‘Outraged’ Lord Lester allies seek to block sexual harassment ban
ALLIES of Lord Lester are preparing an attempt to block his ban from Parliament over sexual harassment by arguing the process against him has been “unfair”.
The former Lib Dem peer is facing suspension after he allegedly told Jasvinder Sanghera, a women’s rights campaigner, “sleep with me and I will make you a baroness”.
The leading human rights lawyer, who is the architect of race and sex equality legislation, will not be allowed back into the House of Lords until 2022 if the recommendation by the standards watchdog is upheld in a vote tomorrow.
However, about a dozen “outraged allies” of Lord Lester are rallying to stop the ban from going ahead, The Daily Telegraph understands.
They are expected to accuse Ms Sanghera of lying about her account of sexual harassment, and to cite evidence of her alleged subsequent behaviour which is “impossible to reconcile” with her claims. This includes an “effusive” book dedication she is said to have written to Lord Lester and an email signed “Lots of lovexx” seven weeks after the incident.
The allies include Lord Pannick QC, who has tabled an amendment to Thursday’s motion, as well as male and female peers, some of whom are eminent lawyers and have a high standing in public life. They are planning to “express reservations about the process” used against Lord Lester at the debate.
Lord Lester, who said the allegations were “completely untrue”, is the first parliamentarian to face suspension over sexual harassment.
One peer claimed Ms Sanghera’s “evidence looks rather weak” but that the House of Lords was “determined to get the suspension through, because some people are seeing it as a test case”. “If he was in the Tory or Labour party, there would be a lot more support,” they said.
Lord Pannick said: “Parliament has applied a procedure that would be invalidated by the courts if [he] were to be suspended by his local darts club.”
Nick Vamos, Lord Lester’s lawyer, said: “The approach applied to Lord Lester reversed the burden of proof and ignored vital evidence. The contemporaneous, documentary evidence, which should have been key in a 11-year-old investigation, directly contradicted Ms Sanghera’s key allegations... Independent counsel advised that the entire process was fundamentally unjust.”
David Hooper, Ms Sanghera’s lawyer, said: “This has all been gone into very carefully already by the committee of privileges and the Parliamentary commissioner over a period of a year, who have rejected Lord Lester’s account. All peers, including Lord Lester, have accepted this procedure for people to make complaints but they don’t seem to like it when the decision is against them.”
On Monday Ms Sanghera waived her anonymity and said the peer’s conduct made her feel “physically sick”.