Tessa Munt

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I have listened carefully to the debate. Child sexual abuse is one of the most despicable crimes. We absolutely need to pay attention to the victims; I pay tribute to those of you sitting in the Public Gallery today who are victims and thank you for attending. I understand that what you have heard today may well have triggered you to re-experience the things you suffered as children, and some of you, perhaps, as adults. We Liberal Democrats will support any measure that goes some way to deliver justice for the victims and prevent these horrific acts from occurring again in the future. I was one of the seven cross-party MPs who approached Theresa May after being elected in 2010 and who spent time trying to persuade her of the merits of having the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. It took a long time to persuade her, and then it took further time to persuade her not to use the chairs she had chosen, because they were, or might have been perceived as, part of the infrastructure of the very problem we were trying to face, and that there was institutional abuse across many of our accepted centres of power. I want to accentuate the fact that child sexual abuse is all about the abuse of power and that relationships are absolutely catastrophic when someone removes the power from an individual. There are a number of ways of removing power, and I will move straight to asking the Minister whether she would consider using some of the academic research in this field. Amnesty International has leaned quite hard on something called Biderman’s framework of coercion—Biderman spoke about it in 1957 and Amnesty International released it in 1975—which talks about the use and abuse of power and of coercive control in particular, and about the isolation of victims, the monopolisation of perspectives, the induced debility and exhaustion that victims suffer, the threats they are subject to, the occasional indulgences, or treats, that make them feel they might be special, the business of abusers—perpetrators—demonstrating omnipotence, the degradation of victims, and very often the enforcement of trivial demands just to absolutely enforce the power of the perpetrator over the victim. The perpetrators are always responsible. There is no one under the age of 16 who can consent, and many over the age of 16 cannot either. The word “rape” itself suggests there should be no consent, but no one under the age of 16 can consent anyway. My party and I agree absolutely that we should collect data on nationality and ethnicity, and share it where it is appropriate to do so, but I draw Members’ attention to the fact that that has started to happen. I certainly have some evidence in front of me that reflects that that data is being collected. Whether it is being shared or not, I do not know, but we certainly need to make sure that the CPS, judges, magistrates, teachers and lecturers, schools generally, health staff, council staff—particularly those in adult social care and children’s social care, and housing officers—as well as the police, are absolutely required to collect data and share it. There should be compulsory training for all those in the positions that I have just listed. Coercive control should not be viewed as something that applies only in a situation of domestic abuse. Victims of coercive control need to be heard. We need to recognise the signs of coercion and people need to be trained to recognise them.