Baroness Kidron
That this House takes note of the increasing interest in mandating that schools be mobile phone free.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open today’s debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have chosen to speak. I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Cass, who has done so much for children in a long career in paediatric medicine, including as President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Her voice is very welcome in this debate and her presence will undoubtedly enrich the work of the House. I declare my interests on the register, particularly as chair of 5Rights Foundation and of the Digital Futures for Children research centre at the LSE, and contributor to the DFC’s report on smartphones in schools.
The issue of smartphones in schools should be straightforward. School is for learning, for building relationships, for personal development and acquiring skills such as sports, debating and drama. The academic literature shows that smartphones interrupt that learning and, as the Library note records, a report has stated:
“Because the same finite pool of attentional resources supports both attentional control and other cognitive processes, resources recruited to inhibit automatic attention to one’s phone are made unavailable for other tasks, and performance on these tasks will suffer”.
In more straightforward language, a phone unused on a desk diverts attention that is then unavailable for learning.
Government guidance published earlier this year is also unequivocal. The introduction by the then Secretary of State, Gillian Keegan, says:
“Mobile phones risk unnecessary distraction, disruption and diversion. One in three secondary school pupils report that mobile phones are used in most lessons without permission. This not only distracts the single pupil using the phone, but disrupts the lesson for a whole class, and diverts teachers’ efforts away from learning”.
There are calls for further research, but the evidence that we already have indicates that restricting personal devices benefits learning, with a particular benefit accruing to those identified as disadvantaged or struggling academically. This is important, because advocating for phone restrictions in schools is sometimes characterised as a “middle-class moral panic”. The evidence suggests otherwise. Inasmuch as phones are a distraction or a barrier to the opportunities and activities that schools offer, they have no place in school, but for those who still doubt, let me add four further points.
First is the case of Singapore. In 2020 the Ministry of Education announced that it would embrace smartphones in school and invest in devices for students who could not afford them, simultaneously promoting wide-ranging digital literacy education and teacher training. But in October this year, Singapore’s Straits Times reported widespread misuse of those devices, with one parent discovering their 13 year-old son had spent more than three hours on apps such as YouTube and TikTok and just 13 seconds on Google Classroom. That prompted public calls to restrict personal devices in school, and some schools have already done so.
Secondly, research from Policy Exchange this year found that schools with an effective ban on smartphones were more than twice as likely to be rated outstanding by Ofsted. There may be other contributing factors, but none the less one of the characteristics of an outstanding school is effective smartphone restrictions.
Thirdly, schools that have had well-managed restrictions talk of culture change. Ellie, a 5Rights young advisor, said:
“Because it was banned for everyone, there was no judgment for not having a phone, and it was a lot easier to foster communication with everyone”.
A head teacher quoted in the government guidance said that
“pupils have the headspace and calm environment to learn, and staff have the quiet and focus to teach”.
It is not simply about learning; it is about building a respectful and communicative school community.
Fourthly, and possibly most importantly, children know that they are distracted. A 2019 survey of 3,000 children reported that 45% found their phone distracting at school. In algorithmic terms, 2019 is the dark ages. It marks the earliest days of TikTok’s For You page algorithm, dubbed TikTok’s “secret sauce” by tech journalist Alex Hern, which we now know—because of disclosures prompted by legal action by 14 US states’ attorney-generals—is so powerful that a new user can become addicted in less than 35 minutes.
Noble Lords will note that I have not used the word “ban”, because there are times when smartphones are necessary. There are medical reasons—for example, children with diabetes who use the phone to manage blood sugar. There are services that support children with certain learning difficulties. There are pedagogical and PSHE reasons for having a phone in class. Some vulnerable children or children with caring duties need real-time access to communication. Each of these is acknowledged in the government guidance and each should form part of phone restriction policies in schools.
The Government might argue that the current guidance is so comprehensive and sensible—it is—that no further action is needed. But an estimated 37% of schools do not have a comprehensive restriction in place, and the DfE’s own research found that 20% of secondary school pupils reported mobile phones in most lessons without permission. Up and down the country, safeguarding leads ask for more robust support to manage harmful behaviours and phone-fuelled conflicts.
Optional guidance is not fair to children whose learning experiences are interrupted or to teachers trying to enforce voluntary policies with little support. Putting the guidance on a statutory footing would mean that all schools are subject to restrictions that are flexible enough for educators, who understand the context and circumstances on the ground, to be the final arbiters of when and if having a smartphone is in the best interests of teacher, class or child. It would also place a duty on the Government to ensure that every school was supported and resourced to implement the policy, and to ensure that the impacts were monitored and reported.
Since Pavlov’s conditioning response experiments with dogs in the 1890s, we have understood that the brain can be trained to respond to small increments of dopamine that fuel a craving for more. The tech sector sinks billions of dollars into creating persuasive design strategies that keep children seeking the next opportunity to text, swipe, post or respond. Their distraction is neither an act of wilful disobedience nor an unforeseen consequence but a direct result of the priorities of a sector that openly exploits human psychology and cognitive function to grab attention.
It does not matter whether it is the toxic views of Andrew Tate or the seemingly innocent act of filling a shopping basket and leaving it full at the checkout. The real cost of the attention economy, set out starkly in the briefing from Health Professionals for Safer Screens, is being paid by children who have poorer eyesight, inhibited speech and language development, interrupted sleep and rising rates of anxiety and other mental health issues. Smartphone restrictions do not just protect the sanctity of schools as places of learning and personal development but offer kids a much-needed break.
That brings me to the broader question of tech in our schools. Despite academics, campaigners and even UNESCO raising the alarm, the DfE increasingly allows edtech designed on the same reward-loop principles with unproven pedagogical values and poor privacy practices into the classroom. In one case, a parent refused to consent to her son’s use of Google Classroom and found, to her horror, that he had been consigned to a separate room with a teaching assistant while his classmates, headphones on, were busy researching things on YouTube. In short order, she reversed her decision so that he could be a full member of a class taught by a trained teacher, but her choice was between having an eight year-old on Google Classroom, with its extractive personal data practices and direct links to commercial and age-restricted services, and her child being, in effect, sent to detention.
The DfE has been very unresponsive to concerns about technology for learning, for school management and for safety, including attempts to tell it that many of the monitoring and filtering products in our schools are unable to monitor generative AI. This lack of responsiveness is exacerbated by DSIT’s determination that digital protections do not apply in school settings, ironically giving a child more protections on the bus to school than when they arrive in the building.
The lack of coherence across home and school has created a palpable increase in tensions between teachers and parents. Teachers are exasperated that children come to school tired and wired after nights spent scrolling and gaming, often on products and services that outstrip a child’s capacity to understand or navigate them, while parents are frustrated that homework must be uploaded and that services they do not understand or would rather their children did not use are required to complete teacher-directed tasks. Many feel that children spend far too much time online during the school day.
A recent letter from the Early Years for Digital Standards Action Group to the DfE raised the alarm on how little departmental and regulatory focus is on nursery-age children, citing the routine use of YouTube and passive screen time, the rising cases of inhibited development, access to harmful content and the lack of digital literacy for teachers and parents in early years settings. I am talking about children aged nought to five.
We need clearer standards on how all tech in educational settings is designed and used. It is time for the Department for Education and DSIT to concede that the digital world is seamless and that children of all ages in all settings need equal consideration.
Before I conclude, I will briefly raise the banning of social media altogether for under-16s, as the Australians have proposed and, indeed, passed today. There are practical issues about what falls into that definition. It is unclear whether it means anything with social elements, which would include Google Classroom and many e-commerce and entertainment sites. Should it include services with persuasive design features or gaming? Will it push children into darker, worse parts of the digital world? Of course, what happens when the full force of the tech sector’s offer floods in on a child’s 16th birthday? If I had a school-age child, I might well be among the 58% of UK parents who support a social media ban for under-16s, and I would certainly be among the 69% who say it would make their lives easier, but we are living in a time when you cannot apply for a university, a job or a benefit without being online, when the spectre of living alongside intelligent machines is more likely than not and when, whatever your profession or vocation, you will need digital understanding.
The only reason we would ban children from accessing this new world is that we in Parliament and in government, and our regulators, have spectacularly failed to deliver on the promise that tech would be held to account. It is both inequitable and impractical to ask parents and children to supervise a ban if we continue to allow companies to create deliberately addictive and toxic products in their race for children’s attention. I believe we will look back on this time and regret the generations of children whom we failed to protect on our watch. The least we can do is give some effective respite at school.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I must say that the Government failing to send a Minister from DfE is disrespectful to the anguish that so many parents feel and to the lack of support expressed by teachers and safeguarding leads. I hope the Minister will not restrict her comments to existing guidance but will address each of the issues I have raised and undertake to bring Ministers from both DSIT and DfE to the House to discuss a path forward on each. I beg to move.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure, as it was last week, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I too look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass.
Smartphones are addictive by design, with the messaging, the notifications and the social media likes. We get trapped into behaviours that produce dopamine, which gives us short-term pleasure hits, and thereby the behaviour patterns become addictive. This shift in behaviour is especially distracting and potentially damaging for children. But we as adults are as addicted as our children. I can look around this Chamber every day and see up to half of your Lordships looking at their phone. I cannot therefore look a young person in the eye and tell them we are banning their phones when we are just as addicted as they are.
My 13 year-old has learned to be an independent traveller, commuting 45 minutes each way to school on the P4 bus or taking a train on her own to see Auntie Sandi in Cardiff. None of that would be possible without the messaging and travel information on her phone. Her homework is set on her phone, as is her music and as is the information on the web to support learning and the app to help her calm down when she becomes overwrought. So how should we protect children as parents and policymakers, while teaching and modelling positive smartphone behaviour?
I do not think it is appropriate for primary school-age children to have phones, and parents should be encouraged to limit their phone use around young children as much as possible. This is an important time for children to learn positive social and emotional behaviour and not be constantly babysat by screens. Ofcom should robustly use its powers under the Online Safety Act to ensure that social media companies abide by their own terms and conditions, keep under-13s off their platforms and protect children from porn and the range of harms we legislated against. Ideally it should be easier for parents to restrict content on their children’s devices using their wifi router settings and local device management. I do that at home, but I recognise that not everyone is as tech curious or capable of doing the same. There is a need for the connectivity providers and for Apple and Google to make that easier for parents.
In our home, we have also agreed a digital code of conduct as a family—back when Coco was just eight. No phones in bedrooms at night, no tech at meals, no sharing pictures online without consent. We all have to comply. As parents we also limit her to one social media app at any given time—her current choice is Pinterest to help her with her art at school—and all apps are downloaded with my approval. Incidentally, WhatsApp counts as social media and she therefore has to navigate her social life without the traumas meted out on that platform by other users.
What about schools? My preference would be for a ban on phones in primary schools, but for secondaries I am attracted to the technology used by the John Wallis Academy in Ashford as an example. Children place their phones in lockable pouches and lock them as they enter school, where they are welcomed and checked by teachers. The pouches block the phone signal and can be unlocked only using a similar device to that used to remove security tags from clothes in shops.
This is an elegant solution. The distraction of phones is eliminated. It is relatively straightforward for the school to do but also allows for phones to be unlocked for learning if that is what a teacher wants to do—because we also need to find room in the timetable for media literacy, perhaps by teaching journalism; teaching how to create good audio, video and text using phones; teaching how to research and critically think, and how algorithms are manipulated and manipulate you in turn; and teaching how the business models of free services work on your phone and what you are giving away in exchange. This is learning that we all need as teachers, parents and children.
This is a shared responsibility between home and school. Our digital consumption, like sugar, is addictive. We need to consider what is healthy. As a family, we choose the rules to ensure that we do not become digitally obese, that we consume the right things and that we treat one another with respect, trust, individuality, collaboration and kindness in a digital world. It is on all of us.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I was genuinely in two minds about contributing to this important debate due to the expertise that exists in our Chamber, not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, whose work on online harms is renowned and her reputation well deserved. I am particularly looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, whose recent authoritative report I publicly applaud.
As a grandma of three grandchildren, I am already concerned about their screen time. Before diving into the murky pool of politics, I was the pastoral head of a large comprehensive school, where I was responsible for child protection and safeguarding. To me, this is a safeguarding issue. Even then, I had begun to notice increases in mental health issues; things that were rare were becoming common. My son recommended that I read The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt. His main tenet was that two factors within Generation Z have created this anxious generation: the overprotection of young people in the real world and the underprotection of them in the virtual world. That was the lightbulb moment when everything fell into place.
There is now a significant body of authoritative data showing that depression, anxiety and other mental health issues are on the increase in young people. There also seems to be a growing consensus that the use of smartphones has been and continues to be a major contributing factor to this. The kids are definitely not all right.
Health Professionals for Safer Screens is very clear that the risks are overwhelming and increasing and outweigh any benefits. That is a sit-up-and-take-notice statement—and, to be fair, some parents are doing just that. Parentkind, in its informative briefing, told us that eight in 10 parents say that smartphones are harmful to young people, while seven in 10 say that limiting children’s access to smartphones would make life easier for them as parents.
We are now faced with having accepted this wonderful new technology that we all love, to which I confess to being addicted, with its many positives, but without concrete knowledge about the impact on our children—until now. Apparently, older teens spend at least eight hours a day in front of a screen, teenage boys more than girls, and even eight to 10 year-olds spend at least six hours a day. Eight hours in a day is an enormous amount of time that could, and in my view should, be spent on personal and social development in the real world. Instead, they become passive consumers of other people’s curated worlds, giving them a very poor representation of reality.
I believe that allowing children several hours a day without phone distractions is a good thing in itself, and it would break the addictive cycle that is associated with excessive use. It is no surprise to me that there has been a rise in the number of youngsters with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—ADHD—an inability to keep focused. Clear restrictions on phones in schools would send a very clear message to parents that the excessive use of phones causes demonstrable harms—harms that in the real world they are seeking to protect their children from. Schools are best placed to take on that educative role for students and to empower parents to take back control in the home. The evidence shows that many schools are doing that.
I feel that a school’s leadership team should be able to decide how to make such restrictions work and make exceptions. The key question we are asking is whether it should be mandated, and I believe that it should be seriously considered. It is illegal for youngsters to buy alcohol or other drugs and to gamble. Most parents would not be happy if their child had a bottle of vodka or a bag of weed in their school bag, but the phone sits there capable of creating the same cravings, desires and subsequent addiction. That bothers me greatly.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I briefly remind noble Lords that the speaking time is four minutes. I ask noble Lords to please stick to it so that we can finish the debate on time.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Kidron for securing this important debate and I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass. In case anybody has not met me and does not know, I am a state secondary school teacher in Hackney.
I thank all the organisations that sent briefings, but most of them were about online safety and I will confine my remarks to smartphones in schools. As we have heard, the Parentkind survey found that 83% of parents say that smartphones are harmful to young people. I disagree—I love smartphones.
Due to some rather complex arrangements, I have three 13 year-olds in my household. They use smartphones to keep in touch, play games, organise their sporting activities, do homework, talk to friends and, equally importantly, talk to relatives at home and abroad. To take a smartphone away from a secondary school pupil would be to isolate them almost totally and to stigmatise them.
I think smartphones are great, but not in schools. In 10 years of teaching, I have never taught in a school that allows mobile phones and I hope that I never do. The school where I trained, St George’s in Westminster, was one of the first state schools to ban mobile phones in school because in December 1995 a mobile phone call from the school summoned a gang that ended up killing the head teacher, Philip Lawrence.
The school where I presently teach, Mossbourne Community Academy, does not allow phones for students under 16 for all the obvious reasons. One of the most important is that our students wear distinctive uniforms. They are not allowed to carry cash either. It makes them not worth mugging, always a risk in our part of Hackney. Students who are seen with a phone or in a shop in school uniform are severely punished. It is amazing how a cashless and phoneless walk home can reduce the desire for a little light shoplifting or to take revenge on social media.
The worry that we hear from parents is about the journey home. Our pupils have to go the most direct route home after school, so parents know when to expect them. Any detentions, sports fixtures or clubs are written in advance in a pupil’s planner, an A5 diary that they will have with them at all times. If their public transport is delayed, pupils are told to seek a responsible-looking adult and politely ask whether they could send a message home, saying what has happened.
The Carers Trust talks of the importance of young carers needing a phone to stay in contact. As we have already said, it is much more important to give young carers time and space for their education, safe in the knowledge that, if there is an emergency, they can be contacted. Any school wanting to ban phones must have an efficient system to get a message through to students when it is needed. Plans change. We all know that.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, the only exception should be for medical conditions. Diabetes UK makes a very sensible point that diabetes management is now mainly through an app. All this should be part of an individual healthcare plan. I agree that it is vital that children should use the latest technology to manage serious medical conditions.
We have survived many thousands of years without smartphones in schools. Why do we need them now?
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, it is an honour to take part in this debate. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her excellent introduction. I too look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass.
The diocese of Oxford, where I serve, has 285 church schools. We share in the education of over 60,000 children through these schools and the network of multi-academy trusts. There is a broad consensus on the importance of this issue and in favour of smartphone-free schools. However, there is not yet a final consensus on the next steps to be taken to bring this about. The consensus arises from our commitment to follow the Christian values of wisdom, respect, community and hope in all our schools.
Nine days ago, I visited the Chiltern Hills Academy secondary school in Buckinghamshire to meet some sixth-formers and the principal. The school had just introduced and enforced a rigorous ban on smartphones below sixth-form level, which the sixth-formers seemed quite happy about. Outside the sixth-form study centre, the sixth-formers use lockable pouches, such as those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. This genuinely seemed to be working well for the students and brought them relief. I asked the principal about the effects of the policy in the first term. His first answer surprised me: there were fewer fights; in fact, there were no fights. I asked why that should be. He said it was because they could not be filmed and put online. The ban has translated into better behaviour overall, less bullying and higher levels of concentration, which are in turn translating into more learning, better relationships, healthier communities and higher attainment. These outcomes are all supported by the extensive research summarised in the briefings we have received, including the report Disconnect from Policy Exchange. The case for smartphone-free schools seems very strong.
A few weeks ago, I had another piece of evidence. I visited a primary school in Oxford, where I had a sobering conversation with the excellent head teacher. It concerned the effects of the unchecked use of smartphones and social media on those who are now in their 20s and the parents of the children in her school. The head described the challenges of communicating with this TikTok generation of parents. The school now has to prepare a short, TikTok-style video of one or two minutes on such simple subjects as how to prepare a healthy lunchbox because the concentration levels among the parents have become so low and their ways of receiving information so restricted. The head described as well how much of her staff’s time was taken up with responding to parent group WhatsApp messages for similar reasons.
All the evidence presented by Jonathan Haidt and others suggests that smartphones need to be regulated through a combination of legislation, industry good design, and intermediate institutions such as workplaces, schools, families and individuals. Addictive technology needs communities of resistance to be formed by schools and parents. Very senior colleagues agree on the need for these restrictions but differ somewhat on the means. I would welcome further government leadership and legislation which set an enforced benchmark for schools and brought the best research to bear, but which left the means of implementation in the hands of schools and the educators themselves. The mental health and attention span of our children and the whole of our society are at stake.
Baroness Cass (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to be making my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House. It certainly was not a future I could have envisaged when I started my career as a doctor in 1982. In those days, induction was simple; I was handed a bleep and a list of patients and was pointed in the general direction of the ward—although, to allay any panic in the House, I should say that hospital inductions have improved considerably since then. My arrival here was quite different. The induction process organised by the Clerk of the Parliaments and his team has been superb, and Black Rod’s reassurance that time is on my side, and that this is a marathon and not a sprint, did much to calm my nerves. The kind welcome from Members on all sides of the House has been truly heartwarming, and I want particularly to thank my supporters, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Neuberger, who have been an ongoing source of wise counsel, as has my staff contact, James Galbraith.
One of my early memories from my houseman years was running for a cardiac arrest just days into a new job. I was well ahead of the pack as I rounded a corner, opened what I took to be the ward door and found myself in a broom cupboard. With the rest of the team hard behind me, I laid low until they had passed, before emerging and arriving last at the scene. Since arriving here, I have spent even more time lost, and I fear that the endlessly kind and patient doorkeepers will be rescuing me from broom cupboards for some time to come.
At medical school, adult medicine occupied 95% of my training so, like most young doctors, when I started my first paediatric post I was terrified. My registrar told me not to worry: children were just like adults, only smaller. Of course it was not true, but it got me through my first night. Indeed, many years later when I was moonlighting on an adult ward, I prayed that they were just like children, only bigger.
Everyone in this House knows that children are not like adults, only smaller. They are in a dynamic state of physical, personal and emotional development, so I am delighted to give my maiden speech as part of this important debate moved by my noble friend Lady Kidron, to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude for her tireless work in advocating for children’s rights and safety in the online world.
My noble friend has already told us about the impact of smartphones on attention, learning and culture. Some people have questioned the research, suggesting that an association between smartphone use and learning problems does not prove causation. However, if we imagine a deliberate social experiment where we exposed children to several hours of screen time a day, including potentially harmful content, some negative effects would surely be inevitable—and that is what we have done.
With schools already taking positive action to restrict smartphone use, I would like to make three points. First, we need young people’s voices in the national debate. Two recent studies of 13 to 18 year-olds found that 15% to 20% reported addictive-like smartphone use. This was linked to higher rates of anxiety, depression and insomnia. The good news is that a majority recognised the problem and were already taking active steps to reduce their smartphone use.
Young people are worried about this issue. It will doubtless be a hot topic among many active youth groups such as those at the National Children’s Bureau, 5Rights and the UK Youth Parliament, which even now has a Select Committee taking evidence on the links between social media and youth violence. If we do not engage these young advocates to be partners in our deliberations and actions, imposing restrictions in school may just produce behaviours akin to smoking behind the bike shed.
Secondly, we know that some young children are at particular risk in the online world; for example, those who are struggling with mental health or have a history of being bullied. Reducing exposure in school may be one strand of a strategy to address this, but more research and action are needed to protect this vulnerable group.
Finally, we need to take a public health-style approach to this issue. Parents and teachers need support and information to help them work together rather than pulling in different directions. We need a broad education programme aimed at helping everyone to understand both the risks and benefits of smartphones, and how to use them wisely, safely and in ways which do not compromise learning, mental health and social development.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and to warmly welcome her here. Five years ago, the noble Baroness was anticipating retirement, after an immensely distinguished career as a paediatrician, specialising in autism, and having served as president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. She was looking forward to learning the saxophone. Instead, she agreed to chair the Cass review, taking immense care to study all the evidence and taking nearly four years to complete it.
Informed by meetings with more than 1,000 people, seven new evidence reviews and a survey of 15 gender clinics across Europe, she achieved what many thought was impossible, to bring about something close to a consensus on one of the more difficult issues of our time: how best to care for children who are gender questioning or gender distressed. She did so with calm, compassionate and evidence-based writing and reasoning in the publication of the most comprehensive review ever undertaken into youth gender care.
This willingness to follow the evidence and not to follow the herd, is what makes the noble Baroness such a welcome addition to our Chamber. She is just what we need. As we come to grapple with issues such as assisted dying, her experience with disability and palliative care in children’s medicine will be invaluable—no time for that saxophone, I am afraid. We look forward to her contributions to our debate.
It is also a tradition to thank the noble Baroness for moving today’s debate, but I do so with genuine enthusiastic gratitude. Childhood has changed beyond imagination, and not for the better, from the change in children’s food intake, now an average 80% ultra-processed diet, the teaching of contested ideology in schools as fact, lack of traditional play to aid development and, worst of all, the addictive nature of smartphones. We should all be focusing on what we can do to protect the next generation from the repercussions of constant unrestricted access to the internet.
Almost daily, new reports indicate that banning smartphones in schools leads to beneficial impacts on educational attainment, social skills, student behaviour and educational inequality. Stopping their use in schools goes a long way to aiding the development of children. It is increasingly clear that smartphones stifle the cognitive skills vital for academic success. A study involving 150,000 students across 16 countries has demonstrated that the proliferation of smartphone usage in the classroom has significantly damaged the process of learning and academic achievement.
The recent Policy Exchange report mentioned by other noble Lords found that children in schools that have an effective ban on smartphones achieve GCSE results one to two grades higher than those that do not. It also found that only around 11 % of secondary schools have an effective smartphone ban, although those numbers are rapidly increasing as more and more schools recognise the dangers and harms. It found direct correlations to other positive outcomes, including noticeable reductions in bullying and an increase in amounts of healthy physical activity by pupils. A legal ban on smartphones for schools across the UK would provide protection for teachers when parents push back, although most parents I speak to are worried sick about the impact that constant access to phones is having on their children and would welcome such a ban.
The unions are increasingly concerned, too. In response to the NASUWT “Big Question” survey, asking what pupil behaviour problems cause the most concern on a day-to-day basis, the percentage of teachers who think distraction of mobile phones is a major issue has risen from 20% just four years ago to 32% today. They comment that
“social media has encouraged poor behaviours and has been the catalyst for poor behaviour in general. Social media is affecting how students form relationships. Students use phones and social media almost constantly. They are unaware of the world, each other, anything”.
That comes from one of our leading teaching unions.
Now, as a mother of two, thankfully born and raised in a world before smartphones, I of course recognise the value that smartphones can bring to a child’s security—but while they are in school, they are secure. Relentless consumption of internet content provides a threat not only to learning but to mental health. Jonathan Haidt, author of The Anxious Generation and an expert social psychologist, cites
“social deprivation, sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation, and addiction”
as the symptoms of smartphone overusage by young people. Only last week, health professionals were here in Parliament giving powerful evidence about the damage caused to developmental issues, including language and communication, as well as physical changes in the brain and to eyesight, leading to eating disorders, obesity and musculoskeletal changes as well as issues with sleep.
It is worth looking at evidence of children themselves. After the John Wallis Academy imposed a complete ban on smartphones, a set of year 7 pupils were asked as part of a survey how they felt about the ban. Only 11 % wished they had more access to their devices, while 52% of pupils felt that the policy had an extremely positive impact, citing more human interactions, better concentration and increased learning. The evidence is clear: without regulation, our children face a dystopian future. I urge the Minister and her colleagues to act without delay.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and welcome her to the House. I am looking forward to discussing these and other matters with her. I thank my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this debate this afternoon. It is vital that we discuss this. I also thank those in the House of Lords Library and many organisations and individuals outside who sent me many links and much advice—too much to be able to mention this afternoon.
I am pleased to address the crucial issue of mandating mobile phone-free schools. As the Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly highlights, there is a growing interest in restricting mobile phone use within educational settings. While such a measure holds great promise for fostering positive learning environments, we must also recognise the disproportionate impact that mobile phones, and especially social media, have on adolescent mental health, particularly among young girls.
Research from the UK Millennium Cohort Study, alongside similar international findings, reveals a clear gender disparity in how social media influences mental health. Girls, on average, spend more time on social media than boys, which correlates with higher rates of depression, anxiety and body dissatisfaction. Young women face particular vulnerability to the pressures of idealised online content and the risks of online harassment. For those who engage with social media for five or more hours each day, depressive symptoms can increase by as much as 50%. This stark statistic highlights the emotional toll experienced by many young women. Further, bullying increasingly occurs online, with mobile phones enabling harmful behaviours that may lead to severe disciplinary actions, including suspensions or expulsions from school in extreme cases, which none of us wish to see. Mobile phones become a weapon of choice in bullying, exacerbating the mental health and well-being crises facing our students.
The frequent use of smartphones is linked to negative effects on both physical and mental health. Prolonged screen time has been shown to impair impulse control, encourage addictive behaviours and hinder concentration. Social media use is also associated with lower self-esteem and heightened levels of depression and anxiety, as I mentioned. Additionally, the blue light emitted by smartphones can damage eyesight, disrupt sleep and contribute to other health issues. Clearly, time away from smartphones would be beneficial for students’ overall well-being.
A mobile phone-free policy in schools could mitigate these risks, but we must also consider its potential to deepen inequalities, particularly for children from less stable family backgrounds. We must acknowledge the needs of students with caring responsibilities or those from split families. For some, being reachable by phone is essential; for instance, those who care for siblings or other family members may need to respond quickly in an emergency. Similarly, children who have to move between homes due to shared custody arrangements rely on phones to stay connected with both parents. A blanket mobile phone ban could inadvertently place additional stress on those students who depend on their devices for emotional support and stability.
In the light of these challenges, I advocate for a balanced, nuanced approach to mobile phone use in schools. We should consider structured policies that limit distractions while recognising the legitimate need for occasional communication. For instance, media use should be prohibited during school hours, although I acknowledge that enforcing this would be difficult.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Kidron on her insight, expertise and unflagging focus on this issue. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, to our Benches. The move towards mobile-free schools is gathering momentum around the world—interestingly, particularly in Asia—and the guidance this February from the DfE is very welcome.
I decided to use a real school as an example, so I spent some time yesterday with David Smith, headmaster of Fulham Boys School, to get his insights into the mobile phone policies for his 800 pupils: 97% of seniors and 56% of 10 to 11 year-olds have a smartphone; 42% of his boys reported receiving about 50 notifications per day and 11% reported receiving over 200; and 38% of the boys reported that they are allowed unrestricted access to their smartphone at home by their parents. The boys are happy with the new policy, unlike some of the parents of the older boys, and the parents of the younger boys are ecstatic about it. The parents who are concerned either feel that their children should have unrestricted access or are anxious to be able to be in almost constant contact with them. It is interesting that the parents are far more anxious than their children.
David commented that a smartphone-free school is not the answer, since it will be continuously damaging for children if they are able to use smartphones outside the school. To illustrate that point, many of the 10 or 11 year-olds who arrive there have already been exposed online to pornography, violence and misogyny. He said it is a shame that we have to teach these boys about these elements in society after they have learned about them, rather than before. He and other headmasters are working with smartphone manufacturers to encourage them to develop a scaled-down smartphone which can access some services, such as transport and mapping apps, but not others.
I make three requests of the DfE. I do not necessarily expect an answer at the Dispatch Box, so if the Minister follows up in writing, that would be fine. First, I urge it to work with schools and the mobile phone industry to develop safe intermediate phones that could, for example, be used by child carers or those who have diabetes and other things but will not allow them to access the darker reaches of the online world.
Secondly, the DfE needs to work very closely with Ofsted. I am conscious that, during the passage of the Online Safety Bill, we poured more and more responsibility on to Ofcom. I suspect that in this world we will put more responsibility on to Ofsted. We need to ensure it understands what it is looking for and measuring.
Thirdly, robust, reliable and understandable data is key. I was looking at a major Australian scoping review this year by the Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, which managed to find only 22 different studies in the entire world which met the threshold of rigour required. The review says there is a severe lack of really reliable evidence and data on which to judge what should be done and the effectiveness of what has been done. Will the Government prioritise working with appropriate institutions and other Governments to develop high-quality, robust evidence and interpretation of outcomes? We know why we are doing this, but we do not know enough about what really works.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this debate and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, on her maiden speech.
I still remember the excitement from the day I purchased my first mobile, at the age of 10, from the Argos catalogue. Roll on just over 20 years and mobiles have very much changed. One of the biggest differences is the access to apps and sites that seek to elongate the time children spend on their devices, in order to expose them to advertising content. While restricting phones in schools seems a sensible start, I have concerns that it would simply be a temporary sticking plaster, masking the much wider problems of how younger generations interact with tech and the addictive nature of the content fed to them via algorithms, designed with the specific intent of keeping them online.
While smartphones can do wonderful things, such as teach children new languages or help their parents or guardians track their location, they also have the potential to cause isolation, anxiety and low self-esteem. Bullying no longer stops at the school gate; it continues when children are at home. Internet Matters found that 71% of children had experienced harm online. Ofcom’s Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes report in 2023 found that among three to 17-year olds, 53% were on TikTok, 46% were on Snapchat and 88% use YouTube. This has undoubtedly had a huge impact on the views and aspirations of our younger generations. A poll by Lego of children aged eight to 12 found that British and American children were nearly three times more likely to want to be YouTube influencers than astronauts when they grew up.
The influence of social media does not stop at career aspiration, with the British Association of Dermatologists recently warning of irreversible skin problems due to the growing trend of children as young as eight using anti-ageing skincare products they had seen on TikTok and YouTube. Vodafone found that, following innocent and unrelated searches, algorithms are pushing content to boys relating to misogyny and violence. If we do not break from this status quo, we will have a generation of children whose thoughts and opinions have been shaped by algorithms designed to maximise engagement, hold their attention for ever-increasing periods of time and sell advertising revenue, with the consequence of pushing more and more extreme content to them. One article I read suggested that 99% of Snapchat’s revenue is from advertising.
In South Korea, we recently saw the distressing report of an outbreak of sexually explicit deepfake content, with forums dedicated to specific schools. Here in the UK, Internet Matters found that 13% of children have experience with a nude deepfake. My Private Member’s Bill would create further offences around the non-consensual creation of sexually explicit content.
However, the problem is not just deepfakes. One woman I spoke to recalled that she was 11 years old when she first received a sexually explicit image on Snapchat. Furthermore, we have recently seen hugely distressing cases of children taking their own lives due to so-called sextortion, in which they are blackmailed with intimate images. While it is always illegal for children to share or create intimate images, we must face up to the reality that this is happening, and remove the shame and stigma so that no child feels they have no other option but to take their own life.
We must remember that there is a very simple choice here. Tech companies can provide phones and apps that are safe by design. It is becoming increasingly clear that they are choosing not to.
Lord Chartres (CB)
My Lords, speaking on this subject after the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is rather like Ruth gleaning after a combine harvester. I agree with absolutely everything she said in her masterful summary of the subject.
The statistic that haunts me at night is one about people who have just left our schools. It is from the Office for National Statistics; we are told that this year there are 872,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 24 not in work, employment or training. We are also told that a large part of that has to do with technologies and the sort of dangers and pressures that other noble Lords have described.
I quote Jonathan Haidt again, but a different phrase:
“Gen Z became the first generation in history to go through puberty with a portal in their pockets that called them away from the people nearby and into an alternative universe that was exciting, addictive, and unstable”.
This has had devastating effects. Perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, suggested, it is wake-up time for public authorities and parents to regain our courage after a period in which there has been a great deal of hesitancy about positively teaching and reinforcing healthful ways of life as established truths, rather than as merely interesting topics for classroom discussion. There is a crisis of authority involved in what we have been discussing; it has left the field empty, to some extent, to be filled by people with repellent views such as Andrew Tate.
I was very impressed by the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, in particular her appeal that the voices of young people should be represented in this debate. We cannot uninvent social media; we must learn how to live with it fruitfully. I have been particularly inspired, in the spirit of what the noble Baroness said, by a campaign launched by a 17 year-old from Glasgow, Lewis Swire. He is a remarkable young man who won the Diana Award in 2023 for social activism. He has launched Reel It In, a youth-led campaign to end social media addiction. He cites the 2019 special report from the Science and Technology Committee in another place, which said:
“Strategies to prolong user engagement should be prohibited”.
How far have the Government got with devising ways of doing precisely that?
We are exposing people to some very dangerous material. My last words are that the inquest into the death of Molly Russell, aged 14 and from Harrow, concluded that she ended her life while suffering from depression and the negative effects of online contact.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this debate, which I believe is incredibly important for the future well-being and success of our younger generations. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, on her maiden speech.
I start with some alarming statistics. One out of every two teenagers feel addicted to their smartphones; 60% of parents feel that their children are addicted to them; and 77% of parents feel that their child gets distracted by his or her devices, and does not pay attention when they are together, at least a few times per week. In a recent school assembly on smartphones and social media, 240 year 7 students were asked, “Who has a smartphone?” Almost every hand went up. They were then asked, “Who here was awoken last night by a notification on their smartphone?” Sadly, half of them raised their hands. Around one in five adolescents in England has been cyberbullied.
When we check our smartphones, our brains release a small amount of dopamine, and that dopamine motivates us to take action. Each time we hear a notification, we check our device. The huge issue is that the dopamine boost is temporary and leads to a letdown. Our brains want more dopamine, which triggers the habit of checking our phones constantly throughout the day. We should listen to Josh MacAlister, a former teacher who now resides in the other place. He is clear that there is a growing body of evidence showing that smartphones—and social media in particular—are negatively impacting children’s mental health, sleep and learning.
It was confirmed only a few hours ago that Australia will ban children under 16 years old from using social media, after its Senate approved the world’s strictest laws in this area. Some Los Angeles schools are banning smartphones, as the leaders of the schools believe that it will unlock creativity and connection. I know first hand from two large independent schools in the UK, both of which now have a policy of banning smartphones for certain year groups at certain parts of the day, that it works. The results show that the students talk to each, interact socially and want to do more drama, art and sport.
I am not suggesting that there are no benefits to children having smartphones—the world has changed dramatically in the past 20 years and social norms have changed with it—but why would you allow a child to have an addictive device in a classroom, when that child should be learning and building on the foundations of knowledge that will empower them for the rest of their lives? I have a simple question for the Minister: given all the evidence available, why would the Government not want to ban smartphones in the classroom?
Lord Mitchell (Lab)
My Lords, it was joy to listen to the excellent maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and we look forward to her future contributions.
In thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this debate, I will not go through the usual pleasantries. Simply put, I cannot think of anyone else in this country who has done more to influence policy and legislation to protect children from the ravages of the internet than the noble Baroness. We all owe her a great debt of thanks. She never gives up.
I first bought a mobile phone in 1985—I guess a few years before the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, first bought hers. In those days, you had to have the strength of Hercules to lift it to your ear. That was almost 40 years ago, which means that for nearly half of my life I have possessed a mobile phone. Like many of us, it is an essential part of my being, and I do not know how I could live without it.
Today, we have the terminology wrong, because the word “phone” is a misnomer. This debate has the word “phone” in its title, but when was the last time you saw a child using a mobile as a phone? They do not talk; they text, they use FaceTime and they use social media. The mobile today is a very powerful communications tool that just happens to have a phone and camera attached. It is a window to the world that provides access to most of human knowledge and activity—for better and for worse.
This story is nowhere near over. Shortly, new iPhones will have powerful AI built into them—Apple Intelligence—and Google will follow just behind. Where is that going? I have no idea. I sense that much of it will not be good. Today, Meta and Apple sell virtual-reality goggles. They are expensive and cumbersome, but they point to the direction of travel. Devices that look like normal reading glasses, but with the same capability as mobile phones, are just around the corner. All these developments will pose challenges to the school environment. How will they be detected and controlled?
The noble Baroness is the joint author of an outstanding report produced by the LSE. It states that more evidence is needed on whether to have mobile phones in schools. My instinct is that we should not. I believe that children or teenagers should not be permitted to use their devices on school premises. Why? First, the smart devices have value; they cost several hundred pounds each. London is the world centre of iPhone theft, so it is all too tempting and dangerous.
Secondly, there is device envy. Most children can spot an up-to-date phone immediately. Is it healthy to have children putting pressure on parents for the latest model?
Thirdly, there is content. Can this be controlled by schools and parents? In theory yes, but we all know that it is easy to circumvent. Do we really want children looking at unsuitable content at school?
Many schools are subjected to intense pressure to allow mobiles to be used on their premises. It is often hard for a school to resist. Making it mandatory would resolve the problem.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for securing this debate. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, on her wonderful maiden speech, which was inspirational, as is her work as Dr Cass.
I have learned a lot from being part of our Learn with the Lords education outreach programme. For noble Lords not familiar with it, the format is that we visit the school in question, make a PowerPoint presentation and then have an extended question and answer session, followed by lunch with the head and/or senior staff. I always take the opportunity to turn the question and answer session around, and two particularly topical subjects with both students and teachers are smartphones in schools and the voting age. These students are usually in years 10 to 13—so they are mid-teens.
My findings are therefore derived from the strawest of straw polls, based on random visits to half a dozen schools in Hampshire. Nevertheless, the feedback from the students and teachers left a strong impression of a wider consensus. About the use of smartphones in schools there are two aspects: smartphones on the school premises as a whole, and smartphones in classrooms. The overwhelming opinion of teachers was that they should be banned from the school premises in total, while pupils could see the point of banning them in classrooms but were against them being banned in, for instance, playgrounds and common areas.
The arguments for having smartphones banned throughout the school are that teachers observe students becoming addicted to social media and arcade games in particular. Among teachers, there is an unprovable suspicion that their pupils’ young minds are being manipulated by cynically written software to increase their addiction. Teachers also noticed an increase in sleep deprivation, with many students falling asleep during class time or playtime. Their assumption was that this was caused by them having screen time, rather than sleep time, at night. An equal objection is the lack of social interaction, with children and teenagers no longer learning directly from each other but learning remotely from whomever or whatever is on the other end of their smartphones. All of this has been made much worse by the terrible decision to close schools during the lockdowns. During that time, their only same-age company was via a smartphone at home.
I visited one special educational needs school that had a variation on this theme: students felt the need to be able to contact their parents at any time, and not being able to do so could easily cause anxiety and distress. The solution here is obvious: have a phone that just makes phone calls and sends texts—in other words, phones but not smartphones. This, in fact, could be a wider solution to the problem at hand.
Two weeks ago, I gave a guided tour of your Lordships’ House to a teacher and half a dozen overseas teenagers from the Philippines, the Congo, Morocco, China, Ukraine and Argentina. Later, we repaired for tea in the River Restaurant. In light of the debate today, I asked them about smartphones in schools. It seems this is a worldwide discussion. The consensus was clear: a ban was the only way for students to be able to give their full attention to their teachers and each other. I know that this is all anecdotal evidence, but it is evidence nevertheless in support of a ban on smartphones but not necessarily on ordinary text and call phones.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, not just on this debate but on her tireless advocacy for online safety for all children. She has my lasting gratitude, especially as a current parent of a teenager. My interest as a recent chair of governors is in the register. I fear that we will look back on this particular cohort of children, who have grown up with all the challenges of the social media age, and ask ourselves what on earth we were thinking. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, on her thoughtful maiden speech. I look forward to hearing more from her in the future.
As any parent of a child in this digital age will be aware, parents feel as if they are constantly judged and endlessly failing when this issue is discussed, so the care and kindness in this debate has been extremely welcome. If you have ever been involved in a losing battle, while food is ready and on the table, for the end of FIFA, Minecraft, Roblox or my personal nemesis, Fortnite, you will understand. It is not easy. But our role here is to help, support and reinforce parents and teachers alike in their efforts to grow a future generation filled with joy and confidence. As all the speakers have made clear today, we are in serious peril right now of doing the exact opposite.
Only today, we heard the news from Ofcom that nearly a quarter of teenagers are lying about their age to access social media apps, which is a sharp reminder of just how important the Online Safety Act is and how much tech firms need to do to protect children from harmful content. It is a sharp reminder too of the urgent need to find the solution to the much-vexed issue of age assurance.
If, as the ONS states, one in five children has experienced online bullying, with nearly three in four having experienced it on school premises, the evidence, including from this debate, is becoming clear that we need to act now, and the direction of travel is pretty clear.
I will be interested to hear from the Minister what liaison there has been with the Australian Government regarding the decision by the Senate today to ban children under the age of 16 from social media sites.
The temptation throughout this debate is of course to go much broader than the issue of the safety of children online, but the question is about the period when they are in the care of our educators—in school. As set out by my noble friend Lady Thornhill and by the many teachers we have on our Benches, we believe ferociously in the right of head teachers and senior leaders in schools to call the shots. We are also fearful of further regulatory burdens being placed on them. At the same time, the lack of clarity for parents and teachers alike has led to the conclusion that more restriction is necessary, so we must now establish how to make it workable.
There are areas where we need to maintain discretion and safeguards, led by head teachers and senior leaders in schools—first, for young carers who need to stay in touch with family. I thank the Carers Trust for its briefing, which makes it clear that
“only 58% of schools and colleges in our survey said that young carers had access to a phone if needed. It is important that all young carers have access to a phone if they need to check on the person they care for, or to be contacted in relation to their caring role. Schools should ensure that sensitive phone calls can be made in a quiet, private space, rather than in the school office or toilet cubicles”.
There are some heartbreaking descriptions in the report of young carers having to make calls from the toilets to check on the people they look after.
As noble Lords will be aware, we Liberal Democrats highlighted the importance of care, both social care and carers, in the general election. Indeed, ours was the only manifesto to have a separate chapter on the issue. Ed Davey himself was a young carer and fully understands the significance of that role.
Secondly, as other Peers have referenced, school leaders need to be able to exercise discretion when it comes to children who need a phone for medical reasons.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, I searched through all the evidence we were sent in preparation for this debate for some information on the inequality issue. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on that. Some nations are moving towards greater restrictions or have had them in place for some time—for instance, France has enshrined such restrictions in law up to the age of 15 on school premises. However, I was interested to read in the Library briefing about the recent lifting of the ban in New York, which happened because it tended to be enforced only in low-income communities. If restrictions are introduced in schools, what measures will be taken or what exploration of that issue there will be? It is vital to ensure that there is no impact on those who suffer already from digital inequality.
If, as legislators, we are to take the step of some form of ban or—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly points out—restriction, we need to understand the confusion that already exists, particularly from the perspective of the pupil. As the 5Rights research makes clear, pupils are regularly pushed towards various EdTech products to check their phones with homework apps such as MyEd, Satchel, Mathletics and so many more. In some schools, students are positively encouraged to use their phones to take pictures of what is on the whiteboard. How will that be handled?
As we have heard, the phone is a tiny item burning a hole in the blazer pocket, with updates on social media sites such as Snapchat and TikTok. It can connect to so many great things such as love, friendship and, in my son’s case, sport, but any parent who insists on their child going to secondary school with a “brick phone”—yeah, I definitely tried that—rather than a smartphone ensures that their child is absent from the relevant WhatsApp groups. We need a level playing field. Restrictions at school would fix this.
At the same time, smartphones in schools can be the source of huge pain from bullying, addiction and, in too many cases, blackmail. The recent horrific case in Northern Ireland of Alexander McCartney is still prominent in our minds, with over 3,000 children catfished and hundreds blackmailed into sending intimate images. We need to understand that any victim of a crime of that nature on school premises has to have a social worker assigned. Can the Minister look at this specific issue and see whether the Department for Education can understand just how prolific this is right now? Teaching staff tell me that it is, but what teenager is brave enough to talk within a school when they are a victim of crime within that school? Many of Alexander McCartney’s victims were unable to speak up at all until, tragically, it was too late.
If we are to continue, as the Government intend, with the approach of the previous Government, of guidance only and not regulation, what provisions can be put in place for children to report when they are victims of such crimes on school premises? I suspect that it is far greater than we currently have sight of. How will this be monitored so that we know the extent of the problem? How, within schools, can it be handled with sensitivity and care so that victims feel able to speak up?
From this debate, I think that we are heading in one particular direction, towards some form of regulation beyond guidance. The question is: what form will it take? I look forward to the Minister clarifying when and how.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I join the queue of noble Lords thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, not just for securing the debate today but for all her work in this area. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, for her speech and particularly for her courage and integrity in leading her review. I also thank all the organisations that shared their expertise and insight ahead of this debate, particularly those representing parents, including Parentkind and Smartphone Free Childhood, as well as the work of the Children’s Commissioner, in making sure that the voice of children is never absent.
I start where the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, started when she said that this should be straightforward. I could not agree more. It is frustrating that this is not more straightforward. Listening to the debate this afternoon, what came through very strongly was an overwhelming sense that phones are part of a much wider problem with social media and the enforcement of restrictions on its use for children, and the addictive nature of social media apps, as we heard explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lady Owen.
With very few exceptions, we heard that phones have no place in school, with medical conditions being an obvious exception that requires particular care. We also heard that we do not really understand their impact; that was even without AI. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, rightly raised what phones will look like in a matter of months with the inclusion of powerful AI, which will take us to another level of lack of understanding. That points us to a position where we should default to a safety-first approach in relation to children.
Even if we do not fully understand their impact, all the early indications point in the same direction. We heard this afternoon of the significant impact on mental health, sometimes with the most tragic consequences imaginable, but also, in a more universal sense, on the ability of children to concentrate. We heard—and many of us have read—that this is about not just the child who uses a phone in class, but the impact on other pupils in class and even the impact when the phone is turned off but sitting on their desk.
I had not thought about this ahead of the debate but my noble friend Lord Effingham is absolutely right: it is not just a daytime problem. It is even a night-time problem with children being interrupted by notifications. We know that that increased cognitive load and distraction impacts on attainment and we understand that that is greatest for low-attaining and low-income children—exactly the children whom we need to encourage and support, by taking barriers away from their achievement and learning.
I talked to a couple of head teachers ahead of the debate and got two contrasting reflections. One was exactly the same as the one the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford got, which was the immediate alleviation of bullying when phones were removed from a school. It is not just bullying within the school but the ability to use the phone to spread that bullying online by filming it. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, was of course right to mention the rising issue of fraud and how phones are used to defraud children. But on a happier note, I also heard from a head teacher who felt that they had been able to expand their curriculum, because by banning phones in school it freed up so much time that they could pack more into the school day. Maybe that will be something for the Government to consider.
Phones also cut across the lines of communication between schools and parents, encouraging children to communicate directly with their parents rather than through the school. Like my noble friend Lady Jenkin, I benefited from the excellent presentation by the group Health Professionals for Safer Screens that set out its concerns about the impact of screens. Although some argue for educational benefits—we heard tentative pointers in that direction in this debate—we can ask: why can a desktop or laptop not perform the same educational function? I was very drawn to the A5 diary mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Of course, we should also consider the use of AI on phones for plagiarism and the impact of that on the integrity of schoolwork.
We find ourselves in a situation where, according to the excellent report prepared by Policy Exchange earlier this year, only 11% of schools have truly effective policies to ban phones. Certainly, when I visited schools each week, pupils would tell me how relieved they were about putting their phones in a locker or in one of the pouches to which the noble Lord, Lord Knight, referred. Teachers would tell me how much difference it made to behaviour and concentration, and I had not even thought of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, about a cashless and phoneless child being less vulnerable to being mugged, but that is obviously incredibly important. I also suggest that the removal of phones can help improve attendance because of the calmness in the classroom and—perhaps this is overly optimistic—I think we can all hope that better behaviour will improve teacher retention, which is so important.
I note that the Children’s Commissioner is undertaking a survey of every school in the country—I thank her for her work in this area—including in relation to the draft children’s online code. In her survey, she goes into detail about a school’s mobile phone policy. I think this will be a source of extremely useful insight for the Government. In that survey, which schools are legally required to complete, she also asks about safeguarding incidents and where they occurred, including specifically asking whether they occurred online, which I think will be very helpful.
I shall close by asking the Minister the following questions. If she does not have the answers today, perhaps she will be good enough to write. What assessment has the department made of the impact of the guidance that was produced for schools earlier this year? Does she think that there are areas that need tightening up? I re-read it—and, obviously, I take my collective responsibility for what is in it—but there is an option “d” in the guidance, which on reflection feels quite optimistic, that is the “never seen, never heard” policy, where children have their phones but do not turn them on and do not look at them; I am not sure where those children are. Does the Minister know how this works in practice?
Is the DfE working with researchers in the field so that they can make sure that schools and trusts have the highest quality information possible? How does the department plan to use the evidence from the Children’s Commissioner’s survey, which will be complete by the end of the year? Given the mounting evidence of the risks that mobile phones pose, combined with wider social media risks, can the Minister explain why the Government are not supporting Josh MacAlister’s Private Member’s Bill? Do the Government have plans for any kind of public health campaign directed at parents to make sure that they are aware of the risks of phones?
The importance of a healthy childhood was captured very simply many years ago by Aristotle, who said:
“The habits formed we form from childhood make no small difference, but rather they make all the difference”.
With that in mind, I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for opening this debate on the increasing interest in mobile phones-free schools and the move towards mobile phone-free school environments in recent months and years. Before I move on, I say to noble Lords that the irony of getting updates from the Box on WhatsApp during this debate has not been lost on me.
I am grateful for the many excellent contributions today from Members across your Lordships’ House, but specifically and especially I want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, on her excellent maiden speech. I welcome her to our House and look forward to hearing from her in the months and years ahead.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Chartres, emphasised the role of young people’s voices in this debate, and the fact that they are not heard. At this point, I need to put on record my wonderful stepdaughter, who is 13 going on 30, and who has very clear views on this. Her voice is what will drive me today. She is determined that I should not say that TikTok should be banned—so I will not. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, to work with me to facilitate DfE officials meeting with young advocates, so that we can make sure that their voices are heard at the centre of policy.
This debate has been an education. In preparing for it, what became clear—which was just touched on by noble Lords—is that the majority of academic evidence on this topic was gathered prior to Covid. The bulk of evidence comes from 2019 or before; very little of it has been updated. In this world, 2019 might as well have been 1979. We need to look at the data and move forward; Covid has changed everything, but so has the use of technology in schools, so we do need to consider.
Before I move on to the substance of this debate, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, for highlighting Learn with the Lords. It is one of the things I miss most from sitting on the Ministerial Benches and it is a joy to participate in—I would urge all noble Lords to engage.
Turning to the debate, I will begin by setting out this Government’s firm belief that every child and young person should know that success can belong to them. This comes from all children achieving and thriving and being able to benefit from the opportunities provided by education. There is a fierce debate happening globally about the impact of mobile phones, or smart devices, as my noble friend Lord Mitchell so passionately highlighted, and social media on children’s well-being and development.
Teachers and school leaders tell us about the negative impact that mobile phones can have on children’s learning, leading to bullying, distraction and disruption, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford so clearly outlined. Indeed, in 2023 almost a third of secondary school pupils reported that in most of their lessons they used a mobile phone when they were not supposed to. Every pupil deserves to learn in a safe, calm classroom, and we will always support our hard-working and dedicated teachers to make this happen.
To reassure noble Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, emphasised, the Government’s Mobile Phones in Schools Guidance is clear that schools should prohibit the use of mobile phones throughout the school day, including in lessons, the time between them, breaktimes and lunchtimes. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, this guidance, as with all guidance, will always be under review and updated, and we will report back if are to be any further changes.
On the questions raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Jenkin, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on existing government guidance on mobile phones and making it statutory, the guidance already sets clear expectations. The Government believe that this is sufficient at this time and the position is supported by unions, which hold the view that schools already have the ability and accountability to put the guidance into practice. We will continue to monitor this.
We know that, by the age of 12, 97% of children in Britian have their own mobile phone and that almost all children are using these devices to watch videos and use social media. This can lead to them seeing content that they themselves have described as harmful or worrying. Around one-third of children aged from eight to 17 have seen something that they would describe in this way, with many of them also being exposed to hurtful content via cyberbullying and algorithms, as many noble Lords have highlighted.
When it comes to their parents, almost half feel that the risks of social media outweigh the benefits—I regularly feel that way. This is something we must all consider when making decisions on the use of technology, particularly because the most common reason for 62% of children aged between eight and 17 having multiple accounts for the same social network is to prevent family seeing some content. That is 62% of our children who have multiple accounts online. Some of the reasons for having them may be valid, but some may not be.
When it comes to what is happening in schools, last year around a third of pupils reported that most of their lessons were disrupted in some way by a mobile phone. This prevents teachers teaching and prevents pupils benefiting from the opportunities that school provides them with. Not only that but there is some evidence that this has a greater impact on the most disadvantaged pupils, with those eligible for free school meals 6% more likely to have their learning disrupted.
On some of the issues raised in relation to mobile phones in schools, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, specifically referred to the lack of media literacy in early years. The Government have established an independent curriculum and assessment review, which will seek to deliver an excellent foundation in the core subjects of reading, writing and maths. It also includes the key digital skills needed for future life and the critical thinking skills needed to ensure that children are resilient to misinformation and extremist content online. We will look to see how that applies to early years, and I will write to the noble Baroness with an update.
On the current reasons for this policy, this Government do not believe it is necessary to legislate to ban phones entirely from schools. We know that schools are already prohibiting their use, including through outright bans. Even before guidance was published, around 97% of all schools in England had policies restricting mobile phone use in some way. The guidance tightened that up, setting a higher expectation for restricting use through the day and across school sites.
There are a range of ways in which a mobile-free environment can be achieved. We trust head teachers to develop a mobile phone policy. After all, they are the people who know their schools, their pupils and their communities best, as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, outlined—I thank him for his excellent speech. Each school operates in different communities and has different needs, especially outside the school. As my noble friend Lord Knight described, some schools ban devices from their site, providing a simple boundary that is easy to enforce.
Some schools have established bag-free days when all personal possessions, including mobile phones, are kept in lockers or similar storage. Others choose to collect mobile phones from pupils on arrival and return them at the end of the day, which can be useful for safety when pupils have longer travel times or when it is dark walking home. We encourage all schools to consult with parents and pupils to make sure they can effectively mitigate concerns, and so that all members of the school community share clear expectations.
With regard to some of the specifics that follow from this, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Russell, who asked about the role of Ofsted. The DfE is already taking steps towards delivering a better accountability system, which will see school report cards introduced from September 2025. A new inspection framework will have greater focus on pupil outcomes to drive higher standards, alongside a range of measures to reduce anxiety for the students and staff being inspected. Consultation on that process will begin in early 2025.
On the impact on disadvantaged children, including those with SEND, which some noble Lords touched on, the Mobile Phones in Schools guidance contains practical advice for schools, including case studies that consider how to ensure that the needs of all children are being met while continuing to remove distractions in lessons. This includes making clear that, even while restricting mobile phone use, schools must comply with their wider legal duties. That includes making reasonable adjustments when necessary for disabled pupils; schools must take reasonable steps to avoid disadvantage to a disabled pupil caused by the school’s policies or practices on mobile phones.
Schools have a duty to have arrangements in place to support pupils with medical conditions, as was touched on—for instance, where children with diabetes can monitor their blood glucose levels from their own mobile phone, or where those with hearing loss can manage their hearing aid via an app. There may be other exceptional circumstances where schools should consider making adaptations to their policy for specific pupils because of their needs or circumstances, including at home.
We want to make clear that the Government’s view on mobile phones in schools should not be construed as anti-technology. As my noble friend Lord Knight made clear, technology is a huge part of modern society so the emphasis needs to be on using it safely to make sure that all pupils continue to access the positive opportunity that tech can afford them. We understand that, for many children, online spaces can be important for developing a sense of self and can provide an opportunity to express oneself and to learn outside the classroom.
Alongside that, when used appropriately, the internet and social media can be places where many young people can engage in political discourse—I would have—and develop a wider knowledge of current affairs. If we restrict access to these spaces, we risk young people losing a key opportunity to grow as people and be better informed about the world around them. The Government are taking the initiative and ensuring that social media companies take responsibility for the safety of young users. Parents should be able to feel confident that the digital world can be a space where the negatives eventually no longer outweigh the benefits.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, emphasised, with the use of mobile phones already prohibited in school, it is outside school that children are using these devices and spending time online. Particularly where use is excessive, displacing other positive activities, there are risks involved. Last year, UNESCO linked increased screen time to adverse effects on young people’s mental and physical health. Worldwide studies show that increased screen time, which is typically both the largest and most impactful on school-age children, can negatively affect diet, sleep, eye health and mental health.
However, this remains a complex issue and, overall, the evidence remains mixed. We cannot say that mobile phones are universally bad. For some young people, particularly some of the most vulnerable who may be struggling with a feeling of belonging, finding an identity and a community online can be hugely beneficial for their mental health. Mobile phones can help to build and maintain relationships that provide a real lifeline. For other young people, online contact can help them to discover their passions, support educational engagement or enrichment and, in turn, promote lifelong interests or career prospects.
To realise these benefits, it is vital that all children and young people can use mobile phones safely. Everyone, including parents, schools and providers, is responsible for making sure that children are aware of the importance of internet safety. That is why the updated Teaching Online Safety in Schools guidance helps schools to deliver a co-ordinated and coherent curriculum on all aspects of internet safety—not just those related to relationships, sex and health—tailored to the students they teach.
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, highlighted, we want and need to ensure that schools bring parents on board when they implement restrictions on the use of mobile phones. We want to encourage schools to consult with and build support from parents to develop a policy that works in context at home and school. Through schools articulating a clear stance on mobile phone use and the risks posed by social media, many parents may feel prompted to give further consideration to how children and young people are using mobile phones out of school too.
I have a great deal to discuss on tech companies, based on noble Lords’ contributions. Although the existing guidance from the DfE does an effective job in empowering schools to prohibit the use of mobile phones in their own classrooms, protecting children does not stop at the school gates. The Online Safety Act takes a zero- tolerance approach to the protection of children and ensures that platforms are held responsible for the content they host. All companies in scope need to take robust steps to protect children from illegal, inappropriate and harmful content and activity.
Many noble Lords asked about the role of technology. The role of technology for learning is key. I visited two primary schools last week, and iPads were being used in nearly every classroom. They were working and coding games, which was beyond me. It was a Friday afternoon and I understand that, on Friday afternoon, what used to be playtime when I was at school is now coding time. I think I had it easier than children as they are developing. The benefits of technology can be broader than improved learning outcomes. Schools and colleges can use technology to increase the accessibility of the curriculum and increase student and parental engagement, which is what I saw last week.
With regard to safeguarding and improving mental health more widely, although this is often raised in the context of social media, children’s mental health and well-being are shaped by complex range of risks and protective factors. These span individual-level factors, such as those linked to an individual’s overall health and abilities, and, for example, exposure to adverse and traumatic events. Familial and community-level factors also play a part, including the quality of parental and peer relationships, which are influenced through wider experiences at home and in school. There are also overall environmental factors spanning the physical environment—things such as housing and access to green spaces, as well as societal factors including stigma and discrimination. The evidence suggests a longer list of factors than these examples.
The Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people. This is critical to breaking down barriers to opportunity and spans a wide range of public services: health, welfare, education and beyond. We know that children and young people can struggle to access support for their mental health. We have committed to providing access to specialist mental health provision in every school in England. We will also be putting in place open access youth future hubs in every community, including access to mental health support workers, and we will recruit 8,500 new mental health workers to treat children and adults.
I thank my noble friend Lady Goudie and the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for highlighting the gender division on some of these issues. The Government have a clear mission to halve violence against women and girls, both offline and online. As noble Lords would expect me to say, we are taking this very seriously on a cross-departmental level, working with nations and regions to deliver this mission. I look forward to working with all noble Lords on delivering it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raised the mental health impact of phones in schools. All state schools and colleges have been offered a grant to train a senior mental health lead by 2025. Up until 31 August 2024, 17,100 schools and colleges had successfully claimed a grant, representing 72% of the total number of settings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cass, raised the issue of screen time. Through statutory relationship, sex and health education, pupils are taught about the benefits of rationing time spent online, the risks of excessive time spent on electronic devices, and the impact of positive and negative content online on their own and others’ mental and physical well-being.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Owen and Lady Grender, and my noble friend Lady Goudie raised the differing impact on boys and girls. We are focused on building the evidence base to inform any future action and DSIT has launched a research project looking at the links between social media and children’s well-being. I will speak to them for an update on how we are recording the impact on girls.
The noble Lord, Lord Chartres, raised the issue of addictive technology. The child safety duties under the Online Safety Act apply across all areas of a service, including its functionalities and the way in which it is operated and used by children, as well as content present at the service. If a provider’s risk assessment identifies habit-forming or addictive behaviour is an activity which risks causing sufficient harm to an appreciable number of children on its service, it must take appropriate steps to manage and mitigate these risks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, referenced what has happened today in Australia. We are monitoring the legislative developments and will use the UK-Australia MoU to share evidence and try to learn from each other’s approach towards this issue.
I was asked about victims of crime. Time is short and the answer I have is very long, so I will write to noble Lords.
In conclusion, we can do more to protect children and young people from the risk of harm online and on social media when they walk out of the school gates. We have been clear that the Government’s priority is the effective implementation of the Online Safety Act, so that children can benefit from its wide-ranging protections as soon as possible and be able to safely benefit from technological advances for years to come.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, raised the fact that I was responding to this debate. The person with responsibility for this policy area is a Minister in the other place—Stephen Morgan. I will arrange for the noble Baroness to meet with him to discuss the issues in more detail.
In closing, I repeat my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for bringing forward this debate. I appreciate that there are some issues I did not touch on, including the Children’s Commissioner’s survey, but I will write to noble Lords on specific points to which I have not been able to respond.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, in particular for agreeing to arrange a meeting with the Minister in the other place. I thank all noble Lords, but I am going to use the little bit of time I have to respond on a couple of issues. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for that.
I am rather disappointed, because the Minister set out quite a lot of stats that showed the problem and then said, “but we’ve got it covered”. I think that that is not the feeling of the House and it is not what the evidence shows. It cannot be the case that, on the one hand, a large number of children say the guidance is not working and, on the other, the noble Baroness says that we have the guidance and the guidance is enough.
I felt that there were a number of things of that ilk, and I shall write to the Minister to point them out precisely and not take everybody’s time right now. However, I wanted to make it very clear that the vast majority of noble Lords in the debate were talking about restrictions and not bans, in school and not in general. I know that there are those who go a little wider, but in general that was the mood of the House. I do not think that any noble Lord who spoke—and certainly I say it on my own behalf—is a tech detractor. There is a better world than this: a better world where technology is designed to take care of our children.
The one point of information that I was delighted to hear is that the Minister thinks that the OSA deals with addiction. I have had quite a lot of toing and froing with Ofcom; it does not seem to think so. I would love to interrogate that with her and with Ofcom.
I shall leave my final word for a young child who said, “I don’t get why everyone is so upset. We’re not allowed to take pets or frisbees into class. Why are we allowed to take phones?”