British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been forced to explain by his own independent ethics adviser that he believes the partygate fine imposed on him by Scotland Yard does not violate the country’s ministerial code.
Lord Christopher Geidt, who reports directly to the prime minister in an advisory capacity, said in an annual report on ministerial interests released on Tuesday that a “valid question” was in the form of a fixed penalty notice issued by the Metropolitan Police on a COVID lockdown. originated in. – Breaking birthday party in Downing Street in June 2020.
The report said Johnson should set his case “publicly”.
“I do not believe that the circumstances under which I received a fixed-fine notice were contrary to the rules,” Johnson said in a letter of clarification to Geidt, which has been made public.
“I have accepted the result and paid for it in compliance with legal requirements. Giving a fixed penalty notice is not a criminal punishment,” he said.
Geidt was also critical of his report on repeated consultations with the prime minister’s advisers, offering him a public commentary on his obligations under “his own” ministerial code, violations of which usually lead to the resignation of the minister. goes.
“That advice has been ignored and with regard to allegations of unlawful gatherings in Downing Street, the Prime Minister has not made a single public reference to the Ministerial Code,” said the ethics adviser, who according to “The Times” issues But he was on the verge of resigning.
While Johnson has strongly defended his actions and blamed the delay in addressing the ministerial code on a “failure of communication” between the offices, it is another push towards a slow but steady build-up of discontent over his leadership.
Several Members of Parliament from his own Conservative Party have been openly criticizing his actions at PartyGate and many have even called on him to step down as leader and prime minister.
For Tory lawmakers to topple their leader, 15 percent of them have to write to the chair of the party’s powerful 1922 backbench MPs’ Committee. The current number is 54 MPs and only the Speaker, Sir Graham Brady, is aware of the exact number of letters before disclosing that the threshold has been met to trigger a no-confidence motion.
If 57-year-old Johnson loses the vote of confidence, he will be replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister. Had he won, he would not have been able to face another challenge for a year.
So far, that number seems far from hitting the target, but the latest lines are making it difficult for Johnson to move on from the scandal, as he sought another apology in parliament following a scathing report from top civil servant Sue Grey. Had it. last month.
Johnson reiterated this in his letter to Geidt, saying he “takes full responsibility for everything that happens under my watch, and reiterates my apologies to the House and to the entire nation”.
Johnson, as well as his wife Carey and Chancellor Rishi Sunak, were fined by the Met Police for breaking COVID laws by attending one of the gatherings investigated by Gray.
Opposition Labor deputy leader Angela Rainer said Geidt’s report was “the latest sign of mass infiltration in Downing Street”, adding: “This prime minister has been traced and his days are numbered.”
It comes after Rainer and Labor leader Keir Starmer received police questionnaires as part of an investigation into alleged Covid rule-breaking at an election-related gathering in Durham in April last year, which depicted Starmer with a beer was – resulting in what is known as the “birget”.
Both the leaders have denied any violation of rules in the work-related program and have promised to resign if the fine is released.
“If the police decide to issue me a certain penalty notice, I will definitely do the right thing and step down. People are entitled to expect politicians to follow the same rules as everyone else,” Starmer said , amid calls by Johnson to resign over his Partygate fine.
During the coronavirus lockdown rules at the time, there were exemptions for work purposes and also if a gathering was “reasonably necessary” for campaigning in the election.
The local Durham Constabulary initially decided that no crime had been committed, but the force announced an investigation, saying it had received “significant new information”.