A Labour shadow minister was left floundering after being challenged over Sir Keir Starmer’s controversial attack on Rishi Sunak over child sex abusers.
In tense exchanges on BBC Radio 4 Today shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry was told Mr Starmer had been a member of the body that set the existing rules that say not all such offenders should be locked up.
Pressed three times to say if Mr Starmer had objected when the decision was made she said she didn’t know.
Interviewer Justin Webb pointed out that former director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Starmer, was a member of the “sentencing council” that set the guidelines in 2012 that he is now attacking Mr Sunak for.
After repeatedly trying to avoid answering Ms Thornberry said: “I wasn’t at the meeting and I don’t know what you are talking about.”
She came under further pressure after saying Labour would lock up all child sex offenders – but would not build more prisons.
When it was suggested that voters would “see through” Labour’s stance on the issue, Ms Thornberry denied it was contradictory stating: “We are a party of optimism.”
Ms Thornberry was also forced to admit she did not know what proportion of child sex offenders are jailed.
The clash came after Mr Starmer said he “stands by every word” of a Labour advert claiming Rishi Sunak does not believe all child sex abusers should go to prison.
He said he had “absolutely zero apologies” for a campaign that has attracted widespread criticism, including from within his own party.
How the exchange unfolded
The confrontation between Webb and Thornberry started when Webb asked her: ‘The sentencing guidelines suggest not all child sex abuse offenders should get an automatic prison sentence. Those are the guidelines set down by the relevant institution, the Sentencing Council. Sir Keir Starmer was a member of that institution when it set down those guidelines. Did he object at the time?’
(Ms Thornberry tries to avoid replying).
Webb: ‘Did he object at the time?’
Thornberry: ‘I wasn’t at the meeting and I don’t know what you are talking about.’
Webb: ‘He was on it in 2012 when it came up with precisely the guidelines you are objecting to – that allows some sex offenders of children not to go to prison.’
(Ms Thornberry tries to avoid answering again.)
Webb: ‘They were passed by a sentencing council of which he was a member at the time. Did he object? It’s a reasonable question isn’t it?’
Thornberry: ‘Yeah, I mean I don’t know the details of it otherwise I would answer it.’
Webb: ‘Are you saying that under Labour every child convicted of sexually assaulting a child will go to prison?’
Thornberry: ‘Well, our view is that that should be the default position. Absolutely.’
Webb: ‘How do you know it is not the default position now? There have been 4,500 such offences since 2010, do you know what the proportion (sent to jail) is?’
Thornberry: ‘No I don’t.’
Webb: ‘So under Labour there will be more people in prisons for longer. Is Labour planning to build more prisons and pay for it?’
Thornberry: ‘No, because what we need to do is to look at it from the very beginning to the end of the criminal justice system. If we had more community police officers we would be able to catch people earlier.’
Webb: ‘How does that stop people sexually assaulting their children? They do it in their homes.’
Thornberry: ‘When you have community police officers they are closer to their community and have a better idea of what is going on.’
Webb: ‘Aren’t you worried people are going to see through this? That number one, Labour are promising to put many more people in prison for longer. And number two, miraculously you won’t need to fund any more prison places.’
Thornberry: ‘No, er, no because, because we are a party of optimism. We believe things can change for the better. You don’t just try to slap as many people in prison as possible. You try to break up the pattern, the going up the ladder until you reach more serious offences. We need to catch people earlier, literally, and make sure they don’t get worse.’
