Lord Christopher Geidt, Boris Johnson’s ethics watchdog, quit on Wednesday, a day after expressing frustration over his role and talking about an “exceptionally busy” year trying to uphold standards in Number 10.
Geidt was criticised over his investigation into the “wallpapergate” affair over funding of Johnson’s refurbishment of his Downing Street flat last year. He was then thrust into the row over the prime minister’s involvement in Covid-19 lockdown breaking parties.
Number 10 insiders said the news was “a total surprise” and that Geidt had indicated only this week that he would like to continue in the job for another six months.
But the adviser, drawn from the heart of the British establishment, admitted to MPs this week he had found it hard to prove he did not have a “cosy” relationship with the prime minister.
On Wednesday, after weeks of speculation that he was on the brink of resignation, Geidt quit, announcing his decision in a terse statement shortly before 7pm.
In the announcement released by the government, he said: “With regret, I feel that it is right that I am resigning from my post as Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests.”
Geidt’s departure will refocus attention on Johnson’s conduct in Downing Street, a week after he survived a confidence vote among Tory MPs by 211 votes to 148.
The adviser, former private secretary to Queen Elizabeth II, was recruited by Johnson in April 2021 and lasted little over a year in the job. He told MPs, to laughter this week, that it had been an “exceptionally busy” year.
Geidt replaced Sir Alex Allan in the job; his predecessor resigned after disagreeing with Johnson over allegations that Priti Patel, home secretary, broke the ministerial code by shouting and swearing at staff.
Geidt’s first task was to investigate the financing of Johnson’s refurbishment of his Number 10 flat. He was criticised for not being thorough enough in probing the prime minister’s claim that he was unaware financing was coming from a Tory donor.
Questioned by the Commons public administration committee on Tuesday, Geidt acknowledged: “How can I defeat the impression that it’s a cosy, insufficiently independent relationship? It’s very hard. But I’m trying my best to work with what I’ve got.”
He described himself as an “an asset of the prime minister . . . rather than a free orbiting adviser”, even though he felt Johnson had given him new powers to initiate his own investigations.
In the end, the strains of the job and the public criticism of him — some media reports portrayed him as “a stooge” — appear to have taken their toll.
Geidt had said it was “reasonable” to suggest Johnson may have breached the ministerial code when he was fined during the partygate scandal. He demanded a statement from Johnson to explain his conduct and the prime minister cleared himself of any breach.
He told MPs the “ordinary man or woman” might have concluded Johnson had breached the code, given he had received a fixed penalty notice. The code requires ministers to comply with the law.
Geidt suggested he warned Johnson he would quit if he did not explain his conduct: “Resignation is one of the blunt but few tools available to the adviser. I am glad that my frustrations were addressed in the way that they were.”
Angela Rayner, deputy leader of the Labour party, said: “The prime minister has now driven both of his own handpicked ethics advisers to resign in despair. If even they can’t defend his conduct in office, how can anyone believe he is fit to govern?”
Lord Nick Macpherson, former Treasury permanent secretary, said it was hard to see any credible figure volunteering to take on Geidt’s role as it was currently configured.
“Even if the ethics adviser’s powers are increased, the system is only as strong as the PM’s commitment to high standards,” he said on Twitter.
