Will devolution affect public procurement?

Devolution in public procurement is already in place in the UK.

The Scottish Parliament, Welsh Government, and Northern Ireland Executive do not need to adhere to the same rulings that English contracting authorities do, based on the legislative frameworks introduced in 1998. While devolution has been in place for decades and is common globally, there’s little evidence to suggest it has complicated public procurement.

The Procurement Act 2023, which came into effect on 27 February 2025, is expected to remain a reserved power, meaning changes can only be made by central government. Given its recent implementation, it seems unlikely that devolution will significantly impact the Act in the immediate future.

The English Devolution White Paper outlines plans to expand devolution across England, granting mayors greater powers and funding while strengthening the relationship between central and local government. It also aims to improve local accountability and provide communities with better tools to shape their future.

Devolution is about empowering local decision-making, and the National Procurement Policy Statement (NPPS) promotes this by giving contracting authorities greater autonomy. In fact, key principles of the NPPS — such as promoting societal benefits through public procurement — align closely with the devolution model, which encourages localised decision-making.

For local authorities, public procurement is unlikely to see major changes since councils already hold accountability and decision-making power over their own procurement processes. Westminster does not manage these decisions for councils. However, if more authorities combine into ‘strategic authorities,’ there may be a shift in accountability towards larger, collaborative procurement projects.

Current rules already allow contracting authorities to reserve below-threshold procurements for suppliers within a specific geographic area, by county or borough (in London), helping to reduce economic inequality while supporting local recruitment, training, and investment.

Raising the threshold for open tendering could further align with the principles of devolution, giving local authorities more control over procurement and promoting local economic growth. However, any changes must comply with the UK’s commitments under the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) to maintain trade agreements. This proposal could be seen by some as being anti-competitive as well.

Another potential approach could involve introducing a policy similar to the light-touch regimes seen in education, health, and social care. These sectors follow more flexible procurement rules, often favouring local delivery. A similar “devolution procurement” model could establish higher thresholds and offer strategic authorities greater autonomy to enhance social value through local procurement. However, introducing such a model may require a whole new package of regulations and, again, could be seen by some as not promoting competition.

In the short term, the consensus is that devolution, in its early days, is unlikely to have a direct impact on public procurement or the Procurement Act. In fact, more immediate changes may arise from local government reorganisation, which could reconfigure procurement processes. The more pressing question is, will devolution affect procurement in the long term, and will the public procurement rules need adjustment to better reflect local decision-making?