Government urged to disrupt ‘addictive grip' of smartphones on children's lives
Urgent action is needed to create more opportunities for children to play outdoors and away from digital devices and social media, according to a report by the Raising the Nation Play Commission inquiry.
It warned: 'Too many of our children are spending their most precious years sedentary, doomscrolling on their phones and often alone, while their health and wellbeing deteriorates.'
The commission was chaired by Paul Lindley, founder of organic baby food manufacturer Ella's Kitchen, in partnership with the Centre for Young Lives think tank, which was co-founded by the former children's commissioner for England Baroness Anne Longfield.
It has called on the Government to establish a National Play Strategy for England, backed by an annual £125 million investment and led by a 'minister for play'.
The strategy should include a commitment to a 'step-change' in the quantity and quality of children's use of digital devices through stronger regulation, public engagement and information, and addressing addictive 'push' factors that have driven children online, the report added.
The inquiry has called on the Government to raise the digital age of consent to 16 and introduce a ban on smartphones in schools during the school day.
It added that it should become easier for parents to organise 'safe play' in their streets, and there should be a national ban on 'No Ball Games' signs.
A poll of 2,000 parents in England, commissioned by the inquiry, suggested that 55% of parents believe their youngest child plays outside less than they did when they were children.
Around three in four (76%) parents agree that people are generally less accepting of children playing outside on the street than when they were a child, according to the poll.
The Raising the Nation Play Commission brought together 19 expert commissioners to conduct a year-long inquiry into how play can be restored to every childhood in England.
Lady Longfield, executive chairwoman of the Centre for Young Lives, said: 'Too many of our children are spending their most precious years sedentary, doomscrolling on their phones and often alone, while their health and wellbeing deteriorates.
'It is no coincidence that the least happy generation, the generation with the highest rates of obesity and rising ill health, is the generation that plays less and less.
'As we have heard from a swathe of experts and professionals working with children over the last year, play is being squeezed out of childhoods, with drastic implications for children, our economy and public services.
'With so much at stake children really have everything to play for: their health, wellbeing, happiness, learning, and development depends on our ability to reignite the role of play.
'This report provides a blueprint for how we can get children playing again and also tackle the scourge of addictive doomscrolling, so we can prevent future generations from becoming glued to screens.'
Technology Secretary Pete Kyle has indicated he is considering an 'app cap' for children.
On Sunday, the minister signalled he was looking at measures to restrict the amount of time children spend on their phones, including through a possible 10pm curfew.
Mr Lindley, chairman of the Raising the Nation Play Commission, said: 'Creating truly playful communities is not just about better street design, traffic management, and reduced crime, but also about a reversal of the growing culture of intolerance towards children playing.
'This will also encourage more parents to have confidence they can let their children play out more freely, in the knowledge that their children will be both having a great time and are also safe.
'We need to give our children back the time, space, opportunity, freedom – and the right – to play again.'
A Government spokesperson said: 'We recognise the vital importance of play and access to nature as part of children's development and wellbeing as we strive to create the healthiest and happiest generation of children ever.
'Through our Plan for Change, we are setting young people up to achieve and thrive – both inside and outside the classroom.
'We have given hundreds of thousands of children the tools to turn their grey school spaces green as part of our National Education Nature Park, we are opening up grassroots sports to all with £100 million investment in facilities and we are working with experts to develop a framework to improve access to activities outside of school.
'Schools already have the power to completely ban phones in the classroom and the overwhelming majority – 99.8% of primary schools and 90% of secondary schools – limit or restrict use.
'And from July, new rules under the Online Safety Act will require social media platforms to protect children in the UK from seeing harmful content online.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
21 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
How many people are in asylum hotels and who is to blame for the UK using them
A 'failure of public policy' under the Tories saw former immigration minister Robert Jenrick brag about how fast he was securing hotel rooms as the asylum backlog grew and grew The Government faces an asylum hotel crisis as councils line up to launch legal challenges which could see thousands of people kicked out. On Tuesday the High Court granted a temporary injuction preventing the Bell Hotel in Epping from housing migrants after weeks of tension. Home Office lawyers had warned that such a ruling 'could put Britain's asylum hotel scheme at risk of falling apart' as ministers grapple to shut down venues. Dozens of local authorities are now exploring similar challenges, with the Government now drawing up contingency plans. Labour has vowed to end the use of hotels by the end of this Parliament after the Tories resorted to using them when the asylum system descended into chaos. Experts said a "failure of public policy", with years of not processing asylum claims by the Conservatives, led to people being put in expensive accommodation. In 2023, when the asylum backlog was a mammoth 175,000, more than 400 hotels were in use, housing over 56,000 people. At the time Robert Jenrick, who was immigration minister, bragged at the speed he was securing rooms. He said, in a quote dug up by Labour this week: "More hotels have been coming online almost every month throughout the whole of this year. So Suella Braverman and her predecessor Priti Patel were securing more hotels. What I have done in my short tenure is wrap that up and secure even more." The brazen Shadow Justice Secretary has been vocal on the issue of asylum hotels in recent weeks, joining demonstrations outside the Bell Hotel to protest about problems his party caused. The backlog swelled after the UK lost its legal right to return migrants to Europe after Brexit, while a string of botched laws under the Tories failed to drive down small boat crossings. The Conservatives pinned their hopes on being able to send people to Rwanda as the number of people in the asylum system grew and grew. Labour has pledged to get a grip of the chaos, but says it will take time to see the results. At the end of March this year there were 32,345 people living in asylum hotels, Home Office figures show. This was up from 29,585 when Labour came to power. It means 31% of asylum seekers were receiving asylum support earlier this year. Security Minister Dan Jarvis said the Government accepts that hotels are not the most appropriate place for asylum seekers to be housed. And in the immediate aftermath of the Epping judgment, border security minister Dame Angela Eagle said Labour had "inherited a broken asylum system". Dame Angela said the Government would "continue working with local authorities and communities to address legitimate concerns" around asylum hotels. Imran Hussain, from the Refugee Council, told Sky News: "Nobody thinks asylum seekers should be kept in hotels while their case is being assessed. "It's very expensive. It's not good for the asylum seekers. It's isolating. It's an isolating experince I think even before the protests, with the protests it's incredibly terrifying for people. "And of course as we've seen for local communities, there's a lot of tension, some of which is being exploited by people on the far- right. So no one thinks it's a good idea." And explaining how hotels came to be used, Mr Hussain continued: " This isn't a planning issue, really. This is a failure of public policy. For 20 odd years that we've supported asylum seekers through, the system worked perfectly well. "We had accommodation for people without using hotels. But the last few years there's been a huge backlog of cases that's grown up because the previous government (the Tories) stopped making decisions on cases because it wanted to send people to Rwanda. "The backlog has meant the accommodation that was existing was full and people have had to use hotels."
Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
Switzerland moves to strengthen its competitiveness after US tariffs
ZURICH, Aug 20 (Reuters) - Switzerland is intensifying efforts to strengthen its attractiveness as a business location, its government said on Wednesday, after being hit with some of the highest U.S. tariffs worldwide. Efforts will focus on regulatory relief for Swiss companies, and new rules incurring high costs for businesses could be pushed back, the government said in a statement. U.S. President Donald Trump this month imposed U.S. import tariffs of 39% on Swiss goods, though pharmaceuticals and some other sectors have so far been spared the duties. "(The government) wants to decisively press ahead with its economic policy agenda and is focusing on reducing the regulatory burden on companies," the government said. Geographical diversification and Swiss companies' access to alternative international markets should also be strengthened, the statement said. The new U.S. levies currently affect around 10% of Swiss goods exports, and could have potentially severe consequences for some companies, the government said. Switzerland does not anticipate a recession akin to the global financial crisis or the pandemic, it added.
Daily Mail
21 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Rachel Reeves' 'mansion tax' plan: What is capital gains tax, who pays and what could change?
In the latest furore over Labour's plans for property taxes, Chancellor Rachel Reeves is reported to be considering charging some homeowners a levy if they sell their home and make a profit. It follows reports in the last few days that the Government is mulling over sweeping changes to stamp duty and council tax, in a bid to fill the £51billion fiscal black hole. At the moment, people don't have to pay tax if they sell the home they live in and the price has increased since they bought it - known in tax parlance as a 'capital gain'. But according to The Times, Reeves is considering changing this rules so they would have to pay this, if they made more than a certain amount of money. We explain what taxes people currently pay when selling property, how much they pay and what could potentially change. What is capital gains tax? Capital gains tax is levied on profits from assets including second homes, buy-to-let properties, stocks and shares and personal possessions. It is not currently charged when people sell their main home, which they live in full-time, but this is what Reeves is reported to be considering changing. It's important to note that it is only charged on increase in value or 'gain' made on the property or shares, not on the whole value. Everyone also gets an annual capital gains tax-free allowance of £3,000, so any gains below this aren't taxed. How much is capital gains tax? It depends on which tax band the person is in. If you are a basic rate taxpayer, with an annual income of up to £50,271, you pay 18 per cent. If you are a higher or additional-rate taxpayer, earning £50,271 or more, you pay 24 per cent. Take, for example, a landlord who purchased a buy-to-let property for £200,000 and sold it a decade later for £230,000 - requiring them to pay capital gains tax under the current rules. They would only pay tax on the £30,000 increase in value. If they were a basic-rate taxpayer, this would be charged at 18 per cent. This would set their bill at £5,400. However, if they hadn't made any other capital gains that tax year, they could use their £3,000 annual allowance to cut the bill to £2,400. Selling costs such as an estate agent and solicitors can sometimes be deducted. What is private residence relief? Private residence relief is the name for the tax exemption which means those selling their main home don't pay capital gains tax, no matter how much it increases in value. This is what Rachel Reeves is said to be considering taking away, or making changes to. What is being proposed? According to The Times, people selling their home would now need to pay capital gains tax at the rates described above - but only if their home was above a certain price threshold. It is not yet known how much a property would need to be worth, or how much the 'gain' would need to be, for the home seller to be drawn into the tax net. The Times said a threshold of £1.5million would hit around 120,000 homeowners who are higher-rate taxpayers with capital gains tax bills of £199,973. At current rates, a home bought for £800,000 and sold for £1millon by a higher-rate taxpayer would attract a capital gains tax bill of £47,280, before any deductions. Who will it affect? Older homeowners looking to downsize could be hit especially hard, as well as anyone who has lived in their property for a long time or experienced big house price gains. Those who have stayed in the same home for decades and enjoyed large property price rises could find themselves hit with a bill worth tens or even hundreds of thousands. This could prevent them from downsizing at all. The average house price in London in 1980 was £25,732, according to the Land Registry. Today, that has jumped to about £561,000 - though many family-sized homes in areas of the capital that have experienced gentrification could be worth double that. If capital gains tax was charged at current rates, a basic rate-taxpayer couple selling a £561,000 home could face a tax bill of £114,180, after deducting £5,000 for selling costs. However, it may be that a home worth that much could fall under the threshold. Stephen Perkins, managing director at Norwich-based Yellow Brick Mortgages, said: 'I can see a lot of families in London being caught with this higher tax bill. 'It may push more wealthy tax contributors to exodus the UK, which is already a problem following the Chancellor's last budget.' Why is it controversial? Some are terming the increase a 'mansion tax' which punishes people who have worked hard to buy a nice home. Harps Garcha, director at Slough-based financial adviser Brooklyns Financial, told the news agency Newspage: 'The Government's plan will have a massive impact on London and the South East, where many middle-class families have sacrificed themselves for years to build wealth through their homes. 'These homeowners expected to rely on that equity in retirement by downsizing, yet they now face being taxed twice, first through stamp duty and then capital gains. 'Rather than rewarding prudence, this policy punishes those who have worked hard and planned responsibly for their future.' Property experts also say taxing homeowners could would gum up the property market, as people at the top end of the ladder would be less inclined to move. This could increase the number of older people in homes that are too big, and young families could struggle to upsize. If people were less likely to move because of the policy, this might even limit the amount of money the Treasury might raise from the tax. Tom Bill, head of UK residential research at estate agent Knight Frank, said: 'Anyone with a taxable gain would think twice before selling, which would reduce transaction numbers. 'The Government seems to want a predictable flow of revenue that is skewed towards the wealthiest homeowners. 'That would be best achieved by re-banding council tax rather than introducing transaction taxes that change behaviour in the most discretionary part of the property market to the point they fail to raise what is intended.' When could this change happen? This change is reported to be an announcement being tabled for the Autumn Budget, in October or November. It is unclear when the new rule, if it was announced, would come into effect. One potential problem is that any announcement could create a rush of people trying to sell their homes before the new tax was put in place, to avoid paying it. When Rachel Reeves announced an additional stamp duty levy on landlords last year, this came into effect immediately to stop people from doing this. What has changed already? In recent years, both Conservative and Labour governments have made the capital gains tax allowances less generous. The annual capital gains tax-free allowance was £12,300 until April 2023, which meant it was typically only levied on wealthier taxpayers. However, radical cuts to the CGT allowance - to £6,000 in spring 2023 and £3,000 from April 2024 - make it inevitable that many more people will now have to pay capital gains tax. Rachel Reeves also increased capital gains tax for stocks and shares investors in last year's Autumn Budget. The rate charged increased from 10 per cent to 18 per cent for basic rate taxpayers and 20 per cent to 24 per cent for those paying higher rates of tax. This brought them into line with the already higher levies on property. The Treasury's response The Treasury declined to comment to the Daily Mail on 'speculation' about future changes to tax policy. A spokesman said: 'As set out in the Plan for Change, the best way to strengthen public finances is by growing the economy – which is our focus. 'Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms, which are expected to grow the economy by £6.8billion and cut borrowing by £3.4billion 'We are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible, which is why at last autumn's Budget, we protected working people's payslips and kept our promise not to raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee National Insurance, or VAT.'
