PEERS clashed yesterday over the handling of sex pest claims against a senior member of the House of Lords. 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 – his long-time friend – who was found to have groped a woman and promised her a peerage in exchange for sex.

Had he not resigned last week, claiming the allegations had affected his health, LibDem Lester, 82, would have faced the longest suspension in modern parliamentary history after he was found to have sexually harassed Sanghera and offered her “corrupt inducements” to sleep with him.

However, peers had previously blocked Lester’s immediate suspension and sent the case back to the Lords’ Committee for Privileges and Conduct, amid claims the investigation was “manifestly unfair”.

Following a lengthy 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 Lester’s conduct, agreed before he announced his retirement, the Privileges and Conduct Committee stood by its recommendation that he be suspended.

In an exclusive interview with The National this month, Jasvinder Sanghera, the woman targeted as Lester, said peers should be obliged to uphold an inquiry’s findings and recommendations and should not be allowed to vote on them.

Senior Deputy Speaker Lord McFall of Alcluith defended the Lords’ disciplinary process, as he again put the findings of the inquiry before peers yesterday.

Presenting the report to peers, John McFall, the former Labour MP for Dumbarton, urged their 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”. He said the response to the November debate on the original report suggested “there has been a loss of confidence in our ability to hold our own members to account”.

“We must work to regain that confidence today,” he added.

Rejecting criticism of the inquiry, McFall said the commissioner had “conducted her investigation to the highest standards of fairness and rigour”. He said: “She did so in accordance with a process set out in the code of conduct, which each of us signs at the start of each Parliament. That afforded Lord Lester every chance to put his case across and to question the evidence against him.

“These processes were designed to be independent, transparent and credible in this House and beyond. In the new year we will be putting forward reforms to these processes to explicitly address allegations of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. We will be doing this not because we believe the current system is unfair to members, it is not. We are doing so because we need to provide better support for complainants.

“Some members have suggested that we are soon to scrap our processes because we do not think they are fair to members. This is absolutely not the case.

“We will be bringing amendments forward because as things stand potential complainants may understandably be daunted by exposing themselves to the glare of the media spotlight or about being subject to debate in Parliament. Especially in light of our debate on October 15.”

But Pannick, a long-time friend and colleague of Lester, who led the move to refer his case back to the privileges committee, said: “From discussions that I have had with senior lawyers and judges outside the House, it is the overwhelming view of that community that, but for Parliamentary privilege, this report would not withstand challenge in a court of law.”

He added: “I think the committee should take a hard look at our procedures for the future. The procedures are not designed to address a complaint of this nature and careful consideration is now required as to what amendments to introduce in the light of this unhappy episode.

“For the avoidance of any doubt, I emphasise that I am not saying, and I have never said, that the House should believe Lord Lester rather than Ms Sanghera. I have constantly argued that the only fair and effective way to determine who is telling the truth is to follow the procedures, which include cross-examination, which are accepted in courts of law and other disciplinary tribunals.”