THE public must not be “short-changed” over the publication of the UK Government’s Brexit economic analyses, ministers have been warned, as fears persist that the papers have been heavily edited and redacted by Whitehall officials.

On Tuesday, members of the Commons Brexit Committee will meet to discuss what to do with the analyses, covering 58 different sectors of the economy, which have now been handed over by the Department for Exiting the EU[DexEU].

MPs could decide to publish the papers immediately.

Initially, it was claimed Whitehall analysis showed Scotland and north-east England would be worst hit by Brexit.

Following a Freedom of Information request to get the papers released, the Government refused and would not even confirm they existed, arguing to do so could help the EU27 in the Brussels negotiations.

But David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, finally agreed to release them after Labour won a Commons vote on November 1 on a "humble address" to the Queen asking for the "impact assessments" to be provided to the committee.

Labour's motion was passed without a vote after ministers indicated the Government would not oppose it.

At the time, John Bercow, the Commons Speaker, pointed out the arcane parliamentary procedure of a humble address used by Labour had "traditionally been regarded as binding or effective"; he said he would be willing to consider an accusation of contempt if the Government failed to respond.

Two days later, Mr Davis confirmed to Labour’s Hilary Benn, who chairs the committee, that he would make arrangements to comply but insisted it was not the case that 58 sectoral impact assessments existed in the form suggested by the motion.

Instead, he said that DexEU had drawn up a "wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis,” which looked at different sectors' current trading arrangements and the possible alternatives following Brexit.

Following the hand-over of the papers, a DexEU spokesman said: "We have taken time to bring together the analysis we do have in a way that meets Parliament's specific ask.

"Our overall programme of work is comprehensive, thorough and is continuously updated. This sectoral analysis is simply one part of it."

But Labour’s Seema Malhotra, a leading supporter of the Open Britain campaign against a hard Brexit, warned Mr Davis that he would face further "embarrassment and defeat" in the Commons if it turned out that the documents had been edited to keep MPs in the dark.

"If it is true that the reports they are handing over have already been redacted or edited, this would be against the spirit and the letter of Parliament's motion," declared Ms Malhotra.

"It would show once again how desperate ministers are to hide the facts about Brexit from Parliament and the public. The committee must be given the analyses which were completed and nothing less. We cannot and should not be short-changed. The public and Parliament must no longer be kept in the dark," added the London MP.