Davis under fire over reports ‘farce’
‘Information could be found on Wikipedia’
EUROPE: Brexit Secretary David Davis has been fiercely criticised after parts of the Government’s analysis of different UK industries were published by MPs.
The Commons Exiting the European Union Committee published 39 of the reports on different economic sectors, but redacted the industries’ views on Brexit. It was branded a farce.
DAVID DAVIS has been fiercely criticised after parts of the Government’s Brexit analysis of different UK industries were published by MPs.
The Commons Exiting the European Union Committee published 39 of the reports on different economic sectors, but redacted the industries’ views on Brexit.
The information was gathered to help inform Brexit Secretary Mr Davis and his officials’ approach to negotiations, and given to the committee in response to demands from MPs expressed in a Commons motion.
But they were described as a “farce”, displaying a “total absence of analysis”, with information that “could be found on Wikipedia”.
The Department for Exiting the EU (DExEU) stressed it was carrying out a “comprehensive programme of analytical work”, of which the reports are a part, and admitted they are not “exhaustive” or “the final say”.
The row came as Prime Minister Theresa May visited Poland yesterday for talks aimed at strengthening ties with the eastern European state. She promised to “work with Poland and the other member states in the future to protect our shared values, people and interests”
And she called for a “satisfactory resolution” to a bitter dispute between the EU and Poland which has seen the government in Warsaw face the threat of sanctions.
David Davis handed over the sectoral anaylsis documents to the Brexit committee of MPs after the Commons passed a Labour motion calling on him to publish 58 sectoral studies.
But he faced accusations of misleading Parliament after admitting no impact assessments of Brexit had been made.
Previously, he had told MPs as early as last December that his department was “in the midst of carrying out about 57 sets of analyses” on different parts of the economy.
In a TV interview in June, he said nearly 60 sector analyses had been completed and in October he told the Brexit committee that Prime Minister Theresa May had read “summary outcomes” of impact assessments, which he said went into “excruciating detail”.
In the end, all that was handed over was two lever-arch files containing 850 pages of what Mr Davis termed “sectoral analyses”. Each document published by the committee yesterday contains an overview of an economic sector in the UK – for example retail – the current EU rules it must comply with, and existing frameworks for how cross-border trade is facilitated.
But the industries’ views were redacted after committee chairman Hilary Benn clarified with Mr Davis what material should be withheld from the public because it is commercially, market, or negotiation-sensitive.
Labour MP David Lammy said: “What a farce. Most of this could be found on Wikipedia or with a quick Google search.
“David Davis clearly misled the House and then set his civil servants the unenviable task of coming up with these documents in a couple of weeks.
“They look like copy-and-paste essay crises.”
Lord Jay of Ewelme, acting chairman of the House of Lords EU committee, who has previously described the analyses as “underwhelming”, said there was no reason why the information could not be published in full.
“They pose no risk to the UK’s negotiating position, and making them publicly available would, in our view, only promote an informed public debate on the options for Brexit,” he said.
A DExEU spokesman said: “Our analysis is not, nor has it ever been, a series of impact assessments examining the quantitative impact of the UK’s EU exit on the 58 sectors. As our analysis does not exist in the form Parliament requested, we took time to bring together information in a way that met Parliament’s specific ask. We are undertaking a comprehensive programme of analytical work. These reports are a part of that.”
Most of this could be found on Wikipedia or with a quick Google search. Labour MP David Lammy.