How Will The Social Media Ban Change Children’s Lives?

Summary

---

Newscast — How Will The Social Media Ban Change Children’s Lives?

BBC News | Episode Date: June 16, 2026
Main Guest: Bridget Phillipson (Education Secretary)
Host: Adam Fleming

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the UK government's newly announced ban on social media use for under-16s, with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson in the studio. The discussion dives into the rationale behind the policy, its likely societal impacts, concerns around children's screen time, broader childhood reforms, and the practicalities for parents and schools. The conversation becomes broad, delving into childhood in modern Britain, parental responsibility, post-pandemic recovery, and the interplay between technology, government intervention, and children’s wellbeing.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Policy Details: Social Media Ban for Under-16s

• Ban Details: A ban on under-16s accessing a list of 10 major social media apps is intended for next spring (pending secondary legislation).
• Parliamentary Process: "It will be a secondary legislation form of regulations... there would be a chance for people to have their say... there is widespread support across Parliament for tougher action in this area." — Bridget Phillipson [02:45]
• Definition of Social Media: Careful consideration is being given to which platforms and app features qualify as ‘social media’ as technology evolves.

2. Envisioned Impact and Broader Child Wellbeing Mission

• Screen Time as a Wider Issue: The policy is part of a broader mission: "to save Britain’s childhoods" by addressing excessive screen time, not only social media use.
• Strategic Approach: "This is one element and a very important element of how we give children their childhood back... But this runs hand in hand with a much bigger piece of work across government." — Bridget Phillipson [03:30]
• Parental Involvement: Government sets frameworks, but parental responsibility is key: "Sometimes parents will be a good judge of what is appropriate for their child... If a parent wants to... that’s a very different proposition to children being allowed unfettered access to strangers, to harmful material." [07:24]

3. Practicalities for Parents and Children

• Parental Choice: Parents can still share educational content with children (e.g., watching YouTube educational content together, on the parent’s account).
• Screen Time Guidelines: Recent government screen time guidance: no screens for under-2s, and up to one hour for ages 2–5, ideally interactivity with parents. [05:59]
• Nanny State Concern: The policy aims to "set out that bigger framework, but... gives parents practical, helpful advice... not to be judgmental." [08:10]

4. The Role of Technology: Harms and Opportunities

• AI and Social Media: Addressing AI chatbots and their potential to direct children toward inappropriate or dangerous content.
• Balancing Risks and Benefits: "There are enormous opportunities to be explored around the use of technology to help children's learning... as we take action in some areas, we also have to guard against unintended consequences where technology used well can be transformative." [04:51]
• Case Example: Concerns over cutting off positive educational opportunities (e.g., a 13-year-old watching physics lectures on YouTube), and the role of platforms in providing safer alternatives.

5. Social & Developmental Reflections

• Changing Nature of Childhood: Memories of a more independent childhood; now, risk aversion and social change mean children spend more time at home on screens.
• Peer Pressure and Equity: The ban is partly to help parents avoid being forced, by peer expectations, to allow children onto platforms.
• "Cursed Generation" Concept: Reflection on generational divides — some children have grown up with unregulated social media, while others will miss out or avoid harms.

6. Evidence Base & Precaution

• Precautionary Approach: Admits the evidence on long-term harm isn’t “slam dunk,” but says waiting too long would risk missing the moment for effective action.

  "The evidence may only become slam dunk at the point at which we've... gone past the point of no return... Certainly the approach... on screen time and the under fives was... on the basis of the precautionary approach." — Bridget Phillipson [15:31]

7. Activities, Boredom, and Social Policy

• Replacing Screen Time: Acknowledges challenge for families (esp. less affluent) to fill the time previously spent online. Government is expanding music, arts, sports, and affordable/free activities.

  "There is nothing wrong with kids being bored. That is also an important part of growing up." [17:52]

• Childhood Boredom: Boredom as a catalyst for creativity and personal growth, recalling her own childhood spent wandering, reading, and socialising. [19:13 – 20:25]
• Parental Burden: Recognises that helping bored kids find activities can be taxing, but "it does them no harm" to be told to find something to do. [19:07]

8. The Pandemic, Recovery, and School Life

• Pandemic Impact: Importance of play and peer interaction lost during COVID-19. "We didn’t prioritise children’s well-being... we reopen pubs before... playgrounds." [22:01+]
• Educational Catch-up: Cites free breakfast clubs (effectively a longer school day) and ongoing expansion of extra-curricular opportunities as policy responses. [23:14]
• Dreaming Bigger?: Host pushes on whether more should have been done, or whether a longer school day (with broad activities) is a funding priority. Phillipson: It’s desirable, supported by evidence, but unaffordable under current constraints. [24:47 – 25:41]

9. Real World Reactions & Public Mood

• Notable Moment: Reference to a viral clip of a girl saying if you take away her 9 hours of screen time she’ll “stare at a wall.” Phillipson: "She was brilliant—great comedy delivery—but also really insightful." [17:55]
• Public’s Appetite: Phillipson reports strong support among parents for tougher action, and sees this moment as a catalyst for a “society shift” in attitudes toward technology. [08:10, 30:19]

10. Government, Defence Spending & Politics

(Short segment late in episode)

• Defence Funding: Briefly addresses cuts within her department to fund higher defence spending, confirms future details yet to be published. [27:08]
• Leadership Loyalty: Reiterates loyalty to PM Keir Starmer and avoids hypothetical speculation about a Labour leadership contest. [28:37]
• Toy Story 5 as Symbol: Host jokes that being anti-big tech is now so mainstream that tablets are the villain in Toy Story 5. Phillipson affirms: “It’s not the tablet, it’s the use of the tablet” — underlining her nuance. [30:14 – 30:44]

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On evidence and precaution:

  "The evidence may only become slam dunk at the point at which we've... gone past the point of no return."
  — Bridget Phillipson [15:31]

• On screen time as a national issue:

  "Adults spend a lot of time scrolling in the way that in the past they might have been reading or doing other things. So I do think we have to consider how we behave, all of us..."
  — Bridget Phillipson [10:04]

• On public reaction:

  "I thought [the 'stare at a wall' girl] was brilliant... insightful but also the delivery. She’s got a great career ahead of her, I’m sure."
  — Bridget Phillipson [17:55]

• On boredom:

  "There is nothing wrong with kids being bored. That is also an important part of growing up. If you’re bored, go and find something to do. And I don’t say that dismissively..."
  — Bridget Phillipson [17:52]

• On parental responsibility:

  “Parents have to make choices about what is appropriate for their children... There is always a role for parental responsibility in this. It's not to blame parents, it's just to say... sometimes parents will be a good judge.”
  — Bridget Phillipson [07:24]

• On broader social context:

  "If you live in a community where there isn’t much in terms of wider opportunity... and then that online world can step in... and actually make things worse. But it's not the only factor."
  — Bridget Phillipson [16:00]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Policy & Social Media Ban Details — [02:17]–[03:12]
• Screen Time, Parental Role, and Framework — [05:36]–[08:10]
• Wider Support for Parents, Family Hubs — [08:10]–[09:47]
• Generational Impact, Peer Pressure, Changing Childhood — [11:00]–[14:11]
• Evidence & Precautionary Principle — [14:52]–[15:31]
• Boredom, Childhood, and After-Screen Activities — [17:25]–[20:25]
• Pandemic, Recovery Plans, Breakfast Clubs — [21:22]–[24:39]
• School Day & Extra-curricular Expansion — [24:39]–[25:41]
• Defence Spending & Political Questions — [25:41]–[30:04]
• Toy Story Tablet and Societal Shifts — [30:13]–[31:03]

---

Final Thoughts

The episode provides a nuanced, expansive look at the government’s social media ban for under-16s, contextualising it within broader, long-term concerns about children's wellbeing, the impact of technology, parenting in the digital age, and socio-economic inequity. Bridget Phillipson reiterates the government's belief in firm action, tempered by recognition of parent choice and the positive role technology can play when used wisely. The tone is empathetic, pragmatic, and occasionally nostalgic, underlining a wish to restore the joys and flexibility of childhood, even as policy grapples with new digital realities.

---

Transcript

[A]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.

[B]

What if your favorite way to unwind

[A]

could actually reward you with mistplay? It can stop scrolling social media for nothing. Mistplay lets you earn points just for discovering and playing mobile games. Redeem them for gift cards from brands you love, simply for doing what you already do to relax. Download Mistplay today and make your downtime more rewarding. Hello. On Tuesday morning, we got a call from the Education Secretary's office saying that Bridget Phillipson wants to come to Newscast to talk about the social media ban which was announced by the Government on Monday. And we thought that would be a good opportunity to dig into some of the details of the policy and some of the reaction to it that we've had in the last 36 hours. But once we actually recorded the conversation, the Education Secretary was in a much more expansive mood and we ended up talking about, well, basically her mission to save Britain's childhoods. So we thought you would like to hear that whole conversation as an episode of.

[B]

Newscast, Newscast, Newscast from the BBC.

[A]

Humanity's next great voyage begins. We are in the midst of a rupture.

[B]

Nostalgia will not bring back the old order.

[A]

Six, seven. Yeah, it's supposed to be me as a doctor.

[C]

Daddy has.

[B]

Has also a special connotation.

[A]

Ooh la. Thinking about it like a panto helped.

[B]

Do we play music now or what do we do?

[A]

Education Secretary, hello.

[B]

Hello.

[A]

And thanks for coming in as well, rather than doing it from your laptop in your office.

[B]

Much better.

[A]

Have you got your red box with you? Does it travel with you everywhere?

[B]

I've got my red folder with me, so I've got in there what I'm doing today, and various documents for various meetings.

[A]

Good.

[B]

And my lines to take for.

[A]

Oh, yeah, exactly. Do you want to. I don't see it to hand, though, so you're just gonna have to rely on your wits. So, first of all, social media, let's just sort of do the science bit first. So the ban on under 16 year olds, that will. We think that will be in place next spring.

[B]

That's the intention we would need to bring forward regulation and that would have to pass through Parliament. But yes, it's our intention that it would take effect then.

[A]

And will there be a vote for MPs? Because I know it's not legislation, so it's not like a new bill, but will MPs get a vote on it?

[B]

My understanding is yes, because it will be a secondary legislation form of regulations and therefore there would be a chance for people to have their say. Although I think it's fair to say that there is widespread support across Parliament for tougher action in this area. We obviously legislated through the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill to allow us to take on these powers to bring forward further regulation in this area.

[A]

And it will be a list of 10 apps initially that the ban will apply to.

[B]

So it'll be those where you've got both the content and the algorithm and the ability to engage in that way, which is why it's important how we define social media. That will obviously require careful kind of consideration over time as different technologies develop. I do think this is the right thing to do because, you know, we've seen more and more young people just drawn into spending almost endless amounts of time on social media. And I do worry about just the impact of spending so much time on screens and devices. It's. Social media is an important element of this, but it's not the only element. And I think, particularly with our youngest children, it's not actually about social media, it's just about the length of time that children are spending looking at screens, often from a very young age, and all of the potential downsides. So this is one element and a very important element of how we give children their childhood back. But this runs hand in hand with a much bigger piece of work across government that also that I'm leading around, around childhood, around young people feeling happy about experiencing school, a sense of belonging, feeling that actually you have other things to do other than just doom scrolling.

[A]

Yeah, and we'll come on to that in a second. But just in terms of what's actually going to be implemented. And then the second set of things is related to things like doom scrolling. There will be a sort of a list of, I don't know what you call them, actions, tools, features of apps that will be limited for people between the ages of 16 and 17. That's sort of the second part of this.

[B]

So there'll be a further update to all of this in July later on this year where we'll look at further measures. We've set out the first steps that we intend to take, but there are questions as well, and we are taking action on, you know, AI chatbots, where they can drive young people to highly inappropriate material, basically.

[A]

The romance chatbots.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And where we've seen some awful incidents involving young people who might be feeling, you know, seriously mentally unwell, and that can lead to some devastating outcomes. I think it's important, however, to draw a distinction between the harms that can come from that kind of technology and actually the real benefits that can come of technology when used well. And, and there are enormous opportunities to be explored around the use of technology to help children's learning. And that's why as we take action in some areas, we also have to guard against unintended consequences where technology used well can be transformative in the right hands, with the right tools, with the right, you know, supervision and oversight. AI is going to change a lot of things in education. Some of it actually really positively.

[A]

Well, we saw that in some of the reactions yesterday to the announcement about the ban. And one of the examples was, okay, say you've got a 13 year old child who's obsessed with physics right now, they can go on YouTube, for example, and watch endless lectures by the world's best physicists, which they will get a lot out of when this ban is in place because YouTube's covered by it. That 13 year old physics fan is not going to get that content.

[B]

So I think there are also questions for the platforms in some of this. So we've got for example, YouTube kids that's targeted at younger children where that wouldn't be within the scope of what we're talking about. It's a different kind of platform. I mean if you, if you two want to come up with something that's a, an intermediate option that doesn't allow, that allows that young person who wants to watch history documentaries to continue to watch them, but isn't then getting all of these short reels, that's a different proposition. And also I think it's also true around young children and screens. So we've set out screen time guidance for the under five, so helpful advice to parents about what a good use of screens would look like. So basically with under twos, don't above the age of two an hour a day and try and do it in a way that is interactive with your child, not just giving a child a device and saying get on with it. If a parent wants to sit and watch content with a 13 year old on Second World War or whatever physics documentary, that's a very different kind of proposition to children being allowed unfettered access to strangers, to harmful material, being able to be contacted by people they've never met, we, we've allowed children to be exposed to things inside the home that we just wouldn't allow outside of the home.

[A]

Oh, so basically you would be okay with a mum or a dad or a carer saying, all right, I'll watch that physics video with you on my YouTube account. That I've logged into with my age verification as an over 16 year old.

[B]

I think parents have to make choices about what is also appropriate for their children. I think it's right that government regulates to make sure that as far as possible, children have happy, healthy childhoods without harm. But there is always a rule for parental responsibility in this. It's not to blame parents, it's just to say, look, sometimes parents will be a good judge of what is appropriate for their child. At a different point, I think government has a role to play in setting out those parameters, as we have done with the screen time guidance we've issued for the under fives. But then if a parent wants to sit and watch, you know, see babies with their child for an hour and an evening, who am I to stop them doing that?

[A]

Yeah, because I was gonna say you must feel a little bit of trepid that you're gonna be accused of being the nanny state and kind of going into people's living rooms and telling them how to behave.

[B]

Look, I think there is real support amongst parents for the action that we're taking around social media and the under 16s. This can drift into tricky territory if you're not careful. But I think it's reasonable that government sets out that bigger framework, but alongside that gives parents the practical, helpful advice that they need about how to manage. How to manage in a world where technology is transforming everything about the world of work, education, whole range of different things, and adults are no different to children. And sometimes, you know, being the worst offenders actually where it comes to the use of technology, you know, for example, we, what you're getting at, we're all guilty of it. I mean, I don't, I don't pretend that I'm a saint, but there is an opportunity cost. So if, if as a parent you're spending a lot of time looking at a screen, not with your child, it's not just the child's exposure to screens, it's also your responsibilities as a parent. And I don't say that in a way to be judgmental because I know lots of parents have it really hard. Like, I know it's, it can be really tough being a parent, especially for the first time. And that's why government stepping in where government only can, with providing massive investment and resources into best start family hubs so that there are more free and cheap activities for children and families, more early advice around things like health visitor support. You know, if children are having difficulties around speech and language, being able to access that far more quickly, you know, free rhyme time, stay in play. That's where government needs to step in. Because alongside this big explosion in technology we've seen over the last decade or so, we've also seen a massive contraction in resources and support available to parents. And that's what we're trying to turn around.

[A]

I'm intrigued though that you're hoping or you're saying that one of the spin off benefits of the ban on social media, so the sort of headline thing is that everyone of every age who's got caring responsibilities looks at their own behavior. You're trying to create a new world here with our, with our relationship with screens.

[B]

We do need to look at our own behavior. And if you look at reading, for example. So we'd seen a big drop off in recent years in the number of children reading for pleasure. Actually for the first time in five years that started to increase, which is fantastic because we're in the middle of the national year of reading where we're trying to really change people's experiences. But look, adults spend a lot of time scrolling in the way that in the past they might have been reading or doing other things. So I do think we have to consider how we behave, all of us, and I don't exclude myself from that as we think about what we want for our children. But of course there are differences with children because for lots of reasons we put in place various age limits on certain things because we think they're harmful or not good for children or that they shouldn't be exposed to certain things when they're too young to understand the full context. And that's why it's right that in parallel we also put in place tougher regulation around things like social media.

[A]

Have you discussed this with your own children yet? Because they're, I can't remember exactly what age they are, but I feel they're in scope for this.

[B]

I have and we, my kids follow these quite closely and they like to read what's going on, newspapers and so forth. We have discussed it. You'll appreciate that it's also important that my children, you know, they have privacy, have their own privacy and they don't choose what I do.

[A]

Let's put it another way, having had the conversations with your own children, what, what advice or learnings have you got from how to broach this? The fact that some of their favorite apps like Snapchat are not going to be available to them next year.

[B]

Look, I think it is the right thing to do and it won't be universally popular amongst young people. I think that's safe to say, particularly those who have already got access to certain platforms. But I think what lots of parents are really pleased about is that it will stop other young people getting caught up in that. Younger children who aren't already on those platforms don't already have smartphones. It starts to close that down before they reach that point of it becoming a peer pressure thing. You know, we know that lots of parents will say that they don't want their only child. Sorry, they don't want their child to be the only one in a class that doesn't have this. And you know, lots of schools have taken action on this. We've supported them. Phones have got no place in school. But there are also considerations that parents will have about. They might want their child to have a smartphone so they can keep in touch at the end of the school day, but they might not at the same time want them to be going on social media at too young an age. So that's why the changes we're bringing will strike that right balance. But at the same time, you know, children have drifted into a world where they can see an awful lot online that we wouldn't regard as good for them. In fact, a lot of what they might see, we wouldn't regard as being good or healthy or safe for adults to really be consuming at the same time, when their worlds have often become smaller in terms of their face to face or real world interactions. Now, some of that is because there are fewer opportunities and it's my job and I'm, you know, seeking to massively expand activities like music and sport and art and drama, both in school and around school. But I think also the nature of childhood has changed quite a lot. And in the past, where it was far more usual for children to walk to school by themselves, cycle around on a bike by themselves, go up and

[A]

visit friends, go out all day, come back at tea time.

[B]

Exactly. And there was no means of keeping in touch. You know, phones were not a thing when I was a child. You just had to set a time when you came back and you had certain parameters around that. I think this will allow young people to experience what is important as you grow up, which is understanding boundaries, becoming yourself as an individual, parents having to have a degree of trust about what works and a level of independence, of course, understanding and managing that risk. Yeah, but I think we've, we've ended up in this odd paradox of more exposure at home, in the, in the child's bedroom to quite harmful things and a reduction in the Ability for children to take safe risks as they grow up in their local community. But. And there's good. I understand some of the. I understand why sometimes parents will be nervous, but I think we've got to allow children to be children and that doesn't just mean taking things away and we do need to act, but it means opening up other possibilities.

[A]

Well, yeah, for example, you can't say, go out and play now that you've got loads of time sa from looking at Instagram when you still also have knife crime. So, yeah, I get, I get that point. What I can't stop thinking about is, are we going to have this generation? And I can't quite work out what ages they are, but a generation of people who are sort of entering their teens now, who've been exposed to a lot of social media, a lot of bad stuff and, well, they always will have been. That generation will now just get older and older and older. And so the generation before them didn't have it. The generation below, younger than them won't have it as a result of this. And then you have this sort of like cursed generation who've had to put up with all of this stuff.

[B]

I hope not. Yeah, I hope not. And I think it is sometimes hard to understand the impact and the evidence in isolation. So I think the emerging evidence is clear about the impact of long term, you know, extensive exposure of young children to screens. It is becoming increasingly clear that there are downsides to that that have, whether it's speech and language development, children's ability to regulate much more besides. But that's emerging and it's not a totally clear picture. However, if we waited until that point, it could well be too late. That's part of the challenge. I think it's also important.

[A]

Oh, so you acknowledge that the evidence isn't a slam dunk yet you kind of do this, doing this as a precautionary thing?

[B]

I think, yes, the evidence. I think the evidence may only become slam dunk at the point at which we've gone past a point that we've gone past the point of no return. And that's part of the trouble. Certainly the approach we took around the advice to parents on screen time and the under fives was very much on the basis of the precautionary approach and the precautionary principle, which I think is right, given that we're talking about our youngest children and that. And there is no, there is no harm that comes of being allowed to have less time on a screen when you're very young, I don't see the harm that comes of that. But we know there could be potential long term consequences of being allowed to have too much time on devices. So the evidence isn't absolutely slam dunk. And we can't separate this out from, I think, some of the wider experiences the children have had in recent years and some of the other areas of concern that I have about how we've moved as a society. You know, the big expansion, you know, the huge kind of growth of child poverty, the numbers that we see, that has a big and devastating impact on children's life chances. And if you live in a community where there isn't very much in terms of wider opportunity or where you don't feel that you belong, you don't feel that you're going to achieve very much, and you don't feel that there are good opportunities around work and where you move beyond school, then of course you feel hopeless. And then that online world can kind of step in and actually make things worse. But it's not the only factor. So alongside the action we're taking on social media, that has to be coupled with more opportunities for young people, which we are delivering alongside tackling child poverty, where we've got the most ambitious agenda of any government, even more ambitious than the last Labour government in bringing down those numbers, and a much bigger focus on family support, on making sure that parents when their children are young, feel well supported and that their children are able to thrive. So it has to be all of that together. A social media ban alone is not going to fix every problem that every young person in this country is experiencing at the moment.

[A]

Well, I'm just thinking, you must have seen the clip that went viral yesterday of the, of the girl in Lancashire going, oh, I did nine hours of screen time at the weekend and my colleague says, and what will you do with the nine hours you just got? She goes, stare at a wall. I mean she's obviously that's a joke, but you realize that's then a lot of extra hours to fill and some of the stuff that you're talking about there, music lessons or access to culture, that's, that's a few hours, isn't it? There's now going to be like a big job of filling those kids time.

[B]

I thought she was brilliant. I thought she was really, really deadpan and it like comedy career back ends. Yeah, I thought she was, I thought it, I thought it was both insightful but also the delivery. She, she's got a great career ahead of her, I'm sure There is that and not. And I don't think government shouldn't seek to fill every hour of a young person's life with, with activities. I mean, there is, there is obviously a dimension here where if you're from a less well off background, you're less likely to have those opportunities. And that's why I think it is important that whoever you are and wherever you live, you have access to music, to sport, to cultural activities, and also that you've got parents who've got enough money to do some of that with you. A trip to the beach, an ice cream in the park, all of the things that make family life and childhood such a joyful experience, or at least should be a joyful experience. Equally, there is nothing wrong with kids being bored. That is also an important part of growing up. If you're bored, go and find something to do. And I don't say that dismissively for young people where that is more limited, but actually go and find something to do. Be a little bit bored.

[A]

You know, as a mum and I know as an uncle, although my niece and nephew are now too old for this. But that dealing with the bored child and finding something for them to do can be quite taxing.

[B]

It can be, but it does them no harm to be told. Go and find something to do.

[A]

What would you do when you were bored? I bet you read, I bet you were never bored because you probably always had a book to read.

[B]

I mean, I did read, but actually much of my childhood, or particularly my teenage years, we used to just wander around the town. You know, we sometimes will see young people where they're hanging around and sometimes that can be intimidating or it can be not with good intention. If we see a group of young people, we think, what are they up to? And I appreciate for older residents it can't, it can be intimidating. Equally. We leave the house, I'd go meet my friends, we'd wander around for hours, we'd hang around the park, we'd go and buy some chips, we'd go to the shopping center, we'd go up on my friend's house, I'd get on my bike, I'd cycle to my grandparents, I'd be out all day. No mobile phone. I knew when I had to be back by and I knew where to go if there were problems. And that was done in a way where it was understood what, what was within my. In a way that was age appropriate. And you also have to take a judgment as a parent as to the level of maturity of your child. Also how if you. You would need to feel confident that they could respond if something went wrong. So where would they go for help if they ran into trouble? And that's important too. But these are quite important rites of passage, actually. Growing in independence and.

[A]

Yeah. Learning to be bored. Yeah. I mean, maybe some journalists could do with that.

[B]

And I think learning. Understanding who you are as a person and learning how to. How to kind of deal with a world that is. That can be quite frightening for young people, but that with the right boundaries and right support around you from your parents, you can start to learn to navigate that world. And I think for young people, and this was the point earlier about their experiences and they're a generation that have grown up with social media, that's true. But they're also a generation that came of age during the pandemic when lots of the experiences that were normal for children, meeting up with friends, you know, going to a cafe, whatever it might be, meeting up in the town centre, that wasn't allowed. You couldn't do that. And schools were closed for extended periods to many children. So it has been quite a fraught time for lots of young people. I do think we need to recognise that the impact that has had and actually continues to have for children and for families.

[A]

I'm thinking back to the pandemic and do you remember when you were in opposition and do you remember Boris Johnson had commissioned that piece of work about catching up? And what was the guy's name again?

[B]

Kevin Collins.

[A]

Kevin Collins, yes. And he resigned because the government wasn't willing to stump up the billions that he thought were necessary to get that generation back on track. Looking back, do you think actually the response to picking those children up and helping them recover from the pandemic was, to use the Scottish word, pee wee, not effective enough.

[B]

It wasn't good enough. Although I'm delighted.

[A]

And you're also part of the response as well, because it's overlapped.

[B]

Yeah. And Kevin Collins now works with me in the Department for Education, so he's working with me.

[A]

I can.

[B]

Yeah, he's working with me every day. So I think there are two things. The response wasn't good enough, but it actually wasn't just the response in terms of educational recovery. I think if ever we end up in a situation like that again, why is it took so long to open playgrounds? Why did we not prioritize children, children's well being and children's life chances in the way that we should have done? And there is emerging evidence through the inquiry as to how we failed to take children's needs seriously at that time. Why did women have to, you know, give birth alone and all of that? It was a really tough time for lots of people. But I think on the, on the kind of wider catch up side, one of the key areas that Kevin Collins identified was the length of the school day as being a barrier to some of that. And whilst this, what I'm about to say is not quite the same thing, we are rolling out free breakfast clubs across the country. That means when we get to the end of the parliament and every single primary school in our country has a breakfast club, that's an extra 30 minutes of childcare for parents. It's another 30 minutes where children can be with their friends, have a breakfast, have that soft start to the day. It's not mandatory, of course it isn't, but it is, it is in effect an extension of the school day, which was something that Kevin argued for at the time. And if money were no object and if I had a magic wand.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Then I think there is this question about what we try to cramming into quite a constrained period of time.

[A]

Because what I was getting at was you've now had two years and I'm just wondering. And that means you've got a record to reflect on. And I'm just wondering if you look back and think, oh, we should have done more sooner. And okay, people might love breakfast clubs and they're not for free, so there's money being spent on them. But actually, should you have done more because it was such a crisis for that group of children?

[B]

I mean, we have done a huge amount both in terms of investment in school and around school. You know, Lisa and Andy's been doing brilliant work around the national youth Strategy, around expanding opportunities for young people. So we've got a strong record on that. But of course, by 2024, the pandemic had, you know, things had moved on and decisions that could have been taken weren't taken. Now, I don't say that just to make a partisan point. I think the last government could have done more to invest in education at that stage. But, but I think there is also just a bigger question for all of us as a country where if in future we end up in this kind of situation, how do we really make sure we think seriously about the impact on children? And we didn't. And that's, that's not just about one political party, it's about our approach as a whole society in recognizing the impact that can be had when children don't have what they need when they're younger. And that's not just about school. It's also, you know, we reopen pubs before we reopen playgrounds. I mean, I'm all for supporting the hospitality industry, but I also think kids should be able to go and go to a playground, especially if they don't have a garden at home.

[A]

Just going back to what you said about breakfast clubs and lengthening the school day and do we cram too much into quite a short period of time? Is there an argument for an even longer school day?

[B]

I mean, there is, but it also costs an awful lot of money.

[A]

So what the argument are you on?

[B]

Well, if money were no object, I know what I would do. But that's not the world in which we live.

[A]

Oh, in an ideal world, when would school finish, then? 6. 6:30?

[B]

I think that's a bit. It's a bit much. But you would certainly. I think you wouldn't necessarily just use that time for the kind of. The traditional academic side of things. You would also make sure that you're able to allow, you know, for wider opportunities for young people as a part of that. This. This is a distant. A distant dream because the costs are phenomenal and we face big challenges at the moment about. Around making sure that we invest more in our schools than we are and there is more to do. But, you know, Kevin Collins, who's a, you know, a brilliant, you know, who is brilliant and has looked at all of the evidence, there is a very strong case for it. Of course there is, but that's not something. Not something, sadly, I can fund at the moment.

[A]

Right. A few other things. Just before you came into the studio, John Healy was doing his resignation statement in the House of Commons. So that traditional thing that people can choose to do after they resigned from the Cabinet, he said the government should be aiming to spend 3% of GDP, so the whole economy on defence by 2030. Is he right? Because that is more ambitious than the government's current target.

[B]

So, as you say, I haven't seen it, because I was coming here when John was making that speech. I think we all recognise that there is a need to spend more on defence above and beyond what we've already committed to. So we're already committed to the biggest. The kind of. Biggest levels of defence spending since the Cold War.

[A]

Yeah, that's the bit that's already been done. That's already been done about 3% in 2030.

[B]

And there's more to come. I mean, those discussions are underway as to Both the extent of the funding and the timescales around that. That's not something I'm closely involved in. That's not my. That's not my rule. But yes, we do need to spend more. But I will leave it to others to consider those questions around level and pace.

[A]

You wouldn't say 3% by 2030?

[B]

Look, this is for. This is for other colleagues across government to resolve and we are intent on bringing forward the defence investment plan and setting out the further investment that will come. But I do think it is important to recognise, and I'm sure that John himself obviously recognises because he delivered this and did a brilliant job as Defence Secretary in getting defence spending up to levels that we haven't seen since the Cold War.

[A]

And in your department, have you had to cut or trim your capital budget so that that money can be reallocated to defence in future?

[B]

Yes, I've made sure that my department makes our contribution to this. I believe that it is the right thing to do to make sure that we're spending more on defence and alongside the big capital program that we have, to rebuild schools across our country. And I believe we can do both of those things.

[A]

What have you had to give up?

[B]

That will be published in the fullness of time. But I'm confident in what we have agreed to. It is the right thing to do for the country, but alongside that, it will still allow us to deliver a really ambitious program of renewal of our schools and colleges.

[A]

Although it was interesting over the weekend, Lisa Nandi, when she was chatting to Laura on Sunday morning, said, oh, or she suggested that maybe there was going to be another go at funding this defense investment plan and maybe there'd be another round of can we find even more money for this? But it sounds like that's not what's happening. It sounds like the settlement was done a couple of weeks ago or a week ago and it's closed now.

[B]

I'm not closely involved in these discussions, but what I would.

[A]

They're not asked you to find more money.

[B]

What I would imagine is happening is that Dan Jarvis is the new Defence Secretary. Will want to look, take a careful look at all of this, which is if I were in his position, that's exactly what I want to do.

[A]

Okay. Keir Starmer, your boss, is at the G7 summit in France. He has said again today that basically he would stand and fight in any future leadership contest. I won't try and catch you out because you're an experienced politician, but if the Prime Minister is fighting a leadership Contest because one has been launched. And it's bad for him, it's bad for the country, it's bad for your party. Would you think it would be a good idea if that. He did stand and fight.

[B]

So there's a lot of hypotheticals that we'll have to overcome before we get to that point. And that's. I know that's what you were getting at with the first part of your question. Look, Keir Starmer secured a huge win for us as Prime Minister. As Labour leader and then Prime Minister in July 2024, he secured that mandate and the trust of the British people to deliver all of the things that we said we would do during that election campaign. And he has my support to keep doing that. There isn't a contest. I don't want there to be a contest. And I hope that we can get on with focusing on delivering what people voted for. But in the event there is a contest, I think it's a perfectly reasonable proposition that Keir Starmer would seek to fight that. I mean, why wouldn't he? You know, he was the Labour leader who took us to a big election victory. And he will feel, I imagine, that he has a mandate to continue to drive things forward.

[A]

And would you support him in that contest?

[B]

The Prime Minister, Kih continues to have my support. It's a tough old job being Prime Minister, as you say. He's off at the G7 at the moment, making sure that whether it's on Ukraine defence investment, that we're doing what is right by the country. And I have never had cause to question his motivation, the intention behind what he's seeking to do. Have we got things wrong as a government? Yes, we all have. And of course, that is about the Prime Minister. He's the leader of our party in the country. He holds responsibility for that and he takes that incredibly seriously. But we all do. We've all got responsibility and actually making this government work more effectively and doing things better as a Labour government.

[A]

Right. We've run out of time. But just to end where we began, I was at the cinema the other day there, and the trailer for Toy Story 5 came on. Do you know who the baddie is in the new Toy Story?

[B]

Big Tech.

[A]

It's a tablet.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

So basically, Pixar are making your case for you.

[B]

There we are. I mean, I think this probably reflects

[A]

a bit of a society shift.

[B]

A bit of a shift, Yeah, I think it probably does.

[A]

Because actually, three years ago, the tablet wouldn't have been the baddie, would they? They'd be on the goodies side. Just as another toy.

[B]

No, but just to be slightly boring about this.

[A]

Have you seen it?

[B]

I haven't thought you're going to.

[A]

Correct.

[B]

I haven't seen it. Mostly my kids are a bit too big for me to have to go watch this now. But look, it's not the tablet, it's the use of the tablet.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

So if you are, you know, using it for good educational purposes, overseen by a teacher, that's not the same thing as being sat doomscrolling. So, yeah, I think we do need to just be slightly careful that as we take action on the things that we worry about, we don't lose sight of the benefits that can come of technology where done properly.

[A]

Well, thanks for coming into the newscast studio.

[B]

Thank you.

[C]

I'm Jake Stauch, co founder and CEO of Cervel. We built Serval to automate the IT work that slows companies down. Onboarding, password resets, accessed applications. My laptop stopped working. While employees wait for help, their real work is put on hold. It desperately wants to automate this work and that's why they need Serval. You just tell Serval what you want to automate in plain English and it's built. No drag and drop workflows, no expensive consultants. Employees get unblocked and IT teams go from drowning in tickets to building what actually matters. With Cerval, it becomes the AI engineering powering the entire company. This is a new way to run it. We guarantee you'll automate 50% of all tickets and we'll prove it to you in a free four week pilot. Go to cervel.comtickets that's S E R V A L.com tickets.

[A]

Who's actually won the Iran war?

[B]

I'm Tristan Redman. And I'm Asmaa Khalid and together we host the Global Story podcast from BBC. The US and Iran say they've struck a deal to end the war.

[A]

But a key question is what's actually

[B]

been achieved by nearly four months of fighting?

[A]

And is the situation better, worse or

[B]

the same for the region and Iran? For the full story, check out the global story on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

[A]

So that was my conversation with Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, which we recorded at about 2 o' clock on Tuesday. Here are my main takeaways. First of all, we should note she was very, very loyal to the Prime Minister about a future leadership contest. And not all of her Cabinet colleagues have been that loyal when they've been asked the question. The other point was she was a bit more nuanced in her views about children and social media and screens than the government was when they announced their ban on social media on Monday. So I just wonder if that policy and the government's view and actually the conversation we have about this stuff is going to be tweaked a little bit before the ban comes into force in spring next year. And also, it's very clear she would like the school day to be longer so that pupils can spend more time with their teachers, with their peers, doing music, drama activities, sport trips, learning, you name it. But she admitted she can't do that because the government doesn't have the money. And some people might say, well, then why did you stand on a manifesto in the last general election of not putting up taxes if actually there's really big ambitious stuff you wanted to do but you can't pay for? So I hope you agree. That was an intriguing and expansive conversation with Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, here

[B]

on newscast, newscast, newscast from the BBC. From one newscaster to another, thank you so much for making it to the end of this episode. You clearly do, in the words of Chris Mason, ooze stamina. Can I also gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds? Tell everyone you know and don't forget, you can email us [e-mail] or if you're that way inclined, send us a WhatsApp on 33123 9480. Be assured, I promise, we listen to everyone.

[A]

Who's actually won the Iran war.

[B]

I'm Tristan Redman. And I'm Asma Khalid. And together we host the Global Story Podcast from the BBC. The US and Iran say they've struck a deal to end the war, but

[A]

a key question is what's actually been

[B]

achieved by nearly four months of fighting,

[A]

and is the situation better, worse or

[B]

the same for the region and Iran? For the full story, check out the global story on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.