Steel resignation raises difficult questions

Cyril Smith and David Steel at the 1973 Liberal Party conference
Cyril Smith/David Steel (Photo: Getty/BBC)
David Steel, the former leader of the Liberal Party, has today resigned from the Liberal Democrats following publication of a report by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).

The inquiry found that Steel had "turned a blind eye" to claims of child abuse and had abdicated responsibility in relation to accusations relating to Cyril Smith, the MP for Rochdale between 1972 and 1992.

Steel opted to resign in order to prevent his family having to suffer "distress", and also to avoid "turmoil" for the party. It is unclear how his belated resignation will achieve either of those objectives, and it must be said that - in the circumstances - they appear a rather misplaced set of priorities.

While I believe the resignation was the only genuine option left available to Steel, I am disappointed by the apparently unrepentant attitude. His argument that he was being made "a proxy for Cyril Smith" shows either a surprising lack of insight or a refusal to accept responsibility for his inaction. Certainly the notion that the allegations "had nothing to do with [Steel]" because they occurred prior to Smith's election to parliament is as facile as it is intellectually unsustainable.  Steel's insistence that Smith "was never a friend of mine" is, frankly, irrelevant to the more pertinent issue of his responsibilities.

Steel is not the only focus of the IISCA's report, which accuses various political partiers and associations of "regularly put[ting] their own reputations or political interests before child protection". But it has focused on the former leader as "an example of a highly placed politician turning a blind eye to something that was potentially troublesome to his party, with no apparent regard for criminal acts which might have occurred or for any victims, past or future".

I see no need to repeat the allegations surrounding Smith here, which are after all very much within the public domain and widely known.

What concerns me more are what this means for the party today. Willie Rennie rightly said the report was "powerful", that it needed to be learned from and that Steel was right to retire from public life. All that is undoubtedly correct, but we can ill afford to see this as the failure of an individual (however influential) : what is needed isn't some reflection on the shortcomings of a former leader but an acceptance that any failure is an institutional failure that requires an institutional response.

The most obvious concern is in relation to the way in which the party has dealt with this - indeed, how we tend to deal with scandals generally. The basic fact remains that Steel was recently suspended from the Liberal Democrats, investigated and then reinstated when it was felt there was insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. I am not aware of IISCA having access to evidence the party was unaware of, which raises significant questions about competence and thoroughness. Why should a consideration of precisely the same evidence result in two wildly different conclusions? The very best that can be said is that's it looks dreadful.

It is too easy to dismiss cases such as this as personal matters, but it would be wrong to do so. I'm not sure that was Willie Rennie's intention today, but we need to make it clearer that the liberal Democrats - and not only has Steel - have failed Smith's victims. At a time when so many question whether they can trust the Liberal Democrats, we have to honestly accept, address and own our mistakes.

Another concern is the ways in which many party members have defended Steel today.  The first defence - that Steel deserved better on account of how much he did for the party and the cause of liberalism over five decades - seems to my mind to represent a perverse suggestion that senior figures should not only be treated with undue deference. I see this as a dangerous tendency in a party that promotes equity in public life.

The second defence is more reasonable but equally as predictable: both Cyril Smith and David Steel were products of their times and should be judged accordingly. Cue various people explaining how attitudes towards child abuse were so different in the 1970s and 1980s.

I have to disagree that such thinking represent a valid excuse, let alone justifiable reason. In regards his being a product of his times, of course he was. But even by the standards of those times, the offences Smith was alleged to commit were seen as warranting a police investigation.

After initially finding no case to answer, Private Eye published further information which, by the standards of its time, was shocking and potentially career-ending.

By the standards of the time, Steel would have understood perfectly well what the implications of an admission of guilt would be.

We can often make flippant and incorrect assumptions of the standards of previous times, especially when we are seeking to retrospectively justify failures. but my own experiences from that time tell me something different. In the early 80s, when Steel was leading the Liberal Party, I (as a young child) was subject to various forms of abuse. The school I attended noticed some of the tell-tale signs. To their credit, they were quick to notice and quick to begin investigating. Unfortunately, certain people were also too eager to believe the abuser, but one thing was very clear - by the standards of that time this kind of thing was clearly taken seriously, even if understanding was not what it is now. It was also clear to me later that my abuser had been terrified of the potential consequences, because even by the standards of that time abuse of young children was not something that was viewed as acceptable - which makes sense really: people don't cover up what is widely tolerated. That's not to deny that systemic failures of that era didn't do myself and others a disservice, but we need to be honest about historic societal attitudes - especially when we suppose the existence of a more widespread acceptance of abuse.

Collusion and silence may have been more common forty years ago, but lest we forget this time was also the same era in which many church leaders covered up (either systematically or independently) allegations of sexual abuse. Such people are today widely criticised, and justifiably so - why should political leaders be treated differently in this respect?

But most telling is the fact that whatever might have been considered acceptable in the late 70s and early 80s was certainly not in the years thereafter. Steel's failure was not only that of inactivity when leader, but also of an inability to offer anything in the years that followed. It's very difficult to give him the benefit of any awareness, and to my mind the fact he's made no positive contribution - or even an adequate one - in more recent years is potentially even more concerning. His evidence to the inquiry, in addition to today's comments hinting at institutional scapegoating, suggest he doesn't grasp the significance of this failure. He has had many years in which to reflect and either admit or correct his past mistakes - but hasn't. Even now sorry seems to be the hardest word.

It is right that David Steel should resign from the Liberal Democrats. It would also have been right, had Steel not done the decent thing, for the party to expel him. But neither action could close the book on this dreadful episode, and the newly published report asks as many questions of the Liberal Democrats as it answers. Why have we been so accepting of Steel's inadequate excuses? Are we fit to investigate such accusations when our findings are overturned in such brutal fashion? Can the public, party members, and victims of abuse have any trust in our internal procedures? And, perhaps most importantly, are we willing to accept that the problem is institutional rather than individual?


Comments

Laurence Cox said…
I thoroughly agree with what you have written. We should not forget either that Smith's activities happened at around the same time as the Thorpe affair. Assuming that "A Very English Scandal" did not grossly traduce Thorpe, the situation of someone in a position of power (Thorpe) using it to groom the vulnerable Josiffe/Scott should be a matter of concern. This ought to have been in Steel's mind when he recommended Smith for his knighthood.
David Evans said…
I fear you are judging David Steel without a full understanding of the issues. I realise that a young chap has very little real knowledge of the impact of being old, but I'm sure you have heard of dementia, and the lesser but even more common act of forgetfulness in old age.

David Steel is now 88 years old, with poor hearing, being asked to explain over an inadequate sound system, detailed questions about what happened 41 years earlier. He is also a Liberal, used to the traditional Lib Dem value of tolerance (until recently at least), and as such could easily have expected the enquiry to be looking to learn lessons from the past and not as it turned out, looking for a scapegoat to allocate blame.

When you say things like 'Steel opted to resign in order to prevent his family having to suffer "distress", and also to avoid "turmoil" for the party. It is unclear how his belated resignation will achieve either of those objectives', you clearly have little empathy or sympathy the man and his circumstances.

I do suggest you try to imagine having a lifelong partner whom you have built your life around for over 57 years, who is sadly in very ill health. Perhaps distress to her would be one factor worthy of consideration.

Likewise I suggest you consider the motives of an inquiry, which when looking into a matter of the utmost seriousness, dismisses the clarification offered by a elderly person, trying to provide a better understanding of the issues. When you get older, you realise that not all enquiries are objective, but are often driven by the prevailing mood of society and most often that is to find a weak individual to blame, but not to look wider to learn the real lessons that should make us all feel uncomfortable.

An excellent introduction to the issues is set out in "The ordeal of Christopher Jefferies" an article in the FT, which shows how quickly a report can be whipped up to rabble rouse a modern days lynch mob. See https://www.ft.com/content/22eac290-eee2-11e0-959a-00144feab49a if you are interested.

It is also interesting to see how so many people find it easy to portray being a Liberal as somehow creepy.

The accusations surrounding Cyril Smith are indeed appalling and it is very concerning that the police and the DPP can so easily simply say "We can't tell what happened to the paperwork, whether we received it or not" and get little prominence in a report on what we should learn.

However, that so many Liberals will so quickly jump to absolute conclusions of Black and white, with no consideration of the other factors raised, is to me as a lifelong liberal, the most concerning of all. That does make me very, very uncomfortable.
Andrew said…
Hello David,

In response, I think I'll take each of your paragraphs in turn:

"I fear you are judging David Steel without a full understanding of the issues. I realise that a young chap has very little real knowledge of the impact of being old, but I'm sure you have heard of dementia, and the lesser but even more common act of forgetfulness in old age."

Sorry, that's patronising and far more judgemental than anything I've posted. I've worked in elderly mental health services for much of my life, and have myself experienced dementia-like memory loss in relation to medication I was on at the time. Please don't make assumptions about the level of understanding of "being old" on the basis of being relatively young (although I should be grateful there are still people out there who consider 43 to be young).

The difficulties I have with David Steel are in relation to how he's dealt with the matter over a period of 40 years, so I'm not convinced this argument holds in any case.

"David Steel is now 88 years old, with poor hearing, being asked to explain over an inadequate sound system, detailed questions about what happened 41 years earlier. He is also a Liberal, used to the traditional Lib Dem value of tolerance (until recently at least), and as such could easily have expected the enquiry to be looking to learn lessons from the past and not as it turned out, looking for a scapegoat to allocate blame."

Indeed he is, and he explained that he had difficulties in hearing. That is something that those facilitating the inquiry should have dealt with better, admittedly. However, I do not accept that David Steel has been made a scapegoat; neither do I think this has been about anything more than "learning lessons". But we do have to learn them.

Steel certainly didn't help himself in admitting that he "believed" the claims about Smith. To this date he has not satisfactorily explained why he believed them or why, having arrived at the conclusion it was true, he then did absolutely nothing at all. that's not an issue with someone's memory - it's a very basic question that hasn't been answered.

Andrew said…
"When you say things like 'Steel opted to resign in order to prevent his family having to suffer "distress", and also to avoid "turmoil" for the party. It is unclear how his belated resignation will achieve either of those objectives', you clearly have little empathy or sympathy the man and his circumstances."

Not at all. These things are both highly important - of course they are. But this resignation NOW will not achieve either of those. Stress has no doubt already been caused to his family, and it's also too late to avoid the party becoming divided over this.

"I do suggest you try to imagine having a lifelong partner whom you have built your life around for over 57 years, who is sadly in very ill health. Perhaps distress to her would be one factor worthy of consideration."

I've just lost the closest person to me in the entire world. Please don't assume things. Also, don't assume my partner would be a "her". I understand completely why Steel would want to protect his family, but I don't think a resignation would do much now to prevent further distress -= and I maintain it shouldn't be the main priority. if I was in EXACTLY this position I would HOPE I would be able to say something that shows consideration for Smith's potential victims and offer some kind of apology.

"Likewise I suggest you consider the motives of an inquiry, which when looking into a matter of the utmost seriousness, dismisses the clarification offered by a elderly person, trying to provide a better understanding of the issues. When you get older, you realise that not all enquiries are objective, but are often driven by the prevailing mood of society and most often that is to find a weak individual to blame, but not to look wider to learn the real lessons that should make us all feel uncomfortable."

I think you're doing the inquiry a MASSIVE disservice. I also do not believe the inquiry was looking for an individual to blame, but more interested in exploring a culture that needs to change.

"An excellent introduction to the issues is set out in "The ordeal of Christopher Jefferies" an article in the FT, which shows how quickly a report can be whipped up to rabble rouse a modern days lynch mob. See https://www.ft.com/content/22eac290-eee2-11e0-959a-00144feab49a if you are interested."

That isn't what is happening here, and it's frankly disgraceful to suggest that it is. This tactic of accusing the media and independent inquiries of a witch-hunt is the kind of thing we associate with Tommy Robison or Donald Trump. I do not accept that we can dismiss the findings of the inquiry as you seem to, simply by attributing them questionable motivations.

"It is also interesting to see how so many people find it easy to portray being a Liberal as somehow creepy."

I don't think that has anything to do with it.

Andrew said…
"The accusations surrounding Cyril Smith are indeed appalling and it is very concerning that the police and the DPP can so easily simply say "We can't tell what happened to the paperwork, whether we received it or not" and get little prominence in a report on what we should learn."

Because that was outwith the remit of a report looking only at the culture of Westminster institutions...

"However, that so many Liberals will so quickly jump to absolute conclusions of Black and white, with no consideration of the other factors raised, is to me as a lifelong liberal, the most concerning of all. That does make me very, very uncomfortable."

No, I don't think it's an absolutely black and white issue. I can see that how we deal with abuse has changed over the course of the previous 50 years. But I think if someone says categorically that, as a leader of a political party, that they "believed" claims to be true while not satisfactorily explaining how they have come to that conclusion and why no actions were taken in spite of that belief, then questions absolutely have to be asked. You will also note that my criticisms are as much of the party's handling of issues like this as they are Steel individually.

You make all kinds of assumptions about me, but I will make none of you. What I would state, as someone who has been the victim of abuse, that in such situations I'm very uncomfortable with any response that doesn't focus on victims. When our initial reaction is the unity of the party, or our own reputations, then something is very wrong.

I should add that I am perhaps even more alarmed by the tendency to either assume or infer less than charitable motivations to inquiries whose findings we don't like. While I believe there has been a problem with how the party deals with issues like this, I would never suggest it has sinister motivations.