickinson, the chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, said: 'Putting forward positive, practical and pragmatic amendments to the employment rights bill [will] help to protect the availability of valuable, local, part-time and entry level jobs up and down the country.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Industry chiefs have stepped up lobbying against the workers' rights changes, warning that companies were already slashing jobs and putting up prices in response to tax rises in chancellor Rachel Reeves's autumn budget. Dickinson said there was 'further to go' to curb the employment rights bill. 'Even with these amendments accepted, retailers remain worried about the consequences for jobs from other areas of the bill.' Union leaders have, though, urged ministers to stand firm. A recent mega poll of 21,000 people commissioned by the TUC found a majority of UK voters – including Conservative, Lib Dem and Reform UK supporters – backed a ban on zero-hours contracts. Nowak said the government plan included 'commonsense protections' that a majority of people wanted to see become law. 'These peers are not just out of touch, they are actively defying their own voters – and the public at large. The government must stand firm in the face of cynical attacks and deliver the employment rights bill in full.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Imported dogs could carry disease or behaviour risk, RSPCA warns
An animal charity has called for stricter regulations on animal rescues importing dogs into the UK, citing concerns about disease risks and behavioural issues Government statistics reveal that in 2023, 320,000 pets were brought into the UK under travel pet schemes and 44,000 entered as commercial imports. RSPCA spokesman David Bowles likened the process to ' Deliveroo for dogs' and called on the Government to tighten regulations on animal rescues. He told the BBC: 'The RSPCA's major concern is these dogs are essentially ticking time bombs – coming over, not being health tested. 'Diseases are now coming in through these dogs. They're affecting not just the dogs that are being imported, they could also affect the dogs already in this country and their owners. 'They've almost set up a Deliveroo for dogs and that is a real problem.' There is no requirement for rescue organisations to be licensed in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. It comes weeks after a bill that aims to stop animal smuggling and cruelty cleared the Commons with cross-party support. Legislation put forward by Liberal Democrat MP Dr Danny Chambers will reduce the number of animals for non-commercial entry into the UK, ban the import of puppies and kittens under six months old or heavily pregnant dogs and cats, and introduce a halt on the import of dogs and cats who have been 'mutilated', including having their ears docked. The MP for Winchester's Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill was supported by the Government, and will now proceed to the House of Lords on its passage to becoming law. Dr Chambers said: 'As a vet, I've seen the devastating consequences of puppy smuggling. It's unimaginably cruel to separate puppies and kittens from their mothers at a very young age, and then bring them across borders in substandard conditions where they're then sold for maximum profit by unscrupulous traders who prioritise profit over welfare.' He added: 'Careful consideration has been given to setting these limits, balancing the need to disrupt illegal trade with minimising impact on genuine pet owners. To underpin this, only an owner, not an authorised person, will be permitted to sign and declare that the movement of a dog or cat is non-commercial. He criticised the influence of social media on the increased demand for dogs with docked ears, and a party colleague hit out at the platforms' role in publishing animal abuse. He said: 'One reason that there is such an interest in dogs with cropped ears is that a lot of influencers on Instagram and other social media platforms pose with these dogs or show they have these new dogs with cropped ears. Many people aren't aware that this is a mutilation. 'They think it's how the dogs' ears normally look, and it drives a demand for dogs that look like this.'
