Cofnod y
Trafodion
The
Record of Proceedings
Y Pwyllgor Diwylliant, y Gymraeg a Chyfathrebu
The Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee
Agenda’r Cyfarfod
Meeting
Agenda
Trawsgrifiadau’r Pwyllgor
Committee
Transcripts
Cynnwys
Contents
.........
5....... Dyfodol S4C—Sesiwn
Dystiolaeth 8
The Future of S4C—Evidence Session 8
54..... Papurau i’w
Nodi
Papers to Note
Cofnodir y trafodion yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r cyfieithu ar y pryd. Lle y 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.
|
Aelodau’r pwyllgor yn
bresennol
|
|
|
Hannah Blythyn |
Llafur
|
|
Dawn Bowden |
Llafur
|
|
Suzy Davies |
Ceidwadwyr Cymreig
|
|
Neil Hamilton |
UKIP Cymru
|
|
Bethan Jenkins |
Plaid Cymru (Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor)
|
|
Dai Lloyd |
Plaid Cymru
|
|
Jeremy Miles |
Llafur
|
|
Lee Waters |
Llafur
|
|
Eraill yn bresennol
|
|
|
Rhodri Talfan Davies |
Pennaeth BBC Cymru Wales Head of BBC Cymru Wales
|
|
Sian Gwynedd |
Pennaeth Cynhyrchu Cynnwys, BBC Cymru Wales Head of Content Production, BBC Cymru Wales
|
|
Heather Powell |
Rheolwr Gyfarwyddwr, Cerdd Cydweithredol Sir Ddinbych Managing Director, Denbighshire Music Co-op
|
|
Ffion Wyn Roberts |
Rheolwr Swyddfa, Cerdd Cydweithredol Sir Ddinbych Office Manager, Denbighshire Music Co-op
|
|
Swyddogion Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru yn
bresennol
|
|
|
Steve George |
Clerc Clerk
|
|
Gwyn Griffiths |
Uwch-gynghorydd
Cyfreithiol
|
|
Adam Vaughan |
Dirprwy Glerc
|
|
Robin Wilkinson |
Y Gwasanaeth
Ymchwil
|
|
09:32
|
|
|
Dyfodol S4C—Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 8
|
|
|
[3] Bethan Jenkins: Felly, rydym ni’n symud ymlaen at eitem 2, sef dyfodol S4C a sesiwn dystiolaeth 8. Croeso i Rhodri Talfan Davies, sef pennaeth BBC Cymru, a hefyd i Sian Gwynedd, pennaeth cynhyrchu cynnwys BBC Cymru. Diolch yn fawr iawn am ddod heddiw. Rwy’n siŵr rŷch chi wedi gweld beth y mae’r pwyllgor wedi bod yn ei wneud ar S4C yn hynny o beth. Y cwestiwn cyntaf yw i ofyn a ydych chi’n credu bod S4C a’r pwerau sydd ganddyn nhw ar hyn o bryd yn gyfyngedig ac felly wedi effeithio ar allu S4C i esblygu dros y blynyddoedd. Beth yw eich barn chi ar sut y maen nhw wedi gallu ymwneud â’u cynulleidfa yn sgil hynny? Diolch yn fawr iawn.
|
Bethan Jenkins: Therefore, we move on to item 2, the future of S4C, and this is evidence session 8. I welcome Rhodri Talfan Davies, head of BBC Cymru Wales, and also Sian Gwynedd, head of content production at BBC Cymru Wales. Thank you very much for coming here today. I’m sure you’ve seen what the committee has been doing on S4C in that regard. The first question is to ask you whether you think that S4C and the power it has at the moment is restricted and has therefore had an impact on S4C’s ability to evolve over the years. What are your views on how they’ve been able to relate to their audience as a result of that? Thank you very much. |
|
[4] Mr Davies: Diolch am y gwahoddiad yn gyntaf. Rydym ni’n falch iawn o fod yma. Y peth cyntaf i’w ddweud, rwy’n credu, yw, wrth ystyried beth y mae S4C yn ei gyflawni, mae yna ystod eang o raglenni o’r ansawdd uchaf, buaswn i’n dadlau, ym maes rhaglenni plant fel Cyw, y prif ddigwyddiadau cenedlaethol, rhaglenni dogfen a chwaraeon a newyddion. Rwyf hefyd yn meddwl—rydym ni weithiau’n cymryd hyn yn ganiataol—fod gwerthoedd darlledu cyhoeddus y sefydliad hefyd yn gryf, yn fy marn i, o dan arweiniad Ian. Rwy’n meddwl bod ymddiriedaeth yn S4C yn gryf ymhlith y gynulleidfa. Yn amlwg, rydym ni hefyd yn bartner, ac rydym ni’n ymfalchïo yn y bartneriaeth gydag S4C. Rydym ni, yn amlwg, yn cynhyrchu nifer fawr o raglenni i’r sianel, rydym ni’n cydgomisiynu ac rydym ni’n rhannu adnodd digidol a gwybodaeth ddigidol. Rydym ni’n edrych ar gyfleoedd i arbed arian ar y cyd. Mae’r bartneriaeth yn bwysig, ac rwy’n meddwl bod tîm Ian wedi llwyddo i gryfhau’r bartneriaeth hynny ac mae hynny’n bwysig.
|
Mr Davies: Well, first of all, thank you for the invitation. We’re very pleased to be here. I think the first thing we need to say, in considering what S4C delivers, is that there’s a broad range of programming of the highest quality, I would argue, in terms of children’s television, Cyw, the major national events, documentaries, sport and news. We sometimes take this for granted, but I do think that the values of public service broadcasting are also strong within the organisation under the leadership of Ian. I think the trust in S4C is very strong among the audience. Also, we are a partner and we take pride in our partnership with S4C. We clearly produce a number of programmes for the channel, we co-commission and we share digital resources and digital information. We seek opportunities to make savings jointly. The partnership is important, and I think that Ian’s team have succeeded in strengthening that partnership and that’s important. |
|
[5] Ac o ran cylch gorchwyl unrhyw adolygiad, jest, efallai, rhai pwyntiau os gallaf i. Yn gyntaf, o ran remit S4C, rwy’n meddwl ei fod yn gwbl amlwg, yn y bydysawd sydd ohoni, fod angen i unrhyw ddarlledwr cyhoeddus droi i mewn i multimedia publisher yn hytrach na darlledwr teledu. Rwy’n meddwl bod hynny yn amlwg, ac nid ydw i’n meddwl bod hynny yn gofyn rhyw lawer o’r Llywodraeth Brydeinig. Mae hynny, i mi, yn gam gwbl naturiol. Buaswn i hefyd yn gwneud y pwynt bod yr adolygiad yn mynd i ddigwydd ar bwynt pwysig dros ben yn natblygiad y cyfryngau. Nid ydy hynny’n fater o siartr na chyllid na materion llywodraethol; mae oherwydd bod y byd tu allan a byd y gynulleidfa yn newid ar gyflymder nid ydym ni byth wedi’i weld yn y blynyddoedd cynt. Ac felly, mae gwneud y penderfyniadau iawn yn yr hinsawdd honno yn bwysig ofnadwy. Felly, rydw i’n gobeithio y gwnaiff yr adolygiad ddechrau a gorffen gyda’r gynulleidfa, ac rydw i’n meddwl mai’r her greiddiol yw sut mae’r cyfryngau Cymraeg—ac rydw i’n cynnwys y BBC yn hyn, nid jest S4C—sut rŷm ni’n mynd ati i ddarparu i gynulleidfaoedd iau. Mae S4C a Radio Cymru yn gwybod sut i gyrraedd y cynulleidfaoedd hŷn a’r cynulleidfaoedd heartland, fel rŷm ni’n eu galw nhw, ond mae yna her sylfaenol o ran sicrhau bod gwasanaethau cyhoeddus yn cynnig gwerth i gynulleidfaoedd iau.
|
In terms of the remit of any review, just some points, if I may. In terms of S4C’s remit, I think it’s entirely obvious in the current climate that any public service broadcaster needs to become a multimedia publisher rather than simply a television broadcaster. I think that’s clear, and I don’t think that demands a great deal of the UK Government. That is quite a natural step, in my view. I would also make the point that the review is to happen at a very important point in the development of the media. That isn’t an issue of the charter or funding or governance issues; it’s because the world outside and the audience is changing apace. It’s a pace that we have never seen before. And therefore, making the right decisions in that climate is extremely important. So, I do hope that the review will begin and end with the audience, and I think that the core challenge is how the Welsh media—and I include the BBC in this; not just S4C—how we provide for younger audiences. S4C and Radio Cymru know how to access the older audiences and the heartland audiences, as we call them, but there is significant challenge in ensuring that public service broadcasting provides value to younger audiences.
|
|
[6] Ac felly, efallai dyna yw’r pwynt olaf i fi, hefyd, ei fod yn bwysig iawn bod yr adolygiad yn ystyried yr holl wasanaethau cyhoeddus Cymraeg, ac nid jest sefydliad S4C, achos rydym ni i gyd yn wynebu’r un heriau. Rydym ni i gyd â chyfyngiadau ariannol, ac rydym ni i gyd â’r un ymroddiad i fynd i’r afael â’r heriau yma, ac felly mae partneriaeth a chydweithrediad, rydw i’n meddwl, yn greiddiol i unrhyw ddyfodol.
|
And so, that’s perhaps the final point for me: it’s extremely important that the review considers the whole range of Welsh language public service broadcasting, and not just S4C, because we’re all facing the same challenges. We are all facing financial limitations, and we all have the same commitment to tackling these challenges, and therefore partnership and collaboration are, I think, at the heart of any future.
|
|
[7] Bethan Jenkins: Unrhyw sylwadau, Sian?
|
Bethan Jenkins: Any comments, Sian? |
|
[8] Ms Gwynedd: Oes—rydw i’n cytuno. Rydw i’n meddwl yr her bennaf rydym ni’n ei wynebu ydy cynulleidfaoedd iau, ac rydw i’n meddwl nad ydy’r her yna yn un unigryw i S4C, ond hefyd ar gyfer Radio Cymru. Mi ydym ni wedi gweld, yn galonogol iawn, yn y blynyddoedd diwethaf—. Mi wnaethom ni lansio gwasanaeth Cymraeg Cymru Fyw yn 2014, ac rydw i’n meddwl rydym ni’n gweld, trwy wasanaeth Cymru Fyw, ffigyrau oedd oddeutu 13,000 wedi cynyddu, y llynedd, yn wythnosol yn cyrraedd tua 52,000 o ddefnyddwyr yn wythnosol, ac rydym ni’n gwybod bod nifer o’r rheini yn rhai o dan 45. Felly, rydw i’n meddwl bod yr her cynulleidfaoedd iau yn un sy’n ein wynebu ni i gyd, ond rydw i yn meddwl, hefyd, bod yna arwyddion fod modd cyrraedd cynulleidfaoedd iau drwy gynnig cynnwys sydd yn unigryw ac yn cynnig gwerth iddyn nhw—bod modd gwneud. Felly, rydw i’n meddwl mai dyna’r her fwyaf, buaswn i’n dweud.
|
Ms Gwynedd: Yes—I agree. I think the main challenge that we’re facing is younger audiences, and I think that that challenge is not unique to S4C, but also for Radio Cymru. We have seen, quite encouragingly, in the last few years—. We launched a Welsh language service, Cymru Fyw, in 2014, and I think that we’re seeing, through the Cymru Fyw service, figures that were around 13,000 had increased last year on a weekly basis to about 52,000 users a week, and we know that a number of those are under 45 years of age. So, I think that the challenge of younger audiences is one that faces us all, but I also think that there are signs that there are ways of reaching younger audiences by providing content that is unique and offers value to them—and that there is a way of doing this. So, I think that’s the main challenge, I’d say. |
|
[9] Bethan Jenkins: Ond, jest o ran cymharu â’r BBC, a ydych chi’n credu eich bod chi, oherwydd gwahaniaeth yn eich remit chi, wedi gallu newid yn fwy hyblyg nac S4C? A oes modd i chi, efallai, disgrifio hynny? Oherwydd rydym ni wedi clywed gan lot o bobl bod S4C yn ceisio gwneud popeth, ond mae rhai yn dweud na ddylen nhw, ac mae rhai yn dweud bod angen iddyn nhw—felly, jest eich barn chi yn hynny o beth.
|
Bethan Jenkins: But, just in terms of comparisons with the BBC, do you believe that, because of the difference in your remit, you have been able to adapt in a more flexible way than S4C? Could you, perhaps, describe that to us? Because we’ve heard from a number of people that S4C is trying to do everything, and some say that they shouldn’t, and others say that they need to, So, I just wanted your views on that. |
|
[10] Mr Davies: Rydw i’n meddwl bod yna, efallai, dau bwynt gwahanol yn fan hyn. Mae yna gwestiwn ynglŷn ag a ydy S4C yn gallu darparu tipyn o bopeth i bawb—yr un her, efallai, sy’n wynebu Radio Cymru. Hynny yw, a oes gan S4C y cyfrifoldeb i geisio darparu i bob cynulleidfa? Ac wedyn mae’r cwestiwn a oes gan S4C y rhyddid i ddarparu ar draws llwyfannau gwahanol, ac nid ydw i’n ddigon agos i remit S4C. Rydw i’n sicr wedi gweld S4C yn buddsoddi yn y maes digidol. Mae gwasanaethau cymdeithasol fel Pump yn enghreifftiau o’r math yna o fuddsoddiad. Ond, o’r trafodaethau rydw i’n eu cael gyda Ian, rydw i’n meddwl bod y sianel yn dyheu i ehangu’r ddarpariaeth hynny.
|
Mr Davies: I think, perhaps, there are two different points here. I think there’s a question of whether S4C can provide a little bit of everything for everybody—the same challenge that, perhaps, is facing Radio Cymru. Does S4C have the responsibility to try and provide something for every strand of the audience? And then there’s the question of whether S4C has the freedom to provide across different platforms, and I’m not close enough to S4C’s remit. I’ve certainly seen S4C investing in the digital age. Services such as Pump are examples of that investment. But, from the discussions I’m having with Ian, I think the channel wishes to expand that provision.
|
|
[11] Ond mae’r remit ac mae’r caniatâd yn un peth. Yn amlwg beth sy’n greiddiol yw: petai’r remit yna yn bodoli, beth fyddai S4C am wneud gyda’r remit hynny? A dyna pam rydw i, yn y diwedd—. Rydw i yn meddwl, buasai’r Llywodraeth—buaswn i’n dyfalu y byddai’r Llywodraeth—yn barod i ganiatáu remit fwy eang. Cwestiwn lot yn anoddach na hynny yw sut, wedyn, mae addasu i sicrhau bod ystod ehangach o gynulleidfaoedd Cymraeg yn cael gwerth o’r sianel. Ac mae hynny ynglŷn â’r sialens honno o gynulleidfaoedd iau.
|
But the remit and permission is one thing. Clearly, what is core to this is: if that remit existed, what would S4C want to do with that remit? And that is why, ultimately—. I think that the Government—I would guess that the Government—would be willing to allow a broader remit. A much more difficult question is how, then, do you adapt to ensure that a broader range of Welsh audiences receive value from the channel. And that is related to that challenge of younger audiences. |
|
[12] Ms Gwynedd: Mi ydym ni’n gweithio’n agos iawn mewn partneriaeth yn agos efo S4C, ac rydw i’n meddwl, fel rhan o hynny, mae yna drafodaeth strategol yn digwydd hefyd. Felly, er enghraifft, mae gwasanaeth Cyw gan S4C yn wasanaeth sydd yn llwyddo. Mae o’n frand poblogaidd, ac nid ydy BBC yn cynhyrchu rhaglenni plant i gystadlu yn erbyn Cyw, achos ni fyddai hynny, nid ydw i’n meddwl, yn ddefnydd da o arian. Felly, rydym ni hefyd yn meddwl yn strategol sut i gyrraedd y nifer mwyaf posib o gynulleidfaoedd, a sut y gallem ni gefnogi ein gilydd i gyrraedd gwahanol gynulleidfaoedd. Felly, rydw i’n meddwl bod yna drafodaethau yn digwydd yn gyson ynglŷn â hynny, ac rydw i’n cytuno efo Rhodri. Rydw i’n meddwl bod S4C, dros y blynyddoedd, wedi esblygu ac wedi cynnig mwy o ddarpariaeth ddigidol. Mae Amanda Rees, pennaeth cynnwys S4C, wedi cyhoeddi strategaeth newydd yn ddiweddar sydd yn mynd i’r afael efo comisiynu ar gyfer digidol yn gyntaf, trio apelio y tu allan i’r gynulleidfa graidd, felly rydw i’n meddwl bod yna arwyddion eu bod nhw yn amlwg yn trio addasu, a byddem ni’n awyddus iawn i fod yn rhan o’r sgwrs ynglŷn â sut allwn ni, mewn partneriaeth, eu helpu nhw i fynd i’r cyfeiriad yna.
|
Ms Gwynedd: We do work very closely in partnership with S4C, and I think as part of that there is a strategic discussion happening too. So, for example, S4C’s Cyw service is one that is successful. It’s a popular brand, and the BBC doesn’t produce children’s programming to compete with Cyw, because I don’t think that would be a good use of funds. So, we also think strategically in terms of how we reach the largest audience possible, and how we can support each other in accessing different audiences and reaching different audiences. So, I do think that there are ongoing discussions on that, and I agree with Rhodri. I do think that S4C, over the years, has evolved and has made greater digital provision. Amanda Rees, the head of content at S4C, has published a new strategy recently that does tackle the issue of commissioning for digital first, and trying to appeal beyond the core audience, so I do think there are signs that they are clearly trying to adapt, and we would be very eager to be part of the conversation as to how we can, in partnership, assist them in traveling in that direction. |
|
[13] Bethan Jenkins: Iawn, diolch. Rydym ni’n symud ymlaen at gwestiynau ar gyllid yn awr, ac mae Dai Lloyd yn arwain. Diolch.
|
Bethan Jenkins: Thank you. We’re moving on to questions on funding, and Dai Lloyd is leading on these. Thank you. |
|
[14] Dai Lloyd: Diolch, Cadeirydd. Bore da i chi’ch dau. Yn nhermau cyllid, a allaf i ofyn pa effaith rydych chi’n credu bod setliad y ffi drwydded, sydd wrth gwrs yn fflat yn ariannol—pa effaith mae’r setliad yna yn mynd i gael ar S4C?
|
Dai Lloyd: Thank you, Chair. Good morning to both of you. In terms of funding, can I ask you what impact do you feel the cash-flat licence fee funding settlement—what impact is that going to have on S4C? |
|
[15] Mr Davies: Wel, yn amlwg, mae hynny yn gwestiwn, i ryw raddau, i S4C. Ond mae gweithredu o fewn setliad fflat yn sicr yn heriol. Mae e’n heriol yng nghyd-destun gostyngiadau ariannol dros y degawd diwethaf, ac un o’r cyfrifoldebau, rydw i’n meddwl, sydd gennym ni mewn partneriaeth gyda S4C yw chwilio am gyfleoedd i arbed arian tu hwnt i’r cyllid rhaglenni. Felly, fel byddwch chi’n gwybod, rydym ni eisoes yn trafod gyda S4C ynghylch cydweithredu yn safle newydd y BBC yng nghanol Caerdydd i weld os oes yna fodd dileu rhai o’r adnoddau sy’n cael eu dyblygu—er enghraifft playout a transmission—a hefyd rydw i yn meddwl bod yna gyfle i’r BBC a S4C i gydweithio yn Yr Egin, yng Nghaerfyrddin. Felly, dyna sy’n bwysig o ran y bartneriaeth: chwilio am y cyfleoedd hynny lle mae’n bosib dileu costau sydd ddim yn ymwneud yn uniongyrchol â chynnwys.
|
Mr Davies: Well, clearly, to a certain extent, that’s a question for S4C. But working within a cash-flat settlement is certainly challenging. It’s challenging in the context of financial cuts over the past decade, and one of the responsibilities that we have in partnership with S4C is to seek opportunities to make savings beyond the programming budget. So, as you will know, we are already discussing with S4C collaboration at the new BBC site in the centre of Cardiff to see if we can actually deal with some of the duplication—playout and transmission, for example—and I do think there’s an opportunity for the BBC and S4C to collaborate in Yr Egin, in Carmarthen. So, that’s what’s important in the partnership, to seek those opportunities where we can cut costs that don’t relate specifically to content. |
|
[16] Yr her arall, yn amlwg, pan fo arian yn fflat, yw’r her o flaenoriaethu. Mae’n mynd yn ôl at beth roeddwn i’n sôn am gyda’r Cadeirydd. Beth bynnag ydy setliad ariannol S4C i’r dyfodol, beth bynnag ydy’r setliad i’r BBC, mae yna gwestiynau uniongyrchol o flaenoriaethu a phenderfynu ym mha feysydd, ym mha fathau o arlwy, ar ba lwyfannau, rydym ni eisiau eu ffocysu. Nid oes gennym ni’r adnodd i wneud popeth i bawb ar bob llwyfan, a dyna ydy’r her, rydw i’n meddwl, i unrhyw sefydliad neu ddarlledwr cyhoeddus ar hyn o bryd.
|
The other challenge, clearly, when you have a cash-flat settlement, is the challenge of prioritisation. It goes back to my comments to the Chair’s questions. Whatever the financial settlement for S4C for the future, whatever the settlement for the BBC, there are some direct questions of prioritisation, and decisions have to be made on which areas, and on what kind of output and on what platforms we want to focus. We don’t have the resource to do everything for everyone on all platforms, and that’s the challenge for any organisation or public broadcaster at the moment. |
|
[17] Dai Lloyd: Ocê, yn symud ymlaen o hynny, yn naturiol, gan fod S4C yn derbyn arian o’r ffi drwydded, a ydy hynny wastad yn mynd i olygu bod yna wastad rhyw elfen o atebolrwydd yn gorfod digwydd ar ran S4C i’r BBC, felly, gan fod rhan o’u pres nhw’n dod o’r ffi drwydded?
|
Dai Lloyd: Moving on from there, naturally, because S4C receives funding from the licence fee, will that always necessarily mean that there’s some level of accountability on behalf of S4C to the BBC, because part of their funding comes from the licence fee? |
|
[18] Mr Davies: Y peth cyntaf byddwn i’n dweud yw gwnaeth gymaint o bobl ddweud wrthym ni yn ôl yn 2010/11 y byddai setliad newydd y drwydded, lle oedd arian y Llywodraeth yn symud i’r BBC, yn peryglu annibyniaeth a rhyddid S4C i weithredu. Rydw i’n weddol sicr, petai Ian neu Huw yma o S4C, buasen nhw’n dweud nad oedd penderfyniad wedi cael ei wneud ers hynny sydd wedi cyfyngu opsiynau S4C. Rydw i wastad wedi gweld partneriaeth yn fater o sicrhau bod gan y ddau barti ddewis go iawn i gydweithredu neu i beidio â chydweithredu. Mae popeth rŷm ni wedi gwneud—cydweithredu dros lansio S4C ar iPlayer, cydweithredu o ran canfod arbedion yng nghanol Caerdydd o ran y datblygiad newydd—yn bartneriaethau gwirfoddol. Beth sy’n bwysig, wrth gwrs, yw—wrth gwrs eu bod nhw’n sefydliadau gwahanol, mae’r hanes y ddau sefydliad yn reit wahanol, ond mae’r gwerthoedd cyhoeddus mae’r ddau sefydliad yma yn rhannu yn enfawr. Rydw i wastad yn trafod ac yn ffocysu ar y pethau rydym ni’n eu rhannu, yn hytrach nac efallai’r meysydd lle mae yna wahaniaethau.
|
Mr Davies: The first thing I’d say is that so many people told us back in 2010/11 that the new licence fee settlement, where Government funding would move to the BBC, would put the freedom and independence of S4C at risk. Now, I’m quite certain that, if Ian or Huw from S4C were here, they would say that no decision has been taken since that time that has restricted the options of S4C. I have always seen partnership as a matter of ensuring that both parties have a real choice to collaborate or not to collaborate. Everything that we do—co-operation over launching S4C on iPlayer, co-operation in terms of finding savings in the centre of Cardiff at the new development—are voluntary partnerships. What’s important, of course, is—of course, they are different institutions, and the history of both institutions are very different, but the public values that these two organisations share are huge. I always discuss and focus on the things that we share, rather than the areas where there may be differences. |
|
[19] Dai Lloyd: Ocê. Diolch yn fawr.
|
Dai Lloyd: Okay. Thank you very much.
|
|
[20] Bethan Jenkins: Rydym ni’n symud ymlaen at gyllid, ac mae gan Lee Waters gwestiynau.
|
Bethan Jenkins: Moving on now to governance, and Lee Waters has some questions. |
|
[21] Lee Waters: Diolch. Morning. [Inaudible.] You made mention of partnership, which is a constant theme in your evidence, and indeed in Ian Jones’s evidence. Clearly, that has been effective in practical terms under the current arrangements, but the current arrangements are now changing under the new charter and new board arrangements. So, how do you see this notion of independence working—S4C’s independence working—under the new charter arrangements, and how will they differ from the current arrangements?
|
|
|
09:45
|
|
|
[22] Mr Davies: I don’t think they will be that different. I think the ultimate accountability of S4C to its audience and to Parliament, I think, will remain. I think that, clearly—. We were going through a transitional period over the last four or five years, there was the whole hiatus around the licence fee settlement, we had a situation where it was, I think, the right decision that the BBC trustee for Wales, Elan, sat both on the BBC Trust and S4C, because, to a very large extent, we were rebuilding trust between the two organisations and I think Elan did that brilliantly. I think we're moving to a model, partly because of the creation of the unitary board, which will be, probably, a simpler, more contractual relationship between the BBC and S4C. My expectation—and this is above my pay grade, this is a matter for the chairman, but my expectation is that the partnership arrangements will, in terms of the licence fee funding granted to S4C, simply talk about the requirements support, the public values, and the public mission that is enshrined in the BBC charter, but I think it’ll be a lighter touch than we've seen to date, and I think that reflects just the maturity of the relationship that’s now established between the two parties.
|
|
|
[23] Lee Waters: Can you explain what that means? What does a simpler, contractual relationship mean?
|
|
|
[24] Mr Davies: At the moment we have a pretty complicated relationship, or certainly complicated from where I sit. We have what's called an operating agreement, which is a document between the old BBC Trust—because it's gone—and the S4C Authority that involves itself in the matter of the money, the licence fee money, that is apportioned to S4C, the £75 million, and that has a whole set of obligations and balancing obligations between the two broadcasters and then we have a strategic partnership deed, which exists between the BBC and S4C, which largely relates to the 520 hours of programming that we deliver for S4C. I don't think it's beyond the wit of both organisations to find a simpler model. And I would say, particularly looking back at the strategic partnership, which was drafted about 10 years ago, the extent of the checks and balances in there probably reflect the nature of the relationship between the two broadcasters at that time. So, I think there is no doubt that, whatever arrangement is now formulated, it will absolutely enshrine independence for S4C, and I suspect it will be significantly more light touch than the volumes of documentation that we have at the moment.
|
|
|
[25] Lee Waters: So, do you see the BBC board member coming off the S4C Authority then?
|
|
|
[26] Mr Davies: I do, yes.
|
|
|
[27] Lee waters: Okay, so—
|
|
|
[28] Mr Davies: I assume you mean the non-executive—
|
|
|
[29] Lee Waters: Yes.
|
|
|
[30] Mr Davies: Yes.
|
|
|
[31] Lee Waters: So, it seems clear to me that, on a governance level, there’ll be this simpler, more contractual relationship, but, in terms of a creative level, will that apply there, too? Because I sensed a slight distinction in emphasis between Ian Jones and Huw Jones in the way they saw the future and I thought it was quite significant the way he stressed his relationship with you in developing a strong partnership, and it was significant in your opening evidence that you credited his leadership as well. He's going, the chair of S4C has a more de minimis—certainly in tone—view of the relationship between S4C and BBC. So, I just wonder, on a creative level, do you think that the gains that you've made will be set back, or do you think there will be no change.
|
|
|
[32] Ms Gwynedd: On a creative level, I would hope that we could continue to work collaboratively and have a strong, creative, editorial relationship with S4C. I think we’re very proud of the strength of the editorial relationship we have. So, we have formal, monthly, quarterly news review meetings, but we also have weekly, sometimes daily, creative editorial discussions. So, last year, when we were covering the Euro 2016 tournament, we worked really closely with Radio Cymru and with S4C, all of us, to really think how we could create the most ambitious offer for audiences, for Welsh speaking audiences, in that tournament and those were very creative, editorially focused discussions. When we relaunched Newyddion 9 in 2013—the nightly news service—S4C were with us defining the editorial remit of that slot, and even the look and the brand that would work for them as a channel. So, I think we're really clear that our programmes have to work with the vision that S4C have as a channel for the future and I would really hope that that relationship could continue, because it feels very creative, very editorially robust, and we also discuss the performance of programmes when S4C maybe want changes to some of the programmes in terms of the remit. So, I think—I would hope— that that relationship and the strength of that creative discussion could continue.
|
|
|
[33] Mr Davies: Can I just add that? I absolutely get the point. There is an extent to which you have an institutional framework and partnership agreements and the whole governance piece, and then there's the extent to which relationships work. And I absolutely—you know, I hope that that relationship will survive the change. I think it will, because I think it’s rooted—. It’s not rooted in, ‘Because we just get on, let’s do this stuff’, it’s rooted in an understanding of how the landscape’s changing. S4C isn’t on iPlayer because Ian and I can talk well, it’s on iPlayer because Ian recognised that by being on iPlayer, he could get on to about 1,000 different devices across the UK; he get could get on to the biggest on-demand platform in the UK. That is strategic pragmatism. It’s not about the quality of the relationship.
|
|
|
[34] I think, in the conversations—. Take the conversations around news, the reality is—and I would say this, wouldn’t I—that S4C has a partnership with one of the largest and most respected news broadcasters in the world. That is a relationship that probably any public service broadcaster in the world would want and would want to cherish. So, I think there is some pragmatism here, but the other issue of why it’s important to us is the BBC and the BBC in Wales is a bilingual broadcaster. We always have been, for 90 years; it’s central to who we are. So, our ability to support the language by producing programmes for S4C is critical to us as well. So, I think there are balancing reasons why the partnership is important to both.
|
|
|
[35] Lee Waters: There are two other areas I just quickly want to touch on. So, in terms of regulation, obviously, you’re now going to be regulated by Ofcom, and S4C remains regulated by the S4C Authority. You hold the funding for S4C, and, as you’ve just described, there are deeply embedded creative relationships entwined throughout both organisations. So, in practice, is S4C not going to be regulated, to a degree, by Ofcom also?
|
|
|
[36] Mr Davies: I think the issue—. Let’s be clear, the funding commitment from the BBC to S4C is set out in the charter agreement and the licence fee agreement between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the BBC. So, I think that is absolutely nailed down for the five years, irrespective of any Ofcom—. Ofcom’s regulation of the BBC isn’t a regulation of the funding, it’s a regulation of whether we’re delivering our editorial remit and public purposes. I think the question of—. Are you asking me about whether S4C should be regulated by Ofcom, or was it a different question?
|
|
|
[37] Lee Waters: Well, it was a more subtle question than that.
|
|
|
[38] Mr Davies: Okay.
|
|
|
[39] Lee Waters: It was asking whether, in practice, because of the nature of the relationship between the two of you—and you are now regulated by Ofcom—whether or not S4C too, also, by proxy, will be regulated, to some degree, by Ofcom.
|
|
|
[40] Mr Davies: I suppose the obvious point is the extent of the regulation—. The key regulation for us with Ofcom is that, obviously, for the first time as of this week, we come under the Ofcom programming codes and editorial codes. The truth is that all those tenets and all those requirements of the BBC are already written into the BBC’s editorial guidelines, so it doesn’t impose any additional responsibility on us. And all the programmes that we deliver to S4C meet those requirements. So, in practical terms, I don’t think it has any impact on the supply to S4C.
|
|
|
[41] Lee Waters: Right, but in practical terms, Ofcom will, to some degree, be regulating S4C content as well.
|
|
|
[42] Mr Davies: Well, Ofcom already licences S4C. Ofcom licences all broadcast channels, so in that sense, S4C is already subject to the editorial codes of Ofcom.
|
|
|
[43] Lee Waters: Okay. Finally, in terms of the relationship between S4C and the BBC board, as you said, the board member for Wales will no longer sit on the S4C Authority, so what will be that relationship between S4C and the BBC board?
|
|
|
[44] Mr Davies: I think that is for the new unitary board and the new chair, David Clementi, and Huw to work through. I think what we’ve done very sensibly is extend the key principles of the operating agreement and the strategic partnership for a number of months to give both organisations time to talk. Clearly, David has only just taken the chair and we don’t yet have a Welsh member for the board. So, I think it’s going to take probably until the summer to work through the detail of what that arrangement is between the two organisations. My sense, from overhearing, is that both organisations see enormous value in what’s already been worked through, and it’s a question of just formulating the right document or contract or agreement to enshrine all that under the new arrangements.
|
|
|
[45] Lee Waters: Okay, thank you.
|
|
|
[46] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch. Rydym ni’n mynd i symud ymlaen at gyflenwad rhaglenni’r BBC i S4C. Rydym ni wedi cyffwrdd arno fe, ond mae Jeremy yn mynd i ofyn cwestiynau ar hynny.
|
Bethan Jenkins: Thank you. We’re now moving on to the BBC’s programing supply to S4C. We’ve touched on it, but Jeremy’s going to ask questions now.
|
|
[47] Jeremy Miles: Diolch. Ar y 520 awr o gynnwys, mae e werth rhyw £19 miliwn, fwy neu lai, ar hyn o bryd, a ydy’r swm yna o arian wedi mynd lan a lawr dros y blynyddoedd, neu a ydy e jest wedi—? |
Jeremy Miles: Thank you. On the 520 hours of content, it’s worth about £19 million, more or less, at the moment, has that sum of money gone up or down over the years, or has it just—?
|
|
[48] Mr Davies: Do. Mi aeth o i fyny. Mae’r bartneriaeth strategol, fel y mae hi ar hyn o bryd—mi ddechreuodd honno ar ddechrau cyfnod y siarter diwethaf—o 2006, rwy’n credu. Mae e wedi bod i fyny hyd at—beth? £25 miliwn?
|
Mr Davies: Yes. It went up. The strategic partnership, as it currently exists, started at the beginning of the last charter—from 2006, I believe. It’s been up to some £25 million, has it?
|
|
[49] Ms Gwynedd: Do. |
Ms Gwynedd: Yes.
|
|
[50] Mr Davies: Mae o bellach yn, beth? £19.4 miliwn?
|
Mr Davies: It’s now £19.4 million, is it? |
|
[51] Ms Gwynedd: Ie. |
Ms Gwynedd: Yes.
|
|
[52] Mr Davies: Felly, mae o wedi amrywio, ac yn amlwg mi aeth cyllid y BBC i fyny yn sylweddol yng nghanol y degawd diwethaf hefyd. Felly, i ryw raddau, mae yna gysylltiad gyda sefyllfa ariannol y BBC yn ei chyfanrwydd.
|
Mr Davies: So, it has fluctuated, and clearly the BBC’s funding went up significantly in the middle of the last decade too. So, to a certain extent, there is a link with the financial situation of the BBC in its entirety. |
|
[53] Jeremy Miles: A gaf i fynd nôl at y testun yr oeddech chi’n ei drafod gyda Lee jest nawr, ynglŷn â’r berthynas? Gwnaethoch chi sôn am y cyfarfodydd golygyddol ac ati, i drafod y cynnwys. Nid perthynas comisiynydd a chynhyrchydd yw’r berthynas, felly—mae’n lot mwy integrated na hynny.
|
Jeremy Miles: May I go back to what you were discussing with Lee just now, relating to the relationship? You mentioned the editorial meetings, for example, to discuss the content. That’s not the relationship of a commissioner and producer, therefore—it’s much more integrated.
|
|
[54] Ms Gwynedd: Ydy.
|
Ms Gwynedd: Yes. |
|
[55] Jeremy Miles: A oes gan S4C y gallu i benderfynu ar y cymysgedd o genres sydd o fewn y 520 awr? Achos mae’n fy nharo i fod hynny’n eithaf pwysig o’ch safbwynt chi o ran cost y cynnyrch.
|
Jeremy Miles: Does S4C have an ability to decide on the mixture of genres that is in the 520 hours? That strikes me as quite important from your viewpoint in terms of the cost of the output. |
|
[56] Ms Gwynedd: Felly, yn y bartneriaeth strategol, mae yna drafodaeth yn digwydd bob blwyddyn ynglŷn â beth fydd yr oriau, a beth fydd y genres o fewn yr oriau. Felly, yn yr hen broses, mi oedd y cynllun yn mynd o flaen cyngor cynulleidfa Cymru, a hefyd wedyn yn mynd at awdurdod a rheolwyr S4C i gael ei gytuno a’i gymeradwyo. Felly, mae yna broses ffurfiol ynglŷn â beth fydd yr oriau a natur yr oriau, ac yn amlwg, mae’r cynllun yn cael ei lunio yn dilyn trafodaethau manwl gyda S4C ynglŷn â beth ydy eu gofynion nhw ar unrhyw flwyddyn. Felly, mae llynedd, o ran y pêl-droed, yn enghraifft, lle’r oeddem ni’n gwybod mai un o’r prif gonglfeini o ran digwyddiadau S4C y llynedd oedd twrnement Euro 2016, ac, er enghraifft, efo’r newyddion, pan oedd etholiadau a’r refferendwm ar Ewrop, roeddem ni’n cynllunio ac yn cael trafodaethau golygyddol ynglŷn â beth oedd gofynion S4C fel sianel.
|
Ms Gwynedd: Well, in the strategic partnership, there is an annual discussion as to what the hours will be and what the genres within those hours will be. So, in the old process, the plan would go before the audience council for Wales and then would go before the authority and management of S4C for agreement and approval. So, there is a formal process in terms of what those hours will be and what they will entail, and, clearly, the plan is formulated following detailed discussions with S4C as to what their requirements are in any given year. So, last year, in terms of the football, that’s an example where we knew that one of the cornerstones in terms of S4C’s events was going to be the Euro 2016 tournament, and, for example, with news, when there are elections, or when there was the European referendum, we plan and have editorial meetings to discuss S4C’s requirements as a channel.
|
|
[57] Felly, mae’r drafodaeth ynglŷn â genres a’r oriau—yn bendant iawn maen nhw’n rhoi mewnbwn i ffurfio’r cynllun yna. Wedyn, i lefel is, mae yna drafodaeth ynglŷn â chynnwys, natur a briff golygyddol, a bwriad cynulleidfaol y rhaglenni a’r cyfresi yna hefyd.
|
So, discussion on genres and hours is certainly taking place, and they have an impact on drawing up that plan. And at a lower level, there is also a discussion on the content, nature and editorial brief, and the audience targets in terms of those programmes and series. |
|
[58] Mr Davies: Pwynt pwysig iawn, achos roeddwn i’n gwrando ar dystiolaeth, rydw i’n meddwl, TAC ar hyn: nid ydw i yn adnabod y math yna o bartneriaeth a wnaeth TAC ei disgrifio. Mae hi’n bartneriaeth agos, a beth sy’n greiddiol yw bod S4C, ac Awdurdod S4C, yn gorfod cymeradwyo’r cynllun rhaglenni sydd wedi cael ei ddatblygu rhwng Sian ac Amanda. Felly, ni fyddai yna fyth achos yn codi lle byddai’r BBC yn cyflenwi rhaglenni S4C nad oedd S4C ddim eisiau.
|
Mr Davies: It’s very important, because I was listening to the evidence of TAC on this, and I don’t recognise that kind of partnership that TAC described. It’s a close partnership, and what is core to that is that S4C and the S4C Authority have to approve the programme plan that’s been developed between Sian and Amanda. Therefore, there would never be a case arising where the BBC would supply programmes to S4C that S4C didn’t want. |
|
[59] Jeremy Miles: A fuasech chi’n dweud bod patrwm o ran cymysgedd y genres o fewn—?
|
Jeremy Miles: Would you say that there’s a pattern in terms of the genre mix in—? |
|
[60] Mr Davies: Oes. Bellach, mae’r cyflenwad rhaglenni yn seiliedig ar bedwar piler, sef, yn amlwg, y rhaglenni newyddion dyddiol; y rygbi—rydym ni’n cynhyrchu Scrum V a Clwb Rygbi ochr yn ochr, neu back to back o ran rhannu staff ac adnodd; mae’r ddarpariaeth o’r Eisteddfod Genedlaethol; ac wedyn mae Pobol y Cwm. Mae yna rai rhaglenni ar ymylon hynny, ond dyna ydy craidd y cyflenwad.
|
Mr Davies: Yes. Now, the programming is based on four pillars: clearly, the daily news output; rugby—and we produce Scrum V and Clwb Rygbi back to back in terms of sharing staff and resources; the provision from the National Eisteddfod; and you also have Pobol y Cwm. There are some programmes on the periphery of that, but that’s the core. |
|
[61] Jeremy Miles: Mae’n weddol gyson, faint o gynnwys sydd ym mhob bwced o gynnwys, os gallaf i—
|
Jeremy Miles: It’s relatively consistent, therefore, how much content there is in each bucket of content, if I may—
|
|
[62] Mr Davies: Ydy.
|
Mr Davies: Yes, it is. |
|
[63] Jeremy Miles: Gwnaeth TAC hefyd sôn eu bod nhw’n moyn gweld y BBC yn rhoi swm o arian i S4C yn hytrach na chynnwys. Yn eu tystiolaeth nhw, gwnaethon nhw ddweud y buasai’n well ganddyn nhw weld £14 miliwn yn mynd yn lle cynnyrch oni bai am newyddion. Beth fyddai’ch barn chi ar hynny?
|
Jeremy Miles: TAC also mentioned that they wanted to see the BBC giving a sum of money to S4C rather than content. In their evidence, they said that they would rather see £14 million going in lieu of the non-news programming. What’s your view on that? |
|
[64] Mr Davies: Buaswn i’n anghytuno, sori. [Chwerthin.]
|
Mr Davies: I’m sorry, but I’d have to disagree. [Laughter.] |
|
[65] Jeremy Miles: Rydw i’n synnu clywed hynny.
|
Jeremy Miles: I’m surprised to hear that.
|
|
[66] Mr Davies: Efallai ei fod yn werth disgrifio pam byddwn i’n anghytuno. Yn gyntaf, rydw i’n meddwl ei bod hi’n bartneriaeth sy’n gweithio. Felly, mae eisiau bod yn ofalus beth ydym ni’n ceisio ei drwsio. Rydw i’n meddwl bod y sianel yn elwa yn sylweddol o’r bartneriaeth. Rydw i’n meddwl bod ein rhaglenni ni wrth graidd perfformiad nosweithiol y sianel—y rhaglen newyddion a Pobol y Cwm. Mae’r berthynas iPlayer bellach yn greiddiol, rydw i’n meddwl, i ddyfodol digidol y sianel, ac, wrth gwrs, mae S4C yn elwa o adnoddau a scale y BBC ym meysydd newyddion a chwaraeon. Rydw i’n meddwl y buasai symud perthynas y BBC gyda’r iaith Gymraeg i ryw funding line yn gam gwael strategol.
|
Mr Davies: I’d have to disagree, and perhaps I should explain why. First of all, I think it’s a partnership that works. We need to be careful what we wish for and what we try and fix. I do think that the channel benefits significantly from the partnership. I think our programming is at the core of the nightly performance of the channel—the news and Pobol y Cwm, for example. The iPlayer relationship is at the heart of the digital future of the channel, and also S4C benefits from the resources and scale of the BBC in terms of news and sport. I think that shifting the relationship of the BBC with the Welsh language to some sort of funding line would strategically be an error. |
|
10:00
|
|
|
[67] Mae lot o bobl, weithiau—yn y sesiynau yma rydym ni’n sôn am metropolitanism y BBC a bod y BBC ddim yn deall y cenhedloedd datganoledig. Wel, buaswn i’n dweud bod perthynas y BBC gyda’r iaith Gymraeg yn un gwbl allweddol ac yn un hanesyddol, ac mi fuasai gwanhau perthynas y BBC gyda’r iaith Gymraeg, a chefnogaeth strategol y BBC i’r iaith, rwy’n meddwl, yn mynd â ni nôl.
|
Many people—we often talk about the metropolitanism of the BBC in these sessions and that the BBC doesn’t understand the devolved nations. Well, I would say that the BBC’s relationship with the Welsh language is entirely crucial, and is a historic relationship, and weakening the relationship of the BBC with the Welsh language, and the strategic support that the BBC provides for the Welsh language, would be a retrograde step.
|
|
[68] Jeremy Miles: Rydym ni wedi trafod yn y gorffennol datblygiad y BBC Studios—a ydych chi’n gweld bod y datblygiad hwnnw yn mynd i gael effaith ar y berthynas rhwng y BBC ac S4C mewn unrhyw ffordd?
|
Jeremy Miles: We’ve spoken in the past about the development of BBC Studios. Do you see that that development is going to have an impact on the relationship between the BBC and S4C? |
|
[69] Mr Davies: Wel, yn sicr, mae o’n chwyldro, ac mae’n werth jest sôn am Studios yn gyflym cyn ateb y cwestiwn yn uniongyrchol. Am y tro cyntaf, nid oes yna guarantee i dimau mewnol cynhyrchu’r BBC. Felly, mi oedd yn yr hen ddyddiau—wel, yn yr hen ddyddiau; wythnos diwethaf—mi oedd yna ryw 50 y cant o wariant rhwydwaith y BBC yn cael ei warantu i dimau mewnol y BBC. Mae hynny wedi mynd. Ac mae hwn yn cynnig cyfle ychwanegol anferth i’r sector annibynnol, ond yn amlwg, yn sgil hynny, mae timau cynhyrchu’r BBC yn y maes teledu wedi’u rhoi ar sail fasnachol, ac mae goblygiadau hynny yn meddwl nad oes unrhyw arian o’r drwydded yn mynd i gael ei ddefnyddio i sefydlogi’r uned neu warchod yr uned, ac mae hynny’n bwysig. Ac, yn ail, mi fydd gan Studios yr hawl i gystadlu am waith wrth ddarlledwyr eraill am y tro cyntaf. Felly, i rywun sydd wedi bod yn y BBC am rai degawdau bellach, mae hwn yn newid anferthol.
|
Mr Davies: Well, certainly, it is a revolution, and it is worth talking about Studios before answering your question directly. For the first time, there is no guarantee for the internal production teams of the BBC. In the olden days—I say the olden days, that was last week—some 50 per cent of the network expenditure of the BBC was guaranteed to the internal BBC teams, and now that has disappeared. And this offers an additional huge opportunity for the independent sector, but, clearly, as a result of that, the BBC’s production teams in television are now based on a commercial foundation, and there are implications to that. It means that there is no licence fee money used to stabilise or protect units, and that’s important. And, secondly, Studios will have the right to compete for productions from other broadcasters for the first time. So, as someone who has been in the BBC for a number of decades now, this is a huge change—it’s a sea-change. |
|
[70] Ac o ran y cyflenwad i S4C, rwy’n meddwl mai Pobol y Cwm ydy’r cwestiwn allweddol. Mae Pobol y Cwm, fel popeth arall yn Roath Lock, wedi symud i mewn i uned Studios, ac felly goblygiadau hynny, o dan y siartr, yw mi fydd angen inni gystadlu Pobol y Cwm ar ryw adeg yn y dyfodol cyn diwedd y siartr. Ac, felly, rydym yn trafod goblygiadau hynny ar hyn o bryd. Ond mae’r siartr yn glir bod unrhyw brands neu unrhyw raglenni sydd wedi symud o wasanaeth cyhoeddus y BBC i mewn i’r uned newydd yma, Studios, yn gorfod cael eu cystadlu amdanynt.
|
In terms of the supply to S4C, I think Pobol y Cwm is the key question here. Pobol y Cwm, like everything else in Roath Lock, has moved into the Studios unit, and the implications of that, under the charter, are that we will need to compete Pobol y Cwm at some point in the future before the end of the charter. And, so, we are discussing the implications of that at the moment. But the charter is clear that any brands or any programmes that have moved from the BBC’s public service broadcasting into the new BBC Studios will have to be competed for. |
|
[71] Jeremy Miles: So, yn y model hwnnw, efallai nad yw’n glir eto, ond byddai’r BBC yn comisiynu cynhyrchydd i greu penodau Pobol y Cwm, ac wedyn yn darparu hynny i S4C. Ai dyna beth fyddai’r model yn gyffredinol?
|
Jeremy Miles: So, in that model, perhaps it’s not clear yet, but the BBC would commission a producer to create Pobol y Cwm episodes, and then provide that to S4C. Is that what the model would be generally? |
|
[72] Mr Davies: Ie. Hynny yw, i ryw raddau, mae’r model ar hyn o bryd yn fodel o gydgomisiynu. Mae’r BBC ac S4C yn cydariannu elfennau. Mae’r mwyafrif yn dod o’r BBC, ond mae yna ganran sylweddol o S4C hefyd.
|
Mr Davies: Yes. And, to a certain extent, it’s a joint commissioning model at the moment. The BBC and S4C jointly fund elements. The majority comes from the BBC, but there is a significant percentage from S4C too.
|
|
[73] Jeremy Miles: Ond byddai cynhyrchydd annibynnol efallai yn—
|
Jeremy Miles: But an independent producer would perhaps— |
|
[74] Mr Davies: Wel, rwyt ti’n rhagdybio canlyniad unrhyw dendr. Ond, o dan y model—
|
Mr Davies: Well, you’re anticipating the outcome of any tender there, of course. But, under the model—
|
|
[75] Jeremy Miles: Petasai hynny’n digwydd.
|
Jeremy Miles: If that were to happen. |
|
[76] Mr Davies: Pe bai cwmni annibynnol yn ennill y drwydded neu’r tendr, wedyn, mi fuasai’r BBC, gyda mewnbwn S4C, yn comisiynu’r cwmni hwnnw.
|
Mr Davies: If an independent company were to win that licence or tender, then the BBC, with the input of S4C, would commission that company.
|
|
[77] Jeremy Miiles: Diolch.
|
Jeremy Miles: Thank you. |
|
[78] Bethan Jenkins: Mae gan Suzy Davies gwestiwn.
|
Bethan Jenkins: Suzy Davies now has some questions. |
|
[79] Suzy Davies: I won’t need to keep you long on this, I don’t think. I just want to check, the 520 hours with the value of £19.4 million, is that the actual cost to the BBC, or is that the retail value that these programmes would be worth if you commissioned them?
|
|
|
[80] Mr Davies: It’s not the real—. What it is is the direct commissioning cost, and it’s probably worth me just explaining—
|
|
|
[81] Suzy Davies: How much does it cost you directly is what I’m trying to establish.
|
|
|
[82] Mr Davies: It costs a lot more. It’s hard to put pounds and pence on it, but I could maybe write to the committee separately on it. But I’ll give you an example. The cost of the news service, Newyddion, on S4C, we only put the direct staffing costs of Newyddion against that £19 million figure. What we don’t do is make any provision for the contribution to the overall global newsgathering cost, the UK newsgathering costs of the BBC, which the BBC is incurring anyway through its global network. Another example would be, and I think I’ve put it in the evidence, that we don’t charge S4C for the sports rights that the BBC has acquired. So, when we make programmes for them for the Six Nations or the Euros, we put the production cost against the £19 million, but we don’t put an allocation of the sports rights. So, you could argue about how you would then make that allocation and what the right allocation would be, but as a modus operandi in terms of determining cost, we just stick to very, very direct costs in coming to the £19 million.
|
|
|
[83] Suzy Davies: Okay. Does it actually—? So, you’re saying what it costs—that £19 million is what it costs you to involve S4C. If S4C didn’t exist—
|
|
|
[84] Mr Davies: If you like, it’s the marginal cost.
|
|
|
[85] Suzy Davies: Yes, the difference of having them and not having them.
|
|
|
[86] Mr Davies: Yes. It’s a bit like our online service Cymru Fyw. If you tried to create Cymru Fyw outside the BBC, it’s real cost would be hugely greater than its cost because we can do it as a marginal activity, built on the foundation of a global newsgathering operation.
|
|
|
[87] Suzy Davies: That’s what I was trying to get to, because I suppose I have a question that if you weren’t statutorily obliged to provide programming to S4C?
|
|
|
[88] Mr Davies: This is the key point when people talk about, ‘Why don’t you just chuck the money over to S4C?’
|
|
|
[89] Suzy Davies: No, I don’t think you should.
|
|
|
[90] Mr Davies: No, I know you’re not saying that, but take the iPlayer development: if that had been done on a commercial basis, (a) it wouldn’t have got permission, but, secondly, if it had got permission, it would have been utterly unaffordable for S4C. But because you’ve got two broadcasters with shared values and a unique partnership—you might think the partnership is complicated, but it is a unique partnership—we’re able to do that at a marginal cost to S4C, and look what it’s done for performance. So, the more you try and apply commercial logic or clear separation between the two broadcasters, the more you remove all of the additional, unspecified benefits that enhance what we’re able to do for S4C.
|
|
|
[91] Suzy Davies: So, what you’re effectively saying is that, if that statutory obligation didn’t exist—and I’m not saying that it should go anywhere—S4C may not even be here today? [Laughter.]
|
|
|
[92] Mr Davies: The BBC could have a funding commitment to S4C. You could reduce the BBC’s relationship with S4C to a transactional arrangement that’s codified in cash. All I’m arguing is that I think that would set back Welsh language media in quite a profound way because the additional benefits of a major global public service broadcaster, working to support S4C, delivers benefits that cannot be captured by spreadsheet.
|
|
|
[93] Ms Gwynedd: To give you another example there: the BBC is now moving in the direction of personalisation—‘myBBC’—where you can target content and different genres and interests at the audience. I think that’s a really valuable opportunity for Welsh language content because somebody might not go to look for Welsh language content, but actually if you’re interested in rugby or in soaps, to have that offered to you as part of a package of content—. So, I think there are exciting opportunities as well in terms of some of the developments in the BBC that could really benefit Welsh language media.
|
|
|
[94] Mr Davies: Could I just make one other point—
|
|
|
[95] Suzy Davies: Yes, I’m not disagreeing with this; I’m trying to tease out the—
|
|
|
[96] Mr Davies: —because it sounds as if I’m sitting here saying that the BBC is wonderful? I think that the BBC is also enriched by its partnership with S4C. I think that the fact that you’ve got a level of plurality in the Welsh language—and we can talk about how important plurality is in the Welsh language media—
|
|
|
[97] Suzy Davies: Another day.
|
|
|
[98] Mr Davies: Another day, indeed. But the notion that you’ve got an element of two different organisations considering the needs of Welsh language audiences and applying, sometimes, quite different solutions: Cymru Fyw is a very BBC solution that’s very journalistic and builds on a tradition in news, and Cyw is a wonderfully S4C invention, and, actually, as Sian said earlier, we’ve decided that we’re not going to play in that space because S4C is doing it brilliantly. So, in terms of that pre-school age, that is an area where the BBC shouldn’t go. It’s about working on the complementary strengths of the two organisations, and that just requires a strong, creative dialogue between the two broadcasters, and that’s where we are.
|
|
|
[99] Suzy Davies: I’m happy to accept that. Sorry, I don’t want to take this on any further, but it’s just that BBC Studios is going to be a different sort of idea: it’s not going to have your 90-year bilingual broadcaster buy-in as a concept, I don’t suppose. I’m wondering how interested they’re going to be in S4C, that’s all.
|
|
|
[100] Mr Davies: That’s a question for Studios. Studios is only four days old in terms of a commercial—
|
|
|
[101] Suzy Davies: Yes, I don’t need a long answer on this—
|
|
|
[102] Mr Davies: Let’s be clear: ITV Studios is making programmes for S4C through Twofour in the bay, but the model of independent supply is changing rapidly. BBC Studios is still going to be part of the BBC group and it’s still going to have the BBC’s values. It’s only going to make certain types of programmes that are consistent with the BBC’s brand values. I would have thought in that that they’d absolutely want to have conversations with S4C.
|
|
|
[103] Suzy Davies: Okay, lovely; thank you. Thanks, Chair.
|
|
|
[104] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch. Lee.
|
|
|
[105] Lee Waters: I just want to extend the point: Ron Jones, the chief executive of Tinopolis Group, submitted some interesting evidence about an alternative way of achieving plurality and a partnership of shared values with other organisations active in the field—with the Arts Council of Wales and the Welsh Books Council and so on. Part of that bundle he saw as being fruitful to create a different creative centre, if you like, was bringing Radio Cymru out of the BBC and into a new body. I can imagine that, at a practical level, it would be quite difficult to disentangle, but my question was: do you have a principled objection to that?
|
|
|
[106] Mr Davies: Yes. I think—it goes back to what we were taking about earlier—a broadcaster with the scale—. Just put it in context: the average person in Wales is consuming 19 hours of the BBC every week. So, it’s an extraordinary direct relationship—97 per cent of people in Wales come to the BBC every week. That is a broadcaster that has extraordinary reach and engagement with its audience.
|
|
|
[107] The notion of taking the Welsh language out of that organisation, with all the strategic benefits that are delivered by Welsh being part of the DNA of that organisation, as I said earlier, I think that would set us back. On Ron’s point particularly, my biggest issue there would be that I think organisations need focus. I think the media landscape is complicated enough without asking it to look after arts commissioning or performance or books; I think the digital media space is complex enough without that.
|
|
|
[108] Where Ron touches on an issue that I think is relevant, and forgive me if I’m banging a little drum here, is the question of partnership and collaboration. Whatever the funding settlement is for S4C or for the BBC, resources are tight, and the strategic and audience challenges in Welsh are pretty profound. It’s complicated enough just with the average consumer in terms of how they use the media. Once you map onto that issues of fluency and migration of Welsh language communities in Wales, you are dealing with probably one of the most complex audience challenges of them all, and that requires a lot of sharing.
|
|
|
[109] It requires different bodies—S4C, BBC, potentially Golwg and others—to have a really joined-up conversation about how they each fit into the ecology. I think BBC and S4C, in the last five years, with Sian and Ian’s input, I think we’ve really made big strides there. The iPlayer is the obvious example. But there has to be a level—. We can talk about the independence of institutions and that’s all very important, it really is, but that should never get in the way of a sharing of information, a sharing of knowledge and actively pursuing collaboration and partnership, because the challenge is too significant for people to stand apart.
|
|
|
[110] Bethan Jenkins: Roeddwn jest eisiau gofyn cwestiwn clou ynglŷn â’r cynnwys. Fe wnaeth fy nharo eich bod chi wedi trafod ar y dechrau eich bod chi am gael trafodaeth gyda S4C ynglŷn â newid rhaglenni, o ran apelio at bobl ifanc ac yn y blaen, a’ch bod chi’n apelio at bobl hŷn yn dda. Nid fy mod eisiau cael gwared ar unrhyw raglen nag unrhyw beth, ond mae’n fy nharo eich bod chi’n cadw at y set yma o rygbi, Pobl y Cwm a beth rydych yn ei wneud yn barod. Ond pa drafodaethau a ydych chi’n meddwl eu cael gyda S4C, os bydd eu remit nhw’n newid, i efallai newid sgôp yr hyn sydd ar gael ar sgriniau pobl bob dydd?
|
Bethan Jenkins: I just wanted to ask a quick question on the content. It struck me that you discussed at the beginning that you wanted to have a discussion with S4C on changes to programmes, to appeal to young people and so forth, and that you appeal to an older audience well. It’s not that I want to get rid of any programme or anything, but it strikes me that you’re keeping to the set of rugby, Pobl y Cwm and what you’re doing already. What discussions are you thinking of having with S4C, if their remit does change, to perhaps change the scope of what’s available on people’s screens every day?
|
|
[111] Mr Davies: I ryw raddau, mae’n drafodaeth ar y cynnwys. Fe fuaswn i’n dweud, er enghraifft, fod Y Clwb Rygbi, yn enwedig, â’r gallu i gyrraedd to o wylwyr iau, a hefyd to o wylwyr llai rhugl neu ddi-Gymraeg. Felly, mae rhannau o’r ddarpariaeth o’r BBC yn greiddiol at gyrraedd cynulleidfaoedd iau.
|
Mr Davies: To a certain extent, it is a debate about content. I would say, for example, that Y Clwb Rygbi, particularly, has the ability to reach younger audiences, and also less fluent audiences or non-Welsh speaking audiences. So, there are parts of the BBC output that are core in order to reach younger audiences.
|
|
[112] Ond mae hefyd yn gwestiwn o ddosbarthiad. Mewn sesiwn gynharach, roedd Lee yn trafod gyda nifer o bobl y datblygiad o ran llwyfannau cymdeithasol, a’r ffaith bod canfyddiadau o ansawdd yn wahanol i wahanol grwpiau o’r gynulleidfa. Rwy’n meddwl bod Lee yn iawn yn hynny. Mae’n rhy hawdd i ddweud mai teledu traddodiadol, long form, yw’r unig ffordd o ddiogelu ansawdd. Fy mhlant i, mae eu syniad nhw o ansawdd a rhywbeth sydd yn cydio ynddyn nhw yn wahanol iawn i beth sydd gennyf fi. Mae’n rhaid i unrhyw ddarlledwr cyhoeddus addasu i hynny.
|
But it’s also a question of distribution. In a previous session, Lee was discussing with a number of people the developments in terms of social media platforms, and the fact that perceptions of quality differ for different audience groups. I think Lee is entirely right in that. It is too easy to say that traditional television, long form television, is the only way of securing quality. My children, their idea of quality and something that appeals to them is very different to what appeals to me. Any public service broadcaster has to adapt to that. |
|
[113] Felly, o bosibl, mae ynglŷn â newid rhai o’r rhaglenni long form, ond yn fwy na hynny mae ynglŷn â sut mae dosbarthu cynnwys i mewn i lwyfannau newydd. Mae’r cwestiwn o bŵer sefydliadau fel Google, Amazon a Facebook a’r rheini bellach yn fater trafod pwysig, achos mae eu rheolaeth nhw dros y bydysawd newydd digidol yn mynd i gael effaith ar allu darlledwyr cyhoeddus fel y BBC ac S4C i gyrraedd cynulleidfaoedd.
|
So, perhaps it’s about changing some of the long-form programming, but it’s more than that too; it’s about how we distribute content on new platforms. The question of the power of organisations such as Google, Amazon and Facebook and the like is now an important issue for discussion, because their control of the new digital universe is going to have an impact on the ability of public service broadcasters such as the BBC and S4C to reach audiences.
|
|
[114] Bethan Jenkins: Ond os ydych chi’n cymryd dadl Boom Cymru, roedden nhw’n dweud nad yw’n bwysig beth yw’r platfform, ond bod y cynnwys yn gallu addasu. Felly, os yw’n long form, os yw ar Facebook, jest esblygu’r cynnwys fyddai ei angen wedyn. Felly, efallai bod hynny’n tanseilio’r ddadl rydych chi’n ei rhoi o ran efallai bod un peth yn gweithio ar y teledu a bod peth arall yn gweithio ar Facebook.
|
Bethan Jenkins: But if you take Boom Cymru’s argument that it’s not important what the platform is, but that the content can adapt. So, if it’s long form, if it’s on Facebook, just an evolution of the content would be required then. So, perhaps that undermines the argument that you’re putting forward that perhaps one thing works on television and something else works on Facebook.
|
|
10:15
|
|
|
[115] Mr Davies: O bosib. Y pwynt rwy’n ei wneud yw: rwy’n meddwl ein bod ni weithiau’n cymryd yn ganiataol allu darlledwyr cyhoeddus i gyrraedd y gynulleidfa. Mi oedd, i ryw raddau, y BBC yn hanesyddol yn berchen ar radio. Mi oedd, am rai degawdau, yn berchen teledu. Nid ni oedd y sianel, ni oedd y llwyfan hefyd. Mae’r byd yna wedi diflannu. Mae’r teledu, smart tvs, ac mae’r rhyngweithiau cymdeithasol, ac mae’r consolidation yma i ddau neu dri o gwmnïau byd-eang, a’u gallu nhw i reoli mynediad pobl i gynnwys. Rwy’n meddwl, beth bynnag ydy’r cynnwys, bydd eu gallu nhw i reoli’r berthynas yna rhwng y gynulleidfa a’r cynnwys yn fater, yn y degawd nesaf yma, sydd yn mynd i fod wrth wraidd unrhyw ddadl am ddyfodol darlledu.
|
Mr Davies: Quite possibly, but the point I’m making is: we sometimes assume the ability of public service broadcasters to reach their audience. Now, to a certain extent, historically, BBC owned radio and, for some decades, it owned television. We weren’t only the channel, we were the platform too, but that world has been transformed. There are smart tvs and the social media interfaces and the consolidation to two or three global companies and their ability to control people’s access to content. I do believe, whatever that content is, then their ability to control that relationship between the audience and the content is a matter that, over the next decade, is going to be at the heart of any debate on the future of broadcasting. |
|
[116] Ms Gwynedd: Yr unig beth y buaswn i’n ei ychwanegu yn fanna ydy bod y drafodaeth yna eisoes yn digwydd efo S4C. Felly, mae brand fel Pobl y Cwm, sydd yn apelio at y gynulleidfa graidd, yn gwneud fideos yn rheolaidd ar gyfer Facebook, er enghraifft, ac maen nhw’n cyrraedd tua 20,000 o gynulleidfa, rhai o’r fideos yna. Felly, mae’r gynulleidfa ar gyfer y rheini, buaswn i’n meddwl, yn eithaf gwahanol efallai ar adegau i’r gynulleidfa graidd. Felly, mae’r sgyrsiau ynglŷn â sut i newid canfyddiad cynulleidfa, weithiau, ynglŷn â rhai o’r brands sydd yn eistedd ar S4C eisoes yn digwydd. Mi ydym ni wedi gweld efo Newyddion 9—eto sydd yn apelio i’r gynulleidfa graidd, sydd â chynulleidfa gref yn y slot cystadleuol naw o’r gloch—fod nifer o’r pecynnau yna, os ydyn nhw’n cael eu rhoi ar Cymru Fyw, yn cyrraedd cynulleidfa dan 45 ac unwaith eto efallai’n newid canfyddiad pobl o frand S4C ac yn cyrraedd y cynulleidfaoedd iau. Felly, mae’r sgyrsiau ynglŷn â sut i gael cynnwys at y cynulleidfaoedd iau a defnyddio rhwydweithiau cymdeithasol a ffurfiau digidol i wneud hynny eisoes yn digwydd. Yn amlwg, mae yna le i wneud mwy ac mi ydym ni yn cael sgyrsiau am hynny. Ond, rwy’n meddwl ein bod ni’n cydnabod yr her o fod angen cael y cynnwys i blatfformau gwahanol, weithiau oddi wrth y brif sianel er mwyn cyflawni hynny.
|
Ms Gwynedd: The only thing that I would add there is that that discussion is already happening with S4C. Therefore, a brand such as Pobl y Cwm, which appeals to the core audience, makes videos regularly for Facebook, for example, and they reach an audience of about 20,000, some of those videos. So, the audiences for those are quite different perhaps at times to the core audience. Therefore, the discussions about how to change the perception of an audience, sometimes, about the brands that sit on S4C is already happening. We’ve seen with Newyddion 9—again, which appeals to the core audience, which has a strong audience in that competitive slot of nine o’clock—that a number of the packages, if they’re placed on Cymru Fyw, reach an audience that’s under 45 and, again, may be changing people’s perceptions of S4C’s brand and reaching younger audiences. Therefore, the conversations about how to get content to the younger audiences and using social networks and digital means of doing so are already happening. Clearly, there is room to do more and we are having conversations about that. But, I think we recognise the challenge of the need of having that content on different platforms, sometimes away from the main channel to achieve that. |
|
[117] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch. Mae yna gwestiynau nawr gan Neil Hamilton ar gydweithredu golygyddol.
|
Bethan Jenkins: Thank you. We now have some questions from Neil Hamilton on editorial collaboration. |
|
[118] Neil Hamilton: Well, you’ve eloquently described the umbilical relationship that you have with S4C and the many different kinds of collaboration that benefit them and don’t actually cost you anything in addition to the expenditure you would have anyway, which would be lost if there was a different kind of relationship. Do you see any current barriers to collaboration that could be dismantled or diminished, that would add to what you’re already doing in terms of collaborating with S4C?
|
|
|
[119] Mr Davies: No, I don’t. I haven’t encountered in any of my discussions with S4C—I’m not sure Sian has—in the last five years any matters that can’t be discussed. We are entering a different world. If you spool back to the beginning of the relationship, back in 1982, you were dealing with S4C as a tv channel, Radio Cymru over here as a Welsh language radio station—they were, sort of, two slightly hermetically sealed worlds. I think digital brings both broadcasters into the same space. So, it will be no surprise that both S4C and the BBC are thinking about what their social media strategy is. So, there are elements of playing in the same space now that are different to where their historical relationship was. That’s not a problem, because I think that, again, it’s about playing to each organisation’s strengths and making sure that we’re not duplicating and treading on each other’s toes, and that feels very possible. But it is extraordinary when you think back to 1982 and the clean, rather simple world that existed then, and just the messiness now of platforms and devices. It’s very exciting, but it requires a daily conversation rather than maybe an annual one.
|
|
|
[120] Neil Hamilton: Yes. Well, of course, one of S4C’s complaints is that the legislative framework under which they have to operate goes back all that way and doesn’t actually embrace the new technologies that you’ve been mentioning.
|
|
|
[121] Mr Davies: It’s true. One of the challenges that increases is our funding contribution to S4C is measured in broadcast hours. So, you know, if S4C come to us and want us to do some social media activity or digital activity, we can't use that money for anything other than traditional broadcast activity. So, I think there are some antiquities to the current sort of statute that we may want to look at together during the review process.
|
|
|
[122] Neil Hamilton: We've had evidence from Boom Cymru that there is scope for more co-production between S4C and other broadcasters, including the BBC. Do you see this similar kind of scope for doing more than you're doing already, or more than you're obliged to do under the agreements that you've got?
|
|
|
[123] Mr Davies: Absolutely. I was hoping that we’d be there today, but we’re about to announce two very major co-productions with S4C. And I think they are exactly the types of projects that cannot only be enormously impactful in Wales, but potentially reach a much bigger audience in the way that Hinterland did. But I do also recognise the point that, I think, Ron made last week or the week before that the biggest challenge is the Welsh speaking audience here in the UK. If you drive after an international co-production model as the be-all and end-all of the S4C strategy, you probably end up in the wrong place. So, within the mix, I think it's fantastic to identify these opportunities, but it doesn't get you away from the central question of the daily relationship with Welsh audiences here in Wales and particularly that issue of how you get to those younger generations.
|
|
|
[124] Ms Gwynedd: We also look for opportunities to commission back-to-back programmes, often within the hours. So, when Huw Edwards went to Patagonia to do a programme for English language television for the BBC, he did a programme for S4C as well. So, we do look for those opportunities to work across where that will work for audiences for S4C and then audiences for BBC Wales.
|
|
|
[125] Neil Hamilton: That's an interesting point as well. I mean, is the BBC audience very big in Patagonia?
|
|
|
[126] Ms Gwynedd: I think it's quite big for S4C content when they can get hold of it, yes.
|
|
|
[127] Mr Davies: It's much bigger than it was. We took the orchestra over there and we took the entire BBC archive of programming about Patagonia from the last 50 years, and believe me, there's quite a lot in the archive about Patagonia.
|
|
|
[128] Neil Hamilton: I’m sure, yes.
|
|
|
[129] Mr Davies: So, we've given them the entire digital archive. So, I'm hoping it's a little larger than it was before.
|
|
|
[130] Neil Hamilton: Good. Thank you.
|
|
|
[131] Bethan Jenkins: Hannah.
|
|
|
[132] Hannah Blythyn: Thanks, Chair. In your written evidence to the committee, you say that you’re currently in discussions with the University of Wales Trinity Saint David about relocating some of your staff—the staff based at the Carmarthen studio—to the new S4C headquarters. I wonder if you could just elaborate on that and where that is.
|
|
|
[133] Ms Gwynedd: Yes, we are currently in discussion with the university about the possibility of relocating. We have around 15 staff based in our BBC office in Carmarthen. So, we’re looking at the feasibility, both financially and operationally, of moving those staff to Yr Egin in Carmarthen. So, those negotiations are continuing and, obviously, we’ll be hoping to come to a decision in the next few months.
|
|
|
[134] Mr Davies: And just to be clear, we want to move. We just need to make sure the money works.
|
|
|
[135] Hannah Blythyn: And just linked to that, I understand also that there are approximately 20 S4C staff who are expected to relocate into the new BBC Cymru Wales headquarters in Central Square. Will they be S4C employees or BBC employees?
|
|
|
[136] Mr Davies: I think that I should caveat this by saying we're still in negotiation with S4C about this, but there are two pieces of work. One is that S4C would like space in the new building for some of its staff to be based, so it has staff in Carmarthen and it has a small number of staff in Cardiff. That’s one part of the conversation and that's S4C staff. And then the second part of the conversation is around transmission and playout and the technical broadcasting of both the channels and whether we can develop a shared service there where one team operates the broadcast and playout for both channels. I genuinely can't go into the detail on that yet because we’re not through with the negotiation with S4C at this stage.
|
|
|
[137] Hannah Blythyn: So, you're looking also at how that can provide additional value to both S4C and the BBC.
|
|
|
[138] Mr Davies: Yes. So, at the moment—. S4C would definitely want to put some of their staff into the new building, and that’s absolutely terrific, but there’s a separate question of how you bring what are currently two major technical teams across from Llanishen, for S4C, and then Llandaf, for the BBC. How do you bring those two teams together to provide a unified service? I think you’re asking me a slightly contractual question, which I understand. But until we’re through the negotiation, I think it would be—we need to get to a decision on it. Obviously, our first obligation would be to talk to the staff involved.
|
|
|
[139] Bethan Jenkins: I think this question comes from what we heard from BECTU last week, where they were concerned about—if staff were moving over from S4C contracts to the BBC, that this was somehow a movement towards them being, obviously, BBC staff as opposed to S4C, and would this then lead to potentially more in the future. Obviously, if you can’t answer in relation to the contractual agreement, it’s for us to analyse after—
|
|
|
[140] Mr Davies: No, no; I absolutely understand why you would ask that, but I think it’s important—and it’s an important part of the basis of our relationship—that we sort these things out between the two broadcasters and then we’ll jointly share the information. We’re just not at the point yet where I could go into the detail of how that will look. But we will obviously talk with BECTU at the right time.
|
|
|
[141] Bethan Jenkins: Suzy.
|
|
|
[142] Suzy Davies: Just a quick question on the staff that will remain in S4C anyway. Have you any sort of idea what type of staff they’ll be?
|
|
|
[143] Mr Davies: No. I think that that will be a question for Ian.
|
|
|
[144] Suzy Davies: Okay. I just wondered if you knew. Thank you.
|
|
|
[145] Bethan Jenkins: A oes unrhyw gwestiynau eraill? Os na, diolch yn fawr iawn ichi am ddod i mewn heddiw. Rwy’n siŵr y byddwch chi â diddordeb mewn gwylio’r hyn sydd yn datblygu gyda’r adolygiad. Ond diolch eto am ddod i mewn. |
Bethan Jenkins: Any other questions? If there aren’t any other questions, thank you very much for coming in this morning. I’m sure you’ll be interested in watching what’s developing with the review. So, thank you very much again.
|
|
[146] Mr Davies: Diolch yn fawr iawn.
|
|
|
[147] Bethan Jenkins: Byddwn ni’n cael seibiant o bum munud. Diolch.
|
Bethan Jenkins: We’ll now have a break of five minutes. Thank you.
|
|
Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 10:26 a 10:35.
|
|
|
Cyllid ar gyfer Addysg Cerddoriaeth a Mynediad at yr Addysg Honno—Sesiwn dystiolaeth 11 Funding for and Access to Music Education—Evidence Session 11
|
|
|
[148] Bethan Jenkins: Rydym ni’n symud ymlaen at eitem 3 ar yr agenda, sef cyllid ar gyfer addysg cerddoriaeth a mynediad at yr addysg honno, a sesiwn dystiolaeth 11. Y tystion heddiw yw Heather Powell, rheolwr-gyfarwyddwr Cerdd Cydweithredol Sir Ddinbych a hefyd Fflur Wyn Roberts, sef rheolwr swyddfa Cerdd Cydweithredol Sir Ddinbych. Diolch yn fawr iawn ichi am ddod mewn heddiw. Rhan o’r cylch gwaith rydym ni yn edrych arno yw cerddoriaeth mewn addysg. Jest yn gychwynnol, a allech chi esbonio sut wnaethoch chi gael eich sefydlu a’r hyn rydych chi’n ei wneud yn lleol yn y sir? Diolch.
|
Bethan Jenkins: We move on to item 3 on the agenda, which is funding for and access to music education, and this is evidence session 11. The witnesses today are Heather Powell, managing director of Denbighshire Music Co-op and Fflur Wyn Roberts who’s the office manager at Denbighshire Music Co-op. Thank you very much for coming in today. Part of the work that we’re looking at is music education. Just to start with, could you explain how you were established and what you do locally in the county? Thank you.
|
|
[149] Ms Powell: Good morning, everyone. We were established in 2015, after Denbighshire became the first local authority to completely cut the core funding for music overnight—literally overnight. I was one of the 22 tutors who were made redundant from the music service in 2015. We’d had an idea that a cut was coming, so we had already looked at alternative models, and had travelled to other places to look at the model and, essentially, we held a bit of an emergency meeting and decided that a co-operative was the best suggestion that we could come up with. So, the teachers took the service on, and I was the silly person who decided to try and manage that—[Laughter]—and we started our own service. I should probably point out that two years ago I was a brass teacher teaching kids in school, so this is all very new to me.
|
|
|
[150] Bethan Jenkins: Do you still teach brass in schools, or do you—
|
|
|
[151] Ms Powell: No. I don’t have time anymore because we’ve gone from 22 teachers to 60 teacher members. We’ve trebled the size of the service.
|
|
|
[152] Bethan Jenkins: So you’re a not-for-profit, are you?
|
|
|
[153] Ms Powell: We’re a not-for-profit co-operative. It’s a member service, so all of the tutors are self-employed and we essentially do the administration and the management of the service. But it started off in my lounge, where all of the tutors put some money in together to buy a laptop and to buy stationary. That’s how, basically, it started off until we negotiated some funding from our local authority, which was a very minimal amount of transitional money to start the service.
|
|
|
[154] Bethan Jenkins: Bydd mwy o gwestiynau yn hwyrach ar y manylion, ond jest i ofyn yn glou, rydym ni wedi clywed pobl fel Owain Arwel Hughes ac eraill yn dweud bod y sefyllfa yn argyfyngus ar hyn o bryd, a bod yna greisis yn y byd cerddoriaeth mewn addysg. A ydych chi’n cytuno gyda hynny, neu oherwydd eich bod chi wedi gwneud gwaith fel rydych chi wedi ei wneud yn sefydlu hwn o ddim byd, a ydych chi’n credu y byddai pobl eraill yn gallu gwneud hynny yn weddol hawdd a bod yna ffordd o beidio â chael y creisis yma y mae pobl yn siarad amdano ar hyn o bryd?
|
Bethan Jenkins: There’ll be more questions later on the detail, but just to ask you quickly, we’ve heard people like Owain Arwel Hughes and others say that it’s a crisis situation at the moment and that there’s a crisis in music education. Do you agree with that, or because you’ve done work such as that that you have done in establishing this from nothing, do you think that other people can do that quite easily and therefore there’s a way of not having this crisis that people are talking about at the moment? |
|
[155] Ms Powell: I think there is a major crisis in music education. I think we, through sheer hard work and determination, have got to where we are with Denbighshire co-operative now, but we are managing now on grants. There’s no core funding whatsoever. I think that in a few years we’re going to see a huge issue with the national ensembles and things like that, because the grassroots of music provision—. We cover Rhyl, which is a very difficult area to cover in terms of poverty and things like that, and less than 1 per cent of the 4,000 pupils who access our service are free-school-meal pupils, who we really struggle to engage in any sort of music whatsoever.
|
|
|
[156] Bethan Jenkins: Mae Jeremy eisiau dod i mewn gyda chwestiwn.
|
Bethan Jenkins: Jeremy wants to come in now with a question. |
|
[157] Jeremy Miles: I just wanted to make sure I understood what you said correctly in terms of how it’s structured. Did you say that the individual tutors are all members of the co-operative?
|
|
|
[158] Ms Powell: That’s right. It’s a membership organisation.
|
|
|
[159] Jeremy Miles: Right. And did you say that they’re self-employed?
|
|
|
[160] Ms Powell: Yes. They’re self-employed, so they’re on hourly rates. Basically, we charge the schools a certain amount for tuition per hour, we take off a slice, if you like, of that, for our management and administration, and then the teacher members receive the rest. But they are self-employed.
|
|
|
[161] Jeremy Miles: I see. So, they’re members of the co-op, but the co-op effectively provides them with a management service, if I can put it like that, which is separate from their employment relationship, because they’re self-employed.
|
|
|
[162] Ms Powell: That’s right.
|
|
|
[163] Jeremy Miles: Understood. Thank you.
|
|
|
[164] Bethan Jenkins: Okay. Dawn.
|
|
|
[165] Dawn Bowden: Thank you, Chair. It’s kind of following on from that, really—obviously, as you are self-employed, I’m assuming that you’ve come in from other areas as teachers or whatever, so you won’t necessarily have the experience of being self-employed, and that’s been quite a steep learning curve, I should imagine. Can you tell us a bit more about how you’ve manged that and whether there have been any other particular issues with the running of the co-operative and any kind of barriers that you’ve had to overcome?
|
|
|
[166] Ms Powell: Okay. So, right at the beginning, just to make it clear, I was employed by a music service from another county that had the contract with four different counties in north Wales. When Denbighshire cut their contract, we were made redundant from that proportion of our work.
|
|
|
[167] Dawn Bowden: I see, yes.
|
|
|
[168] Ms Powell: So, initially, we had issues with TUPE and we were told, if we started the service, we’d lose redundancy pay. That was all very difficult to start off with. At the beginning, it was quite a challenge to overcome things like that, really. So, Ffion and myself are employed, now, by the co-operative—only recently were we in the position to be able to do that—but the rest of the members are self-employed.
|
|
|
[169] Dawn Bowden: Okay. And has that presented any particular issues or challenges?
|
|
|
[170] Ms Powell: Well, they all lost their employment-led pension when they were made redundant.
|
|
|
[171] Dawn Bowden: Sorry, I was thinking more in terms of how the organisation operates and whether that was a difficulty or an impediment—
|
|
|
[172] Ms Powell: I think it can be seen as both, because I think the members feel more engaged because they’re more involved in the day-to-day running of the service. Everyone’s now involved, whereas before, we didn’t have a say in how things were run and how—
|
|
|
[173] Dawn Bowden: Okay. So, you see it as a positive thing in that sense.
|
|
|
[174] Ms Powell: It is a positive. The negative side is HMRC, I know, are looking at the self-employed versus employed status, which is why I think the Musicians’ Union have been heavily involved in forming a national network of music co-operatives. We’re the only one in Wales at the moment, but I do, perhaps, see that that’s the way things are going to go.
|
|
|
[175] Dawn Bowden: Okay, yes, that’s fine. I just wanted to then, really, take you on from that, in terms of your view on whether this is the best route to be providing music education, or do you still think that local authorities are the best route, or a combination of both? What’s your view on that?
|
|
|
[176] Ms Powell: This is a difficult one. My honest opinion—and I know it’s not everybody’s opinion—is that this model does work for music. Lots of the peripatetic teachers are self-employed elsewhere, they all have tv and radio work, so they are clearly self-employed. It’s not the same everywhere. I do think there needs to be an element of local authority involvement in the service. I mean, right at the beginning, we had no office space, we had no anything, and there was no support for that either.
|
|
|
[177] Dawn Bowden: So, would you see that as practical support from the local authority or the local authority maybe even commissioning services from you?
|
|
|
[178] Mr Powell: Practical support would’ve been great right at the beginning. We had absolutely nothing and we were running the service from my front room. That would’ve been fantastic. We’re starting now to support the delivery of a music curriculum as well, within schools, because lots of our tutors are former heads of music and things like that. So, that’s an element that we’re working on more and more as well, because we’ve got lots of our schools that struggle to deliver the curriculum—bilingually as well.
|
|
|
[179] Dawn Bowden: Of course, yes. Thank you, Chair.
|
|
|
[180] Bethan Jenkins: Thanks. Lee Waters wants to come in.
|
|
|
[181] Lee Waters: So, you’ve obviously developed this model out of necessity, and all credit to you for doing that. What do you think are the disadvantages of this model? Were we to recommend that this was rolled out in other parts of Wales, what would be the pros and cons, do you think?
|
|
|
[182] Ms Powell: I think it’s just generally the authorities saying, ‘Okay, well, it’s a private company now taking over for music, and we don’t have to do anything.’ We’ve had issues with safeguarding and child protection. We were told at one point we couldn’t even use the local authority for safeguarding advice. So, we’ve had to outsource all of that ourselves as well. So, I think there does need to be an element of local authority control.
|
|
|
[183] Lee Waters: Right. And you mention on your website that the schools subsidise the music tuition. What are the costs involved?
|
|
|
[184] Ms Powell: Some of the schools—not every school, unfortunately—subsidise. That’s our next—. We’ve faced the full cut, now we’re facing schools—. We had a school call us only yesterday to say, ‘We’ve decided to buy a minibus next year and not subsidise music.’ So, we’re now facing more and more cuts. There’s a huge range across our service—of schools that pass on the full cost of our service to parents, to schools in Rhyl where the pupils pay £1 a week and most of them don’t even pay that, and everything in between. So, there’s no clear charging policy. Every school has different levels of free-school-meal pupils, et cetera. I can’t think of a way of making a clear charging policy for everybody. What we’re facing for next year is schools cutting the subsidies, because other things are more important. Unfortunately, I managed to battle with a lot of my heads this year to use the pupil deprivation grant for music, but now I’m being told that PDG is being used to support teaching assistants’ salaries, so that’s not going on music either.
|
|
|
10:45
|
|
|
[185] Lee Waters: I think you said you’d managed to double the size of the workforce. How have you managed to do that?
|
|
|
[186] Ms Powell: I think just because the service, previously, was run from afar, whereas I was one of the teachers and I knew all the headteachers. They knew a lot of us and so they kind of gave more value to it, really, to be honest. A lot of it essentially comes down to: if you have a headteacher who values music, the service is safe; if you’ve got a headteacher who has no interest in music, you struggle.
|
|
|
[187] Lee Waters: Right. Do you think it should be left to that level of variation between schools?
|
|
|
[188] Ms Powell: No, no, I think there needs to be some direction given to schools, definitely. Particularly in areas such as Rhyl, we really, really struggle to put any provision in these schools at all.
|
|
|
[189] Lee Waters: So, assuming this model could be replicated elsewhere, what do you think the role for the local authority should be then?
|
|
|
[190] Ms Powell: Sorry?
|
|
|
[191] Lee Waters: What role should the local authority play in supporting you?
|
|
|
[192] Ms Powell: Help with things like safeguarding, office space, translation costs—all the things like this that we’re having to find ourselves—would be a real big start. The local authority owned all of the musical instruments in Denbighshire. So, one of the big issues at the beginning of setting this up was that we had to secure the instruments, because, obviously, without the instruments, there’s no service. But we have huge costs. The stock of instruments, generally in north Wales, is very old. Trying to maintain and repair—you know, you get a pupil who drops a tuba, for example, and you can find yourself with a £1,000 bill. A lot of the stock has been written off. We’ve taken on the stock and we’ve got a legal agreement with our local authority that we maintain the stock, but that’s of huge cost to us when we’re trying to find other core costs to run the service as well—with no core funding whatsoever.
|
|
|
[193] Lee Waters: One model we’ve heard about is based on the English model of the regional consortia or the hubs. Do you have a view on whether or not that’s a good model?
|
|
|
[194] Ms Powell: I don’t think the hubs are necessarily—. I could talk about hubs all day long in England, but I don’t think that they’re necessarily the best model. I think there does need to be some regional—. It’s very difficult, you see, because—. If you look at one of the counties in north Wales, they’ve got a private music service provider in there, they’ve got a local authority-led service in there, and you’ve got individuals going around saying, ‘I teach guitar’ and ‘I teach this’, and there doesn’t seem to be any sort of looking at standards, CPD—anything at all. There seems to be people just doing their own thing, essentially.
|
|
|
[195] Lee Waters: So, if there was that kind of co-ordinating role, do you think that would be best done on a regional basis or on a local authority basis?
|
|
|
[196] Ms Powell: I think a local authority basis, but I think every county, at the moment, is operating so differently, it’s very difficult to come together in one kind of model.
|
|
|
[197] Lee Waters: Right. Okay, thank you.
|
|
|
[198] Bethan Jenkins: Jest yn fras, mae’r Gweinidog wedi cyhoeddi £10,000 ar gyfer awdurdodau lleol ar gyfer prynu offerynnau newydd. A ydych chi wedi cael unrhyw beth gan y cyngor yn eich ardal chi? Achos, yn amlwg, nid ydyn nhw’n rheoli cerddoriaeth, ac nid oes ganddyn nhw adran gerddoriaeth. Felly, a ydyn nhw wedi dod atoch chi ers y datganiad hwnnw i ddweud eich bod chi’n gallu defnyddio’r arian hwnnw?
|
Bethan Jenkins: Just briefly, the Minister has announced £10,000 for local authorities to buy new instruments. Have you had anything from the council in your area? Because, clearly, they don’t manage music, and they don’t have a music department. So, have they come to you since that statement saying that you can use that money? |
|
[199] Ms Powell: Yes, we had an e-mail off them this morning—I think because they knew I was coming here today—to say that the money would be on its way. [Laughter.]
|
|
|
[200] Bethan Jenkins: Well, that’s progress, potentially, then.
|
|
|
[201] Ms Powell: It’s great—£10,000 is great. But, you know, it’ll buy us one harp.
|
|
|
[202] Bethan Jenkins: Yes, scratching the surface, then.
|
|
|
[203] Ms Powell: It’s great, but, you know, our repair costs last month were about £2,000.
|
|
|
[204] Bethan Jenkins: Okay, thanks. Jeremy.
|
|
|
[205] Jeremy Miles: Can I ask you a question about how the model works? So, you negotiate with each school, independently, a service level agreement of some sort.
|
|
|
[206] Ms Powell: That’s right.
|
|
|
[207] Jeremy Miles: Okay. And you need a certain number of schools to buy the service for it to be viable, probably, and you’re obviously viable, so that’s good. Have you had to borrow any money to fund anything so far?
|
|
|
[208] Ms Powell: No, we haven’t had to—we had a really good year. Obviously, last year was our first year. We had a really good year last year, because we managed to increase numbers everywhere, basically by knocking on the door and not taking ‘no’ for an answer. It has been hard work. We charge the hourly rate to schools, which we have had to negotiate with some of the schools just to keep them engaged with the service. Like I said earlier, it all comes down to whether the head values music or whether they choose to spend their money elsewhere.
|
|
|
[209] Jeremy Miles: I don’t want you to disclose anything that’s confidential to your operation, obviously, but, in principle, you try and charge everyone the same, but sometimes that can’t happen because schools have varying levels of interest.
|
|
|
[210] Ms Powell: Yes, sometimes.
|
|
|
[211] Jeremy Miles: Okay. Right, thank you.
|
|
|
[212] Bethan Jenkins: Hannah.
|
|
|
[213] Hannah Blythyn: Thanks. I think you said, in response to Dawn’s question, that you’re starting to support the delivery of the music curriculum in schools, and lessons usually take place in schools. Jeremy just touched on—it depends whether a head has a particular interest. Do you go into all schools in the county at present, or does that vary depending on the commitment of teachers?
|
|
|
[214] Ms Powell: There are only two schools in the county that we don’t have any service in. One has completely withdrawn due to financial restraint—we had one of our tutors teaching there and not being paid to do so, because she felt so sorry for the pupils. The other one has similar sorts of reasons, really—financial issues.
|
|
|
[215] Hannah Blythyn: So, it’s primarily financial reasons for schools not taking up the service.
|
|
|
[216] Ms Powell: There’s no ring fence. You know, the schools don’t have to spend any money on music. There’s no direction on that. It’s entirely up to choice. We can try and make the service as good as we can make the service. For example, we’ve just managed to offer all of our primary schools next year, in one of our clusters, a paid-for provision for foundation phase music, through the Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation, but that’s been a huge amount of work. So, we are trying to show the schools that we are also trying to give back to the schools. We are doing our best.
|
|
|
[217] Hannah Blythyn: You’ve touched on the challenges in particular areas of the county, such as Rhyl, for example. I know that your website says you have a small trust fund to support pupils. Do the financial and various practical restraints you’re under and schools are under—do you think that has an impact on particular groups of pupils?
|
|
|
[218] Ms Powell: It definitely has an impact. We’ve just started an initiative in Rhyl. Wait for this—it’s called ‘The Rhyl Phil’. [Laughter.] That’s my new orchestra. We had 100 kids who turned up to the first week. It’s free of charge because I managed to find a grant. The noise is incredible, but they all absolutely love it. But a lot of them—it’s just if they’ve managed to get their hands on an instrument. A lot of them aren’t having school lessons because they can’t pay the few pounds a week that it is to have the lessons or buy the book. So, we are trying to introduce whole-class music initiatives for September. The £10,000 will be spent wisely on buying instruments for that project. So, we are ensuring some sort of access, but it’s minimal, really.
|
|
|
[219] Bethan Jenkins: Cyn symud ymlaen, rwyf jest eisiau ymddiheuro i Ffion bod gyda chi yr enw ‘Fflur’ o’ch blaen chi. Ein camgymeriad ni yw hynny. Sori am hynny. Mae cwestiynau nawr ar yr ensemblau cenedlaethol gan Dai Lloyd. Diolch.
|
Bethan Jenkins: Before moving on, I just want to apologise to Ffion that you are named ‘Fflur’ on your nameplate. It was our error. We apologise for that. We now have some questions on the national ensembles from Dai Lloyd. |
|
[220] Dai Lloyd: Diolch yn fawr. Mae eisiau eich llongyfarch chi, yn y lle cyntaf, ar eich gwaith. Mae hyn i gyd yn fendigedig, felly llongyfarchiadau. Rydych chi wedi crybwyll eisoes, yn eich rhagymadrodd ar y dechrau, ynglŷn â’r ensemblau rhanbarthol. Roeddwn i jest eisiau rhoi cyfle i chi eto i wyntyllu’ch pryderon ynglŷn â dyfodol hirdymor ensemblau rhanbarthol a chenedlaethol. Hefyd, a ydych chi fel cerdd cydweithredol yn cael unrhyw gysylltiad efo’r ensemblau cenedlaethol?
|
Dai Lloyd: Thank you very much. I need to congratulate you, first of all, on your work. This is great, so congratulations. You’ve mentioned already, in your comments at the beginning, about the regional ensembles. I just wanted to give you an opportunity again to voice your concerns about the long-term future of the regional and national ensembles. Also, do you as the music co-op have any link with the national ensembles? |
|
[221] Ms Powell: Some of our pupils have accessed national ensembles this year. I’ve seen, in the last 10 years, a huge decline in the numbers of pupils getting to that level, because there is less and less grass-roots level music happening in schools, and this is the issue. We’ve just had a very talented young chap who’s a free-school-meal pupil that we’ve managed to—. He was going to a national ensemble with a trombone that was literally falling apart, so we’ve managed to fundraise to buy him an instrument. That’s the status of things at the moment. But I think, unless something’s done about pupils in primary schools accessing musical lessons, in the next five years, it will be a real crisis—the number of pupils even getting to that level.
|
|
|
[222] Dai Lloyd: Diolch yn fawr. Mae hynny’n glir.
|
Dai Lloyd: Thank you. That’s clear. |
|
[223] Bethan Jenkins: Have you raised that with—? Obviously, there’s a new set-up for the national ensembles—the new body, National Youth Arts Wales. Have you raised these concerns with them?
|
|
|
[224] Ms Powell: Sorry, I didn’t catch the beginning of that.
|
|
|
[225] Bethan Jenkins: Obviously, there’s the new body—National Youth Arts Wales have been established and they’re obviously looking at fundraising. Have you raised these concerns with them, with regard to the fact that you think that there will be fewer and fewer people going to them?
|
|
|
[226] Ms Powell: Not yet. I’ve only just, in the last few weeks, been invited to attend the Cymdeithas Addysg Cerdd Awdurdodau Cymru meetings. I think because we’re the only co-operative, we’ve been kind of left out of things a little bit, because they’re very nervous about our model. So, I’ve not been involved in any of that at all, to be honest.
|
|
|
[227] Bethan Jenkins: Okay, thanks. Lee, do you have any more questions?
|
|
|
[228] Lee Waters: You said that they were very nervous about your model. Why do you think that is?
|
|
|
[229] Ms Powell: I think they’re all trying to hold on to local authority funding and I don’t blame them, because we could do with some core funding ourselves. I think because our model’s been quite successful, people are worried about it expanding, and I understand the reasons why because it’s always better to be employed than to go down the self-employed route. But it was a crisis point, and we had to do something. It wasn’t out of choice, it was out of necessity.
|
|
|
[230] Lee Waters: And having now done it, though not through circumstances you would have chosen, do you think the model has advantages?
|
|
|
[231] Ms Powell: I do think it has advantages. The feedback from the tutors is that they all feel a lot more involved; they all have a say in things. We’ve got nine ensembles that we run every week; we started off with three, so we’ve expanded ensembles. And I think it does have its advantages. For us, it works, but it wouldn’t work, perhaps, for everybody.
|
|
|
[232] Lee Waters: So, if you had some better local authority support and maybe some core funding to help common services, this could actually be a better model than the one that it’s replaced?
|
|
|
[233] Ms Powell: Perhaps, yes.
|
|
|
[234] Lee Waters: What would be the things to watch out for?
|
|
|
[235] Ms Powell: I just think that it’s very difficult trying to look at a national picture when everybody’s at different stages of development. We’re still quite a new service so, yes, it’s working now. Is it going to be working two years down the line? I’d like to think so, but we don’t know. We don’t know how many more subsidy cuts we’re going to face in schools, and whether it will still be viable without any core funding. We can’t lower our hourly rate to our members any more than we have done, bearing in mind they’re a highly skilled workforce. So, we can’t increase pupil numbers without decreasing the costs, and without any core funding that’s just not possible.
|
|
|
[236] Lee Waters: Okay, thank you.
|
|
|
[237] Bethan Jenkins: Suzy Davies.
|
|
|
[238] Suzy Davies: Thank you. I was listening to what you were saying—you agreed that there’s a major crisis, that some direction is needed, not least because it’s entirely down to the heads whether they have music services or not, and that you’d like an element of local authority control. That suggests to me that you wouldn’t be averse to the idea of a national strategy for music education, even though you mentioned that everyone is at different stages across Wales.
|
|
|
[239] Ms Powell: I think it would be possible. It’s always safety in numbers, isn’t it? We are a bit out on a limb being the only co-operative, so I think—
|
|
|
[240] Suzy Davies: This is sort of why I’m asking, really, because it sounds like a national strategy would be a good idea, but that inevitably involves, then, decisions made here about what that should look like and what a framework should look like. I presume that would provide a bit of certainty because you know what you’re bidding to be part of, but would you worry at all that it might clip your wings now that you’ve discovered them?
|
|
|
[241] Ms Powell: Possibly, but as long as we can keep music going and keep improving things, in all honesty, I wouldn’t mind having my wings clipped. [Laughter.] I think it’s really important that we just need to focus on the children and keeping music going. One of my biggest concerns remains that I don’t want it to be elitist. I’m constantly battling with the children—. The looked-after children, the free school meal pupils—we can’t engage many of them at all, and it’s my biggest worry that it is just for the parents who can afford it because of the hourly rate.
|
|
|
[242] Suzy Davies: That’s a point well made. Are you slightly confused, then, by some of the decisions that have been made in this place recently—well, by Welsh Government, anyway—about funding priorities?
|
|
|
[243] Ms Powell: I didn’t understand the £10,000 and why it was going to local authorities who’ve turned their back on music; I didn’t quite understand that. But it is a drop in the ocean for what we actually need. The instruments are getting older. Even to go and buy music for an ensemble, you could be paying £300 or £400 just for a set of music. You know, translation costs and things like that—we’re having to find everything ourselves, and it is very, very difficult, and I’m not quite sure whether it’s feasible long term.
|
|
|
[244] Suzy Davies: What were your views on the announcement on the endowment, out of interest?
|
|
|
[245] Ms Powell: I thought, again, it’s fantastic. I’m not sure how it’s going to be rolled out. I’d be interested to see what happens there.
|
|
|
[246] Suzy Davies: We can just sit there for a bit until all these magic private investors come and put money into it, but there you go. Well, no, I’m just wondering if that money might have spent in a more revenue way to meet your immediate needs, really.
|
|
|
[247] Ms Powell: I think it’s the grass roots and the core running costs that I think every service needs help with. I think that’s the biggest thing. And I think what’s going to happen if there’s no central direction is that more and more tutors are going to be operating independently, and that worries me from a safeguarding point of view and from a standards point of view. For example, I know in Powys you’ve got individuals just kind of doing their own thing, and I don’t really know how that works safely.
|
|
|
11:00
|
|
|
[248] Suzy Davies: I think your point on safeguarding earlier on and being able to get that sort of service was very well made. I just want to ask you one more thing, really, and this is because you have this freedom, you’re not sort of bound by local authority rules, if I can put it like that, at the moment. You’ve been able to apply to the Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation, and all that sort of thing. Do you have any concerns that if you become part of a more homogenised big picture that, actually, you won’t be able to apply for this kind of funding, or that organisations like the Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation won’t be interested in looking at applications from, you know, ‘Wales incorporated’?
|
|
|
[249] Ms Powell: Yes, but you can always run a charity alongside that could apply for things like that. I think the idea behind our trust fund is that it’s minimal, but I just write to local businesses and ask them to donate to it. You’re talking a minimal amount of money, but when a child can’t afford lessons, we can use that money. We don’t have a huge amount—
|
|
|
[250] Suzy Davies: But a local business might be prepared to fork out on a trumpet, but it may not be prepared to contribute to what they see as a council department.
|
|
|
[251] Ms Powell: Yes, and we’ve just had a local business that’s donated a trailer—a £5,000 trailer—in the last few days, so that we can transport percussion to concerts and vital things like that. So, they are more willing to help, but I think a charity running alongside would be the way to go. It was difficult for us in the beginning because the Wales Co-operative Centre couldn’t help us at the beginning either, because they lost—. The week that this all happened, they lost all of their—. They weren’t able to take on any new clients, so we were literally completely and utterly on our own.
|
|
|
[252] Suzy Davies: Do you find, then, that you end up working with other bodies and other individuals, youth groups and voluntary organisations, in order to spread the word?
|
|
|
[253] Ms Powell: A little bit. We do our best with things like that, but I think it is quite a specialist thing that we’re doing, and we try our best to support—. We’ve just started working with adults with disabilities and things like that as well, so we’re trying our best to spread our wings as well as we can.
|
|
|
[254] Suzy Davies: But it’s quite early days anyway for you.
|
|
|
[255] Ms Powell: Yes, it is.
|
|
|
[256] Suzy Davies: But it’s an opportunity, anyway. That’s great. Thank you very much. Diolch.
|
|
|
[257] Ms Powell: Thank you. Diolch.
|
|
|
[258] Bethan Jenkins: Mae cwestiynau nawr gan Neil Hamilton.
|
Bethan Jenkins: Neil Hamilton has some questions now. |
|
[259] Neil Hamilton: Just to follow up on what Suzy said, what do you think will be a reasonable figure that you would need for your core funding? If we could separate that out from teaching costs and so on, what would be a reasonable sum that you would expect to have to spend? I’m not asking you for your current costs, but what you think to run an organisation, which is reasonably comprehensive, providing the services that you do.
|
|
|
[260] Ms Powell: The core funding that was cut was in the region of about £200,000, but in all honesty, £50,000 would run what we needed. It’s not a huge amount of cost. With the ensembles, we ask for a contribution from parents. Sometimes we get it, sometimes we don’t. Generally, we make quite a loss on them, and we are having to run them all on grants.
|
|
|
[261] Neil Hamilton: Interesting. I want to ask you some questions also about the workforce. And I know what it’s like to be in your position, because when I was liberated from my job by the electorate in 1997, I then spent 20 years as a kind of freelance entertainer, if I can put it that way [Laughter.]
|
|
|
[262] Lee Waters: I didn’t realise you had stopped. [Laughter.]
|
|
|
[263] Neil Hamilton: I was in the business of cheering the country up. [Laughter.]
|
|
|
[264] Bethan Jenkins: That’s a self-definition, I think.
|
|
|
[265] Neil Hamilton: Exactly. But I know—
|
|
|
[266] Ms Powell: Well, I was born in the late 1980s, so I missed most of that. [Laughter.]
|
|
|
[267] Neil Hamilton: You can find it on YouTube. [Laughter.] But I know what it’s like to go off that cliff edge of having a salary and a pension and then to have nothing. So, I know the pressures that come with a precarious existence of that kind. Apart from the obvious ones, can you tell us what the particular pressures that your music teachers face as a result of having moved into self-employment and co-operative working?
|
|
|
[268] Ms Powell: It’s things like we’ve got a continuing professional development day coming up that we found the funds for. So, they’ve got safeguarding training, they’ve got the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music and different bodies like that coming in to talk to the tutors, but they’ll be there unpaid for the day. So, they’re expected to attend certain elements of CPD, but they don’t get paid to be there, and it’s not their hobby, it’s their job, it’s how they pay their bills. So, that is a difficulty for the tutors—things like that. A lot of them—. It’s always a risk that, with the self-employed, if you have a school that doesn’t particularly like Mr Hamilton who teaches trumpet, they can say, ‘Right, we’ll have another teacher please.’ And because they’re not employed, there’s not a lot I can do about it. So, we had a tutor last term, and a new head in a school decided he didn’t like him, and he lost most of his income overnight, and there’s not a lot I can do to help him without trying to negotiate with the school.
|
|
|
[269] Neil Hamilton: Quite.
|
|
|
[270] Ms Powell: So, the lack of security I think is the biggest issue.
|
|
|
[271] Neil Hamilton: I understand that, but in terms of quality assurance and CPD, do you have a structure that enables all your members to—?
|
|
|
[272] Ms Powell: We do mentoring and spot checks, but you’ve always got to be careful on the employed versus the self-employed, and allegedly we can’t direct control or supervise, but we have to try and monitor standards somehow.
|
|
|
[273] Neil Hamilton: I understand that—that’s a particular problem with the revenue that needs to be sorted out.
|
|
|
[274] Ms Powell: One of the biggest issues as well was that the local authority, because they cut the provision, didn’t want to be seen to be supporting us. So, the transition money they gave us in one lump sum. So, in year 1, we faced a huge tax bill, which was most of the transition money.
|
|
|
[275] Bethan Jenkins: That’s a nice local authority you’ve got there, gosh.
|
|
|
[276] Ms Powell: Well, we’re independent now, so—
|
|
|
[277] Bethan Jenkins: You can say what you like here. Go for it. Carry on.
|
|
|
[278] Neil Hamilton: Exactly. So, are there any other concerns that you’ve got about self-employment or private companies providing music tuition—the advantages to the schools and the kids you are teaching?
|
|
|
[279] Ms Powell: I think it’s just the points that I made earlier, really. With our model, the members are subject to certain membership rules. So, they have to be in a union, which protects them with public liability et cetera. We have an element of—they have to attend so many CPD days or they’re in breach of their membership agreement. We cover them with our policies and procedures, but, obviously, they don’t have the employment rights that they would have: maternity, sick pay and things like that. If they’re ill, they don’t earn any money.
|
|
|
[280] Neil Hamilton: Obviously, there are organisations like the Musicians’ Union that can be used for the purposes—
|
|
|
[281] Ms Powell: Yes, the MU have been fabulous: they’ve helped us with all of the policies and they’ve helped me win a lot of legal issues and they’ve been fantastic, I have to say.
|
|
|
[282] Neil Hamilton: Very good. Thank you.
|
|
|
[283] Bethan Jenkins: You said to Neil Hamilton that you would be able to run on £50,000 if you needed to, but then you said that you relied on grants for the ensembles. So, what, in its entirety, would be ideal for you to be able to run operationally, if you didn’t have to constantly rely on grants? What would be the ballpark figure—
|
|
|
[284] Ms Powell: A hundred thousand.
|
|
|
[285] Bethan Jenkins: A hundred thousand, per year then, to be able to run the service.
|
|
|
[286] Ms Powell: Yes.
|
|
|
[287] Bethan Jenkins: And you’re saying that, in a few years’ time, you still want to be here. So, at the moment, you’re running totally dependent on what the schools want or don’t want, or what they can and cannot afford, and there’s no strategic direction from the local authorities at all.
|
|
|
[288] Ms Powell: No. We’re managing month by month, but long term, in terms of development and buying new instruments and things like that, I don’t know how we’re ever going to achieve that without core funding.
|
|
|
[289] Bethan Jenkins: You say that you’re going to be going into discussions with CAGAC, and you haven’t been before. Are there any other local authorities, therefore, that you’re looking into developing into? Is that why they’ve been cautious—so that you’re potentially wanting to grow and you can see that local authority x has cut by however much and that you can see that there’s an opening there for you? You don’t have to answer if you feel uncomfortable, but it’s just whether we can understand what your intentions are.
|
|
|
[290] Ms Powell: The difficulty for us has been that we’ve just been so busy and there’s only two of us. I think we’ve had schools from other authorities calling us and at the moment we’ve said that we’re just dealing with Denbighshire, but I think, because our hourly cost is cheaper because we don’t have the overheads of the employment costs, that’s why they will look to our model.
|
|
|
[291] Ocê. Os nad oes unrhyw beth arall gan Aelodau, fe ddown ni â’r sesiwn i ben. Os oes gennych chi unrhyw wybodaeth ychwanegol rydych chi am ei rhoi i ni nad ydych chi wedi dweud wrthym heddiw, plîs jest e-bostiwch ni. Diolch am ddod i roi tystiolaeth. Rwy’n credu ei bod yn werthfawr iawn i glywed beth rŷch chi’n ei wneud ac mae’n waith arbennig o dda yng nghyd-destun y problemau rŷch chi wedi eu cael yn lleol. Felly, llongyfarchiadau, a diolch yn fawr iawn am ddod i mewn heddiw.
|
Okay. If there isn’t anything else from Members, we’ll bring this session to a close. If there is any additional information that you have and you wish to share or that you haven’t told us today, please just e-mail us. Thank you very much for providing evidence. I think it’s been very valuable to hear what you’re doing and it’s great work in the context of the problems that you’ve had at the local level. So, congratulations, and thank you very much for attending today. |
|
[292] Ms Powell: Thank you very much.
|
|
|
11:09
|
|
|
Papurau i’w Nodi
|
|
|
[293] Bethan Jenkins: Rydym yn symud ymlaen nawr at eitem 4: papurau i’w nodi. Papur 4.1 yw llythyr at Ymgyrch Hanes Cymru gan y Pwyllgor Plant, Pobl Ifanc ac Addysg. Wedyn mae yna bapur 4.2—‘Dyfodol S4C: Tystiolaeth Ychwanegol gan TAC’. A oes unrhyw sylwadau ar y llythyrau hynny?
|
Bethan Jenkins: We move on now to item 4: papers to note. Paper 4.1 is a letter to the History of Wales Campaign from the Children, Young People and Education Committee. Then there is paper 4.2—‘The Future of S4C: Further Evidence from TAC’. Are there any comments on those letters?
|
|
[294] Dai Lloyd: Dim ond yn nhermau’r llythyr ar Ymgyrch Hanes Cymru y mae Cadeirydd y pwyllgor plant wedi ei gyfeirio’n benodol i’r pwyllgor yma i wneud rhywbeth efo fe, felly buaswn i’n cefnogi’r syniad o wneud rhywbeth efo fe.
|
Dai Lloyd: Just in terms of the letter on the History of Wales Campaign that the Chair of the children’s committee has referred specifically to this committee so that we can do something with it, therefore I would support doing something with it. |
|
[295] Bethan Jenkins: Wel, rydym ni’n mynd i gael trafodaeth breifat ar y cylch gwaith. Felly, a ydy hi’n iawn inni gael y drafodaeth bryd hynny?
|
Bethan Jenkins: Well, we are going to have a private discussion on our forward work. Therefore, is it okay if we have the discussion then? |
|
[296] Dai Lloyd: Ydy—syniad gwych, Gadeirydd.
|
Dai Lloyd: Yes—an excellent idea, Chair. |
|
[297] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch am ei godi, Dai.
|
Bethan Jenkins: Thanks for raising that, Dai. |
|
11:10
|
|
|
Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i
Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o’r Cyfarfod
|
|
|
Cynnig:
|
Motion:
|
|
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o’r cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(vi).
|
that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi).
|
|
Cynigiwyd y cynnig.
|
|
|
[298] Bethan Jenkins: Felly, os nad oes unrhyw sylwadau eraill, symudwn at eitem 5: cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog i wahardd y cyhoedd o’r cyfarfod ar gyfer eitemau 7 ac 8. A yw pawb yn hapus â hynny? Hapus ac yn llawen? Diolch.
|
Bethan Jenkins: So, if there are no other comments, we will move on to item 5: motion under Standing Order to resolve to exclude the public from the meeting for items 7 and 8. Is everybody happy and content with that? Thank you.
|
|
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
|
|
|
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben
am 11:10.
|
|