Preparing for Brexit has cost a UK supervision £97m in consultancy fees, a National Audit Office has revealed.
The income has been spent on employing outmost experts since supervision departments miss a staff and skills needed, a NAO said.
It criticised a supervision for a miss of transparency, observant sum of contracts had not been published in a timely fashion.
It also pronounced a check was aloft than disclosed by a Cabinet Office.
According to a Cabinet Office, £65m had been earmarked for consultancy services between Apr 2018 and Apr 2019.
But NAO investigations unclosed another £32m value of spending in a same period.
- NAO: Government was warned about Brexit packet payouts
- Brexit divorce cost ‘uncertain’
Many contracts had been extended, quite in Apr this year, when a date for a UK’s depart from a EU was altered to 31 October.
“Departments continue to ready for EU exit and sum spend on consultancy support will rise,” a NAO said.
Under supervision guidelines, departments are ostensible to tell sum of such contracts within 90 days.
But a NAO found it had taken an normal of 119 days for simple information about Brexit consultancy contracts to be published.
It combined that 6 consultancy firms had perceived 96% of Brexit-related work, led by Deloitte, with 22% of a contracts by value.
The others were PA Consulting (19%), PwC (18%), EY (15%), Bain Company (11%) and Boston Consulting Group (10%).
A supervision orator shielded a spending, observant it was “often some-more cost-efficient to pull on a recommendation of outmost specialists for short-term projects requiring dilettante skills”.
He added: “These embody EU exit priorities such as ensuring a undeviating supply of medical products and food to a UK.”
A mouthpiece for a Management Consultancies Association pronounced consultants had been “proud to yield consultant support to a supervision with a Brexit preparations during this vicious time”.
She added: “Departments have faced an rare volume of effort formulation for all Brexit scenarios and regulating outmost resources has enabled a supervision to work fast and with power on vital programmes opposite a UK.”