Schools already have the power to ban smartphones, adding pointless new laws to the statute book is bad for business and bad for democracy, says Eliot Wilson
Parliament should never make law lightly. To legislate is to bring the coercive power of the state to bear in regulating conduct and behaviour as well as maintaining rights and freedoms, and it should only be done when there is no alternative. Unfortunately, good intentions sometimes make MPs see the law as a first response.
Last week the new Labour MP for Whitehaven and Workington, Josh MacAlister, introduced a bill into the House of Commons to regulate children’s use of mobile phones. The Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill attempts to do several things at once under the umbrella of “the protection of children accessing digital services and content”.
Proposals introduced by backbenchers like MacAlister – Private Members’ Bills, in the argot of Parliament – rarely become law because the government controls the legislative timetable. But at the beginning of every session, 20 MPs are drawn at random and have priority on the 13 Fridays reserved for backbenchers. MacAlister was fifth in September’s ballot, so there is a chance that his bill will progress through Parliament, being scheduled for debate for the first time on 7 March 2025.
There is growing anxiety at the effect unfettered access to technology is having on children. Professor Jonathan Haidt’s recent book The Anxious Generation argues that the ubiquity of smartphones and social media has led to a rise in childhood mental illness. It is easy to understand why many parents want at least to limit the time their children spend engaging with the digital world.
MacAlister’s bill addresses this in a number of ways, and one measure is a legal prohibition on smartphones in schools. In this regard, though, he is letting his undoubtedly good intentions obscure considerations like need and proportionality, and I would argue that it should not be included in the final text.
Schools can already ban phones
No-one seriously disputes the problem. With 97 per cent of pupils owning a mobile phone by the age of 12, the potential for distraction during the school day is enormous. But the previous government issued guidance for schools in February 2024 which recommended exactly the solution MacAlister proposes: “a mobile phone policy that prohibits the use of mobile phones… throughout the school day, including during lessons, the time between lessons, breaktimes and lunchtime”.
This is unambiguous. It is true that guidance from the Department for Education is not legally binding or enforceable, but a statement from the department, noting that “phones have no place in classrooms”, explained that “headteachers already have the power to ban phones in school. Most have chosen to do so.” To supersede this non-statutory guidance with primary legislation would be a mistake for two reasons.
Firstly, the guidance, while almost universally followed, allows individual headteachers to tailor their policies to the specific needs for their schools. A small number of pupils need access to mobile phones for medical reasons, because they have special educational needs or disabilities, or because they have caring responsibilities. Legislation would make this flexibility more difficult to achieve.
Headteachers are the best judges of their own schools and are implementing restrictions which are appropriate for them. A recent study from the Queensland University of Technology found “little to no conclusive evidence that ‘one-size-fits-all’ mobile phone bans in schools resulted in improved academic outcomes, mental health and wellbeing, and reduced cyberbullying”.
Laws do not exist to emphasise our seriousness of purpose or show how deeply we care about a subject
Secondly, there is no suggestion that the guidance is proving inadequate or that headteachers need greater authority. So why do we need to replace it with legislation? MacAlister, a former teacher, has not been clear on this. He has talked of the importance of “starting the debate”, saying “we need the equivalent of the ‘seatbelt’ legislation for social media use for children”.
Laws do not exist to emphasise our seriousness of purpose or show how deeply we care about a subject. Once a measure is enshrined in statute, it is subject to regulation and enforcement by the state, and it remains in force indefinitely unless specifically repealed. With laws come sanctions, so whom does MacAlister envisage being prosecuted? Headteachers or parents?
Laws accrete, and should only be made to address identifiable problems. Business talks frequently about “regulatory burdens” and this is another form of that phenomenon: it introduces legal force where none is necessary to solve the issue at hand. MacAlister’s proposal fails on this basis, and he ought to rethink.
Eliot Wilson is a writer