but the leading lawyer, lord pannick, proposed that the case be remitted to the conduct committee. , your lordships cannot know whether lord lester committed the acts alleged against him. i would be very surprised, but i don't know. what i do know is that the procedure applied by the commissioner for standards was manifestly unfair. it was manifestly unfair because if you are going to assess the credibility of competing contentions as to what occurred nearly 12 years ago, if you're going to apply a very serious sanction against someone, and if you're going to destroy their hitherto unblemished reputation, you have to allow them through their counsel to cross—examine the person who is making those allegations, which turn on credibility. my concern only is the same as lord pannick's, that we are operating a flawed system that can unfairly damage a distinguished person's life and their reputation. at the end of that debate, peers voted by 101 to 78 to support lord pannick's amendment, so lord lester's case will be reconsidered. lord mcfall said he was "deeply disappointed" by that deci