Press

Mr Baker told MPs he had heard the claim that civil servants were trying to fix a soft Brexit from Charles Grant, head of the influential Centre for European Reform think tank, at a lunch at the Conservative Party conference in 2017. But a recording of the exchange emerged which contradicted his claims, in which Mr Grant said the Treasury was “determined” to stay in the customs union but nothing further.

Backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg, a hardline Brexiteer, had sparked the row when he pressed the minister about claims made by Charles Grant, of the Centre For European Reform think-tank. Baker had said he was “sorry to say” Rees-Mogg’s account was “essentially correct”.
“At the time I considered it implausible, because my direct experience is that civil servants are extraordinarily careful to uphold the impartiality of the Civil Service,” he added.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the current chairman of the ERG, asked Mr Baker in the Commons on Thursday if he had heard a claim from Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform think tank, that “officials in the Treasury have deliberately developed a model to show that all options other than staying in the customs union were bad and that officials intended to use this to influence policy”. Mr Baker said that Mr Rees-Mogg’s account was “essentially correct”, although he said he could not confirm that civil servants had deliberately skewed data. Mr Grant later disputed the account of his remarks, saying that he had told a lunch meeting that Treasury officials favoured a soft Brexit but had not suggested that their data modelling was influenced by that view.

Brexit minister Steve Baker came to the Commons at the start of business on Friday to apologise to MPs.The storm erupted after leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg asked him to confirm if he had heard from Charles Grant, of the Centre for European Reform think tank, that “officials in the Treasury have deliberately developed a model to show that all options other than staying in the customs union were bad”.

Mr Baker admitted he should have dismissed the allegation — that Treasury officials were drawing up skewed economic studies to make the case for staying in a customs union with the EU — out of hand when it was raised by fellow Right-winger Jacob Rees-Mogg in the chamber yesterday. Standing up on a point of order, Mr Baker told MPs: “I wish to correct the record of my answer yesterday.” He said he had listened to an audio tape that undermined the account he and Mr Rees-Mogg had given — which was that the allegation had been made to them by the head of the Centre for European Reform think tank, Charles Grant.

Baker, who was a key figure in the Leave campaign, told the House of Commons on Thursday that he had been told by Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, that Treasury officials had sought to distort economic modeling on Brexit to force a change in government policy. He was responding to a question from Jacob Rees-Mogg, a devoted Brexit backer who is a potential leadership rival to Theresa May.

Steve Baker was asked by Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg in the House of Commons on Thursday to confirm that he had heard that Treasury officials had "deliberately developed a model to show that all options other than staying in the customs union were bad and that officials intended to use this to influence policy".The apparent foundation for the claim was later called into question by Centre for European Reform director Charles Grant, the man Rees-Mogg named as the source for his claims.Grant issued a statement that said he "did not say or imply" that the Treasury "had deliberately developed a model to show that all options outside the customs union were bad with an intention to influence policy".

Steve Baker’s explosive claims sparked a Whitehall civil war but he later apologised after his allegations were disowned by the expert source he said he heard the rumour from. ...Last night Mr Baker said: “This morning in Parliament, I answered a question based on my honest recollection of a conversation. As I said, I considered what I had understood to be implausible, because of the impartiality of the civil service.“The audio of that conversation is now available and I am glad the record stands corrected. In the context of that audio, I accept that I should have corrected the premise of the question.