Abu Qatada (Deportation)

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right in referring to the many layers and avenues of appeal that are available. It is precisely that sort of issue that we wish to examine in considering any changes we will introduce in the immigration Bill later this year. We have been co-operating with the Jordanian Government on this matter for some time now, and that co-operation has been very good, but I am pleased that the treaty we signed with them is more general and will apply in other cases as well. There is benefit to both the United Kingdom and Jordan in that mutual legal assistance treaty.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I, too, sincerely congratulate the Home Secretary and the security Minister. No wonder she is talked about as a future Tory leader. The Home Secretary very generously thanked officials and lawyers who had worked on the case, but given what she said about the cost of the case overall—this is no criticism of her—does she think there is an argument for a review of why it took those officials so long to fix on the treaty route as the best way to solve the problem, rather than run up those huge bills?

[Mrs May]

The reason that large legal bills built up was the time the case took, because of the various stages of appeal that were available to Abu Qatada and the fact that the European Court moved the goalposts in the unprecedented decision that it took early last year. It was because of that that we had to undertake further discussions with the Jordanian Government about the assurances that could be achieved. And of course our own Special Appeals Immigration Commission last autumn decided that despite those further assurances and its view that the Jordanian Government would bend over backwards to make sure that Abu Qatada got a fair trial, this one issue about whether evidence that was allegedly obtained by torture could be used had to be addressed. That is addressed, among other things, in the general treaty that we have signed. It is because there have been so many opportunities to appeal and because of the decisions that have come as a result of those appeals that the legal bills have built up.

EU Police, Justice and Home Affairs

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman has slightly pre-empted something that I was going to say a little later in my speech, so I will bring it forward in answer to his question. Following my announcement in October, Ministers have engaged with the devolved Administrations and their operational partners. The Minister responsible for security has visited both Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is, of course, a particular issue in relation to Northern Ireland and we are aware of the importance of taking into account any implications that the 2014 decision might have for policing, given the land border with the Republic of Ireland, and we will continue to work with both the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government to ensure that those matters are fully considered.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Have negotiations on the measures that the Home Secretary hopes to opt back into commenced or is she planning to wait until December 2014 and then seek to opt into various measures? Has she had any indication which ones our European partners will accept?

[Mrs May]

I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might have listened to the remarks I made earlier in my speech, when I made it clear that a decision by the Government has to be taken by 31 May 2014, while 1 December 2014 is the date by which the opt-out takes final effect, so by definition any negotiations in relation to opt-in must take place before that takes effect.

This is an important decision, and not one that we should rush into lightly, despite the entreaties of the Opposition. I want to make it clear that no final decision has been made on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I regret the nature of the amendment, because the Opposition motion is a genuine attempt to help the coalition. It would have been helpful if the Home Secretary had revealed, as we have done, the key measures that she supports. This distasteful horse-trading to see if there is some compromise, or a handful of measures that the Government can agree on, is a very funny way to handle the issue of crime and security. If the Government accepted our motion, they would be agreeing to the European arrest warrant, but of course they cannot, because the last Conservative manifesto was against it. That is why the Home Secretary is having to duck and dive. The Government would be supporting joint investigation teams; agreeing to joint action on internet child pornography, which worries so many of us; and agreeing to joint action on drugs, people trafficking and football security—all things that we should be able to support.

Nearly 10% of Europol’s work involves counter-terrorism, and the UK is involved in more than 200 Europol investigations into organised crime and terrorism. Surely that is right. I want concerted action to tackle the 3,500 or so criminal gangs active across Europe. They do not recognise national boundaries, and we should not be obstacles to cross-border action to deal with those people.

The Government’s position is riddled with inconsistencies. Government Members say that it does not matter if the European arrest warrant is lost, because extradition can be organised through the 1957 Council of Europe convention, but that would require decisions to be taken by Governments, not judges, and that is the very role that the Home Secretary wants to give up in relation to extradition.

Of course, the UK has already opted into post-Lisbon measures concerning the sexual exploitation of children and procedural safeguards for suspects and victims. Will we end up being obliged to agree to assist in the investigation of particular crimes at the request of EU states, but unable to make arrests or share key information at vital points in the inquiries?

If the coalition cannot decide on its position soon, we will have to opt out of all the measures and rely on the approval of 26 other countries to let us opt back in on a case-by-case basis. What happens if the anti-European hysteria makes opting back in much more difficult? The Government risk placing the needs of the coalition and Tory Eurosceptics ahead of the security and justice concerns of the people of this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am, as ever, grateful for my hon. Friend’s suggestions, which I am sure will be heard in the appropriate quarters.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

6. How many people made subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure order have subsequently been charged and prosecuted since the inception of the TPIM regime.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

10. How many prosecutions have been brought against those subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure regime was introduced.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

Prosecution is always our preferred option to deal with terror suspects. TPIMs are used to protect the public from individuals whom we cannot currently prosecute or deport. The police will seek a prosecution if new admissible evidence comes to light. As of 28 February, the end of the last reporting period, four charges had been brought in relation to TPIM subjects, with one prosecution.

[Steve McCabe]

Given that the Minister sought to make more prosecutions a central feature of his argument for replacing control orders with the TPIM regime, and that there has been very little progress in prosecution— I think there were three failed prosecutions for those who had breached their TPIM order—does the hon. Gentleman regret making such proud boasts in the House that have proved so ridiculously optimistic, if not downright wrong?

[James Brokenshire]

As I indicated, prosecution remains the primary objective in relation to terrorism offences. I hope the hon. Gentleman would, for example, congratulate the work of the police, the Security Service and prosecutors in successfully securing lengthy prison sentences today in respect of six individuals for planning a terrorist incident in Dewsbury last year. The focus certainly remains on investigating TPIM subjects, and I would have hoped that he recognised the package of TPIMs plus the additional resources that have been made available to the police and the security services for that purpose.

Student Visas

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman addresses an important point. Skills and higher education is now a global market. Those with the best brains are increasingly footloose and go to the places where they think they will get the best opportunity to develop their expertise and where they feel they will get the warmest welcome. It is in that international context that we must look at our policies on student visas.

In addressing what must be recognised as a hugely sensitive issue and a focus of public concern, the Government must have a student regime that does not deter bona fide international students and does not undermine our further education colleges, our universities or the wider economy. I recognise the efforts that the Prime Minister has made to visit India and China in particular to make it clear unequivocally that there is no cap on bona fide student applications. However, the Prime Minister has a credibility problem if, at the same time as he proclaims those things, students who wish to come to this country from abroad find that their dealings with the Home Office and the visa process completely contradict his public assertions.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend find it slightly perplexing that we have seen a drop of about 40,000 a year in overseas student numbers, which suggests that the very people he wants to attract are being deterred, and that simultaneously we have seen a huge growth in temporary student visas—the very group that the independent inspector warned is most likely to include bogus students?

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend mentions an important point. I shall deal with that in some depth in a moment.

Within the regulatory regime, the current problems are focused on the inflexibility of the tier 4 visa for undergraduate education. Over and above that and linked to it are the problems associated with the post-study work visa. There is no doubt that many international students who want an undergraduate education want to carry that on at postgraduate level in order to demonstrate the skills that they have acquired in local universities, the local public sector or sometimes local businesses. The majority deterrent to that within the existing visa structure is the high salary threshold, which precludes much postgraduate working in areas where salaries for graduates are lower or in professions where salaries for graduates are lower.

Credibility interviews are the process that the Home Office is using to interview would-be international students in their home countries to establish the credibility of their claims to want higher education in this country. The feedback that I am getting time and again from universities is that that approach appears to be incoherent and inconsistent. Taken together with the change in regulations, it reinforces the perception abroad that Britain is no longer open to business. The fact that the Prime Minister needs to go to these countries and make these statements is a tacit admission that there is a real problem and a gap between the regulatory regime as stated by the Government and the perception of it abroad.

Abu Qatada

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend and I have had a number of discussions and question-and-answer sessions relating to this issue, not least in the Home Affairs Committee last week. At the heart of the point that he has raised today is the issue of the relationship between Britain and the European Court of Human Rights.

As I have already said in answer to other questions, I believe that we should consider all the options, and that that should include leaving the jurisdiction of the Court altogether. However, we are currently signatories to the convention and must abide by its rulings, and I believe that Governments must abide by the law. Even if we were to ignore the Court and put Abu Qatada on a plane regardless of its ruling—and I do not believe that we would be able to do so in practice—we would risk being ordered by the Court to bring him back to Britain and pay him compensation. Worse than that, as soon as we started to ignore our obligations under international law, we would not be able to rely on other countries’ obligations to us under international law. I think that that would jeopardise our national security and, indeed, jeopardise many other deportation cases.

I fully understand the frustration felt by my hon. Friend and others who share his views, but our options involve operating within the law, and I believe that we should operate within the law or change the law. Dare I describe urging the Government to break the law as a rather reckless step?

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has now discovered how difficult it is to put this man on a plane to Jordan. Given the possibility that her latest efforts will be thwarted, has she considered trying to negotiate a fair trial on neutral territory in order to overcome objections, using a model similar to the one that was used to bring the Libyan bomber to justice?

[Mrs May]

The suggestion that we have suddenly discovered how difficult it is to deport Abu Qatada is wide of the mark. That has been absolutely clear from the beginning. What I myself have made clear from the beginning is that we need to follow the processes of law. It has taken time and it will continue to take time, but I believe that it is the right thing to do, and that it will mean that we can eventually deport him.

UK Border Agency

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, because it gives me an opportunity to say that many people working for UKBA are dedicated officers who do an excellent job. Certainly, in some of the examples that he and other members of the Home Affairs Committee will have seen, such as the overseas operations, real change has been brought about. The work of the vast majority of staff in the areas of enforcement or the immigration and visa system will not change, but there will of course be change for the directors general heading up those two operations. Obviously, those are personnel matters on which the permanent secretary will make announcements in due course.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to take the agency back into the Home Office, which I think is the right one. Which of the new units will inherit responsibility for dealing with the backlogs, and how will she ensure that this does not become yet another opportunity to loose case files, passports and other documents in the ritual buck passing with which we have all become too familiar?

[Mrs May]

The differentiation between the two units will be clear: the immigration and visa section will deal with decisions on whether people should be entitled to enter or remain in the UK; and at the point at which those cases are closed and people need to be removed, cases pass to the enforcement part of the operation. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments on bringing the agency back into the Home Office—I suggest that he has more of a policy on the issue than Labour Front Benchers. We are very conscious that it is important to work out that separation, which is why I think that this clear-cut separation will help us to ensure that we do not see the sort of losses of files, passports and so forth that we have seen previously, so we have to look at the processes, too.

Police Integrity

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Of course we all accept that there will be occasions when the police wish to talk to the press to enlist its help in a particular investigation that is taking place. We accept that such occasions do occur, but it is right that we say to the police that they have to be more considerate of the implications of their talking to the press in other circumstances. That is why ACPO had, prior to the Leveson report—this is picked up in the report—been looking at what appropriate relations are between the police and the press. Having transparency is a great way of ensuring that people can see that these discussions are being held where they are appropriate. It is the transparency element that Lord Justice Leveson was keen on and that we will be taking forward.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

There is much to commend in this statement. In other countries where wages and conditions are poor, the result is often that police tax rather than arrest criminals. Is the Home Secretary absolutely certain that her cut in wages for new police constables, meaning that they now earn less than a trainee manager at McDonald’s, will not have an impact on police standards in this country?

[Mrs May]

I have absolute faith in the standards and integrity of our police officers, and I am tempted to say that the hon. Gentleman’s question almost did not deserve a reply.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, he has been in this House long enough to know not to believe everything he reads in newspapers when they talk about what the Government might or might not do. He may even occasionally have been the author of some such stories himself. [Interruption.] No, I am not. On his second question about working with our European partners, we will of course work with the Romanian and Bulgarian Governments, as we do on a number of important and serious issues. For example, we work closely with the Bulgarians on combating terrorism. We will continue to take that approach and we will look at ways of making sure that this country is not a soft touch when it comes to benefits and access to public services. The MAC advised against trying to forecast the numbers, because it said that that simply would not be helpful to policy makers.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Is the Minister satisfied that the fines levied on employers who do not pay the minimum wage are sufficient to deter such employers from employing on the cheap the very Bulgarian and Romanian workers his hon. Friends are asking about?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If anyone takes on people who do not have the right to work in the country, we fine them up to £10,000. I will take away the point that he has made. One thing we are looking at is the regulation of the labour market in general. A number of bodies are involved—HMRC for the minimum wage, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and the UK Border Agency. It is sensible to consider whether those organisations are all working as closely together as they should be. That is something that the group I am chairing will indeed be looking at. I hope that is helpful to him.

Ibrahim Magag

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have to say to my hon. Friend that my view, as I have stated this afternoon, is clearly that the best way to deal with terrorists and terrorist suspects is to be able to prosecute them and put them behind bars.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Apparently, during the period that he was supposedly subject to a TPIM, this man was allowed to meet regularly with other known extremists. Why did the Home Secretary think that was a good idea?

[Mrs May]

For every individual who is placed on a TPIM, there is a particular package of measures that is part of that. The details of that are operational matters. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the package of measures is carefully considered for each individual and is reviewed regularly.

Child Sexual Exploitation

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I echo what has been said about listening to victims; whoever they are criticising, they must be listened to.

It is unfortunate that the statue of a naked 13-year-old boy on the front of Broadcasting House was carved by someone who abused children. However, this is not about the BBC; it is the children who matter the most. The BBC does not matter, dead celebrities do not matter, mistaken identities do not matter in the same way; what really matters is that children should be expected to be safe in the control of the state. These children are the most vulnerable because they do not have the protection of their parents and depend entirely on the state.

Only 20% to 30% of the children subject to child sexual exploitation on the narrow definition of the term are in care. Obviously, that means that 70% to 80% of those children are living in the family home. The cost of supporting a family can be as little as £3,000 per annum, whereas secure care can cost as much as £200,000 or even £500,000 per year. I accept that we need a child protection system and that not all parents are “good enough”, but I make no apology for concentrating on the failings of the state. Penny Mellor, who has campaigned against state-tolerated abuse for many years, was imprisoned because of her campaign, and was present for the north Wales inquiry, has said:

“The state as a parent is abominable, proven in Rochdale and proven in North Wales. If we are going to remove children into the care of the state then it is about time we ensured that the state is a better parent than the one we removed them from. The who is not relevant, sexual abuse perpetrated by anyone is devastating.”

It is important to recognise that the state system is still harming children. Rochdale, Rotherham and Oxford are not the whole story. One problem is the lack of accountability. Individual practitioners are basically allowed to get on with things as they wish. There are good practitioners but also bad practitioners, and their bad practice is not picked up by the system. A good example of this is from New Zealand, where social workers encouraged a 14-year-old girl to have group sex with a number of St John Ambulance workers and “divorce” her parents, who wished to discourage this. St John Ambulance has still not finally dealt with this issue and some of the workers are scheduled to receive a Queen’s Award. Another example is from Birmingham, where a child was first sexually harassed in a foster placement and then got pregnant at the age of 15, while in the control of the state. Practitioners in Birmingham have argued in the past that children should be permitted to prostitute themselves while not being allowed to make toast for each other, for health and safety reasons.

As at 31 March 2011, 160 girls in care had had their first child before the age of 16 and 120 had had their first child at the age of 16. So what happens? We know that the girls at Duncroft school were punished for complaining about Jimmy Savile. If a child in the power of the local authority wishes to complain about their treatment, they have to complain to an employee of the local authority or someone funded by the local authority. Where is the independence in that? The lack of independence in the complaints system is why many cases of abuse are not picked up until the children subject to the abuse become adults—not necessarily at age 18 but when they get the required confidence aged 25, 30 or later. Very rarely, a Gillick-competent child in his or her mid-teens may make contact with one of the very rare solicitors who are willing to take on the local authority, but usually nothing happens at least until the children are adults.

One of the worst examples of a cover up comes from Jersey. Children in Jersey had the chief of police, Graham Power, and the health Minister, Stuart Syvret, to protect their interests. However, in 2008, as soon as action was taken to investigate historical abuse, the health Minister was sacked and the chief of police suspended. What hope did those children have? It is now roughly the fourth anniversary of the sacking of Jersey’s chief of police, Graham Power, and he has put out a statement to coincide with it. I will not read it all because time is limited, but this is part of what he says:

“I would however simply for the record, remind readers what has been established from a number of credible and independent sources and disclosures. Namely, that my suspension was based on falsified documents, fabricated evidence, misleading information provided to States Members and the public by Jersey Ministers, and the testimony of a number of senior individuals who have since been publicly discredited.

The events relating to Jimmy Saville and other revelations have heightened the general awareness of the issue of Historic Child Abuse, and the substantial difficulties which stand in the way of those who attempt to bring abusers to justice.”

This cover-up has been continued by the UK Border Agency, which assisted Jersey in avoiding scrutiny by banning a US journalist, Leah McGrath Goodman, from Jersey. She is now applying again for a visa, and I hope that the Minister will expedite it.

Teresa Cooper, who says that she was held down by six members of staff and injected with drugs while at Kendall House at the age of 14 and that she was also sexually assaulted in a drugged state, is continuing at the age of 45 to battle to get the evidence to find out why the Government did not act to stop that. We have a duty to provide her and other survivors with the records they ask for.

There have also been numerous police operations, including Operation Rose in Northumbria, Operation Care in Liverpool, Operation Aldgate and Operation Gullane in Yorkshire, Operation Goldfinch and Operation Flight in south Wales, and Operation Camassia in Birmingham. Frequently, such operations do not get to the bottom of the issues. A few, such as that in Kincora, managed to make the link between the abuse and people external to the institution. We need to empower the survivors by providing them with the information to argue their cases. Perhaps we can then also consider the question of who turned a blind eye.

It is often easier to see that there is a cover-up than to get to the truth. For example, if people listen to last Friday’s interview with Stuart Syvret on BBC Radio Jersey—it will be available on iPlayer for a few days—they will hear how the BBC is acting as a tool of the establishment by trying to prevent him from arguing his case. Mike Stein, in his excellent article in Child and Family Social Work in February 2006, explains how widespread this problem was, with a possible one in seven of children in care being subject to abuse. Australia has implemented an all-embracing inquiry, which is a good idea, although the details are complex. I believe, however, that the priority should be to empower the survivors.

We also need to act urgently to find out what is happening to children in the care system today. In the year to 31 March 2011—I do not have the later figures—according to the SSDA903 return, 430 children aged one to four, 350 children aged five to nine and 630 children aged 10 to 15 left care for “other reasons”. These are the children who have left care and we do not know what has happened to them. Have they been trafficked, have they been abducted or have they run away to live on the streets because they were unhappy in the control of the state?

The statistical system used in the USA is called AFCARS—the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System— and records when children run away, but our Government do not bother. Clearly, they do not care sufficiently to ask local authorities to tell them. When I asked the erstwhile Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), to record such instances and change the statistical basis, his response was that to find out nationally how many children are trafficked from care, abducted or run away would lead to

“an unnecessary increase in reporting requirements.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 642W.]

We need to go further. We clearly cannot trust all local authorities to tell the whole truth about everything. We already have a system for auditing what happens to the money. We really ought to have a system for checking whether we are told the truth about what happens to the children, or do the Government only care about the money and not about the children?

The secrecy, lack of transparency and consequent failures in accountability clearly failed children in the past, but they are also failing children today. We need to protect the rights of children and adults to complain and bring in greater scrutiny of family court proceedings. It is the secrecy that arises from the family courts that allows the system to avoid scrutiny and local authorities to simply say, “We are acting in the best interests of the child,” when clearly they are not.

Finally, Parliament needs to be more willing to look at individual issues before they hit the top of the news agenda. There needs to be a threshold at which collective action occurs.

There is disagreement between two particular positions that have been debated today. I have a little time, so it is worth going into this in detail. There is an argument that all we need is a bit more information sharing, but the evidence from Rochdale is that that does not work and that people are not acting. We need to ensure that people are motivated. That is the problem with the independent reviewing officer—they are not independent. The independent reviewing officer is employed by the local authority. I want to address the Lancashire county council case.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying and do not want to take issue with it, but I would caution against suggesting that the evidence from Rochdale shows that information sharing does not work. The evidence from Rochdale so far shows that people failed to fulfil their responsibilities and that, had they done so and connected the threads of information and believed the victims, there would have been a much earlier and different outcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and others on securing this valuable debate? I apologise for missing the start of it. I was taking evidence in the Home Affairs Committee for the child sexual abuse inquiry that we are conducting.

It is nearly 25 years since I worked in child protection. Whatever has happened and whatever progress has been made, some familiar problems persist. There will always be scandals in departments and agencies, and individuals who fall short of what we expect. However, the real concern must be over the doubts that continue to be fostered about the claims of those who have been abused. As others have said, that is not new.

When thinking about this debate, I was reminded of a book written by Jeffrey Masson in the early ’80s called “The Assault on Truth”. It was based on a study of previously unpublished letters belonging to Sigmund Freud. It exposed the idea that Freud’s original seduction theory was based on the notion that emotional disturbances in adults stemmed from actual early traumatic experiences, the knowledge of which had been repressed. As Members will know, Freud eventually renounced that theory in favour of the view that his woman patients had “fantasised” their early memories of rape and seduction—a view on which psychoanalysis was eventually based.

Masson was sacked from his position as project director at the Freud archives for his views, but it is clear that Freud had the gravest doubts about abandoning his seduction theory, despite being under enormous pressure from civilised Viennese society who could not tolerate the idea. Masson discovered, however, that not only had Freud read contemporary literature documenting the high incidence of sexual abuse of children, but he had witnessed autopsies of children who had been raped and murdered. Denial of the victims’ claims remains the problem, just as it was in Rochdale or with Savile.

We must try to move from denial to the acceptance that such awful things happen in our society—on our streets, in our homes with those polite respectable parents, and in children’s homes where children in particular ought to be safe. The problem, however, is that people do not think that they will be believed. “Nobody else would have believed me; he was a judge”, said one adult survivor talking to ChildLine. Another said, “My father was a policeman and a mason.” We need to listen to children and young people, and take their disclosures seriously.

With all due respect to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) whose point I take seriously, as well as the problem of not listening there is the problem of dereliction of duty. I was stunned to hear the former chief executive of Rochdale council say that he had no knowledge of what happened there. He had never asked or heard any rumours, and none of the well-paid senior managers had brought the matter to his attention.

More than ever in this day and age there must be a duty for those in charge—those paid the grand salaries—to ask and provide evidence of when and how they regularly take a proactive role in seeking out information on such matters. It is a disgrace that someone can preside over a scandal and receive an enormous pay-off or early retirement settlement just as the scandal breaks; they are being rewarded for not protecting children. We need services that ensure that when young people find the courage to report abuse, they will be believed. Most importantly, we need to know that the cycle of abuse will be brought to an end.

We need to believe the victims. Sure, their stories might not always tally; they might get things wrong or misremember events and dates—how good would any of us be after years of abuse? We need to try to avoid confusing believing a victim and assessing how good a witness they might be. Those two things are not identical.

As I say, people get confused. When reading a Sunday newspaper this weekend, I was struck by a report about Steve Messham and how easy it was to conclude that various events in his life pointed to his being a liar and an unreliable witnesses. If that man is not traumatised by his experiences, who is? There may be an argument for smarter journalism at the BBC, but there is not one for ignoring what happened to Steve Messham.

[Lyn Brown]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of our problem is that people who deal with such vulnerable children do not have the training to enable them to understand the veracity of the child, and to differentiate telling the truth and being a good witness in court?

[Steve McCabe]

I accept that entirely. I shall make a point on that before I conclude my speech, but I wanted to come back to how victims are left feeling.

Victims describe themselves as being in a cycle of fear and shame. They think no one will believe what is happening, and that they are to blame for the exploitation they are suffering. Barnardo’s points out that a key difference between sexual exploitation and sexual abuse is that exploitation often starts with grooming. In the beginning, the young people believe they are involved in a genuine relationship. It is therefore not that surprising that feelings of guilt accompany the problems when they try to deal with them.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) said, it is true that survivors can move on, but they can do so only if they get the right help and support. We need to separate the search for evidence to convict the guilty from the support that victims need. When I was involved in this work nearly 25 years ago, I worked closely with the police to try to find evidence to convict. I must confess that I am not sure that enough of my attention was focused on the needs of victims.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) has said, we need people in all the key agencies who have absolute understanding. We need a twin track. When someone comes forward and discloses, they need help, support and counselling to get them through, but they also need specialised help to get them through the court process, such as independent sexual violence advocates, and expert witnesses to advise the judge and jurors on what has really happened. More than anything, lawyers need to be guided to avoid inappropriate language and behaviour in the court that seeks further to victimise people.