DAVID Steel was suspended from the LibDems in March 2019 after he told the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that he knew about the serious allegations made against Cyril Smith and did nothing about them.
The investigation was led by the Scottish party’s executive group, which is believed to include Willie Rennie and Alistair Carmichael.
In May they revoked the suspension saying there were no “grounds to answer”.
Rennie said the issue had boiled down to “a hearing difficulty and a lack of precision in providing some answers” on the part of Lord Steel.
He added: “The clarifications that David Steel has provided to us state clearly that Cyril Smith did not confess to any criminality, which is why he took no further action at the time.”
However, in their report on Tuesday, IICSA said it was Steel himself who told the inquiry “that he had ‘assumed’ from what he was told – that is, he accepted as true – that Cyril Smith had committed the offences”.
The report then goes on to say: “Lord Steel had every opportunity to correct or clarify his evidence to this Inquiry if it lacked clarity, or was misunderstood or misrepresented.
READ MORE: Willie Rennie under pressure to respond to Westminster abuse scandal
“He did not do so at that time. He also had every opportunity to say if he was struggling to hear or understand the questions.
“As the video recording and the transcript of Lord Steel’s evidence show, there was only a single occasion when Lord Steel said he could not hear a question, but that question had nothing to do with Smith’s account to him.
“For the rest of his evidence, Lord Steel answered the questions immediately and without seeking or providing clarification.
“In our view, on a fair and complete reading of the whole of his evidence to the Inquiry, it is clear that Lord Steel assumed from what Cyril Smith told him that he had committed the offences which Private Eye had reported, yet he did nothing about it.”
So the question for Willie Rennie is why did the Lib Dems say there were no grounds for action?
What clarifications they receive from Lord Steel that - despite all the evidence - made them certain Cyril Smith had not confessed to any criminality?
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel