📱🔍🚸 Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill

• The Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill aims to address the negative impacts of smartphone and social media use on children.
• Josh MacAlister highlighted the significant increase in children’s screen time and its correlation with mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety, and physical health concerns like obesity and poor sleep quality.
• The bill seeks government commitment to reassess the digital age of consent, which is currently set at 13, and possibly raise it to 16.
• It also proposes that the UK chief medical officer update and reissue guidance on the impact of excessive screen time and social media use on children.
• Critics, like Kit Malthouse, argued that the bill was watered down and does not go far enough, lacking key measures such as a ban on smartphones in schools and a direct raise of the digital age of consent.
• Helen Hayes emphasized the rapid increase in children’s smartphone usage and the associated harms, including exposure to harmful content like pornography and bullying.
• Rebecca Paul and others stressed the addictive nature of social media, designed to keep users engaged, and supported measures to increase the digital age of consent and ban smartphones in schools.
• The debate showed broad concern over children’s safety online, with calls for stronger legislation to change societal norms and protect children from digital harms.
• The bill’s current form mainly focuses on research and guidance, with hopes that it will be a starting point for more comprehensive actions in the future.

The parliamentary session on the Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill displayed a moderate level of disagreement among the participants. Despite a general consensus on the urgency of addressing the harmful effects of smartphone and social media use among children, there were significant differences in opinions regarding the specifics of the proposed measures and the Bill’s effectiveness in achieving its goals.

Several examples of disagreement were evident throughout the debate:

1. Criticism of the Bill’s Scope and Effectiveness: There was notable disagreement on the Bill’s diluted impact compared to its original version. For instance, Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire, Con) expressed disappointment over the Bill’s reduced scope, arguing that it had been ‘gutted’ and would not effectively address the issues at hand. He emphasized the need for immediate action rather than further research, suggesting that the Bill should have included a ban on smartphones in schools and raising the digital age of consent from 13 to 16.

2. Need for Legislative Action vs. Research: A key point of contention was whether the Bill’s focus on commissioning research and issuing guidance was sufficient. Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne, Con) expressed frustration that the Bill did not propose firm changes to the current situation, instead opting for more research. This view contrasted with those who supported the Bill’s emphasis on gathering evidence to support future policy decisions, as articulated by Chris Bryant, the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms.

3. Raising the Digital Age of Consent: The debate saw differing opinions on the age at which children should be able to consent to data processing. While some members, like Caroline Voaden (South Devon, LD), advocated for raising the digital age of consent to 16, others pointed out that the Bill merely called for an assessment on this issue rather than mandating a change. Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington, Lab) acknowledged the criticism but defended the Bill’s intent to progress incrementally.

4. Smartphone Bans in Schools: The topic of banning smartphones in schools was divisive. Some members, like Rebecca Paul (Reigate, Con), supported a legislative ban, arguing that it would improve educational outcomes and protect children from distractions. Others appreciated the Bill’s approach of leaving room for schools to decide based on updated guidance from the chief medical officer.

Despite these areas of disagreement, there was a shared understanding of the need for some level of governmental intervention to protect children from the harms associated with smartphone and social media use. The disagreements primarily revolved around the methods and immediacy of the proposed solutions, rather than the overall objective of enhancing online safety for children.

Given these points, the level of disagreement can be rated as moderate, warranting a score of 3 out of 5. While there was clear consensus on the problem’s urgency and the need for action, the specific measures and the Bill’s approach divided opinions among the participants.