Peers in new clash over Lord Lester sex pest claims
PEERS have clashed in the House of Lords over the handling of sex pest claims against a senior Liberal Democrat.
Lawyer Lord Pannick said the upper chamber needed to take “a hard look” at its complaints procedures in the wake of the case against Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who was found to have groped a woman and promised her a peerage in exchange for sex.
The 82-year-old, who denied the allegations, recently stepped down saying the investigation had “taken a serious toll” on his health.
But the Senior Deputy Speaker, Lord Mcfall of Alcluith, robustly defended the Lords’ disciplinary process, as he again put the findings of the inquiry before peers.
Had he not resigned, Lord Lester would have faced the longest suspension in modern parliamentary history after he was found to have sexually harassed the woman and offered her “corrupt inducements” to sleep with him.
Peers had previously blocked the immediate suspension of Lord
Lester and sent the case back to the Lords’ Committee for Privileges and Conduct, amid claims the investigation was “manifestly unfair”.
Following a lengthy and impassioned debate last month, members agreed by 101 votes to 78 that the Commissioner for Standards Lucy Scott-moncrieff had failed to comply with the code of conduct, which required her to act “in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness”.
But in a follow-up report into the conduct of Lord Lester, agreed before he announced his retirement, the Privileges and Conduct Committee stood by its recommendation that he be suspended.
Presenting the report to peers, Lord Mcfall urged its approval “to deliver justice to the complainant Jasvinder Sanghera and to give confidence to other possible complainants and respondents that we have a robust but fair process in place for investigating allegations”.
But Lord Pannick, a long-time friend of Lord Lester, said: “From discussions I have had with senior lawyers and judges it is the overwhelming view this report would not withstand challenge in a court.”