Welsh Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: Promoting Wales for inward investment, HC 444
Wednesday 26 March 2025
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 26 March 2025.
Members present: Ruth Jones (Chair); Ann Davies; Gill German; Claire Hughes; Ben Lake; Andrew Ranger; Henry Tufnell; Steve Witherden.
Questions 8 - 37
Witnesses
I: James Gardiner, Senior Economist, EY; Ken Poole MBE, Head of Economic Development, Cardiff Council, and Invest in Cardiff; Professor Riccardo Crescenzi, Professor of Economic Geography, Deputy Head of Department of Geography and Environment (Research), London School of Economics and Political Science; and Nan Williams, Chair, GlobalWelsh, and CEO, Four Communications.
Written evidence from witnesses:
– Professor Riccardo Crescenzi
Witnesses: James Gardiner, Ken Poole MBE, Professor Riccardo Crescenzi and Nan Williams.
Q8 Chair: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this oral evidence session of the Welsh Affairs Committee—part 2, if you like. My name is Ruth Jones and I am the Chair of the Committee. I would like to welcome back the four witnesses we had before us last week, when, unfortunately, we had to cut our session short rather abruptly. Thank you so much for returning; it is much appreciated. I am delighted that we will be continuing the first session of our inquiry into promoting Wales for inward investment. We are looking forward to hearing from the witnesses about how Wales can make the most of its potential and attract more business investment.
Before we begin, I ask Members to declare any interests relevant to today’s inquiry.
Claire Hughes: As I did last week, I need to let you know that I am a PPS in the Department for Business and Trade, but I am here as a Back-Bench Member of the Welsh Affairs Committee. I just need to make sure that everybody understands that.
Chair: Thank you very much, Claire.
Today’s session is a continuation of last week’s, so hopefully you have had a week to ruminate on the issues. Thank you so much for coming back. For the benefit of those of us who were not here last week, would you all briefly reintroduce yourselves, please?
Professor Crescenzi: My name is Riccardo Crescenzi. I am a Professor of Economic Geography at the London School of Economics and Deputy Head of Department (Research) in Geography and Environment. I have done research supported by the European Research Council, Horizon Europe, as well as UK Research and Innovation, on FDI—the nature of FDI and the strategies of multinational firms. I focus in particular on the sub-national level, so looking at FDI beyond the macroeconomic and trying to understand how they choose where to locate their activities, in particular within countries, looking at the sub-national level, and also trying to understand what type of public policies work to attract what type of FDI.
Nan Williams: I am Nan Williams. I am the Chair of GlobalWelsh, which is a small community investment company looking at Welsh diaspora globally. My day job is as an entrepreneur. I have a company, which is based in London, the middle east and Wales. Other than that, I am a non-executive of various Welsh organisations, but I am here today to talk particularly about diaspora and FDI.
James Gardiner: Hi all. I am James Gardiner. I am a Senior Economist at Ernst & Young. I focus primarily on macroeconomics and investment and usually lead the analysis on the UK attractiveness survey, which is an annual FDI and C-suite investment survey and publication that looks at investment projects across the UK, broken down to the regional level. It is good to be with you.
Ken Poole: Good afternoon, Chair. Ken Poole, Head of Economic Development at Cardiff Council, with over 40 years’ experience in inward investment and foreign direct investment attraction. I had a significant spell as a director with PricewaterhouseCoopers before coming back into the public sector and working with Cardiff. I have long experience advising businesses across Wales and the UK, and working with cities and development agencies, in my tenure with the private sector.
Q9 Chair: Thank you all. Professor Crescenzi, how does Wales’s track record of attracting inward investment compare with other parts of the UK? We often look at stats, so how does it compare? Do you think that Wales is missing out on key sectors of inward investment?
Professor Crescenzi: The LSE conducted a study before covid looking at the attraction of foreign direct investment and comparing specifically Wales and Scotland. There are lots of statistics and attempts to draw comparisons, looking at the position of Wales vis-à-vis the rest of the UK, but also comparing Wales with other European regions to try to see the position of competitors in terms of FDI attraction, the potential to attract FDI and so on. We have also looked, in preparation for this meeting, into more updated data, because the report predates covid and the data were older than that. The LSE study covers fundamentally the recovery phase from the 2009 crisis—that is an important fact—and then we looked at more updated data to see what happened following the recovery phase, and then covid and post-covid, so what I will discuss now is a more general picture.
When looking at inward FDI in Wales, we see that Wales has never recovered from the 2008-09 crisis. That is the big change in landscape in terms of inward FDI. This is true when looking at the number of projects, but it is particularly evident when looking at the dollar value of the investment. The 2008-09 crisis was the big turning point, because there was a general contraction in FDI coming to the UK, but the country bounced back as a whole while Wales did not manage to. That is the big change in the FDI landscape.
Another important dimension is Brexit and the changing relationship between the UK and the European Union. If we look at the national composition of investment coming into Wales, but also going from Wales abroad, we see a very important role for Europe—the EU15 or EU14, so the old member states, as well as central and eastern Europe—when it comes to outward investment.
Therefore, the combined effect of covid and the changing relationship with the EU has changed the value proposition of Wales once again. If we look at the more recent data following the referendum, from 2017 onward, it is not really covid, the big change in landscape; it is mostly the referendum. From 2017 onward, we see that Wales struggles with FDI. The data that we are looking into are new greenfield projects, so this is not the net, looking also at divestment, but the new inflows of investment. We know that in general, for the UK, for the first time, in the past couple of years we have recorded a negative inflow, meaning that the capital that is leaving the UK is more than the capital that is attracted through new investment.
Looking only at the net inflows—what comes in new—Wales is lagging behind vis-à-vis the rest of the country. This mirrors very well the change in composition of the investment, in terms of the national composition. Western Europe remains a very important geography. This, of course, is a challenge, because it very much depends on the relationship with the EU, which is of fundamental importance in understanding the value proposition of Wales. It is also important to keep in mind exposure vis-à-vis the US. Now there are additional challenges coming from the international landscape.
When assessing the position of Wales, in my view we need to consider local factors—Wales-specific factors—as well as very carefully place Wales in the context of the national politics and national political decisions and in the global geopolitical landscape.
Q10 Chair: Mr Gardiner, you were nodding then. In comparison with Scotland, Northern Ireland and England, how is Wales doing?
James Gardiner: It could probably be summarised as being comparatively low compared with those other regions. Nothing was said there that I disagree with. Tracking the market share of investment is quite important in this context. What we see is that there is perhaps an over-reliance on investment coming from traditional European partners and origins of investment.
Where we see the UK performing better elsewhere, in other developed nations, is in expanding the diversity of that investment by origin, whether through Indian investment, Chinese investment or Australian investment, which have all increased by market share in other parts of the UK in recent years, or by activity and sector, which have also gained more diversity in other areas.
If we look, for instance, at the north-west of England, we have seen a marked increase in the diversity of sectoral investments, but also the activity that is driving those investments has become more diverse over time. I think that is something where Wales has been subject to some pretty significant global headwinds in the past 10 years, but other parts of the country have managed to capitalise on that investment where Wales has not, and it has led to a dwindling of FDI projects into Wales.
Also, we tend to see that the vast majority of it goes into cities, but that is not uncommon compared with other parts of the UK. FDI investment, particularly net new investment, tends to gravitate to a major population density first and then expansionary investment follows, so I do not think there is anything inherently controversial about that.
Q11 Henry Tufnell: Professor Crescenzi, you were talking a lot about Brexit and the ’08 financial crisis, but those big economic factors would implicate Scotland, Northern Ireland, England—across the board—as has just been talked about. Are you able to give a bit more context as to why Wales would be particularly susceptible to those things? I appreciate the comments about urban centres and reliance on particular countries, but will you comment further on that?
Professor Crescenzi: The key point here is that the exposure to these global shocks is relatively even. You might have, depending on the sectoral composition of the regions, a different degree of exposure. Think about the impact of covid, for example. Some sectors were more affected than others. However, these global shocks affect everyone in a relatively similar manner. What makes a big difference is the reaction. It is the ability to bounce back and then recover from the shock. It is clear that Wales struggled more than other nations in bouncing back following the crisis.
There is a number of reasons, depending on the sectoral composition of the investment, as well as the nature of the activities. If we look at what multinationals do in Wales, it is more linked with more traditional manufacturing, and of course that also suffers from changes in technologies. Therefore, when firms are hit by the shock, they decide, “Okay, where can I move production? How can I respond to the shock? Am I going to continue as I was doing before or am I going to move activities elsewhere?” It is the combination of those effects: the sectoral nature and functional nature of the investment, as well as the specific advantage of Wales as a sort of gateway vis-à-vis the EU.
If we look at the geography of the inflow and outflow—investment coming into Wales as well as investment going from companies based in Wales outside of the country—we see a strong projection towards Europe, while other regions and nations are more diversified in their investment portfolio. As a result, Wales is more affected, and has been more affected, by changes in relationship that are so close to its pre-existing value proposition. That is where the challenge is with reinventing the position of Wales as a destination for global investment, given the changing landscape.
Chair: That is helpful.
Q12 Ann Davies: Last week we discussed the barriers for inward investment. I will start with Ms Williams and then ask you all in turn, if you want to have a little think about your answers. How can we overcome the barriers, and which should the Government prioritise in order to have the quickest and most effective result?
Nan Williams: In the research that we have done there are medium to long-term barriers, such as infrastructure and transportation, which consistently come up, but they will take a long time to fix. That is not to say we should not continue on that journey; they are important.
In the shorter term, my view is that we have an underused resource, in particular in the diaspora—3 million overseas compared with 3 million in Wales. A large majority of those are in the private sector. They have left Wales, they are highly educated—I think 45% of them at master’s level and above—and they now cross-reference with the Welsh Government strategic sectors very well. So 25% of the people we have identified are in tech in some way, and they have typically either built businesses or worked in businesses overseas and therefore they have a very international outlook.
We do diaspora relations very differently from other countries, such as Scotland and Ireland. It is much more disparate. It is acknowledged as very important, but it is very disparate. I think there is something there that we could do. By being more connected—public and private sector—and more data-driven, collectively, we could do more, more quickly.
The second point is connectivity. I do not know why, but we appear to be less connected across academia, public sector, regions, government, national Government, than other competitive countries—I know that my colleagues will talk about that. Again, that is something we can work on. I see that as a case for optimism, because there are some things that we could do in the relatively near term that hopefully would improve the position.
James Gardiner: There are a number of barriers that come across in our survey to investors as being mentioned repeatedly. The business fundamentals and the cultural fundamentals are things that investors frequently talk about when they are investing outside of London and when they are investing in what would be considered regional investment or expansionary investment.
Infrastructure has already been mentioned; perception of skills is a big thing; and the ability of these local regions, usually led by IDAs or an investment body, to connect with investors early in the due diligence phase is very important. I think there is a sort of barrier based on inaction at the moment in Wales in particular.
What we have seen long term in our data across Europe is that the investment landscape has become much more competitive and much more interventionist. The regions that have been performing very well have typically been led on the front foot by a very active local IDA or an arm’s length body that is representing the region and is making contact in market, connecting them to the strategically important players and getting them early in the due diligence phase of investment planning.
Where we see regions dwindling in numbers or perhaps not being a target for investment is where the assumption is that people will just naturally come. I think that has probably been a mistake in a period when we have seen a lot of subsidies in the investment space and a lot of tax breaks, and a lot of local regional bodies and IDAs have had to get their elbows out. Personally, I see organisations like MIDAS in the north-west and Scottish Enterprise being very front-footed. They are in market, connecting with major executives, promoting the brand very visually and selling the key sectors and key attractive KPIs of the region.
On barriers to investment, I think Wales—and not just Wales but other regions in the UK—have an issue with not necessarily having the same level of activist investment body spearheading the region in market, which strategically, across three to four priority markets, would probably capture the lion’s share of investment. There is not a need to be targeting a very long list of countries or anything; there is clearly a number of countries that make up the lion’s share of investment into the UK as a whole.
Ken Poole: From a Cardiff perspective, we are at the end of the food chain in terms of FDI inquiries: the UK Government and the Welsh Government are leading the field, and we hope that investment leads will be passed our way. As the previous speakers identified, there has been a reduction in FDI activity. From a Cardiff perspective, with our investment and growth indicators, we have had to go out and do our own thing to supplement the more traditional ways of attracting investment.
It is quite clear from the marketplace that the macro conditions are still key. Businesses are attracted into the UK, Wales and Cardiff by the political stability and the general economic tax and fiscal environment. The UK, Wales and Cardiff have always been seen as an area where risk can be reduced. But at the regional level, as I mentioned last week, there is still a perception issue. Despite being very close to London, we are still viewed as being a little peripheral. But the key issue we see today in all sectors—be it manufacturing, cyber-security, fintech or financial services—is skills availability. Investors want to be convinced that we have the necessary skills in place with which to help address their growth potential.
Importantly, if we do not have those skills in place, we find that it is key that they can see that there is intervention on the ground to improve the situation. In Cardiff and Newport and the city region, a lot of work is being undertaken to generate skills pathways into sectors like cyber, fintech and compound semi-conductors. It is very important that, despite the skills challenges everywhere across the UK, we in Cardiff and Wales can be seen to be intervening successfully to address those skills barriers. I often believe that investors will gravitate to you if they believe you are intervening successfully and hitting their investment criteria, particularly the skills needs of the business, because, after all, that is the lifeblood of any business.
I will make one comment on the last topic, Wales’s success in FDI and the analysis suggesting that we have not been as successful in recent years in attracting FDI. I think it is interesting, and perhaps we can examine this a bit later, that we did get it right in the ’70s. I am old enough to remember those days when Wales was attracting large levels of investment, particularly manufacturing investment from Japan, Korea and the USA. We got it right because we understood the market there. We should be examining why we are not doing as well in the current range of sectors that are dominating FDI as some of the other regions.
Q13 Ann Davies: Very briefly, Professor, do you think the Government should be prioritising skills, as Mr Poole mentioned?
Professor Crescenzi: In terms of prioritising efforts, I agree that skills are an important matter. It is important to think about skills not only in terms of tertiary education—university degrees—but in terms of professional skills, so to look at the entire supply chain and understand what type of needs are binding for different sectors. I definitely agree that the availability of skills is a major issue.
Thinking about skills needs to be part of a more systemic thinking. All the issues that we have mentioned might be called an ecosystem for the investment, which involves the supply of skills and asking, “Okay, what type of infrastructure needs to be in place for these skills to go where they want to go and live where they want to live and have the lifestyle that they aim to achieve?” It means using digital technologies in a creative manner, for example. Sometimes firms in manufacturing now need to combine design elements but designers do not want to live in certain areas, so it is very difficult—close to impossible—to attract them there. How do you deal with this challenge?
I have been looking at a particular case study of a very large multinational in Italy. It was possible for them to attract engineers to a remote area next to the Dolomites, because they liked living in a more remote area and doing their work, but for designers—no way; they wanted to be in Milan. They needed to create digital connections to allow the designers to be in the environment that makes more sense for them and feed knowledge and ideas into the engineering space to deliver the final product.
You need to think in a systemic manner about skills needs in a geographical sense and how to make it possible for skills to match and click with investment. This is to say that the point of having a proactive investment promotion policy is particularly important, as is having a body that can think systematically across different dimensions. It is not only about talking to investors, but about developing the right type of skills and presenting investors with the skills that are available. We say in our work that investment promotion agencies can work as plumbers of the pipelines that are needed to create a functioning system. That is a little bit what Wales might need, and skills are a very important part of this systemic puzzle.
Chair: I will make a plea for short answers, if possible. I know it is difficult because there is a lot to cover.
Q14 Andrew Ranger: Mr Poole, may I follow up on your response to my colleague about skills? Is it across the board? Is it university? Is it schools? Is it how we approach it all together? Is the system reactive enough to get the skills that we need? Will you elaborate a bit on that?
Ken Poole: It is across the board, because different sectors and different businesses require different skillsets. What we have tried to do in Cardiff and the Cardiff capital region is look at various aspects of the labour market and develop skills pathways. Businesses can target schools through our Capital Cardiff initiative. They can also have clear access into universities, and particularly universities that provide particular products to suit the sector, such as semiconductors or cyber-security, for example. We have also tried to demonstrate that there are ways in which businesses can address social mobility, by providing them with access to schools and access to our communities, but also by providing support infrastructure.
Generally, we are well known in Wales for our university infrastructure, and it performs particularly well. The feedback I have from businesses is that the universities in Wales are hungry—they want investment; they want commercial relationships—but it is about developing clear pathways for businesses to show how they can access skills at a variety of levels. That is one thing we are particularly active in: working with businesses to open up the market and open their eyes to the wider employment opportunities within the labour market in Cardiff and the Cardiff capital region.
Q15 Henry Tufnell: Mr Poole, I want to follow up on what you said about inward investment in the 1970s. You remarked about different countries and their ability to invest. I want to compare that with what Professor Crescenzi mentioned earlier about the link into Europe and how that has had a dramatic impact since Brexit. Will you comment more generally on that and on the impact that membership of the European Union—our joining the European Economic Community—had on Wales, and the impact that has had on our foreign direct investment?
Ken Poole: When we look back at the ’70s and early ’80s, what was different in Wales? First, we had an arm’s length body, the Welsh Development Agency, doing the promotion, attracting, marketing and hand-holding, but also, importantly, we targeted the sectors that were growing. We knew which sectors wanted to come into Europe to feed the European community: automotive, electronics companies and so on. We identified the right sectors and then we identified the key factors that were important to those sectors—they wanted low-cost land, advanced manufacturing buildings, access to good-quality semi-skilled labour, good communications, good accessibility, road infrastructure, rail infrastructure into Europe, and incentives—and we got it right. As a result of getting it right, we were very successful in attracting very large clusters of Japanese, US, Korean and Taiwanese investments. That was the important factor.
One of the key drivers for them was access to Europe. In Cardiff we have a small but very specialised advanced manufacturing sector, so we do not come across too many manufacturing businesses that raise the issue of Brexit, but we know through existing businesses that business with Europe is much more challenging. We have steel companies in Cardiff that say the same thing. That must be a deterrent somewhere within the system for businesses.
Importantly, though, the principles we adopted many years ago, which were successful, are the same principles that could be successful today: understanding the market, understanding the key sectors and understanding their drivers, and then putting together a product that meets their requirements. I think those principles are still sound.
What we do not have—as we did in the old days—is an arm’s length body, like in Scotland or Northern Ireland, that is tackling the marketplace. Importantly, when you look at Scotland particularly, they have been consistent players in the market for a very, very long time. Investors know that if they go to Scotland there is an established agency. In Wales, we have chopped and changed a lot, for a variety of reasons, but Scotland has been consistent. When we look at the investment figures that Scotland throw up, they are quite impressive. Among that mixture, I think there is some interesting analysis that deserves further unpicking.
Chair: I am sure we will carry on unpicking in a minute.
Q16 Ben Lake: Professor Crescenzi, you mentioned just how much of an impact the changing economic and geopolitical situation is having. Set against that background, are there any particular things you think Wales should be focusing on as a matter of urgency to try to make it a more competitive destination for inward investment? What are the top three things that you would tell the Welsh and UK Governments, “These are the things you need to be doing”?
Professor Crescenzi: I think there are different dimensions. The first that I was reflecting on is not only focus on new investment, but focus on the needs of investment and foreign investors that are already present. We discuss a successful history of FDI attraction, which that there is a stock of investment—of foreign activities—in place. We know that as a result of technological change, as well as the changing relationship with the single market, current investors might be rethinking their strategies. Sometimes, those strategies do not change overnight, but they are slowly moving activities into different subsidiaries.
I think there is an issue of priority: yes, a focus on new inward investment, but also focusing on the needs of existing investors. They are easier to talk to, to understand their needs and the bottlenecks that they face. Focusing on the existing—facilitating expansions and preventing divestment—is a priority, in my view.
The second point is understanding the sectoral profile of investment that is coming. A very important share of new inward investment in Wales is in the energy sector. There is a very important reflection to be made there, because these investments inflate the capital value of the investment—if you look at the dollar value, you see capital flowing—but they do not generate many jobs. If the issue is job creation and sustainable local economic development, we should reflect on the type of investment that we want to prioritise.
Thirdly, one of the elements that has changed vis-à-vis the 1970s is the regional policy framework. When we looked at the impact of the regional development policies implemented by the EU, there were two clear cases of success: Eastern Germany, which was a big example of where European policies made a difference, and Wales. That is where EU cohesion funds were spent in a way that led to additional job creation, for example. It fits the bill exactly in terms of creating jobs by addressing skill gaps.
It is very important to have a clear policy framework. The EU policy framework had many drawbacks, but the advantage was stability: a seven-year programming cycle and the same type of policies implemented throughout the continent, so for investors it was very easy to read. I think this is also an important part of the value proposition: what type of regional policies? What are the priorities? Presenting skills, infrastructure and digital infrastructure as a priority becomes very important to make things happen on the ground, but also in terms of conversations with foreign investors.
Q17 Ben Lake: On that last point, you will be aware of the different growth regions and growth plans in Wales. Is there a danger, because Wales is a very small country, of too much fragmentation and making it too difficult or complicated for investors if you have a mid-Wales growth plan, a Cardiff city region and a north Wales economic ambition? Should we perhaps be looking at an overall Welsh growth plan?
Professor Crescenzi: This is a challenge not only in Wales, but throughout the country—the issue of fragmentation of the value proposition and even internal competition. When we look at the structure of investment promotion in the UK, we see a very different structure vis-à-vis other European countries. We see that there are multiple national-level bodies and there is not always clarity about the relevant sub-national bodies dealing with foreign investors, and then there is fragmentation at the city level.
This is a big challenge for investment, absolutely. There is the idea of having an investment promotion agency, a dedicated body—a phone number to call. The LSE did a comparative study for the ESRC, comparing Scotland and Wales. For Scotland, we had a contact point, and we had a chapter on investment promotion; for Wales, it is not in the study. Having a phone number to call for the whole macro region is very important. Absolutely, fragmentation is a risk.
James Gardiner: I back up some of that pretty strongly. Who is picking up the phone on going line by line through the investments for Wales? It is not such a clear answer. We speak every year to Scottish Enterprise, Invest NI, MIDAS, the Oxbridge arc, the Growth Company, Business for London, but Wales is always conspicuously quite silent.
To the point of the three focus areas, knowledge is power in investment. There needs to be a body—as Ken was saying, probably better arm’s length—that is much closer to business and can go line by line through all the investments coming into Wales in the way that Scottish Enterprise already does; is looking at the strategic direction in terms of the markets that are being focused on and can essentially answer off the bat what the target countries are for origin of investment; and has an emotional relationship with businesses that understands, “Okay, well we have a manufacturing business over here, we know they want to expand and we know that expansionary investment makes up a very large share of the investment profile,” and it is not all just net new executives coming in and throwing a lot of money around. A lot of it is long-term investment planning.
The second thing, as I alluded to, is the arm’s length body, so a dedicated team, in the way that certainly Northern Ireland and Scotland seem to have, that is very front-footed in market.
Then, speaking to the focus areas and the discussion around skills, skills always comes up, every year, as one of the big topics of discussion from investors. It is particularly acute in the manufacturing space. We see money being left on the table quite often. In other parts of the UK, we have seen instances where businesses say, “We have demand to increase the amount of investment here. We just do not have the apprentices, the graduates, the manufacturing skills in place to make that, and we have to shift it to our other locations.”
Those are my three points, and I back up the point that there is a bit of a data gap around investment. That is true across other parts of the country, but other regions do it quite well, and it is something that Wales needs.
Q18 Ben Lake: Thank you very much; that is very useful. Ms Williams, you mentioned the diaspora, which this Committee has been interested in in the past. Could you elaborate on how you think we could better leverage the skills, expertise and networks of the Welsh diaspora to bring more inward investment to Wales?
Nan Williams: I think there are two main ways. We have done a piece of research on the diaspora themselves, which involved 1,700 people and is very up to date. Prior to that we did a connector survey, which was much smaller but much more qualitative. We found that they are very good connectors into their own markets, into investors in those markets and into trying to signpost people back to Wales. To hook it up with the point that my two colleagues just made, though, that signposting of where to go, how to go and the routes to take is very unclear to people in the diaspora as well.
The second piece is about the people who either wish to invest or would be entrepreneurs, probably, setting up—so not the massive businesses, but a lot of businesses that could have a strong impact on Wales. They are doing it elsewhere; they are taking that money somewhere. That would be the second way: to encourage those people to come back. If you think of it as a sales funnel—I am in sales and marketing—if you have a warm audience and they know something, you are many steps down that funnel when you then try to talk to them. It is a warm audience, but it gets to a point where the signposting potentially is not there clearly enough.
Q19 Ben Lake: You mentioned that other countries—I think you mentioned Ireland and Scotland—are better at facilitating or making the most of their respective diasporas. To what extent are they aided by the fact that they have an investment promotion agency that they can signpost people to?
Nan Williams: We have come to the conclusion, despite our best efforts as a small volunteer company, that it is critically important. The reason it is important—of course it is because of investment, but it is actually about connectivity again. It needs to be a public, private, academic cohesive grouping put through something. I think it really is important. They have been doing it longer and they clearly have much better data. We have a bunch of data, the Welsh Government have a bunch of data and I know university alumni associations, for example, have masses of data and connections, which could also be used. I am not convinced we are really pulling it together.
Ken Poole: Building on the diaspora point, Cardiff has an ambassadorial network that we set up a few years ago, which we use to attract investment—particularly conference investment—into the city, and that has been quite successful. We have found a degree of enthusiasm from key players within the wider business community, the university community and the research community in Cardiff to embark on the promotional programme. The key challenge for us is to keep those ambassadors informed of developments in the city in order to give them enough ammunition with which to promote and market Cardiff when they travel overseas.
It has been successful. I am not sure whether many of you picked it up, but recently we had a further launch in London of our ambassadorial network. We promoted a Mr Gareth Bale as an ambassador to help with promotional activity. I certainly agree that diaspora is an important area that we can exploit further for the benefit of Wales and the benefit of various parts of Wales—Cardiff, Newport, west Wales, north Wales—as well.
Q20 Steve Witherden: Mr Gardiner, last week we explored how the future world of work will look radically different from how it looks now. How can Wales ensure that its promotion strategies are future-proofed against major shifts in the Welsh economy, for example, as a result of AI advances? We discussed this previously, but I am eager to learn of any concrete examples that you can elaborate upon.
James Gardiner: I think last week I talked about a focus on prioritising the origin of investment. I will expand on that to say that demonstrating a thorough pipeline of skills into that sector, and into what I guess economists would call high-value-add sectoral benefit, is probably the way to go. To the point that I think was being made earlier around collaborations with other regions across the UK, investment is often thought of as quite zero-sum. In particular, investment bodies here in the UK often mistakenly think they are in competition with other regions of the UK, as opposed to competing on a much more international stage. That is very true of the technologies of the future investment.
Ken discussed what were we doing right internally in the ’70s. A really big feature of decades of changing investment profile is that we have become much more competitive in Europe, and that is true of a lot of the cities and regions across the European Union and the surrounding region that have really picked up their game in the investment space around technologies of the future.
There is something about complementarity within the UK market and about being a lot more external facing to the wider EU market. A hardware business in Wales might look to complement itself with a software business in Manchester. It is understanding that the proposition for a lot of businesses coming to Wales may reside in investments already being made in other parts of the country. It is not seeing a major AI investment in Cambridge and going, “How come we didn’t get that?” but instead looking at it and saying, “How can that be built out and what does Wales have to offer that is a form of expansionary investment in that space?” Therein lies the trick to getting some of the golden touch of those sectors of the future.
Q21 Henry Tufnell: I have a question about monitoring inward investments. We have already touched on the data. I am conscious that there are limitations on that data, particularly when you look at Wales in terms of the devolved areas and in rural locations as well. How could the Government address those limitations? Mr Gardiner, if you could go first, that would be fantastic.
James Gardiner: I would be happy to. I could talk about this issue all day, I think.
Chair: Please don’t.
James Gardiner: The reason we conduct our analysis in the first place largely stems from a lot of inadequacies in the data. We receive data from DBT and regional investment bodies, we look to clean it, and we produce a presentation of investment that we think accurately reflects the situation on the ground. That is because there is a lot of noise in investment data. There is a lot of non-declaration of values and a lot of false claiming around job creation, and people try to spread announcements over several years. There is a fundamental issue in how investment data is presented to those of us that collect it and then gets repackaged and delivered up.
If you are looking for a champion to focus on Scottish Enterprise already does this very well. I go line by line through all the Scottish investments, and over the past few years we have never once had a discrepancy. I think that comes from having a dedicated team who already understand the investment profile coming into the country and are connected with DBT and with their local investment teams—Scottish Enterprise or Invest NI or whatever. But there is somebody who can pick up the phone and essentially talk through all the investments in the country, and they are correctly counting it in the correct calendar or financial year, they are following up with those businesses and saying, “How many jobs did you actually create?” and they have a hold over the capex values that are involved.
That is very poorly done across Europe. It is done better in the UK than other European countries, but I think there are champions to look to and say, “These guys do it right.” For me, that would be a combination of Scottish Enterprise, who are very over the detail, and MIDAS, who are very front-facing in their engagement with business, which I think is very commendable. I think Wales needs a combination of those.
Q22 Henry Tufnell: Professor Crescenzi, do you have anything more to add on the data point?
Professor Crescenzi: I agree with what was said before. I think AI is very helpful in this sense, because it makes the cost of collecting this information and checking it a lot lower. What was very difficult five years ago is a lot easier and a lot cheaper now through the use of AI, not only in terms of having a more accurate estimate of the investment value, but in getting a better sense of what the investment is about: what are the true activities that investors are pursuing in a particular establishment, in a particular region? That allows us to understand a lot better their needs and their potential in terms of wider development. AI can play a very important role in this regard.
Nan Williams: There has never been a better moment than right now to catch up on our data deficiency, to come back to the previous point. We can do that now. We just have to be minded to do it using the tools.
Q23 Henry Tufnell: Mr Poole, I am conscious that you have your hand up. I wonder whether practical examples from Cardiff council would be helpful.
Ken Poole: From a Welsh perspective it would be very helpful if the data on FDI attraction, for example, could be broken down at a sub-regional level or a city region level or even a local authority level. That is always useful in analysing how effective we have been and understanding where the projects are going to in Wales and why they are going to those particular levels. I think the data is collected but I do not think it is ever published. That would help policymakers and practitioners, and businesses as well, to understand some of the detail.
Another thing—this probably applies across the UK, and colleagues in the private sector probably do this with their clients—would be to undertake work on the impact of investors post-investment. There is quite a lot of work done prior to winning the investment but it is often important to follow through and understand what the investors have achieved. Investment analysis post-investment could be helpful as well.
Q24 Henry Tufnell: Thank you; that is very helpful. I want to move on to the investment landscape, particularly from a Government point of view. We have talked a lot about the individual phone line, and I am conscious that there might be some duplication, but if you look across all the different networks in respect of UK government, you have the Office for Investment, which is a joint unit of HM Treasury, No. 10 and DBT, and that is before you get into the networks of embassies and missions. Then you get down into the Welsh Government, with Trade and Invest Wales, and then the Wales investment summits and the “Wales. Invested” campaign. Do you think that is too complicated for investors? Is there a way of streamlining that?
James Gardiner: Locally empowered investment bodies require more resource and effort, if I am honest. The ones that have done well—particularly those in Scotland and the north-west of England—have much more capacity, resource and ability to engage their market. That may be a function of the size and density of those economies, but it is certainly the way to go for regional investment bodies in Wales, Northern Ireland and rural England.
An overly centralised, simplified investment body probably would come up against the classic issues of devolution—a fundamental misunderstanding of the local market. To my money, anyway, a body like MIDAS in England, or a combination of those character features of Scottish Enterprise and MIDAS, is a good model for Wales, but it needs dedicated resource and people who are over the data, much more connected with business and strategising around the market conditions as they are now.
To pick one particular point, investment has been very transactional for the past five or six years. C-suite investors have been looking for discounts and tax incentives, under an umbrella of largely American-led subsidies. We are now moving into a fundamentally different environment. If I was sitting as a local IDA or an investment body, I would be focusing on trying to understand those key markets and sectors and then aggressively pursuing them, simplified, but from a very Welsh perspective.
I sense your frustration at the number of bodies. It is probably shared but I think it is essential, because the markets are very fundamentally different. The share of manufacturing in Scotland as a percentage of GDP is very fundamentally different from other parts of the country, and that is as true about Wales as it is about any other region in the UK. I would say empower those devolved investment bodies more.
Ken Poole: What is interesting, if you look at the marketplace, particularly within England, and the growth of the city regions and corporate joint committees and the new mayors, is that they are now taking a lot more interest in FDI and looking to attract more money and influence to promote their city regions.
In England they are trying to untangle FDI activity from Government and going back to the days when they had a sub-regional promotional effort. I think that is an area where we will see a lot more competition arising, which will place us under a lot more pressure in Wales, because the city regions are becoming more powerful, with significant budgets. It is an area that we will have to watch carefully; otherwise, we will see the rise of new agencies—city agencies—across England, which will make them even more competitive. When you think of the success of the city regions, like Manchester currently and Birmingham, where they are doing particularly well in attracting FDI, it is worth noting the way that the English system is moving.
Q25 Henry Tufnell: Are you doing anything in Cardiff in response to that?
Ken Poole: As I say, we are at the end of the food chain for investment promotion. We cannot go out to the wider international market, but we are trying to do a range of initiatives. For example, we build on our proximity to London and are actively targeting investors in London, recognising that London contains a huge, international investment community. We are pushing and promoting the city as being very close to London and getting even closer.
The event we held in London three weeks ago was designed to bring in investors to understand the growth and innovation potential of Cardiff. That is where we used Mr Bale as part of the ambassadorial activity. We are using our diaspora and, for example, attending promotional events like MIPIM in Cannes—the Cardiff capital region team were there very recently promoting the wares of the region to investors.
We are trying to be as nimble as possible, but equally we all rely on the national marketing and FDI campaigning of the UK Government and the Wales Government. Obviously, seeing healthy investment figures coming through from those bodies is beneficial, but we have learned that we cannot just rely on those trends. We have to do our own thing to maintain investment momentum in our city, which is growing significantly.
Q26 Henry Tufnell: Professor Crescenzi and Ms Williams, do you have anything further to say about that?
Professor Crescenzi: I want to highlight that sub-national matters—in the sense that proximity to the place where the investment happens matters—for FDI attraction and retention. It is definitely important to think locally about FDI, and we have evidence, when looking at FDI attraction to the whole of Europe, that at the sub-national level, in particular, in less developed regions, investment promotion agencies are successful in attracting additional FDI vis-à-vis what would have happened without the agency.
However, it is very important to keep in mind two issues. The first is the targeting. These agencies need to have a very clear mandate and need to focus their efforts on specific sectors where the region has an existing advantage. The second point, which links with the Harrington review of FDI in the UK, is that streamlining and simplifying the FDI promotion architecture—the overarching structure for the country—is fundamentally important. There is a risk in having too many layers of possible conflicts of what is called territorial competition—having neighbouring jurisdictions fighting for the same investment. This is a very expensive type of competition to have and one that can be addressed by having investment promotion efforts focused at the right spatial scale.
Nan Williams: I will reinforce what Ken Poole said. For diaspora, it is also very important—and it is clear in the research—that they have a passion for their own bit of Wales. That might be where they were born, but not necessarily; it might be where they went to university or school—it could be all sorts of things. Streamlining is one thing, but better co-ordination, so that you are using the same overarching message for Wales with sub-messages beneath that, is the way to go. It needs to be co-ordinated and consistent but to allow for difference, to attract different sectors or individuals as investors.
Q27 Henry Tufnell: Professor Crescenzi, do you say there is no conflict between focusing on the local and an increase in competition between localities, rather than having a more national approach?
Professor Crescenzi: Adapting the message in highlighting the strengths of different places is one thing; all going after the same investment is another thing. To give you an example, in the call for evidence for this inquiry, there was an emphasis on the idea, “Can we maybe focus on investment in creative industries in the UK as a way forward for Wales?” I looked at the data that we have collected. The LSE has surveyed all investment promotion agencies in Europe and all LEPs in the UK. I said, “Let’s see how many of the pre-existing investment promotion bodies are trying to do the same thing.” One in four—nine out of 39—investment promotion bodies in the UK are targeting arts, recreation and sports, for example. This means that in a relatively restricted investment space there is a lot of competition between different places.
Tailoring your message to cater to the interests of different types of investors, in particular when leveraging diaspora, for example, or leveraging the foreign network of existing firms that might channel investment back from foreign countries where they have invested, is one thing, but that should not come with a diffusion of efforts into too many different priority sectors that trigger competition, because everyone ends up focusing on very narrow niches of investment in competition with each other without a clear, overarching value proposition.
Q28 Steve Witherden: Professor Crescenzi, the creative industries have had notable success in attracting inward investment to Wales. How can Wales learn from innovative partnerships in the creative sector?
Professor Crescenzi: It is important to understand that it is a crowded space. It is very important also to understand what type of connections can be created. Another important point, as was said before, is going beyond the attraction of the investment and thinking about the entire investment journey. With the appropriate incentives, maybe we can be successful in attracting investments in this sector, but how about their wider impact and their embeddedness in the local economy? It is very important to understand what the value proposition could be when it comes to the creative industries, in particular given that this is an area where new technologies play a very important role. Think about the role of AI in the music industry or the generation of new content. We really do not know in which direction these things might play.
It is an area where I would be very cautious because of the inherent risk. Trying to focus more on existing investors and their expansion, and focus efforts on the attraction of investment complementary to what exists already, might be, in the medium run, a lower-risk strategy in this area.
James Gardiner: My opinion about the creative sector as it relates to FDI is a mixed one. For some regions it becomes important because of the GVA growth or the economic growth driving it in the domestic market, but it should be noted that it makes up a relatively smaller portion of FDI coming into most regions across the UK. In terms of perspective and the flows of FDI and what makes the UK and Wales an attractive place, the creative sectors industry—however it is defined under ONS classification—may not necessarily be the right focus versus something like advanced manufacturing. It is probably one to be cautious of in defining investment within the domestic and local market versus what you are going to the foreign direct investment executives for and how you are targeting them.
Nan Williams: I do not disagree, necessarily, but the one thing that the creative industries in Wales do have is visibility and fame. We are known for it. What else are we known for, or do we want to be known for? If you want to be known for 12 things, you will not be known for any of them. If it is a set number of things and then you can pull things in on the back of that, I think that has a philosophical point that might be worth bearing in mind about the creative industries and what they have achieved, even though they are relatively small compared with other sectors.
Ken Poole: In Wales we have been successful in attracting creative industries. Cardiff is a key part of the sector. I was pleased to hear about the balance that is needed, and I think we have that balance in Wales. We have a strong home-grown sector that grew up initially through servicing Welsh language TV and then broadened out successfully into other languages. We have also been successful in bringing new investment in, including by production companies: Bad Wolf, which is Sony-owned, and Great Point Media, which is US-owned, have big production houses in Cardiff.
It is a classic example that in Wales, and in Cardiff in particular, we have a competitive edge. We have a skills base and a cluster of businesses that we can use successfully to attract investment. I am pleased that the Welsh Government’s creative arm have been successful in supplementing that and using it in the marketplace. It is a good example where we have a competitive advantage and we can use it effectively in promotional marketing.
Q29 Steve Witherden: Professor Crescenzi, do you think the Government have any role to play in the creative sector, in attracting investment and promoting it?
Professor Crescenzi: Having discussed the competition landscape, we are discussing a relatively limited number of foreign investments in this space, with competition from multiple other regions. It is a complex landscape. The Government can definitely play a role by investing in existing strengths, as was mentioned, in particular in Cardiff. Trying to nurture what exists already is a way to allow the market to bring investments that are organic vis-à-vis what exists already.
An important element can be the creative component of non-creative industry activity. Think about manufacturing or other services that might involve a creative component. It is not necessarily targeting the creative industry as a sector but the creative industry as a function—as something that can complement other activities and become part of the local value proposition across the sectors. That might be interesting.
Q30 Andrew Ranger: Along a similar line, if you will indulge me, a report by Sport Wales highlighted that every £1 invested in Welsh sport generates £4.44 in social benefits. Speaking from direct experience, because I am the MP for Wrexham, we have seen huge investment in sport in Wrexham, which is giving benefits widely across our community and beyond. What additional steps can be taken to position sport as a central element of brand Wales and attract further investment in the sector? Is that something we should pursue?
James Gardiner: I looked at the Wrexham example compared with other parts of the UK. We conducted work where we looked comparatively at the sector and the FDI profile. I do think it is important as it relates to the branding point. It feels like a difficult FDI proposition to generate in the same way that you would build a skills base—an ecosystem—with certain other sectors, like life sciences, manufacturing or tech. I think of the creative, sport and media sectors as all being quite different. Their impact is probably different in terms of job creation and profile.
I do not think there is a very easy answer with sport. If anything, it probably is much more personality-led, as opposed to a number of C-suite executives gathering around a table trying to orchestrate the sort of magic that has been seen with Wrexham. How does that play into a region’s FDI strategy? I think it would be a much more intangible strategy, compared with the much more analytical one that would be created for some of those other sectors. It feels like a fundamentally different beast, but very important, when you are thinking overall, strategically, to the lead generation for investments in a region. I would not necessarily focus on it as the subject of massive capex and job creation in the same way that those other sectors are, but rather as a necessary component to the wider branding of Wales.
Nan Williams: There is something interesting in the supply chain back from major sporting industries or venues. In north Wales I know there is something being invested in on turf technology, for example. If you take that supply chain all the way back to health and activity, and back to the NHS, there are lots of entrepreneurial businesses going back down that chain that have a reference back to the sport piece. But I do agree that it is very strong as branding.
Andrew Ranger: I see that you have your hand up, Mr Poole. I will need to be brief—I am sorry.
Ken Poole: There are marketing and networking advantages that we can exploit through attracting major sporting events to Wales. We found it very useful in bringing investors and entrepreneurs to major events when perhaps they may not have come to Cardiff or Wales. We can use them effectively as long as we get the selling message right when the investors arrive.
Q31 Claire Hughes: Mr Poole, how effectively do the UK Government, the Welsh Government and local government work together to attract and secure inward investment?
Ken Poole: I think it does work, but it is a difficult question to answer because we—local government—are at the bottom end of the chain. We do not actually see the inquiry. There may well be many inquiries being processed by the UK and Welsh Governments, but they might not arrive on our desk. Generally, there are good levels of co-operation taking place. Could they be better? I think they could. Could there be more transparency in terms of sharing opportunities and leads? Yes. It is an area that could be worked on.
I note that the National Audit Office produced an analysis on FDI in England and talked about the lack of knowledge of sub-regional spaces within England in terms of the product on offer, and how that can be improved. There is no better way of improving your knowledge of sub-regions than by engaging actively with local government in Wales or England or within the city regions. It is not a perfect answer, but I think that is a reasonable assessment from my perspective.
Claire Hughes: Thank you. That probably goes back to the point that you and others have mentioned about data. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Q32 Gill German: Obviously we want to promote inward investment, but we want it to be spread across the country in Wales. How can Wales reflect its regional strengths in investment promotion campaigns for existing infrastructure and transport links—the kind of thing that would really attract an inward investor? For example, in my area of north Wales we have good transport links with the north-west. It has been mentioned on a couple of occasions that the north-west is doing well in attracting investment. How do we make sure that we get that geography, and the fact that we have got rail, road and air taking us all over the world and we are so close to the north-west, out there?
Nan Williams: As a north Walian, I have a lot of empathy with what you are saying. From a diaspora perspective, this is a very rich seam. People are very connected back to where they have that heartbeat—back to Wales—so that is something to use. They also have a relatively low level of knowledge of what is going on now in modern Wales. They are getting it largely from social media, which is absolutely fine but it is not enough, and I feel it is largely not co-ordinated enough to reach them.
A lot of what we have talked about today is about intentionality—deliberately planning and doing things. At a sub-regional level, I would always say it should be within the overall umbrella of the Wales brand. There is room there for authenticity and difference, but it must be communicated. And go for the easier targets, or the targets that have warmth towards you already and are ready for you.
Q33 Gill German: Do you think there is scope to develop this kind of cross-border mini-region? I have spoken with colleagues in the north-west before about how we feel we are perhaps missing a trick.
Nan Williams: I absolutely do not see why not, as long as there is something in it for both parties and it has a mutuality. There is quite a lot going on with south Wales and the south-west. There is lots going on with Cardiff and London—very, very close. I think it could be an opportunity in the north-west, where things are going well, but I am not an expert in that.
Professor Crescenzi: An important point is not necessarily thinking about spreading FDI. FDI has an intrinsic tendency towards clustering, because very often it needs proximity to other investment or to firms that supply key inputs for its activities. It is very difficult as an objective to try to spread FDI as such. Where there is an important role for public policy is in spreading the benefit of FDI. What can local firms, in particular benefiting from good infrastructure, connect to in terms of foreign firms that can be serviced by domestic firms? How can we leverage domestic and global supply chains and value chains to benefit from them and use them as stepping stones to increase the value that we add at the local level?
When presenting an overarching Welsh value proposition to foreign investors, you need them to represent the heterogeneity that exists and play on the strengths of the different local systems. However, it is very important when thinking about the policies for FDI to think about the benefits and ask the question how different localities can benefit from investment wherever they are in the country. I think this is key.
Q34 Gill German: I accept that completely. Linked to my point, it is drawing the boundaries more widely from the north-west, because we are an hour away and there are the airports and the roads. It just seems a good opportunity, as you say, to widen the zone of investment but put it into an area up in the north that is very different from the south in lots of ways.
Ken, I could see you nodding in response to the point about the links between Cardiff and London. I know you are local authority; I am previously local authority as well. There is lots to be done to build relationships. What are your thoughts on it?
Ken Poole: It is a very good point. We can get over-preoccupied with boundaries in government and forget that, from a business perspective, they may not be aware of those boundaries. For example, I know the north-east of Wales very well and worked in the private sector with many of the businesses there. To a business, the boundaries between Wales and the north-west of England are non-existent; it is the functional travel-to-work area that is important. In south-east Wales and the Cardiff capital region we talk about the breadth of the accessibility, taking in Severnside as well.
Sometimes we can get too preoccupied with boundaries. Let us look at the broader connections and demonstrate to businesses the importance of our connectivity in connecting up a much larger functional labour market, and just forget about the boundaries. Businesses will be recruiting across boundaries and across spatial areas as well.
Q35 Gill German: Thank you. James, there were a couple of emphatic nods from you as well. Do you have anything to add?
James Gardiner: Yes, I think that is 100% correct. You have to put yourself in the mind of the foreign investor. Sometimes they are coming pretty cold to UK regions, and fundamentally they do not get a lot of the differences anyway. We would discuss, as business fundamentals: will their investment have a surrounding area of a strong culture, places for their employees to go out and have a life, and local skills? What is the connectivity like in the local area? We have worked directly with major investors from the States, China and India, and these are all the questions going through their head at the early due diligence phase. They may not have even engaged with Government at all before coming over. They may have come over with a handful of executives. They may have some kind of local connection—an individual person helping them. There is not necessarily always someone there selling the assets to them. They often say, “We’re considering this location, somewhere else in Scotland, we’re looking at Porto and we’re looking at Krakow. These are the places. Let’s weigh it all up against our due diligence KPIs, and we’ll narrow the list down.”
Borders are effectively meaningless in some cases, but I will give a very tangible example. We have seen an American investor totally rule out investing in Glasgow due to planning regulations and go instead to Manchester, where they had a very business-friendly body on the other side with their hand out saying, “How can we help? How do we get you there faster?” That is what is needed. It goes back to my point that an arm’s length body that is very front-facing, very connected to business, in market, and not just waiting for investment to come but very proactive is what will get investors through at the early stage.
Gill German: Thank you. That is more power to my elbow to make the case for it, so thank you very much.
Chair: I am hoping that we will get two quick final questions in, so we will really have to pace ourselves.
Q36 Ann Davies: All I want to know is: what is brand Wales and how can we make the most of it?
Nan Williams: Brand Wales is in actuality very future-looking. We have a lot of great assets, from the Future Generations Act to the way we are now looking at further education and higher education across one body. On lots of the things we have talked about today we are on the front foot. We are not co-ordinated enough and we do not talk about it enough. For a very chatty nation, we seem to have an aversion to talking about ourselves on the world stage. We need to do that more, but in a co-ordinated way.
James Gardiner: Branding is not my wheelhouse, necessarily—FDI is much more so—but as it relates to FDI, a body that has very detailed knowledge of the key assets and strategies is key. There is a lot of work to be done in terms of having a coherent strategy that is focusing on the exact sectors and countries. Currently, that does not seem to be there, and it was not there when we surveyed investors. That is not necessarily my perception, but investors’ perception.
What we do know—I was saying this to Nan last week—is that Wales is very important as a potential destination to investors, but that does not seem to follow through in the numbers in the same way it has with other regions. That perhaps tells you that the branding is actually strong as-is in some intangible ways. Outside of Scotland, Wales is frequently the next location that is being considered. That perhaps tells you that between branding and landing the investments, there is a disconnect somewhere in there, and perhaps it is not a rebranding that is required, but a connection of branding to landing that investment.
Professor Crescenzi: I agree with the point on landing. It is really important to have a body—a phone number—that makes landing, and the embeddedness of the investment, easier. The creation of a connection between the investment and the local economy is fundamental, beyond the brand, which clearly exists already—the data confirm that. It is not a new location to be placed on investors’ map; it is about making sure that things can happen swiftly in a highly competitive landscape.
On the value proposition, one important point in my view is leveraging the green dimension, which we have not discussed. Beyond energy, what can investors do in Wales to contribute to the greening of the economy and sustainability? I think Wales might have an important point of advantage there beyond renewable energies.
Ann Davies: Very briefly, Mr Poole—I am sorry to ask you to be brief.
Ken Poole: Quite simply, we need a strong, unified brand that highlights Wales’s unique assets while ensuring that all stakeholders communicate these messages consistently.
Ann Davies: Brilliant. Thank you.
Q37 Andrew Ranger: This is a quick-fire question for everyone. If you could ask for one change from Government to improve the promotion of Wales as an investment destination, what would it be? I think you have touched on it already, Mr Poole, but I will start with you.
Ken Poole: We have talked about a lot of these issues today, but importantly, we need more resource—marketing resource and promotion resource. When we look at what other regions and countries are putting into the marketplace, we need to be putting more resource in and telling investors, “We are interested in you investing in Wales.” But we need resources to do that.
Nan Williams: Go for warm targets in the short to medium term, because you can and it will have bigger benefits, and co-ordinate that. That is partly about resource, but it is also about bringing together resource that already exists and co-ordinating it.
Professor Crescenzi: I think the point is streamlining and simplification. That is crucial to making it possible for Wales to emerge and cut through the noise. It is very important to have a simplification of the system and a more targeted value proposition.
James Gardiner: I think a combination of Ken’s and Nan’s answers: resourcing of preferably an arm’s length, very business-focused body, with a team that is properly over the strategy and details. The focus on warm targets is important, not just from the diaspora point of view, but because we know that there are plenty of warm targets in the UK. And expansionary investment, too—we should not just be out there looking for net new stuff. There is plenty of work that can be done there, and we see that that is the case elsewhere. The profile is really pretty big.
Andrew Ranger: Thank you very much.
Chair: That is perfect timing; we have finished spot on time. Thank you to all four witnesses—the two of you in the room and the two of you online. Thank you so much for giving us a second bite at the cherry. It has been really useful.