MPs to debate Bill aimed at limiting harms of smartphone use among children
The issue of excessive smartphone and social media use by children would be pushed forward in a 'meaningful way' if the Government supports a private member's bill, an MP has insisted.
Josh MacAlister, Labour MP for Whitehaven and Workington, said it would be 'the most serious engagement' by the Government on issues relating to smartphone and social media use if the measures in his Bill are supported.
The Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) – which is more commonly known as the Safer Phones Bill – will have its second reading in the Commons on Friday where MPs will debate it.
The Bill will instruct the UK chief medical officers to publish advice for parents on the use of smartphones and social media by children.
It also calls on the Government to state whether they are going to raise the age at which children can consent for their data to be shared without parental permission within 12 months of passing the Act.
Former teacher Mr MacAlister said the Bill commits ministers to come back within a year on the question of raising 'the digital age of consent' from 13 to 16 to make smartphones less addictive.
It comes as a report from think tank The New Britain Project and polling firm More in Common suggested that the majority of young people support the idea of placing stricter rules on social media.
Mr MacAlister told the PA news agency: 'If social media companies can't use kids' data without parental permission, then the algorithms that use the data to make the content really addictive aren't able to be put to use.
'So it would basically mean that there would need to be different versions of social media that are less addictive for children, and it would also mean that parents have got the ultimate decision on that until 16 whereas at the moment it is only 13.'
Mr MacAlister had originally planned for the Bill to call for a legal requirement to be introduced so all schools in England were mobile-free zones.
But the proposal was dropped from the Bill after the Government signalled last year that it was unlikely to back plans to ban smartphones in schools.
Other proposals had included strengthening watchdog Ofcom's powers to protect children from apps that are designed to be addictive, and committing the Government to review further regulation if needed of the design, supply, marketing and use of mobile phones by children under the age of 16.
But these have also been dropped from the final private member's bill.
Speaking ahead of the debate, Mr MacAlister said: 'I've worked with the Government over the last couple of weeks to get to the point where I can put a Bill forward that's likely to get Government support, and I'm optimistic that (on Friday) they will back the measures that are in the bill.'
But the leader of the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign – where parents have been pushing to change the culture around children and smartphones over the past year – said the final provisions were 'nowhere near enough'.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats have accused the Government of making 'ponderous progress' on the issue, and they suggested that the Government has succeeded in pushing for the Bill to be 'watered down'.
Mr MacAlister told PA: 'Anyone who looks at the first version of my Bill will know that this isn't where I started, but from the beginning I've said that I want to put forward a Bill that is likely to lead to actual change rather than just making a noise about something.'
He added: 'I'm hopeful that there'll be lots of MPs there (on Friday) supportive of the Bill and wanting to see progress on this issue.'
When asked by PA what he hopes will happen if the Bill receives Government support, Mr MacAlister said: 'It will push the issue forward in a meaningful way.
'If the Government supports the measures that are in the Bill then it will be the most serious engagement that the UK Government has had with these wider issues about smartphone and social media use beyond the Online Safety Act that the government have ever had and that will be progress.'
Joe Ryrie, co-founder and director of Smartphone Free Childhood, said: 'Josh MacAlister has worked hard to push for legislation that finally starts to protect children from addictive algorithms in the Safer Phones Bill, whilst ensuring the final draft has Government backing.
'So while it's good news that it appears he's got Government support for some measures, let's be honest: the final provisions included are nowhere near enough.'
He added: 'Other countries are already taking bold action, while the UK lags behind.
'The public are demanding change, and sooner or later, politicians will have to catch up.'
Liberal Democrat MP Victoria Collins, the Science, Innovation & Technology spokesperson for the Lib Dems, said: 'So far, the Government has made ponderous progress on children's online safety.
'I'm disappointed that they've seemingly succeeded in pushing for the Safer Phones Bill to be watered down – a Bill that had such promise when it was first proposed.'
A Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) spokesperson said: 'We are committed to keeping young people safe online whilst also ensuring they can benefit from the latest technology.
'By the summer robust new protections for children will be in force through the Online Safety Act to protect them from harmful content and ensure they have an age-appropriate experience online.
'The Government's response to the private member's bill will follow during the second reading of the Bill, as per parliamentary process.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
Ditching a strikes law meant to curb the impact of walkouts on key services is 'recklessness', Tory critics have warned at Westminster. In moving to scrap the legislation, introduced by the previous Tory administration, the Government argued it was ineffective, having failed to prevent a single day of industrial action while in force. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act became law back in July 2023 in the face of fierce opposition. The controversial move allowed ministers to impose minimum levels of service during industrial action by ambulance staff, firefighters, railway workers and those in other sectors deemed essential. It was brought in against a backdrop of disruptive strikes in the NHS and on the railway. Labour promised at the time to repeal the legislation if it got into office. Provisions contained in the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, will deliver on this pledge. The Conservative opposition frontbench has called for a review to assess the impact on the emergency services of ripping up the law. Describing it as 'a public protection measure', Tory shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: 'The truth is that this law has teeth, it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. 'The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.' He added: 'What is the Government's alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard.' Lord Sharpe went on: 'We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes… without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. That is not governance; it is recklessness.' But former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Labour peer Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out the legislation had not been used. She said: 'That was because the Act was so widely regarded as unfair and unworkable and, in addition, that it would put fuel on the fire of difficult industrial disputes when all decent people wanted to resolve those disputes. 'Finally, it ignored the fact that life-and-limb voluntary agreements are in place in the industries and sectors where safety is genuinely at stake.' Conservative peer Baroness Noakes said: 'I accept that those in the party opposite, throughout the passage of that Bill, registered their strong opposition to it. 'So I understand that, in power, they seek to expunge it from the statute book. However, that is a grave mistake that ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens.' Fellow Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor said repealing the legislation would appear to many 'as an irresponsible act of Government'. Responding, Labour minister Lord Leong said scrapping the strikes law had been an election manifesto commitment. He told peers: 'It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. 'Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place.' In reply, Lord Sharpe said: 'All we have done is ask for the Government to pause and consider the real-world consequences of repealing a law that was designed to protect public safety during times of industrial action.' He added: 'There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of safety impacts, no consultation findings and no plan for what replaces the protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Child sexual abuse victim criticises ‘smug' Badenoch over grooming inquiry
A victim of child sexual abuse has hit out at 'smug' Kemi Badenoch as he accused the Conservative leader of politicising the grooming gangs scandal. Liberal Democrat MP Josh Babarinde said he was 'really let down and disgusted' by Mrs Badenoch's party political response to the national inquiry. Labour's Dan Aldridge also spoke of his experience of 'sexual and psychological abuse' as a result of grooming, during the Home Secretary's statement in the Commons. The MP for Weston-super-Mare said he 'found it galling' to listen to Tory and Reform MPs 'who never once lifted a finger'. Mrs Badenoch earlier said it was left to the Conservatives to 'force' action on grooming gangs 'time and time again'. The Opposition leader said: 'They accused those of us demanding justice for the victims of this scandal as and I quote 'jumping on a far right bandwagon', a claim the Prime Minister's official spokesman restated this weekend, shameful. It has been left to Conservatives time and time again to force this issue.' She added: 'We went further than those recommendations. It was the Conservatives who established the grooming gangs taskforce, which supported police forces to make 807 arrests for group-based child sexual exploitation last year. So don't tell me we did nothing. 'There are legitimate concerns about institutions investigating themselves, especially as some of the most egregious cases of institutional failure occurred in Labour-controlled authorities. They can moan as much as they like but the people out there believe that is why nothing has happened yet.' Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said Baroness Casey's report 'sets out a timeline of failure from 2009 to 2025'. She added: 'Repeated reports and recommendations that were not acted on, on child protection, on police investigations, on ethnicity data, on data sharing, on support for victims. 'For 14 of those 16 years, her party was in government, including years when she was the minister for children and families, then the minister for equalities, covering race and ethnicity issues and violence against women and girls, and I did not hear her raise any of these issues until January of this year.' Speaking of his own experiences of abuse, Mr Babarinde said 'the horror, the trauma, the guilt never leaves you'. The MP for Eastbourne said: 'As a survivor of child sexual abuse myself, I stand in solidarity with the many victims and survivors that the system has failed over many, many years. 'And I can say that the horror, the trauma, the guilt never leaves you, and I so hope that every survivor who is identified here receives the mental health support and otherwise they deserve to rebuild their lives. 'Survivors have witnessed very many promises, 20 recommendations, and the call of 'never again', time and again. What will the Home Secretary do and how will she reassure them that this won't be another one of those examples?' He continued: 'I am really let down and disgusted that the leader of the Opposition began her remarks with a party political assault on her opponents like this. Victims and survivors deserve more than a smug 'I told you so', diatribe. Victims and survivors deserve action.' In her reply, Ms Cooper said his speaking out would help other victims and confirmed the Government wants to extend therapy available for victims. Later in the session, Mr Aldridge said: 'I want to pay tribute to victims, survivors and campaigners. I am 40 years old, and it has taken me to be 40 to be able to talk about some of the abuse that happened when I was a child. 'As one of the countless victims living with the impacts of grooming, sexual and psychological abuse, I found it galling to watch Tory and Reform members who never once lifted a finger.' In response to groans from the Opposition benches, he added: 'No, you didn't. You didn't.' Mr Aldridge accused opposition parties of 'appointing themselves as defenders of abuse for political gain', adding: 'Does the minister agree with me that neither history nor the British people will be kind to the sickening political opportunism we have seen from the parties opposite?' Ms Cooper thanked Mr Aldridge for 'speaking out about his experiences, because to speak out as a victim of child abuse in this way is immensely difficult, and I think everyone should listen to what victims and survivors have to say'. She added: 'He is right that this should be something that everyone can agree on, because it's about the protection of children, it's about the tackling of serious crime, and I would hope that is something that all of us can do with respect and together.' Elsewhere in the session, Naz Shah, Labour MP for Bradford West, said blaming 'entire communities' does 'nothing to protect innocent victims'. She said: 'British Muslims stand on the side of victims and support the full force of the law against all perpetrators of abuse. 'But would the Home Secretary agree with me that those that display selected outrage or fan the flames to blame entire communities do nothing to protect innocent victims or further the cause of victims?' In her reply, Ms Cooper said 'the horror at crimes committed against children and particularly against young girls' is 'shared right across communities'. 'It is in the interests of those children and of those victim survivors that we have reforms now,' she added.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Canadian gold miner placed under temporary provisional administration in Mali
BAMAKO, Mali (AP) — A judge in Mali on Monday ordered Barrick Gold to be placed under provisional administration for six months in an ongoing dispute between the Canadian mining company and the West African nation's military government over unpaid taxes. Judge Issa Aguibou Diallo in a statement to Barrick's lawyers also announced the appointment within 15 days of Zoumana Makadji, an accountant and a former minister of health of Mali, as the company's provisional administrator. Barrick Gold has been in conflict with Mali's military rulers over alleged unpaid taxes and unfair contracts with past governments. The dispute culminated in an arrest warrant in December for Barrick CEO Mark Bristow and the company's offer to pay $370 million to the government. 'While Barrick's subsidiaries remain the legal owners of the mine, operational control has been transferred to an external administrator,' Barrick said in a statement on its website following the ruling. In December, Barrick submitted a request for arbitration to the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes to address disagreements with Mali concerning the Loulo-Gounkoto complex, where the mines are located. Despite this, the government took a series of escalatory measures, including the arrest of Barrick Gold employees, who remain detained, and the suspension of gold exports. Barrick, which has been present in Mali for three decades, emphasized that the arbitration process was still ongoing and reaffirmed its commitment to 'engaging with the government of Mali, in parallel, to identify a constructive, mutually acceptable solution.' The company's statement on Monday added: "The ongoing detention of (our) employees — who remain unjustly imprisoned and used as leverage in this process — is deeply concerning and inconsistent with the trust, transparency and accountability required for a genuine long-term partnership. 'To date, no credible rationale has been presented to justify this detention and the Government's position, and the Government's ever-increasing demands have lacked both factual and legal foundation.' Mali is one of Africa's leading gold producers, but it has struggled for years with jihadi violence and high levels of poverty and hunger. The military seized power in 2020, and the government has placed foreign mining companies under growing pressure as it seeks to shore up revenues. In November, the CEO of Australian company Resolute Mining and two employees were arrested in Bamako. They were released after the company paid $80 million to Malian authorities to resolve a tax dispute and promised to pay a further $80 million in the coming months. Baba Ahmed And Wilson Mcmakin, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
