Boris Johnson’s ethics chief threatens to resign over No 10 parties

Boris Johnson says his claim in parliament there had been no parties was ‘conveyed in good faith’ and he has since corrected the record.

Boris Johnson claimed his breach of the rules was ‘unwitting’. Picture: Getty Images

Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser has threatened to quit over the Downing Street parties scandal after concluding there were “legitimate” questions about whether the British Prime Minister breached the ministerial code.

Christopher Geidt, the independent adviser on ministers’ interests, said Mr Johnson’s breach of the law threatened to undermine the role and risked leaving the system open to ridicule.

The Times has been told that Lord Geidt threatened to quit during a discussion with the Prime Minister on Tuesday morning unless he issued a public explanation about his conduct.

Mr Johnson responded with a public letter to Lord Geidt ­explaining his actions and claiming that his breach of the rules was “unwitting”. He said his claim in parliament that there had been no parties was “conveyed in good faith” and he has since corrected the record.

One source said that Lord Geidt was “60-40” in favour of quitting overnight on Tuesday despite the Prime Minister’s clarification. The Cabinet Office ­denied that he was leaving.

A total of 126 fines were given to 83 people as a result of the London Metropolitan Police’s investigation into 12 lockdown- breaking events in Downing Street and Whitehall during the pandemic.

Mr Johnson, with his wife, Carrie, and Chancellor Rishi Sunak received fixed-penalty notices from the Met for attending a birthday party thrown for the Prime Minister in June 2020. Lord Geidt’s comments are significant because Mr Johnson is facing accusations that he “knowingly” misled the House of Commons, which would be a resigning issue. A cross-party committee of MPs is investigating.

He is under further pressure as nearly 50 Tory MPs have now gone public with criticism of him. A total of 30 have called for a confidence vote and another 16 have censured Mr Johnson over his conduct. There needs to be a total 52 letters to the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs to trigger a leadership spill.

They include Andrea Leadsom, a former Johnson loyalist, who accused him of “unacceptable failings of leadership” in a ­letter to constituents made public overnight on Tuesday.

John Stevenson, MP for Carlisle, said that a vote on Mr Johnson’s future was the only way to draw a line under the No 10 parties scandal as he announced that he had submitted a letter of no confidence to Graham Brady, the head of the 1922 Committee.

William Hague, a former Conservative leader who now sits in the Lords, predicted that Mr Johnson would face a confidence vote by the end of the month and possibly next week. “The fuse is getting closer to the dynamite here,” he told Times Radio. Tory rebels are discussing successors, including Penny Mordaunt, a trade minister who they said could be a “compromise candidate” to unite the party. Ms ­Mordaunt says she is loyal to Mr Johnson.

One government source said even if Mr Johnson survived a confidence vote, his government could be “paralysed” as a significant number of Tory MPs would, in effect, “go on strike” and refuse to back contentious legislation.

Lord Geidt used his annual ­report, which was published on Tuesday night, to criticise the Prime Minister directly. He said he had told Mr Johnson’s “official and political advisers” that he must provide a public explanation about whether his fine for attending a celebration in the Cabinet Room on his 56th birthday represented a breach of the ministerial code.

He said: “In the case of the fixed-penalty notice recently ­issued to and paid by the Prime Minister, a legitimate question has arisen as to whether those facts alone might have constituted a breach of the overarching duty within the ministerial code of complying with the law.

“It may be that the Prime Minister considers that no such breach of his ministerial code has occurred. In that case, I believe a prime minister should respond accordingly, setting out his case in public.”

He added that his requests for public clarification had been ­ignored. “I have repeatedly counselled the Prime Minister’s official and political advisers that the Prime Minister should be ready to offer public comment on his obligations under the ministerial code, even if he has judged himself not to be in breach,” he said.

He also suggested that his own position risked becoming untenable because if he formally recommended that the Prime Minister allowed him to carry out an investigation, and the Prime Minister refused, he would have no choice but to quit.

Mr Johnson said he did not ­believe he had broken the code because of “past precedents of ministers who have unwittingly breached regulations where there was no intent to break the law”.

Last week in the Lords a government minister drew attention to former Commonwealth secretary-general Patricia Scotland, who as attorney-general in 2009 was given a £5000 civil penalty for employing an illegal immigrant, but did not leave her job.

Mr Johnson also claimed his staff had not told him about Lord Geidt’s concerns.

The Times