Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, this has been a very helpful debate. It may have been short, but in no way does that indicate the level of importance that the Committee attaches to these issues. I cannot stress enough how sympathetic I am to the thinking behind these provisions. Equality and inclusiveness will be important to the work of the QCDA and Ofqual, as for all other public bodies. On Amendments 249, 250 and 254—I hope I have mentioned the correct amendments as my list is slightly muddled—as your Lordships well know, the Equality Bill is now being considered in another place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who spoke very eloquently on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Low, will be aware, we will consider that Bill in the next Session, as I believe that it is a carry-over Bill. That Bill updates the legal framework for equality which has developed piecemeal over the past 40 years. I strongly welcome that Bill, which I think this House will enjoy looking at forensically. This amendment gives me the opportunity to say that one of the major new aspects of the Equality Bill—I do not wish to pre-empt its arrival—is the introduction of a single public sector equality duty, as we have heard. This will build on the current race, disability and gender equality duties. These general duties will require all public authorities, including the QCDA and Ofqual—once they are established—to have regard to eliminating discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advancing equality of opportunity—the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed to that—and fostering good relations between people in disadvantaged groups. We are consulting on the exact nature of the specific public duties. I believe that these amendments are unnecessary, as both bodies will have specific duties under the Equality Bill. Moreover, the amendments, if accepted, could be potentially damaging. If Parliament considered it necessary to make explicit the equality objectives of these two bodies, it could be taken to imply that the proposed Equality Bill provisions were somehow inadequate for those bodies which did not have such specific objectives. That is a rather dry explanation but it is important to make that point. However, that is not the case, and I do not believe that noble Lords would want to imply that. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, questioned the appropriateness of the public confidence objective when there is no equality objective. Public confidence is central to an effective qualifications system. If people doubt the value of qualifications, they will have limited value and students with disabilities, as much as other students, will suffer as a result. Of course, public confidence must be well founded. Two things are important here and Ofqual must do both of them. It must ensure that standards are maintained, including, where appropriate, ensuring that adjustments are made for people with disabilities, and it must demonstrate to people that standards have been maintained. One without the other would be inadequate. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked if there was a conflict between the public confidence objective and a duty in the Equality Bill. I am advised—I thought that this was the case—that, to put it in colloquial terms, a duty will trump an objective. That is a strong line. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether the objectives of the DDA could be met without this amendment. The DDA already applies to qualifications, as the noble Lord would expect. I would be happy to discuss this matter further with noble Lords before Report. I or a ministerial colleague would welcome the opportunity to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Low, the issues that the noble Baroness has raised. I know that the QCA and the interim Ofqual have worked closely on these issues with disability groups, including the RNIB. I am sure that we can offer more reassurance. I value the opportunity to discuss these important issues in Committee.