TWO survivors of paedophile Cyril Smith have demanded an apology from Lord David Steel and say he is” just as bad” as the predatory MP himself.

The men, who are now pensioners, have also called for the peer to be stripped of his titles and accused the Liberal Democrats of not “learning any lessons” from the abuse scandal.

Lawyers have also called for a change in the law to ensure mandatory reporting of any suspicion of child abuse.

Survivors launched the scathing attack on Steel, Scotland’s first presiding officer, days after an inquiry determined that he knew of Smith’s abuse and did nothing about it.

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) also concluded that political parties, police and prosecutors “turned a blind eye” to child sex abuse allegations linked to Westminster, showing excessive “deference” to MPs and ministers trying to clear their reputations. 

In a 170-page report, IICSA dismissed that there was any “organised Westminster paedophile network”.

Steel, 81, resigned from the Liberal Democrats and retired from the House of Lords within hours of the IICSA releasing its damning report on Wednesday, but insisted he was being scapegoated and knew nothing about Smith’s crimes.

Steel did not know Cyril Smith when he started abusing children at Cambridge House or Knowl View, but confronted him more than a decade later, when the incidents emerged in Private Eye.

One of Smith’s victims, now in his 70s, gave evidence to the inquiry in 2018 over the abuse Smith subjected him to as a child at Cambridge House, a ‘hostel for working boys’ in Rochdale in the 1960s. He wanted his identity to remain anonymous, a legal right given to any victims of sexual abuse.

He said: “To me Steel is just as bad as the person who committed the crimes. Smith was a monster, he needed help but he could have been stopped.

“Nothing can change that now but I would like an apology from Steel, for him to hold his hands up and say sorry for the mistakes he made. I’ve been trying to get justice since the day it happened.”

The elderly man said he has never been able to get over the abuse he suffered, and said that has not been helped by the attitudes of Steel and the LibDems who cleared him of any wrongdoing.

He said: “You never really put it away. Every time you talk about it, it triggers the memories.

“I am grateful to the inquiry but will it make me feel better? No. It’s difficult to feel better when Steel and the Liberal Party clearly have not learned any lessons from this. They didn’t care about the victims then, all they cared about were their party interests and to my mind nothing has changed”.

Another man, who attended the Knowl View school in Rochdale where he was abused by Smith said it was “obvious” that Steel knew about his behaviour.

He said: “Nothing about this shocks me anymore. Of course Steel knew – that much was obvious – and there were others who turned a blind eye as well. They’re all as guilty as each other.

“The first time I tried to report it they called me a liar and gave me a good hiding. They said I was trying to ruin a good man’s career. I was only about 10 years old.

“You get used to not being believed but it is particularly galling to think that even when Smith confessed to Steel, that still wasn’t enough to make him do the right thing. We were worth so little.

“What happened never goes away. I think about it every day without fail and I will until the day I die. I still don’t like being touched, even someone shaking my hand. That’s the kind of scarring it leaves you with.

“There’s nothing anyone can do to change that now but I would like to see Steel stripped of his titles. His reputation is all he’s ever really cared about and to see that taken away would give me a grim satisfaction that he was finally being punished and we were finally being listened to after all this time”.

Lawyers representing some of the victims have called for a change in the law to make it mandatory for people to report any suspicion of child abuse to the police.

Richard Scorer, a specialist abuse lawyer at Slater and Gordon who acts for eight of Smith’s victims, said: “Smith may have evaded prosecution in his lifetime but his admission of guilt should have made clear to Steel that he was not a fit or proper person to hold any kind of public office, least of all the knighthood he subsequently recommended him for.

“Shockingly, the inquiry found that political parties, even very recently, had shown themselves to be more concerned about political fallout than protecting vulnerable children.

“It is imperative that those in power now treat these findings with the gravity they deserve and ensure, not only that stringent safeguarding policies are in place across the board but that all members understand their importance.

“We would also like to see a mandatory reporting law compelling those who suspect child abuse to report their concerns. Gross failures such as this must not be allowed to happen again.”

In a statement, a spokeswoman for Lord Steel said he had been “inundated with support messages including from distinguished members of other parties” since the report came out, but maintained he knew nothing about Smith’s criminal behaviour, other than what had been reported in a 1979 edition of Private Eye.

She added: “The fact is, he knew no more and no less than anybody else who reads Private Eye and Smith at no time admitted the allegations.”

The statement contradicts what Steel told IICSA, when asked if he had pulled Smith up about the Private Eye story. The story, published in 1979, alleged that Smith had groped young boys’ genitals and subjected to them to ‘medical inspections’, spanked their bare bottoms and was violent towards them at Cambridge House hostel in the early 60s.

Inquiry documents state that Steel had questioned Smith over the news story, and whether it was correct, during a meeting they had while Steel was Liberal Party leader.

When asked if he came away from the meeting believing Smith had committed the offences, Steel replied: “Well, I assumed he had because he said the account was correct. Why would he have been investigated if he hadn’t done something that was possibly wrong?”

Steel was then asked by inquiry counsel if he understood that Smith had committed the abuse, to which he said: “I assumed that”

The peer, has previously said the offences took place before Smith was a member of the LibDems, let alone an MP, and before Steel was the party leader.