Primary school pupils using screens for tests is ‘normalising' use, Tories claim
Ms Trott said the policy was supported by teachers, health professionals and parents.
She said: 'Every day we have new evidence of the harm screens are doing. So why is the Education Secretary (Bridget Phillipson) ignoring this, and still pressing ahead with screen-based assessments for children as young as four from September?
'Does she accept that this is normalising screen time for young people, which is the opposite of what we should be doing?'
Education minister Stephen Morgan said: 'Is this all she can go on? Frankly, after 14 years, they broke the education system. As I said, there's guidance already in place for schools, the majority of schools already have a ban in place on mobile phone use.'
Earlier in the Commons, Mr Morgan had told MPs mobile phones had 'no place' in schools. He said Government guidance said schools should ban the use of smartphones during the school day. However ,he said it was up to schools to use their powers to take them off pupils.
Shadow education secretary Laura Trott claimed the Government was normalising screen time for young children (Stefan Rousseau/PA)
Conservative MPs raised the links between mobile phone usage and violent behaviour, as well as schools with bans having better grades on average.
Conservative MP Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) said: 'Schools with smartphone bans were rated higher by Ofsted, and their students achieved better GCSE results. So all the evidence shows the benefit of banning smartphones in schools.
'But the Government is simply issuing non-statutory guidance and passing the buck. So does the minister not understand the evidence, need more evidence, or do you not trust the Government to be able to implement a ban on smartphones in schools?'
Meanwhile, John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) said: 'Mobile phones in classrooms are linked to disruptive and violent behaviour. So does the minister agree with me that mobile phones should be banned in all schools, so the children are focused on their education and not glued to Instagram and TikTok?'
While in government, the then Conservative education secretary, Gillian Keegan, sent guidance to schools that told headteachers they could ban mobile phones during the school day. However, this was short of an out-and-out ban.
Since their election defeat last year, the Conservatives have pushed for Labour to introduce a full ban. In March, it tried to amend Labour's flagship education policy to legally prohibit smartphone usage. A Government spokesperson said the existing guidance meant about 97% of schools restrict mobile phone use in some way.
Studies are unclear on the impact of a smartphone ban. One by the University of Birmingham, published in the Lancet earlier this year, suggested there was no link.
Replying to Ms Bool, Mr Morgan said: 'I'll take no lectures from the benches opposite on this. When in government, they exclaimed the same guidance meant a consistent approach across all schools. So you have to ask, were they wrong then, are they wrong now?'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
30 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
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.'
Rhyl Journal
31 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
British involvement in Iran-Israel conflict could end up like Iraq War, MPs warn
Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs said Britain should be wary of any involvement, as they compared it to the British invasion of Saddam Hussein's country in 2003. Intelligence on Tehran's nuclear capabilities was treated with scepticism, as one MP said the Commons should have a vote on whether to engage in any military action. It came as Foreign Secretary David Lammy said any British nationals in Israel should register with the Foreign Office, so they can receive information about how to leave the country. He said it was tougher to help British nationals in Iran due to the closed airspace. The Government has long-issued 'do not travel' advice to the country. He also said the UK had had no role in Israel's counter-strikes. Liberal Democrat MP Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) drew a comparison with the Tony Blair-era conflict. He said: 'A despotic Middle Eastern dictatorship, a rogue state, a terrorist state perilously close to achieving a weapon of mass destruction so serious that it could disrupt the entire region. 'Members, as well as the public listening at home, may hear echoes of 2003 in that description of current events. 'And with talk of regime change again in the air, can I ask the Foreign Secretary what he is going to do to personally talk back the authorities in Jerusalem, in Israel, because what they're doing at the moment strikes me as providing the Iranian regime with the best possible propaganda tool that they could possibly have.' Mr Lammy said: 'He's right to emphasise in his words a degree of caution. 'He will have heard what I said in the House this afternoon, which forms the bedrock of diplomacy that our officials are exercising in Israel, in Iran, and across the wider region.' Labour's Barry Gardiner (Brent West) asked the Foreign Secretary what he had done to get information from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to get a fuller picture of Iran's nuclear capabilities. He said: 'The failure to get transparent information from UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) and UNMOVIC (United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) caused untold damage 22 years ago.' Mr Lammy said he had spoken to director general Rafael Grossi last week. Meanwhile his party colleague Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) asked: 'Given that Israel's claims have been challenged, even by US intelligence assessments, can the Foreign Secretary assure this House that no UK military support, whether direct or indirect, will be given without the clear and explicit consent of this House and that this Government has learnt the hard lessons of Iraq and Libya and will not repeat them?' Mr Lammy said: 'Categorically, the UK is not involved in Israel strikes.' He added: 'We do have an important regional role. We have UK assets, of course, in Cyprus, we have them in Bahrain, we have them in Qatar, and we have a role, an important role in Operation Shader, where we're dealing from terrible threats to us and our allies from Daesh and other things.' It came as MPs said they feared the conflict between Israel and Iran would distract from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's forces' actions against Palestinians in Gaza. The Commons heard renewed calls for the Palestinian state to be recognised, as a UN summit in New York has been delayed by the hostilities between Jerusalem and Tehran. Conservative MP Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) said: 'The Foreign Secretary said he was keeping his eye on Gaza. 'I'm not quite sure what that means. 'It's certainly the case that the eye of the world has been drawn to the footage that emerged as the missiles have flown of young children shot and bleeding out their lives in the sands of Gaza. 'As he said, 50 people hospitalised over the weekend or shot dead while begging for food. 'And just this morning, 38 people killed while queuing for food, or attempting to obtain food from the new American-sponsored distribution system. 'What comfort should all those bereaved families in Gaza take from the fact that he is keeping his eye on this situation?' Mr Lammy said he had met the family of a hostage who was killed by the terror group Hamas on Monday morning, who asked him to keep Gaza 'at the forefront of my mind'. He added: 'We are absolutely clear that the aid needs to get in, that those hostages need to get out, and we want to see a ceasefire.'
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Tearing up strikes law branded ‘recklessness' by Government opponents
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.'
