|Bethan Sayed AC||Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor|
|Jack Sargeant AC|
|Jenny Rathbone AC|
|Mick Antoniw AC|
|Neil Hamilton AC|
|Sian Gwenllian AC|
|Suzy Davies AC|
|Huw Jones||Cadeirydd, Awdurdod S4C|
|Chairman, S4C Authority|
|Owen Evans||Prif Weithredwr, S4C|
|Chief Executive, S4C|
|Simon Curtis||Trefnydd Cenedlaethol a Rhanbarthol, Cymru a De Orllewin Lloegr, Equity|
|National and Regional Organiser, Wales and South West England, Equity|
|Adam Vaughan||Ail Glerc|
|1. Cyflwyniad, ymddiheuriadau, dirprwyon a datgan buddiannau||1. Introductions, apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest|
|2. Ymchwiliad byr i ‘Greu S4C ar gyfer y dyfodol: Adolygiad annibynnol gan Euryn Ogwen Williams’: Sesiwn dystiolaeth 2||2. Short inquiry into ‘Building an S4C for the future: An independent review by Euryn Ogwen Williams’: Evidence session 2|
|3. Ymchwiliad byr i ‘Greu S4C ar gyfer y dyfodol: Adolygiad annibynnol gan Euryn Ogwen Williams’: Sesiwn dystiolaeth 3||3. Short inquiry into ‘Building an S4C for the future: An independent review by Euryn Ogwen Williams’: Evidence session 3|
|4. Papurau i’w nodi||4. Paper(s) to note|
|5. Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i benderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o’r cyfarfod||5. Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the meeting|
Cofnodir y trafodion yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r cyfieithu ar y pryd. Lle mae cyfranwyr wedi darparu cywiriadau i’w tystiolaeth, nodir y rheini yn y trawsgrifiad.
The proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the transcript.
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 9:31.
The meeting began at 9:31.
Diolch a chroeso i Bwyllgor Diwylliant, y Gymraeg a Chyfathrebu. Eitem 1, cyflwyniad, ymddiheuriadau, dirprwyon a datgan buddiannau. A oes gan unrhyw un rywbeth i'w ddatgan yma heddiw? Na. Felly, ymddiheuriadau a dirprwyon. Cafwyd ymddiheuriadau gan Rhianon Passmore, ac nid ydym yn disgwyl unrhyw ddirprwyon.
Thank you and welcome to the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee. Item 1, introductions, apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest. Does anyone have any interests to declare this morning? Excellent. Apologies and substitutions. We've received apologies from Rhianon Passmore, and we are not expecting any substitutions.
Symud ymlaen at eitem 2, ymchwiliad byr i 'Greu S4C ar gyfer y dyfodol: Adolygiad annibynnol gan Euryn Ogwen Wiliams', sesiwn dystiolaeth 2. Diben yr eitem hon yw clywed tystiolaeth fel rhan o ymchwiliad byr i greu S4C ar gyfer y dyfodol, ac rydym ni wedi cael tystiolaeth yn barod gan Euryn Ogwen Williams ei hun, ac wedyn fe fydd S4C yn dod mewn ar ôl hyn. Ond, ar hyn o bryd, rydym ni'n croesawu Simon Curtis, sydd yn weddol amlwg yn rhan o drafodaethau’r pwyllgor yma, sef trefnydd cenedlaethol a rhanbarthol Cymru a De-Orllewin Lloegr, Equity. Fel rydych chi'n gwybod, mae gennym ni fel arfer themâu, ac, felly, byddai'n cychwyn gyda chwestiynau, os yw hynny'n iawn gyda chi.
Yn amlwg, rydym ni wedi cael yr adolygiad yma gan Euryn Ogwen Williams, ac mae'r cylch gwaith wedi newid yn hynny o beth ar gyfer S4C. Pa mor drawsnewidiol fydd hwn? Sut ydych chi'n credu y bydd hyn yn effeithio ar allu S4C i weithredu?
Moving on, therefore, to item 2, short inquiry into ‘Building an S4C for the future: An independent review by Euryn Ogwen Williams’, and this is evidence session No. 2. The purpose of this item is to take evidence as part of our brief inquiry into building an S4C for the future, and we've already received evidence from Euryn Ogwen Williams himself, and S4C will be joining us later this morning. But, at the moment, we welcome Simon Curtis, who is prominent in the discussions of this committee, and he's the national and regional organiser for Wales and South-West England for Equity. As you know, we usually have some themed questions, and I will start with the questioning, if that's okay with you.
Now, clearly, we've received this review by Euryn Ogwen Williams, and the remit for S4C has changed. So, how transformative will this be? How do you think this will impact upon S4C's ability to operate?
I think it's vitally important that they can be seen to operate outside of Wales. I think it's vital to their remit to be seen, for their product to be seen, outside of Wales. I know that—obviously, technology has rather overtaken legislation, so, actually, people have been able to access S4C from within the rest of the UK. But actually giving them the legitimacy to do that, I think, is vital. I think the quality of the programmes they make deserve to be seen alongside the drama, not to be seen as 'Well, that's just—it's local product'. So, by having that, I think the recommendation is very sound, just giving them that extra push to be used.
Grêt. O ran yr hyb digidol mewnol, a ydych chi'n credu bod hynny yn rhywbeth sydd yn bositif, oherwydd, yn amlwg, mae hwn yn mynd i fod yn cystadlu wedyn â'r hyn sydd yn digwydd yn y farchnad ehangach? Beth yw'ch barn am wneud y gwaith hynny'n fewnol?
Great. In terms of the in-house digital hub, do you think that is a positive development, because, clearly, that's going to be in competition with what happens in the broader market? So, what's your view on doing that work in-house?
Obviously, I think if it's used to drive viewers to the product, I think it should sit in addition to their core service, not be seen as a distraction from their core service. I think, looking at the way that other broadcasters use their digital, quite a lot of that drives people to the channel, or drives people to the catch-up service. And I think, whilst there's an importance to work digitally, because that engages new viewers, especially young viewers, who don't necessarily sit down and watch in the traditional way, it has to work in addition. It has to drive the core service on the channel. I don't think it should be—. I fear it could be a distraction to operating their core service, and I think it needs to enhance their core service, and actually then drive people back to their core service.
Nid wyf yn ceisio gofyn ynglŷn ag a ddylai ddigwydd ai peidio. Roeddwn i'n trio gofyn a ddylen nhw gael hyb mewnol yn lle comisiynu'r gwaith o'r tu allan, sydd yr arfer ar hyn o bryd. Mae yna gwmnïau masnachol ar hyn o bryd yn gwneud y gwaith, ond bydd hyn yn newid eithaf syfrdanol ar gyfer S4C, er bod yr arian yn llai nag oedden nhw eisiau—£1 miliwn nawr, yn lle'r £6 miliwn yr oedden nhw wedi gofyn amdano. A oes barn am hynny?
I wasn't asking as to whether it should happen or not. I was asking whether it should be an in-house hub rather than commissioning that work externally, which is the current practice. There are commercial companies that are currently undertaking this work, but this will be quite a transformational change for S4C, although the funding is less than they wanted—it's £1 million now, rather than the £6 million that they'd asked for. Do you have a view on that?
I suppose we would like to see them working—. I think you're right; they do currently commission that work. It's difficult to answer that specifically because we don't have an example of what they do themselves, because everything's commissioned. So, it's difficult to answer that question directly because there is no evidence of what they do currently.
And just to follow up, because you used the word 'distraction', can you just explain why you think it would be a distraction, considering the whole reason why the remit needed to change is because they couldn't do digital before? Why is that your chosen word?
Perhaps it's a poor choice of word. In some of the discussions that we've had in the past with S4C, there's a thought to want to be everything to all people, to try and meet all markets in one go, and they don't have the resources to do that, and they still don't have the resources to do that. And, in an effort to catch up with other broadcasters, and not just broadcasters, but other platforms that have the financial muscle to provide that kind of product, I don't want to see that distracting from actually what S4C does best—the quality programmes that they make. That still needs to be the main focus. I don't want to see that changing; I'd like to see them working hand in hand with that, and, as I said, driving that stuff back to their core product, rather than it just sitting alongside as an extra.
A'r cwestiwn olaf gen i yw am bartneriaeth arfaethedig y Gymraeg a'r sgyrsiau gyda Llywodraeth Cymru ynglŷn â sut y maen nhw'n gallu bod yn fwy ymrwymiedig i'r miliwn o siaradwyr, er enghraifft. Onid yw hynny'n rywbeth y dylen nhw fod yn gwneud ta beth? Pam ydy hynny'n rhywbeth sydd yn cael ei ddisgrifio fel rhywbeth newydd?
And just a final question from me, and it's on the proposed Welsh language partnership and conversations with the Welsh Government as to how they could be more committed to the million Welsh speakers, for example. Isn't that something that they should have been doing anyway? Why is that something that's described as something that's new?
Yes, I think they should—. Well, I'm a non-Welsh speaker. I've lived here enough; perhaps I should be doing that now. But, yes, one would argue that that should be part of their focus anyway. As I said in the written evidence we submitted, I think there needs to be a greater partnership with the Welsh Government, but I think that needs to be clear, that it's an agency of the Welsh Government, so that there's still that independence from the political body.
So, you wouldn't expect them to have targets as part of the million Welsh speakers, but they would be involved in the discussion around—
Yes, because there's evidence—there's not evidence, there's product available that would help in that process, and product they can access quite readily. A lot of their programmes are available for educational purposes anyway, the rights are pre-cleared, so, utilising the product they already have—it's not necessarily going to be making new product; it's just making better use of the product they currently have.
Thank you. Apologies for missing your initial remarks. What do you think the time frame is for introducing the legislation required to deliver on this?
Well, it's impossible to tell. I think Westminster is—
Yes. Westminster is somewhat distracted. I saw Plenary yesterday. Even the Welsh Government legislative programme is distracted by the possibility of having to react. I don't think, bearing in mind that quite a lot of what they can do—. It needs the legislation, but actually there's a lot they could be getting on with without it; there's a lot that can be put in place is our feeling. It shouldn't be a case of, 'Well, we're waiting for the legislation, therefore we just sit and wait.' I think there's a lot that can be done that, actually—. They've got the intention it needs to be done; we're just waiting for that legislation to be put on the books.
Okay. Obviously, the report we're scrutinising indicates that it'll be perfectly possible for S4C to survive without UK Government funding and to simply go with the licence fee plus commercial revenue. What do you think—have you had any assurances from the Government that this will be sufficient not to compromise the quality of the service?
We've seen nothing that provides—. There's the guarantee; there have always been guarantees of the level of funding they will receive from the DCMS directly, but that has been chipped away at over time. We only see that that's in place for another two years, so there's still two years in question before the licence fee arrangements come into play. But, over time, all we've seen is that money eroded. There is the 'to provide sufficient funding', but nobody has yet identified exactly what that is; we can only go with what is illustrative of—. I think it was in this committee's own review, that, in real terms, funding for S4C would have been at £111 million. Currently, it's now £81 million. You can't look at a channel that has had £30 million cut out of its budget and think that it's going to survive if it's got to continue to prove its value. It's currently operating in a very stripped down way; they've made efficiency savings everywhere, to the fact I think it's something like 73 per cent of their funding goes on programming. And that's astonishing for that kind of budget, and then having the money to run the admin side of it as well. It's frustrating when that is seen as a distraction from the review. Nobody has actually said, right, well this needs to be—. Yes, we can talk about S4C, we need an S4C for the future, we need to build the future of S4C, but actually it's a proven economic return, that is almost £2 earned to every £1 that's put in. If you continue to strip that away, it's not going to have a great benefit to the economy. Any public service broadcaster needs that kind of level of funding, but to keep chipping away at it—. So, there's nothing to illustrate that, actually, that is going to be—that all of a sudden the negotiations alongside the BBC, when it comes to the licence fee, will given them anything bigger than they have now.
Okay, but what the Williams review is saying is that S4C needs to be a lot more commercial in its approach, that it needs to expand its reach to across the UK. With digital technology, this is perfectly possible. So, if it expands its reach, then it can hopefully build a greater audience, and that brings greater advertising revenue. Why do you think that that is not a business proposition?
I think because it takes time. Realistically, looking at the last couple of years—I always refer back to it, but Hinterland was the change in the approach, linking up with commercial distributors in the UK. But even then there wasn't an interest in the Welsh-language version of the product, initially. There was just some interest in selling on the English-language version. And I know that has some commercial benefit to S4C, but is actually—. It has changed, as it went on through the series; then there was an equal demand for wanting to see stuff in the original language. I think I've spoken about it here, in this place, before—I think the consumer beliefs in what they want to see have changed. They're now quite happy to see stuff with subtitles, which wasn't before. But I suppose there does need to be a greater sense of their making product that will be sellable.
Okay. But they have built on Hinterland; there have been several others that have been very successful. And, as long as the storytelling is good, and the acting is good, and the production values are high, I can't see any reason why this couldn't be a roaring success. We've already seen S4C transferring stuff onto BBC One.
I think, though, that—. Because, obviously, the rights sit with the producers; they don't sit with S4C. So, the exploitation rights commercially sit with the producers. So, actually, there needs to be a greater discussion between the broadcaster and the producers to make sure that, actually, there is a shared interest in making those available commercially, and that it's not necessarily that the Welsh language version is sold as, 'Well, it's an add-on—it's a DVD extra', for want of a better word—that, actually, there is as much benefit in that product being sold. But the difficulty, if they're trying to sell into territories—trying to sell commercially overseas—is that, essentially, they can only sell one version.
Okay, I appreciate that that is a complication—that the channel itself isn't necessarily the main beneficiary—but are there not other ways in which the channel could become more commercial in its rigour and approach?
It's difficult to compare it to other broadcasters. Other broadcasters have tried to add a commercial aspect to their business model. You only have to look at BBC Store, which was going to be seen as a great way of selling their product on to people, which has closed.
I agree about getting it right but, nevertheless, the BBC has developed its commercial arm successfully, or aspects of it, so there's no reason, in principle, why S4C couldn't do that.
In principle, no, but I think there needs to be a—. There isn't that thought at the moment, and there should be.
Have you got any thoughts on how the totality of S4C's public funding from the licence should be calculated once UK Government money is no longer directly provided?
Not an exact formula. I think it comes back to what is sufficient funding to ensure that the channel get—
Nobody would argue they've got too much, so it's really about how are we going to ensure that S4C gets a fair share compared with what BBC gets, which is obviously the main player in all of this.
I suppose they have to get the presentation right. I know it sounds incredibly simplistic to say it, but they are making a commercial business case for what they want to do and how they want to do it. It's what the BBC have done to get the licence fee from—. It's not their licence fee—it's not just their licence fee. So, it's a case of arguing for their share of the pot.
There is a disappointment that the current arrangements for S4C don't have inflation built into them, which is an effective year-on-year cut. That doesn't help matters, going forward. They have a stability of funding, but they don't have the inflationary rises. So, even with that security, that is going to drop, through to when it finally separates into just the licence fee.
Can I just ask, before I go on to Suzy Davies: you say that nobody's described sufficient funding—whose responsibility do you think it is to do that?
Isn't it delegated to the Secretary of State to deem what that is?
I'm asking you if you think that's—. Do you think that that's where that decision should lie, or do you think that S4C, or you, or anybody else, should come up with it?
I suppose it comes down to the stakeholders. It's for the stakeholders to pull together to actually sit down and actually present a united front.
There doesn't seem to be that desire. I suppose it comes back to the devolution question, because broadcasting isn't devolved. There isn't a desire to make that decision here, so it's quite disjointed. If you look at all of the evidence that people are giving, everybody's making the same argument. Everybody's arguing for better funding and everybody's arguing—. Nobody said, as Jenny just said, that they're getting too much. Nobody made that argument that the money they get is sufficient, and it's providing that—.
What was quite interesting, actually, when we had an evidence session for the S4C review, is that this committee's report formed the backbone of it; it formed a lot of the evidence that was the starting point of the review. If that's not a signal that, actually, this place should be looking at that and having a greater remit with regard to the input because, essentially, the decisions that need to be made about it—. I'm starting to make an argument for devolving broadcasting, so stop me now. [Laughter.]
Well, because it's not—. As I've said, it's not Equity's policy to devolve, but we would certainly want to be part of that discussion, because I think every stakeholder should be part of that discussion.
I think so, yes. I think in essence.
Okay, thank you. I think you're going to get some more questions on commercial activity, so I won't interfere or go into this too greatly, but I just wanted to double-check. From your evidence, you said that you think S4C should be free at the point of use, and it should be a universal service. At the same time you say that, yes, you approve of greater commercial freedom and the ability to raise money from other sources. Am I right in saying though, that, if S4C manages to raise more money from a variety of different ways, that should not, in and of itself, impact on what it gets through the state mechanism? So, anything it earns is additional to its sufficient funding, not part of its sufficient funding. Is that what you're arguing?
If it's being reinvested, absolutely. Because, essentially, the commercial money is being generated from investment, and, as long as its reinvested and is reinvested in quality product—. I'm sure, further down the line, depending on how successful that commercial outcome is, there will be arguments. But, essentially, they've got to have some money to invest in the first place.
Okay. I don't think I've quite pinned you down on this. Do you think that, if they make enough money, that will reduce the amount that they get from the licence fee?
I don't think I can answer that question.
I suppose, as a union, I would always argue that they would have more.
It should be additional.
So that they can actually use this commercial freedom that they've got and take a few risks. Okay. Just briefly, the new unitary board—from your evidence, obviously, you approve of that. It moves us on from a slightly archaic formula. Bearing in mind that the BBC has a similar set-up and is backed by a charter, do you think that S4C could actually benefit from a charter as well, bearing in mind it is using—not quite exclusively, but nearly exclusively—public money?
We did argue that. That was our position: the fact that we felt that they should operate under a charter to Ofcom. I know there was—
There is a greater accountability by having an outside scrutiny. I don't think I need—. That's the one, two and three.
I think it's any and all scrutiny, but, if you're scrutinising yourself, it can provide questions that—. It provides questions to the general public, it provides questions to stakeholders, that there's a sense that having that independent review and that independent scrutiny means that they are answerable to somebody, and you can then provide—. You're then able, as a stakeholder, then, to be able to go to a different authority.
Would your members be still interested in promoting that case if this doesn't come out in the first flush of this response to this review?
Yes. I think the new unitary board is a step forward, but, obviously, our position was that we felt that they should operate under a licence. I know that there was—. In the review, there was a question that actually there is already some scrutiny by Ofcom. Nobody was really sure—I tried to do some research on it. Nobody was really sure what that was. So, I think I said in my evidence that, actually, we look forward to seeing what that is, and then perhaps we'll then form a different view or revise our position.
There have been just a few issues with regard to auditing arrangements for S4C—whether it can be the National Audit Office, the auditor general and so. Is this something that you have a particular view on?
We didn't put any evidence in for the review. I think I've just put in there that, obviously, any and all scrutiny, I think, is a good thing.
Yes. You've already dealt with issues with regard to funding. Then just one comment, really, in terms of the performance of S4C: the high level of repeats—57 per cent. Well, of course, I'm sure many of your members would be happy to be regularly repeated, provided they've got the right contractual arrangements and so on, but obviously there's the quality issue of the thing. Any particular views around that?
Well, obviously, when I came into position six years ago, the contractual arrangements that we had with S4C were geared towards the fact that there wasn't a high level of repeats. So, there was a great deal of new make. That has dropped, and there are—. It's ramped up in certain quarters, but there isn't—. You're quite right that the contractual arrangements are there, so our members do benefit from repeats, but, actually, we're trying to look—. We're looking currently with S4C at, perhaps, a different way of looking at that, trying to, I suppose, unlock the older archive, perhaps to provide less of the same repeats, but I think it's a difficult financial model. A repeat is going to cost, of course, less than a new make, then—
But there are some phenomenal historic archives and so on of stuff that doesn't seem to be repeated. Have you had discussions around this, or—?
We have, going back five, six years. Different chief executives have had different opinions as to what they would like to do with that archive and we've been in discussion with them. We're back in discussion with them currently looking at a way to try and unlock that. So—
And presumably there are commercial aspects to this that would be attractive.
Not always. There is a view sometimes that it would be free at the point of use, so it wouldn't be a pay-to-view—that, actually, providing some of that archive online would be useful, not neccessarily—. I suppose it's a different kind of repeat, but it's providing, perhaps, a service. You know, there was a discussion a couple of years ago that there was a project ongoing to digitalize a lot of the archive because that hadn't been done, but the discussions are ongoing. As I said, with different chief executives—and I'm sure you can ask Owen when he comes in—it's the fact that there are different viewpoints as to how they want to access that product. We will always try and protect, because it's our job to protect, how that is monetised, because that is how our television deals are set up. But, on the flip side of that, there is also a product that isn't being repeated. So, it's unlocking some of that because, whether the contractual arrangements from the time restrict its repeat—. So, it's just making sure that there's a fair representation when it comes to it.
My view is that S4C is overwhelmingly a public good because it's a cultural imperative, and there are obvious limitations on its capacity to fund itself from sales revenue. You've quite rightly drawn attention to the way in which S4C's become a much leaner and fitter organisation: 73 per cent goes into programme production, which is an impressive figure in itself. So, this will inevitably feed into the discussion about what is the appropriate level of funding for the channel. You said earlier on, of course, that the current funding scheme doesn't allow for inflation. On the flip side of that, of course, the argument is that, well, technology has moved on and production costs are reduced as a result. News broadcasting is an example: one man with a phone now can do what a soundman, cameraman, et cetera, et cetera would have done even 20 years ago. So, there are complications to this argument about money, but Euryn Ogwen Williams said that S4C's remit doesn't require an increase in its funding; it can do everything that it currently does and what it needs to do on the basis of the funding scheme and level that currently exists. Do you think that's an over-optimistic view?
Well, I would disagree with it, because, looking at the remit, it currently repeats 57 per cent of programmes. If that is what the remit of the channel is going to be, then the argument is that the funding is sufficient. Certainly, on the evidence that we get from programme makers and producers when we're in discussion with them, budgets are being tightened and that has a knock-on effect on the work that our members do. They are trying to make that budgetary squeeze as much as they can, so they are making those savings to keep them going as they are currently. It's difficult to judge what level of production they would put out if they were suddenly given a windfall or a sudden increase in their funding, but by the fact that they've already cut back their running costs, one would hope that, actually, that money would be a direct investment into new programming.
They have, as we know, suffered a roughly 25 per cent cut in real terms in funding in recent years. Obviously, every organisation can, to an extent, reduce its costs, but reducing costs to that level without impacting upon production values is very difficult indeed. If we restored that £20 million difference, would that, in your view, solve the problem?
Well, it's a good start, but I think it provides them with the capacity to provide new-make rather than having to rely on the repeats. Yes, of course, we would focus on the drama, the product that our members would be involved in, but looking at the work that the producers do on that kind of product, they work hard for the money that they're given. That has impacted then on the way that members are engaged and in the way that members are accommodated on set. It has had a knock-on effect—things that aren't necessarily financial. So, in a way, it provides them with a cushion to at least start that, and if that then aids the amount of money they can then invest commercially—if that provides them with the capacity—. I think some of it, because they've trimmed down their staff so much, is down to actually the capacity of staff to be—'creative' is the wrong word, but to take those chances, to have that capacity to think outside of, 'We've just got to get the job done.' The interactions that we have are about the fact that there isn't a lot of capacity for additional thinking because of the restraints they're under.
You made another important point earlier on when you said that the IP of programmes belongs to the producers, generally speaking. Does that point, therefore, to the need for S4C to do more in-house production or do you think there is scope for negotiating a different kind of contract with producers that gives S4C a share of the IP-generated revenue?
S4C don't have the capacity to do that stuff in-house. I think we've not been involved in that discussion that they've had with the independent sector. You'd need to talk to Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru for that. If they're looking for greater exploitation, part of that in past discussions has obviously led us to where we are now. So, what has occurred in the past—the discussions that have occurred in the past—have led us to the arrangements that are there now. If there needs to be a different discussion ongoing, it has a benefit to both sides of the coin, but S4C has built that independent sector and that independent sector has been able to provide products now outside of Wales as well. So, it would be a great shame to decimate that in order to bring everything back in-house, especially at a time when other broadcasters are pushing more stuff out to independents. But, actually, I think perhaps there needs to be a discussion as part of the outcome of the S4C review between the producers and S4C to discuss that.
Mick Antoniw touched on this earlier on—about the possibility of maximising commercial revenue for S4C. When Euryn Ogwen Williams came to the committee, I questioned him on this. It seems that what he was thinking of in saying that S4C could do more to maximise its commercial revenues was through—you mentioned this a moment ago as well—a different attitude on the part of the public towards subtitled programmes, which used to be sort of art house films entirely at one time but now is pretty much mainstream. He was thinking that more could be done by subtitling, I suppose, to then sell programmes outside of S4C's normal ambit within the United Kingdom. Have you got any idea whether that's realistic or—
I can only go by what we've seen with the programmes that have proven to be successful in the last couple of years. But, essentially, those have been sold on the English-language versions of the programmes. There's been, I suppose—for want of a better phrase—a lack of confidence that, actually—. It would be great if the repeat of Keeping Faith that's now going to be on network would be the Welsh-language version with the subtitles, if there was that confidence that that product actually—you know, there was a sense that, if it was going to operate commercially, it would have to be available in both languages. Going back to Hinterland, even at that point, there was always going to be the English and the Welsh version, and then there was a sudden change of thought: the fact that it was going to be reflective to actually make the hybrid version so that, actually, it was bilingual. Even within six months of commission, there was a change in that thought pattern.
I suppose it's having that faith in that product—that, actually, would network take Keeping Faith in its original version, the original S4C version? Would that have been sellable? Would that have got however many million hits on iPlayer if it had been available with subtitles? That's for the broadcaster to decide, but it's having that faith in that product that, actually, it doesn't have to—. You don't see the product from Norway and the Scandinavian countries with the subtitles. They don't make an English-language version of that to sell overseas. They have that faith in that product to say, 'Well, actually, this is the drama, this is the language it's made in, this was the language it was commissioned in, and therefore this is what you will be watching.' But that's an industry and a consumer—. There is a sense, I think, still that to put something with subtitles on network at 9 o'clock on a Thursday night wouldn't get the kind of audience that something in the English language would. But it's changing—we've seen it change—perhaps it just needs to change a little bit more.
Yes, but I think there has to be that faith in the fact that the product is there—that the product is there and is of a good quality.
Lastly, then, I'd like to ask about the potential for accessing the UK Government's contestable fund, which will amount to £20 million a year for three years from 2019 to 2020. How far do you think there is scope there for S4C to get a reasonable portion of what's available? They'd be in competition, of course, with anybody and everybody, so one doesn't know.
I suppose it will be open season. If the money is available, then it's for—. It's for S4C to work with its current partnership with the independent producers to make sure that the case they're making for the funding is a good enough case made, but it requires them working with the independent sector because, essentially, it's the independent sector that makes that product for them.
As it's the UK Government that will be making the awards, it begs the question, doesn't it, as it looks increasingly anomalous that—well, at least whilst Welsh-language broadcasting is still fundamentally run from London, in constitutional terms—of the extent to which S4C will be able to impress those who make the decisions with the necessity of giving Welsh-language broadcasting it's fair share of the pot?
I use the word 'current' Minister for culture—you know, anything could have changed whilst we've been sat in the chamber—will, in the evidence they gave to the committee—
Thank you—last week or the week before voiced an important—. They said that S4C was very important to them, and they shared the interests of the channel and keeping it viable. They did then go on to admit that they'd never watched it—[Laughter.]—but they were fairly new in post, so we'll let them off that. The right signals were there, but I suppose the argument is: who is making the case for that to them? I know that S4C, in the conversations we've had with them, are making the most of those relationships with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and working with the politicians to make that case. We will continue to make that case as well. Whilst the model is currently not devolved, we will make that case in Westminster. If that changes, or there's a discussion as part of that, we'll want to be part of that discussion. I think the best case needs to continue to be made.
Ocê, grêt. Dyna'r cwestiynau sydd gennym ni heddiw. Felly, diolch yn fawr iawn i chi am roi tystiolaeth i ni. Mae'n siŵr y byddwn ni'n cyfathrebu â chi yn y dyfodol ynglŷn â'r hyn yr ydym ni'n ei wneud fel pwyllgor. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Okay, great. That completes our questions for this morning. So, thank you very much for providing us with evidence. I'm sure that we will communicate with you in the future on our work as a committee. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Diolch.
Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 10:10 a 10:32.
The meeting adjourned between 10:10 and 10:32.
Croeso i eitem 3 ar yr agenda, sef ymchwiliad byr i greu S4C ar gyfer y dyfodol—adolygiad annibynnol gan Euryn Ogwen Williams—sesiwn dystiolaeth tri. Yn amlwg, rydym ni wedi clywed gan Euryn Ogwen Williams ei hun ac wedi clywed gan yr undeb Equity, a nawr rydym ni'n croesawu S4C ei hun i roi tystiolaeth gerbron a chroeso i Huw Jones, sef cadeirydd awdurdod S4C, ac Owen Evans, sef prif weithredwr S4C. Diolch i chi am ddod atom heddiw.
Fel sy'n arferol—ac rydw i'n siŵr eich bod chi wedi arfer nawr—rydym ni'n gofyn cwestiynau ar sail themâu gwahanol. Felly, byddwn ni'n mynd yn syth i mewn i gwestiynau. Mae'r cwestiwn cyntaf sydd gennyf i yng nghyd-destun y ffaith bod eich cylch gwaith wedi newid ar gyfer S4C—o'r diwedd. Sut fydd hynny wedyn yn newid yr hyn rydych chi'n ei wneud fel endid? A ydy hynny'n mynd i wneud eich bywyd yn haws a beth yw goblygiadau'r newid hynny?
Welcome to agenda item 3 on our agenda, which is a short inquiry into building S4C for the future—an independent review by Euryn Ogwen Williams—and this is evidence session No. 3. We've clearly heard from Euryn Ogwen Williams himself and also we've heard from the Equity union, and now we welcome S4C to provide evidence this morning. A warm welcome to Huw Jones, the chairman of S4C authority, and Owen Evans, the chief executive of S4C. Thank you for joining us this morning.
As per usual—and I'm sure you're well used to this—we have some themed questions. So, we will move directly into those questions. My first question is in the context of the fact that the remit has now changed for S4C—at last. How will this change your work as an organisation? Is that going to make your life easier and what are the implications of that change to the remit?
Wel, fel rydych chi'n gwybod, roeddem ni'n meddwl bod cael newid i'r cylch gorchwyl yn beth sylfaenol bwysig, bod yr hen gylch gorchwyl wedi’i greu ar gyfer yr oes analog, ddim yn cyfeirio at unrhyw beth ond teledu, a hefyd fel petai o'n cyfyngu ein hestyniad ni i Gymru yn unig. Felly, roedd y ddwy elfen yna yn rhywbeth afreal, ac roeddem ni'n teimlo bod yn rhaid i ni gael y cadarnhad ei bod hi'n iawn inni wario'r arian rydym ni'n ei dderbyn ar gynnwys sydd yn ddigidol yn unig ar adegau yn ogystal ag ar gynnwys teledu. Felly, mi fydd o'n newid y cyfeiriad rydym ni'n ei ddilyn, ond, wrth gwrs, yr her fawr ydy cynnal gwasanaeth teledu llinol, tra ar yr un pryd yn camu yn hyderus i'r byd digidol.
Well, as you know, we did believe that a change to the remit was fundamentally important, that the old remit had been drawn up for the analogue age, made no reference to anything but television, and also seemed to restrict our reach to Wales alone. So, both those elements were unrealistic, and the digital side was something where we felt that we needed that confirmation that it was right for us to spend the funds that we receive on content that is digital only at times as well as on television output. So, it will change our direction, but, of course, the major challenge is to maintain a linear televisual service, whilst also stepping confidently into the digital age.
Na, buaswn i jest yn cefnogi Huw. Mae e bron yn rhoi'r green light i ni, sy'n beth da.
No, I would support everything that Huw said. It almost gives us a green light, which is positive.
Jest o ran yr hyb digidol mewnol sydd wedi cael ei grybwyll, roedd Equity wedi dweud wrthym yn flaenorol eu bod nhw’n meddwl bod y gwaith digidol efallai yn distraction i’r gwaith cynhenid y mae S4C yn ei wneud. A ydych chi’n cytuno â hynny? Beth yw’ch syniadau chi ar gyfer yr hyb digidol mewnol yma?
Just in terms of the in-house digital hub that's been mentioned, Equity told us earlier that they thought that the digital work might be a distraction from the inherent work that S4C is involved with. Do you agree with that and what are your ideas about this internal digital hub?
Na, nid wyf yn credu ei fod yn distraction, achos mae’r ffordd y mae pethau’n newid—. Roeddem yn siarad am hwn ddoe; mae 70 y cant o bobl nawr yn gwylio rhaglenni ar y brif sianel ac mae 30 y cant yn gwylio ar catch-up. Nid yw pobl ifanc yn gwylio’r teledu, yn aml iawn; maen nhw’n gwylio ar eu ffonau symudol, tabledi a phethau fel hynny. Felly, mae’r llwyfannau rydym ni’n darlledu arnynt a’r math o gynnwys rŷm ni’n ei ddarlledu ar y rheini yn mynd yn fwyfwy pwysig. Felly, ie, mae technoleg, sut rŷm ni’n casglu data a sut rŷm ni’n defnyddio’r data hynny i bwsio rhaglenni at bobl bron mor bwysig â’r cynnwys ei hunan, ond wrth gwrs, mae’r cynnwys ei hunan yn hollbwysig. Felly, mae’n rhaid inni greu cynnwys mae pobl eisiau’i weld, ond mewn ffurf y mae pobl eisiau’i weld ac ar y llwyfannau y mae pobl eisiau’u defnyddio. Felly, mae’r cwbl, i fi, yn dod at ei gilydd.
No, I don't think it's a distraction, because the way in which things are changing—. We were talking about this yesterday; 70 per cent of people watch the main channel and 30 per cent are watching on catch-up. Very often, young people don't even watch television; they use mobile phones, tablets and so on. So, the platforms that we broadcast on and the kind of content that we are broadcasting is becoming more and more important. So, yes, technology, how we gather data and use data to promote programmes to the people we're targeting is almost as important as the content itself, but the content is also crucial. So, we need to generate content that attracts people, but in the format that people want to see it and on the platforms that they want to view it on. So, all that comes together.
Ond beth ydych chi'n credu ynglŷn â'r ffaith bod y rheini'n mynd i fod yn fewnol nawr? A ydy hynny'n mynd i fod yn fygythiad i'r byd masnachol oherwydd eu bod nhw, efallai, yn mynd i golli mas ar gomisiynu gwaith gennych chi fel endid?
But what do you think about the fact that this will be in-house now? Is that going to be a threat to the commercial sector, because they're going to lose out on commissions from you?
I fod yn deg, nid ydym wedi—. Mae yna ddwy ochr i beth rydym ni'n ei wneud yn ddigidol. Mae'r ochr isadeiledd, buaswn i'n ei ddweud, sef casglu data, gallu ymdrin â data a gallu defnyddio'r data hynny. Mi fydd hynny'n fewnol, ond mi fyddwn ni'n defnyddio arbenigedd o'r tu fas hefyd, wrth gwrs. Mae'r ochr arall o gwmpas cynnwys. Flwyddyn yn ôl, pan ddechreuom ni Hansh, dim ond tua dau gwmni oedd yn cyflenwi’r math o stwff mae Hansh yn ei greu. Mae hynny lan i tua 13 o gwmnïau nawr. Felly, beth rydym yn ei weld yw bod nifer o gwmnïau sy’n gallu cyflenwi’r math yna o gynnwys newydd wedi esblygu ac wedi tyfu’n aruthrol dros y flwyddyn ddiwethaf, sydd yn beth grêt. Felly, i fi, nid yw’r system wedi torri, ac felly nid ydym wedi cymryd penderfyniadau eto a oes angen creu hyb digidol sy’n creu cynnwys yn fewnol. Ond mi fyddwn yn cadw hynny o dan ystyriaeth.
To be fair, we haven't—. There are two sides to what we're doing digitally. There's the infrastructure side, which is gathering data, dealing with data and using that data. That will be in-house, but we will also be using external expertise too. The other side is around content. A year ago, when we started Hansh, there were only around two companies providing the kind of stuff that Hansh is creating. That's up to around 13 companies now. So, what we see is that the number of companies that can supply that kind of new content has evolved and grown at a staggering rate over the past year, which is marvellous. So, for me, the system isn't broken, and therefore we haven't taken any decision as of yet as to whether we need to create a digital hub creating content internally. But we will keep that under consideration.
Ond mae’r arian rydych chi wedi’i gael ar gyfer gwneud y gwaith digidol yn llawer llai na beth roeddech chi’n ei ddisgwyl, neu wedi gofyn amdano. A ydych chi’n mynd i allu gwneud y gwaith digidol? A ydych chi am ei wneud, gyda’r cyfyngiadau ariannol?
But the funding that you received for that digital work is far less than you'd expected or what you'd requested. Are you going to be able to do that digital work? Do you want to do it, given the financial restrictions?
Y peth yw, dyna'r arian sydd gennym, so mae'n rhaid i ni ymdopi efo hynny. Beth rydw i eisiau'i wneud o fewn S4C, a hefyd o fewn y cwmnïau rydym ni'n gweithio efo nhw, yw deall nad yw digidol ddim yn rhywbeth sydd ar wahân. Mae'r ffaith bod yn rhaid inni gyflenwi i bobl ym mha bynnag ffurf ac ar ba bynnag llwyfan maen nhw angen jest yn rhan annatod o beth rydym ni'n ei wneud nawr.
At the end of the day, that's the funding we have and we have to cope with that. What I want to do within S4C and also within the companies that we work with is to understand that digital isn't something that is separate. The fact that we now have to provide to people on whatever platform they choose is just an integral part of what we do now.
Rŷch chi'n dweud ei fod e ar wahân, ond yn eich gofyniadau chi, er enghraifft, i DCMS, dim ond yr arian digidol roeddech chi wedi rhoi swm arno. Felly, os oedd yn rhan o holl remit S4C, pam ddim rhoi swm ar beth yw arian digonol ar gyfer S4C?
You say that it's separate, but in your submission to the DCMS, for example, it was only the digital funding that you put a sum on. So, if it was part of the wider remit, then why not put a number on sufficient funding for S4C more generally?
Fel y mae'r pwyllgor yma'n gwybod, rydym ni wedi ymatal rhag rhoi ateb i'r cwestiwn o ran faint o arian y mae S4C ei angen. Oherwydd mae'n weddol amlwg, onid ydy, na fydd byth digon o arian i wneud pob peth y byddai rhywun yn dymuno i S4C ei wneud. Mewn gwirionedd, mae S4C yn gorfod ceisio, ar gyfer yr iaith Gymraeg, creu cynnwys ar bob llwyfan sydd yn cyfateb, bron, i bopeth sydd ar gael yn Saesneg. Nawr, nid oes yna ddim pen draw i'r uchelgais o geisio gwneud hynny. Beth rydym ni'n ymfalchïo ynddo fo o ran yr hyn sydd yn sôn am arian yn ymateb y Llywodraeth, yn fwy nag yn yr adolygiad ei hun, ydy bod yna linell wedi cael ei thynnu o dan y toriadau—y gyfres hir o doriadau sydd wedi bod ers 2011—ac mae'r ymrwymiad gan y Llywodraeth ganolog i sefydlogrwydd ariannol i S4C yn rhywbeth pwysig. Wrth gwrs, mewn byd delfrydol, mi fyddem wedi dymuno bod yna fwy o arian yn cael ei roi ar gyfer pob agwedd o'r gwaith, achos mae'n ffaith nad yw cynnal gwasanaeth lluniol wrth fynd i'r byd digidol yn mynd i fod yn hawdd ac mae yna ddewisiadau anodd yn mynd i gael eu gwneud. Ond o leiaf mae'r sefydlogrwydd yna am gyfnod weddol dda yn mynd i fod yn werthfawr.
As this committee knows, we have been guarding against answering the question of exactly how much money does S4C need. Because it's quite obvious that there will never be sufficient funding to do everything that one would want S4C to do. In reality, S4C has to generate, for the Welsh language, content on all platforms that corresponds to everything that's available in English. Now, there is no end to that ambition. What I do take pride in in terms of what the Government has said in terms of funding, rather than the review itself, is that a line has been drawn under the cuts—the long list of cuts that we've experienced since 2011—and the commitment from central Government to provide financial stability for S4C is something that's important. Of course, in an ideal world, we would've wanted to have seen more funding provided for all aspects of our work, because it's a fact that maintaining a television service whilst going into digital isn't going to be easy and difficult choices will have to be made. But at least we have that stability for a relatively long period and that's going to be valuable.
Fe ddown ni nôl i'r cwestiynau mwy dwys am arian. Siân Gwenllian.
We'll return to the more detailed questions on funding. Siân Gwenllian.
Roeddwn i jest eisiau pigo i fyny ar beth roeddech chi’n ei ddweud ynglŷn â’r hyb digidol. Hynny yw, nid oes yna benderfyniadau wedi cael eu gwneud rŵan ynglŷn ag ai fydd o’n fewnol ynteu a fyddwch chi’n comisiynu gwaith. Mae’r awgrym, os oes yna fwy o gwmnïau allan yna rŵan sy’n gallu darparu—rydych chi’n awgrymu efallai mai’r trywydd yna fyddwch chi’n ei gymryd.
I just wanted to pick up on what you said about the digital hub. So, no decisions have been made as to whether it will be in-house or whether you will be commissioning the work. There is a suggestion that if there are more companies out there that can provide this content—you're maybe suggesting that that's the route that you may choose.
Mae'n bosib. Nid ydym wedi penderfynu ac fe wnawn ni gadw golwg ar y peth. Nid oes penderfyniad wedi cael ei wneud am greu hyb cynnwys digidol yn fewnol ai peidio, ond mae'r ffaith bod nifer y cwmnïau sy'n gallu cyflenwi'r math yna o gynnwys wedi tyfu yn rhywbeth rydym yn ei groesawu.
It's possible. We haven't made a decision and we will keep it under review. No decision has been made on creating an in-house digital content hub, but the fact that the number of companies that can provide that kind of content has increased is something that we welcome.
Achos, mewn ffordd, mi fyddai hynny yn gallu gwasgaru'r budd economaidd, oni fyddai, ar draws Cymru.
Because, in a way, that could disseminate the economic benefit across Wales.
Byddai, ac mae'r cwmnïau yma reit ar draws y wlad, sy'n beth ffantastig i'w weld.
Yes, and these companies are right across the country, which is a fantastic thing to see.
Pa fath o gynnwys ydyn nhw'n ei ddarparu?
What kind of content do they provide?
Pob math—y rhan fwyaf o'r stwff Hansh rydyn ni wedi bod yn ei wneud. Felly, mae yna gwmnïau yn dy etholaeth di. Fe ddechreuodd yn eithaf anarchaidd, ac mae yna dal elements anarchaidd iawn yn beth mae Hansh yn ei wneud, ond beth rydym wedi ei weld yn fwy diweddar drwy bobl fel Mari yw stwff mwy hard-hitting o gwmpas palm oil, o gwmpas plastics a phethau fel hynny. Mae'r stwff coginio, wrth gwrs, yn boblogaidd iawn—beth mae Chris wedi bod yn ei wneud. Ac mae yna gerddoriaeth, hefyd. Mae yna flend neis o raglenni yn tyfu drwy'r brand Hansh, ac mae pobl ifanc i'w gweld yn ymdrin yn dda efo'r math yna o gynnwys, felly liciwn i weld mwy ohono fe.
All sorts—most of the stuff that we've been doing for Hansh. So, there are companies in your constituency. It started as being quite anarchic, and there is still an element that is anarchic in terms of what Hansh provides, but what we've seen more recently from people such as Mari is more hard-hitting stuff around palm oil and around plastics, and so on. There's the cookery output, which is very popular—the things that Chris has been doing. And there's music, too. So, there's a nice blend of programmes developing through the Hansh brand, and young people seem to be engaging with that content, so I'd like to see more of it.
Ocê. Jyst gen i, rwyf ar ddeall bod yna broblemau o hyd ynglŷn â pha mor flaengar ydych chi ar yr EPG, a bod problemau o ran teledau smart, ac yn y blaen. Yn amlwg, rydym ni wedi rhoi tystiolaeth ger bron ar hwn. Beth yw eich barn ddiweddaraf chi ar hwn?
Okay. Just from me, I'm given to understand that there are still problems in terms of how prominent you are on the EPG, and that there are problems in terms of smart tvs. Clearly, we've provided evidence on this, but what is your updated view on this?
Rwy'n meddwl mai hynny, o ran yr adolygiad, efallai oedd yr un lle roeddem yn teimlo ychydig yn siomedig bod yna ddim geiriau cryfach ynglŷn â phwysigrwydd amlygrwydd. Ac ers i'r adolygiad ddod allan, wrth gwrs, mae Tony Hall ac Alex Mahon yn Channel 4 wedi dod allan yn gryf o ran pwysigrwydd amlygrwydd ar dechnoleg newydd ar gyfer darlledwyr cyhoeddus yn gyffredinol. Ac wrth gwrs, os ydy hyn yn wir ar gyfer y BBC a Channel 4, gymaint fwy gwir ydy o o ran sianel iaith leiafrifol fel S4C. Nawr, mae yna anawsterau technegol yn siŵr o fod, ond mae'n anodd credu nad ydy hi'n bosibl, o fewn uned mor sylweddol â'r Deyrnas Unedig, i gael rheolau ar gyfer amlygrwydd ar lwyfannau newydd sydd yn ceisio gwarchod y math o fanteision mae darlledwyr cyhoeddus wedi eu cael ar yr hen blatfformau. Rwy'n meddwl bod y ffaith ein bod ni wedi bod ar fotwm rhif 4 ar deledu analog i ddechrau, wedyn ar deledu digidol ac nawr ar Sky hefyd, wedi bod yn ofnadwy o bwysig, ac yn dal i fod yn bwysig yn y ffaith bod yna lawer o bobl yn dal i wylio teledu drwy fynd at yr EPG jest i weld beth sydd ymlaen. Ac mae cael bod yn fanna ar y dudalen flaen yn bwysig. Felly, mae unrhyw sefyllfa lle mae hynny yn newid yn llwyr, lle mae'n rhaid i chi fynd i chwilio drwy ddryswig o apps, neu beth bynnag, am eich deunydd Cymraeg jest yn ei gwneud hi'n fwy anodd i bobl sy'n siarad Cymraeg ffeindio deunydd Cymraeg.
In terms of the review, I think that's where we were slightly disappointed, perhaps, that there weren't stronger words on the importance of prominence in those terms. And since the publication of the review, of course, Tony Hall and Alex Mahon of Channel 4 have come out very strongly in terms of the importance of prominence on new technology for public broadcasters in general. And of course, if this is true for the BBC and Channel 4, then it is so much more relevant in terms of a minority language channel such as S4C. Now, there are technical difficulties, I'm sure, but it's difficult to believe that it isn't possible within such a large unit as the UK to have rules for prominence on new platforms that seek to to safeguard the kind of benefits that public broadcasters have had on the old platforms. I do think that the fact that we have been on that number 4 button on analogue first of all, and then on digital, and now on Sky too, has been hugely important, and remains hugely important in the fact that many people still watch television by going through the EPG just to see what's on. Being there on that front page is very important indeed. So, any situation where that would change entirely, where you would have to scroll through a whole host of different apps or channels for your Welsh language material, just makes it more difficult for Welsh speakers to access Welsh language output.
Ond beth yw'r ateb i hynny? Mae yna lot o gwmnïau gwahanol sydd yn creu systemau gwahanol ar gyfer teledau gwahanol. A ydych chi'n mynd i allu gwneud hynny? Achos mae beth sy'n gweithio ar deledu Samsung yn wahanol i beth sydd ar deledu Sony.
What's the solution to this? There are a number of different companies bringing these different systems forward for various televisions. Are you going to be able to deliver that? Because what works on a Samsung tv is different to what would work on a Sony tv.
Rydych chi'n hollol iawn; dyna ydy'r broblem. Ond rwy'n meddwl os na wnawn ni, ac os na wnewch chi, yr achos yma, wel, fydd neb yn poeni. Rwy'n meddwl ei fod o'n achos sy'n rhaid ei wneud, a bod yna gyfuniad o bosib yn fanna o ddawn dechnegol plus ewyllys wleidyddol ac ewyllys reoleiddio a all helpu i wneud y Gymraeg yn fwy amlwg yn y dyfodol na mae yna berygl iddi fod efo pethau fel maen nhw.
You're quite right; that's the problem. But unless we, and unless you, make this case, then nobody's going to listen. I think it's a case that has to be made, and that there should be a combination of technical innovation as well as political will, and regulatory will, which could help to make the Welsh language more prominent in the future than it's at risk of being as things currently stand.
Thank you, Chair. It's great to welcome Owen and Huw here today. Just very quickly, I wanted to take some time to wish Connah's Quay Nomads well in the Europa League tie tomorrow. However, it is slightly disappointing that it isn't live broadcast by any—and that not a direct criticism of S4C, because you are one of the best, if not the best in promoting Welsh football, but I will be bringing that up with the Minister in the near future.
Just moving on, I'd like to talk about the proposed Welsh language partnership and what conversations you've had with the Welsh Government, really. Could you share some insight into that?
There's a couple of them. I'll take it from the Government, but perhaps I'll talk as well about closer to your constituency. With the Government, we've met with officials and we've met with Ministers now about putting a framework together about how we support the million-speaker target. So, there are three areas that we're going to focus on—we've got a strategy worked out for this now—and the first is around education. One of the projects that we're looking at there at the moment is we're working with schools on Welsh as a second language. There is an issue around Welsh as a second language teaching in schools; what can S4C—what materials can we provide? But also, how can we work with people like the centre for adult learning in Carmarthen about how we can tailor provision, to help those teachers who are trying to get to grips with the language, so they can pass that on? So, that's one of them.
We're working with a number of organisations, including Mudiad Meithrin, around how we package our materials better for that type of provision. The other area we're looking at is things like—we have effectively torn up our provision for learners. Actually, I think our provision for learners was good—there was nothing wrong with it—but we'd done it in isolation. So, for example, now, we're working with the centre in Carmarthen to say, 'What are the types of materials that you would relish from us, that will help you in the way you're teaching?' So, as of next year, the provision of our learning offer will be quite different to what it is now, and it will be far more hand in glove, really, with what the state is doing. So I think, on those provisions, there are a number of things that we're doing on the education side.
The second one is we're looking at how we spend our money. So, on an economic development front, for example, I would like to see more programmes being made in the north-east. And we've set aside £400,000 already, in addition to what we were spending before, starting this year, for making more programmes in that area. So, I've met with Glyndŵr university, and we're currently working with Coleg Cambria, about how we can increase the provision for that area. So, there are a number of areas at the moment where, on a partnership basis, we're talking quite actively with people about how we can improve what we're doing. We already did a lot in partnership with organisations, I think. The knack for us is picking two or three quite major projects that we can then deliver and make happen.
Firstly, I'd just like to say that I think that's great, because early intervention with schools and education is absolutely the right way to go. I'm particularly pleased you've mentioned Coleg Cambria and Glyndŵr—my previous college and university—there as well, so I'm quite pleased that you've mentioned that. In the evidence session we had just before you came in, it was mentioned that technology has overtaken legislation already. So, with that in mind, what is the time frame do you think for introducing new legislation, given that technology is already out there? And you've mentioned already that if we don't make this case, and you don't make this case, how do we go ahead and get ahead of technology, or at least catch up.
Well, there's legislation that is specific to S4C, which arises from the recommendations of the review and the Government's response. We are discussing with DCMS at the moment and agreeing a programme to take the recommendations forward in the context of what the expectation is of legislative time being available in Parliament. But the intention is not to let any legislative delay hold us back from implementing the recommendations; we will be doing that in agreement with DCMS. But, for example, on the example of the remit, that needs to be put into legislation, but we're not going to wait until it happens before before commissioning digital material, for example. That's an example of how we see it.
If I can just add, on the partnership front, one of the things we are working with the Government on is Welsh language and technology. So, for example, it is not good enough, I think, that you can't use Welsh on Alexa and Google Home and things like this. We've got a specific use for real-time subtitling, obviously, the Government has, and I think a lot of the public sector and utilities have as well. So, we're trying to bring people together about how we can crack this to create a corpus of language technology that others can use.
Good. Just very briefly, do you expect some delay in legislation, due to the Government being up in arms at the moment?
Well, we know that—. This is something for Government to answer, isn't it? We don't know. We know the Government's intentions, in that they're expressed in the form of the Secretary of State's response. I think it's for Government to answer that question.
Just on the Google Home stuff, when will you be making progress, or when will there be progress on that? Because I get quite a lot of communication—.
Nid ydw i ddim yn gwybod pam rwy'n siarad Saesneg. Rwy'n cael lot o bobl yn cyfathrebu â fi ynglŷn â hynny. Beth ydych chi'n ei wneud o ran amserlenni hynny, i weithredu yn ein bywydau go iawn?
I don't know why I'm speaking English. I get a lot of people communicating with me about that. What are you doing in terms of timescales, to implement that in our real lives?
Mae yna ddau gam. Y cam cyntaf yw creu bas data o'r iaith. Rwy'n credu bod yna wahanol gyrff wedi bod yn gweithio ar hynny barod. Rydym ni'n meddwl bod hynny'n mynd i gymryd o leiaf blwyddyn. Y cam nesaf: unwaith mae gennym ni'r pecyn iaith yna, yn ddigidol, wedyn mae'r gwaith o werthu hwnnw i'r bobl sy'n creu'r meddalwedd sydd yn rhedeg yr isadeiledd i'r systemau yma. Rwy'n credu y bydd yn ddwy flynedd i dair blynedd, i fod yn realistig. Os nad oes talp o arian yn dod at y peth, dyna beth sy'n bosib. Ond rydym ni'n gweithio'n glòs iawn efo'r Llywodraeth ar hynny ar y funud.
There are two steps. The first is to create the language database. I know that there are various organisations that have already been working on that. We believe that will take at least 12 months. The next step: once we have that digital package, then we need to sell that to the people who create the software and provide the infrastructure for these systems. I think it will be two or three years, to be realistic. Unless a lot of funding is provided for this, that's what's possible. But we're working very closely with the Government on that.
Beth am y Comisiwn? Achos maen nhw'n datblygu gwaith eu hunain ar hyn hefyd—Comisiwn y Cynulliad.
What about the Commission? Because they're developing their own work on this as well—the Assembly Commission.
Rydym ni wedi cwrdd â nhw hefyd.
We've met with them too.
Do, achos maen nhw'n flaenllaw iawn yn y maes yma, i fod yn deg iddyn nhw. Pan gwrddais i â'r Llywodraeth, fe wnes i gwrdd â'r Comisiwn ar yr un pryd.
Yes, because they are very prominent in this area, to be fair to them. When I met the Government, I also met the Commission.
Ocê, wel, os cawn ni fwy o ddiweddariad ar hynny, pan ydych chi'n gallu, byddai hynny'n grêt.
Okay, if we could have more of an update on that, when you can, that would be great.
Mae lot o egni'n mynd mewn i'r peth, sy'n wych i weld.
A great deal of energy is being invested in it, which is good to see.
Rwy'n falch iawn o glywed hynny, achos roeddwn i'n mynd i ofyn yr un cwestiwn, achos mae gyda ni gwestiynau gyda Adam Price y prynhawn yma ynglŷn â'r cynllun ieithoedd swyddogol. Mae cwestiwn iddo ef hefyd, felly. Rwyf jest eisiau siarad yn glou am y ffi trwydded. A oes gyda chi unrhyw bryderon ynglŷn â chael yr arian cyfan o'r un ffynhonnell?
I'm very pleased to hear that, because I was going to ask the same question, because we have questions with Adam Price this afternoon about the official languages scheme. There is a question for him as well, then. I just wanted to speak quickly about the licence fee. Do you have any concerns about obtaining all the money from one source?
Rydym ni'n meddwl, oherwydd—. Dau beth yn benodol. Yn y datganiad sydd gan y Llywodraeth ynglŷn â hyn, mae'r ymrwymiad i warantu annibyniaeth S4C yn glir iawn ac yn gryf, ac rydym ni'n meddwl bod hynny'n bwysig. Mae'n arwydd o beth yw'r bwriad. Rydym ni hefyd, yn ystod y misoedd diwethaf, diwedd y llynedd, wedi arwyddo cytundeb partneriaeth newydd gyda'r BBC yn ganolog sydd yn diffinio beth yw'n perthynas ni gyda'r BBC ar lefel ariannol, dechnegol a chreadigol. Mae hwnnw hefyd yn ei gwneud hi'n hollol glir mai partneriaeth rhwng dau gorff annibynnol yw hwn.
Y peth olaf yw—nid yw'r cyfrifoldeb am sicrhau arian digonol yn symud oddi wrth ysgwyddau'r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol yn DCMS. Y person yna—pwy bynnag, fo neu hi—fydd yn gyfrifol am ddyfarnu, ar ddiwedd y dydd, a ydy'r arian sydd yn dod i S4C yn ddigonol i wneud y gwaith. Mae hynny, yn amlwg wedyn, yn golygu bod cwestiwn ariannu S4C yn y pen draw o'r drwydded deledu yn mynd yn rhan o'r drafodaeth ehangach ynglŷn â lefel y drwydded deledu. Felly, rydw i'n meddwl y gallwn ni fod yn hyderus nid yw annibyniaeth S4C yn cael ei fygwth gan y symud ariannol yma i'r cyllid ddod yn gyfan gwbl o'r drwydded deledu.
We believe, because—. Two things specifically. In the statement made by the Government on this, there is a commitment to guarantee the independence of S4C that is very strong and very clear, and we think that's important. It is a signifier of the Government's intent. Also, over the past few months, at the end of last year, we signed a new partnership agreement with the BBC centrally that defines our relationship with the BBC on a financial, technical and a creative level. That too makes it entirely clear that it's a partnership between two independent bodies, and that's what we have here.
The final thing is that the responsibility for securing sufficient funding doesn't shift from the Secretary of State in DCMS. That individual—whoever he or she may be—will be responsible for deciding, at the end of the day, whether the funding provided for S4C is sufficient to carry out its work. That clearly means that the question of funding S4C ultimately from the licence fee becomes part of that broader discussion on the level of the licence fee. So, I do think that we can be confident that the independence of S4C isn't threatened by this shift from the financial situation as it was to the funding coming directly from the licence fee.
Rwy'n falch o glywed eich bod chi'n gweld hynny yn glir, achos wrth gwrs mae'n rhaid i'r BBC nawr ddeall bod yr hawl i'r arian sy'n dod drwy'r ffi trwydded—nid yw'r cyfan iddyn nhw; mae mwy nag un corff sydd â'r hawl i ofyn am ychydig o hynny.
Rydych chi wedi dweud hefyd yr hoffech chi weld fwy o luosogrwydd gydag ariannu S4C. A ydych chi'n meddwl, gan ddweud hynny, eich bod chi'n edrych ar sut i dyfu y cynnig masnachol? Mae rhywun arall yn mynd i ofyn cwestiynau ynglŷn â hynny, ond a ydych chi'n gweld hynny fel bygythiad efallai i sut mae'r Llywodraeth yn penderfynu beth fydd yn ddigonol yn y dyfodol? Beth rwy'n trio dweud yw: a ydym ni'n sôn bod yr arian sy'n dod drwy'r ffrwd fasnachol yn mynd i fod yn ychwanegol i'r arian sy'n dod drwy'r drwydded?
I'm pleased to hear that you're seeing that clearly, because the BBC now has to understand that the right to the money that comes through the licence fee—that all of it isn't just for them, that there is more than one body that has a right to ask for some of that.
You've also said that you would like to see more plurality of funding of S4C. In saying that, are you saying that you are looking at how to increase the commercial offer? Somebody else is going to ask questions about that, but do you see that as a threat perhaps to how the Government decides what will be sufficient in the future? What I'm trying to say is: are we talking about the funding coming through commercial sources as additional to what comes through the licence fee?
Wel, wrth gwrs, dyna fyddwn i'n dadlau—yn sicr dyna y dylai fod, oherwydd yn y byd masnachol nid oes dim byd yn sicr. Hawl i fentro yn fasnachol rydym ni'n cael, dim gwarant o lwyddiant. Mae angen bod yn realistig ynglŷn â hynny. Hefyd mae angen bod yn realistig rydw i'n meddwl ynglŷn â'r cyfeiriadau y gallwn ni fynd iddyn nhw a beth felly yw'r sgôp i wneud arian sylweddol ychwanegol.
Yn benodol, byddai rhywun yn meddwl mai'r lle amlwg i ni fynd yw i werthu rhaglenni dramor. Y ffaith yw, nid yw hawliau rhaglenni yn eistedd gyda S4C; mae'n nhw'n eistedd gyda'r cynhyrchwyr. Mae S4C a'r cynhyrchwyr eisoes yn proactive iawn yn y gwaith o gasglu arian cydgynhyrchu i wneud y rhaglenni yn y lle cyntaf. Mae tua £20 miliwn o arian cydgynhyrchu o wahanol fathau wedi dod i fewn i wneud rhaglenni sydd wedi ymddangos ar S4C yn ystod y pum neu chwe mlynedd ddiwethaf, sy'n swm sylweddol. Mae talp sylweddol o hwnnw yn arian dosbarthu y mae dosbarthwyr wedi rhoi mewn i'r peth. Wedyn nhw, wrth gwrs, sydd yn ecsbloetio y gwerthiant y tu allan i Brydain.
Felly, mae eisiau bod yn realistig ynglŷn â hyn, ond hefyd, rydw i'n meddwl, mae eisiau croesawu'r ffaith fod yna gymhelliad i wneud hyn, achos mae angen i'r corff, mae angen i'r cynhyrchwyr, mae angen i'r dosbarthwyr, fod yn fentrus a manteisio ar y cyfleoedd newydd sydd yn bodoli.
Well, that's what I would argue—yes, that's what it should be, because in the commercial world there are no certainties. We have the right to innovate commercially, not a guarantee of success. We have to be realistic about that. We also need to be realistic about the directions that we could take and what the scope is to make significant additional profits.
Specifically, one would think that the obvious place we could go is to sell programmes abroad. But the rights don't sit with S4C; they sit with the producers. S4C and the producers are already very proactive in the work of gathering funds from joint productions to make those programmes in the first place. There is around £20 million of co-production funding that has come in to make programming that has appeared on S4C over the past five or six years, which is a significant sum of money. A significant chunk of that is distribution money that the distributors have invested. Of course, they are then exploiting the sales outwith the UK.
So, we need to be realistic about this, but I also think we need to welcome the fact that there is an incentive to do this, because the organisation, the producers, the distributors, need to be entrepreneurial and take advantage of the new opportunities that exist.
Ond y peth pwysig, beth rydw i'n trio cyrraedd, yw: beth sy'n bwysig yma, pan fo'r gyfraith yn sôn am arian digonol, mae'n sôn am core funding—mae'n cael ei ddisgrifio fel yna.
But the important thing, and what I'm trying to get at, is that what's important here is that, when the law's talking about sufficient money, it's talking about core funding—that's how it's described.
Yn bendant. Yn bendant.
Jest un cwestiwn gennyf: cyn yr adolygiad, roeddech chi wedi dweud bod angen diogelu lluosogrwydd y cyllid, ond, o beth rydw i'n clywed heddiw, rydych chi'n weddol hapus ei fod e'n dod trwy un ffrwd, sef y drwydded. A ydy hynny yn newid barn, neu ydy hynny—?
Just one further question from me: before the review, you said that there was a need to safeguard the plurality of funding, but what I'm hearing today is that you're quite content that it is coming through one stream, which is the licence fee. Is that a change of opinion?
Rydw i'n meddwl—nid ein dewis ni fyddai newid y drefn bresennol, ond rydym ni yn edrych ar hwn yn wrthrychol ac yn meddwl y gallwn ni wneud i hyn weithio hebddo fo danseilio annibyniaeth S4C.
It wouldn't be our choice to change the current regime, but we are looking at this objectively, and we believe that we can make it work without it undermining the independence of S4C.
Pam na fyddech chi—beth oedd eich prif wrthwynebiad i weld hwn yn digwydd? Achos beth rŷm ni wedi clywed yw ei fod e'n cymryd y wleidyddiaeth allan o'r peth os mae'n mynd trwy'r ffi drwydded, efallai, ond nid ydw i'n siŵr os ydw i'n cytuno â hynny. Beth yw eich prif ddadl chi ynglŷn ag efallai nad yw'n rhywbeth mor ddelfrydol â hynny?
What was your main opposition to seeing this happen? Because what we've heard is that it takes the politics out of it if it goes through the licence fee, perhaps, but I'm not sure whether I agree with that. What is your main argument about perhaps it's not as ideal as that?
Wel, yr hyn sy'n sylfaenol i ni, wrth gwrs, yw swm yr arian sy'n cael ei dderbyn, a'r ffaith ei fod o'n cael ei glustnodi am gyfnod hir. Dyna sy'n cael ei ddisgrifio yn y drefn newydd—trefn lle bydd yr arian yn cael ei benderfynu am gyfnod o bum mlynedd, ac na fydd yna ymyrraeth yn ystod y pum mlynedd yna, a bod y ddadl yma, sef, ar hyn o bryd, bod yr arian sy'n dod gan DCMS yn gallu cael ei newid bob dwy flynedd bron, yn sicr bob tro mae yna spending review—bod hynny yn creu problemau gwleidyddol, ac nad ydy hynny'n beth dymunol. Felly, o gael sefydlogrwydd, er efallai byddai fe'n braf gael sefydlogrwydd parhaol o fwy nag un ffynhonnell, mae'r sefydlogrwydd a'r addewid yna yn werthfawr ynddo ei hun.
Well, what's fundamentally important to us is the amount of money that we receive, and the fact that it is allocated for a long period of time. That's what's described under this new regime—a regime whereby the funding will be decided over a period of five years, and there will no intervention during those five years, and that this argument, that, at the moment, the funding provided by DCMS can be changed every two years, to all intents and purposes, and certainly every time there's a spending review—that that does create political problems, and that isn't desirable. So, in having stability, although it might be nice to have permanent stability from more than one source, that pledge is valuable in and of itself.
Thank you very much. Euryn Ogwen Williams argues strongly that, if you're removed from the straitjacket that you're currently in, you should be able to exploit the commercial opportunities that you're currently prohibited from doing, and that would be sufficient to replace any loss of direct funding from the UK Government. So, could you just tell us how the negotiations are going with the DCMS and whether you think it's going to give you the commercial freedom that you need in order to do just that?
Firstly, I think we've got to put on record that commercial freedom is not a panacea.
But we have got plans about how we're going to exploit. The conversations with DCMS have been very positive. It's more of an administrative change, I think, that a governance change in what they're talking about is making the process of actually agreeing investments easier, and we're looking at the moment at how governance internally can make sure that we have good—
Because at the moment it's pretty clunky, isn't it? You've got to go back every time you—
It is a bit clunky. So, I think, for us—I mean, there are two steps to this. It's (1) yes, we are revisiting and looking at what we're going to do commercially in the future, how we operate the balanced portfolio and what type of investments we might make, and there are some fairly fundamental decisions that will go to the authority very soon on that. But the discussions with DCMS are around how we move that model into whatever we decide to do in the future, and at the moment those discussions have been very positive and I think they're quite keen to see us exploit them. I think they've taken on board, in fairness, what Euryn said about, look, this is a slightly new world. I think in some areas we are leading some of this. Some of the content we've produced, for young people in particular, where we've seen a 6 per cent increase in the number of 16 to 34-year-olds watching the channel, which is fantastic—. But I think we can make some dividends from that. I think, for us, what I'd like to see in the future is that the companies that are producing this type of stuff for us can do it on a UK or wider basis. But the question then is: how can we benefit from that growth?
Okay. So what are the commercial opportunities of expanding your reach using the new technologies?
I think there are two. The first is that Euryn is right—in creating the data infrastructure that we'll create, what we'll be having to do is try and compete with the likes of Netflix in how we use data. Now, in a Welsh language context that is something where we can work with others about how we exploit it—the same type of activity that we'll be doing will be the sorts of activity that other organisations will want to do in Welsh—but also other minority broadcasters across the globe, and we're in quite close discussions with other organisations about how we can do this.
That's the first side, but the second side is that the growth in the digital content market is huge. If you look at what's happening over the pond in what Facebook Watch are doing and what YouTube Premiere are doing, there are areas that we can exploit, I think, and it's for us then to work with companies to work out how we can jointly exploit these markets. I think some of the content that companies are producing in Wales is class-leading actually, and I think, yes, we need to shout about it a bit more.
I think there are a couple of points I'd like to add: one is that we mustn't forget that our remit is to produce a Welsh-language service. So, our use of public funds must be focused around the production of Welsh-language content. If we can work with partners—as we've done with dramas, for example, over the past few years—to make content that can be produced in more than one language version, and therefore there's a commercial value in the English language version, that's fine, but we musn't—we're not allowed to divert our public funding from our core function to the production of commercially directed material. So, that's quite an important caveat.
The second point to make is one we've discussed with Euryn, and pushed a little harder on the question of, well, where exactly are the commercial opportunities—one of the things he has made a point of spelling out is the identification of public funds that are available for giving support to public service activities in these areas, which he thinks we should be taking advantage of.
I just want to pursue this. Clearly, you have to spend the public money on producing the Welsh language content, but if the Welsh language content has a commercial value over and above showing it once or twice on S4C, surely it's perfectly possible for you to try and exploit that added value—
—but how much of that money comes to S4C, given that, as Simon Curtis pointed out in the earlier evidence, most of that benefit goes to the production company?
I think we're in a fairly unique position at the moment. We've had, and I think Huw mentioned it, a sort of a golden era of commissioning. The dramas we've been producing recently are being welcomed, actually, by a number of distributors across the planet, and we've had good sales of these. But, in driving—. Drama's expensive, as you know, and in getting the funds together to be able to match some our competitors it means that we're having to dilute our stake in that drama quite significantly, because we are having to bring in money from other broadcasters or other distributors. Now, I don't see that as a bad thing, but there is a balance to be had over that.
But only last week, for example, we had All3media down in Cardiff doing a session with production companies from across Wales about how to think about how distributors work and what type of content they will want to do. That will be a partial focus for us, because, as Huw says, we will still want to direct some programming specifically at Welsh language communities, but there is a role, I think, for S4C, beyond this sort of commercial activity, to help facilitate the growth of our production companies in Wales across markets, across the planet.
Okay, so it's a complex field, the production market. How else do you think you can exploit the commercial freedoms that you hope you're going to get?
I think as digital opens up and also global sales open up—this is the process we're going through at the moment with rights owners—as we commission things in future, there is far more of a discussion right at the start about how we want to exploit those rights—. Whereas, I think, in the past it was a relatively simple process, we're having to think now, 'What are we going to do with boxsets? What are we going to do about international sales?' right up front. So, the pattern of commissioning, I think—some of the higher-end commissions—is changing.
Okay. So, your commercial ventures to date haven't been entirely happy ones. Could you just tell us how much money do you think you're going to lose following the collapse of Loteri Cymru?
I think we've been very open about it: we've lost just over £3 million—and that's it; we will not lose any more money on that—which is a significant sum. Over the year, our commercial activities are in profit and sometimes, you win some, you lose some. That is something we will not be repeating, but will we walk away from risky type of investments in the future? Probably not, because we need a balanced portfolio above that, and some of the areas we invest in probably are more cutting edge, but we have learnt lessons about where—. In the annual report, we have written down a number of the investments we've made in the past. We're quite open about that and we've learnt lessons from it.
Okay. So, could you just elaborate a little bit on the relationship between SDML and the main board? How are you going to ensure that the lessons from the Loteri Cymru losses are learnt?
I'm not trying to evade the question here, but we're currently putting papers to the authority on the future direction of our commercial strategy. Within that, there are proposals around how we tighten the governance between the commercial board and officials and the authority and the unitary board, as it will be in the future as well.
To the authority.
To the authority. Okay. So, that's probably as far as we can go at the moment, because it's not—
It is, and I look forward to coming back and discussing the proposals.
Yes, just briefly on the same question. I appreciate that your forward-look for SDML and the relationship is ongoing, but I had some difficulty finding out the existing position. I can find out plenty about the digital media fund that SDML's got, but where can we find the terms of reference of your commercial activities and whether they're subject to any limitations, because, obviously, under the existing legislation, they are limited? So, where would I find them?
If it would help, I could supply a note.
That would be great, thank you—saves me trawling the internet again. Diolch.
Jest o ran y loteri, a ydych chi'n credu bod y penderfyniad i beidio â chario ymlaen â hi wedi cael ei wneud yn ddigon cyflym? Rydw i'n gwybod eich bod chi'n newydd yn y rôl, ond efallai fod Huw Jones yn gallu ymateb. A oeddech chi'n gweld bod hyn yn mynd i fod yn rhywbeth nad oedd yn mynd i fod yn llwyddiant? Neu pryd oeddech chi'n gweld y signalau?
Just in terms of the lottery, do you think the decision not to continue with it was made quickly enough? I know you're new in the role, but perhaps Huw Jones can respond. Could you foresee that this was going to be something that wasn't going to be a success? Or when did you see the signals?
Wel, roedd o'n gwestiwn anodd achos mi oedd lawnsiad y loteri yn siomedig. Ni chafodd y lawnsiad ddim y sylw roedd pawb wedi gobeithio y byddai'n ei gael. A chafodd yr arian a oedd wedi cael ei addo i gael ei wario ar farchnata ddim ei wario. Wedyn mi oedd yna gyfnod pan oedd yna fwriad ac awydd i gynyddu'r marchnata i weld a fyddai pethau'n gwella. Mi wnaethpwyd hynny ac mi gafwyd rhywfaint o lwyddiant, ond dim digon, ac wedyn mi oedd yna awydd i geisio cael partneriaid eraill i ddod i mewn i'r loteri. Felly, mi roddwyd amser i hynny ddigwydd hefyd. Felly, rydw i'n meddwl bod y bwrdd wedi gwneud penderfyniadau rhesymol, achos mi oedd yna arwyddion bod yna chwaraewyr niferus yn chwarae'r gêm ond dim digon ohonyn nhw. Ond ar ddiwedd y dydd, mi oedd yn rhaid gwneud y penderfyniad yn y bwrdd masnachol nad oedd y bwrdd masnachol yn mynd i ariannu'r loteri ymhellach.
Well, that was a difficult question because the launch of the lottery was disappointing. Loteri Cymru's launch didn't garner the attention that everyone had hoped it would. And the funds pledged that would be spent on marketing wasn't spent either. Then there was a time when there was an intention and a desire to increase marketing to see whether things would improve. That was done and there was some success, but not enough, and then there was a desire to bring other partners into the lottery. So, we gave time for that to happen too. So, I think that the board did make reasonable decisions, because there were some signs that there were numerous people playing the game but not enough of them. But at the end of the day, a decision had to be taken at the commercial board that the board wouldn't fund the lottery any further.
Cwestiynau ynglŷn â'r bwrdd unedol newydd a sut mae'r trefniadau yn dod yn eu blaen efo'r rheini: beth ydy’r amserlen? Rydych chi wedi sôn am gyflwyno bwrdd unedol cysgodol yn yr hydref.
Questions about the new unitary board and what about the arrangements coming on with the unitary board: what is the timetable? You've mentioned introducing a shadow board in the autumn.
Wel, ein bwriad ni, mewn cytundeb â DCMS, yw symud i greu bwrdd cysgodol yn yr hydref a gweithredu fel petai y bwrdd cysgodol yn bodoli'n ffurfiol, os liciwch chi. Nid ydym yn gweld anhawster yn hynny o beth. Beth mae o'n ei olygu ydy cytuno ar nifer y cyfarwyddwyr anweithredol sydd yna a faint o gyfarwyddwyr gweithredol. Ein damcaniaeth ni, er nad ydy hyn wedi cael ei gytuno eto, ydy y bydd yna chwech cyfarwyddwr anweithredol a thri chyfarwyddwr gweithredol. Mi fyddwn ni wedyn yn ad-drefnu neu'n ailwampio ein rheolau sefydlog er mwyn diffinio beth yw'r broses o wneud penderfyniadau pan mae penderfyniadau'n cael eu gwneud yn ffurfiol.
Ar y cyfan, nid oes yna lawer o adegau pan mae pleidleisiau yn digwydd o fewn yr awdurdod presennol ac mae prif swyddogion eisoes yn mynychu'r cyfarfodydd. Felly, yn ymarferol, nid ydym yn rhagweld y bydd yna newid sylfaenol yn ein prosesau ni, ond bydd yn rhaid i bawb ddeall pwy sydd yn gyfarwyddwr gweithredol a phwy sydd ddim wedi cael yr—sori, fe wnaf ailddweud hyn: bydd raid inni fod yn glir pwy sydd â'r hawl i bleidleisio, os oes yna bleidlais ffurfiol, tra rydym ni'n bodoli fel bwrdd cysgodol, os liciwch chi. Ond beth fyddwn ni'n dymuno ei wneud fydd gweithredu, mewn egwyddor, fel petai ni'n fwrdd cysgodol go iawn.
Well, our intention, in agreement with DCMS, is to move towards the creation of a shadow board in the autumn and to operate as though that shadow board were formally in existence, if you like. We don't see any difficulty in that regard. What it does mean is that we will need to agree on the number of non-executive directors and how many executive directors there will be. Our theory is that, although this hasn't been agreed as of yet, there will be six non-executive directors and three executive directors. So, we will then rewrite our standing orders in order to define the process of decision making when decisions are made formally.
Generally speaking, there aren't many occasions where votes would happen within the current authority and lead officials already attend those meetings. So, in practical terms, we don't anticipate any fundamental change in our processes, but everyone will need to understand who is an executive director and who hasn't— sorry, I'll reword: we will have to be clear who has voting rights if there is to be a formal vote, whilst we exist as a shadow board, if you like. But what I would like to do is to operate, in principle, as if we were a real shadow board, if you like.
Ac a fydd aelodau presennol awdurdod S4C yn trosglwyddo'n awtomatig i fod y gyfarwyddwyr anweithredol yma?
And will the current members of the S4C authority transfer automatically to be non-executive directors?
Byddant, mi fyddan nhw. Mi ofynnwyd y cwestiwn yna yn ystod y cyfweliadau ar gyfer yr aelodau newydd ac mi roddwyd yr ateb iddyn nhw gan y swyddog o'r DCMS na fyddai angen iddyn nhw ailymgeisio am eu swyddi—mi fyddan nhw'n trosglwyddo'n awtomatig.
Yes, they will. That question was asked during the interview process for the new members and the response was given to them by the official from DCMS that they wouldn't have to reapply for those posts—they will transfer automatically.
Tri newydd, oes, wedi'u cyhoeddi yr wythnos yma.
There are three new ones that have been announced this week.
Dyna fo. Ac wedyn y syniad yma o gael siarter—mae yna nifer o bobl wedi sôn am hynny, yn cynnwys y pwyllgor yma, ac wedi argymell y dylid sefydlu siarter. Beth ydy eich barn chi am hynny?
There we are. And then this idea of having a charter—a number of people have mentioned that, including this committee, and recommended establishing a charter. What are your views on that?
Mae gan S4C gylch gorchwyl statudol. Fel rydym ni wedi'i drafod, mi fydd hwnnw'n cael ei newid. Hwnnw sydd yn diffinio beth y mae S4C i fod i'w wneud a hefyd beth nad ydy o i fod i'w wneud. Nid ydy i fod i weithredu y tu allan i'r cylch yna. Mae'r BBC yn wahanol. Mae'r siarter yn diffinio holl fodolaeth y BBC: beth maen nhw i fod i'w wneud a beth nad ydyn nhw i fod i'w wneud. Wrth gwrs, mae'r BBC yn gweithredu mewn maes masnachol real iawn, ac felly mae gallu'r BBC i ddylanwadu ar feysydd masnachol lle mae yna gystadleuwyr masnachol yn gweithredu yn real ac felly mae'r siarter yn diffinio beth yw dyletswyddau sylfaenol y BBC a beth na ddylen nhw ddim fod yn ei wneud, os liciwch chi. Nid ydy'r un peth yn wir yn achos y Gymraeg. Nid ydy'r Gymraeg, yn anffodus iawn, yn faes masnachol. Mae'r hyn mae S4C yn ei wneud yn gymorth cyhoeddus, yn wasanaeth cyhoeddus na fydd cyrff masnachol yn dymuno ei wneud os nad yw S4C yn gweithredu. Felly, ein barn ni ydy nad oes angen rhywbeth mor gymhleth â'r siarter pan mae gennych chi ddeddfwriaeth statudol sydd yn diffinio'n glir iawn beth yw pwrpas y corff.
S4C has a statutory remit. As we've discussed, that will be changed. That defines what S4C is to do and what it's precluded from doing. It's not supposed to act without that remit. The BBC is different. The charter defines the existence of the BBC: what it's supposed to do and what they're not supposed to do. Of course, the BBC operates in a commercial area in a very real sense, and therefore the ability of the BBC to influence commercial areas where there are commercial competitors is real and the charter defines what the fundamental duties of the BBC are and what they shouldn't be involved with, if you like. The same isn't true in the case of the Welsh language. The Welsh language, unfortunately, isn't a commercial area. What S4C does is a public service that commercial organisations wouldn't desire to deliver if S4C weren't already doing so. So, our view is that we don't need something as complicated as a charter when you do have statutory legislation in place that defines very clearly the purpose of the body.
Ond ble mae'r atebolrwydd yn digwydd wedyn, onid e? Un o'r manteision o gael siarter, mae'n debyg, ydy fod yna well atebolrwydd cyhoeddus.
But where is the accountability then? One advantage of having a charter, apparently, is that there is better public accountability.
Wel, mae'r atebolrwydd yn achos S4C yn atebolrwydd i'r Llywodraeth yn San Steffan ac i'r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol drwy'r bwrdd, a fydd yn fwrdd unedol. I mi, yr elfen sylfaenol ydy'r elfen yna o gyfarwyddwyr anweithredol achos mai ganddyn nhw y bydd y ddyletswydd o oruchwylio, o gymeradwyo strategaeth, o drafod beth sydd yn dod o fewn y cylch gorchwyl, beth ydy'r ffordd orau o gyflawni'r cylch gorchwyl, ac wedyn o oruchwylio a ydy'r gwasanaeth yn cyflawni ei ddyletswyddau ai peidio. Rydw i'n meddwl, gyda'r cwestiwn yma, beth sydd yn bwysig ydy bod angen i unrhyw elfen o oruchwyliaeth fod yn effeithiol ac yn gymesur—'effective and proportionate' ydy'r geiriau Saesneg. Rydw i yn meddwl bod hynny'n bwysig. Corff cymharol fach ydy S4C, gyda swyddogaeth weddol syml, sef darparu rhywbeth yn yr iaith Gymraeg na fyddai ddim yn bodoli fel arall. Rydw i'n meddwl mai'n dyletswydd ni a dyletswydd y bwrdd yn y dyfodol ydy bod yn effeithiol ond yn gymesur.
Well, accountability in the case of S4C is accountability to the Government in Westminster and to the Secretary of State through the board, which will be a unitary board. For me, the fundamental element there is that element of the non-executive directors because they will have the responsibility of approving a strategy, of discussing what should fall within the remit and the best way of delivering that remit, and then of having oversight as to whether the service is delivering or not. I think, with this question, what's important is that any element of oversight needs to be effective and proportionate—those are the words used. I think that that is important. S4C is a relatively small body with a relatively simple function, namely to provide something in the Welsh language that wouldn't exist otherwise. I do think that it's our duty and the duty of the board in future to be effective but also proportionate.
Diolch. Un arall o argymhellion adolygiad Euryn Ogwen Williams yw y dylai'r Llywodraeth—y Llywodraeth, mewn ffordd, sydd angen ystyried a ydy trefniadau archwilio ariannol presennol S4C yn addas, gan gynnwys a fyddai'n briodol penodi'r rheolwr ac archwilydd cyffredinol yn archwilydd allanol S4C. A ydych chi'n cytuno efo hynny?
Thank you. One of the other recommendations of Euryn Ogwen Williams's review is that the Government should consider the financial audit arrangements of S4C and whether they're appropriate, including whether it would be appropriate to appoint the comptroller and auditor general as S4C's external auditor. Do you agree with that?
Nid ydym ni'n gweld problem gyda hynny—ar wahân, mae'n debyg, fod angen deddfwriaeth er mwyn i hynny ddigwydd, felly mae yna gwestiwn o amser yn dod i mewn i'r peth, ond i'r graddau ein bod ni eisoes, oherwydd ein bod ni'n derbyn yr arian o'r drwydded drwy'r BBC, yn agored i gael ein harchwilio gan yr NAO ac mi fydd y drefn yna, os ydy o'n newid, yn rhywbeth wrth gwrs y byddwn ni'n hapus iawn i gydymffurfio â fo.
We don't see a problem with that, although, apparently, legislation would be required in order for that to happen, so there's a question of time there, but to the extent that, because we are in receipt of licence fee funds through the BBC, we're already open to audit by the NAO, and if that changes that's something we would of course be happy to comply with.
Jest o ran y sylwad gwnaethom ni glywed gan Simon Curtis—roedd e'n dweud ei fod e'n ffeindio fe'n anodd ffeindio sut roedd Ofcom yn ymwneud â chi. A oes gyda chi wybodaeth ynglŷn â beth yn gymwys mae Ofcom yn ei wneud?
Just in terms of the comment we heard from Simon Curtis—he said that he found it difficult to find how Ofcom relates to you. Do you have any information of what exactly Ofcom does?
Wel, mae Ofcom yn rheoleiddio beth rydym ni'n cynnig dros y sianel. Rydym ni'n cwrdd ag Ofcom yn weddol reolaidd a gwnaethom ni gwrdd â nhw'r wythnos diwethaf. Felly, rwy'n credu beth sy'n bwysig i ni nawr yw gwneud yn siŵr bod pobl yn deall beth yw'r berthynas, achos dyna beth nad yw pobl yn ei ddeall nawr. Felly, un o'r pethau rydym ni wedi cytuno ag Ofcom yn sgil beth mae Euryn wedi'i ddweud yw ein bod ni'n creu rhyw fath o ddogfen fer, gobeithio, a fydd yn amlinellu'n union beth yw'r berthynas rhyngom ni a nhw.
Well, Ofcom regulates what we provide as a channel. We meet quite regularly and we met with them last week. So, I think what's important for us now is to ensure that people understand what the relationship is, because that's what people don't understand at present. So, one of the things that we've agreed with Ofcom in light of what Euryn has said is that we should create some sort of brief document, hopefully, which will outline exactly what the relationship is.
So, pam nad yw hynny wedi bodoli o'r blaen, os yw Ofcom wastad wedi cael ymroddiad i chi?
So, why hasn't that existed before, if Ocom has always been associated with you?
Mae e'n bodoli ond, unwaith eto, mewn lot o lefydd gwahanol. Rwy'n credu mai beth sydd angen i ni ei wneud nawr yw dod â phopeth at ei gilydd mewn un ddogfen syml y mae pobl yn gallu ei deall.
It has existed but, again, in all sorts of different places. I think what we need to do it to bring everything together in one simple document that people can understand.
A ydy pobl wedyn yn gallu gweld hynny—? Gydag adroddiadau eraill Ofcom mae yna ddiweddariadau ar y wefan ac yn y blaen—ai dyna yw'r pwrpas, wedyn, ar gyfer creu dogfen o'r fath?
And can people then see that—? With other Ofcom reports, there are updates on the website and so forth—is that the purpose, then, of having such a report?
Ie, a'i lleoli ar wefan Ofcom ac ar ein gwefan ni, wrth gwrs.
Yes, and to place it on the Ofcom website as well as our website, of course.
Just a couple of general questions. What, generally, should be the policy, then, with S4C with the ratio, for example, of repeats as opposed to original material?
Can I pick up on that? I don't think there is a simple figure, and discussing this—. We have concerns about the level of repeats, but the level—. The nature of one's concern depends on what kind of viewer you are, I think. A more traditional—possibly older—viewer, who is used to sitting in front of the television for several hours, if you like, in the evening, and expects to be able to access new content more or less continuously is going to be frustrated by any channel that has a very high level of repeats. A younger viewer will not feel the same frustration. They will be looking for new, exciting content, probably not at the time it originally broadcast: they will want it at the time of their choosing. So, there's a difficult set of decisions to be made there about spending priorities.
Now, I look at the questions of repeat levels as one of the indicators that we should be keeping an eye on because it is a signal, if you like, of the pressures that are on us as they are on any other channel. And it's true: the level of repeats, statistically, has gone up over the years, and last year it went up another percentage point, but there are other indicators as well that I think are equally relevant. One is: how many hours of original content do we commission every year? That has gone down very slightly last year, indicating, perhaps, a greater focus on getting the content right, and then the other important indicator is how much we're spending on each hour of programmes, particularly on each hour of new programmes. That is tending to go up, again indicating a greater focus on, 'Let's get the content right. Let's spend a bit more on it, even it means commissioning slightly fewer hours.' But that does tend to lead to greater repeats. It's a problem, I think, for all channels; there's no absolutely simple number.
More recently, it's been up to a region of about 57 per cent, which is—you see warning signs beginning to flash there, and I can understand the point you make in terms of the nature of repeats, and, I suppose, the timing of repeats as well. So, how do you, sort of, monitor, then? What's the best way of monitoring what the actual response is? I mean, is there a significant reduction in viewing when repeats are on as opposed to new content? Because that has an impact, actually, on the viability of the channel in some ways.
I think it's all part and parcel of the process of monitoring responses more generally. I think there's a role for repeats. Certainly, we know that a high-profile programme, which is repeated once or even twice within a 28-day period—that can be seen as a benefit, as part of the service, giving people a second chance to catch up. But I think one's got to be very careful about what does get repeated and how often, and whether they're recent programmes, how they're branded and how they're sold, if you like, to the public. Again, I recognise the force of your question. It's a real question, but I think I can give you the reassurance that this is a matter of considerable discussion internally within the executive and at the board as well.
Well, it takes me on, then—. I just wanted to ask very generally just about the commercial side. You referred to the development of the commercial strategy for S4C, and there have been a number of questions around the commercial aspects, but in terms of the strategy forward, what do you see? Where do you see the main commercial opportunities for S4C over the coming years?
I think, just to go back to an answer I gave earlier on, what we've learnt over the past year particularly is, 'Stick to X—stick to what we know', and I think the commercial opportunities that exist for S4C in the coming years will be around the broadcast-type remit, in distribution, it's around production, and it's around the types of things that S4C actually has expertise in. Now, we will grow our expertise, particularly in light of the remit change and the recommendations from Euryn around digital. We're already doing that: we brought a number of external experts in to help us plan what we're going to do in that field. So, I think, as we grow our expertise in that field, that will be another area that we can draw on.
Okay. Just to finish, I'd like to ask you about sources of funding, and an exploration of what opportunities there are. So, the UK Government's proposed public service broadcasting fund—I don't know whether that presents an opportunity. I'd also like you to think about whether there are opportunities that have been lost. What are the implications of Brexit, for example, in terms of what implications that might have? Because there were sources of funding that assisted with production costs and so on. I'm just wondering whether that is something that has any impact on you.
Potentially, yes. There are probably two or three areas where Brexit could have an impact on us. The first is around the fact that, for example, in the north-east, I think a number of the interventions that have been seen in Wales full stop have been on the supply side. I think there is more to be done around the demand side—how we create demand to create a sustainable industry in certain areas of Wales. So, in the past, for example, we might well have been able to use European support for that. There is a question mark over whether that would be available in the future, obviously.
The second is that we are doing more and more at the moment to try to monetise the content that we have globally. If there are additional barriers to that type of activity, it might well impact on us, but also on our partners around the distribution networks that exist. So, Brexit does have a potential impact on us. I think, in fairness, the Government are alive to that, and it's something we'll just have to work through, but there are areas that we're keeping an eye on.
Just on the other point there, I don't know whether we'll cover this separately, but there are pots out there that—Huw referred to this—I think S4C can make more from. I heard the questions put to Simon around things like the contestability fund. I think these are issues we have raised with the Minister, and she seems very supportive to make sure that S4C can make the most of the types of funds that are available.
Particularly as we have particular strengths in children's programming and we are a minority language broadcaster.
But, to be devil's advocate, do you think that's why they haven't put the funding remit in this particular review—because they thought that those types of funds could be utilised more? It seems to me that that is their way of saying, 'Well, go for that, and then we won't really give you any more money than what you have now.'
I don't know.
Jest i fynd yn ôl i gwestiwn clou ynglŷn â'r drwydded, a allwch chi jest roi rhyw fath o syniad i ni ynglŷn â sut y byddech chi'n hoffi i'r cyllid gael ei gyfrifo? A oes unrhyw fath o opsiynau gennych chi ynglŷn â sut y byddech chi'n credu y byddai hynny'n gallu gweithredu?
Just to go back to a quick question about the licence, could you just give us some sort of idea of how you would like to see the funding being counted? Are there any options—do you have any options regarding how that could be implemented?
Sut fyddai'r cyllid yn cael ei—?
How that funding would be—?
Cyfrifo. Sut mae'r arian o fewn y drwydded wedyn yn mynd i gael ei—
Calcuated. How the funding within the licence fee would then be—
Felly, beth yw'r swm. Ai dyna—?
So, what the figure is, you mean. Is that what you—?
Ie, y swm, a hefyd sut mae'n digwydd. A ydych chi'n deall?
Yes, the amount, and how it's calculated. Do you understand the question?
Rwy'n credu bod yna ddwy ochr. Yn gyntaf, o gwmpas faint o arian, un o'r pethau sy'n bwysig iawn yw bod yna £7 miliwn nawr yn dod, mwy neu lai, o DCMS. Ein dealltwriaeth ni yw y bydd y £7 miliwn yna yn cael ei adio at yr arian sydd yn dod drwy'r drwydded drwy'r BBC. Wrth gwrs, mae cael rhyw fath o sicrwydd o gwmpas hynny yn bwysig iawn i ni.
I think there are two sides to that. First of all, in terms of the amount of money, one of the things that's very important is that there's £7 million now coming from the DCMS. My understanding is that that £7 million will be added to the funds coming through the licence fee and through the BBC. Of course, having some assurance around that is very important to us.
Ond nid ydych chi wedi cael y sicrwydd hynny eto.
But you haven't had that assurance as of yet.
Wel, i fod yn deg i'r Gweinidog, ac i fod yn deg i'r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol, rŷm ni wedi cael dyfyniadau cryf iawn sy'n dweud mai dyna fydd yn digwydd, ond, wrth gwrs, byddai'n neis gweld hynny ar ddiwedd y dydd. Wedyn, wrth gwrs, mae rôl allweddol i'r DCMS wrth drafod beth fydd arian digonol i S4C yn y dyfodol. Rwy'n credu mai yn y fan yna, wrth gwrs, y byddwn ni'n edrych am arweiniaeth i wneud yn siŵr bod y system, a'r ffordd y bydd yr arian yn dod—. Wrth gwrs, mae £67.5 miliwn yn dod drwy'r BBC nawr. Rŷm ni'n ymatebol iddyn nhw o ran sut rydym ni'n gwario'r arian yna—nid yn olygyddol, ond jest bod value for money yn digwydd. Mae hynny'n gweithio, ac mae partneriaeth gryf gennym ni efo'r BBC, ond beth liciwn i ei weld yw bod, eto, dim ymyrraeth yn dod o'r BBC ar yr ochr olygyddol, achos mae annibyniaeth S4C yn hyn i gyd yn hollbwysig.
Well, to be fair to the Minister and the Secretary of State, we've had some strong indications that that's what will happen, but it would be good to have that ultimate confirmation. Then, there is a key role for the DCMS in discussing what sufficient funding for S4C would mean in future. I think that that's where we'll be looking for guidance to ensure that the system and the way that the funding is provided—. Because £67.5 million is coming through the BBC now. We're accountable in terms of how we spend that money—not editorially, but in ensuring value for money. That works, and we have a strong partnership with the BBC, but what I'd like to see, of course, is that there should be no editorial intervention by the BBC, because the independence of S4C in all of this is crucially important.
Fe wnaethom ni glywed eto gan Simon—rŷm ni'n dyfynnu wrtho fe lot heddiw—ac mi ddywedodd fod yna ddiffyg arweinyddiaeth gyda diffinio beth sydd yn ddigonol ar gyfer S4C. A ydych chi'n credu mai—? Rwy'n deall eich bod chi'n meddwl mai rôl yr Ysgrifennydd yw e, ond a ydych chi'n credu, efallai, fod yna rôl i S4C ddod i ryw fath o gasgliad beth sydd yn ddigonol, o feddwl bod yna gymaint o ailddarllediadau? Mae hynny'n destament o'r ffaith bod yna broblem ariannol, achos petaech chi ddim yn cael problemau ariannol, ni fyddech chi'n rhoi cymaint o ailddarllediadau ar y sgrin.
We heard again from Simon—I'm quoting a lot from him today—that there was a lack of leadership in defining what is sufficient for S4C. Do you think—? I understand that you think it's the role of the Secretary, but don't you think that, perhaps, there is a role for S4C to come to some sort of conclusion regarding what is sufficent, given that there are so many repeats? That is testament to the fact that there is a financial problem, because if you weren't having any financial problems, you wouldn't be showing as many repeats on the screen.
Rydym ni wedi dadlau hyn yn y gorffennol. Byddem ni wedi gobeithio y byddai'r adolygiad wedi cynnig rhyw ganllawiau ar gyfer y dyfodol i helpu'r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol i wneud penderfyniadau yn y dyfodol ar beth yw'r canllawiau y dylai'r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol eu hystyried. Nawr, nid yw hynny ddim wedi digwydd, ac felly mae o yn fwlch, rydw i'n meddwl, yn y broses o drafod a fydd yn gorfod digwydd yn y flwyddyn 2021-22, cyn y cyfnod ariannu nesaf. Mi fyddwn ni, yn naturiol, yn gwneud ein hachos i'r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol, ac fe fyddem ni'n gobeithio bod y drafodaeth, bryd hynny, yn un gyhoeddus hefyd, ond mi fydd hefyd, wrth gwrs, yn drafodaeth o gwmpas ariannu maint y drwydded yn gyffredinol.
We've made this case in the past. I would have hoped that the review would have proposed some guidelines for the future in terms of helping the Secretary of State to come to a decision in the future as to what guidelines the Secretary of State should consider. That hasn't happened, and therefore I think it is a gap in the process of discussion and negotiation that will have to happen in 2021-22, before the next funding period. We, naturally, will be making our case to the Secretary of State, and we would hope that the discussion at that time is a public discussion, but it will also be a discussion around the level of the licence fee more generally.
I just, if you'll indulge me, wanted to explore your strength as a children's broadcaster, and how this could be something where you could become a global leader, really, in protecting children from the commercial predators who are preying on children—not just the junk food industry but, increasingly, the gambling industry. How are we going to protect our children from people who just want to exploit children commercially?
I think, primarily, the answer is by making content that is driven by the highest values of public service, and also by the highest values of our own communities and cultures, which is what we do when we make original content and, I think, what we bring to bear when we make content in partnership with others.
But isn't this something where you could actually exploit your expertise and your specialism for a global market, given that much children's content is in cartoon form?
We have and we do, to the extent of our ability. I mean, Sam Tân—Fireman Sam—and SuperTed; there are several examples where S4C-initiated productions have gone on to become worldwide products, and we seek out opportunities for that all the time. The caveat is that these are expensive productions, and you need a lot of them in order to hit international markets. But you can rest assured that this is certainly one of the things that we want to do and will continue to do in the future. And I think there's a recognition that there is a need to support British production for children, because of this danger of so much of it coming in from outside, and we can tie into that with our own Welsh content.
Yes, but there are also European partners who are equally worried about the way in which children are being exploited.
Jest cwestiwn olaf gen i. A ydych chi'n meddwl ei fod e'n golled cyfle, efallai, yn yr adroddiad yma, i drafod datganoli darlledu, neu a ydych chi'n credu eich bod chi'n hapus gyda'r hyn sydd yn digwydd ar hyn o bryd?
Just a final question from me. Do you think there's been a missed opportunity here for devolving broadcasting, or are you content with what is happening at the moment?
Wel, rydw i'n meddwl bod ein barn ni wedi cael ei mynegi sawl gwaith. Rydym ni'n niwtral ar y pwnc—
Well, I think our view has been expressed on a number of occasions. We're neutral on that point—
Dyna oedd barn yr adolygydd, ac fel y dywedodd eich tyst blaenorol, mi fyddwn ni'n gweithio gydag unrhyw system a fydd yn cael ei chreu, er budd y gynulleidfa.
That was the view of the person who carried out the review, and as your previous witness said, we will work with whatever system is created, for the benefit of our audience.
Wel, mae hwnnw'n ateb gwleidyddol iawn; efallai y dylech chi newid eich swydd ryw ben. Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi am roi tystiolaeth ger bron, ac rydw i'n siŵr y byddwn ni'n dod yn ôl atoch chi rywbryd yn y dyfodol. Os medrwch chi roi'r nodyn ynglŷn â'r cwestiynau roedd Suzy Davies yn gofyn, byddai hynny'n help mawr i ni o ran y stwff masnachol. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
That is a very political answer; perhaps you should change your job. Thank you very much for providing us with evidence, and I'm sure we will come back to you sometime in the future. If you could provide us with that note regarding the question from Suzy Davies, that would be of great assistance in terms of the commercial aspects. Thank you very much.
Yn symud ymlaen yn awr at eitem 4. Mae yna bapurau i'w nodi: 4.1, ariannu addysg cerddoriaeth a gwella mynediad ati—gohebiaeth gan Active Music Services. Roeddwn i'n meddwl bod y llythyr hwnnw yn gryf iawn ac yn ddiolchgar iawn am ein gwaith ni yn y maes gwasanaethau cerddoriaeth, felly mae'n bwysig ein bod ni'n nodi'r llythyr hwnnw.
Wedyn, mae yna un gan y Swyddfa Ystadegau Gwladol: cyfrifiad 2021, rhagor o wybodaeth gan y Swyddfa Ystadegau Gwladol. Unrhyw sylwadau ar hynny? Na.
Wedyn 4.3 ar ymgynghoriad Ofcom, 'Lleolrwydd ar radio masnachol—cynigion i ddiwygio canllawiau', a gohebiaeth gan Marc Webber. A oes unrhyw sylwadau ar hyn?
Moving on now to item 4. There are papers to note: 4.1, funding for and access to music education—correspondance from Active Music Services. I thought that letter was very strong, and was very appreciative of our work in the area of music services. So it's important that we note that letter.
Then, there is a letter from the Office for National Statistics: census 2021, further information from the Office for National Statistics. Any comments on that? No.
Then 4.3 on the Ofcom consultation, 'Localness on commercial radio—proposals to amend guidelines', and correspondance from Marc Webber. Are there any comments on this?
Yes. Marc Webber was one of our witnesses in the radio inquiry that we did, and I'm very pleased he's drawn this to our attention. I'm wondering if the committee would join me in agreeing that perhaps we should put a response into this consultation, drawing on items that are already in our report, actually; we don't need any extra work to be done on it. I don't know, maybe we could promote it as well—I don't know how you feel about that—on some of our Twitter feeds and all the rest of it.
Yes, fine. It shows how deregulation will impact on jobs in Wales, so I think it's important that we take part in this consultation process via Ofcom.
Particularly as we were concerned about this very issue. So, let's just draw bits out of our report and do a reply.
Yes, that's right; let's take part in the consultation and then push it as much as we can on social media. That's the responsbility of all of you, and not just me, by the way.
Wedyn 4.4—cynllun ieithoedd swyddogol, adroddiad blynyddol. Yr unig beth a ddywedaf am hynny yw ei fod wedi digwydd mewn ffordd rowndabowt, lle mae wedi mynd i ddadl cyn ein bod wedi cael y cyfle yn y pwyllgor yma i'w sgrwtineiddio fe. Felly, yn y dyfodol, byddwn i'n hapus pe buasai'r Comisiwn yn rhoi cyfle inni ei sgrwtineiddio yn y fan hyn yn gyntaf, achos mae heddiw yn mynd i fod tamaid bach yn llai cynhwysfawr o fy ochr i gan nad ydym wedi cael digon o amser i edrych arno fe.
Then 4.4—official languages scheme, annual report. The only thing I will say about that is that it has happened in a roundabout way, where it has gone to a debate before we have had the opportunity in committee here to scrutinise it. Therefore, in future, I would be happy if the Commission gave us an opportunity to scrutinise it here first, because today is going to be a little bit less comprehensive from my side because we haven't had enough time to look at it.
Rwy'n fwy na bodlon i fynd â hynny yn ôl i'r Comisiwn, a hefyd i ddweud bod rhywbeth yn y cynllun sydd wedi cyfeirio at ein hargymhellion ni yn y gorffennol, ynglŷn â stats yn yr adroddiad. Ond mae'n rhaid i mi ddweud nad oes lot o stats ar gael yn yr adroddiad presennol.
I'm more than happy to convey that to the Commission, and also to say that there is something in the scheme that was referred to in our recommendations in the past, in terms of stats. But I have to say that there aren't many stats available in the report as it currently stands.
Ocê. Felly, rwy'n credu ar hyn y bryd, fe wnawn ni gyfrannu at y ddadl. Os oes unrhyw gwestiynau ychwanegol ar ôl y ddadl, gallwn wastad gwneud darn o waith ychwanegol fel pwyllgor.
Okay. So, I think at the moment, we'll contribute to the debate and if there are any additional questions following the debate, we can always undertake another piece of work as a committee.
Rŷm ni'n gallu ysgrifennu at y Comisiwn beth bynnag.
We could always write to the Commission, of course.
Ocê. A oes unrhyw sylwadau eraill? Os nad oes, awn ymlaen at eitem 5.
Okay. Are there any further comments? If not, we'll move on to item 5.
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(vi).
that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi).
Cynigiwyd y cynnig.
Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i wahardd y cyhoedd o'r cyfarfod ar gyfer y busnes nesaf. A ydy pawb yn hapus gyda hynny? Diolch.
Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the meeting for the next item of business. Is everybody content? Thank you.
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 11:31.
The public part of the meeting ended at 11:31.