‘No ethics at No 10’: Boris Johnson considers scrapping
Lord Geidt’s role
System to enforce ministerial code under review as
ethics adviser resigns over Partygate and steel tariffs row
Heather
Stewart and Richard Partington
Thu 16 Jun
2022 20.03 BST
Boris
Johnson is considering scrapping the role of ethics adviser after the
resignation of Lord Geidt, who accused him of making a mockery of his position
overseeing standards in government.
The prime
minister’s official spokesperson said Johnson would not immediately start
looking for a replacement for Geidt, but would instead review the system of
enforcing the ministerial code.
The
spokesperson said it was “vitally important” that the code was upheld, but that
the prime minister had not yet decided the “exact mechanism” of doing so.
Labour’s
deputy leader, Angela Rayner, said the move demonstrated “there are no ethics
in Boris Johnson’s Downing Street”. She said: “It appears he will now try to
keep it that way, content to further debase standards in public life and demean
his office.”
The Liberal
Democrat leader, Ed Davey, said: “Boris Johnson has no ethics, so it’s no
surprise he wants to scrap his ethics adviser.”
In a
strongly worded resignation letter published by Downing Street on Thursday,
Geidt cited Johnson’s problematic response to the Partygate scandal as one
reason for his departure.
But he made
clear the final straw had been a request from Johnson for Geidt to approve a
plan to extend tariffs on steel imports, which could break World Trade
Organization (WTO) rules, putting the government in breach of international
law.
The
ministerial code includes an “overarching duty,” for ministers to comply with
the law. Geidt said the request had put him in an “impossible and odious
position”.
“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 licence the suspension of
its provisions in governing the conduct of Her Majesty’s ministers. I can have
no part in this.”
In his
reply to Geidt, Johnson insisted his intention was to seek Geidt’s “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”.
Geidt’s
predecessor, Alex Allan, quit in November 2020 after the prime minister ignored
his finding that Priti Patel had bullied civil servants.
Allan said
he was “very sad” that his successor had also felt forced to quit. “I just felt
really upset that Christopher Geidt, who is a very honourable man, had been put
in a position where he felt he had no option but to resign.
“I’ve known
him for many years, and he’s a dedicated public servant, a man with lots of
integrity, and he wouldn’t have taken this decision lightly. It’s very sad that
it’s come to this,” he told the BBC.
Asked
whether he believed Johnson was a man of integrity, Allan replied: “I’m not
going to answer that.”
William
Wragg, the Conservative chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional
Affairs Committee , which grilled Geidt on Tuesday, said: “For the prime
minister to lose one adviser on ministers’ interests may be regarded as misfortune,
but to lose two looks like carelessness.”
Geidt
suggested during the cross-party hearing that it was “reasonable” to suggest
Johnson may have broken the ministerial code, when he received a fixed penalty
notice for attending a birthday party during a 2020 lockdown.
The
chancellor, Rishi Sunak, told ITV News on Thursday that he did not believe he
had broken the ministerial code, despite receiving a fixed penalty notice for
the same party – because Johnson is the final judge of it.
“Lord Geidt
I think acknowledges the ultimate arbiter of our ministerial code is the PM,
that is how our system works, and the prime minister has fully addressed that
matter,” he said.
Johnson
recently published a letter, at the urging of Geidt, explaining why he did not
think he had broken the code. His reasoning included the fact that he had not
believed he was breaking Covid rules at the time. Sunak said he was “sad to see
what Lord Geidt has written, and sorry to see him go”.
Dave
Penman, general secretary of the FDA union representing senior civil servants,
urged the government to put in place measures immediately to ensure concerns
about ministers’ behaviour can still be investigated.
“The
ministerial code is the only mechanism a civil servant can use to raise a
complaint of misconduct, bullying or sexual harassment against a minister.
Confidence in that process has already been severely damaged by the prime minister’s
refusal to accept that the home secretary had breached the code, despite being
found to have bullied staff,” he said.
“If the
prime minister does not intend to replace Lord Geidt, then he must immediately
put in place measures that ensure a civil servant can, with confidence, raise a
complaint about ministerial misconduct.”
Rebel Tory
MPs hoping to drum up support for a future vote of no confidence in Johnson
said Geidt’s abrupt departure would not necessarily help their cause. One
former minister said Geidt’s rationale was “slightly obscure” despite the
strong language in his letter.
Many at
Westminster, including some government officials, were mystified as to why
Geidt had been asked to rule on the steel tariffs, which were extended for 12
months a year ago using emergency legislation.
Catherine
Haddon, of the Institute for Government, said: “What is somewhat baffling is
what he was being asked to adjudicate on and why, because the government have
had a series of cases, including Northern Ireland but also others, on
international law and their willingness to breach it.”
Peter
Holmes, of the UK Trade Policy Observatory at Sussex University, said: “I’m
completely puzzled. Almost invariably when you introduce anti-dumping measures,
you claim that what you’re doing is consistent with the WTO. So to ask Geidt’s
opinion on an anti-dumping duty, it’s totally bizarre. He has no expertise in
this area. You would ask Suella Braverman [the attorney general] whether it’s
legal.”
One
government insider said: “I don’t know what his involvement is in this: he’s
not a lawyer.” They added that it seemed “particularly helpful” to the government
that the issue at stake – steel tariffs – was one where Labour backed the
government’s stance.
Jacob
Rees-Mogg, the Brexit opportunities minister, told the BBC’s Newsnight that
Geidt had resigned “over an issue relating to protecting the British steel
industry,” adding, “the prime minister is backing British industry and he’s
right to be doing so”.
Johnson
said in his letter that he had made the decision to refer the matter to Geidt
following advice from the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) – an independent body
set up after Brexit.
However,
the TRA later issued a statement insisting it had provided analysis, but not
made any recommendations – and that ministers had “called in” the issue of
steel tariffs, so the decision now lies entirely with them.
Both
Johnson and the business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, are keen for the tariffs to
continue. “If you drop the safeguards the UK effectively becomes a landing zone
for Chinese steel dumping, if the EU keep theirs,” said a source in Kwarteng’s
department.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário