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.