Norwich MP says she was ‘highlighting’ under reported crimes after being accused of comparing rape to voter ID fraud
- Credit: UK Parliament
Norwich North MP Chloe Smith has been accused of comparing rape to voter ID fraud - but the Cabinet office minister said she was just highlighting the importance of investigating under reported crimes.
It happened in the House of Commons on Wednesday when Ms Smith was responding to criticism over the government's voter ID trial.
Labour's Cat Smith said the instances of voter fraud were too low to warrant such a response.
But Chloe Smith argued it was under reported and said: 'She asks whether we should be focusing on some crimes that have small numbers, well really I ask her whether she should have said that decades ago about, for example, rape.
'Would she have said that about a crime that was under reported, would she have said that about some crime that has small numbers simply for the sake of it having small numbers?
You may also want to watch:
'Of course she would not.'
Cat Smith later called for the Norwich North MP to apologise.
- 1 New Lidl supermarket opens in Norwich
- 2 Neighbours sick of road turning into 'scene from Fast & Furious'
- 3 Anti-vax protesters descend on Norwich pub demanding entry
- 4 Every Norfolk primary school rated as 'Outstanding'
- 5 Water starts gushing out of sinkhole on Norwich city centre road
- 6 Post-Latitude covid has made me realise pandemic has a long way to go
- 7 Despair over fly-tipping and rats in city suburb
- 8 Fresh weather warning with Storm Evert set to hit Norfolk
- 9 Woman crashed into two cars after drinking at friend's home, court hears
- 10 Two men charged with aggravated burglary at used car lot
She said: 'Rape is not a political football – and it is appallingly widespread, while still under reported.
'By contrast, voter fraud in polling stations is thankfully incredibly rare.'
In a statement Chloe Smith said: 'My comments were intended to highlight that under reported crimes are not unimportant ones, and I am sorry if this was unclear to Members in the Chamber.'