Why Lord Geidt represents another headache for Boris Johnson

The new ethics adviser himself says much will depend on whether he can build ‘a relationship of trust’ with the PM – something that has eluded more than one of Johnson’s wives and mistresses, writes Sean O’Grady

To lose one ethics adviser is misfortune, to lose both looks like carelessness (Getty)

How much trouble will Lord Christopher Geidt make for the prime minister? Of course, the fairer way to put the question is to ask how much trouble the prime minister is prepared to make for himself. The evidence on that, looking at the record thus far, is abundant. A watchdog on standards, the role Lord Geidt is now taking on, can only do so much to restrain a wayward premier. Boris Johnson can only really be sacked by his party (or the electorate), and not by any appointed official. However, a compliant sort of establishment old buffer as adviser on ministerial standards, an obedient poodle, is obviously better than some sort of snarling rottweiler. In his evidence to the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Lord Geidt sought to assure him that, smooth and discreet as he may be, he is not afraid to sink his teeth into the prime minister’s bottom.

On the immediate priorities, these are to publish the register of minister’s external interests, and of course the investigation into who paid for the refurbishment of the prime minister’s flat. And, whoever the finding channels, whether it was consistent with the ministerial code and the seven principles of public life set out by the first standards supreme, Lord Nolan more than a quarter of a century ago – qualities not always immediately associated with the name Johnson: selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty; leadership.

Geidt promises to publish his findings, recommendations and “verdict” on the £58,000 refurbishment of the flat by the end of the month – quick work. Of course, Johnson is free to ignore the recommendations and is in a stronger position politically to do after the recent round of elections. The major part of Downing Street’s damage limitation exercise – delaying Geidt’s appointment, and thus inquiry, until after those elections are over. Still, Johnson might get a bit embarrassed.

As someone who served the Queen as her deputy personal secretary and personal secretary for a dozen years, Geidt understands well the way influence and power can best be exercised. In terms of his most important informal power, to resign if his recommendations are ignored, he was plain that, should it be necessary, and if his suggestions were ignored by the prime minister, then he would do so. The threat is that much more potent now because it was explicitly acknowledged by Geidt as a live question, and because Johnson has already lost one adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Alex Allan, whose report on Priti Patel found she was guilty of bullying and breaking the ministerial code. To borrow the well-worn phrase of Oscar Wilde, to lose one ministerial adviser on standards may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose both looks like carelessness. In Geidt’s own words, “the power is there, if you like, as a last resort ... If it came to it, I could do the same.”

He was less clear, oddly, on his more formal powers, as set out in his terms of reference, which have been changed – “enhanced” – on his arrival in the role. Geidt told MPs: “I sought assurances that the terms of reference might be amended to take account of this capacity to initiate inquiries, which my predecessor did not enjoy...

“And the further assurance that I received, and with enthusiasm by the prime minister, was that, once we had gone through the period of causing an investigation to take place, I would be able to cause that advice to be published and, critically, in a timely manner.”

However, the assurances are not absolute or formal, and in the end only the prime minister can initiate investigations or agree to his adviser’s urging him to initiate investigations – the adviser cannot do anything without that permission, even though he can threaten to quit. In the revised wording of Geidt’s terms of reference, it merely states: “Where, in the assessment of the independent adviser, he believes an allegation about a breach of the code might warrant further investigation, he will raise the issue confidentially with the prime minister.” And that’s all, “raise the issue”, so far as the “rule book” goes.

Lord Geidt, then private secretary to the Queen, greets the Duchess of Sussex in March 2019 (PA)

Indeed the other public watchdog, Lord Evans, chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, has written recently to the prime minister complaining about this very weakness: “While we welcome these steps and the changes made to the terms of reference for this role, we note that the adviser will still lack the authority to initiate investigations. We will want to consider how far the new arrangements provide the degree of independence and transparency that the committee believes is necessary, as our ... review progresses.”

Nor can Geidt actually enforce any sanctions he feels appropriate after a breach of the ministerial code or the seven principles has been determined. As ever, that constitutional prerogative rests with the prime minister alone, assuming the Commons doesn’t intervene in some arcane way. Geidt’s terms of reference still state: “The decision on whether a minister remains in office after an investigation sits with the prime minister, as ‘the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards’ (1.6). The prime minister may ask the independent adviser for recommendations about the appropriate sanction where the prime minister judges there to have been a breach of those standards. These recommendations will remain confidential.” (Translation: So no leaking, Geidty.)

Of course, the ministerial code and Geidt’s remit is silent on what happens if it is the prime minister himself breaches the code, or refuses to refer himself to his adviser to investigate an alleged breach. On the other hand, even Johnson is not above the law, and, in the case of the money for the flat refurbishment, the Electoral Commission has suggested that an offence may have taken place. As we can also see, even a premier can be taken to the small claims court, which is as it should be.

Geidt comes from a place, Buckingham Palace and the institution of the monarchy, where “duty” is paramount, hints, code and politely expressed advice are sufficient to get things done, and conventions are respected; Johnson comes from another planet, one governed by the morals of an alley cat, and is more than happy to push venerable conventions to breaking point and beyond, as seen in his unlawful advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament last autumn (a sorry saga Geidt will be all-too-familiar with). As to how the prime minister and his adviser will get along in the coming months, Geidt himself says much will depend on whether he can build “a relationship of trust” with the prime minister, something that has eluded more than one of his wives and mistresses. Trouble ahead, then.