Raab hints Lord Geidt’s resignation may be linked to issue not yet in public domain


DEPUTY Prime Minister Dominic Raab has claimed that Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser resigned for reasons that are not yet in the public domain.

In an interview with GB News, Mr Raab suggested that a “commercially sensitive” issue that Lord Geidt had been asked to look at might have been a factor in his decision.

He also suggested that Lord Geidt’s treatment by MPs during his appearance before the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on Tuesday could also have been a factor.

“He was before the committee of MPs and got a rough ride,” said Mr Raab.

“I think it’s important to understand politicians expect that and media scrutiny now, I’m not sure all public servants do and I think it can be very difficult.

“There’s also the fact that he was talking to Number 10, just this week about an extension for six months, so I was surprised to hear the news.”

Asked if there was a reason not in the public domain behind his decision to step down, he told GB News: “I knew there was a specific issue which is commercially sensitive, so I’m limited in what I can say, that he was asked to look at and in the national interest.

“And again, I don’t know whether it was related to that. I think we’ll hear more today. Number 10 will give a further update but I can just tell you the facts as I know them.”

Mr Raab said the Government is planning to replace the Human Rights Act with a new Bill of Rights, when asked about the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights to stop the deportation of migrants to Rwanda yesterday.

“I think it’s very disappointing, the Strasbourg Court, on what looks like a very flimsy basis, has sought to intervene.

“But I suppose it strengthens the case for a Bill of Rights, which I’m going to publish shortly to replace the Human Rights Act and give us greater control over the interpretation of human rights, and in particular void Strasbourg applying what are tantamount to injunctions and of course there’s no power there’s no basis in the convention for them to do so.”

Speaking during an interview on Breakfast with Eamonn and Isabel on GB News, Mr Raab added: “The Bill of Rights will contain provisions which will allow us to make sure that injunctions are decided by the UK courts on a UK basis, and they can’t be superimposed by Strasbourg.

“And just to be clear, we plan to stay a party to the convention – that’s always been our approach to the Bill of Rights, but it is important the Strasbourg court adhere to their mandate under the convention as well.

“I think trying to upgrade these rule 39 orders or interim orders as they’re known to full blown injunctions is quite wrong.

“…I would say and I would argue not least because the UK courts and the superior courts of the UK held that the injunctions are not appropriate.”