Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap VI : The Debate

Apart from recently announced legal action, the curtain comes down on
the RIFW scandal on the last day the Fourth Assembly met in plenary.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

Yesterday, I covered some of the failures over the course of the term, as well as a last-minute "special performance" by Cirque du Plaid. I couldn't let the Assembly go without revisiting one of the Welsh Government's biggest "whoopsies" - the RIFW scandal - one last time.

Most of the time AMs are capable of acting like grown-ups, and a debate was held on the findings of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report into the scandal (Part V). Some credit has to go to the Business Committee for squeezing in a debate before the election – they could've easily let it slide.

Jac o' the North wrote more on this a few days ago and it's well worth a read as always, while in the last few days the Welsh Government announced they'll start legal action against one of the key protagonists in the saga, Lambert Smith Hampton (which was actually one of the recommendations of the committee's report).

Starting off, the Chair of the Committee, Darren Millar AM (Con, Clwyd West) described it as one of the most significant and deeply concerning inquiries undertaken by his committee (clip). He said it was "inexcusable" and subsequently outlined the findings of the report (which I've already covered in detail).

Although the idea behind RIFW was innovative, it was poorly executed due to flaws in Welsh Government's oversight, as well as the fact RIFW was poorly-served by the professionals who were supposed to offer expertise. It exposed numerous flaws in government procedures, line accountability, record-keeping and data retention.

Darren welcomed the First Minister's apology and the Welsh Government's positive response to the report. It was vital that future Welsh governments recognise all of the recommendations to ensure necessary improvements are made to their handling of arms-length bodies, and to ensure such losses to the public purse are never repeated.

Nick Ramsay AM (Con, Monmouth) said the tragedy for him was the number of different parts of Wales affected by the scandal (clip). When it emerged land in Monmouth which was earmarked for a controversial housing development was sold for fraction of market value, the local reaction "bordered on disbelief". The legacy could undermine trust constituents have in government's ability to handle large financial issues – particularly in light of future tax devolution - as ownership and management of land is a key responsibility of government.

Alun Ffred Jones AM (Plaid, Arfon) said it was a damaging chapter for government and people's perceptions of the Assembly (clip), particularly the perception that government isn't careful with its own money and not worried about getting the best value. He found it difficult to believe that no minister was aware of what was happening and was disappointed that nobody's taken responsibility for the fiasco.

Alun said nothing summarised the scandal more succinctly than the 180 degree turn the board made – one moment they agreed to sell the land separately, the next they agreed to sell them in one package. Alun said if even a community council did this "it would raise chuckles" (Oh, the irony! Coincidentally, this appeared to take place at the same time as Plaid's emergency meeting on the Public Health Bill.). He believed it was a cock-up rather than a conspiracy, but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

Jenny Rathbone AM (Lab, Cardiff Central) accepted it was a great idea to invest in urban regeneration during recession (clip). However, she felt sorry for the RIFW board members who were like "lambs to the slaughter" and knew nothing about how to handle land sales. Instead, the Welsh Government should've disposed of the own land then handed the proceeds to RIFW.

It was "unfortunate" that the Welsh Government wasn't tracking what was going on, which meant that the whole thing was out of sight and out of mind. The decision over the land parcel should've been made by ministers, particularly as the "jewel in the crown" Lisvane site would obviously be used for housing as Cardiff expands. In closing, Jenny believed the Welsh Government had learned their lesson.

Aled Roberts AM (Lib Dem, North Wales) was disappointed that the debate was scheduled for the last day, but it was an eye-opener regardless (clip); he doubted whether even a community council would've done some of the things outlined in the report. There was no criticism of the idea, but everything after that was poor, with Aled expressing surprise that the Welsh Government thought just four people meeting for four days a year could discuss these sorts of issues and make decisions – he could only come to the conclusion that board members had been let down.

However, he believed the main weakness was that a civil servant was put in as an observer when it wasn't clear what his role was, with no guidance issued by ministers. Also, the issue of poor record-keeping appears time and time again in these inquiries. This is unacceptable and he wasn't hopeful that the Welsh Government had learned any lessons.

Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Davies (Con, South Wales Central), said the whole situation unfolded from a genuinely sincere attempt to unlock assets (clip), but it was "incomprehensible" that nobody would've realised that some of the land would've increased in value, particularly in Lisvane – it's "not rocket science". Lack of communication appeared time and time again and board members had been cast adrift. The suggestion that the recession meant there needed to be a rush to raise funds for projects was a "red herring" as there was clear evidence that land was already being sold for more than the RIFW valuations at the time.

Responding for the Welsh Government, Communities & Tackling Poverty Minister, Lesley Griffiths (Lab, Wrexham) shared frustrations with AMs and the Committee (clip). RIFW was much needed in 2010, and funding regeneration through recyclable loans was worthwhile during a recession. She shared frustrations that projects weren't brought forward and apologised for that, reiterating the First Minister's apology too.

The delivery was flawed despite the good concept. The government outlined a range and measures to improve oversight of arms-length bodies, though the valuable work and contributions of independent experts on boards and working groups should be acknowledged. The fund was brought under direct ministerial control in 2013 and in January 2016 the Minister said the remaining funds from RIFW would be made available for regeneration projects.

Lesley confirmed that legal proceedings have started against Lambert Smith Hampton, and further legal steps are being kept under review. The Welsh Government accepted all the Committee's recommendations, and said the government will continue to learn lessons and improve policies.

Summing up, Darren Millar repeated that the scandal reflects on the Welsh Government and Assembly as a whole (clip). Due to the significant sums of money involved it was important to rebuild trust – though he appreciated the government's positive response to the recommendation and said their overall response was appropriate. Ministers should've been informed of significant decisions, particularly those involving public assets, and the fact there was no feedback on decisions being made on ministers behalf was "absolutely astonishing".

He shared the opinion that there should be sympathy with board members. He also said the overage clauses were inadequate. However, he spared his ire for the poor record keeping, saying that the fact diaries were deleted after 12 months, so nobody had any idea where key people where and at what meetings, was "appalling and disgusting".

The findings of this report had been echoed in many other PAC reports down the years - AWEMA, grants management and Betsi Cadwaladr board arrangements were mentioned. Something's wrong if lessons aren't learned and he hinted that some of these issues have appeared in their ongoing Life Science Fund inquiry.

Read More

Live From Angel Street - January Communities Committee

The next webcast Bridgend Council (BCBC) meeting I'm going to focus on is the Community, Environment & Leisure Scrutiny Committee, held on Wednesday (27^th January) – you can watch it he....

Read More

Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap V : The Inquiry

(Pic : BBC Wales)

Yesterday, the Public Accounts Committee published their forensic report into the failed Regeneration Investment Fund for Wales (RIFW)....and it makes really, really grim reading for the Welsh Government (pdf).

Read More

Minister updates Senedd on refugee response

(Pic : Al-Jazeera)

The Syrian refugee crisis has slipped off the front pages in the last fortnight due to Russian military intervention in the conflict, the latest catastrophic brain fart from the US Air Force and party conference season.

Read More

Poverty Inquiry : Poverty & Inequality

The modern image of poverty is something like the above, but it should also include
low-paid care workers, part-time shop assistants and people priced out of housing.
(Pic : Swansea Sound)

Earlier this week, the Assembly's Communities & Local Government Committee launched the first report of a four-part inquiry into poverty in Wales (pdf) - and a 10-page summary (pdf). Each strand of the inquiry has its own terms of reference, and this first report focuses on how poverty is measured, defined and generally dealt with at a national level.

Read More

Housing Bill introduced to the National Assembly

The Welsh Government's Housing Bill is a wide-ranging law that aims
to tackle "rogue landlords", address homelessness, improve social housing
standards and reduce the number of empty homes.
(Pic : The Guardian)

Continuing the housing theme, the Welsh Government's Housing Bill was introduced to the National Assembly on Tuesday by Housing and Regeneration Minister, Carl Sargeant (Lab, Alyn & Deeside).

It's fair to describe it as "flagship" legislation, and it's also a whopper, coming in at 85 pages.The Bill's available here (pdf) and the explanatory memorandum here (pdf).
It's been recently said elsewhere....apparently....that the Welsh blogosphere often "lacks thought and detail", is too safe and sanitised and has failed to "facilitate democratic engagement and scrutiny".

I'll admit it. I've let you, the Assembly, our AMs and the whole of Welsh society down.

It's a burden I carry every night, as I lie awake, wondering whether to cover gosspy, banal stories like the ongoing collapse of local democracy in Carmarthenshire, the impact of High Speed 2 on the Welsh economy or getting my chompers around the annual report of the Chief Dental Officer.

The blogosphere continuously fails to demand answers to the big questions. What does the Taxpayers' Alliance think about politicians eating and breathing at public expense? What does some chippy anonymous source think about press officers writing press releases at their place of work?

The blogosphere was supposed to open a window, casting light and transparency on Welsh democracy and those who claim to uphold it. Clearly, all opening that window ever did was let in a field's worth of beefy cow farts. It's a dereliction of duty. We need to return to fighting for what is right and cover the controversial.

I'll spend more time hanging around the Senedd, Eli Jenkins pub and Tŷ Hywel looking for receipts in bins. I'll use my extensive network of Assembly spies and media connections - because everyone outside the Bay Bubble establishment has them - more effectively; telling you if Assembly staff are using all those flatscreen TVs to watch Bargain Hunt, or what AMs really think of Peter Black's ties. The people have a right to know.

Instead of my typically concise, pithy blogs, I'm going to do something different today and go into a bit more detail than usual. There's nothing more worthy of democratic engagement and scrutiny than a new law; which could directly and indirectly affect tens of millions in public and private spending as well as thousands of households. The sort of thing I'd usually just gloss over.

Few of you are masochistic enough to delve through it yourselves, so I guess I'm going to have to try to cram more than 250 pages of text to as close to 2,000 words as possible. In my own time. By myself. For free.

What people think of that and whether people take time to acknowledge it is another matter.


Why does Wales need a Housing Bill?

It's claimed 14,000 new homes are required in Wales each year – up to 9,200 private new builds, and 5,100 from other providers like private landlords, housing associations and local authorities. They're all going to be of varying quality and owned/operated by many different companies and individuals.

One of the key aims is to create a mandatory licensing system for landlords and letting agents, as until now such schemes have been voluntary, with some landlords being bad news for both tenants and communities.

The Welsh Government say there are 22,000 empty properties, many of which can be brought up to a decent standard. Existing homes, especially older housing, also need upgrades. That's being carried out to social housing via the Wales Quality Housing Standard (WHQS), but not enough is being done in the private rented sector.

Homelessness is on an upward trend – some 5,800 households were accepted as homeless in 2012-13 - as housebuilding slows, social houses aren't built at a fast enough rate to keep up with demand, and welfare reforms impact households, like the infamous "bedroom tax".

In addition to that there's the perennial local campaign favourite of new gypsy and traveller sites, while the Bill could also lead to reforms in social housing standards and charges, and make an expansion of co-operative home ownership easier and more attractive to prospective tenants.

What does the Housing Bill propose?

The Bill itself is divided into 8 parts and 3 schedules. I'm clumping them together into broad themes instead.

Regulation of the Private Renting Sector

The Bill:

• Makes it a legal requirement for private landlords and/or letting agents to register and be licenced with any local authority in which they let property.
• Places statutory duties on local authorities to maintain a publicly accessible register of licenced landlords and agents.
• Places a duty on licenced landlords or agents to notify local authorities of any change of circumstances within 28 days of the change occurring.
• Disqualifies people from receiving a licence if they :
• fail a "fit and proper persons test" – including committing fraud, acts of discrimination or harassment, firearms offences, sexual offences or failing to comply with other housing/landlord laws.
• haven't been trained in managing rental properties to the local authority's satisfaction.
• don't agree to abide by a Welsh Government Code of Practice.
• Mandates that licences will be valid for 5 years from the date of issue and will allow licences to be renewed 3 months before they expire.
• Grants local authorities the power to :
  • revoke licences if a landlord or agent breaches any rules (with a right to appeal).
  • issue "rent stopping orders" - where no rent is payable – if a landlord fails to comply with licencing requirements.
  • turn down a licence renewal (with a right to appeal).
• Creates new offences, like :
• failing to produce/display a licence - up to £1,000 fine.
• advertising, letting or managing a rental property without a licence - up to £1,000 fine, barring a "reasonable excuse".
• failing to provide documents to local authorities when required - up to £2,500 fine.
• providing false information to the local authority - up to £2,500 fine.

Homelessness

The Housing Bill aims to prevent people becoming homeless in the
first place by placing duties on housing authorities to intervene early.
(Pic :BBC)

The Bill:

• Places a statutory duty on local authorities to carry out a homelessness review and publish a homelessness strategy every four years starting in 2018, which includes monitoring current and expected levels of homelessness, homelessness prevention activities and resources available to combat homelessness.
• Defines a "homeless person" as someone who :
• has no accommodation they can occupy legally.
• cannot occupy a home in the UK they would otherwise be entitled to occupy.
• cannot secure entry into a home they otherwise live in.
• lives in a movable home with no permitted place to put it.
• Defines someone as "threatened with homelessness" if they would become homeless (as defined above) within 56 days.
• Outlines that when dealing with homelessness applications, local authorities must :
• determine whether emergency accommodation is "suitable" for a person.
• provide information and advice to someone who's homeless or threatened with homelessness.
• prevent homelessness applicants from becoming homeless in the first place.
• guarantee accommodation for "priority need applicants".
• try and find accommodation within their area whenever they can. Though the Bill sets out the arrangements whereby they notify, in writing, any other local authority they intend house someone in.
• Sets out guidelines for appeals, reviews, and protection of a homeless applicant's property (where applicable).
• Makes it an offence to provide false, or knowingly withhold, information when making a homelessness application, punishable by a fine of up to £2,500.
• Gives local authorities the power to refer homeless applicants to another local authority in Wales or England if they don't have a local connection - unless they're at risk of domestic abuse.
• Defines "local connection" as a person who :
• was normally resident in the local authority they've made a homelessness application in.
• is employed in the local authority.
• has family associations in the local authority.

Eligibility for Homelessness Assistance

• "Priority need applicants" include :
• pregnant women (and a person they would normally reside with).
• people with dependant children, with disabilities, are elderly, have a serious illness or are subject to domestic abuse.
• people affected by a natural or man-made disaster.
• 16-21 year olds who've left care, fostering or are at risk of sexual or financial exploitation.
• former military personnel who are homeless upon leaving the Armed Forces.
• "vulnerable" released prisoners (or someone who's been held on remand) but only those with a "local connection" (as defined above).
• People ineligible for help under this law are :
• persons from abroad who are otherwise ineligible, including non-EU nationals.
• subject to immigration controls or are excluded from benefit entitlements under the Asylum & Immigration Acts 1996 & 1999
• Statutory homelessness duties on local authorities will end for people who:
• turn down emergency accommodation that the local authority has deemed suitable.
• become "intentionally homeless" (i.e. evicted due to anti-social behaviour) – though the Welsh Government will have the power to draw up who counts as "intentionally homeless".
• accepts either an offer of a private sector tenancy that lasts at least 6 months or a social housing tenancy.

Gypsies & Travellers

The Housing Bill could lead to an increase in the number
of legal traveller sites in Wales.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

The Bill :

• Defines a "gypsy or traveller" as
• a person of a "nomadic lifestyle" regardless of race.
• people who used to live a nomadic lifestyle but no longer do (i.e. health reasons).
• travelling circuses and show people.
• anyone who lives in a mobile home for cultural reasons.
• Places a statutory duty on local authorities to :
• carry out an assessment of, and publish a report into, gypsy and traveller site requirements every five years from the publication of their first report.
• use their powers under the Mobile Homes Act 2013 to provide sites for travellers where there's an assessed need.
• Gives Welsh Ministers the power to :
• approve, amend or reject any gypsy and traveller needs assessment, and issue guidance to local authorities.
• force local authorities to meet certain duties with regard gypsy and traveller sites as stipulated in the Mobile Homes Act 2013.

Social Housing Standards

The Bill :

• Gives Welsh Ministers the power to set and revise standards for social housing, including :
• rent levels and service charges (which will be charged separately).
• rules relating to rent levels and service charges.
• the quality of social housing itself.
• Gives Welsh Ministers (or someone working on their behalf) the power to issue warnings, intervene, and the power of entry, if they believe housing authorities aren't complying with standards.
• Removes a requirement in the Housing Act 1985 for housing authorities - when setting "reasonable rents" - to keep social rents broadly in line with private sector rents. Instead, they'll need to comply with any new guidance/limits Welsh Ministers introduce.

Finance, Tenancies and Council Tax on Empty Properties

Long-term empty and abandoned homes will be liable
to a 150% council tax rate.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

The Bill :

• Abolishes the Housing Revenue Accounts Subsidy (HRAS), and gives Welsh Ministers the power to set a "settlement payment" for the eleven Welsh local authorities forced to leave the scheme as a result.
• Amends the Housing Act 1988 to enable mutuals and co-operatives to provide assured tenancies, enabling co-operative/mutual tenants to benefit from the same legal protections as assured tenancies offered elsewhere.
• Via amendments to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, gives local authorities the option to set an additional 50% rate of council tax (150%) on "long-term empty properties" (unoccupied and unfurnished for at least a year). It also gives Welsh Ministers the power to decided what properties this would apply to.

Costs

Now things start to get complicated.

Creating a mandatory landlord and agent register will cost £500,000, but would be self-financing because of fee income. Start-up costs for local authorities are estimated to be £250,000. Most of the burden falls on landlords and agents - upwards of £8million (between 2015-2017) - with costs falling to £265,000 per year once landlords/agents are registered and properly accredited as outlined in the Bill.

With regard the homelessness measures, the explanatory memorandum estimates ~32,100 applications for homelessness assistance will be made in 2015-16. The total cost, under existing laws, is estimated to be ~£21.3million. Under the preferred option in the new law, additional costs are estimated to be £5.9million, based on increases in homelessness assistance applications - an extra 3,200 - as a result of the Bill's provisions (for example, increasing the limit of "threatened with homelessness" from 28 to 56 days).

The total cost of the homelessness provisions is estimated to be in the region of £27.2-32.4million, based on expected homelessness figures, which themselves are dependant on multiple factors, including welfare reform and the state of the economy.

The gypsy and traveller measures will cost ~£1.6million per year until 2019-20, with most of that being the existing £1.5million grant to fund new traveller sites.

The preferred option for social housing standards sees a £15,000 per year cost fall on the Welsh Government, and £7,000 per year falling on social housing providers to collect and submit data. The preferred option for rent and service charge changes would initially cost £1.7million to set up – the vast bulk falling on local authorities – and £397,000 per year afterwards.

Abolishing HRAS has apparently been agreed with the Treasury, estimated to cost ~£990,000. However, an estimated £33million of rent income from Welsh local authority housing would then remain in Wales instead of being paid to Westminster.

The costs of the co-operative housing tenancy provisions will be around £130-140,000, mostly taking the form of continued funding to the Wales Co-operative Centre.

Additional council tax rate on empty homes would initially cost £359,000 to local authorities and Welsh Government to set up. From 2016-17, when the provisions come into force, it'll cost £527,000 per year in increased enforcement and tribunal costs. However, it's estimated a 150% council tax rate would raise somewhere between £11-14.4million for local authorities from the just over 24,200 homes left empty for more than a year.

What does this Bill mean?

Expect to see more of this.
This Bill is....wait for it....potentially quite controversial, and there
are more talking points than the media have let on.
(Pic : Wales Online)

There are many significant provisions in this Bill, notably the creation of a mandatory licensing system for private landlords, which should professionalise the industry further, helping to drive "slumlords" out – I'm thinking along the north Wales coast in particular.

Alongside that, other provisions – like those relating to mutual and co-operative housing and a fairer system of rents and charges for social housing tenants – seem sensible, even populist in some circumstances. It's for AMs to decide if that's truly the case though.

The extra council tax rate on empty properties might cause problems, especially if many are old holiday homes that haven't been used in a long time, though it's unrelated to the proposed general 200% rate on second homes. It would also encourage owners either to sell, renovate or rent their properties, increasing housing supply.

The abolition of HRAS – one of the few ways Wales has subsidised England to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, perhaps more, for decades – will lead to rent being retained in Wales, and money that could be reinvested in social housing by housing authorities. If the Bill passes and HRAS is abolished, then the Bevan Foundation and Plaid Cymru can probably chalk up its abolition as a success for them as much as the Welsh Government.

The gypsy and traveller provisions could cause problems as many people have an "issue" with traveller sites. The prospect of more of them being required by law could lead to difficulties in some communities, and perhaps for individual AMs too. No AM will be able to campaign against extra traveller sites honestly if they back the provisions in the Bill as outlined.

Entrenched opposition to sites might be less if local residents knew travellers living on legal sites were paying their way (they pay council tax when living on local authority and private sites, and most - if not all - work), had a strict code of conduct, and had full access to local authority services like rubbish collection.

There needs to be a bit of common sense when deciding where they should go. They shouldn't be sited out in the sticks on busy main roads, but there's no point in siting them in built up areas either. I'm not sure if that's best left to any Welsh Government guidance/regulations to come from the Bill, or if it should be included as clauses within the Bill itself.

The homelessness provisions are extensive – perhaps to the point it should've been a stand alone Homelessness Bill. They could cause controversy, mainly due to the impact on recently-released prisoners and (as I understand it) the powers for Welsh local authorities to transfer any homeless applicants who don't have a local connection elsewhere - including back over the border where applicable. The only exceptions, it seems, would be those fleeing domestic violence.

The Bill maintains released prisoners as a priority homelessness group if they have a proven local connection. However, homelessness is often cited as a cause of re-offending. Like gypsies and travellers, sheltered accommodation for homeless and vulnerable young adults is often sited in unsuitable places and attracts local opposition.

It's a reasonable compromise, as is the general requirement for a "local connection" when receiving homelessness assistance. It's best people receive help where they have strong connections and are perhaps known to the authorities, instead of becoming vagrants. The same requirements should apply to social homes too.

Read More

Welsh Tory Housing Policies - Do they add up?

It's obvious we need more housing, but are recent Welsh Conservative proposals the
right way forward? Or at an even more basic level, do their numbers add up?
(Pic : BBC Wales)

The Welsh Government's long awaited for Housing Bill was formally introduced to the National Assembly today (it's separate from the proposed Renting Homes Bill), and I'll take a closer look at that later this week.

Though last week, the Welsh Conservatives - via Shadow Housing Minister, Mark Isherwood (Con, North Wales) - launched their own outline policy proposals, entitled A Vision for Welsh Housing (pdf).

The Three Main Proposals

1. – Increase House Building

It's said every £1 spent on construction boosts the economy by £1.70.The Welsh Conservatives want to increase the current ~4,900 homes built per year to 14,000 per year, based on (often controversial) local authority housing need assessments.

Local councils set quotas for affordable housing within each development, and the Welsh Conservatives believe these quotas hinder the viability of large developments. So, they propose viability assessments from house builders themselves should be the overriding consideration, with the number of affordable homes per development based on commercial viability, not a "catch-all target".

In addition, they propose the creation of a Welsh Housing Commission to develop "evidence-based ideas", with membership that includes private house builders, private landlords and housing associations. They also want to nurture more construction talent in schools and colleges for obvious reasons.

2. – "Right to Buy" reforms

The headline policy is to ring-fence funds raised from "Right to Buy" sales in order to build a replacement social home for every home sold – termed "one for one". They point to England, where £367million was raised from just under 6,000 sales in 2012-13.

The Welsh Conservatives also want to prevent "Right to Buy" homes being sold quickly or turned into buy-to-lets. They'll do that by forcing a repayment of some of the "Right to Buy" discount a seller receives depending on how long they lived in the property.

3. – Bring empty homes back into use

Any home left unoccupied for more than 6 months is legally classified as "empty".

It's long been Welsh Government policy to bring abandoned properties – estimates suggest between 22,000-33,500 of them in Wales – back into use. The Welsh Government currently aim to being 5,000 back into use by 2016 via their Houses into Homes scheme, which offers interest-free loans to renovate empty properties.

The Conservatives propose something similar to a UK Government scheme in England, where a proportion of empty homes funding is paid directly to social landlords and community housing groups.

Also, the Welsh Government currently intend to levy higher council tax rates on second and empty homes left vacant for up to one year (which is part of the Housing Bill) – the Welsh Conservatives would increase that to two years to give owners more breathing room.

The Reaction

It's fair to say the reaction to the proposals has been lukewarm.

On the positive side, it was partially welcomed by Community Housing Cymru (CHC), with BBC Wales reporting CHC agreed with a lot of the content, and the ambition to increase housing supply, but noted that UK Government policies (such as the "Bedroom Tax") have reduced rental income for housing associations and seen an increase in empty properties. It looks like house builders have also broadly welcomed the proposals too.

Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government haven't honoured it with a formal response yet (unless, in the case of the latter, you consider the Housing Bill itself a response), though the policy proposals are due to be debated in the Assembly tomorrow.

Peter Black AM (Lib Dem, South Wales West) described it as, "Big on ambition, short on detail and full of holes." Meanwhile, Welsh Labour's backbench spokesperson for Everything, Mike Hedges AM (Lab, Swansea East), is quoted as saying there were "not enough details in these proposal to take them seriously".

I'm inclined to agree with them.

Does it add up?

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with policies that encourage home-ownership and increase housing supply (both private and social), and I agree with it perhaps for the same reasons as the Welsh Conservatives - it promotes personal responsibility, is often a decent investment and facilitates an all around sense of prosperity and well-being.

Meanwhile, the creation of a Welsh Housing Commission is a step up from, or complement to, the existing construction sector panel.

However, policy approaches are beginning to sound like a stuck record, led by supply-side thinking (house builders, developers and landlords) while neglecting the demand-side (tenants, communities and buyers). Things like shared equity and mortgage guarantees, for example, seem a way to prop house prices up - a form of renting with a large down-payment - rather than a serious attempt to make homes more affordable.
Here's an idea. Why don't we start building cheaper homes, full stop? Here's some examples. Here's some more.

14,000 homes built per year seems a laughable number considering even – by the Welsh Conservatives' own figures (Annex A)– at peak strength the construction industry built 10-11,000 homes per year.

8,000-9,000 per year might be a more realistic target, which would still be double the current housebuilding rate, though largely dependant on a significant Welsh economic recovery.

Please tell me the Welsh Conservatives don't believe property should drive economic growth? Haven't they learned anything from the last ten years?

Most demand will be for affordable housing (from first time buyers, people moving from the rental sector, and those priced out in rural Wales) and one and two bedroom homes for purchase and rent (for the increase in numbers of single people, people in social housing affected by the "Bedroom Tax" and down-sizing pensioners).

An affordable home is generally defined as being priced at three to four times household income. In Wales (average salary given as £24,076 p9), that would be around £72-96,000 for a single person, and £144-193,000 for a couple - presuming both earned the average salary or more.

Take a look at any planning application for a big housing development. House builders seem keen to build three and four bedroom executive homes that sell for £180-200,000+ – even in the valleys.

There's a market mismatch. People who need a one or two bedroom home don't have any option but to buy a more expensive three or four bedroom one. And of course house builders will say, "We don't want a 40% affordable housing quota,"because it reduces space for the money-makers.Regulatory cuts will see more estates of stupidly-overpriced cuckoo clock houses built in places like Tonyrefail because it's cheaper to build there than Cardiff.

House builders know poorer local authorities will bend over backwards to get more higher-rate council taxpayers living within their borders. It's awful policy. It could cause an Irish-style housing bubble if house price optimism keeps trumping common sense, and that's before mentioning wider planning and "sustainability" issues like transport and overbuilding in unsuitable areas.

The Welsh Tory proposals - in the absence of a detailed assessment - hint at two
social houses needing to be sold under "Right to Buy"  to pay for one replacement.
(Pic : Gwalia Housing)

On the specifics of their "Right to Buy" proposals (or "Right to Acquire" for non-local authority social housing tenants), firstly, if there were a rush of "Right to Buy" sales, it would cause a reduction in social housing until replacements are built. So there would need to be significant numbers of social homes built before any "Right to Buy" reforms can come into effect to prevent making short-term housing shortages even worse.

On costings, the numbers given in this Welsh Government statement (£3.8million for 35 social houses), imply each "Right to Buy" home would need to raise between £100-110,000 to enable a one-for-one replacement. That presumably includes associated costs like land, access, S106 agreements and utilities (and we're talking one and two bedroom homes, larger homes would cost more).

Based on the English "Right to Buy" figures the Welsh Conservatives provided (£367million from 5,944 dwelling sales - p24), "Right to Buy" raised £61,742 per home - but remember discounts are larger and house prices are generally higher in England. And only 844 replacements have been bought or are under construction so far - "One for Seven".

Any funding gap would either need to be filled from the Welsh Government's housing budget (which I'd imagine wouldn't be ring-fenced or boosted by any Conservative government), from housing associations' own capital funds or borrowing.


Next, the maximum "Right to Buy" discount in Wales is up to £16,000.

The Welsh Conservatives would probably have to keep that £16,000 cap. They'll be unable to raise the discount to English levels (up to £75,000 in many areas outside London) otherwise sale income would be even less, and there would be even less money to build a one-for-one replacement.

So it's likely that at least two social homes would need to be sold to build one replacement. "One for Two" doesn't sound like a good deal. If the Welsh Tories have better figures to back up their policy, they need to produce them – as early as tomorrow's debate, I'd say - because the ship's sinking beneath the waves.

And what is it with Welsh parties not publishing details when announcing policies?

UPDATE : 22/11/2013 - During the debate, Mark Isherwood did provide general figures, but it appears nothing relating to the one-for-one policy. The only "concrete" figures came from Peter Black and Carl Sargeant, and they both concur that the sums for a one-for-one replacement of social homes simply don't add up. "Basic maths" in Carl's own words.

Read More

Renting Homes White Paper

Proposed legislation to make renting simpler and more
transparent are outlined in the latest housing white paper
from the Welsh Government.
(Pic : The Guardian)

Back in May, Housing and Regeneration Minister, Carl Sargeant (Lab, Alyn & Deeside), launched a white paper (pdf) on proposed housing legislation, this time to do with renting.

Previous Housing Minister Huw Lewis (Lab, Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney) launched a separate, but related, white paper in 2012. This is the first in-depth consultation to stem from those proposals.

The need for change

The Law Commission published a report identifying several areas of the rental market that needed reform, which a multitude of organisations and people had asked for over the course of several years.

Many renters aren't satisfied with being owner-occupiers, and are said to have lower life satisfaction compared to home owners. As I'll point out in my next look at the census (probably next week), Wales is increasingly becoming a nation of renters. Around 30% of Welsh households live in rented accommodation.

Renting has advantages, like flexibility when it comes to moving (i.e for work on short notice) and some level of legal security. However, when it comes to social renting, many people see differences between renting from a local authority, from a private social landlord – like a housing association – or from a fully private landlord.

There are currently loads of different types of residential rental tenancies, many of which were created via Westminster legislation to respond to specific problems like anti-social behaviour (Family Intervention Tenancies, Demoted Tenancies etc.). Many tenants don't understand, or just "skim over", their rental contracts due to the confusion.

The Welsh Government can't offer any sort of tax incentives - like those used in Germany and Australia - to promote long-term renting because they don't have the powers. However, then can use the law to simplify arrangements for tenants, and encourage investment in rental properties by "not placing too many barriers".

What are the proposed changes?

The current system of seven types of residential rental contract will be simplified into two :

• A "secure contract", similar to local authority secure tenancies. These are said to have much greater protection for tenants, secured in law. It'll also mean that social housing tenants in the private sector and local authorities will have the same type of contract.
• A "standard contract", similar to short hold tenancies used in the private rental market. This is said to have a lower level of security, but landlords would have the option to create more secure, long-term tenancies if they wish.

What are the other benefits?

• Tackling anti-social behaviour – Conduct clauses will be inserted, as standard, into rental contracts, with tenants made aware of their responsibilities. Breaching the terms could lead to a possession order being issued by the landlord, which could lead to eviction.
• Tackling domestic abuse – The above clause would include domestic violence. There'll be clauses to evict the abuser, without the victim needing to terminate their tenancy (as currently). The Welsh Government are working on a related Domestic Violence Bill, which hasn't been introduced yet. More from me once it is.
• Flexibility in joint tenancies – Instead of joint tenancies ending when one person leaves, the remaining tenant will be able to "give notice" to their landlord, enabling them to have enough time to find a replacement.
• Rights for young renters – People aged 16 and 17 will be given the same power to rent as an 18 y.o. This could be useful for youngsters leaving care, for example.
• Succession rights – Carers of a tenant who dies, and who've lived in the rented home for at least 12 months, will have succession rights to the tenancy.
• No mandatory eviction for serious rent arrears (for housing association tenants) – This effectively removes "Ground 8" from the Housing Act 1988 as a grounds for eviction, granting housing association tenants the same rights as local authority tenants.
• Abolish 6 month moratoriums on evictions – This might prove controversial, but it's said that most contracts are a minimum of 6-12 months anyway. It could make it easier for tenants to look for a short-term rent or to house the homeless.
• Including landlord repair obligations in rental contracts – Self-explanatory. They'll be written into every rental contract, hopefully improving the quality of rental accommodation.

It might look heavily skewed in favour of tenants, but landlords stand to benefit too. The new arrangements will be simplified – reducing administration costs – and provide greater certainty with regard rental terms. There'll also be much better ways to deal with things like sudden abandonment of rented properties, which is said to be a big problem.

Implementing the changes

The Welsh Government intend to introduce a Renting Homes Bill in 2015, becoming law in 2016, so this process still has some way to go. Consultation on the white paper closes on 16th August.

It's decided that existing tenants won't have to sign any new rental contracts straight away as a result of the changes. Instead, they'll be phased in. At the moment though, it's unclear what the measures will cost, and the Rental Landlords Association have claimed that the money used to introduce legislation and regulations could be better spent on expanding housing stock.

All those details will become clearer when the draft Bill is introduced, as said sometime in 2015.

A good set of proposals?

The changes, as outlined, appear to be largely common sense and long overdue. Renting was in desperate need of being simplified for tenants and landlords alike, and the proposed changes go a long, long way towards achieving that.

As I'll note shortly in another blog, renting is becoming increasingly important as house prices remain ridiculously high. I would have preferred German-style arrangements for long-term renting, but I accept that's beyond the Assembly's devolved competence, which is a shame. But if the changes work it might not be necessary.

My concern - as with all things housing related - is the law of unintended consequences, where "progressive" changes in Wales could result in English local authorities dumping their problems on our doorstep, instead of pressing Westminster to make these sorts of changes themselves. Hopefully though, this might clamp down on slumlords – and let's face it, they are slumlords - along the North Wales coast in particular and other parts of Wales.

It'll also clamp down on bad tenants. As long as the rules are fair, those changes are fine. But if they break those rules, and are subsequently evicted, there's still the question of where the bad tenants would go? We're not going to go down the road of creating ghettos on isolated estates made up entirely of evicted tenants, are we?

Read More

Vibrant & Viable Places - A new regeneration strategy

In the last month, the Welsh Government unveiled its latest
regeneration strategy, including more carefully targeted funding.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

A few days before the cabinet reshuffle, Communities and Tackling Poverty Minister, Huw Lewis (Lab, Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney) laid a new Welsh Government regeneration strategy/framework/"thing" in front of the Senedd.

Entitled : Vibrant and Viable Places, it outlines the Welsh Government's new principles and approaches towards regeneration as a whole.

Recent Policy

The Welsh Government has/had seven key regeneration areas – including things like Communities First, EU programmes, Flying Start and Enterprise Zones - as well as more specific programmes like Newport Unlimited and the Valleys Regional Park initiative.

It's said that the benefits of this approach included more flexible funding, an ability to address specific local issues and use of partnerships in delivery across several different providers.

However, some of the drawbacks were said to be too rigid boundaries, a lack of clarity on the criteria for establishing regeneration areas, poor timing and co-ordination with regard funding and objectives which were far too broad, perhaps vague.

New policies that are being developed in relation to this include city regions for economic development, local growth zones (whatever the hell they are), a new round of European funding and Welsh Government legislation – including new planning, housing and sustainable development Bills.

How do the Welsh Government define "regeneration"?

“....an integrated set of activities that seek to reverse economic, social, environmental and physical decline to achieve lasting improvement, in areas where market forces will not do this alone without some support from government.”

Believe it or not, I think that's pretty much as clear a definition as you can get.

I just think the Welsh Government have failed to deliver on the "lasting improvement" aspect. While "integrated activities" gets bogged down in too many agencies and too many little schemes tied to overly ambitious targets.

For example, trying to contribute to the perfectly laudable goal of ending child poverty by 2020 by using European funds on projects like the well-meaning, but colossal failure, Genesis 2. That scheme provided plenty of "mentoring", "raising self-esteem" and "advisers" but very few jobs.

Under the new approach, the Welsh Government want to achieve three key outcomes :

1. Prosperous Communities – More jobs, better transport, better internet access, private sector investment, successful town centres and coastal towns, sustainable development.
2. Learning Communities – Improved skills, "higher aspirations" and "a belief in a better future."
3. Healthier Communities – Safer, healthier, more environmentally pleasing. Better houses.

They're going to closely monitor outcomes here, including reductions in long-term unemployment, reductions in people experiencing poor health etc.

Who's going to do it?

The report acknowledges that private sector involvement is shaky at the moment, and "hard to achieve", but this was the first area they want to look at. They want to attract the private sector by bringing in "good quality development(s)" and providing things like business mentoring and joint working between public and private sector.

In a somewhat surprising move, it looks as though the third sector is being (quite rightly) brushed aside somewhat. Third sector bodies will only be involved at "the right level and at the right time". There's a special focus here on registered social landlords – which ties in with their focus on "coastal communities" – who can deliver capital projects and already have a relationship with their communities. I don't know why faith groups are outlined as "disadvantaged or excluded" though.

Most of the detailed focus though, is on the public sector. Local authorities are said to be the leading organisation here, as they generally lead regeneration efforts anyway. However, the report says that regeneration will have to be "seen in the context of wider regional economies" and "regional working." Collaboration, then. They do also say, somewhat paradoxically, that they want town and community councils more actively involved in regeneration decision-making though.

Using my recent posts on local government as a guide, this sort of thing would probably be done by single provincial assemblies and governments, not 6-7 unitary authorities working together putting councillors and appointees on various regional boards. Just saying/plugging.

The Welsh Government itself will be actively involved in areas such as housing - especially good quality, environmentally friendly housing. Huw Lewis outlined his white paper on this last year.

Heritage also gets a nod, by giving places a "sense of character" to generate a sense pride in their communities. I'm pleasantly surprised they put that in as it's often overlooked. But will there be a conflict between housing and heritage – especially if we end up carpeting over areas with new housing estates?

There's a full run down of other areas, like the economy, health, transport, and various plans and strategies in the report itself. It's too many to go into here. The report just lists anything remotely related to the three outcomes I listed earlier.

Funding & Targeted Funding

Regeneration funds will be targeted at coastal towns in particular,
however with an acknowledgement that there can be no
promise of a return to "former glories."
(Pic : BBC Wales)

This is probably the most significant part, and a somewhat radical, welcome departure from standard Welsh Government policy - targeting funds at specific areas of focus rather than broad brush strokes that can be atomised into piddling little schemes.

As for funding, there are several streams – EU convergence, Welsh Government themselves, Big Lottery Fund, local authority contributions and private sector investment. There are few specific numbers given, and the budgets vary anyway.

As for the targets:

• Town centres – The losing battle to "save the high street". They acknowledge something different is needed, including better use of heritage assets and more residential development in town centres. They also want to make better use of town centres for business start ups, rather than established chains. That means improving things like broadband.
• Coastal towns – I think they clearly mean Rhyl and Colwyn Bay in this, but as I've seen through Bridgend Council's attempts to regenerate Porthcawl, it's easier said than done. They want to "maximise unique selling points without holding out false hope of....recapturing....faded glories of the past."
• Communities First clusters – Self-explanatory.

Existing regeneration commitments will be "top sliced", and local partnerships will now bid for regeneration funds - based on the three priority areas. They'll have to come up with better plans, and prove that the projects they're bidding for will have a tangible impact. That could be more jobs, retaining spending within Welsh supply chains and commitments to sustainable development.

I guess the responsibility for delivery now lies with Carl Sargeant (Lab, Alyn & Deeside), and he'll be assisted in this via a new Ministerial Advisory Group.

The Welsh Government will closely monitor these "outcomes", and it's expected that the new framework/strategy/"thing" will fully roll out by April 2014.

Some good, some bad

Regeneration's one of those areas that could be said to have been "hit and miss" since devolution rather than an outright good or poor.

There are some regeneration schemes you can point to as successes, or potential successes. The two obvious examples would be Bargoed's Big Idea and The Works in Ebbw Vale. It's unclear whether the likes of Neath town centre, Pontypridd and Swansea will head the same way.

Big flops could include the vast bulk of Communities First areas in general and you'll probably have to include the likes of Porthcawl too. Though they're not complete write offs yet.

The heart's there. The heart's always been there. But this is nothing we haven't heard before. I do think better targeted funding is long overdue, but should've been done in the first place.

I outlined some of the problems facing town centres in particular on my recent post on Bridgend. I think the Welsh Government do realise some of those issues, but don't seem overly keen to address the bigger problems. You can't entirely blame them as there's more risk attached to tackling those big issues head on.

Of the three key outcomes, it was "belief in a better future" that got to me. Of course we all want that, and things are never as bad as they appear to be.

I firmly believe many Welsh towns and communities have great untapped potential if they have the right kind of investment targeting the right sort of projects.

That will mean more than simply propping up "the high street" or putting down nice paving stones.

Read More

Communities First - Past, Present & Future

Hat tip to Valleys Mam. Although everyone is no doubt focusing on AWEMA at the moment, I'll be looking at that next week.

What is Communities First?

The First Assembly decided concrete action needed
to be taken to tackle deprivation, but had to do so within
their limited powers.
(Pic : cpghr.com)

Every three years or so, an audit's carried out to determine how deprived council wards in Wales are compared to one another across several indicators, including : health, employment, access to services, education and housing - the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation. Similar surveys are carried out in the rest of the UK.

Communities First was established by Rhodri Morgan's government during the First Assembly between 2001-2002. It was set up to tackle deprivation in the 100 most deprived council wards in Wales, which has risen to around 150 today.

The overarching aim, was to provide a "bottom up" way for these communities to combat poverty, by allowing them to take strategic decisions at a local level themselves, using a set pot of money distributed by the Welsh Government.

Around £300million has been spent by successive Welsh Governments, and roughly £40million annually, since Communities First was established. It remains one of the more memorable flagship policies of Welsh Labour since devolution.

The Assembly circa 2001-2002 was a different beast. This sort of thing was, largely, the extent of the Assembly's powers – they could only administrate and make slight changes. Considering that context, Communities First was quite ambitious.


In many respects, it's a little government's big idea.

However, you could argue that - while it's done some good things - it's an example of everything that's gone wrong in Welsh public policy since devolution.

How does it operate?

Communities First areas are designated by the Welsh Government and local authorities. Sometimes they encompass entire council wards, but more often that not, they'll consist of deprived parts within wards called Local Super Output Areas (LSOA's). These could be a rundown housing estate, a former mining village or a deprived area within a wealthy ward.

Communities First Partnerships oversee the scheme at community level. These are specialist community regeneration teams, who coordinate projects and provide a level of professionalism. They're supposed to anyway.

The Welsh Government oversees a Communities First Trust Fund, which provides grants and loans to the Communities First Partnerships for projects in their areas.

For example, the funds could be use for : local litter clean-ups, equipment, environmental schemes, sports schemes, food co-ops, job matching schemes or to fund other unrelated community groups. Locals would come up with an idea, or an issue, and the Communities First Partnership would bring the right people and organisations together, source the funding, and make something happen.

As deprived areas gain a greater sense of control over their own communities, they might take more pride in themsevles and community. They might find a job, seek out help they need, or re-skill – knowing they'll get Communities First support and minimal interference from Welsh and local governments, neither of which they might necessarily trust.

Positives & Negatives

One big plus from Communities First has been improvements
to the physical environment of some communities.
(Pic : Communities First Llangeinor)

Most of this is based on anecdotal evidence, but I believe most of it would stand up under closer scrutiny.

Positives

• It's made a noticeable difference – I live next to a Communities First area in one ward, and there's also a Communities First area within my own council ward. The physical changes in ten years are, in some cases, quite remarkable.
• It's given some pride back – Some of the people in these communities who worked with Communities First Partnerships are now local or community councillors, or have run for office. I do think the scheme has given people a sense of ownership – if still reliant on the Welsh Government.
• It's impacted crime – The area I live near to was once a very run down, drug-ridden estate with serious problems. It's still has problems, but thanks to things like Communities First, the residents stand up to criminals a lot more now. Things like drug offences and anti-social behaviour are treated more seriously, and a level of trust has built up between residents and the police/authorities that wasn't there before.
• It's improved the environment at community level – This has been one of the big plus points, in particular work with the likes of Groundwork, Tidy Towns and Keep Wales Tidy.

Negatives

• It's open to corruption/cronyism – There are well known cases at Plas Madoc (Wrexham) and now in the Cynon Valley too. That's not to say the whole thing should be judged by a few isolated cases, but personally, I think it's the tip of the iceberg. There seems to be very little oversight, and the Partnerships – if they wanted to – could become a cliquey law unto themselves.
• It's "top down", just at a lower level – Communities First schemes are ultimately led by "missionaries", spreading the good word of the Welsh Government. They usually have small teams of administrators and coordinators. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I wonder how much money and effort has been spent administering the scheme instead of on outcomes?
• It spreads funds thinly - £40million a year spread between 140-150 areas works out at roughly £260,000. Take away the costs of employing the staff mentioned above (for arguments sake, four people earning an average of £16,000 per year) and that falls to £196,000. It's not as clear cut as that, obviously. The Welsh Government are changing this (see further down), but I'm willing to bet most local authorities spend that on pavement repairs each year.
• It hasn't tackled many of its core aims – Time to investigate that further....

The wider issue : Does it work?

Communities First was set up to work towards the "strategic outcomes":

• Prosperous communities
• Learning communities
• Healthier communities

There are no definitions of what would constitute "success" here. If you go by raw deprivation figures (2005, 2008, 2011), the answer to the question has to be no.

The areas are, generally, as deprived now as they were when the scheme started. However, thing have improved in a few cases. Butetown was the most deprived council ward in Wales in 2005, it's now "fallen" to 68^th (so it's still amongst the most deprived wards). Very few areas have come out of Communities First after ten years.

The same names crop up year after year at the top : Rhyl West & Rhyl South West (Denbighshire), St James (Caerphilly), Gurnos (Merthyr Tydfil), Riverside (Cardiff), Townhill (Swansea), Tylorstown & Penrhiwceiber (RCT), Pillgwenlly (Newport)....

In Bridgend, you have : Caerau, Sarn, Blackmill, Llangeinor, Bettws, Morfa (Wildmill Estate) and Cornelly – joined in 2008 by Brackla (Meadows Estate). Of these, only Blackmill and Llangeinor have made noticeable progress on the deprivation index.

Ten local authorities had more than half their LSOA's in the 50% most deprived areas of Wales in 2008. Four (RCT, NPT, Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent) had more than 70%. This hasn't changed in 2011, and I'm willing to bet it hasn't changed much since 2005. In fact, probably due to the recession, the situation has worsened in some authorities.

Things like education attainment levels have improved - the numbers leaving school without qualifications have fallen. That's likely down to national initiatives, not Communities First.

Maybe ten years just isn't enough time, or maybe the Welsh Government's flagship anti-poverty scheme just isn't working. The Assembly's Public Accounts Committee found in February 2010, that Communities First "wasn't providing value for money", criticised the lack of leadership from the top (which it wasn't supposed to do anyway, in fairness) and the lack of progress indicators.

Like many measures to tackle Wales' big issues, Communities First looks like another well-meaning initiative, that promises a lot, but perhaps wasn't set up the right way to do its job. Another tinker measure, from a government of tinkerers.

What's Communities First's future?

The Plas Madoc scandal in Wrexham has been symptomatic of some
of the problems relating to Communities First, which the Welsh Government
now hopes to tackle.
(Pic : BBC Wales)

The Welsh Government undertook a review of the scheme between 2011-2012.
Communities First areas will be clustered, so they cover larger areas and larger populations (up to 15,000), creating economies of scale. The idea is that management structures will be simplified, there'll be stricter guidelines to receive funding from the Welsh Government ( i.e.better delivery plans, guaranteed positive outcomes) and they're going to take other factors other than the deprivation index into account (i.e. school & hospital performance, rural sparsity).

I think the Welsh Government have realised, perhaps pushed by the Plas Madoc scandal, that Communities First couldn't continue as it was. I wouldn't be surprised if the scheme is re-branded post-2015, or leadership handed over to local authorities. Labour are unlikely to admit defeat on this, opening them up to claims that they've wasted up to £300million of public money, which would be harsh - they tried at least - but accurate.

I think there's a quiet acceptance that it hasn't worked out as planned. The new proposals will reduce administration and promote more "joined up thinking" between Welsh Government, local government and various public bodies. I'm not sure that would make that much of a difference.

The only other proposal to match Communities First's aims, so far, has been Leanne Wood's Greenprint. On paper, they sound similar.

The difference between Communities First and the Greenprint, in my opinion, is that Leanne has been specific in the Greenprint's goals (communities benefiting from the green economy), and sees potential from a co-operative and perhaps an entrepreneurial perspective - not just an anti-poverty measure.

The Greenprint seems more "permanent and self-sustaining", while Communities First is always going to be reliant on Welsh and Local Government for funds, and "appointed experts" for leadership.

I think, if there's going to be a replacement for Communities First post-2015, the Welsh Government (whatever the colour), would do well to take some of those points on board.

Read More