Boris Johnson's ethics adviser Lord Geidt quit after being put in 'odious' position by PM

In his resignation letter, Lord Geidt said he had come close to resigning over the PM's response to Partygate but was pushed to quit this week after being asked to offer a view on a deliberate breach of the code.

Lord Geidt did not specify in his letter what the issue related to but it is reported to relate to potential protections for the steel industry which Mr Johnson's letter of response said "would be in line with our domestic law but might be seen to conflict with our obligations under the WTO [World Trade Organisation]".

The ministerial interests adviser said in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister that he had been only credibly clinging onto the role “by a very small margin” over Partygate.

But Lord Geidt said he was forced to quit when he was tasked with offering a view on the Government’s “intention to consider measures which risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the ministerial code”.

The Prime Minister’s response to the shock resignation after a year of dealing with multiple potential breaches of the code indicated that it was relating to advice on the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA). It indicates the issue appears to relate to potential trade disputes.

In his letter to the peer, Mr Johnson said: “You say that you were put in an impossible position regarding me seeking your advice on potential future decisions related to the Trade Remedies Authority.”

The TRA is the body set up to protect UK industries from unfair practices or unexpected surges in imports.

These remedies usually take the form of additional duties on those imports, effectively making UK-produced products more competitive.

The body was set up following Brexit, as such measures were handled by the European Union’s institutions while the UK was in the single market.

In the letter published on Thursday, Lord Geidt wrote: “This request has placed me in an impossible and odious position.”

He said the idea that the Prime Minister “might to any degree be in the business of deliberately breaching his own code is an affront”.

“A deliberate breach, or even an intention to do so, would be to suspend the provisions of the code to suit a political end. This would make a mockery not only of respect for the code but licence the suspension of its provisions in governing the conduct of Her Majesty’s ministers.

“I can have no part in this.”

In his response, Mr Johnson said his intention was to seek Lord Geidt’s “advice on the national interest in protecting a crucial industry”.

He said the unspecified industry “is protected in other European countries and would suffer material harm if we do not continue to apply such tariffs”.

Mr Johnson insisted the matter has previously had cross-party support and that the request would be in line with domestic law “but might be seen to conflict” with the UK’s obligations under the World Trade Organisation.

“In seeking your advice before any decision was taken, I was looking to ensure that we acted properly with due regard to the ministerial code,” Mr Johnson insisted.