I disagree. MPs are representatives of the people - even the Acts relevant to Parliament, MPs and voting are known as Representation of the People Acts. If the people elect MPs they, and only they, have the right to remove them. What you're proposing is the first step towards dictatorship where governments can remove those politicians they don't like. Wragg behaved like an idiot and it's possible that he broke the law (and as such, should face the consequences) but when governments start removing politicians they don't like, we're heading into dangerous waters.It's not about what the rules stipulate as written today (rules written by the MPs and/or those the MPs appoint). It's about what *should* happen. IMO an MP should be held to higher standards than your average person on the street. Let's face, what this MP has admitted to is an absolute howler and (so far) we as a country are very, very lucky to have got away with it. This could have been far worse. There could and should be parliamentary rules and processes in place that enable the immediate removal (either temporarily or permanently) of MPs who have shown a disregard for rules, procedures, laws, and basic common sense to such an extent that it poses risk others.
In this particular case, an MP should have a very, very thorough understanding of data protection laws and face significant consequences should they breach them. An apology is simply not enough IMO. This MP has shown that he is not fit to be an MP.