Scottish Liberal Democrats must tread carefully over suspension of Lord Steel
No doubt the Scottish Liberal Democrat hierarchy thought long and hard before the decision was made to suspend Lord Steel from membership.
If a disciplinary investigation is underway then perhaps they can be excused from further public statements until all the facts about what he said or did not say to the late Sir Cyril Smith, MP, about child abuse allegation s nearly 40 yea r s ago, are available.
But I tend to agree with Brian Wilson that the decision was precipitate and possibly heavy handed(“steel deserves better from the Lib Dems”, Perspective, 16 March).
In the wake of the controversy over former Liberal leader Jeremy Thorp e in 1979, the then leader David Steel did not have his troubles to seek. All political leaders were obliged tot read carefully about allegations against members and legal proceedings. In the case of Cyril Smith there had already been a police investigation into his activities.
Brian Wilson makes a valid point that Mr Steel could hardly be expected to sit in judgment when the police had already decided they would not.
This case is likely to stir up again all the problems historical allegations of abuse has raised. They are the responsibility of those in authorit y to act or not to act when rumours and Chinese whispers are widespread; the problems of dealing with allega- tions against people who are long dead; how to deal with allegations when those accused are essentially selfemployed rather than employees( as is the case with parliamentarians ); the links between various sections of the Establishment and the potential for cover-ups.
No person should be exempt from investigation simply because he or she is famous and in the public eye. But both the Child Abuse Inquiries and the Scottish Liberal Democrat establishment will need to be clear in getting the balance between the rules of natural justice and rigorous probes into one of the most vexed problems of our time.
BOB TAYLOR Shiel Court, Glenrothes