TORY MPs lined up in the House of Commons to publicly condemn Boris Johnson’s handling of the Chris Pincher affair, with senior figures urging ministers to consider their positions.
On Tuesday, Labour was granted an urgent question in Parliament to address the growing scandal over the past behaviour of Pincher and what the Prime Minister knew about the allegations.
As Cabinet Office minister Michael Ellis kept defending the appointment of the MP for Tamworth as deputy chief whip, it soon became clear that disquiet among Tory MPs is growing, with several venting their anger and frustration in the lower chamber.
Conservative former minister John Penrose asked Ellis when he would finally say “enough is enough” and no longer defend the Government, whilst the Conservative chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, William Wragg, urged ministers to consider their position.
Sir Bernard Jenkin, chairman of the Liaison Committee, demanded to know why those with “the wrong attitudes and the wrong behaviours” are promoted by their leaders.
He asked: “Isn’t that exactly what gives permission for the wrong attitudes and the wrong behaviours to persist?”
Meanwhile, Jackie Doyle-Price, a former minister and assistant government whip, insisted the whiff of rumours and historic incidents surrounding Pincher should have been enough to tell the Prime Minister the appointment was not “wise”.
She also called for a “complete reset of standards” and “a complete reboot of the Ministerial Code”.
The criticism comes as the Prime Minister’s spokesman confirmed Johnson was briefed on the complaint by officials at the Foreign Office in 2019, a “number of months” after it took place.
The spokesman said the complaint against Pincher – who was Europe minister at the time – was upheld, though it did not lead to formal disciplinary action.
No 10 previously claimed Mr Johnson was not aware of any “specific allegations”, after Mr Pincher’s resignation last week as deputy chief whip following claims he groped two men at a private members’ club.
The admission came after the former top civil servant at the Foreign Office, Lord McDonald, said the original No 10 account was “not true” and the Prime Minister had been briefed “in person”.
In the Commons, former anti-corruption champion Penrose said: “It is clear from Lord McDonald’s letter today that Number 10 have not been honest in what they have said, that is what Lord McDonald says.
“One of the seven Nolan principles is honesty. Number 10 was previously accused without rebuttal of lacking leadership by Sue Gray in her report over what went on over partygate.
“How many more of the seven principles are they going to have to breach before he will stand up and say ‘enough is enough?’”
Wragg, who is also a vice-chairman of the 1922 Committee, accused the Government of losing “its sense of direction”.
He said: “(He) mentions the sophisticated and robust systems for upholding standards in public life, but those systems are on the whole irrelevant if the participants have no regard for them.
“The question that faces the Government and I would suggest my honourable and right honourable friends sat on the bench – and I notice a greater degree of propensity of Government whips rather than other ministers at this time – is for them to consider what they are being asked to say in public which changes seemingly by the hour, and I would ask them to consider the common sense of decency that I know the vast, vast majority of them have and ask themselves if they can any longer tolerate being part of a Government which, for better or worse, is widely regarded of having lost its sense of direction.
“It is for them to consider their positions. This is not a question of systems, it is a question of political judgment, and that political judgment cannot be delegated.”
Ellis refuted the claim, arguing “this is a Government that knows its direction and that is to serve the British people in dealing with the issues that matter to them”.
Meanwhile, Doyle-Price said: “Notwithstanding what he said about natural justice, the very whiff of rumours and historic incidents that Simon McDonald referred to in his letter today should have been enough to tell the Prime Minister that that appointment wasn’t wise, and he could have made use of the honourable gentleman’s talents in a different department, as he had done previously.”
She added: “I think we are now on a half a dozen different variations of degrees of honesty with which the knowledge of these events has been addressed by Number 10.
“Can I just say to my honourable gentleman, and I’m very fond of him, I think he has a really sticky wicket to do today, but really the way we move on from this is having a complete reset of standards, a complete reboot of the Ministerial Code.
“Could I ask him what he intends to do to really convey to this House that the provisions of the Ministerial Code are taken seriously by this Government?”
The Cabinet Office minister asked Doyle Price to bear in mind that “it doesn’t necessarily immediately impugn dishonesty if someone doesn’t recall something years after the event”.
Later on, Tory MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked why Pincher was not sacked in 2019, if the allegations brought against him were “similar” to those made about “bad behaviour” at the Carlton club.
Dr Caroline Johnson said: “What he (Michael Ellis) said is that the Prime Minister knew the allegation in 2019. He said that discomfort was caused, and he said that the right honourable member for Tamworth apologised.
“The letter from Lord McDonald says, and I quote, ‘in substance the allegations at that time were similar to those made about bad behaviour at the Carlton club’.
“The allegations, as reported from the time at the Carlton club, included sexual assault. Can he confirm if the allegations made back in 2019 were of sexual assault? And if they were, and they were upheld and apologised, why the police weren’t involved? Why wasn’t he sacked at the time, never mind given another job?”
Ellis said he was unable “to speak to that”, adding: “We must do everything we can to protect the confidentiality of those who make complaints. I’m very concerned that the way in which this matter has been processed by some individuals means that it opens up a risk of a breach of confidentiality.”
