Theresa May shelves 'equality duty' on councils Theresa May gives her speech

It is a very sad day for people who are suffering from hate crimes when we have a recession with the likelihood of loss of jobs and increase of violent crimes at a time when the government will drop Labour's proposed law requiring councils to tackle social deprivation.

Mrs May described the clause as a "politically motivated target" which could have skewed public funding.

About 90% of the Equality Act came into force in October, the rest is being reviewed by the government.

Labour's Yvette Cooper said the move was a "licence to abandon the hardest pressed in society".

The "social-economic duty", part of predecessor Harriet Harman's Equalities Bill, had been opposed by the Tories in opposition.

The law gives public bodies in England and Wales, including councils and health authorities, a new social-economic duty.

For example, health trusts would be required to target services, such as stop-smoking clinics, at people in deprived areas - where smoking rates tend to be higher.

Education authorities would be expected to come up with policies which prevent children from poorer backgrounds from missing out on places at the best schools.

But critics had dubbed it "socialism in one clause".

'Ridiculous and simplistic'

In her first big speech on equality, Mrs May, who is also home secretary, said the clause she dubbed "Harman's law" could have led to public spending being skewed.

Bin collections and bus routes would have had to be designed "not on the basis of practical need but on this one politically-motivated target", she said.

Mrs May said: "You can't solve a problem as complex as inequality in one legal clause.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

Just as cuts are about to strike, the government is removing protection for those on the lowest income who are likely to be hit hardest”

End Quote Yvette Cooper Shadow equalities minister

"The idea that they could was symptomatic of Labour's approach to Britain's problems. They thought they could make people's lives better by simply passing a law saying that they should be made better.

"This was as ridiculous as it was simplistic. And that's why I'm announcing today that we are scrapping Harman's law for good."

She added: "We shouldn't just compensate people for the barriers to opportunity that they face, we should take action to tear down those barriers altogether."

Mrs May also said there were plans to allow people with old convictions for consensual gay sex to apply for their record to be deleted from the police national computer.

And she said the right to request flexible working would be extended to everyone - not just parents and carers.

But she did not confirm whether the government would go ahead with Labour's plans to require employers to disclose whether they pay women as much as men. She said there would be an announcement on that in the future - but she said the pay gap for full-time women employees remained at over 12%.

Equality campaigners the Fawcett Society said failing to bring in the powers would be "tantamount to endorsing the shocking gender pay gap".

And shadow equality minister Yvette Cooper criticised the move to scrap the social-economic duty on councils as "shocking". She said: "Just as cuts are about to strike, the government is removing protection for those on the lowest income who are likely to be hit hardest.

"It makes a mockery of any pretence these cuts will be fair."

Must try harder: Cameron gets C- for his trip to China

Article by Sonny Leong Chair For Chinese For Labour

Cameron’s recent trip to China, using diplomacy to promote business is hardly new. British Embassies and High Commissions throughout the world have always promoted trade and her diplomats speak with abundant pride in assisting British companies do business in new markets. Their market intelligence, local knowledge of customs and culture is far superior to any private organisations.

Among the 50 strong delegation who accompanied David Cameron to China is a distinct absence of Chinese names. British Chinese businesses in the UK is flourishing and doing big business in China – property development, food technology, health care and travel and tourism, some with multimillion pound turnover, which could have opened more doors culturally and in terms of political and economic strategy. This was a lost opportunity.

The list is dominated by the CEOs of blue chip companies, where many of these already have regional offices in China and hardly needed this extra trade boost – would the £750 million Rolls-Royce and the £45m deal to export breeding pigs really not have happened anyway?

Britain does not make many of the goods China or any developing countries are interested in. If they want machine tools or engineering expertise, they will look to Germany or Japan, if they want wines, perfume or agricultural knowhow they will look to France. In fact, Britain sells less to China than Italy!

Chinese policymakers raised concerns during the visit about the government’s plans to introduce a cap on immigration. They fear it could limit visas for business executives and the 85,000 Chinese students in Britain. This is in stark contrast to Cameron offering India a say on plans for Britain’s new immigration policy when he visited India in July. We wait to see whether the Prime Minister will relax immigration rules to Chinese investors, employees and students.

So, what does China want from us? We are good in services – legal, financial, education, creative industries and of course, our world class retail shops.

A single trip coupled with all the noise and column inches in the media will not win the trade billions the Prime Minister is after. This is a long haul – trust and respect – two essential ingredients needed in any business relationships in the Middle Kingdom.

We also need to educate our people in the way China does business – language, culture, respect and customs. Mandarin classes should be encouraged and taught in schools. We expect overseas CEO’s or their representatives speak to us in English why shouldn’t the Chinese expect the same in Mandarin. Understanding Chinese companies’ corporate management structure is a challenge in itself – the most senior person or general secretary is not necessarily the most senior executive!

It is often said that the Chinese never forget, especially when criticised in public – “face saving” or “losing face” is in every Chinese genes – so be prepared to be cold shouldered if you offend the Chinese.

When Cameron said “we don’t know what is going to happen with Iran [and] we can’t be certain of the future in China”, this will be noticed by the Chinese. To talk about China – a permanent member of the Security Council – in the same breath as a rogue state like Iran – is an insult to the people of China.

The 2010 Queen’s Speech referred to an “enhanced partnership with India”, it made no specific reference to China – this must have agitated Beijing.

Therefore, has Cameron been ‘cold shouldered’ by Premier Wen Jiabao when he called Cameron’s major business delegation trip to China “fruitful”. This is hardly a ringing endorsement.

In coded language, Cameron told his audience at Peking University that, democracy and civil rights were the best guarantor of prosperity and stability. Every country tries to lecture China on human rights but these won’t suddenly materialise while half the Chinese population and members of its civil institutions still don’t know what human rights mean.

These countries forget that they had many centuries developing those values and norms. China is still a relatively ‘young’ country. First they have to develop their basic institutional structures, lift the social economic standards of its people, and have the resources in place before they can adopt these values. China will do things their way and no amount of lecturing will change the status quo. We need to be patient and not expect immediate social transformations.

Cancelling bilateral DFID aid to China which seems a perverse attitude to a country we are seeking so hard to influence, and when we are talking about modest amounts of money sent to underdeveloped regions where some very good work has done.

Germany, Japan followed by France are the largest donor countries, is it any wonder that these countries are the biggest beneficiaries of China’s economic boom.

Like any good salesman, Cameron must totalled the volume of business generated from this trip. Other than those announced earlier, a paltry sum of £2 million of new business is hardly much to shout about. This must hurt compared to when Hu Jintao, the Chinese President signed agreements on deals worth $20 billion when he visited Paris earlier this year.

All he gets for this China trip is a C-, must try harder.