Which is more serious?

This week, in the House of Lords, Lord Hoyle had to appear before their Lordship's disciplinary committee, chaired by Lord Woolf.

It was alleged that he had taken undeclared "cash for access" payments from lobbyists for arms dealers to meet the Defence Procurement Minister.

The disciplinary committee met to consider the matter on January 30th, and it is likely that we shall never know the facts, or even the verdict of the committee.

Derek Conway was being roasted at the same time. "Ah", said various MPs, but he has embezzled taxpayers money." They are quite right, and I do not defend him. But in terms of damage done to democracy, has the noble Lord if guilty, done any less than Conway? Or any less than the Tory MPs in the last decade who were pilloried for receiving money merely for asking questions?

Lord Hoyle may receive better treatment because he takes the whip of the controlling party, while Conway was convicted by a committee containing a majority of Lab0ur members, all too happy to make the most of a Conservative admitted misdemeanor, a misdemeanor which perhaps several others have come close to or even committed.