Plans to ban smartphones in schools have been dropped after the government refused to support a change in the law, Sky News understands.
Josh MacAlister, the Labour MP for Whitehaven and Workington, put forward the proposal earlier this month to stop children “doom-scrolling” – the act of spending excessive amounts of time online consuming negative news or social media content.
However, upon revealing the details of his Safer Phones Bill, Number 10 immediately indicated it could not support the measure on the grounds that headteachers already have the power to ban phones – although it is not upheld in law.
It is understood Mr MacAlister has now dropped this element of his bill in the hope the government will support its other aspects.
Mr MacAlister’s bill, which received broad support from cross-party MPs, education unions and charities, also calls for the age of “internet adulthood” – the minimum age to create social media profiles and email accounts – to be raised from 13 to 16.
It also wants to strengthen the powers of the regulator Ofcom to protect children from apps that are designed to be addictive and to commit the government to review further regulation if needed of the design, supply, marketing and use of mobile phones by children under 16.
More on Education
Related Topics:
Although the government indicated it could not back the phones ban, there has been some confusion on its overall position on the bill after some cabinet ministers, including Health Secretary Wes Streeting, signalled their support.
“Given 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,” he posted on X.
Advertisement
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
Speaking to Sky News earlier this month, Mr MacAlister, who chaired an independent review of children’s social care for the former government, said there was a “huge public health problem” with children around the world having increasing levels of mental health problems, issues with sleep and being impacted by phones in school.
“I’m only interested in one thing, which is making sure we can change the law to protect children and reduce screen time and get them back to having a healthier childhood,” he said.
“Parents are saying they’re facing an impossible choice between either keeping their kids off smartphones and ostracising them, or letting children get on these phones and seeing all the harmful effects that it can cause.
Image: Labour MP Josh MacAlister
“And we need to shape some collective rules that help parents and teachers make better choices for children.
“Children themselves are recognising the harm that comes with all of the doom-scrolling.”
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.
Sky News has approached the government for comment. Earlier this month, a government spokesperson said: “We all want to find the best way of ensuring children are kept safe while also benefiting from the latest digital technology.
“The Online Safety Act will introduce strong safeguards for children, preventing them from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content. This will include requiring companies to check the age of children so that parents can have peace of mind about the safety of their children online.
“The vast majority of schools already handle the use of mobile phones effectively, including with bans. Legislating for an outright ban would simply remove the autonomy from school leaders who know their pupils and their communities best.”
Mr MacAlister’s bill is due to have its second reading – the first opportunity MPs have to debate the contents of a bill – in March.
A growing rift has emerged in Washington, D.C., between the cryptocurrency industry and labor unions as lawmakers debate whether to ease rules allowing cryptocurrencies in 401(k) retirement accounts.
The dispute centers on proposed market structure legislation that would allow retirement accounts to gain exposure to crypto, a move labor groups say could expose workers to speculative risk. In a letter sent on Wednesday to the US Senate Banking Committee, the American Federation of Teachers argued that cryptocurrencies are too volatile for pension and retirement savings, warning that workers could face significant losses.
The letter drew immediate pushback from crypto investors and industry figures. “The American Federation of Teachers has somehow developed the most logically incoherent, least educated take one could possibly author on the matter of crypto market structure regulation,” a crypto investor said on X.
The AFT letter to Congress opposes regulatory changes that would allow 401(k) retirement accounts to hold alternative assets, including cryptocurrency. Source: CNBC
In response to the letter, Castle Island Ventures partner Sean Judge said the bill would improve oversight and reduce systemic risk, while enabling pension funds to access an asset class that has delivered strong long-term returns.
Consensys attorney Bill Hughes said the AFT’s opposition to the crypto market structure bill was politically motivated, accusing the group of acting as an extension of Democratic lawmakers.
Funds held in US retirement accounts by type of account plan. Source: ICI
Opposition to crypto in retirement and pension funds mounts
Proponents of allowing crypto in retirement portfolios, on the other hand, argue that it democratizes finance, while trade unions have voiced strong opposition to relaxing current regulations, claiming that crypto is too risky for traditional retirement plans.
“Unregulated, risky currencies and investments are not where we should put pensions and retirement savings. The wild, wild west is not what we need, whether it’s crypto, AI, or social media,” AFT president Randi Weingarten said on Thursday.
The AFT represents 1.8 million teachers and educational professionals in the US and is one of the largest teachers’ unions in the country.
According to Better Markets, a nonprofit and nonpartisan advocacy organization, cryptocurrencies are too volatile for traditional retirement portfolios, and their high volatility can create time-horizon mismatches for pension investors seeking a predictable, low-volatility retirement plan.
Bitcoin and Ether volatility compared to other asset classes and stock indexes. Source: US Federal Reserve
In October, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) also wrote to Congress opposing provisions within the crypto market structure regulatory bill.
The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of trade unions in the US, wrote that cryptocurrencies are volatile and pose a systemic risk to pension funds and the broader financial system.
The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has conditionally approved five national bank charter applications for companies tied to the digital assets industry.
In a Friday notice, the OCC said it had conditionally approved BitGo, Fidelity, and Paxos to convert their existing state-level trust companies into federally chartered national trust banks. In the same announcement, the regulator said it had conditionally approved new applications from Circle and Ripple for national trust bank charters.
“New entrants into the federal banking sector are good for consumers, the banking industry and the economy,” said Jonathan Gould, the Comptroller of the Currency, adding: “The OCC will continue to provide a path for both traditional and innovative approaches to financial services to ensure the federal banking system keeps pace with the evolution of finance and supports a modern economy.”
Europe’s crypto regulatory framework is entering a new phase of scrutiny as policymakers weigh whether enforcement of the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation should remain with national authorities or be centralized under the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
MiCA, which came largely into force at the beginning of 2025, was designed to create a unified rulebook for crypto-asset service providers across the European Union.
But as implementation progresses, disparities between member states are becoming harder to ignore. Some regulators have approved dozens of licenses, while others have issued only a handful, prompting concerns about inconsistent supervision and regulatory arbitrage.
In this week’s episode of Byte-Sized Insight, Cointelegraph explored what those growing pains mean for Europe’s crypto market with Lewin Boehnke, chief strategy officer at Crypto Finance Group — a Switzerland-based digital asset firm with operations across the EU.
Uneven enforcement fuels calls for oversight
According to Boehnke, the core challenge facing Europe isn’t the MiCA framework itself, but rather how it is being applied differently across jurisdictions.
“There is a very, very uneven application of the regulation,” he said, pointing to stark contrasts between member states. Germany, for example, has already granted around 30 crypto licenses, many to established banks, while Luxembourg has approved just three, all to major, well-known firms.
The ESMA released a peer review of the Malta Financial Services Authority’s authorization of a crypto service provider, finding that the regulator only “partially met expectations.”
Those disparities have helped fuel support among some regulators and policymakers for transferring supervisory powers to ESMA, which would create a more centralized enforcement model similar to the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
France, Austria and Italy have all signaled support for such a move, particularly amid criticism of more permissive regimes elsewhere in the bloc.
From Boehnke’s perspective, centralization could be less about control and more about efficiency.
“From just purely the practical point of view, I think it would be a good idea to have a unified… application of the regulation,” he said, adding that direct engagement with the ESMA could reduce delays caused by back-and-forth between national authorities.
MiCA’s design praised, but technical questions remain
Despite criticism from some corners of the crypto industry, Boehnke said MiCA’s overarching structure is sound, particularly its focus on regulating intermediaries rather than peer-to-peer activity.
“I do like MiCA regulation… the overarching approach of regulating not necessarily the assets, not the peer-to-peer use, but the custodians and the ones that offer services… that is the right approach.”
However, he also noted that unresolved technical questions are slowing adoption, especially for banks. One example is MiCA’s requirement that custodians be able to return client assets “immediately,” a phrase that remains open to interpretation.
“Does that mean withdrawal of the crypto? Or is it good enough to sell the crypto and withdraw the fiat immediately?” Boehnke asked, noting that such ambiguities are still being worked through and are awaiting clarity from ESMA.
To hear the complete conversation on Byte-Sized Insight, listen to the full episode on Cointelegraph’s Podcasts page, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And don’t forget to check out Cointelegraph’s full lineup of other shows!