[column-group][column]Harriet is absolutely right: despite Theresa May’s warm words on equality, we should not forget that she has been instrumental in halting the implementation of Labour’s Equality Act and ditching Section One in its entirety. As prime minister, she must be held to account and challenged to make her actions match her rhetoric.

The Equality Act was one of the most transformative and radical pieces of legislation passed by any Labour government. May described Section One as ‘ridiculous’ – a far cry from her recent speeches! Had the duty been implemented, this government would have found it much harder to enact its assault on the poor.

Class remains one of the best indicators of educational attainment; less academically able but better-off children overtake more able but poorer children by the age of six. New grammar schools would be unlikely to pass the test of a duty to consider the poorest in society. Class is also a better indicator of life expectancy than gender, with richer men outliving poorer women since the 1980s.

Recognising the link between poverty and social disadvantage in law would be not only a symbolic victory, it would have a material impact on the allocation of resources in tough times.

There could be no better rebuttal of the claims that Labour became complacent about the wealth gap than to champion Section One, demonstrating what Labour winning and in government can achieve.

Calum Sherwood is a social researcher and Labour party member[/column][column]
Labour’s founding aim is to create a more equal society. Given that huge inequalities set in before children even reach primary school, that mission starts at birth. Putting a duty on public bodies to consider how they reduce inequality caused by social disadvantage, as the Equality Act does, would logically lead to greater investment in early years education.

Poverty affects children’s brain development, much of which happens before the age of three. Research by Save the Children found that nearly 80 per cent of the difference in GCSE results between rich and poor teenagers had been determined by the age of seven. By ensuring their services give every child the best start in life, no matter their background, councils and government departments can reduce the attainment gap between rich and poor children.

It makes long-term financial sense, too, saving money that would otherwise be spent on reading recovery, job schemes and welfare.

Theresa May’s first speech as prime minister focused on inequality. She must now show conviction and implement Section One. In an era of tight budgets, politics more than ever is about priorities. The priority has to be investing in early years and breaking the cycle of deprivation that prevents people fulfilling their potential.

Bex Bailey is a former youth rep on Labour’s National Executive Committee[/column][/column-group]