Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser has suggested he would have been investigated for a possible breach of the ministerial code over the Partygate scandal – if the power had existed.
Christopher Geidt said he now felt able to “initiate” inquiries – under new enhanced powers – but they were not in place when the prime minister was fined for breaking his own Covid rules.
Asked if he would have launched an inquiry if he had been able to, the adviser on ministerial interests said it was a “hypothetical” question.
But he told MPs: “It’s reasonable to say that, perhaps a fixed penalty notice and the prime minister paying it, may have constituted not meeting the overarching duty under the ministerial code of complying with the law.”
And he added, on his new power: “I’m not going to be restrained from using it where necessary. My powers were less clear in the previous period.”
Lord Geidt said he now had “additional resources” to cope with a flood of controversies surrounding the ministerial code, admitting – to laughter: “’It’s been an especially busy year.”
But he was criticised over a failure to investigate a leak of controversial legal advice on the Bill to rip up the Northern Ireland Protocol – arguing that “rests with government”.
Lord Geidt admitted the convenient leak – that the attorney general was advising the legislation is legal, a stance contested by a top government lawyer – was an “area of significant concern”.
He also did not dispute that he had the power to investigate whether the leak was also a ministerial code breach, but told MPs it “rests with government” to probe the leak.
When it was suggested that either the prime minister or Suella Braverman, the attorney general, probably leaked it, Lord Geidt told the public administration committee: “I can’t comment because I really don’t know more of the facts.”
The adviser clashed with the prime minister over Partygate, warning Mr Johnson’s breach of the law threatened to undermine the role and risked leaving the system open to ridicule.
He reportedly threatened to quit during unless the prime minister issued a public explanation about his conduct – which Mr Johnson then did, claiming his breach of the rules was “unwitting”.
Lord Geidt repeatedly refused to say if he had threatened to resign, as he painted a rosy picture about the greater access to the prime minister and powers he now has.
He spoke with him “regularly”, he said – declining to say if that was weekly or monthly – insisting: “The door is open.”
And he claimed he had won his push to choose what to investigate, other than where there are national security implications or similar, saying: “I believe I can now initiate inquiries.”
There was “a clear expectation” written into new terms of reference that “normally consent will be given as a matter of course”.
