Do MPs really need a sex pest tsar?

AS happens from time to time, the residents of the Westminster village have become gripped by a seductive idea – whether or not it has any basis in fact.

The collective wisdom is now as follows: that Parliament must have its own version of the Harvey Weinstein scandal.

After several days of fevered speculation, it is assumed – almost beyond question – that just as in Hollywood, powerful men in Parliament have been preying on vulnerable female victims with impunity for decades.

Yet on the available evidence, that case is far from proven. Indeed, there is little to date that bears any resemblance to the scale of accusations against Weinstein from dozens of women over many years – which include rape, assaults and cover-up.

Indeed, in cases involving named individuals, we have learned of a former minister whose career was already tarnished by scandal sending explicit messages to a young woman after rejecting her job application, and a tawdry tale of an MP sending his secretary to buy him sex toys after a Christmas lunch.

And yet Jeremy Corbyn warns of ‘warped and degrading’ behaviour and a ‘ culture that has tolerated abuse for far too long’.

Of course, it goes without saying that any allegations of sexual assault or harassment should be passed to the police and the Parliamentary authorities and merit the most thorough investigation.

And if greater legal protections for researchers and aides are needed – as Theresa May proposed yesterday – then who could object? But does Parliament

really need a sex pest tsar, as one Labour MP has suggested?

Unless victims come forward who are prepared to name their alleged attackers, it would be wrong to leap to conclusions simply on the basis of a Twitter-fuelled rumour mill.