It ought to be possible to engage in free and fair debate without facing investigation by the authorities. This certainly ought to be true of Parliament, where MPs and peers are protected by parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary democracy could not function if the nation’s legislators feared that anything they said in debates could later be subject to legal or disciplinary action. They are therefore given certain legal immunities to allow them to perform their duties without hindrance.

As we report today, however, four peers were contacted by the Lords standards commissioner after complaints were made about speeches they gave on housing transgender people in women’s prisons. The complaints were rejected on the grounds that they had been made by a third party. But the peers argue that the fact they were only dismissed on a technicality may give the impression there was substance to the allegations.

This raises a number of troubling questions, not least why the standards commissioner notified the peers in the first place. There was no obvious reason to do so, and the effect may have been to discourage the peers from contributing to future debates on the subject.

The discussion about transgender rights has become increasingly rancorous in recent years, with even high-profile figures such as JK Rowling facing “cancellation” because of their views on the subject. Some transgender rights activists have adopted tactics tantamount to bullying or intimidation in an attempt to silence their opponents.

It is a sign of how dangerous the situation has become that the phenomenon now seems to have even reached the gates of Parliament.