MP told appeal panel eight week suspension would have an adverse effect on constituents

An MP who has lost an appeal against a suspension said an eight week ban would have an adverse effect on his constituents.

Chris Pincher, who represents Stonnall, Fazeley and Shenstone as part of the Tamworth constituency, was given the sanction after groping two men at a club in London.

A report earlier this year said Mr Pincher had caused significant damage to the reputation and integrity of Parliament.

But the MP appealed against the recommendation to suspend him, describing it as disproportionate – but he did not dispute the committee’s finding that he had breached the code of conduct for MPs.

He said in an email to an independent panel reviewing his appeal:

“I took responsibility for my actions ‘promptly’ by resigning as a government minister.

“I would also like to be clear that I resigned before any media story broke (in a sense my resignation broke the story) and I also apologised to all concerned, as I did again in my submissions to the committee.

“I have also said publicly that I will not seek re- election. I informed the Conservative Party of that intent in early January.

“I feel the committee’s comment that I have ‘co-operated’ with the inquiry does not take sufficient account that I have tried throughout to be straightforward and helpful, and I would be grateful if you would consider this point as I believe it should matter in deciding the level of sanction recommended.”

Christopher Pincher

Mr Pincher said the punishment that had been suggested felt heavy-handed, and called for what he described as a more proportionate penalty.

He said:

“I do feel an arbitrary penalty is unjustifiable given other recent suspension penalties have been significantly lower and in cases where it has been concluded that there was far less co-operation with the commissioner and committee, where the committee concluded dishonesty on the part of the respondent or where the respondent was found to have pressurised the commissioner.”

Christopher Pincher

The letter also stated that Mr Pincher’s team has been helping constituents and he has been submitting written questions, despite not attending Parliament since details of his behaviour came to light.

He believes the lengthy suspension that has been recommended would prevent him from serving constituents.

Mr Pincher said:

“Throughout this period, which has been a very difficult one for me, my office has worked hard to ensure a very good standard of service is provided to my constituents and I have tabled a large number of written parliamentary questions and received answers on a range of matters of interest to my constituents.

“While I understand entirely that the public expect a high standard of conduct amongst MPs, as will the committee, I feel the length of suspension will have an adverse effect on the ability of my team to provide to my constituents the help and support they need on matters ranging from migration concerns to very local matters such as the closure of the George Bryan Centre.

“I raise this point because of the adverse effect on my constituents and team rather than me personally.”

Christopher Pincher

But the Independent Expert Panel chaired by retired appeal court judge Rt Hon Sir Stephen Irwin, dismissed the appeal.

If MPs now choose to approve the recommended sanction, it raises the possibility of a recall petition in which Mr Pincher would be forced to give up his role as MP.

He would have the option to contest a subsequent by-election, although this is considered highly unlikely given his stated intention not to continue in the role after the next general election.