Parents want smartphones banned in schools, poll finds
Nearly seven in 10 adults believe the Government should legislate to outlaw smartphones from schools, new polling has shown.
A similar number said that all under-16s should be barred from being able to own any phone that allows access to addictive apps and social media, the research reveals.
The survey, undertaken by strategy consultancy Stonehaven and shared exclusively with i, shows that 68 per cent of adults believe the Government should ban smartphones at the school gate.
A further 70 per cent backed the sale of âdumb phonesâ to all under-16s, which have built-in restrictions to prevent children gaining access to certain apps.
It comes as proposed legislation to block access to apps for all under-16 is due to be introduced to the Commons on Wednesday.
Labour MP Josh MacAlister is tabling the Safer Phones Bill â which has been described as the mobile phone equivalent of the âseat belt lawsâ â as a private membersâ bill and has cross-party backing.
Under the legislation, all headteachers in England would be legally required to make schools mobile-free zones to help curb smartphone addiction.
According to the polling, such measures have strong support from the public, with support for an outright ban on phones in schools strongest among Tory and Reform voters, with 78 per cent and 75 per cent in favour, respectively.
The research also shows a clear majority of respondents â 59 per cent â believe the Government should outlaw the sale of any smartphone to under-12s.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting separately indicated some support for the bill.
âGiven the impact of smartphone use and addiction on the mental health of children and young people and the concerns from parents, this is a really timely debate,â he wrote on X.
Current guidance to schools in England intended to stop the use of mobile phones during the school day is non-statutory, and was introduced earlier this year by the previous Tory government.
Teachersâ unions have suggested that the guidance should be placed on a statutory footing to better protect both children and school staff from online abuse.
Under Mr MacAlisterâs proposed private membersâ bill, the legislation would seek to strengthen the Online Safety Act, which is still being introduced and is due to come into full effect next year, by placing even greater onus on social media firms to protect children from harmful content.
The bill would also increase the age by which children can legally access social media, raising it from 13 to 16, meaning they would not be able to access such apps without parental consent.
The Government has yet to reveal its whipping arrangements for the proposed legislation, but Downing Street suggested on Tuesday that it believed the existing legislation on protecting young people from harmful content online was sufficient.
Asked whether the Government would support the bill, the Prime Ministerâs spokesman said No 10 understands the âconcerns parents have in relation to mobile phonesâ, before adding: âThe Government is focused on delivering the Online Safety Act, which will introduce safeguards that protect children, protecting them from accessing harmful and age inappropriate content.
âHeadteachers already have the power to ban phones in school, and many have chosen to exercise this right. So we donât have plans to legislate in that particular area when it comes to the bill.â
Adam McNicholas, senior adviser at Stonehaven, said: âVoters donât expect the Government to tell parents how to raise their kids â but, across party lines, they do expect help protecting children from smartphones.
âDoom scrolling, always-on notifications and access to dangerous content have triggered a national conversation about the harms being caused to children with smartphones. This is a live kitchen table issueâ.
However, the survey also found overwhelming agreement that it was up to parents to police the smartphone use of their children. Asked if parents are responsible for limiting smartphone harm to children, 87 per cent agreed or strongly agreed, with just 2 per cent disagreeing.