Sophy Ridge on Sunday Interview with Shami Chakrabarti Shadow Attorney General

ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO SKY NEWS, SOPHY RIDGE ON SUNDAY

SOPHY RIDGE: First let’s talk about the government’s flagship welfare reform, Universal Credit. Last week, on this show, the Labour party position changed from pause and fix to scrapping it altogether. The benefit combines six separate payments into one and aims to ensure that work pays and that people don’t become trapped on welfare and while the concept has been welcomed – largely – its execution has had a few teething problems. Well joining us to discuss all of this is the Shadow Attorney General, Baroness Chakrabarti. Thanks for being with us.

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: A pleasure.

SR: I want to start off with Universal Credit. Last week John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, said that it would have to go, effectively saying that Labour’s position would be to get rid of it. What I’m a little bit unclear about is what you’d like to replace it with.

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: Can I just say, I know you described the position as changing from pause and fix to scrapping, I understand that dramatic language will make you think that this is a complete change of policy but in the end people need to be supported, when they are out of work, when they’re on low paid work, they need to be supported in a number of ways including via benefits. So whether you end up changing the name of the benefit or changing the structure of the benefit, in the end what’s important is the end of austerity and people having the money that they need to live, to stay alive in the sixth wealthiest economy on earth.

SR: So are you saying that Labour might not scrap Universal Credit?

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: What I’m saying is I don't think Universal Credit in its current form is sustainable and that’s why we’re urging the government to stop the roll out now because it’s causing such hardship to people. The idea, the theoretical idea that you could have one simple benefit rather than people having to apply for lots of benefits, always appealed to me in theory. The problem with Universal Credit as it now is under this government is that it’s being used to cut people’s benefits, to penalise people for having too many children, to penalise the disabled and other vulnerable people. So the notion of a simpler benefits system – a great idea but not if you’re adding austerity to it.

SR: So are you saying then that if enough money was put into Universal Credit you’d actually be happy to see it stay?

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: Well personally I think that the term Universal Credit is now such a toxic brand that it would be very hard to rebuild trust in it but we are talking with the people who have been affected, we are talking with the charities who have been trying to paper over the cracks and support some of the most vulnerable people in society including via food banks. We are working with them, talking with them trying to work out the most practical way to make things better and if you contrast what we[‘re trying to do, working with Civil Society, with what the government is doing including gagging clauses into contracts that the government has with charities and other third parties, I think that’s a very, very different approach.

SR: Are the gagging clauses in particular something that you are concerned about?

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: Well you know, as Shadow Attorney you can imagine, and with a human rights and free speech background, you can imagine that I was pretty shocked to learn that contracts between the DWP, that’s Esther McVey’s department, and charities include clauses that preclude the charities from criticising the Secretary of State, the Department or Universal Credit. That’s completely unacceptable and I think quite possibly unenforceable in our courts so Margaret Greenwood has written to Esther McVey urging her to come to parliament and make very publicly clear that these gagging clauses will not be enforced and they will not continue in any new contracts between government and third parties.

SR: Before we get to any other issues I am keen to talk to you about anti-Semitism because you of course authored the report into anti-Semitism. Over the summer we have had several stories, allegations coming forward about alleged anti-Semitism in the Labour party so I’m quite keen to talk to you about some of those with your report for reference. So I think we can look at something that you wrote in your report which is this: “It’s always incendiary to compare the actions of Jewish people or institutions to those of Hitler or the Nazis.” Now in 2013 Jeremy Corbyn, it emerged over the summer, said that Palestinians on the West Bank live under occupation of the very sort that would be recognised by many people in Europe who suffered occupation during the Second World War. So by your definition that would be incendiary, is that right?

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: Well incendiary by the way, I didn’t mean anti-Semitic.

SR: No, quite.

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: So let me put it like this, by the time I was looking at the nature of discourse within the party, by definition we had a problem that needed to be addressed and I was trying to set down some guidelines for people who want to make very important arguments but not make them in a way that is going to just automatically get people’s backs up.

SR: I understand, this is before your report, but would you say those comments were incendiary?

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: I think that I stand by my advice to everybody which is to make your human rights critiques and Jeremy, like me, is a lifelong human rights defender, and he is quite right to draw people’s attention to the plight of the Palestinians but I think that it is better, if possible, given the rise of the far right, given the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, it is better to make those human rights arguments without comparison to the Nazis.

SR: Now in another section you talk about Jewish stereotyping and anti-Semitic conspiracy tropes and you say this about that: “I’m not saying that this is endemic but any seasoned activist who says that they are completely unaware of any such discourse must be wholly insensitive or completely in denial.” I just want to talk to you about Peter Willsman, re-elected to the National Executive Committee, who was recorded as saying he has never seen anti-Semitism in the party. So is he insensitive or in denial do you think?

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: Well I don't know but I stand by what I said which is there has been a real issue and I do understand that some people will say that they have not personally experienced it. Well guess what? If you’re not Jewish you are not going to necessarily have personally experienced it and maybe you have been insensitive to it or maybe you are just speaking from your own personal experience but the thing about racism of any kind or frankly misogyny or any other kind of discrimination or hate, the thing about it is that you’ve got to try and listen to the broader experience. You’ve got to try to understand things that you have not experienced yourself and that’s what I was trying to advocate then and continue to advocate now.

SR: Would you have felt more comfortable if he hadn’t been re-elected to the Executive Committee?

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: Possibly … But he has apologised and people have to have the opportunity to reflect and learn and change and be more sensitive and become aware of other people’s experiences. As Jeremy Corbyn said at conference, and by the way that was a conference of 15,000 people who came together in this democratic moment and generally speaking behaved quite well with each other, he said we need to learn to listen more and shout less. And that I think is a crucial point, not just in the Labour party but in British politics and in politics more generally, that’s what I would advocate.

SR: Now you of course are the Shadow Attorney General so justice and legal affairs are your brief so I am interested to get your thoughts on the case of Karen White who was the transgender prisoner, convicted rapist, who was moved into a women’s prison where she then committed sexual assault. Now she has been sentenced now to life in prison, should she spend the rest of her sentence in a male prison or a female prison do you think?

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: So here’s my position on the transwomen issue. I do believe in self-identification but nonetheless, there are some people who should not be incarcerated together. Now there is a work of case law from the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for example about racists who have been put in prison cells with members of minority communities and they are the same sex and therefore they are in the right prison you would say but those two people should never have been put in a cell together because that would make one inherently vulnerable.

SR: So it’s more about her previous convictions rather than about the gender she identifies as?

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: I think there are some people who should not be housed together, whether in a refuge, whether in a women’s refuge or whether in a women’s prison or in other vulnerable settings.

SR: So should the Ministry of Justice policy be updated then? At the minute it’s saying that transgender prisoners should be located in the part of the estate consistent with the gender they identify with.

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: I think that you have got to be more specific than that. Some people are a danger to other particular people and they should not be housed or put in refuge or put in prison together. These are common sense administrative practical responsible solutions to people’s vulnerability, it is not about whether a transwoman is a woman like you or a woman like you, it is much more specific I think.

SR: I am also very keen to get your thoughts on Jamal Khashoggi who is the journalist who has not been seen after entering the Saudi Consulate in Turkey. A very concerning story clearly, what do you think the UK government needs to do now?

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: I think it needs to be much more robust and Emily Thornberry, our Shadow Foreign Secretary, has written in the Observer today a very robust piece about how we need to start calling out Saudi Arabia. I am not saying it is just the Conservative government, Robin Cook was heartbroken on not being able to follow through on ethical foreign policy largely because of things like arms sales to the Middle East, and we’ve got to be more consistent in our criticisms of other governments and as Emily has written today, would the government be quite so reticent if this kind of behaviour were being conducted by Iran, Russia, other countries? Possibly not.

SR: So are you talking about stopping arms sales, sanctions?

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: Potentially. I mean we cannot be arming Saudi Arabia without real assurances that those arms are not being used against innocent civilians in Yemen, against dissidents in Saudi Arabia itself. Saudi Arabia should be in the dock when it comes to human rights abuses including women’s rights abuses on this planet and we need to be more consistent in our attitude to human rights.

SR: Okay, Baroness Chakrabarti, thank you very much.

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: Thank you.