The next item is a debate on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee on Communities First, and I call on the committee Chair to move the motion—John Griffiths.

Motion NDM6547 John Griffiths

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Notes the report of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee on the inquiry into poverty in Wales, ‘Communities First—Lessons Learnt’, which was laid in the Table Office on 18 October 2017.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’m pleased to open today’s debate, and I’d firstly like to thank all those who provided written and oral evidence to this inquiry, as well as the staff and service users that we met on our visits, and place on record our acknowledgment of the significant and important work that has been delivered by Communities First projects and staff across Wales over the last 16 years. It has had a positive impact on individuals, in many cases life changing, as with a number of young people in my own constituency who are now working in community development themselves and helping to bring about further positive change within their communities.

Following the announcement to wind down the programme, we decided to do a short inquiry that focused on three things: the strengths and weaknesses of Communities First, transitional arrangements and the impact on other related programmes. We published our initial findings in July and followed this up with a more detailed report, which was published last week. We made 11 recommendations. The Government accepted six, accepted in principle three and rejected two.

We strongly recommended that a tackling poverty strategy should be published. The Government rejected this recommendation, saying that its policy would be set out in ‘Prosperity for All’, its national strategy that was then published in September, and that it wanted to take a more holistic approach in responding to the long-term challenges.

While we welcome a cross-departmental response, we still believe a poverty strategy is essential. It would show how the cross-Government approach is working and would enable the Assembly to scrutinise its effectiveness. We do not think a holistic approach prevents such a strategy and action plan. So, I would press the Cabinet Secretary to reconsider these matters.

Moving on to the transitional arrangements for Communities First, in guidance, the Welsh Government stated that the three Es—employability, early years, and empowerment—should inform decision making for local authorities. The evidence we heard highlighted the importance of the Welsh Government’s employability plan and, in our report, we highlighted that it has still not been published. This has made it more difficult for local authorities to draw up their transitional plans, and for us as a committee to understand the full impact of the end of Communities First. We would urge the Welsh Government to publish it as soon as possible.

Moving on to empowerment. Local authorities and other key stakeholders told us they were unclear what it meant in practical terms. We therefore recommended that Welsh Government should clarify this, and that was accepted in principle. Transitional guidance is cited as defining empowerment as:

making sure communities are engaged and empowered to have their voices heard in the decisions that affect them.’

We do not believe that this definition provides the necessary clarity and would ask the Cabinet Secretary to provide some concrete examples of what is meant in practical terms.

Communities First has been delivering a wide range of different projects across Wales. Some of these, though, could—or, some would argue, should—be delivered by statutory services. We therefore recommended that Welsh Government should ensure that local authorities identify such programmes and that those that are successful and valued by communities are transferred to relevant statutory bodies. This would then enable limited legacy funding to be directed to projects that Communities First does best.

The Government accepted this recommendation and outlined how they were taking this forward. However, while welcoming the work that is being done around health and education, more information on what support is being offered to projects that fall outside of these areas would be appreciated. Additionally, the work that is being done will not capture any projects that were closed down directly as the result of the announcement to wind down the Communities First programme. I would therefore like more information on whether the Welsh Government has made any assessment of the number and details of such projects, especially those concerning health and education that fall outside of the three Es.

During oral evidence, the Cabinet Secretary confirmed that legacy funding would be available for the next two financial years. He also added that there was the possibility of a further two years’ provision. We called for clarity. The Government then confirmed the commitment to funding for the next two years, but again did not clarify the position beyond that time. I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary were to provide that clarity today, and if he cannot do that, to commit to doing so before the publication of the final 2018-19 budget.

Llywydd, in closing, I would like to reiterate my comments commending the work done by Communities First across Wales, but now that the decision has been made to close the programme, it is essential that the transitional arrangements and continuing delivery are robust and help protect the most effective elements of the programme. I hope our report will play a part in this, and I now look forward to hearing Members’ contributions. Diolch yn fawr.

I thank the Chairman for those comments then, and for the work that the committee and everybody has done on this. We heard from a large number of witnesses throughout this inquiry, and I think what has stood out the most from it is the total lack of consistency experienced across Communities First in terms of outcomes, working partnerships and management. For some, we did hear positive reports, and, of course, that is fantastic. Some mentioned true engagement with those most disengaged and the lives of some individuals being demonstrably improved by the dedication and hard work of certain staff members. But from others—and I think it’s fair to say the majority—I would say real concerns were raised. As noted in the report, despite running for over 15 years, and at a cost of over £432 million to the taxpayer, it does remain unclear at best as to whether this programme will have had much sustainable impact at all. We heard concerns from a number of witnesses with regards to the place-based approach taken, with the Bevan Foundation asserting that this type of intervention simply does not work and makes an assumption that the individual is the problem and should be treated, leaving open further questions about other potential problems with leaving the other place-based initiatives in place while Communities First winds down.

So, given the findings outlined in the report, I would be interested to know whether the Welsh Government plans to look into any potential programme adjustment with regard to Flying Start, Communities for Work and Lift. In terms of management and working partnerships, it was incredibly disappointing to note that performance management frameworks did not join up, and that a protectionist attitude and/or silo mentality has led to insufficient talking. We know in organisations and other groups how that can be a real danger, especially with regard to the duplication caused by reluctance to engage in true partnership working. These kinds of attitudes simply are not acceptable where public resources are being used, and when the future of individual lives can be so dramatically and personally affected.

Of course, the failure by the Welsh Government to publish their employability plan made it hard for the committee to really assess the full impact of the closure of Communities First. Frankly, this is not acceptable, and we hope to see this plan published as soon as possible to ensure proper scrutiny against this key policy driver.

So, I think, as a minimum, based on our inquiry, the Welsh Government needs to reflect on the findings of the report and ensure lessons are learnt for the future programme, in whatever form it may take. Going forward, I would suggest that the Welsh Government takes a good, long look at itself and, in fact, undertakes an investigation as to why this programme has been allowed to run for so long when there have been such glaring problems in certain areas. Giving evidence, the Cabinet Secretary said that he thought that what Communities First has done is that it has had the ability to stop communities probably getting poorer.’

This isn’t good enough. We must be showing far, far more ambition than this, and I do look forward to further working in this area from the Welsh Government, seeing them demonstrate far more robust, workable and concrete aims to deliver poverty reduction across Wales. For what it’s worth, I actually believe that Communities First now should be wound up. It’s failed as a project, and I would certainly look at our future generations, and the implications on that, and providing sustainability for our most vulnerable communities. And I would ask the Cabinet Secretary how he is working with our future well-being co-ordinator in taking forward a better programme, so that we can have real, sustainable outcomes. Thank you.

There are now only 18 months to go until the phase-out of Communities First is concluded. And, in terms of the transfer of delivery and legacy funding, we must be confident that statutory bodies that will take over delivery of current projects have the funding required to deliver those projects, and that money is ring-fenced accordingly. I say that because, today, there are some questions over the merging of some funding streams related to Supporting People, some of which could include aspects of current Communities First schemes. So, I need to understand here today whether the budget allocation process currently under way is going to include an overall cut in the amount that is currently spent on Communities First. And will you categorically rule that out as Cabinet Secretary?

There is a note in the Cabinet Secretary’s committee response that states that there will be no financial implications, as spending on programmes going forward will be drawn from existing budgets, but it does not say which budgets, or if the budgets where Communities First will be merged into will have a corresponding increase in money. I think we need clarification on that. It says in response to the committee report that individual strategies for specific aspects of poverty will be rejected by the Government going forward. Of course, we understand as a party that there needs to be a cross-cutting approach, with attention paid to how various aspects are drawn together, but what about a separate child poverty approach?

Myself and Sian Gwenllian, my colleague, have raised on numerous occasions—both in the committee, and here in the Chamber—that there should be consideration of a dedicated child poverty strategy, as many other countries have, because aspects of child poverty cross-cut beyond economic issues, particularly relating to local government, social services and housing, for example, and education, education equalities, and intervention for children in a crisis, for example. So, we’re not satisfied that there is no need for that individualised strategy in relation to child poverty.

In relation to Flying Start, we acknowledge there is a postcode lottery to this programme, and the Government does accept that this isn’t ideal. However, although there are options for flexibility, I can’t see from the Government’s response to what extent they are taken out—I believe it’s called ‘outreach’—how many local areas take up that outreach opportunity to expand on Flying Start, and what are the opportunities ongoing.

I understand—you’ve heard me say before as well—that monitoring and reporting need to be improved on with any new moneys moving forward, emanating from Communities First. We’ve had evidence that, once somebody gets into a job, there is a lack of information as to how long they stay in that particular job, and the follow through in relation to support for that particular individual. I have a personal concern as well that Communities for Work is clearly set up in a Communities First area. If that is one of the answers to replacing Communities First, via current economic European levers, how is that going to be extended in future, given that it does, at the moment, cater for a smaller geographical area?

Our frustration as well, as a committee—and, no, I can’t speak for everybody on the committee—was a lot of emphasis was put on the employability plan, employability strategy, moving forward, which I believe is in the hands of Julie James AM, but it’s very difficult to analyse how that would be a response to Communities First, when we have simply not seen any of the detail, and we’ve been promised it time and time again. So, we can’t, at this moment in time, be assured that that can be the silver bullet to Communities First going into other funding streams, because we simply don’t have the knowledge and the detail in front of us.

Ultimately, I haven’t understood precisely the rationale for ending Communities First in and of itself. It might be good to have a frank conversation about the fact that, potentially, it’s because, ultimately, it failed to achieve what it set out to achieve. We can’t simply throw away money like this in the future, because it’s a lot of money that’s gone to something that has not been a success. While individual projects may have been successful, as a concept it did not succeed. So, we need reassurance, not only as a committee, but as AMs that any future schemes will go about doing what they intend to do and that local people can be as involved as possible.

I don’t have much time left, but my other biggest bugbear was this whole concept of empowerment. It says you define empowerment, and I quote, as making sure communities are engaged and empowered to have their voices heard in the decisions that affect them.’

That doesn’t say much. It doesn’t say how they’re going to be engaged, how they’re going to get involved in the process. We can bandy these terms around as much as we like—as we did with ‘programme bending’ for however long when I was first elected—but words need to transform into action. I hope that you will listen to that comment and make sure that citizens are involved in any future make-up in a proactive and meaningful way when thinking about the future of helping those in areas of poverty in Wales.

Can I thank the committee Chair for his statement and, indeed, the honesty of his report? In 2001, the Welsh Government launched its regeneration strategy for the south Wales Valleys. Amongst the many initiatives envisaged the flagship proposal was the Communities First programme. This, as the name suggests, was to be a communities-based set of interventions that were designed to eradicate poverty across what used to be termed the south Wales coalfield. Sixteen years later, and with £432 million invested in the project, the Welsh Government itself has finally decided that its impact has been negligible. Why? Because the Valleys still continue to top the league tables for inequalities of poverty, health and education.

Although this project was supposed to be community driven, Government and local authorities controlled the funding. In many instances, the governance boards set up to administer the programmes under the scheme were populated largely by local councillors, which meant many decisions were made with regard to party political agendas. Community engagement was thus much diminished. It must be acknowledged that there were instances of good practice and some substantial achievements, particularly with regard to children and young people, but these were patchy and certainly not universal.

The overall failure of Communities First must also be viewed in the context of some £1.2 billion of so-called European funding spent on other Valleys initiatives. ‘Strategic partnerships’, ‘capacity building’, ‘joined-up thinking’ and ‘local action plans’ were the buzzwords of the time—all compelling rhetoric, but short on delivery. Hindsight is, of course, a powerful tool, but there is much about the Communities First project that should have been seen not to be able to deliver the required goals. Perhaps the failures of the scheme could have been avoided by initiating a stand-alone pilot project to evaluate its possible outcomes, which could then have been rolled out in a more co-ordinated fashion.

The Welsh Government made substantial mistakes in the regeneration strategies—Communities First amongst its most prominent. But it is immensely encouraging to see that it appears to have learnt from these failures and now seems to be embracing a whole new ideology with regard to eliminating poverty. There seems to be a very real realisation in this Welsh Government that poverty can only be eradicated by a strong industry-based economy. The truth is, only good well-paid jobs can achieve the goal of poverty eradication and that is why we in UKIP will support any Government strategy to build a strong, resilient industrial economy in the Valleys of south Wales.

I appreciate some of the nuances in this debate today. Communities First has played a role in my area and I don’t recognise the language of failure, because many people in my community will say that Communities First didn’t fail, but actually provided a great deal of uplift to people who live in my community. I’ve seen in the report the evidence of strengths. There’s a lot about the value of engagement and engaging with people who otherwise wouldn’t have engaged in community activities. I’ve seen people go from strength to strength. One very small example in my constituency: in my council ward, when I was a councillor, I was involved in the demolition and rebuilding of a local community centre and we had £400,000 from the Big Lottery. I absolutely say, guaranteed, that there were people involved in that project who would not have been as involved in that project if they hadn’t developed the skills they had through Communities First. So, there was a definite benefit, even if sometimes the benefit wasn’t exactly as intended by the project. So, I think the language of failure is wrong to use. I’ve seen places like Aber valley, Bargoed, Cefn Hengoed, Graig-y-Rhacca and Lansbury Park, all benefit from Communities First.

Just to look at three recommendations that took my interest and the interest of some of my constituents: recommendation 11, recommendation 5 and recommendation 6. Recommendation 11 looks at the closure of Communities First and the impact on other Welsh Government programmes. I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted the recommendation. In the Aber valley in my constituency, there are two bodies that were reliant on Communities First funding; that’s the Senghenydd Youth Drop In Centre, which I’ve mentioned before, and the Aber Valley YMCA. They took part in Communities First projects, but unfortunately, the lead delivery body hasn’t included them in the targets for legacy funding. I know that that Cabinet Secretary will want to take a limited role in these areas, but what opportunities for appeal would there be for those areas that may not be included by the lead body in legacy funding, other than going to their local Assembly Member and asking them to raise those issues here in this Chamber? I think that’s quite an important issue to address.

The other one is recommendation 5, which is addressing the issue of employability. The recommendation asks the Cabinet Secretary to take the broadest view of employability. Yesterday, I talked about the launch of the Federation of Small Businesses self-employment report. I feel that, as Communities First is wound up, then we should not just look at employability, but also self-employability and the role that self-employability can play in the employability programme. There’s 8.7 per cent self-employed in the Valleys communities, which includes Caerphilly. How can we then ensure that that number grows so that the people who wish to be self-employed, particularly women, can access self-employment? That would involve engaging further education colleges, local schools and people who would operate successfully through Communities First in previous cluster areas.

Finally, recommendation 6, for my contribution. We know that the lower super-output areas tend to exclude people who may be living in poverty outside of those areas and the concept of outreach is very welcome. Bethan Jenkins has already mentioned the fact that perhaps we need some expansion of the understanding of outreach, as the programme is wound up. The children’s commissioner gave evidence to the Children, Young People and Education Committee last week, in which she said that she would like to see the childcare offer extended to non-working parents. In order to do that, you’ve effectively got to end austerity and I would understand the Cabinet Secretary’s view if he were to say that that would be incredibly difficult within existing budgets—virtually impossible. However, I understood from my discussion with, and my questioning of, the children’s commissioner that what she was referring to was an extension of Flying Start universally, and, again, that would be virtually impossible. However, looking at the issues of outreach, where can we be clearer about how outreach can be introduced within local authority areas? I’d like the Cabinet Secretary to explore that in as much detail as possible. I’m therefore pleased that, again, he’s accepted those recommendations.

I think this report should be welcomed. I think it makes a valuable, cross-party, independent contribution to the discussion about Communities First and I’m glad that the Government has looked on this in a very open-minded, clear and honest way and I look to see those improvements that I’ve suggested, and that other Members have suggested, being taken on board by the Government, and I really believe that they will.

I cannot find any reference in this report on key lessons learnt from Communities First to key issues such as programme bending, grant-recipient bodies, the damning Wales Audit Office reports and the rejected proposals to take Communities First forward from 2012. Like many, I gave my support to the programme when it was launched because we were told it was about genuine community empowerment and ownership. My initial concerns were raised when evidence-based allegations were brought to me of Welsh Government gerrymandering, manipulating Communities First boundaries for political advantage in rural north Flintshire. This concern was added to by growing evidence that the programme wasn’t delivering improved outcomes for people in the Communities First areas, with high inactivity and benefit dependency and low prosperity levels persisting. But, whenever we challenged the Welsh Government over this during the second and third Assemblies, they told us that Communities First was instead about programme bending, conveniently ignoring that the purpose of programme bending was supposed to be delivering improved outcomes.

Well, we’ve heard that the programme, between 2001 and 2017, involved spending of nearly £0.5 billion. Well, the 2006 interim evaluation of Communities First found little evidence of rigorous monitoring and evaluation’ and that

Communities First is still a long way away from producing the regeneration outcomes that…are its main aim.’

As a member of the Audit Committee in the second Assembly, I successfully called for an inquiry into Communities First to be included in the Wales Audit Office forward work programme. The resulting Wales Audit Office report, published in July 2009, found significant Welsh Government failure, stating that serious weaknesses in financial planning and the processes of funding the programme led to widespread variation in funding with no clear rationale into funding decisions, that there was an absence of basic human resource and financial planning, that monitoring was weak, and that there was no evidence that anything was done with the feedback.

The 2008 Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, ‘Community empowerment in practice: lessons from Communities First’ found a general failure to exert community influence over statutory members of Communities First partnerships and no evidence of significant mainstream “programme bending” where statutory agencies prioritised actions and expenditure in the Communities First partnership area.’

The Plas Madoc Communities First whistleblower asked for my help as she’d properly reported her concerns to the Welsh Government only to then suffer false allegations against her rather than see action against the guilty parties. It was only after I referred this to the Wales Audit Office, supported by a Plaid Cymru Member and a Liberal Democrat Member, and after the Wales Audit Office then produced a report confirming a fundamental lack of financial control and governance’ that action was taken that led to the conviction of the Communities First co-ordinator.

False allegations of a similar nature were then made against the Higher Shotton Communities First co-ordinator after she whistleblew against Flintshire Council, then one of the few local authority Communities First grant recipient bodies in Wales, stating that they were wrongly taking control of the programmes and diverting funding outside the Communities First area. Another Communities First co-ordinator in Flintshire had resigned under similar pressure.

The joint paper published in 2011 by the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, the Centre for Regeneration Excellence Wales and Community Development Cymru, ‘Communities First—A Way Forward’, found that the original design of the programme was flawed and that the missing link in achieving community ownership was the lack of a longer term vision in the Communities First programme that, quote, ‘would move beyond programme and Government dependency and provide the community-owned dimension which is often sought but seldom achieved in creating a better Wales.’

The Minister then and Cabinet Secretary now rejected this, instead rolling out the 2012 cluster model and ignoring the lessons from Flintshire and made most local authorities the Communities First grant recipient bodies, enabling too many to encroach on programme delivery and emasculate the communities themselves.

In February, the Cabinet Secretary Carl Sargeant revealed that Communities First will be phased out by March 2018 and, in June, he told the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee that the programme would not be replaced, that the record of its work in Wales’s most deprived areas had been mixed and that the figures aren’t moving. What an admission of failure. And all because the little Napoleons failed to understand that as well as having needs and problems, our most marginalised communities also have social, cultural and material assets and that identifying and mobilising these can help them overcome the challenge they face and that citizens and communities should be seen as the co-producers of health and well-being rather than simply the recipients of services.

Can I say, firstly, that anyone who thought a £30 million-a-year programme would eradicate poverty was somewhat hyper-optimistic and delusional? This is echoed by the evidence of Caerphilly council. Can I just say that to expect a single programme to singlehandedly reduce poverty is naïve and unrealistic? You will never eradicate generational poverty by a single anti-poverty programme. It has been very successful at some things and not so successful at others, but actually, poverty, fundamentally, is down to economics. Anti-poverty programmes and employment support programmes are all well and good, but, unless you have a robust economy, then we’re never going to eradicate it.

We also know that the first thing that the majority of people who live in a homogenously poor area do when they increase their income sufficiently is move—they move to a more affluent area. I think the Chair will be able to tell us about that. But we know the characteristics of poor communities: poor health; high numbers of people on benefits; those not on benefits on low pay and irregular hours; general low educational attainment; few books in the home; with many, a sense that things cannot get better. Where you have an area that is disadvantaged, then, to quote the Welsh Local Government Association, if you look at the most disadvantaged areas, they’ve got the most parts of the system where intervention is needed, so they need a multi-agency approach, an intensive piece of work, to put all the bits back, and get them working again. In a more affluent area, where you’ve got pockets of poverty, the system isn’t quite as broken, and, therefore, you need fewer interventions—more specific interventions—to help those people get back up and running’.

Ynys Môn council said:

The programme has reaped success for changing and improving individual people’s lives by supporting them into training, volunteering and work opportunities and improving their life skills’.

To quote Swansea council:

Community based, accessible services allow staff to understand communities, building relationships and trust that support disengaged people to participate in and access services that they would not otherwise’.

Turning to recommendation 1, which I think is incredibly important, what’s going to happen to what has been done? I think it doesn’t matter if you call it Communities First or you call it ‘Swansea First’ or if you call it ‘Making a community better’. It doesn’t matter, the title—it’s what’s going to happen to the schemes.

Communities First successes in Swansea include—and I’ll just talk about health first—weight loss programmes, improved diet, smoking cessation programmes, exercise programmes. Will Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board or Health Improvement Wales take these on? Because these really are important, in my opinion. I think, far too often, for health, we keep on thinking it’s hospitals—we need more money in hospitals; we need to do more in hospitals. I believe that we need to do more of getting people fit and well so that they don’t end up in hospital. I know how the life expectancy in some of our poorer areas can be up to 10 years less than that in some of our richer areas. You’ve got to improve lifestyle.

On poverty: a project that looked to help people to reduce their utility bills; a clothing shop project, which recycled unwanted clothes; a project that promoted the local credit union and getting people out of doorstep lenders, which is one of the biggest problems that happen in some of our poorest communities. These doorstep lenders, some are meant to be national companies, but they certainly do cause huge problems and they end up paying massive interest rates, some of our poorest people. Who will take on projects like these?

Low educational attainment is a major cause of poverty. Projects prioritised improved educational attainment by helping adults back into learning. Family learning projects operated in partnership with local schools. Homework club sessions targeted children and parents who don’t have ICT and internet facilities at home, supporting young people with their education. I was very fortunate that I was brought up at a time when I was not disadvantaged, because no household had more books than I could access from the local library. Now, there are those who are ICT-rich and those who are ICT-poor, and that does make a huge difference to the educational attainment of very many children. I think that’s one of my greatest fears at the moment, that, if you’re poor now and you don’t have access to all the ICT equipment, then you’re going to be disadvantaged as a child. A parent and toddler group aimed at increasing the development and learning of pre-school children. A homework club provided support to children with their homework and, more importantly, ICT facilities for them to be able to do it. There was also a scheme that encouraged a learning environment in the family home. Who is going to take these over?

On Flying Start, what the Chair of the committee has seen in Newport is replicated in Swansea East, where relatively affluent areas distort the data, so the poorest areas in Swansea—Plasmarl, the terraces of Plasmarl—do not get Flying Start. Yet, the converse is true. I’ve got large detached houses that are in a Flying Start area, because they’re close to a very poor council estate. This cannot be right, and I think it really is important that we ensure that Flying Start targets individuals and is not based upon somebody living 10 streets away being rich.

There are many things that we can learn from Communities First. I do think that there was a failure back in 2001 to establish a robust evaluation mechanism that could have exposed poor programmes much more systematically and much more quickly, because, unless you have some effective monitoring arrangement, it’s impossible for Welsh Government, based in Cardiff, to pinpoint areas of concern until they become a crisis.

I think that some of the things that occurred during the early programmes also indicate a failure to hold delivery bodies to account, because, ultimately, although it was a bottom-up programme that required the community to shape the way in which services were going to be delivered, nevertheless there was always a delivery body that had to be there to ensure that things were done appropriately and that the governance arrangements were in place. I’m not aware of any of the delivery bodies being held to account and being obliged to reimburse central Government where things went really badly wrong.

The 2002 refocus gave the programme a better central purpose—to tackle people’s employability and get more people into work—and that probably should have been there from the beginning, because it wouldn’t have prevented all the soft interventions that have enhanced community well-being and made people emotionally, physically and mentally more ready to take on employment, but it would have given you that central driving focus. I think it’s disappointing that we haven’t had any independent evaluation of the success of Communities First since the 2012 refocus, because I think it makes it more difficult for us to know what really does work and what doesn’t work in terms of trying to re-energise communities that need public investment to make them more sustainable.

One of the problems—or not the problems, one of the things where I perhaps disagree with many colleagues is that a geographical focus, in my view, is very important, because you have to put some ring fence around the area that you want to target, because otherwise it’s always easy for people who are delivering programmes to simply avoid the most challenging problems and go for the easy wins. So, I think that geographical focus is very important—that place-based approach—but using super-output areas is a convenient mechanism, because there are lines on maps, there are statistics that are collected for a whole host of reasons, which makes it easier to monitor the numerical achievements. But, clearly, super-output areas are a very blunt instrument in that, in many cases, they cut across streets, they cut across whole estates, which clearly produces anomalies in terms of injustice. But I think that the Communities First programmes weren’t sufficiently imaginative in finding ways in which they could get around that by engaging with other programmes that would enable them to take on individuals that were needing support but weren’t in the catchment, and I’m pleased that that is a recommendation that has come out of our report.

None of these regeneration programmes are forever, and I think it’s really important that people should have recognised that from the starting point, because the whole point of these programmes is to pilot innovative ways of working with very complex issues around poverty. It’s really, really complicated, and we needed, always, to have been bearing this in mind in terms of informing and reshaping statutory services so that we could deliver them better, and I am concerned that, if all Ministers are responsible for tackling poverty, it becomes nobody’s responsibility. So, I feel that the winding-down process needs to be robustly managed to ensure that local authorities, who are, in the main, the delivery bodies, are really analysing what are those aspects of the programme that have been really successful and that need to be incorporated into their mainstream delivery programmes, because, otherwise, I feel all the learning and the achievements of Communities First can be lost.

Firstly, like others, can I thank the committee for the comprehensive, if sometimes uncomfortable, reading in terms of the report? I’m not going to deal specifically with any of the recommendations in the report, but there are three key issues that I wanted to raise, focusing on the future and the actions that still need to be taken, and we will draw lessons from that report in terms of taking them forward. My comments, as you’ll appreciate, will be made in the context of areas like my own constituency. For me, this must be about what we deliver in the future, through and beyond the current transition period.

So, firstly, the report contains the inevitable realisation that the efforts of the Communities First programme faced an uphill challenge to overcome the history of social and economic deprivation of too many of our Valleys communities, in the context which I’m coming from. That task became almost impossible when we were faced with a UK Government that chose to pursue a policy of austerity, an austerity that was built around a programme of so-called welfare reform. If I refer back to my question to the Cabinet Secretary for finance early on, according to research by Sheffield Hallam University, that programme of reform is going to see nearly £0.5 billion a year being removed from Valleys communities. The welfare reform programme, when fully implemented, will remove more than that from the Valleys every three years. That’s more than £1 billion every three years.

That assault on our Valleys community is in progress, and, in light of that assault and the associated impoverishment of our communities, Communities First faced being a sticking plaster that was never going to be a total solution. As Hefin said, whilst Communities First did some outstanding, life-changing work, in itself, it could not raise many thousands of people in our most deprived communities out of poverty, because it lacked the support of UK Government policies that were amongst the key drivers in tackling poverty. So, that wasn’t the fault of Communities First.

Secondly, we must ensure that the best parts of Communities First projects and the associated lessons are carried forward—many other colleagues have made that point, too—through this transition period, because, as we’ve already heard, so much good has come out of them. I’ll just use one example from my constituency. The Cabinet Secretary, I’m sure, is aware of the Forsythia youth project, which was a fantastic project in providing—and is still a fantastic project—support and guidance to young people. It provides early intervention, mentoring support and role models, and has been life-changing for many young people in Merthyr Tydfil. The success of that project has been recognised by so many partners, both at local and national level. It would be a crime—a crime, really, against our young people—if projects like that were lost due to the changes in the programme. So, the best of Communities First, obviously, has to be taken forward, and I would like some assurance from the Cabinet Secretary that his transition division have a clear view on the essential projects that need to be saved.

Thirdly, we must remember the continuing value that place-based policies can deliver. Indeed, in the near future, I look forward to welcoming the publishing of the work of the Valleys taskforce, recognising the Valleys as a place that needs to receive further cross-cutting attention from our Welsh Government to help us move our communities forward. In my constituency, I see some great examples of award-winning regeneration in Merthyr Tydfil. By the way, Merthyr Tydfil is a town that is growing; it’s a vibrant hub in the Valleys. Can I say it is not the town that was portrayed so negatively, once again, in ‘Valley Cops’ on our tv recently? But the work in Merthyr Tydfil is far from complete, and the Communities First transition is seeing this particular budget reduce, I believe, from £1.6 million to somewhere around £370,000. So, we’re going to be facing significant changes.

I also look at communities like Rhymney that need some extra care and support to help them face the future. They’ve not benefited strategically, like Merthyr Tydfil has, and they can’t point to the same levels of investment and regeneration as its neighbours, either across the valley in Merthyr or down the valley in Caerphilly. So, there are places that must receive our attention as part of the all-new strategies that we’re currently announcing, whether it’s in ‘Prosperity for All’, whether it’s the work of the Valleys taskforce, whether it’s our Welsh budget choices and local government settlements. There remain places and communities, like those in my constituency, that we are obliged to support if we’re to achieve our aims. Our continuing commitment is vital as they face the prospect of losing billions of pounds of support from UK Government over the coming years.

So, as we move away from Communities First and the transition to a new phase is under way, we must remember that the causes and symptoms of poverty remain to be challenged and to be overcome, and this cannot be achieved by Welsh Government alone, who do not hold all the economic levers. But I know the Cabinet Secretary will give some assurance that, in now focusing on resilient communities, tackling poverty remains a key objective for this Welsh Government.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, Carl Sargeant.

I’m grateful, Llywydd, for the opportunity to respond to the committee report. I’m thankful to the committee for their report, and grateful to all those who’ve given written and oral evidence. While there were differences of interpretation and emphasis, the Government was able to accept most of the committee’s recommendations, as the Chair made reference to.

Llywydd, the decision to close Communities First was a difficult one, but after careful consideration, I took the view that while the programme had done much for individuals, overall poverty levels remained stubbornly high, and no one programme could be expected to remedy this. It was time for a radical change of direction and, as Mike Hedges alluded to, this is about a jigsaw, a suite of tools that is able to protect our communities. The Welsh Government is committed to a cross-Government drive to create prosperity for all, and as I said in February, we are determined to build resilient communities by focusing on early years, employment and empowerment. Our national strategy, ‘Prosperity for All’, has now laid out our plans to invest in the prosperity and well-being of communities and individuals across Wales.

Many who responded during our extensive engagement exercise appreciated the help that the programme gave to individuals and the work of the staff, but there was also recognition of the need for a new approach based on tackling the root causes of poverty and working with local people to focus that effort as effectively as possible.

Like Hefin David, I’m offended by the use of the word ‘failings’ for Communities First, because actually we did see and have seen some great work going on in your communities across the whole length and breadth of Wales. Janet Finch-Saunders and Mark Isherwood wash their hands of this, but it’s their Government that have put pressure on Wales, which has a huge impact on the issues of tackling poverty—[Interruption.] They can laugh, but the fact of the matter is, you have as much to be responsible for as anybody else. Llywydd—[Interruption.] No, I’m not at the moment. I may give way in a little while. The Welsh Government is committed to cross-Government working, as I said earlier.

Change is never easy, Llywydd, but I make no apology for facing up to difficult questions and difficult challenges. I pay tribute to all those who have joined us in working through the difficult choices we have, and those involved in developing the answers. Last October, I announced I was minded to phase out Communities First. Following that, I conducted a broad consultation, receiving several thousand responses. In February, I announced that I would close the programme and set out our new approach to building resilient communities. We took the time to listen to people before taking that final decision.

Phasing out the programme rather than opting for a sudden closure, together with the mitigation measures I put in place, is providing opportunities for staff redeployment and the continuation of some of the most effective Communities First projects, like Dawn Bowden has alluded to.

The work to take forward our new approach is progressing well. Our strategy, ‘Prosperity for All’, sets out how we mobilise all the energies of Welsh Government to support the building of resilient communities throughout Wales. Key activities across my portfolio will complement those undertaken by my colleagues, and we will deliver in ways that involve and empower our communities, involving them from the onset.

We are working with a wide range of partners to identify the things that need to be put in place to support the empowerment of our communities, and this shared exploration will shape how Welsh Government supports the development of resilience in those communities.

Llywydd, the transition year was designed to maximise the support for those who need it and who would feel the effects of change, and the Communities First transition team offers the help and advice needed to lead delivery bodies and staff on the ground. I know that many Members have been to see me with local issues and I have been able to point to my delivery team and transition team for their support. They have ensured that bespoke support has been rapidly available, as required, in addition to the frequent bilateral meetings and bi-monthly meetings of the lead delivery body network.

A key aspect of the team’s role this year is to support mainstreaming activities, which are both effective and valued locally. Lead delivery bodies supported by the transition team have done some excellent work already in securing the future of some of the most successful projects from Communities First. However, Llywydd, I must be clear that this is not about mainstreaming absolutely everything. Not everything works in every area. That’s why I have asked for the focus—to look at the best bits, as some Members put this, and make sure that this is a programme that meets real community needs. Dawn, one of your questions was about how we make sure that we are sighted on these decisions. These will be decisions by the local delivery bodies. This is not a decision for me to pick out. We are distant from those communities. It is important that there is a local influence and making sure that they understand that better.

In Pembrokeshire, for example, the lead delivery body has engaged closely with the health board to incorporate the Communities First approach around healthy eating into the board’s general service delivery. A local GP is now facilitating the work of the action group that supports people with additional needs to live in the community. This shows how the best bits of projects previously delivered by Communities First can continue and thrive in a new context. In Newport, many former Communities First projects are being delivered by a different provider, programme or team. The Tackle Project is now being delivered by the Dragons. The well-being support team and Newport youth services have also taken on a number of projects too.

Our work to carry forward the best of Communities First includes the legacy fund and the employability grant, and these are being developed in collaboration with the organising groups and with colleagues in local authority areas. I listened to Hefin’s point around the self-employed, which is a really important one. I will ask my team to see how that operates. The broader question around the employability plan is with Julie James and will be issued shortly. We are just finalising the detail of that. Employability is a key priority, and £12 million of employability grant supports that work. The legacy fund is enabling local authorities to continue projects that make a difference to lives in their area. It is a two-year legacy programme. After two years, I will be speaking to the finance Minister to see how that ends up in the RSG provision in order for the continuation of support.

Where there is local drive and determination, Llywydd, some of the best aspects of Communities First can continue in new and innovative ways. I congratulate all those working with the support of my officials to find new ways to particularly thrive on those projects in the future. Some people still ask me when I will reveal a successor programme to Communities First. My answer is that the challenges of creating prosperity for all is no longer a matter for one particular programme. It is the central and defining mission of this Government as a whole.

I call on John Griffiths to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Could I first thank Members very much for their level of interest and, indeed, their level of passion for these issues, including Assembly Members who are not members of the committee? I think their contributions were very valuable, actually, in providing balance in terms of experience of Communities First. It was very good to hear, for example, from Hefin David, Dawn Bowden and Mike Hedges—none of them members of the committee—in terms of the successes of Communities First in their areas and about how, as Hefin said, some of those successes in developing community capacity then had important benefits when it came to other projects, because that capacity was used to enable those other projects to take place and, indeed, succeed. So, I think that does give necessary balance, which I hope our report has done in any event—looking at some of the shortcomings but also all the good work that took place. I think we did try and strike that balance in our report, and I hope that we did so effectively.

I think that a lot of the points made by Assembly Members, Llywydd, concentrated—and I think necessarily so—on the evidence base, evaluation, and performance management, because our report does indeed deal with those issues to quite a large extent and, indeed, they feature in a number of the recommendations. Recommendation 4, in talking about the tackling poverty strategy, talks about performance indicators, effective performance management, and setting out a broader evidence base. The recommendation 8 talks about ensuring that performance indicators are consistent across the whole of Wales, publicly available, broken down by local authority, and made available to committee to aid scrutiny. Recommendation 9 is the dashboard of poverty indicators, perhaps involving organisations such as the Bevan Foundation or Joseph Rowntree, and we talk about a longitudinal study on poverty in Wales in recommendation 10. So, I think it’s clear that the committee identified those issues around evaluation, performance management and an evidence base very strongly, and I’m glad that that’s been reflected by contributions today, because it has become a mantra for Welsh Government to be evidence-based, and we need to see the practical application of that in important programmes such as those that tackle poverty.

A number of Members talked about the importance of the economy, Llywydd, and I think we would all recognise that. The saying that a rising tide lifts all boats is very important to tackling poverty, and we want to see the economy strengthen in Wales, but we also, alongside that, want to see bespoke programmes and initiatives to tackle poverty, including those that are place-based, again, as a number of Members mentioned. I think it is right that we should have a balance between those that are generally available and those initiatives, those projects that are geographically specific.

Llywydd, I’m grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for his response. I think it is important that we have clarity in terms of legacy funding, and if that is to go into RSG, then we look forward to getting more detail as to exactly how that is going to occur and what controls and what parameters will be set around that to make sure that it does have the desired effect in tackling these issues. I think the transition team is important, and we want to see that sustained in terms of the help for lead bodies and the ability for Assembly Members to bring issues to the Cabinet Secretary, and for those to be tackled by that transition team.

I think it is important that there is a cross-Government approach and, again, we recognise that, Llywydd. But what we want to see in terms of the tackling poverty action plan—and, you know, this was indeed an important recommendation—is that set out in a strategy that enables scrutiny, and which contains all the performance management and performance indicators that I started off by addressing. I think that that is a key ask for the committee, and we want to see that taken forward.

Finally, as Members mentioned, in terms of the good practice and the successes, it’s very, very important that they are retained. Recommendation 1 refers to statutory bodies recognising that success and taking on responsibility, and we want to ensure that that is an important part of what’s taken forward for the future, and that’s why it’s the first recommendation.

The proposal is to note the committee’s report. Does any Member object? Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.