Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser resigned from a No. 10 plan that ran the risk of “deliberate breach of the ministerial code,” his letter of resignation reveals.
However, Christopher Geidt’s letter fails to completely lift the lid on the controversy, which Downing Street described as a “commercially sensitive issue of national interest”.
In a stinging letter, which the government first tried to suppress, Lord Geidt says he was put in an “impossible and odious” position by the request for advice on the plan.
“This would make a mockery not only of respect for the Code, but would allow for the suspension of its provisions when it comes to governing the conduct of Her Majesty’s ministers. I cannot participate in this,” he wrote.
He was only clinging to the paper “by a very small margin” because of Mr Johnson’s refusal to let him investigate the Partygate scandal, the adviser said.
In his response, Johnson hints that the issue concerns steel tariffs, which is connected to the new post-Brexit Trade Remedies Authority and the need to protect a crucial industry from damage.
The planned move could breach “obligations” with the World Trade Organization, the response acknowledges.
The letter from Lord Geidt adds: “The idea that a Prime Minister could be in any business in the business of deliberately violating his own code is an offense.
“A deliberate violation, or even the intent to do so, would be to suspend the provisions of the Code to suit a political purpose.”
Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, tweeted: “It’s not uncommon for the Prime Minister to have tried to keep Lord Geidt’s resignation letter a secret; this is absolutely heartbreaking. are you in charge
Labor MP Diana Johnson mockingly asked, “What about the Prime Minister that makes him so rotten lucky to retain ethics and anti-corruption advisers?”
The resignation, the second of Mr. Johnson on the ministerial code in less than three years, leaves Downing Street agitated to find a replacement willing to take on the poisoned chalice.
In the Commons, Payer General Michael Ellis declined to confirm that a new adviser would be appointed, despite numerous outrageous allegations against the current government.
Lord Geidt’s letter also reveals that he had decided to resign before his bruising session before a committee of deputies on Tuesday.
He indicated that he would have investigated Mr Johnson, if he had been allowed to, whether he had breached the code by being fined by the number 10 parties.
And he said: “It is reasonable to say that, perhaps, a fixed penalty notice and the prime minister who has paid it, may have meant failure to comply with the general duty of the ministerial code to comply with the law.”
Last year, the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) recommended the removal of some tariffs on Chinese steel, but it was canceled by the government, following protests from the steel industry.
A trade expert said tariffs were extended for a year, but only until the end of this month, suggesting that ministers were willing to cancel the TRA a second time, with no legal justification for doing so. -ho.
In his response, Johnson wrote that his plan was to “protect a crucial industry,” which “would suffer material damage if we did not continue to apply these tariffs.”
Johnson’s spokesman declined to confirm whether steel is the industry in question and said Lord Geidt had not provided any “formal advice”.
“The Prime Minister sought Lord Geidt’s advice on this issue and the interaction with the ministerial code. This is not strange in itself,” he said.
He added: “The independent TRA has provided advice to ministers who found that a critical national industry is at risk of material damage if the government does not take action, affecting businesses and livelihoods.
“It simply came to our notice then. No decision has been made on this particular issue at this time. “
In a statement, the TRA said the case referred to in Lord Geidt’s letter was a “summoned” by the government earlier this year, meaning ministers have full authority to make decisions regarding him.
“The TRA has conducted analysis under the direction of the government and on June 1 we presented a report of the findings to the Secretary of State for International Trade,” the statement said.
“The findings report is an analytical work designed to inform government decision-making and does not contain TRA recommendations.”