The long-awaited review of overseas representation
has now been published by UK Trade & Investment. The 269-page bumper of a
report (available for download here – although printing it off will scupper any
hopes you have of reducing your carbon footprint!), by consultants AD Little,
looked at the current arrangements of of UKTI, the English RDAs and their
Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish equivalents in key overseas markets and
suggests a new way of operating in the future.
The headline summary of all this is that UKTI will
assume more of a coordinating role overseas in terms of “objective setting,
pre-enquiry work and monitoring”. In reality this means that UKTI will
“coordinate” all research, marketing, events, networking, lobbying and
promotion activities, including a “more consistent approach to branding”. There
will also be a push towards co-location of RDA staff and UKTI where it makes
sense to do so. So far, so good. But then a few aspects which may cause a
little concern. The prefered model includes the following two key features:
“DAs (ie Scots, Welsh and N.Irish) likely to join
the process at their discretion” – it was always going to be difficult to
dictate terms to the devolved parts of the UK, but this sounds like a fudge.
And (to maintain the confectionary line) a pick’n’mix solution might be
interpreted as letting the celts have their cake eat it too. The workability of
this aspect is further undermined by the comment that “The City of London may
also exercise discretion”. For many years our national inward investment body
has been accused of pandering to the celts and being London-centric. This new
way forward serves only to pour oil on these two firey accusations.
“RDAs would need greater empowerment to coordinate
sub-regional partner contributions” – the review rightly acknowledges that
whilst UKTI and central government can tell the RDAs what to do (who pays the
piper, calls the tune), no such compulsion exists over towns, cities or counties.
If a city wishes to undertake a marketing campaign in London, New York or
Cannes, and it is being paid for locally or in cooperation with private sector
partners, then neither UKTI nor the RDA should have any control over it. If any
“greater empowerment” is needed at all, it should be the sub-regions who need
to be empowered to hold their regions more accountable.
If this new approach is adopted, as seems likely,
then it will have a number of important consequences:
1. UKTI will need to be much more familiar with the
different sector strengths across the UK and make sure that it doesn’t
sacrifice effectiveness on the altar of even-handedness.
2. RDAs will have to be much clearer in identifying
their regional strengths and, most importantly, communicating these to UKTI in
specific markets.
3. Sub-regions (especially the cities) will have to
avoid being sidelined in certain sectors where London is a more obvious story
(eg financial services).
There are enough recommendations in the review to
keep people busy for years to come, just as long as this doesn’t deflect from
the real burining issue of where agencies add value. Buried on page 119 are a
few telling stats… Of 62 UK inward investors interviewed as part of this
research, only two said that the support of government agencies (UKTI and/or
RDA/DAs) was “a deciding factor” in choosing to locate here. Another seven of
the 62 said it was “a significant factor”. Another way of reading this is that
85% of inward investors don’t view the support of UKTI or RDAs to be that
important. Rather than chasing headline numbers and trying to claim more
successes than last year, agencies should focus on those investors and markets
where they can affect the greatest influence over location decisions.
