Research

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”.

The Conservative Jacob Rees-Mogg has sought to defend his suggestion that Treasury civil servants are rigging their Brexit analysis. He raised the allegation in the Commons this morning, suggesting that Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Research, had said that “officials in the Treasury 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.” Grant has denied saying this, and others who were at the event where the remark was supposed to have been made have backed Grant’s account. In response Rees-Mogg tweeted this this afternoon.

Rees-Mogg was referring to an alleged conversation between Baker and Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Research and an expert on EU negotiations, at a lunch at the Tory party conference. However, several individuals present at the event challenged the claim, including Grant himself and a Tory MP, Antoinette Sandbach. Prospect magazine later issued an audio of the conversation in which there is no suggestion about officials trying to rig the analysis. After the audio emerged, Baker said his answer was based on an “honest recollection of the conversation” but he now stood corrected. He added that he would apologise to Grant and clarify his comments in parliament.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, a leading anti-EU Conservative MP, had asked Mr Baker in the Commons to confirm whether he had been informed by a think-tank that the Treasury had “deliberately developed a model to show that all options other than [the UK] staying in the [EU] customs union were bad and that officials intended to use this to influence policy”. ...Mr Rees-Mogg suggested Mr Baker had been given this information by Charles Grant, the head of the Centre for European Reform, a think-tank. Mr Grant responded later by saying he recalled discussing Treasury research into Brexit with Mr Baker last October. But Mr Grant added: “I did not say or imply that the Treasury had deliberately developed a model to show that all non-customs union options were bad, with the intention to influence policy.

A Tory minister faces fury after he failed to challenge a "conspiracy theory" that civil servants are trying to sabotage Hard Brexit. Brexit minister Steve Baker said it was an "extraordinary allegation" that Treasury officials - who are meant to be impartial - have been promoting staying in the customs union in order to influence policy. Speaking in the House of Commons, told MPs the theory was "implausible" but did not say it was untrue - making his boss, Brexit Secretary David Davis, visibly wince. That's despite the man accused of making the claim, Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform, categorically denying he ever did so.

Jacob Rees-Mogg asked Mr Baker to confirm if he had been told by the Centre for European Reform's Charles Grant 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".

During Commons Brexit questions, prominent Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg had asked Mr Baker 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 and that officials intended to use this to influence policy".