This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/01/government-may-bow-to-pressure-to-release-brexit-impact-studies

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Government may bow to pressure to release Brexit impact studies Government may bow to pressure to release Brexit impact studies
(about 1 hour later)
The government could finally release dozens of analysis documents predicting the impact of Brexit on various parts of the economy after ministers said they would not oppose a Labour motion seeking their publication. The government seems likely to be forced to release unredacted versions of dozens of documents assessing the impact of Brexit on the economy after a Labour motion was passed unanimously in the Commons.
But even after the concession by Brexit minister Robin Walker, it remained unclear how much, if any, of the 58 studies would be released, with MPs and the Commons deputy speaker apparently uncertain whether the Labour motion would be binding. The motion called for the 58 studies, which ministers have fiercely resisted publishing, to be released in full to the Brexit select committee, members of which would then decide what elements to issue publicly.
Labour has sought for months to secure the release of the studies, which cover the great majority of the UK economy, prompting speculation ministers are wary of sharing them because of the gloomy assessments they contain. Labour has sought for months to secure the release of the studies, which cover the great majority of the UK economy, prompting speculation that ministers were wary of sharing them because of the gloomy assessments they contain.
Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, tabled a rare form of motion on Wednesday known as a “humble address”, one barely used since the 19th century. The unanimous Commons vote came after Robin Walker, the junior Brexit minister, said the government would not oppose the measure, a tactic it has taken several times recently to ward off likely rebellions by Tory MPs supporting Labour motions.
Seeking the release of the studies to the Brexit select committee, Starmer said the motion was “about transparency, accountability and ensuring that parliament can do its job properly in scrutinising the government”. However, while normal opposition day motions can be ignored by the government without consequence, the measure seeking release of the papers was tabled as a “humble address”, an arcane parliamentary request rarely used since the 19th century.
He said it was absurd that no elements of the studies had been shared with MPs, and said it was possible that redacted or summarised versions of the 58 studies could be released instead. The Speaker, John Bercow, said such motions were “traditionally regarded as binding or effective”, but insisted that he could not immediately rule whether ministers would be judged in contempt of parliament if they did not act.
Responding to Starmer, Walker said the government was wary of releasing such “unvarnished” advice lest it prompted future documents to be written in less frank terms. The Labour shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, who tabled the motion, said he expected ministers to release the studies.
But he added: “Given the generosity of approach that he’s taken in that regard we will not be opposing this motion today. But I do say that we need to look at the content of this analysis.” “Labour has been absolutely clear since the referendum that ministers could not withhold vital information from parliament about the impact of Brexit on jobs and the economy,” he said.
The government has recently taken to not opposing some Labour opposition day motions, but then ignoring them when they are passed, prompting some disquiet from the Speaker, John Bercow. “It’s completely unacceptable for the Tories to have wasted months avoiding responsible scrutiny and trying to keep the public in the dark. The reality is that it should not have taken an ancient parliamentary procedure to get ministers to listen to common sense.
Walker’s decision that this latest motion would also not be opposed could have been prompted in part by calls from some Tory backbenchers for the studies to be released. “As the Speaker has made clear, the government cannot ignore [the] binding decision. David Davis must now respond to parliament’s ruling and urgently set a date for when he will share these papers.”
What happens next remains unclear. Asked several times by MPs whether this meant the studies, or parts of them, would be published, Walker declined to say what might happen. During the debate, Starmer argued that passing the papers initially to the Brexit select committee would be a prudent approach, not least as it has a majority of Conservative MPs.
“The government always pays careful attention to the view of this house – as I’ve already pointed out we have done in the past – and we will respond appropriately,” he said. Responding to Starmer, Walker said the government was wary of releasing “unvarnished” advice lest it prompted future documents to be written in less frank terms.
Walker also refused to say whether the motion would be seen as binding, saying it was “not my job” to interpret the rules of house. This prompted requests for the deputy speaker, Eleanor Laing, who was presiding over the debate, to rule on whether the humble address was binding. But he added: “Given the generosity of approach that he has taken in that regard we will not be opposing this motion. But I do say that we need to look at the content of this analysis.”
“At this stage I would say only that a motion of this kind has in the past been seen as effective or binding. That does not mean I am making a ruling at this point about the nature of the motion before us today,” Laing said. “It is for the government to decide how the government will proceed having considered the opinions of the house.” Walker also refused to say whether the motion would be binding, saying it was “not my job” to interpret the rules of house.
However, further stalling by ministers would prompt disquiet among those Tory MPs who support publication of the studies, including staunchly pro Brexit MP Jacob Rees-Mogg as well as other rebels such as Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston.
In her contribution to the debate, Soubry took aim at diehard Brexiters on her own side, who she said had to get serious about the process.
“You’ve won, you’re in charge of this, now you have to face up to the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that works for everybody in this country and for generations to come,” she said.
Soubry said some of those opposed to releasing the studies seemed mainly worried about what they contained: “The implication is quite clear: there’s something in them that’s not to be disclosed because it might prick this golden bubble, this balloon, of the promised land of Brexit.”
Walker argued that people should not get the wrong idea about the scope of the Brexit studies: “It isn’t the case – and I don’t believe that this department or any minister have ever said it is the case– that there are 58 economic impact assessments that summarise what all the eventualities could mean for each sector,” he said.Walker argued that people should not get the wrong idea about the scope of the Brexit studies: “It isn’t the case – and I don’t believe that this department or any minister have ever said it is the case– that there are 58 economic impact assessments that summarise what all the eventualities could mean for each sector,” he said.
He also called on Labour to be prudent in how much information they sought to have published: “The house will appreciate that the more information is shared more widely, the less secure our negotiating position, and the harder it becomes to secure the right deal for the British people.He also called on Labour to be prudent in how much information they sought to have published: “The house will appreciate that the more information is shared more widely, the less secure our negotiating position, and the harder it becomes to secure the right deal for the British people.
“The house has the right to require the release of documents but I sincerely hope that in what is requested in terms of how they guarantee the necessary confidentiality going forward, and how much is requested by the opposition spokesman, the select committee and the house will be mindful of the job that ministers need to do.”“The house has the right to require the release of documents but I sincerely hope that in what is requested in terms of how they guarantee the necessary confidentiality going forward, and how much is requested by the opposition spokesman, the select committee and the house will be mindful of the job that ministers need to do.”