"No other amendment to the bill on this topic has the same cross-party support or would deliver promptly the change needed to get children off social media. While well intentioned, they [other amendments] do not send a clear signal that social media is harmful for children, nor do they do as much to support parents. Amendment 94a is the clearest and most straightforward proposal that meets the scale of the problem and the urgency parents are demanding."
"On behalf of the millions of parents we represent through our polling and campaigning, we ask you to encourage your peers in the House of Lords to support amendment 94a. This is a moment for leadership. Parents are asking for help and parliament now has a chance to provide it to protect childhood. Together we could make a real difference."
"Members of the House of Lords will have an opportunity to have their say on an outright ban when they vote on the amendment brought by Lord Nash. The amendment has the support of some Labour peers, and if it passes in the Lords it would then be debated in the Commons, where 61 Labour MPs recently wrote to the prime minister urging him to bring in a ban."
Hugh Grant, Sophie Winkleman and Esther Ghey are among signatories urging Westminster party leaders to back amendment 94a to the children's wellbeing and schools bill to ban social media for under-16s. Parentkind polling found 93% of parents think social media is harmful to children and young people. The letter says amendment 94a has cross-party support and would promptly remove children from social media while better supporting parents. Members of the House of Lords will vote on an amendment from Lord Nash; if passed it would be debated in the Commons where 61 Labour MPs recently urged the prime minister to introduce a ban. The technology secretary said the government's consultation would take a few months.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]