BORIS Johnson’s adviser on ministerial interests has resigned.
Lord Geidt tendered his resignation to the Prime Minister, according to a brief statement on the UK Government’s website on Wednesday evening.
“With regret, I feel that it is right that I am resigning from my post as independent adviser on ministers’ interests,” it read.
So who is Lord Geidt?
Lord Geidt – full name Christopher Edward Wollaston MacKenzie Geidt – is a non-party-affiliated member of the House of Lords.
After serving in the Army and Foreign Office, he spent many years working in the Royal Household. First Geidt worked as assistant private secretary to the Queen, then deputy private secretary, before becoming the Queen’s main private secretary from 2007 to 2017.
Upon leaving the royal role Geidt was made a lord, receiving the title Baron Geidt of Crobeg. This place name was chosen as he grew up in the village on the Isle of Lewis.
Geidt now lives and farms in The Minches, an area of the Outer Hebrides, and served as the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministers’ interests until Wednesday, June 15.
What did Lord Geidt do as "independent adviser on ministers' interests"?
It is the Prime Minister’s job to appoint an adviser on ministers’ interests, who can advise him on matters relating to the ministerial code.
That adviser then has a series of responsibilities, including scrutinising all interest declarations from ministers, providing advice to ministers on how to handle their interests, and overseeing the production of a statement of ministers’ interests twice a year.
If a minister is alleged to have breached the ministerial code, the Prime Minister is able to ask the Cabinet Office to investigate or refer the matter to the independent adviser on ministers’ interests.
However if the independent adviser believes there has been a breach of code, the decision on whether to keep that minister in their post lies with the Prime Minister.
Therefore the adviser may recommend a minister be sacked, but the Prime Minister does not have to follow this advice.
For example, the former independent adviser on ministers’ interests Sir Alex Allan resigned after Johnson found Priti Patel had not breached the code, despite Allan’s report stating she hadn’t “consistently met the high standards expected of her".
Allan said in a statement that while he recognised the decision was for the Prime Minister, he felt it “is right” that he resign from his role.
The adviser does not have their own power to independently open investigations, with the Prime Minister previously rejecting calls to hand over that ability.
The Downing Street flat makeover saga
Weeks after Lord Geidt took on the role last year he published his first report on ministers’ interests.
He found Prime Minister Boris Johnson “unwisely” allowed the refurbishment of his Downing Street flat to go ahead without “more rigorous regard for how this would be funded”.
He said Johnson had not broken the ministerial code but might reasonably have been expected to be curious about the financial arrangements.
Lord Geidt also found there had been a “significant failing” from officials in how “rigorous” they were at examining the idea of setting up a trust to fund renovations to Downing Street.
Then in December, Lord Geidt demanded clarification from Number 10 after an Electoral Commission investigation into the refurbishment of the flat raised concerns the Prime Minister may have misled the standards adviser.
When that report found that messages between the Prime Minister and a Tory donor were not disclosed in Geidt’s investigation, deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner accused the Prime Minister of having “lied” to his standards adviser by saying he did not know who was behind the payment. No 10 insisted Johnson had been honest and followed the rules “at all times”.
Asked if the Prime Minister lied to the adviser and the public, Johnson’s official spokesman replied: “No.”
He said that Lord Geidt remained in the role and that Johnson continues to have full confidence in him.
Just a few weeks on, it emerged that Lord Geidt had written to Johnson with his concerns.
Lord Geidt said the text message “shortcomings” shows “evidence of insufficient care for the role of your independent adviser”.
“Beyond that, however, I believe a far greater threat to public confidence attaches to the exchanges unrecalled, the messages undisclosed, the data unconsidered and the subsequent misjudgements about the impact of the messages which I have had to weigh in this initial advice,” he added.
In response Johnson apologised for the failure to disclose the messages.
The Conservative chief claimed he did not have access to his previous mobile phone, from which the messages had been sent, and “did not recall the message exchange”.
But he said: “A fuller explanation of the circumstances should have been provided at the time of your investigation. I am sorry we did not do so.”
Nick Cohen, a Guardian commentator, said that after the row Lord Geidt “cuts a pathetic figure”. In a later debate, Labour MP Chris Bryant said Johnson had “tarnished” the peer’s reputation.
It was suggested by other journalists, including Robert Peston, that Johnson had been let off lightly for the incident.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here