Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)

As we turn to the amendments in group 11, which are, of course, on educational technology, I thank noble Lords for their focus during this debate on safety, effectiveness and fairness. The Government share these aims. We want schools and parents to have confidence in the tools being used and innovation that supports learning while protecting pupils’ data and well-being. We are clear that technology used in our schools must support learning and children’s development. It must not expose children to harm, undermine trust or operate without appropriate safeguards. The question before the House is not whether action is required—action is already under way—but how we ensure that protections are robust and enforceable and can keep pace with rapid technological change. I turn first to Amendment 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, and Amendment 238, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which seek to strengthen assurance that education technology is safe, effective and permitted for use in schools through the introduction of a statutory mechanism. At this point, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for the work that he was talking about with DfE to develop important new qualifications, which we are grateful for and which the Government will certainly want to maximise the use of. However, the amendments before us address that concern—the concern about whether tech is safe and effective—in a way that the Government do not believe is appropriate and cannot support, because they do it by treating safety and educational effectiveness as the same regulatory question when they are not. There is a clear distinction between product safety and pedagogical efficacy, and it is essential that we respond to each in the right way. If a tool is not safe, it should not be used in schools at all. That is why we have already introduced robust safety standards for generative AI, which will set clear expectations for tech companies to follow. That said, providing clarity for schools is key, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for providing additional information on this point earlier this week. We are committed to going further, and we are therefore considering the benefits of consulting on a certification scheme to apply to generative AI tools in education. Product safety cannot be achieved through a rushed government-compiled register but must be delivered through legally robust and independent certification. Educational effectiveness is different. Whether a tool improves learning is not a universal yes or no question, and it cannot be certified in the same way as safety. What works will vary by age group, subject, setting and approach, and it will evolve over time as the technology itself develops. Attempting to fix this through rigid certification risks undermining professional judgment and stifling innovation without delivering better outcomes for children. That is why we are working with AI and education experts on new benchmarks for AI use in education, including tests to make sure that products meet national expectations for pedagogy. Our EdTech Evidence Board is developing a clear, publishable framework for assessing effectiveness, including expectations on pedagogy, evidence, outcomes, equity and inclusion, and clarity for schools. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for clarifying the intent of his Amendment 227 by stating that he was looking for a minimum list of approved tools. I believe that our work on evidence will precisely support that aim. We are also investing £23 million to expand the edtech test bed into a four-year programme to test technology and AI tools in real classroom settings with independent evaluation. This approach provides schools and colleges with confidence in what works without locking them into a static list. Our aim is to establish a credible pedagogical bar that is fair to suppliers, usable for schools and capable of evolving, rather than a rigid statutory regime that would quickly fall behind technological change. Amendment 239, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, focuses on filtering and monitoring systems and seeks to increase confidence, through certification, that products used in schools are effective and appropriate. As I noted in Committee, schools are already expected to have filtering and monitoring systems in place through the Keeping Children Safe in Education framework. However, we agree that more can be done to provide clarity and confidence. I am therefore pleased to confirm that the Government will consult on a scheme to certify filtering and monitoring products used in schools, which would reinforce safety standards and allow schools to be confident that products are aligned with them. Alongside this, we have strengthened our guidance to make it clear that filtering solutions must be designed so that illegal blocklists cannot be disabled, overridden or altered. Consulting will allow us to develop a certification scheme that is proportionate and effective in education settings. We therefore do not feel that a statutory obligation is necessary at this stage. Amendment 236, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raises concerns about on-screen homework and proposes a parental right to exemption. We share the principle that no child should be disadvantaged due to a lack of access to devices, but we remain clear that decisions about homework are best made by schools in partnership with families and reflecting local circumstances. Many schools already work closely with parents to understand access issues and provide alternatives where needed. We do not have evidence to suggest that legislating in this way would be proportionate or beneficial. There has been considerable debate about screen time, but it is important not to conflate personal and educational use. When applied well, education technology can improve outcomes and accessibility and help pupils, including neurodiverse children, to engage more confidently. The aim is not more screen time but better learning delivered safely. The Government’s recent announcement of £1.6 million for assistive technology lending libraries reflects this commitment to inclusion, particularly for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. I turn to Amendment 235, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on the reception baseline assessment. We share the belief that assessment should be appropriate and fair. However, a blanket prohibition or rigid requirement in primary legislation would remove needed flexibility, including where digital approaches support accessibility while non-digital options still remain available. As we discussed at some length in Committee, the reception baseline assessment includes some digital elements, but it also uses verbal responses and small toys, with no expectation of prior screen use; a paper-based version remains available in exceptional cases. The revised version has been in development since 2018 and was trialled extensively with pupils during that time. It has been in general use since September, and we have received positive feedback from teachers on pupil engagement. For these reasons, a restrictive legislative approach is not necessary, and the proposed timescales would be impractical and expensive. Amendment 234, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure that secondary education exams are completed by hand rather than with a digital device, subject to specific exceptions. Ofqual is currently consulting on how on-screen exams should be regulated. It is proposing a highly controlled and limited introduction, with rigorous safeguards. The vast majority of exams would still be with pen and paper. Each exam board could submit proposals to introduce a maximum of two new on-screen specifications, but not in the highest-entry subjects. We have worked closely with Ofqual to consider the potential benefits and risks. Ofqual has also published the evidence base that has informed its consultation. Research shows that on-screen exams may deliver a range of potential benefits over the long term, including improving assessment validity, accessibility and efficiency. We therefore remain of the view that it is not appropriate to fix a highly restrictive policy position in legislation, but of course we encourage interested parties to respond to Ofqual’s consultation. Finally, Amendment 240 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, seeks to require the Information Commissioner’s Office to produce an edtech code of practice for children’s data. We fully agree on the importance of strong protections for children’s data. At Second Reading of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology confirmed that the Information Commissioner would be required to publish codes of practice for AI and automated decision-making, followed by a dedicated edtech code, and this sequencing is deliberate. Developing the AI code first will inform the edtech code, providing greater clarity and coherence for organisations, schools and families. Accelerating the edtech code ahead of this work would risk duplication and confusion rather than strengthening protections. I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on 16 December to confirm that regulations will be laid requiring the Information Commissioner to produce these codes, beginning with the AI code and followed by the edtech code. I am pleased that work on the AI code is already in progress. I am also aware that DSIT officials have been in touch with the noble Baroness to discuss the development of the regulations that will require the ICO to prepare the AI code, and we would welcome her support in getting those regulations right. We share the same aims, but we do not believe that legislating in the way proposed would deliver better outcomes for children or schools. The Government’s approach is proportionate, evidence-led and capable of adapting as technology evolves. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.