Make your mind up! Geidt has another go at saying why he quit
BORIS Johnson’s ethics adviser last night made an extraordinary second attempt to explain why he decided to quit.
In a highly unusual move, Lord Geidt sent a new letter in which he said his initial resignation letter had been too ‘cautious’.
It had been widely thought that the sleaze watchdog stormed out in protest at plans to levy tariffs on cheap Chinese steel to protect British jobs.
But in a letter last night to Tory MP Will Wragg, chairman of the constitutional affairs committee, he said the focus on this was in fact a ‘distraction’.
Lord Geidt suggested he had broader concerns about ministers’ approach towards international law.
He quit in mysterious circumstances on Wednesday night, saying only that it was ‘right I am resigning’. Downing Street was left astonished by his decision to resign from the post barely a year in.
In his resignation letter released on Thursday, Lord Geidt had claimed he was left in an ‘impossible and odious position’ after being asked to sign off measures that ‘risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the ministerial code’.
He did not spell out the details of the potentially serious charge, but in his response to the resignation letter, Mr Johnson said the matter concerned measures to protect a ‘crucial industry, which is protected in other European countries and would suffer material harm if we do not continue to apply such tariffs’.
Whitehall sources said the row related to a potential decision to extend tariffs on cheap Chinese steel which are due to expire at the end of this month.
But in Lord Geidt’s second letter, issued last night, he wrote: ‘Since my letter of resignation was made public, there has been some confusion about the precise cause of my decision.
‘My letter has been interpreted to suggest that an important issue of principle was limited to some narrow and technical consideration of steel tariffs.
‘The cautious language of my letter may have failed adequately to explain the far wider scope of my objection. Emphasis on the steel tariffs question is a distraction. It was simply one example of what might yet constitute deliberate breaches by the United Kingdom of its obligations under international law, given the Government’s widely publicised openness to this.’
He concluded by saying that ‘conscious of my own obligations under the Seven Principles of Public Life (including integrity), I could not be a party to advising on any potential law-breaking’.
Lord Geidt is the second ethics adviser to quit since Mr Johnson became Prime Minister. He had been rumoured to be on the brink of resignation over Partygate and the costly revamp of the PM’s flat. Downing Street accepted that the ethics chief fulfilled a ‘vitally important’ function advising on the ministerial code but said the Prime Minister was reviewing the position and could even abolish it.
His spokesman last night declined to comment on Lord Geidt’s new letter.
‘Impossible and odious position’