• Sir Jeremy Heywood KCB, CVO 70 Whitehall Secretary of the Cabinet & Head of the Civil Service London

SW1A 2AS

Cabinet Office Telephone +44 (0)20 7276 0101 Web www.cabh1_etoffL@_Jll)-'f,J.!~

Rt Hon Bernard Jenkin MP Chair Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee House of Commons · London SW1A-OAA

14 March 2016

EU REFERENDUM: GUIDANCE FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE r

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, I 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 I said in the hearing, I do not accept that the guidance could be read to imply that briefing or documentation relating to issues outside of 'the_q_uestion of whether the UK should remain in a reformed EU or leave' should be withheld. I 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 concerns about in your letter. This is - clearly - the referendum question. And I 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. I am happy to make this even clearer in future

- versions of the Q&A, but can only reiterate that I 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, I am clear that there is nothing in the guidance that is at odds W!th 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 I 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 I also said that I 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 FOi request.· Given that you also asked for a quick response to your letter, I will write again with more detail on this speciric matter as I 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 2015 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 I 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.

JEREMY HEYWOOD