Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Guest posts

Guest Post

Guest Post: "Smartphones have become such a presence in children’s lives that change requires collective action" - Josh MacAlister MP writes for Mumsnet about why he's tackling this issue with a Private Member's Bill

14 replies

RhiannonEMumsnet · 05/12/2024 08:52

Josh MacAlister MP

Josh MacAlister is the Labour MP for Whitehaven and Workington

Sometimes Parliament finds itself way behind public opinion on a certain issue. When I decided to use the opportunity of a Private Member’s Bill to tackle children’s excessive smartphone and social media use, I was met with a swell of support from parents, teachers and children themselves.

An existing campaign, Smartphone Free Childhood, already had 150,000 parents signed up, calling for change. Within weeks, 98% of MPs had been contacted by constituents asking them to support the Bill. Westminster has fallen behind where the rest of the country are on the issue and I am determined to fix that.

I began my career as a teacher just as smartphones were beginning to enter the classroom. Even then it was clear they were going to have an impact on childhood, but the scale of the harm they were going to have could not have been imagined. Since then, both the devices and the apps on them have become deliberately far more addictive.

Today, the average 12 year old in the UK spends 21 hours a week on their smartphone. Screen time has become the most dominant activity for children outside of school, replacing sports, learning, meeting people face to face, and all the other things us adults cherish from our childhood.

Evidence of the harm this is having on children is building. Excessive screen time has been linked to increased rates of ADHD. For children already disposed to ADHD, excessive screen time can worsen their attention span, and hamper their ability to develop social skills and regulate their emotions. Excessive screen time has also been linked to increasing rates of shortsightedness among children, as they’re spending less and less time outdoors. For certain children, their phone is an irresistible portal to a world of unachievable body standards, toxic masculinity, violent or sexual content, and intense cyber bullying.

The government is commissioning a new study to gather evidence of the impact of social media and smartphone use on children. This is welcome and will add to the growing body of evidence that already exists. But ask any parent, teacher or child and they don’t need a government commissioned research project to tell you that we need to act now. A recent study from Onside found that 76% of young people spend most of their time on their phones and 52% of them want to cut back.

The problem is that smartphones have become such a presence in children’s lives that change requires collective action. One parent taking action can lead to their child being socially excluded. This is where the government has such an important role to play.

That is why when I was lucky enough to have come fifth in the ballot of Private Members’ Bills I chose this issue to focus on. In a slightly strange process, a lottery is taken at the start of each Parliamentary session that allows a small number of MPs to present a Bill to Parliament. Quite a daunting task, especially only a matter of weeks into the job.

Private Members' Bills notoriously struggle to make it onto the statute book and are limited in what they can do. Convincing the government to do something they hadn’t planned to do is a difficult business.

The details of my Bill are still being finalised, and I am holding weekly sessions with experts from across the sector to ensure we have a Bill that is workable, politically viable, and will have an impact. Currently, there are three things we are looking to do:

  1. Raise the age of digital consent from 13 to 16. This would bring Britain in line with the GDPR standard and countries like Germany. This would help parents have more control over their child’s use of the internet and protect children from powerful algorithms trying to keep them hooked to their screens.
  2. Strengthen Ofcom’s powers to protect children from apps that are designed to be addictive, giving them a specific mandate to protect children’s interests and new powers to enforce a code of conduct to prevent children being exposed to ‘addictive by design’ apps and services.
  3. Produce independent public health advice on the impacts of smartphones and ‘addictive by design’ app use on children’s health and wellbeing and issue public health guidance.

As I finalise the details of the Bill, I want to hear from parents themselves about the effect smartphones are having on their family and how they think the issue should be tackled.

The second reading will be on the 7th March which is when MPs will have a chance to debate and vote on the Bill. If you support the measures I have laid out, make sure to contact your MP and ask them to vote in favour of the Safer Phones Bill.

Guest Post: "Smartphones have become such a presence in children’s lives that change requires collective action" - Josh MacAlister MP writes for Mumsnet about why he's tackling this issue with a Private Member's Bill
OP posts:
FreshLaundry · 05/12/2024 09:31

Can you break down what it means to raise the age of digital consent? Does that mean no access to social media apps?

Can you say more about how you would decide which apps are 'addictive by design'? This may be difficult to do given it's the dominant model.

How do these reforms for add to the Online Safety Act that's being implemented? Does it add extra protections?

Saying all that I'm profoundly in favour of better regulation and I've seen the negative influence of web content on my own kid. We have very curated screen time now and will be getting 'dumb phones' before smartphones.

limebasilandmandarin · 09/12/2024 16:23

I'd also be interested to properly understand what raising the digital age of consent means? I've got two boys and I feel like the older one (who's 12) knows so much more than me about how to get around phone controls. It does feel like kids might be able to get around anything thats not incredibly strictly age verified. I suppose we'd have the same issue if we followed the example of Australia and banned social media for children under 16 but it does feel like something so categorical might actually be easier to enforce because it would create some culture change.

littlevenicebitch · 10/12/2024 17:35

Thanks for this. Yes, please explain what the digital age of consent means in theory and practice.

I welcome, at the very least, more scrutiny of the effects of social media and smartphones on children. Filters for YouTube, for example, are ineffective and apps like SnapChat are so blatantly set up to allow predators access to children that it's appalling that tech companies have not been held to account. We had a situation when my DD was in Year 7 where the class WhatsApp group became an absolute cesspit of bullying, abuse and racism and it was obvious in the aftermath that the parents of the worst offenders were not monitoring what they were posting. The same kids also posted about being on Omegle, which has since been shut down because it had no measures to prevent predators! So there does need to be an onus on parents to check what their kids are up to as well, and possibly more education as I appreciate not everyone is as savvy as their child when it comes to smartphones.

I think if we get to a stage where no kids have access to this stuff it will become normal. I can't envisage how it would work in practice but following with interest.

InattentiveADHD · 11/12/2024 21:42

The age of digital consent is already ignored so this won’t achieve anything. It certainly won’t help parents who feel pressured to allow their children to use it as all their friends are and the alternative is their child being socially isolated.. I think point 2 will just have companies making token gestures that achieve very little as they do for other issues, such as online content.

I thin you need to go much harder. You need to do two things imo:

  1. Ban social media use for children under 16
  2. Work towards banning the monetisation of people’s attention. It is this model that encourages companies to design their platforms and algorithms the way they do ie to keep you hooked and and “addicted” to keep you on the platform so they can advertise to you.This involves giving people a lot of short and quick “dopamine hits” and causes a lot of the harms you piling in you’re post. If you did this, it would force platforms to move to another model such as a subscription model which would get them working for their users rather than the users being the product, and completely change the way social media works
Ablondiebutagoody · 12/12/2024 12:45

Totally agree that smartphones are damaging to kids and I think that any restrictions are better than none......but wouldn't it be easier to just ban the phones for under 16s rather than faff around with all the digital age of consent and offcom stuff?

For context, DS about to start secondary school, really don't want him to have a smartphone yet (phone addiction, bullying etc.) but don't want him to miss out on the social aspect. Would love a collective smartphone ban for under 16's.

Scottishskifun · 13/12/2024 12:01

I agree with it and think we are already way behind where we should be.

I have young children but I am worried about when they get to teenagers what is going to be facing them.
I see how transfixed they can be on a tablet (they get it for longer car journeys) and know this will just switch to a phone.

Parents, government and tech companies should be working together. Tech companies can develop a phone which is way more limited but still has a good camera on for instance. They don't because parents buy a smart phone.

Facebook when it was originally introduced you had to be at a uni, provide a uni email address to set up etc. It seemed to have more controls then now.

MiraculousLadybug · 13/12/2024 12:04

I'm sorry but if you're going to talk about this very important issue, citing the "Smartphone Free Childhood" as exemplar is not great, lots of parents need their children to be in contact with them and dumbphones aren't the answer for many because it costs money to send a text or make a call unless you're spending money on a prepaid plan, so the children who are more likely to be in bad situations after school e.g. those in less affluent areas, won't be able to contact someone to help them e.g. via WhatsApp. I can't get behind anyone who uncritically pushes that agenda.

Additionally, I've previously looked into the research on screens and ADHD and you're repeating bad science. There's no credible research with a decent sample size showing a link between "rates of ADHD" and screens; it's a false syllogism as far as we know at the moment. I acknowledge that further down you cite a need for more research but fairly early on in your post, you post about the ADHD/screens link as fact. People are born with neurodiversity, it's not made by screens any more than it's made by vaccines. Perhaps it can be exacerbated by screen time, but that's not what you have said.

And would your ban include WhatsApp, which is used by many as a free communication resource? How about Messenger, used in the same way? I want a workable solution to the problem, but it comes across like you aren't grounded in thorough research and really haven't thought through the implications of this and how it will impact those who need to contact their parents or families.

Social media is communication, and any communication method can be twisted into something negative (even letters) but the positives of some social communication methods outweigh the potential for harm so a blanket ban on all social media communication apps is not the answer.

OnNaturesCourse · 13/12/2024 13:19

Ban it.
Get networks to recognise social media sites as adult content.

Honestly don't care if teens already have it. There was a point in time where teens had unlimited access to alcohol and we thankfully stopped that.

MountainSnow · 13/12/2024 18:54

Totally support a ban on social media and smartphones (parent of an 11 and 12 year old). Might not be easy but doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.

Look at the pinwheel offering as a sensible alternative to a smart phone for tweens/teens. It’s totally possible to create a phone that does not have internet functions but can be used for appropriate apps, messages and photos. If smartphones were banned the market would adapt. It’s just more profitable for the tech companies not to.

Key challenge will be to define “social media” - YouTube seems to be out of the Aus ban on the basis their contact is “educational”. Unbelievable. If you read the reviews, these platforms are basically operating the same way with the same functionalities (eg take a good look at Spotify).

Think the alogrithms that sit behind these platform need to be regulated both for adults as well as children - effectively sharing criminal content or promoting hate crime. why on earth do these platforms even allow this stuff to be uploaded? In financial services there are rules governing use of alogrithms, why not social media ?

No evidence of harm is not the same as evidence of no harm. I think we will look back on social media as we do the tobacco industry. I think we should flip it - ban it until there is evidence that it is not harmful. Surely that’s logical otherwise we are essentially testing it on our kids which is totally unethical

Valid point re WhatsApp and it’s not an app that I feel strongly about as a parent (assuming it’s use is monitored). I think the makers would simply remove the harmful features if there was legislation so it was no longer social media. (Eg removal of channels, status updates)

29novname · 14/12/2024 09:54

I would love a ban on social media for children. Their phones cause so much misery.

RealHousewivesOfTaunton · 14/12/2024 10:35

I'd be very happy on a ban on smartphones for under 16's. I have two children, aged 12 and 14, and the battles are constant. Their phones have parental controls, built-in time limits, content filters, but it's still a stream of mostly mindless rubbish on YouTube and sometimes concerning messages. I worry about the potential for cyber-bullying too. They're involved in all sorts of after-school sports and activities, but screen time fills in the gaps.

One of DD's friends doesn't have a smartphone and I wish I'd followed her parents' example. Unfortunately, XH bought both DC smartphones when I was on a work trip and I was argued into letting them stay. It's very difficult as a parent to say no when the "all my friends" line really is true.

Ritasueandbobtoo9 · 29/12/2024 11:46

Ban pornography and violence on the internet and job done. Oh no, nobody will as men must have their porn.

FrodisCapering · 31/12/2024 17:56

This is down to parents, not the State

DETHKGLDN · 03/02/2025 18:39

Thank you Josh MacAlister! The Safer Phones Bill is a fantastic step in the right direction!

For those who are interested in learning more about the bill and showing Parliament that we take this issue very seriously, please join us on Wednesday 12 February from 6-7pm at All Saints Catholic College, Notting Hill, W10 6EL to hear firsthand from our expert panel about the importance of this legislation for our children’s health and wellbeing:
⚡️Joe Powell - MP Kensington and Bayswater and co-sponsor of the Safer Phones Bill
⚡️Jennifer Powers - Smartphone Free Childhood
⚡️Jennifer Lee - Health Professionals for Safer Screens
⚡️Andrew O’Neill - Headteacher at All Saints Catholic College - famous for his 12-hour phone-free school day trial.

RSVP to [email protected]. See you there! 💪

New posts on this thread. Refresh page