Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB, CVO Townitenat
Secretary ofthe Cabinet & Head ofthe Civil Service London
f . SWIAZAS
Cabinet Office
Email canst secetay@cabineofice govuk __—Talophone +44 (03207276 0101
Follow me on twiter: QtendUKCNSer Web win cabinetofice gov. uk
Rt Hon Bernard Jenkin MP
Chair
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
14 March 2016
ye VererD,
EU REFERENDUM: GUIDANCE FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE
Thank you for your letter of 8 March. I was pleased to be able to come and give evidence
to the Committee and to discuss the guidance for the Civil Service on the EU Referendum
In your letter you raise three main concerns: first, that you think the guidance is
insufficiently clear on the support that will be given to Ministers who choose to take a
different personal position from that of the Government on the referendum question;
second, that you think the Q&A brief is not aligned with the guidance on this issue; and
third, you flag a potential inconsistency between the guidance and Q&A brief on the one
hand, and the Civil Service Code on the other. You also ask that I withdraw and reissue
the guidance and Q&A brief.
On the first point, | think the guidance is clear that the provisions set out pertain specifically
to the referendum question. It states: ‘As previously agreed, and confirmed at Cabinet,
individual Ministers will be able to take a different personal position from that of the
Government on the issue of the EU Referendum. This wholly exceptional arrangement
applies only to the question of whether the UK should remain in a reformed EU or leave.
All other EU or EU-related business, including negotiations in or with all EU institutions and
other Member States, and debates and votes in the UK Parliament on EU business will
continue to be subject to the normal rules of collective responsibility and party discipline’
The provisions relating to support for Ministers who choose to take a different personal
position on the referendum to that of the Government follow immediately, and must be
read with this clear statement in mind.
As | said in the hearing, | do not accept that the guidance could be read to imply that
briefing or documentation relating to issues outside of ‘the question of whether the UK
should remain in a reformed EU or leave’ should be withheld. | am also confident that
there can be no real doubt about the ‘matter’ to which the guidance goes on to refer,
whose meaning you raise specific concems about in your letter. This is - clearly - the
referendum question. And | am not aware that there has been any misunderstanding in
practice on the part of Ministers or civil servants as to its meaning.On the second point, the Q&A brief was designed simply to be a helpful working-level
addition to the guidance, and should be interpreted very much within that context. The
guidance remains the formal, official account of the position.
Our intention with the section of the Q&A brief that you refer to was to reiterate that those
Ministers who oppose the Government's line will not have access to briefing papers
relating to the referendum question, but would have access to any departmental briefing
papers that they had already seen. | am happy to make this even clearer in future
versions of the Q&A, but can only reiterate that | am not aware of any lack on clarity on the
part of either Permanent Secretary colleagues or Ministers about what the guidance
means on this point.
On the third point, | am clear that there is nothing in the guidance that is at odds with the
Civil Service Code or that would require a civil servant to act in a way that is at odds with
the Code's requirements. The guidance makes clear explicitly that civil servants can
check facts for Ministers who have dissented from the Government's position on the
referendum. Departments will also provide all Ministers with factual information relating to
the work of that department. Where new factual information is available within the
department, and would (to take your example) render a draft speech inaccurate, civil
servants would of course make a Minister aware of the correct information in the usual
way. There is no suggestion in the guidance that civil servants should withhold such
information.
In summary, we think that the guidance sets out clearly and concisely the correct
Position. As | said in the hearing, we therefore see no need to withdraw or amend it. To
do so would simply create uncertainty and confusion.
In the course of my evidence | also said that | would come back to you on a number of
specific points. Taking these in turn
Scope of the guidance
The guidance, underpinned by the Civil Service Code, applies to all civil servants including
special advisers. The general principles and conventions set out in the guidance also
apply to public servants employed by NDPBs and other arm's length bodies, alongside
their respective Codes of Conduct, and in line with the general requirement on them to
maintain political impartiality in the way in which they go about their public duties.
In addition, we have been clear that Departmental Non-Executive Directors should be
mindful of the guidance when operating in their official capacity, and should consult with
their Board Chair before undertaking any campaign activity. This approach reflects usual
practice ahead of elections and the approach taken for the Scottish Referendum.
Diplomatic Academy Awards
You asked me to confirm whether No10 or the Cabinet Office had sight of a speech given
by Prince William at this event. Having consulted here, the speech was not shared with
No10 or the Cabinet Office in advance.
National Insurance numbers
You asked for more background on this FO! request. Given that you also asked for a
quick response to your letter, | will write again with more detail on this specific matter as |
am in the process of looking into it.Government publications
We discussed the documents that the Government will publish in line with the
requirements of the EU Referendum Act 2018 and commitments made on the floor of the
House in the passage of the Act. You asked for confirmation of when the document titled
‘The process for withdrawing from the EU’ was cleared with Ministers from the Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).
You will appreciate that specific information on how government publications and policies
are collectively agreed is generally not disclosed, in order to protect the safe space for
Ministers’ internal discussions. But | am happy to set out the position in this case, without
setting a precedent. Having looked into this matter, the document was not, contrary to my
earlier understanding, cleared with BIS Ministers, though BIS officials provided some input.
The Secretary of State did however see and agree the other two documents that the
Government has published, on the new EU settlement that the Prime Minister has secured
and on alternatives to EU membership. These two documents feature significant and
extensive sections relevant to BIS interests, whereas the document on the process for
withdrawal had more limited BIS content.
Youn,
iz
JEREMY HEYWOOD