Boris Johnson may not appoint a new ethics adviser after Christopher Geidt resigned saying the prime minister had put him in an “impossible and odious” position. Downing Street said the prime minister would consider how Lord Geidt’s role in advising on adherence to the ministerial code should best be carried out but declined to say if he would be replaced.
“We have not made a final decision on how best to carry out that function, whether it relates to a specific individual or not, particularly given some of the issues that have been raised recently,” the prime minister’s official spokesman said.
In a letter to Mr Johnson, Lord Geidt said he had considered resigning over the prime minister’s behaviour in regard to lockdown-breaking parties in Downing Street. But he said he was resigning now because of a separate issue that arose this week.
“I was tasked to offer a view about the government’s intention to consider measures which risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the ministerial code. This request has placed me in an impossible and odious position,” he wrote.
Adventures in Gdańsk: A few bars of Whiskey in the Jar later and I’m searching for my life jacket
Changing career midlife: ‘At 45 I thought I was finished... But it didn’t even occur to me that I could do anything else’
The trials of Stephen Roche: ‘There are things I’ve done the last few years I’m not proud of’
Maureen Dowd: Where is the voice of authority to challenge Donald Trump on his morals?
`Deliberate breach’
“The idea that a prime minister might to any degree be in the business of deliberately breaching his own code is an affront. A deliberate breach, or even an intention to do so, would be to suspend the provisions of the code to suit a political end. This would make a mockery not only of respect for the code but license the suspension of its provisions in governing the conduct of her majesty’s ministers. I can have no part in this.”
The issue that triggered Lord Geidt’s resignation was the government’s intention to breach its obligations under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules by maintaining tariffs on Chinese steel imports in order to protect the British steel industry. In his response to Lord Geidt’s resignation letter, Mr Johnson defended his decision to seek the ethics adviser’s guidance.
“My intention was to seek your advice on the national interest in protecting a crucial industry, which is protected in other European countries and would suffer material harm if we do not continue to apply such tariffs. This has in the past had cross-party support. It would be in line with our domestic law but might be seen to conflict with our obligations under the WTO. In seeking your advice before any decision was taken, I was looking to ensure that we acted properly with due regard to the ministerial code,” he wrote.
`Debased standards’
In the House of Lords on Thursday, former Green Party leader Natalie Bennett asked why Lord Geidt, as an ethics adviser, “was asked to give advice on compliance with international law over steel tariffs, but Sir James Eadie, first treasury counsel, was not asked about the legality of plans for the Northern Ireland protocol”.
Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, noted that Lord Geidt’s predecessor also resigned over Mr Johnson’s behaviour and that the government’s anti-corruption tsar had also stepped down.
“This prime minister has debased standards and rigged the rules for far too long. It is time for the Conservatives to do the right thing and remove him from office,” she said.
