Generation will be lost to poor mental health without safeguards on tech
A generation of young people will be lost to poor mental health if safeguards on digital technology are not brought forward, a top paediatrician has warned.
Baroness Hilary Cass said the impact of smart devices on children's sleep, attention span, and education is 'not just a moral problem but an economic timebomb'.
The independent crossbencher called for teachers to receive dedicated training on the issue, in addition to education for parents, as peers debated the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Then-Dr Hilary Cass previously led a landmark review into gender services for young people, which found children had been let down by a lack of research and evidence on the use of puberty blockers and hormones.
Speaking during the Bill's second reading debate on Thursday, she told the Lords: 'Any legislation addressing the subject of safeguarding children, and opportunity, and safety in schools, cannot possibly ignore the impact of digital technology on the lives of children and young people.'
Lady Cass argued it's not just 'deliberate harm', such as cyber bullying, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, exploitation and grooming that children are at risk of.
'That's just the tip of the iceberg, there are multiple other risks associated with digital technology that have been discussed in this House, including adverse affects of learning, attention, sleep, educational attainment and mental health.
'And addictive apps are particularly a problem, especially for boys,' she said.
Lady Cass continued: 'This is not just an issue of whether we ban smartphones in schools, there's a wide array of possible actions that can be part of a strategic, multi-faceted approach to the problem.
'For example, RSE (relationships and sex education) is compulsory in schools, and yet there is no requirement to teach young people how to manage the digital technology that occupies so many hours of their lives.
'Nor indeed to include appropriate training for the staff that are teaching our infants or older children.
'There's insufficient consideration of the impact of loss of safe place spaces, which would give children alternative recreational activities to spending time on their digital devices.
'There's no focus on providing education and advice to parents on how to manage access to technology so that they can facilitate their children's learning and development.
'So I very much hope that the Government will be receptive to a range of amendments that will address these deficits in the Bill, and thus gift our children with a safer, healthier future.
'Without such measures we are looking at losing a generation to poor mental health and to even more young adults being unable to contribute to the workforce.
'So this is not just a moral problem, but an economic timebomb that we can ill afford.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The case a federal judge called 'Kafkaesque'
Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. Have you ever had a word stuck in your head? I can't seem to shake this one from a court decision this week: entombed. The haunting term came from the chief federal trial judge in Washington, D.C., James Boasberg. He's presiding over a lawsuit from scores of Venezuelan immigrants held in a Salvadoran prison known for human rights abuses, called the Center for Terrorism Confinement, or CECOT for short. The judge wrote a 69-page opinion, published Wednesday, explaining why the Trump administration must work to let the immigrants challenge their rushed renditions to that prison back in March. Boasberg opened with a nod to Franz Kafka's 'The Trial.' The Obama appointee compared the ordeal to that of Kafka's protagonist, Josef K., whose absurd legal saga is a helpful shorthand to draw attention to farcical affairs. While the term Kafkaesque can seem dramatic, it applies here. After all, U.S. agents hustled the men out of the country without due process, backed by the purported authority of an 18th-century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, whose factual and legal propriety has been called into grave doubt not only by judges around the country but by U.S. intelligence agencies. On the latter front, a declassified memo released last month showed that officials had rejected President Donald Trump's basis for citing the act. He had claimed the Venezuelan government controlled the gang to which these men allegedly belonged. But experts in Trump's own government disagreed. So, Trump's use of the law was bogus from the start. On top of that, at a hurried hearing in March, Boasberg had ordered the U.S. to keep custody of the men — an order the government ignored, and that disobedience is the subject of separate contempt litigation that the administration is appealing. But that foundational sham and defiance wasn't the issue in Boasberg's ruling this week. His narrower, modest point was that the men never got due process to challenge their removals under the act. 'Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Perhaps, moreover, [government] Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members,' the judge wrote, adding: 'But — and this is the critical point — there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government's say-so.' Our word-of-the-week then emerged when the jurist observed that 'significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations.' Entombed in CECOT. Now what? Boasberg said the government must facilitate the plaintiffs' ability to challenge their removals. But he left it to the government to decide how to make that happen. 'Exactly what such facilitation must entail will be determined in future proceedings,' the judge wrote, giving the administration a week to come up with a plan. We'll be eagerly awaiting the official response — or, the latest emergency Supreme Court appeal from a judge's effort to bring the administration into legal compliance. At any rate, it doesn't seem like anyone is going anywhere anytime soon, even if Boasberg's order stays on track, which is not a sure bet. Until then: entombed. Have any questions or comments for me? Please submit them on this form for a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal blog and newsletter. This article was originally published on
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Tesla Shares Caught in the Middle of Musk-Trump Bromance Breakup
When President Donald Trump won the election in November, investors viewed Tesla Inc. as one of the biggest winners. That bet now seems to be on shaky ground after investors watched the once formidable alliance dissolve in real time. Simmering tensions over Trump's signature tax-and-spending bill erupted into a public war of words on Thursday, with Trump mulling an end government contracts and subsidies for Tesla and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. Musk said he would decommission a SpaceX aircraft used by the US, only to walk back his threat later in the day.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Who owns the news? It must not be a group of foreign powers
Who owns the news? Much of the Left has been obsessed with the issue for over a century. They have long railed against press barons and their supposed bias. So it is perhaps surprising that this Labour Government is taking such a lackadaisical approach to foreign states having substantial holdings in British newspapers. The last Conservative government back in December 2023 intervened to put on hold and scrutinise the proposed sale of The Telegraph to a company backed by Sheikh Mansour, the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. Columnists, including Charles Moore, The Telegraph's former editor, rightly argued that even if there was no actual interference in the newspaper's editorial line, there would be the perception that the paper would no longer be independent. This would fatally undermine the newspaper's standing by throwing away its reputation for fearless reporting, whatever the reality of the situation. The then government listened and last year, in the Digital, Media and Competitions Act, introduced a new regulatory regime to restrict foreign state ownership of newspapers and news magazines. But this Act only set out the broad principle, not the details of how it would be implemented. A total ban would come with its own problems. There would be little risk of editorial interference if, say, the sovereign wealth fund of Norway was a passive investor owning 3pc or 4pc in a UK-listed media company. During the consultations, it was proposed that a 5pc limit may be appropriate to allow for such holdings. Last month the new Government announced that the threshold would not be 5pc, but actually 15pc. I and many of my colleagues in the House of Lords have serious misgivings about this much higher limit, but it is one we can live with. However, there is another aspect of the draft regulations which is unacceptable. The 15pc threshold is not cumulative, it applies to each individual holding. This means that there would be nothing to stop multiple states each owning 15pc of a newspaper. It has been reported that after The Telegraph's proposed takeover by RedBird Capital, Sheikh Mansour intends to retain up to a 15pc stake in the newspaper. With the current proposals there would be nothing to stop, say, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain from each taking 15pc holdings. A cumulative 60pc of a British newspaper owned by foreign states is a very different proposition. The guarantees against foreign control would have evaporated. Has this potential scenario arisen as a result of an oversight by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary? Alongside 50 of my fellow peers, I have written to Ms Nandy asking for clarification. Signatories include former chancellor Lord Lamont, former trade secretary Lord Lilley, long-time chairman of the 1922 committee Lord Brady, ex-director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald and the current chairman of Ipso, the independent press regulator, Lord Faulks. Our fears could be easily assuaged by simply amending the proposed regulations to ensure that 15pc is a cap on total foreign ownership. If the move is deliberate, it raises serious questions about this Government's commitment to a free press. The statutory instrument implementing the Government's regulations has now been laid and will shortly come before both Houses of Parliament. If the proposals reach the Lords in their current form, I and many of my colleagues will not be able to support the measure. The Telegraph's ownership has been left in limbo for two years so far. It is time for the new regulatory framework to be put in place that will allow its smooth transfer to new owners. But this must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press. The issues are much wider than the future of just one newspaper. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
