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 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".

Davis handed over the documents 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 Davis termed "sectoral analyses".

Each document published by the committee on Thursday 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 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.

Labour MP Seema Malhotra, who sits on the committee, said: "In my view, the reports fall far short of the impact analysis the Government implied it was doing a year ago. It remains unclear if these are the original reports or have been written in the last two months.

"It is critical that the debate on the UK's future relationship with the EU is led by evidence and that Parliament and the public are not kept in the dark."

Eloise Todd, chief executive of the Best For Britain campaign, said: "These reports are the most useless and shoddy piece of work a government department has ever produced. Even the Iraq 'dodgy dossier' had some useful information in it."

Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), said: "For reports that purport to analyse the impact of Brexit on different sectors, what leaps out at you is the total absence of analysis. Search, and you do not find."

He added: "Judging by this set of documents, David Davis's department hasn't a clue what impact that (Brexit) will have and what the key challenges are for our electricity system, for North Sea oil and gas, or anything else relating to energy and climate change."

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. They are not exhaustive, nor are they the final say on any of these issues.

"Ministers have a specific responsibility, which Parliament has endorsed, not to release information that would undermine our negotiating position."