A year ago today, a quiet change in the law altered how the British state defines value for money. It did not make many headlines. It should have — because it changed how hundreds of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money can be judged and spent. The Procurement Act 2023 replaced the familiar phrase “most economically advantageous tender” with “most advantageous tender”. A small semantic shift, perhaps. In practice, it represents a profound change in how we judge the spending of hundreds of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.

I run a charity that spends public money. I know how significant this shift is, and how overdue. Consider Tom. Three years ago, military veteran Tom walked through the doors of the Royal British Veterans Enterprise (RBVE) village in Kent. He was days away from homelessness. He was receiving benefits. Without stable housing, support and, crucially, work at our factory (where veterans and people with disabilities manufacture the UK’s road and rail signs) his path could easily have led to addiction, crime, and long-term reliance on public services.

He would have cost the NHS, Police, and taxpayer far more than we have invested in him.

Instead, three years on, Tom is paying tax. He is spending money in the local economy. He is training other veterans. He is part of a team. He is building a stable life himself, and helping to build a happy, healthy, productive society around him.

Tom is not a real individual. But his story reflects a reality I have seen repeatedly. And it poses a serious question: what does value for money really look like in 2026?

The public debate often focuses on how government raises money. On tax levels, welfare bills, fiscal rules. Far less attention is paid to how the state spends the money it collects, and whether that spending reduces long-term costs or merely postpones them.

Public procurement is not merely a purchasing exercise. Every pound awarded through a contract shapes supply chains, employment opportunities, local economies, and communities.

When the state spends nearly £300 billion a year on procurement, it is exercising one of its most powerful economic levers. With public finances stretched and growth sluggish, value for money must mean more than securing the lowest upfront price.

The new Act recognises this. Contracting authorities are now explicitly permitted to consider wider benefits including job creation, skills development and community impact across the life of a contract.

That opens the door to backing work, responsibility and opportunity – not simply ticking compliance boxes. At a time of rising economic inactivity and communities still struggling to recover from successive shocks, that shift matters enormously.

But broadening the definition of value brings its own responsibility. If social value commitments are made at bid stage but never meaningfully tracked, taxpayers risk paying for promises rather than outcomes. Whitehall must ensure that “social value” is measured rigorously, enforced properly and delivered transparently.

Genuine social value is structural, not cosmetic. At RBVE, more than 70 per cent of employees in our social enterprises are veterans, disabled, or both. Delivering meaningful employment requires investment, training and ongoing support. It cannot be bolted on as a line in a tender document.

And the results speak for themselves. Every veteran supported back into work through our job coaching programme, Lifeworks, saves society an estimated £23,000 a year in reduced welfare dependency and health costs. For every £1 invested, there is an estimated £8 return in social value. That is not sentimentality. It is hard-headed economics.

Value for money is not about spending less at any cost. It is about spending intelligently and think about the long run. The British public deserve more than box-ticking exercises and lowest-price wins.

They deserve procurement that strengthens communities, rewards work and creates real opportunity for those ready to seize it. Public money must work as hard as the people who earn it.