Boris Johnson put ethics adviser in an 'impossible and odious' situation

However, he said, this week he had been tasked to "offer a view about the government's intention to consider measures which risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the ministerial code."

This request, he said, had placed him "in an impossible and odious position." 

In his response, the Prime Minister indicated that it was over a matter relating to advice on the Trade Remedies Authority - the independent body tasked with giving ministers recommendations on tariffs. 

The dispute, reportedly, centres around whether or not the UK Government should impose tariffs on cheap foreign steel.

In his letter, Lord Geidt said: "My informal response on Monday was that you and any other minister should justify openly your position vis-a-vis the Code in such circumstances. 

"However, the idea that a 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 wrote: "You say that you were put in an impossible position regarding my seeking your advice on potential future decisions related to the Trade Remedies Authority.

"My intention was to seek your advice on the national interest in protecting a crucial industry, which is protected in other European countries and would suffer material harm if we do not continue to apply such tariffs.

"This has in the past had cross party support. It would be in line with our domestic law but might be seen to conflict with our obligations under the WTO.

"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."

The Prime Minister's official spokesman refused to say if the disagreement was over Chinese steel. 

They were also unable to give any precedent for Lord Geidt, or any of his predecessors, giving advice on whether government policy broke international law.

Lord Geidt, a former private secretary to the Queen, quit his post just days after a bruising session with a Commons committee, where he admitted it was “reasonable” to suggest that the fine received by the Prime Minister over Partygate was a breach of the ministerial code.

Last year, he described resignation as a “last resort” that “sends a critical signal into the public domain.”He is the second ethics adviser to have quit Boris Johnson's government in two years. 

The Lib Dems have called for the Prime Minister to come to parliament " and answer questions about these extremely serious allegations".

She said: “We urgently need more details about what exactly Boris Johnson is planning and why it would be a breach of the ministerial code. Does this involve any potential conflicts of interest such as links with Conservative donors or companies with connections to ministers.

“The public is sick of the constant lies and cover ups by Boris Johnson and the Conservatives. They deserve the full truth now.”

Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, said Lord Geidt had "walked out because of the odious behaviour of Boris Johnson’s Downing Street."

She said: "This prime minister has, in his own adviser’s words, made a mockery of the ministerial code. He has now followed both his predecessor and the anti-corruption tsar out of the door in disgust.

"There are now no ethics left in this Downing Street regime propped up in office by a Conservative party mired in sleaze and totally unable to tackle the cost of living crisis facing the British people."

Responding to an urgent question over the resignation in the Commons, Cabinet Office minister Michael Ellis told MPs: “The Government is particularly disappointed of course that Lord Geidt has taken this decision as only very recently, as this House knows from the debate last week, significant changes were made to the role and status of the independent adviser on ministers’ interests.

“These changes represent the most substantial strengthening of the role of the independent adviser since its creation.”

Shadow Cabinet Office minister Fleur Anderson said: “To lose one ethics adviser was really an embarrassment but to lose two in two years, just days after the Prime Minister’s own anti-corruption tsar walked out on him, well it is becoming a bit of a pattern.

“It is a pattern of degrading the principles of our democracy. The Prime Minister has now driven out both of his hand-picked ethics advisers to resign in despair in two years, it is a badge of shame for this Government.”

The SNP’s Alison Thewliss described Mr Ellis as the “minister for defending the indefensible”. 

She said he had been “sent out to account for the resignation of Lord Geidt who was no longer willing to do the same.”

“My constituents see Westminster ministers who break the rules with no consequence, no sanctions, no ethics, is it any wonder they have no faith in this broken Westminster system?” she asked. 

Mr Ellis would only say that he disagreed with the SNP politician.

Tory MP Peter Bone tried to downplay the row, saying the resignation of the peer wasn’t “something that our constituents care about.”

“I don’t know who Lord Geidt is, my constituents, don’t know who Lord Geidt is. I bet half of them don’t know who Lord Geidt was,” he said, pointing to the opposition benches. 

He added: “Her Majesty’s loyal opposition know that if things are as bad as they say they are, the way to get rid of the Prime Minister and this government is to have a vote of no confidence in the Government.

"The loyal opposition have not been willing to do that. I think my constituents will draw their own conclusions about the facts.”

Mr Ellis said: “Can I gently say to the opposition parties, that if they wish for a change of Prime Minister they ought to do something different from attack personalities, they should attack policies. But of course if they were to attack policies they would find that they would lose.”