The UK government has finally published the new National Public Procurement Statement which will come into force in conjunction with the Procurement Act 2023 later this month.

I am yet to dive into it properly, but it is not a million miles from what I had expected it to be. Beyond an introduction to the five missions the government is purporting to pursue we have value for money as the overarching objective since "a contracting authority must have regard to the importance of delivering value for money" although what amounts to value for money has been broadened somewhat - and that is a problem. The more competing and opposing objectives we load into a concept the more difficult it is to even know what to achieve and what of those objectives to prioritise...at the expense of the others.

Priority 1 - Driving economic growth

Driving economic growth is the first priority and for that "[c]ontracting authorities should drive economic growth and strengthen supply chains by giving SMEs and VCSEs a fair chance at public contracts, creating high quality jobs and championing innovation." To that end, contracting authorities are expected ('should') maximise spend with SMEs and VCSEs, even to the point of having to define annual targets (this is according to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office). This objective seems to cut across the international commitments the UK has entered into with the GPA, TCA and bilateral trade agreements since there is a clear expectation that procurement will be used as a driver for growth in the UK ("[s]uppliers that benefit from taxpayers’ money should be expected to deliver public contracts in a way that benefits the country, delivering growth and fairer outcomes for all").

I will not even elaborate on what tends to happen to growth when companies dependent on public contracts realise that they will be disadvantaged if they suddenly fall outside the scope of this priority.

Priority 2 - Delivering social and economic value

The second priority is on delivering social and economic value supporting the government's missions "including by working in partnership across organisational boundaries." For this one, contracting authorities are expected to support the missions vial local and regional economic growth plans and "working in partnership with other contracting authorities, the private sector and civil society in the exercise of their procurement functions." Call me old fashioned, but I worry every time the idea of partnership with the private sector is floated in connection with public procurement. That's what the private sector wants: to partner and thus have a leg up over the competition. And preferably, without any competition in the future.

Priority 3 - Building commercial capability to deliver value for money and stronger outcomes

The third and final priority is all about contracting authorities having the right commercial (not procurement) capability to procure and manage contracts effectively. I support this approach in general, but the problem is not solved by fiat but by providing resources, something the UK public sector has not had much of over the last couple of decades. But the government seems to be tone deaf to this issue of resources when it asks contracting authorities to "[b]enchmark their organisational capability and workforce capacity to ensure they have the appropriate procurement and contract management skills and capacity necessary to deliver value for money." I bet most will conclude they do not and neither have the resources to solve the problem.

It is only on this third priority that the government states how to achieve value for money, meaning that the prior two are not connected with that - I mean, the how not the what.