Boris Johnson ‘carefully considering’ whether to appoint new ethics adviser after Lord Geidt’s resignation

The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished, and the prime minister’s spokeperson has refused to confirm that Lord Geidt will definitely be replaced as the PM’s ethics adviser.

The spokeperson said that having a process for ensuring standards are maintained by ministers was “vitally important”.

But he said that Geidt himself had raised a number of issues about how the independent adviser on ministers’ interests operated and he said Boris Johnson wanted to “carefully consider those and reflect on them”.

Asked if it was possible that Geidt would not be replaced, the spokesperson replied:

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 alludes to in his letter. So he will carefully consider that before setting out next steps.

Witnesses should not be able to avoid giving evidence at inquiries after “an increasing number of rich and powerful” people have done so in recent years, MPs have said. As PA Media reports, the Commons committee of privileges has published a report recommending legislation which would ensure parliament can compel witnesses to turn up to the House of Commons when summoned.

Explaining the recommendations, Chris Bryant, who chaired the committee when it was carrying out its inquiry, said:

The right of select committees to summon witnesses and hold the powerful to account cuts to the heart of our parliamentary democracy.

Most witnesses are more than happy to give evidence to a Parliamentary inquiry.

But an increasing number of the rich and powerful have started to resist engaging with select committees in recent years and, in doing so, have shown contempt for Parliament and the people it represents.

From billionaire high street moguls to unaccountable government advisers, these proposals will make it tougher for such individuals to disregard their democratic duty.

Our proposals, if approved by the house, will empower select committees to compel reluctant witnesses to attend or provide documents to parliamentary investigations - allowing committees to conduct their work efficiently and fairly.

The Trade Remedies Authority has put out a statement in response to the letter from Boris Johnson to Lord Geidt earlier today, which says Geidt resigned after being asked to advise on a matter related to the TRA. (See 12.01pm.) The TRA says this refers to a case “called in” by the government, which means ministers have “full decision-making authority” in relation to it.

In other words, the TRA seems to be saying: don’t blame us.

These are from Paul Caruana Galizia from Tortoise, who has a new detail about a well-documented party that Boris Johnson attended in Evgeny Lebedev’s villa in Italy in April 2018.

Scoop: in April 2018, Alexander Lebedev set up an unmonitored line between Boris Johnson, then foreign secretary, and Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, to discuss the Salisbury poisonings. But the call never happened because... https://t.co/RXDih3ZcrJ

....Johnson overslept. Happened on his stay at the Lebedevs' in Umbria on the 28/9th April 2018. He went there, without his security officers, from a Nato summit in Brussels where he told foreign ministers to do more to counter Russia's malign influence. On his way back: pic.twitter.com/MAfCr3oBfE

Account is supported by 3 other sources who were connected to the Foreign Office. One said it's representative of Johnson's "chummy" approach. Other said Foreign Office staff warned him off the idea. Third said use of Alexander Lebedev was discussed but not "intensively."

Downing Street did not deny the account. It said: "During his time as Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister took a leading role in coordinating the global action against the Salisbury poisonings, where 28 countries and NATO evicted more than 150 Russian diplomats."

Here are two more people who find the circumstances of Lord Geidt’s resignation curious.

This is from Mark Reckless, a former Conservative MP who went on to lead the Brexit party in the Senedd.

I am puzzled by Lord Geidt’s stated reason for resigning since Cameron deleted Ministerial Code requirement for ministers to obey ‘international law’ from 2015. I campaigned for that on @CommonsHomeAffs and with Dominic Raab when ECtHR stopped deportation of Abu Qatada

And these are from Sir Jonathan Jones, who was head of the government’s legal department until he resigned over the government’s plans to break international law with the internal market bill.

Well yes, very curious. If the Q was whether conduct was *lawful*, that’s for lawyers & ultimately the Attorney General. If AG says it’s lawful, then - no question for the indept adviser. If AG says it’s unlawful, then - govt shouldn’t do it, again no question for the adviser /1 pic.twitter.com/SYVnb1FSXV

If the conduct was in clear breach of the Code for some *other* reason than lawfulness, then you can see why Lord Geidt is saying - “why are you asking me? You’ve already decided to break the Code, I’m off”.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing the prime minister’s spokesperson said ministers would not be getting directly involved in talks to stop the rail strikes next week. The spokesperson said:

Broadly speaking, we remain of the position that it is for the unions to negotiated with their employers rather than the government stepping in, there’s no change in that approach.

Proposed legislation to enable the use of agency workers on the railways if the industrial action persists would take “weeks rather than months”, the spokesman added.

The Foreign Office has announced a fresh wave of sanctions against Vladimir Putin’s allies, including on officials involved with the “barbaric treatment of children in Ukraine”, PA Media reports. PA says:

Each individual has been dealt an asset freeze preventing them from dealing with British banks or businesses, and a ban on flying to the UK.

Those sanctioned include the Russian children’s rights commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, who has been accused of enabling 2,000 vulnerable children to be violently taken from the Donbas region for adoption in Russia.

The measures also apply to the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, who supports Putin’s war, and Sergey Savostyanov, the deputy of the Moscow city Duma.

Speaking in the Commons, Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, said Patriarch Kirill has “repeatedly abused his position to justify the war”.

This is from Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, on Lord Geidt’s resignation letter.

Lord Geidt walked out because of the odious behaviour of Boris Johnson’s Downing Street. This prime minister has, in his own adviser’s words, made a mockery of the ministerial code. He has now followed both his predecessor and the anti-corruption tsar out of the door in disgust.

There are now no ethics left in this Downing Street regime propped up in office by a Conservative party mired in sleaze and totally unable to tackle the cost of living crisis facing the British people.

Did Boris Johnson deliberately provoke Lord Geidt into resigning? It is normally best to treat conspiracy theories such as this as fiction, but there is something very peculiar about the request from Johnson to Geidt that triggered his resignation. (See 12.01pm and 1.33pm.) In Downing Street they must have known that Geidt was already very close to resigning, because of Partygate. A Partygate resignation, of course, would be damaging to the prime minister. But, as the Telegraph’s Christopher Hope points out, a resignation by Geidt in opposition to a policy supported by the Labour party and designed to protect British jobs in the steel industry? Well, that’s not quite such a bad headline.

Is that it? I can't see how 'ethics chief quits after Boris Johnson tried to protect British steel industry' is a damaging headline for the PM. #LordGeidt

And here are some more lines from what was said at the Downing Street lobby briefing about the resignation of Lord Geidt.

Not that I am aware of. I have seen speculation to that end, but that’s certainly not my understanding of it.

The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished, and the prime minister’s spokeperson has refused to confirm that Lord Geidt will definitely be replaced as the PM’s ethics adviser.

The spokeperson said that having a process for ensuring standards are maintained by ministers was “vitally important”.

But he said that Geidt himself had raised a number of issues about how the independent adviser on ministers’ interests operated and he said Boris Johnson wanted to “carefully consider those and reflect on them”.

Asked if it was possible that Geidt would not be replaced, the spokesperson replied:

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 alludes to in his letter. So he will carefully consider that before setting out next steps.

Jim Pickard from the FT says the dispute between Boris Johnson and Lord Geidt did relate to steel tariffs, as suggested by trade expert Sam Lowe. (See 12.14pm.)

- am told that this is *definitely* about protecting the UK steel industry - also told that Geidt *never* mentioned potential conflicts re Tory donors in his conversations and texts about this with the prime minister

The Lib Dems are saying Boris Johnson should come to parliament to explain what his dispute with Lord Geidt was about. Wendy Chamberlain, the Lib Dem chief whip, said:

The prime minister now needs to come to parliament and answer questions about these extremely serious allegations ... The public is sick of the constant lies and cover-ups by Boris Johnson and the Conservatives. They deserve the full truth now.

In his resignation letter (see 11.50am) Lord Geidt says he finally decided to resign after being asked to approve a move that could be “a deliberate and purposeful breach of the ministerial code”.

But he also says by that point he was close to resignation anyway, and he says he got to this point because he was unhappy about the letter Boris Johnson sent him on 31 May in response to the publication of Geidt’s annual report.

Geidt seems to be particularly angry about the suggestion in the PM’s letter that Geidt had not been clear enough in telling Downing Street that he thought Johnson should address the issue of whether he broke the ministerial code when he gave a statement to MPs about Partygate.

Geidt says in his letter.

Your letter in response to my annual report was welcome. It addressed the absence of comment by you about your obligations under that ministerial code up until that point. You explained that, by paying a fixed-term penalty, you had not breached the ministerial code. The letter did not, however, address specifically the criticism in Sue Gray’s report about your adherence to the Nolan principles (on leadership, in particular). Neither did the letter make mention that, despite being repeatedly questioned in the House of Commons about your obligations under the ministerial code (after paying a fixed-penalty notice), your responses again made no reference to it.

I reported to the select committee yesterday that I was satisfied that you had responded to my annual report to explain your position. I am disappointed, however, that the account you gave was not fuller, as noted above. Moreover, I regret the reference to ‘miscommunication’ between our offices, with the implication that I was somehow responsible for you not being fully aware of my concerns. These inconsistencies and deficiencies notwithstanding, I believed that it was possible to continue credibly as independent adviser, albeit by a very small margin.

Lord Geidt’s resignation letter and Boris Johnson’s response are now on the Downing Street website here.

Sam Lowe, a trade expert who works for the Flint Global consultancy, has posted on Twitter about the dispute that seems to be behind Lord Geidt’s resignation.

So last year the independent Trade Remedies Authority recommended that the UK remove a number of safeguard tariffs on Chinese steel.

This led to the steel industry kicking off, and a mini political firestorm. Some emergency legislation later, DIT overruled the TRA … which had found no legal justification for retaining the tariffs.https://t.co/R68CkdCGl5 pic.twitter.com/FINhnuumKj

The tariffs were extended for a year … until the end of this month. At which point I now assume the UK will continue to apply the tariffs on Chinese steel (presumably again agains the recommendation of the TRA), despite not having the legal justification to do so.

AND BECAUSE OF THIS, Lord Geidt has seemingly resigned …?

Anyway, as one unnamed official has just pointed out to me. These safeguard tariffs can all be linked back to Trump’s trade war, so if Geidt’s resignation brings down the PM we can ultimately blame it all on Donald.

Here is Boris Johnson’s reply to Lord Geidt in full.

The Downing Street lobby briefing is starting soon. We may get a fuller explanation there of what the WTO tariff issue was that prompted Lord Geidt’s resignation.