Tom Peck's Sketch: The row that was hit by a slight case of amnesia

The Civil Service supports the Government. That it should do so is the law. The Government has an official position on the referendum, and that is to stay in. The problem is that half the members of the Government don’t agree with the Government

Sir Jeremy said it was ‘common sense’ the Civil Service should support the Government (PA)

In scenes more commonly occurring on pavements outside provincial nightclubs than at hearings of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Bernard Jenkin and Sir Jeremy Heywood were mid-row and suddenly no longer knew why they were rowing.

“Why are we having this row?” Jenkin asked. This was naive. By then it had become clear that it doesn’t matter what you ask Sir Jeremy Heywood about – from the weather, to the capital of Peru, to why he has stopped ministers reading documents in their own departments – you’ll get the same answer: “The Civil Service is not going to be supporting ministers who are against the Government to enable them to make that case.”

When he gave the same answer for what will officially be recorded as the umpteenth time, he did amend it slightly: “For the umpteenth time, the Civil Service is not going to be supporting ministers who are against that Government to enable them to make that case,” he said.

It’s a difficult row. Sir Jeremy Heywood is the head of the Civil Service. The Civil Service supports the Government. That it should do so is the law. The Government has an official position on the referendum, and that is to stay in. The problem is that half the members of the Government don’t agree with the Government.

If the official policy of the Government were to go to Liverpool, think of Sir Jeremy as the 8.44 from Euston to Lime Street. A few of the passengers are determined to drive him to Plymouth – and not the first class ones either – and he’s not going to go there.

Mr Jenkin, whose entry into this “row” is entirely in defence of the constitution and in no way related to his leading role in the Out campaign, simply said the “problem had been resolved”. Sir Jeremy’s testimony to the committee was “very clear” – that no information would be withheld from ministers, they just wouldn’t be having any help from the public purse when it comes to writing their “Death to Brussels” speeches.

Jenkin told the head of the Civil Service his original guidance “had been unclear.” This is a bit like telling a chef the soup tastes foul.

Sir Jeremy told Jenkin he was “happy to take feedback.”

“Will you go away and rewrite it?” Jenkin asked him.

“No,” he replied. “I think the guidance was very clear.” This is a bit like telling an MP to eff off. And with that, the row was over.