Public procurement is not usually where political leaders go in search of a standing ovation.
You won’t find cheering crowds in Trafalgar Square demanding better framework agreements. Nobody has ever marched down Whitehall chanting for more proportionate selection criteria. Even the phrase “procurement reform” sounds like the kind of party conference fringe scheduled for 8am that you desperately avoid.
But in his first speech to the nation as Labour’s newly anointed crown prince, delivered at the People’s History Museum in Manchester, Andy Burnham made clear that public procurement would be a major pillar of his economic agenda.
And, in a limited and deeply unglamorous sense, I have seen this in action before.
I worked at the Greater Manchester Combined Authority while Burnham was Mayor and was involved in several procurement exercises, most notably (and dauntingly) the £80 million Adult Skills Fund procurement.
Social value already played a much bigger role in Greater Manchester procurement than it typically did in central government. For GMCA contracts, it usually accounted for 20 per cent of the total score, compared with 10 per cent across much of Whitehall.
But the difference was not only quantitative. The way that Greater Manchester thought about social value as a whole was completely different.
In March 2022, GMCA approved the report titled Driving Social Value in Greater Manchester Public Procurement, written by its then Chief Executive, Eamonn Boylan. It argued that Greater Manchester should, wherever possible, favour companies that shared the values the city region wanted to encourage, rather than simply those offering a few additional benefits on an individual contract.
Traditional social value can feel bolted on and slightly performative. A few apprenticeships here, a careers event there, perhaps a day’s litter-picking to sweeten the deal.
Greater Manchester asked a broader question. What kind of business is this, and what role does it want to play in the future of the city region?
The report prioritised fair wages, good employment, carbon reduction, tackling inequality, greater use of SMEs and voluntary organisations, and increasing spending with Greater Manchester businesses. Social value would form part of almost every major procurement, while commitments made during bidding would be written into contracts and monitored.
It also proposed that, unless legally or commercially unviable, public bodies should contract only with organisations willing to pay the Real Living Wage, support the Good Employment Charter and produce a credible carbon neutrality plan. Some lower-value contracts could be reserved for Greater Manchester SMEs or voluntary and social enterprises.
The report was not written by Burnham, but it was approved during his mayoralty and reflected the wider Greater Manchester approach to using public spending as an economic tool. It therefore offers some indication of how procurement could develop under his new national government.
Burnham would not be the first to view procurement as a lever for changing business behaviour. The current government has already promised to use the state’s £400 billion annual purchasing power to support small businesses, create good jobs, strengthen supply chains and deliver its wider economic missions.
The difference may be one of degree, but also of place.
Greater Manchester has pursued a more interventionist model, seeking specific commitments on wages, employment standards, local supply chains and carbon reduction. Applied nationally, that could mean firmer conditions on how government suppliers pay workers, train staff, use subcontractors and invest in the places where contracts are delivered.
The real significance sits where devolution meets procurement.
Burnham’s argument is not simply that money should move out of Whitehall. It is that places should have greater power to use public spending as a tool of economic development. Procurement then becomes part of the machinery of devolution, turning funding into jobs, skills, stronger supply chains and more resilient local economies.
A strong national offer with a few local commitments attached may increasingly look thin on a tender response. Businesses may need to understand the priorities of the places in which they want to work, build credible relationships with local institutions and suppliers, and show that their presence supports the area’s wider ambitions.
This could also create deeper forms of partnership. Devolved authorities will need greater policy and delivery capacity if they take on more responsibility from Whitehall. In some sectors, businesses might contribute by seconding staff, sharing data and technical expertise, supporting regional investment pipelines or helping local institutions build specialist capability.
This would be a plausible extension of Manchesterism, with government, business and civic institutions working together around a shared strategy for the place.
For businesses, that would raise the stakes. The question would no longer be simply what social value they could promise in a tender, but what role they were already playing in the economic life of the region.
