Social media limits for children are being planned by the government to tackle “compulsive” screen time, the technology secretary has told Sky News.
Peter Kyle said he was concerned about “the overall amount of time kids spend on these apps” as well as the content they see.
A two-hour cap per platform is being seriously considered after meetings with current and former employees of tech companies. A night-time or school-time curfew has also been discussed.
Children would be blocked from accessing apps such as TikTok or Snapchat once they have hit the limit, rather than just reminded of how long they have been scrolling, it is understood.
An announcement on screen time is expected this autumn.
Mr Kyle said: “I’ll be making an announcement on these things in the near future. But I am looking very carefully about the overall time kids spend on these apps.
“I think some parents feel a bit disempowered about how to actually make their kids healthier online.
More on Peter Kyle
Related Topics:
“I think some kids feel that sometimes there is so much compulsive behaviour with interaction with the apps they need some help just to take control of their online lives and those are things I’m looking at really carefully.
“We talk a lot about a healthy childhood offline. We need to do the same online. I think sleep is very important, to be able to focus on studying is very important.”
Image: Charlotte, 17, said she believes there needs to be ‘harsher controls’
He added that he wanted to stop children spending hours viewing content which “isn’t criminal, but it’s unhealthy, the overuse of some of these apps”.
“I think we can incentivise the companies and we can set a slightly different threshold that will just tip the balance in favour of parents not always being the ones who are just ripping phones out of the kids’ hands and having a really awkward, difficult conversation around it,” he added.
Mr Kyle spoke exclusively to Sky News after meeting with a group of pupils from Darlington who have spent a year participating in regular focus groups about smartphones and social media, organised by their Labour MP Lola McEvoy.
Image: The tech secretary is considering limiting screen time to two hours
They took part in a survey of 1,000 children from the town, mostly aged 14 and 15, which found that 40% of them spent at least six hours a day online. One in five spent as long as eight hours scrolling.
Most of the under-16s (55%) had seen inappropriate sexual or violent content – often unprompted. And three-quarters of the under-16s had been contacted online by strangers.
In the session in parliament, in which the children were asked what they were most concerned about, Jacob, 15, said: “A lack of restrictions on screen time I would personally say, which leads to people scrolling for hours on Tiktok.
“People just glue their eyes to their phone and just spent hours on it, instead of seeing the real world.”
Tom, 17, said: “I get the feeling you have to be quite tech savvy to protect your kids online. You have to go into the settings and work out each one. It should be the default. It needs to be straight away, day one.”
Matthew, 15, said: “I think because everybody is online all the time and there’s no real moderation to what people can say or what can be shared, it can really affect people’s lives because it’s always there.
“As soon as I wake up, I check my phone and until I go to bed. The only time I take a break is when I eat or am talking to someone.”
Some of the teenagers had spent 12 or even up to 16 hours a day online.
Image: MP Lola McEvoy has been holding focus groups with teens to find out how severe the issue is
Nathan, 15, said: “When, for example, a 13-year-old is on their phone ’til midnight, you can’t sleep, your body can’t function properly and your mind is all over the place.”
But there was scepticism about what could be done.
Charlotte, 17, said: “If your parents sets a restriction on Instagram and say, ‘right, you’re coming off it now’ – there’s TikTok, there is Pinterest, there is Facebook, there’s Snapchat, there so many different other ones, you can go on, and it just builds up and builds and builds up, and you end up sat there for the entire evening just on social media. I think we need harsher controls.”
Several of the pupils who met Mr Kyle detailed being contacted by adult strangers, either on social media apps or online gaming, in ways which made them feel uncomfortable.
The tech already exists to make a ban like this a reality.
On Friday, rules will start being enforced in the UK that will mean sites hosting harmful adult content will need to properly check the ages of their users.
There are a number of ways companies could do that, including credit card checks, ID checks and AI facial age estimation.
It is likely these are the same systems that would be used to keep teenagers off social media during certain hours, as suggested by Peter Kyle to Sky News.
It’s how Australia is looking into enforcing its total ban of under-16s on social media later this year – but the process isn’t without controversy.
Concerns around privacy are frequently raised as internet users worry about big tech companies storing even more of their personal data.
There are also questions about just how effective these age verification processes could actually be.
Tech like AI facial estimation can reliably age-check users – but teenagers may quickly work out how to circumvent the system using plugins and settings that could be a mystery to all but the savviest parents.
At the moment, a lot of age-checking AI systems are trained to spot the difference between an adult and a child, and can do that to a high degree of accuracy.
But while telling the visual difference between a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old is much harder, AI learns fast.
Officials working on the UK’s age verification scheme have suggested AI will soon be able to accurately verify the ages of under-18s, making a ban like this much more realistic.
Mr Kyle said: “It is madness, it is total madness, and many of the apps or the companies have taken action to restrict contacts that adults – particularly strangers – have with children, but we need to go further and I accept that.
“At the moment, I think the balance is tipped slightly in the wrong direction. Parents don’t feel they have the skills, the tools or the ability to really have a grip on the childhood experience online, how much time, what they’re seeing, they don’t feel that kids are protected from unhealthy activity or content when they are online.”
The tech secretary is in the process of implementing the 2023 Online Safety Act, passed by the previous government.
From this Friday, all platforms must introduce stronger protections for children online, including a legal requirement for all pornography sites accessed in the UK to have effective age verification in place – such as facial age estimation or ID checks.
Image: Briony and Matthew took part in the group
Mr Kyle added: “I don’t just want the base level set where kids aren’t being criminally exploited and damaged, that shouldn’t be the height of our aspirations. The height of our aspirations should be a healthy experience.”
Labour MP Lola McEvoy, who organised the focus group, said: “I knew things were bad online for children and young people but their testimony revealed the extent of explicit, disturbing and toxic content that is now the norm.
“Their articulation of the changes they wanted to see was excellent and they’ve done our town and their generation proud.”
Tiktok, Pinterest, Meta and Snapchat were contacted for comment, but none provided an on the record statement. The companies have accounts for under-16s with parental controls and some set reminders for screen time.
TikTok has a 60-minute daily screen time limit for under-18s after which they must enter a password to continue, and a reminder to switch off at 10pm. The company say this is to support a healthy relationship with screen time.
Pinterest have supported phone-free policies at schools, in the US and Canada and say they are looking to expand this elsewhere.
The security services expressed concern about the appointment of Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, but No 10 went ahead anyway, Sky News understands.
Downing Street today defended the extensive vetting process which senior civil servants go through in order to get jobs, raising questions about whether or not they missed something or No 10 ignored their advice.
Sky News has been told by two sources that the security services did flag concerns as part of the process.
No 10 did not judge these concerns as enough to stop the ambassadorial appointment.
It is not known whether all of the detail was shared with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer personally.
Sky News has been told some members of the security services are unhappy with what has taken place in Downing Street.
More on Keir Starmer
Related Topics:
Lord Mandelson is close to Sir Keir’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who is known to have been keen on the appointment – and the pair spoke regularly.
No 10 says the security vetting process is all done at a departmental level with no No 10 involvement.
Shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel described the revelations as “extraordinary”.
“For Keir Starmer, and his Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, to have appointed Lord Mandelson despite concerns being raised by the security services shows a blatant disregard of all national security considerations and their determination to promote their Labour Party friends,” she said in a statement.
“Starmer leads a crisis riddled government consumed by a chaos of his own making, because he puts his Party before the needs of our country.
“The country deserves the honest truth this spineless prime minister refuses to give them.”
Image: Priti Patel described the revelations as ‘extraordinary’.
The prime minister, who selected Lord Mandelson for the role, made the decision after new emails revealed the Labour peer sent messages of support to Epstein even as he faced jail for sex offences in 2008.
In one particular message, Lord Mandelson had suggested that Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged.
The Foreign Office said the emails showed “the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment”.
The decision to sack the diplomat was made by the prime minister and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper on Thursday morning, Sky News understands.
This was after Sir Keir had reviewed all the new available information last night.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:59
Harriet Harman, Ruth Davidson, and Beth Rigby react to the news of Lord Mandelson’s sacking.
It comes after a string of allegations around the diplomat’s relationship with Epstein, which emerged in the media this week, including a 2003 birthday message in which he called the sex offender his “best pal”.
Further allegations were then published in The Telegraph on Wednesday morning, suggesting that Lord Mandelson had emailed Epstein to set up business meetings following the latter’s conviction for child sex offences in 2008.
Additional emails were then published detailing how the diplomat wrote to Epstein the day before he went to prison in June 2008 to serve time for soliciting sex from a minor. Lord Mandelson said: “I think the world of you.”
Peter Mandelson, the UK ambassador to the US, has been sacked from his role as scrutiny builds over his relationship with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The diplomat’s most famous quotation sums up his attraction to the rich and famous and his fondness for the trappings of wealth.
“We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich,” he told tech executives when he was Sir Tony Blair’s trade and industry secretary in 1998.
“As long as they pay their taxes,” he added hurriedly, the former spin doctor known as the “Prince of Darkness” acutely aware of the risk of damaging headlines.
Now, less than nine months after his controversial appointment by Sir Keir Starmer as UK ambassador, his association with convicted sex offender Epstein suggests once again that he appears unable to avoid scandal.
Aged 71, Lord Mandelson – awarded a peerage by Gordon Brown in 2008 – had to resign from Sir Tony’s cabinet twice, first over an undeclared bank loan and then over intervening in a passport application by a top Indian businessman.
More on Peter Mandelson
Related Topics:
Over four decades, nearly all on the front line of British politics, he has been a consummate political networker, but he has also been one of the most divisive figures in public life and his appointment last December was seen by critics as an act of cronyism by Sir Keir.
Acknowledging that Lord Mandelson was a controversial and divisive figure, Sir Tony declared in 1996: “My project will be complete when the Labour Party learns to love Peter Mandelson.”
The Washington role is seen as the most glittering and important diplomatic post in the UK government. The perks of the job include the luxurious ambassador’s residence in Massachusetts Avenue, a magnificent Queen Anne mansion designed by top architect Sir Edwin Lutyens.
When he appointed him as ambassador, Sir Keir saw Lord Mandelson as a skilful and persuasive link to the president, with his trade experience from his time as a cabinet minister and Brussels commissioner a vital qualification for the job.
Never one for false modesty, Lord Mandelson claims that when he first walked into the Oval Office the president said to him: “God, you’re a good-looking fellow, aren’t you?”
Lord Mandelson can be credited with several diplomatic triumphs in Washington. He played a vital role in ensuring the UK escaped the worst of Trump’s tariffs and he was instrumental in securing a much sought-after trade deal between the UK and the US.
And his silky PR skills were displayed when during Sir Keir’s first visit to the White House in February the PM theatrically pulled out of his inside pocket a letter from King Charles inviting the present to visit the UK.
It was a classic Lord Mandelson stunt and confirmed he’d lost none of the flair for presentation he’d first deployed when he was Labour leader Neil Kinnock’s spin doctor in the 1980s.
Lord Mandelson’s high-profile political career began as a TV producer until his appointment as Labour’s director of communications under Neil Kinnock in 1985.
He was seen as a brilliant if ruthless spin doctor, who masterminded the birth of New Labour but would berate newspaper editors when unfavourable stories were written by their political journalists.
Another classic Lord Mandelson attempt to kill an embarrassing story was to tell the journalist who wrote or broadcast it in a sneering voice: “That is a story that I believe will remain an exclusive.”
He became MP for Hartlepool in 1992 and helped propel Sir Tony to the leadership of the party after John Smith’s death in 1994, a move that led to a bitter feud with Mr Brown.
There’s an amusing story about Mandelson in Hartlepool, which he claims is a myth and blames Mr Kinnock for. It’s claimed he ordered “some of that delicious guacamole” in a fish and chip shop, mistaking mushy peas for avocado dip.
It was a perfect Lord Mandelson story, ridiculing his metropolitan tastes and ignorance of working-class life. But he claims the mistake was made by a young American woman student who was helping Labour’s campaign.
Image: Tony Blair and Lord Mandelson in 2000. Pic: Paul Faith/PA
His first cabinet job, trade and industry secretary in 1998, lasted only five months after he was forced to quit after failing to declare a home loan from Labour millionaire Geoffrey Robinson to his building society.
His resignation was similar in one respect to the demise of former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner last week, in that it was over irregularities in buying a property: in Hove in her case, in fashionable Notting Hill in his.
He bounced back as Northern Ireland secretary in 1999 and was said to enjoy the luxury of Hillsborough Castle, which went with the job. But he was forced to resign a second time over claims he helped businessman Srichand Hinduja with an application for UK citizenship.
When he held his seat in Hartlepool in the 2001 general election, Mandelson made a passionate and defiant victory speech at his count in which he declared: “I’m a fighter, not a quitter.”
Yet three years later he did quit as an MP, when he became a trade commissioner in Brussels, serving a four-year term during which he had a spectacular row with French president Nicolas Sarkozy, who accused him of selling out French farmers in trade talks.
There were more controversies arising from his time in Brussels. In 2006, it was reported that he received a free cruise on a yacht from an Italian mogul who was said to have benefited from tariffs on Chinese shoes when Mandelson was EU trade commissioner.
Image: Former Labour leader Neil Kinnock (L) with Peter Mandelson. Pic: PA
Reports also claimed he had been lent a private jet by banking and business tycoon Nat Rothschild. And it was later reported that he had a holiday in August 2008 on the yacht of Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska off the Greek island of Corfu.
Mr Deripaska was said to have benefited from a cut in EU aluminium tariffs introduced by Mandelson. But prime minister Brown said Mandelson’s dealings with Mr Deripaska had been “found to be above board”.
After Brussels came perhaps his most spectacular and unexpected political comeback, when in 2008 his old foe Gordon Brown, by now prime minister but facing challenges to his leadership, brought him back as business secretary with a peerage.
A year later, Mr Brown awarded him the grand title, previously held by Michael Heseltine under John Major, of first secretary of state, a position he held until Labour’s election defeat in 2010.
To this day, Lord Mandelson remains a devoted Blairite rather than a soulmate of Mr Brown. And in the run-up to Sir Keir’s election victory last year he was back in the fold, offering advice on campaigning and policy.
He got his reward with the plum job of ambassador in Washington. But his links to a very American scandal, involving the disgraced financier and sex offender Epstein, have pushed him out of political life. Again.
Peter Mandelson’s position was completely unsustainable, but it took Sir Keir Starmer 24 hours after everybody else to realise the inevitable.
In the chaotic interim, this generated the extraordinary spectacle of No10 saying that they had full confidence in their man in Washington because – and it feels incredible to type this – No10 had been fully aware that the peer had an extended relationship with a convicted paedophile after the point he had been to jail in the US, and was content with this situation.
This is why the issue has become a matter of Starmer‘s judgement almost as much as Peter Mandelson‘s.
Indeed, there were echoes here of the Chris Pincher affair that led to Boris Johnson’s downfall – a leader stubbornly defending acts which revolted the bulk of the party, in a tone deaf act of self-harm.
And revolted, they were.
More on Labour
Related Topics:
Almost the entire Labour Party was reacting with horror at the revelation, and even more so at the defence.
Less than 24 hours before his departure, Starmer was saying: “The ambassador has repeatedly expressed his deep regret for association with him, he’s right to do so. I have confidence in him and he’s playing an important role in the UK-US relationship.”
Words of certainty – but done once again without access to full facts.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Dangerously, the PM was also defending a vetting process which would by implication put him in possession of facts that should have ruled Mandelson out of that job.
“Full due process has gone through when the appointment was made,” he said.
Now the line from a junior foreign office minister is that Mandelson hadn’t told him. So either the vetting failed or this isn’t quite accurate.
My understanding is that no one in government knows the last time Mandelson did see Epstein – the absence of certainty on that key fact must have set off alarm bells.
Right now, No10 will be thinking and hoping that, with just six days to go until the state visit by Donald Trump, which was meant to be organised by Mandelson, people will not focus too much on this question.
However, given the current rate of one big beast in government being sacked every week, this will ultimately land at Starmer’s feet.