Top civil servant urged to probe spending on Brexit alternative arrangements

The country’s most senior civil servant has been urged to investigate the use of taxpayers’ money and impartial officials to discuss alternative arrangements to Theresa May’s Brexit plan.

Liberal Democrat MPs have questioned whether it is “correct” for civil servants to be providing support to backers of the so-called Malthouse Compromise, after three days of talks were held between the group and Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay in Whitehall.

In a letter to Sir Mark Sedwill, the head of the civil service, party leader Sir Vince Cable suggested civil servants should not support backbenchers or opposition parties, nor use public funds for party political purposes.

He wrote: “Please can you confirm whether it is correct that civil servants have been providing this support and whether any other civil service resources have been used?

“If they have, I would question whether using civil servants to support a backbench initiative is either a sensible use of taxpayers’ money or maintains the much-valued independence and impartiality of civil servants.”

Referencing the Cabinet Manual, he said it was clear that “civil servants are there to support government (and presumably not backbenchers or opposition parties)”.

And he pointed to a section which he said “underlines the importance of ministers maintaining the political impartiality of the Civil Service”.

Sir Vince also noted that the document “underlines the importance of not using public funds for party political purposes (securing an alternative deal, palatable to Conservative backbenchers would clearly fall into the category of a party political purpose)”.

The letter, signed by eight Lib Dem MPs, also asks Sir Mark to confirm how much civil service time has been spent, and at what cost, supporting the talks.

He wrote: “If civil servants have been used in this way, please could you confirm how much civil service time has been spent and at what cost on supporting Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nicky Morgan, whether any on-going support is going to be provided and whether any civil servants have complained under section 7.6 of the Code.”

Sir Vince added on Twitter: “The civil service should not be spending time on a Tory party peace initiative which has no relevance to our negotiations with the EU and which is undeliverable.”

The Malthouse Compromise has brought MPs from the Remain and Brexit wings of the Conservative Party together behind a plan requiring the backstop to be ditched.

As they prepared to meet for a third day in the Cabinet Office on Wednesday morning, MPs in the group insisted they remained hopeful Theresa May will give serious consideration to the blueprint which they intend to complete by the end of Wednesday.

The compromise offers the EU a choice between a Plan A, involving the existing Agreement with an alternative to the backstop and a transition period stretching to December 2021, or a Plan B under which the UK leaves without a deal on March 29 but remains in the single market and customs area to the end of 2021 while arrangements are made for final departure.

MPs in the group said their compromise has a good chance of securing a majority in the Commons, making it a more serious proposition for EU leaders than amendments to the backstop which would be rejected by a wide margin.

But they accepted their proposals will not be ready in time to be presented as a Government position when Mrs May goes to Brussels on Thursday.

Speaking under condition of anonymity, one MP said the Commons votes scheduled for February 14 are likely to be a rerun of last week’s divisions on a series of backbench amendments, with the long-awaited “meaningful vote” on a proposed final deal coming later in the month.

Although this would leave insufficient time to pass the necessary legislation in the normal way by Brexit day on March 29, MPs in the group insisted it could be rushed through, saying: “If Parliament has the will to get the legislation passed, it will.”