Public Procurement Can Rebuild British Manufacturing – What the UK Can Learn from America’s Berry Amendment

At a time when Britain is searching for ways to strengthen economic resilience, create skilled jobs and revitalise manufacturing, one proven policy already exists across the Atlantic. For more than 80 years, the United States has protected its industrial capability through the Berry Amendment – legislation requiring the Department of Defence to procure domestically produced textiles, clothing, food and specialist materials wherever possible. It is a policy founded not simply on patriotism, but on economic security, national resilience and long-term investment in domestic manufacturing.

The principle is straightforward. When public money is spent on military uniforms, protective clothing or textile products, those contracts should support domestic manufacturers, protect skilled employment and ensure critical supply chains remain within national borders. During periods of conflict or global disruption, maintaining an active manufacturing base becomes a strategic necessity rather than an economic preference.

The UK should seriously consider adopting a similar approach. Britain possesses a rich manufacturing heritage built on textiles, apparel and technical innovation. Yet over the past four decades much of that capability has disappeared as production moved offshore in pursuit of lower costs. The result has been the erosion of skilled jobs, the decline of local manufacturing communities and an increasing dependence on complex global supply chains that can be disrupted by geopolitical events, pandemics or shipping crises.

Public procurement offers an opportunity to reverse that trend. Every year, government departments spend billions of pounds purchasing uniforms, workwear, healthcare textiles, defence equipment and other manufactured products. Too often these contracts are awarded primarily on the basis of lowest cost, with insufficient consideration given to the wider economic value that domestic production delivers.

A British equivalent of the Berry Amendment would change that conversation. It would recognise that the true value of public procurement extends far beyond the initial purchase price. Every contract awarded to a UK manufacturer supports skilled employment, apprenticeships, investment in technology, tax revenues and stronger regional economies. It helps sustain factories that train the next generation of machinists, pattern cutters, garment technologists and production specialists.

The social impact is equally significant. Manufacturing creates stable careers in communities that have often experienced decades of industrial decline. It provides opportunities for young people entering technical professions and offers meaningful employment pathways through apprenticeships and vocational education. Companies investing in skills can do so with greater confidence when they have visibility of long-term government demand.

The environmental case is also compelling. Producing closer to the point of use reduces transport emissions, improves supply chain transparency and enables better oversight of environmental standards. UK manufacturers are increasingly investing in sustainable production methods, circular economy initiatives and ethical employment practices. Public procurement should reward these investments rather than inadvertently favouring imports produced under weaker environmental or labour standards.

Critics may argue that domestic procurement increases costs. However, focusing solely on unit price overlooks the wider economic return generated when public expenditure circulates within the national economy. Every manufacturing contract awarded domestically supports businesses, suppliers, logistics providers, training organisations and local high streets. The multiplier effect extends well beyond the factory floor.

Importantly, a UK model would not need to replicate the American legislation word for word. Procurement rules would need to operate within the UK’s legal framework and international trade commitments while recognising legitimate exemptions where products are unavailable domestically or national security requires flexibility. The principle, however, remains the same: wherever the UK has the capability to manufacture essential goods, public procurement should seek to support that capability.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the vulnerability of over-reliance on overseas production. More recently, global conflicts and geopolitical uncertainty have highlighted the importance of resilient domestic supply chains. These lessons should not be forgotten. They present an opportunity to rethink how government spending can strengthen national capability rather than simply purchasing from the cheapest global source.

Britain still has world-class manufacturers, innovative SMEs and highly skilled workforces. What many require is consistent demand that enables them to invest, expand and recruit with confidence. Public procurement can provide that stability.

The Berry Amendment demonstrates that strategic procurement is not protectionism for its own sake; it is an investment in national capability. It protects industries that underpin economic resilience, national security and skilled employment.

If the UK is serious about rebuilding manufacturing, growing apprenticeships, supporting regional economies and strengthening supply chain resilience, then public procurement must become part of the industrial strategy. Every pound of taxpayers’ money should work twice: delivering the goods the nation needs while simultaneously investing in the people, skills and industries that secure Britain’s future.

The question is no longer whether we can afford to support British manufacturing through public procurement. Given today’s economic and geopolitical challenges, the more important question may be whether we can afford not to.