Practically £100m of public cash has been spent on non-public consultancy corporations recruited by the federal government to offer Brexit recommendation, together with no-deal planning, a leaked Whitehall report obtained by the Guardian reveals.
The draft report by the Nationwide Audit Workplace (NAO), which scrutinises spending for parliament, particulars how authorities departments have paid no less than £97m to Brexit consultants as much as April this yr and criticises them for not assembly transparency requirements.
Marked “official delicate”, the investigation warns Whitehall spending on Brexit consultancy work might hit £240m by 2020, as officers scramble to plan for departure from the EU.
The leaked figures spotlight the federal government’s reliance on employed consultants to offer experience because the nation heads in the direction of leaving on 31 October with no deal at present in place.
It additionally reveals vital development in spending on consultants past Brexit, rising from £513m in 2015-16 to £1.54bn in 2017-18.
The report, entitled “Departments’ use of consultants to help preparations for EU exit”, is known to be in draft kind, that means the ultimate figures could possibly be tweaked forward of its official publication.
The huge bulk (96%) of the Brexit consultancy expenditure underneath Cupboard Workplace preparations – which accounts for £65m of the £97m whole – has to this point been handed to 6 consultancy corporations: Deloitte, PA Consulting, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), Ernst & Younger, Bain & Firm and Boston Consulting Group.
5 departments: the Cupboard Workplace, House Workplace, Border Supply Group, Division of Well being and Social Care (DHSC) and the Division for Surroundings, Meals and Rural Affairs, account for almost all of spending through the Cupboard Workplace.
Based on a Whitehall supply, it’s understood a big proportion of the consultancy pertains to planning for a no-deal Brexit. The report splits the kind of consultancy work into 5 classes, with the biggest being “readiness for exit situations”.
Explaining the class additional, it says: “Experience supporting the work required to make sure authorities is prepared on the level at which the UK leaves the EU, together with planning for whether or not the UK leaves with a deal or with no deal, and potential civil contingency want.”
Giving examples of the kind of consultancy work carried out, the report particulars how the DHSC employed Deloitte for “administration help … in guaranteeing the provide of medical gadgets in case the UK leaves the EU with no deal”.
It additionally makes use of the instance of the Border Supply Group, a brand new cross-departmental physique planning for adjustments to the nation’s borders on account of Brexit, utilizing Bain & Firm between August 2018 and February 2019 to help engagement with the meals and automobile industries to “perceive the impression a no-deal exit would have on them”.
The report criticises departments’ lack of transparency, highlighting how they’ve been months behind publishing particulars of their Brexit consultancy spending. “Departments haven’t met the requirements of transparency anticipated by authorities when publishing expenditure on EU exit consultancy,” it says.
The report says the Crown Industrial Service, answerable for enhancing authorities industrial and procurement exercise, has issued steerage calling on departments to publish primary details about the award of contracts inside 90 days. However the report says it has taken a mean of 161 days for primary particulars of Brexit consultancy contracts to be revealed, in contrast with 83 days for all consultancy contracts.
About £65m of the cash was spent in a single yr between April 2018 and 2019. In early 2018, the report stated, a system was put in place permitting departments to entry Brexit consultancy companies through the Cupboard Workplace after it “recognized that departments required help”.
Utilizing information held by a “pattern of 4 departments and by the Crown Industrial Service”, NAO investigators discovered a further £32m was paid to non-public consultants. The determine “largely pertains to contracts entered into earlier than [the] Cupboard Workplace started providing help” for consultancy companies. It brings the overall spend on Brexit consultants to £97m however, the report provides, the “precise determine shall be greater, because the expenditure recognized in our pattern can’t be reliably extrapolated to estimate a complete determine”.
About £20.9m of the £65m was spent on “readiness for exit situations”. The report, dated Might 2019, particulars the way it has been compiled on the request of the general public accounts committee. It scrutinises spending on consultants in preparation for Brexit between the summer season of 2016 and April 2019. It makes clear its perform is to not “take into account the worth for cash of the expenditure on consultancy companies”.
It provides: “Getting ready for the UK’s exit from the EU has been a big problem for departments and has required expertise which might be briefly provide … Departments have used consultants for EU exit actions to fill particular talent gaps and to fulfill speedy staffing wants.”
The federal government has already confronted scrutiny over the extent of spending on exterior recommendation over Brexit. In February, evaluation discovered authorities and public sector our bodies had awarded contracts price £107m for “skilled companies” in relation to Brexit planning. Tussell, a non-public agency that analyses public contracts, stated the determine included 28 consultancy contracts price practically £92m.
A authorities spokesman stated: “It’s typically extra cost-efficient to attract upon the recommendation of exterior specialists for short-term initiatives requiring specialist expertise. These embrace EU exit priorities corresponding to guaranteeing the uninterrupted provide of medical merchandise and meals to the UK.”
An NAO spokesman stated: “Our function is to scrutinise public spending on behalf of parliament. Till we finalise this piece of labor and report our findings to parliament it will not be acceptable for us to remark additional.”