Regional Investment in Wales Steering Group meeting, 15 January 2026: minutes

The Chair welcomed attendees and thanked them for their contributions to the previous session held during the Welsh Government’s consultation period on the Local Growth Fund.

It was noted the consultation closed on 19 December, with approximately 150 responses received. Officials are analysing responses, including feedback from the previous Steering Group meeting and regional consultation events.

The Chair added that a summary analysis report will be published online next month. The Local Growth Fund proposals will be discussed by the Welsh Government Cabinet in February, ahead of submission to the UK Government for agreement.

The draft minutes of the previous meeting were cleared for publication on the Welsh Government website. 

The Chair invited Tom Smithson (TS), Welsh Government Deputy Director for Economic Strategy and Regulation, to provide an overview of developments since the previous meeting.

TS said officials were reviewing consultation responses and feedback from the previous Steering Group and the four regional engagement events. Evidence from the Senedd’s Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee’s inquiry is also being considered.

TS noted the UK Government has published interim evaluations of the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF). Key themes include:

• need for stronger partnership working
• delivery challenges caused by compressed timescales
• issues with capital project delivery, cross regional working, and infrastructure readiness
• benefits included flexibility and varied delivery models

TS said the Welsh Government continues to raise concerns with the UK Government regarding the 70% capital / 30% revenue split, but major changes are considered unlikely. The UK Government has extended SPF deadlines by six months to help with transition.

TS noted the Local Growth Fund approach recently announced for Scotland which involves:

• allocation to five of eight regional economic partnerships
• no transitional arrangements for areas losing SPF funding
• 70% capital weighting, similar to Wales

TS said ongoing work was taking place with Shared Prosperity Fund regional lead authorities and the WLGA to manage the Year 1 transition in line with the consultation. The transition is intended to provide some initial continuity to enable key projects to continue, whilst beginning the transition to the CJC-led approach from Year 2. A progress review will take place in October. 

The indicative timetable involves a Cabinet discussion on proposals in early February followed by submission of the investment plan to the UK Government.

The issue of grant letters and publication of Fund documents are dependent on UK Government confirming agreement of the Plan in March and subsequent agreement to transfer funding to Welsh Government.

In response to a query about subsidy control, TS said the Welsh Government cannot establish a Wales wide subsidy control scheme by 1 April due to the timing and depth of analysis required. The same approach as the SPF will therefore be followed for Year 1 and noted there were some general schemes available which might be used. Welsh Government is happy to consider the need for a scheme in the future. 

The Chair invited Nadine Young (NY), Head of Regional Investment at the Welsh Government, supported by Eleri Carrington and Benedict Watson, to introduce the emerging findings from the Local Growth Find consultation.

It was noted that 154 written responses were received, four regional events attracted more than 200 attendees and there had been strong cross-sector participation in the consultation.

The emerging themes from feedback received during the consultation process were summarised as follows:

Guiding principles

High support generally received for the guiding principles with calls for:

• stronger emphasis on climate, sustainability and health inequalities
• greater focus on rural, coastal and small-town disparities
• embedding Welsh language considerations

Priority areas

Stakeholders agreed there are too many objectives across the four priorities, and these will need to be narrowed, with local and green infrastructure likely being combined to a single infrastructure priority.

Under More Productive and Competitive Businesses, strong support emerged for start‑ups, spin‑outs, and addressing barriers to growth, with universities and innovation partners especially prioritising R&D and innovation.

Opinions were divided on repayable finance: social investment bodies favoured recyclable finance, while rural and micro‑business areas warned that loan‑only models risk excluding viable firms without blended or grant support.

In Skills and Employability, all strategic objectives were broadly supported, with emphasis on treating them as an integrated system that raises skills levels and aligns provision with labour market needs; reducing economic inactivity was a high priority, particularly for groups supporting disadvantaged people.

A strong consensus emphasised wraparound, person‑centred approaches, early intervention, and locally accessible provision delivered by trusted organisations, with in‑work progression seen as important but not the top priority.

For Infrastructure and Green Priorities, respondents widely backed improving digital and transport connectivity, tackling fuel poverty and energy efficiency, expanding low‑carbon energy generation, and prioritising local economic infrastructure as the foundational element enabling wider regional growth.

Transition arrangements

A key concern for some respondents was the risk of losing delivery capacity, expertise and trusted relationships if the transition is not carefully managed, with strong calls for flexible arrangements, multi-year planning and the ability to roll over funds to maintain stability.

Funding gaps and unclear governance were highlighted as significant risks, with many warning that insufficient revenue funding and lack of clarity could disrupt services during the transition.

Respondents stressed the need for clear, transparent structures and meaningful involvement of all sectors, especially the third sector and local authorities, in shaping transition arrangements.

Geographic approaches

Stakeholders recognised the value of national investments where scale or specialist expertise is required, but emphasised that national programmes must not undermine local priorities, accountability or delivery capacity, calling for robust safeguards against over-centralisation and duplication.

Respondents agreed that national and regional plans must embed local delivery from the outset, while noting risks around variable local capacity, governance challenges and potential inconsistencies across areas.

There was broad consensus that clear national frameworks, long‑term funding and transparent accountability mechanisms are essential for effective local implementation.

On regional allocations and delivery models, respondents strongly supported transparent, evidence‑based criteria reflecting socio-economic need, opposed population-only formulas, and broadly backed linking CJCs to a 10‑year vision to provide long‑term stability and strategic alignment.

In response, members made the following points:

• the need for clear decision‑making and prioritisation given limited funding, particularly revenue funding
• need to consider representativeness: some organisations represent thousands of businesses despite potentially being seen as a single response
• consideration of alternative terminology to “national investment” to avoid perceptions of centralisation
• some sectors do not have statutory relationships with CJCs, there were concerns about CJCs’ varying capacity and how best to engage them
• the importance of avoiding duplication with Welsh Government funding pots and ensuring the Fund remains flexible enough to adapt to a future Programme for Government
• whether Welsh‑specific SPF delivery will be analysed and larger‑scale investments for major projects could be considered as part of the new fund’s approach

The Chair invited Tom Smithson (TS) to summarise the key issues and options for consideration to help officials complete the draft investment plan for discussion and agreement by the Welsh Cabinet. These key issues were: 

Prioritisation

General agreement from the consultation that prioritisation is essential, but there is no consensus on how to do it; the fund cannot address all needs so must focus on key areas.

Options for prioritisation include: 

• narrowing the national framework
• specifying allocations per priority area
• setting minimum/maximum allocations
• allowing regional flexibility with clear guardrails

The prioritisation approach needs to recognise the Fund’s relationship with other public funding, leverage private investment and align with other programmes.

National interventions

It has been proposed Year 1 funding is fully allocated on a regional basis to support the transition, so any national or pan-Wales actions would be from Year 2 onwards. 

Given 70 per cent of the fund is capital, national interventions from Year 2 may best be focused on capital‑led themes to leave revenue flexibility for regions.

National or nationally coordinated interventions with most potential for pan-Wales activity might include R&D and innovation infrastructure, capital finance for business, and funding for sites and premises. It was suggested small task and finish groups could explore investment landscapes and opportunities for the Local Growth Fund in these areas on a pan-Wales basis during the transition year. 

Funding allocations

Consideration of funding decisions taken at two levels:

• thematic allocation across the selected priorities;
• regional allocation across Wales.

Most revenue funding may need to go to skills and employability, recognising that business support has other funding streams.

Regional allocations may draw on models such as the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation, a household income approach, or GDP and productivity measures.

There is an open question about whether to set spatial targeting expectations within regions as conditionality, such as ensuring deprived areas benefit, or whether that judgment takes place at regional level.

Regional plans

Long-term regional plans to form the basis for the funding. Regions will be expected to develop portfolios of investments that identify gaps, avoid duplication, and reflect what is already being delivered across the region.

Guidance to be issued before funding is released, including expectations for engagement, representation and strategic alignment.

Arrangements requiring key partners to be represented and plans to align with existing regional transport, energy and other strategic plans.

Transition Year

Consideration of all funding in Year 1 to be given directly to the regional SPF leads, with some funding set aside for CJCs to begin developing the regional approach in readiness for Year 2.

The aim is to provide planning and continuity where it aligns with the new Fund’s aims, and ensure steady progress towards longer-term regional planning.

In response, members made the following comments:

• Consider cross‑priority integration where objectives naturally cut across multiple priorities and could be planned as integrated projects.
• Leaving geographic targeting to regional discretion risks an inconsistent approach. Stronger guidance may be necessary to ensure equity.
• Duplication seen in previous skills programmes suggests regional bodies are best placed to understand local needs, though some national-level revenue is still required to maintain a level playing field for business support.
• Directing revenue too heavily toward specific themes could undermine the ability of organisations to make use of capital investment, potentially leading to underspend and excluding smaller organisations.
• The importance of aligning regional investments with wider sectoral and industrial strategies, ensuring CJCs add value by complementing existing national and UK-level funding streams.
• Scrutiny arrangements for CJCs exist through local authorities with flexibility to involve other organisations. Regional delivery does not automatically mean delivery via CJCs.

The Chair thanked members for their attendance and input and noted the next meeting would take place after the Welsh Government Cabinet has met and the investment plan has been submitted to the UK Government. 

No further business was raised.

Chair 

Carolyn Thomas MS

Members

North Wales CJC: Nia Medi Williams, Operations and Resources Manager

South-West Wales CJC: Helen Morgan, Economic Development Manager
Kristy Tillman, Head of Policy and Business Administration

Mid Wales CJC: Diane Reynolds, Director of Economic Development and Growth, Powys County Council

Welsh Local Government Association: Tim Peppin, Corporate Director

Third Sector Partnership Council: Matthew Brown, Deputy Chief Executive, Wales Council for Voluntary Action

Third Sector (Social Enterprise): Glenn Bowen, Director of Enterprise, Cwmpas

Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Wales (Business): Llyr ap Gareth, Head of Policy

Universities Wales (Higher Education): Amanda Wilkinson, Director

Colleges Wales (Further Education): Kelly Fountain, Chief Executive, Gower College Swansea

Natural Resources Wales (Environmental): Rhianne Jones, Lead Specialist Advisor EU Exit and Land Management

Medr, the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research: Emma Mock, Head of Skills and Employability

Chambers of Commerce: Gus Williams, Chief Executive, South and Mid Wales 

CBI (Business): Leighton Jenkins, Assistant Director, Policy

Wales Rural Network (Community-led local development): Eirlys Lloyd, Chair, Wales Rural Network

Development Bank of Wales: Rob Hunter, Director of Strategy

Trade Union: Shavanah Taj, General Secretary, Wales TUC

Grahame Guilford and Company: Grahame Guilford

Welsh Government attendees

Tom Smithson, Deputy Director, Economic Strategy and Regulation

Nadine Young, Head of Regional Investment, Economic Strategy and Regulation

Alison Sandford, Head of Partnership Working, Economic Strategy and Regulation
Mike Richards    Communications and Stakeholder Manager – Economic Strategy and Regulation

Eleri Carrington, Head of Regional Policy, Economic Strategy and Regulation

Benedict Watson, Senior Policy Manager, Economic Strategy and Regulation

Cheryl Jones, Regional Policy Manager, Economic Strategy and Regulation

Rhys Morris, Chief Regional Office, Business and Regions

Lea Beckerleg, Head of Local Government Regional Collaboration, Local Government Policy

Ann Watkin, Head of Strategy, Operations Alignment and Planning, Business and Regions