
France's toddler screen ban is pure state overreach
What next? A ban on loud toys? Fines for bedtime past eight o'clock?
'This is how you change things', Vautrin told Le Journal du Dimanche. 'You state a principle, and little by little, it becomes anchored in people's minds.'
A 2022 study by Inserm, France's national medical research body, tracked 14,000 children from birth and found that early screen time, particularly before age two, was associated with delayed speech development and reduced socialisation at nursery school. The same children were more likely to show concentration problems later in primary school. Vautrin cites this research to justify the governments agenda. But what's interesting is that the researchers stopped short of calling for a ban. They pointed instead to the importance of parental interaction and content quality. In other words, common sense.
And there it is. Not content with banning smoking at bus stops and removing outdoor heaters from café terraces, the French state has now decided to parent the parents. And it starts with Teletubbies. The measure may sound harmless, even well intentioned, but it marks yet another step in the Macronist habit of turning private judgement into public regulation.
Nobody disputes that toddlers don't benefit from screen time. The NHS in Britain advises parents to avoid it entirely before age two. But in Britain, such advice remains just that: advice. Ofsted does not bar nurseries from showing a short film or using a digital device if it's part of a wider educational context. The state leaves space for discretion.
France will not. Vautrin's move echoes the earlier French ban on outdoor smoking, not because enforcement is practical, but because stating a principle is seen as a way of reshaping society. The technique is always the same. Issue a prohibition, turn it into a campaign, publish guidelines, introduce fines, and wait for the culture to shift. Screens today, sugar tomorrow, and after that who knows.
It's this compulsive reflex to legislate behaviour that reveals the French state's underlying philosophy. Trust is not part of the equation. Citizens, even parents, are not to be guided or encouraged, but managed. And if we push back, we're branded irresponsible or worse.
The irony is that a government that cannot staff its own schools properly now wants to police what toddlers watch in a hospital waiting room. French nurseries, already under pressure, will now be expected to enforce rules that have little to do with care, and everything to do with performance. The spectacle of state virtue.
By contrast, the UK's approach is more relaxed and arguably more effective. The NHS's guidance on screen use is based on moderation and common sense. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health explicitly declined to set arbitrary limits for parents, saying what matters most is context, content and family interaction. British ministers assume most parents are capable of knowing that ten episodes of Teletubbies in a row probably isn't ideal. They don't necessarily reach for the statute book to enforce what can be solved with a bit of judgement.
Of course there'll always be parents who overdo it, who hand over a screen too often or for too long. But why impose rules on everyone else? There are times when giving a child an iPad makes perfect sense. In a waiting room. On a flight. We've all done it. The problem is not the occasional screen. It's turning rare indulgence into routine. And that is something most parents are perfectly capable of managing.
But Macron's France is different. Every issue, however small, becomes a matter for the state. And every household, a target for reform. Behind the screen ban is something bigger. The idea that family life must be shaped, top down, in accordance with the latest official theory on wellbeing, risk and social cohesion. One can only imagine what is next. A ban on loud toys? Fines for bedtime past eight o'clock?
The real risk is that even reasonable advice becomes politicised. What might have worked as a gentle public health message will now land as another round of social engineering. And those who resist will not be engaged, but blamed.
I don't need the government standing over my shoulder while I raise my child. Children belong to their parents, not to the state.
Good parents already know that too much screen time isn't healthy. They do not need a government minister telling them what to do. What they need, what everyone needs, is a government willing to trust them. It's not the screen ban itself that is the problem. It's the belief behind it, the idea that the state always knows better. That's what needs to be switched off.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Spectator
13 minutes ago
- Spectator
What Baroness Debbonaire gets wrong about Clive of India
Baroness Debbonaire, addressing the Edinburgh International Book Festival, has called for the removal of the statue of Clive of India, Baron Clive of Plassey, the site of one of his most famous military victories, from its prominent place adjoining the Foreign Office, at the end of King Charles Street, looking out across St. James's Park from what are known as Clive Steps. Clive was a founder of British imperial power and control over India. Twice governor in the mid-18th century, he was a brilliant military commander, a determined administrator and an opponent of corruption, though he himself became rich on the profits of empire. He fought warlords by becoming one of them himself. Subjected to waves of criticism for the way he governed from both the conscious-struck and jealous, and subject himself to bouts of depression, he may have taken his own life in 1774. His statue was erected much later in 1912, and like Clive in his own lifetime, was controversial and contested. The statue of Edward Colston, the Bristol slave trader, was also erected just before the first world war and also commemorated someone who lived much earlier. It's relevant to this new, confected controversy over Clive because Debbonaire was a Labour MP for Bristol until the last election, a veteran of the rancorous debates in that city over the Colston monument until it was pulled down by a mob in 2020. We might have hoped that the Baroness would have learnt the obvious lesson that disputes of this type set communities against each other and undermine social cohesion. Nobody wins, and society loses, in a culture war. We might also have hoped that instead of demanding the removal of an artefact of which she disapproves, the noble baroness would have used her speech to call for a new work of public art beside the Foreign Office representing the values she holds dear. She could put herself at the head of a committee to raise funds for such a work. But speech-making, removal and perhaps destruction, are always easier (and more psychologically revealing) than working to win broad support for the commissioning of a new piece of art. This prominent corner of official London is a work in progress. On one side of Clive is the entrance to the Cabinet War Rooms, Churchill's headquarters in the Second World War that have been preserved for posterity. On the other side is a new monument to the victims of the Bali bombing of 2002. The area is rich with British history, its victories and tragedies, its heroes and villains. But the subtle and complex nature of the past is lost on Debbonaire who thinks it her right to judge for the rest of us. She complains that on Clive's statue, the frieze running around the base depicts 'tiny, tiny little Indians' as subservient. The common practice of sculpting, in miniature, key moments or themes in the life of those commemorated may be unknown to her. Does she also disdain the frieze running round the Albert Memorial, depicting great cultural figures, or the allegorical sculptures of Africa and Asia at its corners? Or the panels depicting the lives of ordinary people at the base of the statue known as The Meeting Place at St. Pancras Station where two lovers embrace high above scenes of everyday life, again captured in miniature? (The statue is disdained by our cultural elite, as it happens, but highly regarded by those same ordinary people.) Debbonaire's greatest mistake is to complain that Clive's statue taints and distorts our relationship with India today. Wrapped up in the cliches of contemporary anti-colonialism, she is unaware of India's profound interest in the British colonial past and respect for the legacies we left behind. She might spend some time reading the splendid essays by the Sri Lankan scholar Rohan Fernando, published by History Reclaimed, on the cultural and scientific inheritance from the Raj and its reception in contemporary India. The British founded dozens of museums across India; established scientific institutions such as the Indian Meteorological Department and the Archaeological Survey of India (whose Director, John Marshall, discovered the Indus Valley Civilisation exactly a century ago); mapped India's terrain and geology; built canals and railways. All of these achievements are acknowledged and celebrated by an authentic Indian culture which is ever more at ease with its British past. Debbonaire is not alone in her ignorance of these legacies, of course. University College, Oxford has decided to criticise its greatest son, Sir William Jones, who in the late eighteenth century first identified the family of Indo-European languages, wrote codes of Hindu and Muslim law, and began the study of Indian archaeology. A panel recently placed next to the great monument to him in the college chapel, sculpted by John Flaxman, confects a charge sheet of the usual offences. But Jones is revered by Indians as the founder of the study of their cultures: his grave in Calcutta is the site of regular commemorations and he even adorns a recent Indian postage stamp. An Oxford college dishonouring a great scholar dishonours only itself. Baroness Debbonaire does greater damage, pitching us all into unnecessary disputes based on faulty history and imagined grievances.


BBC News
14 minutes ago
- BBC News
New app to support people in Cornwall with health issues
More than 500 people struggling with their health across Cornwall have received free support to return to Cornwall and Isles of Scilly said the area was one of 15 benefiting from WorkWell funding from the government to help people to stay in or return to said the initiative included a new app providing mental healthcare, which offered users personalised 1-2-1 support and lead for WorkWell Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Jessie Leigh said: "We are proud to have helped more than 550 people so far, and it is wonderful they want to share their stories to encourage others to get help." 'Small daily steps' Daniel Stuart, a former farrier, was out of work after an accident. Mr Stuart accessed funding and training, as well as coaching, to help his mental health, and said he had now launched his own jewellery and gift business after he gained new skills through the programme, NHS Cornwall app, free for people aged over 16 in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, allows users to track their progress and see how far they have Leigh added: "It's great to see this type of innovation being rolled out." The founder of the Cerina app, developer Prasannajeet Mane, said: "We are incredibly proud to partner with NHS Cornwall to launch this app and help people take small daily steps towards lasting positive change."Our goal is to empower people to manage day-to-day mental health challenges through evidence-based techniques, support that can be accessed anytime, anywhere, whenever they need it most."


Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
I got a bursary to a top private school. Labour's tax raid would've sealed my fate
I was incredibly fortunate to have the opportunity to experience the high level of attention and care I received as I prepared for university, as were the other thousands of students around the country who received financial support. According to the Private Education Policy Forum, 34pc of private school pupils receive some form of financial aid. These aren't just the children of bankers and lawyers. Many bursary students come from single-parent households, carers, or families with fluctuating incomes who would otherwise never consider private education. This isn't just a personal story. Labour's decision to impose VAT on private school fees from the start of this year risks shutting out thousands of children from the kind of opportunities I enjoyed. Bursaries are one of the few tools that private schools have to support social mobility, giving bright children from all backgrounds a chance to thrive. Labour's tax raid is reshaping the landscape of private education. The VAT raid – a wealth tax by any other name – has hit working families, while the truly wealthy have been able to avoid the extra fees by paying, in some cases, for the entire cost of schooling up front.