Theresa May justifies refusal to sack embattled Brexit Minister Steve Baker amid fury at civil service conspiracy comments

Prime Minister says minister will have to set record straight in Parliament – but should keep his job

Theresa May has set out her reasons for allowing under-fire Minister Steve Baker to keep his job after he promoted “extraordinary allegations” that the civil service had distorted evidence about Brexit.

Ms May confirmed Mr Baker would not be sacked, but that he would have to set the record straight in the House of Commons as soon as possible.

As pressure mounted on Ms May to intervene, Mr Baker issued a statement apologising for his remarks, saying he had the “highest regard” for hard-working civil servants.

The row began when he told MPs from the Commons despatch box that he had heard a suggestion that civil servants were trying to engineer a soft Brexit.

Asked if he would be sacked, Ms May said: “No. The ministerial code says that the minister should take the earliest opportunity to amend the record that has given to Parliament and apologise to Parliament. He will do that.

“What I understand the minister did was to reflect what he thought somebody else had said at a meeting. He has now recalled that was not right, he is going to apologise, he is going to ensure that the record in Hansard is correct so that Parliament is not misled when that record is read in the future.

“That’s what the ministerial code asks him to do and that is what he will be doing.”

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.

Furious MPs called for Mr Baker to be disciplined, while Mr Grant said his behaviour was “incomprehensible” and urged No 10 to clarify the facts.

Sir Jeremy Heywood, the head of the civil service, appeared to take a sideswipe at Mr Baker when he tweeted that he was “proud” to have spoken to a conference of officials.

“Every day their great work supports the Government in making evidence-based policy and helps deliver better public services across the country,” the Cabinet Secretary posted.

The controversy blew up amid a backlash over the leak of secret Brexit analysis, now to be released to MPs, which concluded the UK will be poorer under all mooted exit options.

Brexiteers have privately accused Sir Jeremy of conspiring with the Treasury to produce the devastating research, without the knowledge of ministers in the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU).

The allegation was made public when Tory Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg asked Mr Baker to confirm that Mr Grant had told him 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 Rees-Mogg added: “If this is correct, does he share my view that it goes against the spirit of the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms that underpin our independent civil service?”

Mr Baker, who had previously dismissed Whitehall forecasts as “always wrong”, replied: “I am sorry to say that my honourable friend’s account is 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.

“I think we must proceed with great caution in this matter but I heard him raise this issue.”

After the recording emerged, Mr Baker posted a statement on Twitter saying “the record stands corrected”.

He added: “In the context of that audio, I accept that I should have corrected the premise of the question.

“I will apologise to Charles Grant, who is an honest and trustworthy man. As I have put on record many times, I have the highest regard for our hard working civil servants. I will clarify my remarks to the House.”