Brexit: Release of Impact Assessments — House of Lords, 2017-11-28
Topic: International Affairs
Martin Callanan (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given to an Urgent Question in another place. The Statement is as follows: "On 1 November the House passed a Motion asking that impact assessments arising from sectoral analyses be provided to the Committee on Exiting the European Union. Mr Speaker, this Government take very seriously their parliamentary responsibilities and have been clear that they would be providing information to the committee. In the past three weeks, departments have worked to collate and bring forward this information in a way that is accessible and informative. I am glad to be able to confirm this information has been provided, not only to the Committee for Exiting the European Union but to the House of Lords EU Committee and, indeed, the devolved Administrations. I can also, with Mr Speaker’s permission, inform the House that we have initiated discussions with the parliamentary authorities to make this information available to all colleagues through a reading room We were clear that we would respond to the Motion but also that the documents did not exist in the form requested. Indeed, I made it clear to the House during the debate that day that, "there has been some misunderstanding about what this sectoral analysis actually is. It is not a series of 58 economic impact assessments".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/17; col. 887.] The sectoral analysis is a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis, contained in a range of documents developed at different times since the referendum The House of Commons has itself recognised that while Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, the Government also have an obligation to consider where it would not be in the public interest for material to be published. Furthermore, it is important to recognise that in some cases there may be confidential or commercially sensitive information in this analysis, and that in many cases it has been developed to underpin advice to Ministers of the negotiation options in various scenarios. It is well understood, as was the case under successive Administrations, that such advice to Ministers must remain private. We have also explained that we have a clear obligation not to disclose information when doing so would not be in the public interest In light of all that, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made a Statement on 7 November, in which he explained that, given that the documents did not exist in the form requested, it would take some time, "to collate and bring together this information in a way that is accessible and informative for the Committee".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/11/17; col. 231WS.] He committed that those reports would be provided within three weeks. In providing that information to the committee yesterday, we have met that commitment Ministers also have a specific responsibility, which Parliament has endorsed, not to release information that would undermine our negotiating position. Contrary to what has been asserted in some places, the committee did not give any assurances that what was passed to it would not subsequently be published in full. Where there are precedents for Government passing information to Select Committees in confidence, these will be on the basis of assurances received before the material is shared, or a clear set of rules such as those governing intelligence material When he met the Secretary of State, the chairman of the committee said that he was willing to enter into a dialogue after the committee had received documents from the Government. This is not the same as an assurance that, if we had provided confidential or sensitive material, it would not be published, and it is not in keeping with the usual practice of committees on these sensitive issues. As such, the sectoral reports do not contain material which would undermine the UK’s hand in the negotiations, or material that is commercially or market sensitive Mr Speaker, this debate really seems to be about the "release" of the reports. As you pointed out succinctly yesterday, ‘publication is to the Committee and the matter is in the hands of the Committee’.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/17; col. 50.] Therefore, I suspect many of the questions I receive today should be directed to the chair of the committee and his fellow members. The House should be in no doubt—this has been a very substantial undertaking. We have been as open as possible, subject to the overwhelming national interests of preserving our negotiating position. We have collated over 800 pages of analysis for the committees less than a month from the Motion being passed. This covers all of the 58 sectors We now consider the Motion of 1 November 2017 to have been satisfied".