The 384 further education colleges in England spend around £1.6 billion each year on procurement services, including administration and general costs, premises costs, non-pay teaching and support services. Procurement expenditure as a percentage of total income averages 25 per cent but varies widely across colleges, with the greatest variation among small and medium-sized colleges. The Learning and Skills Council has estimated that FE colleges could make £75 million efficiency savings by March 2008 through the introduction of more efficient and effective procurement processes. Drawing on good practice guidance from the Office of Government Commerce and on expertise within the National Audit Office gained from its reports on procurement in other sectors, this report makes eight recommendations for improved procurement. The recommendations are based on five key requirements, including: the need for clear leadership from governors and senior managers in improving procurement; information about appropriate methods of procurement; and exploring opportunities to collaborate with others to gain economies of scale when buying goods or services.

The 2004 Gershon Efficiency Review proposed procurement as one of the main sources of efficiency savings in the public sector. The Learning and Skills Council, which funds England's 384 further education colleges, estimates that from an annual procurement expenditure of £1.6 billion, colleges could make savings of £75 million by March 2008. The savings made by colleges would be available to be redeployed into front-line services for learners. Until recently, many colleges have tended to treat procurement as a low priority and have not taken advantage of modern procurement methods such as purchasing consortia and procurement cards. They now need to modernise their systems so as to maximise the resources available for learning. Colleges increasingly have staff who are capable of managing procurement, but they are too often let down by the low quality of the systems and the management information available to them. There have been recent successes in persuading colleges of the benefits of joining purchasing consortia and using procurement cards. Indeed the savings target of £75 million may prove unambitious in light of the low starting point of many colleges. March 2008, when colleges make their first reports on savings to the Learning and Skills Council, will be a good time to consider whether greater savings can be made to be re-invested into services for learners.

Dated May 2007. With correction slip dated May 2007

Part of a series on further education, this book offers a general introduction to understanding finance and administration. It guides readers through the maze of financial terms, providing advice on 'spreadsheets from hell' and examples of good practice. It also includes a number of time-saving tips and strategies for coping with the admin load.

The Department for Transport has approved expenditure of over £11 billion between 1998 and 2021 for the development of new and existing trunk roads and motorways by the Highways Agency, and just under £1.7 billion on major road schemes proposed and developed by local authorities in five year Local Transport Plans. Following on from a NAO report on this topic (HCP 321, session 2006-07; ISBN 9780102944600) published in March 2007, the Committee's report examines the steps taken by the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency to improve value for money and oversight of the roads programme and contracting methods and project management capability. By September 2006, the Agency's 36 completed schemes in the Targeted Programme of Improvement cost 40 per cent more than estimated initially, and for schemes still to be completed, latest forecasts indicate that final costs could be 27 per cent more than original estimates. The main causes for costs exceeding estimates are increases in construction costs, higher than forecast land prices and compensation to landowners, inflation and changes in the scope of the project. The report finds that the DfT has not been rigorous enough in its oversight of the Agency's delivery of major road schemes, allowing it too much latitude on delivery and cost plans, and has failed to monitor in-year expenditure against progress and delivery milestones. The Agency is overly reliant on consultants for project management expertise and needs to develop its in-house capability.

The EU Single Payment Scheme replaced 11 previous subsidies to farmers based on agricultural production with one payment for land management. The European Commission gave some discretion to Member States over how to implement the scheme, and the Rural Payments Agency, which is responsible for administering the scheme in England, opted for the dynamic hybrid model which incorporates elements of previous entitlement and new regionalised area payments based on a flat rate per hectare. The Agency and Defra encountered severe problems in the implementation of the scheme in England, and by the end of March 2006, it had paid farmers only 15 per cent of the £1,515 million due, compared with its target of 96 per cent. This caused significant hardship to farmers and taxpayers will have to pay extra implementation costs. Defra has had to secure an extra £300 million to meet the potential cost of disallowance of expenditure by the European Commission arising on the problems in administering the scheme. Following on from a NAO report on this topic (HCP 1631, session 2005-06; ISBN 9780102943399 published in October 2006, as well as a report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee (HCP 107-I, session 2006-07, ISBN 9780215033383) published in March 2007, this report by the Public Accounts Committee examines the impact of the payment delays on the farming sector, why implementation failed, the role of Defra and the changes being put in place to rectify the mistakes made. Lessons highlighted include: the Department made the scheme unnecessarily complex by choosing to adopt the most demanding implementation option; the Rural Payments Agency shed too many experienced staff at a key time; implementation of the project started before the scheme specification was finalised; and the IT system was introduced without adequate testing, a failure often seen with government IT projects.

Following serious concerns about clinical and organisational failures in the NHS during the 1990s (such as Alder Hey, the Bristol Royal Infirmary and Shipman), the Government identified the need for a more systematic approach to improving quality and safety in healthcare. The Department of Health introduced clinical governance, a framework through which NHS organisations are accountable for continuously improving the quality of their services and safeguarding high standards of care. Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are responsible for providing primary care services and commissioning services on behalf of their local health economy. This report examines the Department's progress in implementing clinical governance in primary care; the lessons learned; and the risks that will need to be managed if quality and safety are to be embedded in the new PCTs. that clinical governance is not as well established in primary care as in secondary care, largely because of the complexity of PCTs role in both commissioning and providing care; and the independence of contractors delivering healthcare, particularly General Practitioners (GPs). Primary care has also been slower in adopting a structured approach to quality and safety, evident for example in the lack of compliance with national systems reporting of clinical incidents. There is a lack of clarity between PCTs and their contractors as regards accountability for ensuring quality and safety, and scope for greater involvement of patients and the public in ensuring that primary care services are safe and of high quality.