Cofnod y Trafodion
The Record of Proceedings

Y Pwyllgor Diwylliant, y Gymraeg a Chyfathrebu

The Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee

10/5/2017

Agenda’r Cyfarfod
Meeting Agenda

Trawsgrifiadau’r Pwyllgor
Committee Transcripts

Cynnwys
Contents

.........

4....... Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan Buddiannau Introductions, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of Interest

5....... Dyfodol S4C: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 9
The Future of S4C: Evidence Session 9

34..... Craffu ar y Cynllun Ieithoedd Swyddogol Drafft: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth Scrutiny of the Draft Official Languages Scheme: Evidence Session

61..... Trwydded Weithredu Ddrafft ar gyfer Gwasanaethau Cyhoeddus y BBC yn y DU: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth gydag Ofcom Cymru

......... Draft Operating Licence for the BBC’s UK Public Services: Evidence Session with Ofcom Wales

84..... Papurau i’w Nodi

......... Papers to Note

85..... Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o'r Cyfarfod ar gyfer Eitem 7

......... Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public from the Meeting for Item 7

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 Committee members in attendance
Hannah Blythyn Bywgraffiad|Biography	Llafur Labour
Suzy Davies Bywgraffiad|Biography	Ceidwadwyr Cymreig Welsh Conservatives
Neil Hamilton Bywgraffiad|Biography	UKIP Cymru UKIP Wales
Bethan Jenkins Bywgraffiad|Biography	Plaid Cymru (Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor) The Party of Wales (Committee Chair)
Dai Lloyd Bywgraffiad|Biography	Plaid Cymru The Party of Wales
Jeremy Miles Bywgraffiad|Biography	Llafur Labour
Lee Waters Bywgraffiad|Biography	Llafur Labour
Eraill yn bresennol Others in attendance
Sarah Dafydd	Rheolwr y Cynllun Ieithoedd Swyddogol, Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru Official Languages Scheme Manager, National Assembly for Wales
Alun Davies Bywgraffiad|Biography	Aelod Cynulliad, Llafur (Gweinidog y Gymraeg a Dysgu Gydol Oes) Assembly Member, Labour (The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language)
Jacquie Hughes	Cyfarwyddwr Polisi, Ofcom Director of Content Policy, Ofcom
Paul Kindred	Uwch-ddadansoddwr Polisi, Llywodraeth Cymru Senior Policy Analyst, Welsh Government
Adam Price Bywgraffiad|Biography	Aelod Cynulliad, Plaid Cymru (Comisiynydd y Cynulliad) Assembly Member, The Party of Wales (Assembly Commissioner)
Craig Stephenson	Cyfarwyddwr Gwasanaethau’r Comisiwn, Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru Director of Commission Services, National Assembly for Wales
Rhodri Williams	Cyfarwyddwr, Ofcom Cymru Director, Ofcom Wales
Swyddogion Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru yn bresennol National Assembly for Wales officials in attendance
Steve George	Clerc Clerk
Gwyn Griffiths	Uwch-gynghorydd Cyfreithiol Senior Legal Adviser
Adam Vaughan	Ail Glerc Second Clerk
Robin Wilkinson	Y Gwasanaeth Ymchwil Research Service

Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:29. The meeting began at 09:29.
Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan Buddiannau Introductions, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of Interest
[1] Bethan Jenkins: Reit, ocê. Rydym ni’n rhan o’r cyfarfod ffurfiol nawr, ac eitem 1 ar y agenda yw’r cyflwyniad, ymddiheuriadau a dirprwyon. Croeso i aelodau’r pwyllgor. Os bydd larwm tân, dylai pawb adael yr ystafell drwy’r allanfeydd tân penodol, a dilyn cyfarwyddiadau’r tywyswyr a’r staff, ond ni ddisgwylir prawf heddiw. Dylai pawb droi eu ffonau symudol i fod yn dawel. Rydym yn gweithredu’n ddwyieithog, ac mae clustffonau ar gael i glywed y cyfieithiad ar y pryd, ac i addasu’r sain ar gyfer pobl sy’n drwm eu clyw. Mae’r cyfieithu ar y pryd ar gael ar sianel 1, a gellir chwyddo’r sain ar sianel 0. Nid oes angen cyffwrdd â’r botymau, ond rydw i’n gwybod bod y Gweinidog yn deall hynny’n iawn. A oes unrhyw fuddiannau sydd angen eu datgan gan Aelodau Cynulliad yma? Na. Ymddiheuriadau a dirprwyon: mae Suzy Davies yn mynd i fod yn hwyr, ac rydw i’n credu bod Dawn Bowden efallai ddim yn mynd i fod yn gallu dod yma heddiw, ond efallai y bydd hi’n gallu dod yn hwyrach.	Bethan Jenkins:  Okay. We now move into our formal meeting, and item 1 is introductions, apologies, substitutions. A very warm welcome to committee members. Should there be a fire alarm, everyone should leave the room through the exits and take instructions from the ushers. We’re not expecting a fire alarm today. Everyone should turn their mobile phones to silent. We do operate bilingually and headsets are available for interpretation and to amplify proceedings. Interpretation is available on channel 1, and you can amplify proceedings on channel 0. You don't need to touch the buttons. I know that the Minister knows that full well. Are there any declarations of interest from Members? No. Apologies and substitutions: Suzy Davies will be a little late, and I believe that Dawn Bowden is unable to be with us today, but she may be able to attend a little later.
Dyfodol S4C: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 9 The Future of S4C: Evidence Session 9
[2] Bethan Jenkins: Rydym ni’n symud ymlaen, felly, at eitem 2, sef dyfodol S4C a sesiwn dystiolaeth 9. Rydym ni’n edrych ar adolygiad S4C, sydd yn mynd i gael ei gario mas gan Llywodraeth San Steffan. Mae tystion gyda ni heddiw, sef Alun Davies, Gweinidog y Gymraeg a Dysgu Gydol Oes—croeso mawr—a Paul Kindred, sef uwch ddadansoddwr polisi Llywodraeth Cymru. Croeso i chi’ch dau yma heddiw. Jest y cwestiwn cychwynnol gen i yw: pa drafodaethau a ydych chi wedi’u cael gyda Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig ynglŷn ag amseriad a chwmpas gwaith yr adolygiad penodol yma? A ydych chi’n gwybod, er enghraifft, pryd mae’n mynd i ddigwydd, pwy fydd yn goruchwylio’r gwaith ymchwil yma, a’ch mewnbwn chi fel Llywodraeth Cymru? Diolch.	Bethan Jenkins: We’ll move on, therefore, to item 2, which is the future of S4C and evidence session 9. We are looking at the review of S4C that’s to be carried out by the UK Government, and our witnesses today are Alun Davies, Minister for Lifelong Learning and the Welsh Language—a warm welcome—and Paul Kindred, who is a senior policy analyst within the Welsh Government. So, a very warm welcome to both of you. The first initial question from me is: what conversations have you had with the UK Government about the timing and scope of the UK Government’s independent review? Do you know, for example, when it’s to happen, who will oversee this review, and what your input will be as a Welsh Government?
[3] Gweinidog y Gymraeg a Dysgu Gydol Oes (Alun Davies): Diolch i chi, Gadeirydd, am hynny. Rydw i’n mynd i ofyn i Paul, actually, i ddod mewn yn syth ar hynny achos mae’r rhan fwyaf o’r trafodaethau sydd wedi bod rhwng yr adrannau wedi bod ar lefel swyddogion. Felly, fe wnaf i ofyn i Paul ddod i mewn i ateb y cwestiwn yn uniongyrchol, a wedyn fe wnaf i ddod yn ôl i mewn i ychwanegu rhywfaint, efallai, ato fe.	The Minister for Lifelong Learning and the Welsh Language (Alun Davies): Well, thank you, Chair, for that. I will ask Paul to come in immediately on that because most of the conversations or discussions between the departments have been on an official level. So, I'll ask Paul to answer this question directly and then I will come back to add anything after that.
[4] Mr Kindred: Absolutely. Bore da. We’ve been talking to UK Government about the S4C review in earnest since 2015, when the preparations for the charter review were getting under way. Our position has always been that the review should have been done in parallel with the review of the BBC’s charter, so that the Welsh language remits of both organisations were set at the same time. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s view consistently was that they didn’t want to do that, but that they would commit to getting the review under way very quickly, as soon as the BBC charter review process was complete. Clearly, we’re some months down the line now from that, and that still hasn’t happened. The latest information that I’ve had from DCMS officials, which was about a month or so ago, is that they’re still waiting for all of the various Cabinet approvals for the terms of reference for the review and for the reviewer—they haven’t shared with us the identity of the reviewer—and that the launch of the review would now take place after the general election, once the various Cabinet consents had been granted. Obviously, then they’ll need to go to the new Cabinet after the election and have that conversation all over again. So, we’ve been pushing them for some time to get this done. They didn’t manage to get it done before the purdah period kicked in, so now we’re waiting a little bit longer again.
[5] Bethan Jenkins: Beth oedd y rhesymeg drostyn nhw’n peidio â’i wneud e yr un pryd â’r BBC? Nid oeddwn i’n deall cweit pam roedden nhw wedi dweud ‘na’ i’w wneud yr un pryd ag adolygiad siartr y BBC. Amser, neu adnoddau, neu—?	Bethan Jenkins: What was the rationale for not doing it at the same time as the BBC? I'm not quite sure why they didn’t want to carry it out along with the charter review of the BBC. Was it a matter of resources, or time, or—?
[6] Mr Kindred: To a degree, yes, I believe so. It’s quite a small team in DCMS that are dealing with these matters, but we felt that they would have had the capacity, with the support of us, to get that done. I mean, they were supported by the Welsh Government, and also Scottish and Northern Ireland Government colleagues in the BBC charter review, so they weren’t doing it on their own. We were fully prepared to muck in and help out to ensure that they had the capacity. Whether there was a, sort of, political reason behind it as well, I don’t know. But they were very clear that they didn’t feel they had the capacity and the resource to do it, and it would have to wait.
[7] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch yn fawr iawn.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you very much.
[8] Alun Davies: A gaf i ddweud dau beth i ychwanegu at beth mae Paul wedi’i ddweud? Yn gyntaf, mi oedd adolygiad Roger Laughton wedi’i gwblhau, wedi’i gyhoeddi, yn 2004, ac mae geiriau’r ddeddfwriaeth yn ddiddorol iawn achos beth mae’n dweud yw, ‘not less than five years’. So, nid yw’n mynnu bod yna adolygiad bob pum mlynedd. Mae’n dweud bod yn rhaid bod yna adolygiad, ond dim byd llai na phum mlynedd. Nawr, mae wedi bod, beth, 13 mlynedd ers hynny? Ac rydw i’n siomedig iawn. Dylai’r adolygiad fod wedi cael ei gynnal yn 2009-10, ac rydym ni nawr yn gweld bod Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig yn oedi eto am resymau nad ydw i’n eu deall. Mae Paul wedi trio argymell rhai rhesymau am hynny. Nid ydw i’n derbyn y rhesymau rydw i wedi eu clywed gan y DCMS. Rydw i’n credu bod yna ddiffyg blaenoriaeth i S4C. Dyna’r gwir, o beth rydw i’n ei weld. Pe taen nhw wedi blaenoriaethau hyn, mi fuasen nhw wedi gwneud hynny, ac mae hynny yn benderfyniad gwleidyddol ar ddiwedd y dydd. Felly, rydw i’n siomedig bod y DCMS wedi oedi am flynyddoedd ar hyn, ac nid yw i’n credu bod yna reswm i wneud hynny.	Alun Davies: May I say two things to add to what Paul has just said? First of all, the Roger Laughton review was completed and published in 2004, and the wording is very interesting because what it says is ‘not less than five years’, so it doesn't insist on a quinquennial review; it just says that there should be a review, but nothing less than five years. It’s been, what,  13 years since then? I'm very disappointed. The review should have been held in 2009-10, and we now see that the United Kingdom Government is delaying again for reasons that I cannot understand. Paul has tried to suggest some reasons for that. I don’t accept the reasons that I’ve heard from DCMS. I think that there is a lack of prioritisation for S4C. That, in my view, is the truth. Had they prioritised this, they would have done it, and that’s a political decision at the end of the day. So, I’m disappointed that DCMS has delayed this for years, and I don’t believe that there’s any reason to do that.
[9] Ac, yn ail, a gaf i ddweud hyn: nid ydw i wedi, ac nid ydw i’n bwriadu gwneud yr achos i ddatganoli darlledu—cyfrifoldeb gweithredol ar gyfer maes polisi darlledu? Nid ydw i yn mynd i wneud yr achos am hynny, ond mae’n rhaid bod yna fwy o gydweithio rhwng y Llywodraeth yn San Steffan a’r Llywodraeth yn fan hyn, a beth rydym ni wedi’i weld—ac mae hyn wedi torri i mewn i’r byd cyhoeddus yn ystod y misoedd diwethaf—yw bod DCMS, yn fy marn i, ddim yn ddigon parod i gael sgyrsiau digon agored gyda ni amboutu sut rydym ni yn symud ymlaen yn y maes polisi darlledu, ac yn benodol yn yr achos yma, S4C. Rydw i’n gresynu bod y DCMS ddim yn fodlon trafod enw rhywun fuasai’n arwain hyn gyda Llywodraeth Cymru. Rydw i’n clywed enwau yn cael eu crybwyll gan bobl wahanol. Rydw i’n clywed dim gan DCMS, ac nid yw hynny’n ddigonol. Nid ydynt chwaith yn fodlon trafod natur unrhyw adolygiad gyda ni. Nid yw hynny’n ddigonol. Os ydym ni, fel swyddogion ac fel gwleidyddion a Gweinidogion y Deyrnas Unedig, yn mynd i lwyddo i gydweithio â’n gilydd, mae’n rhaid bod yna gydweithio, ac nid ydw i’n gweld digon o hynny gan y DCMS.	Secondly, may I say this: I have not, and I do not intend to make the case for the devolution of broadcasting—the operational responsibility for the policy field of broadcasting? I am not going to do that, but there has to be more collaboration between the Government in Westminster and the Government here, and what we have seen—and this has come into the public domain over the past months—is that DCMS, in my opinion, is not willing enough to have sufficiently open conversations with us about how we move forward in the field of broadcasting policy, and specifically in this case, S4C. I very much regret that DCMS is not willing to discuss a name that could lead on this with Welsh Government. I hear names being mooted by various people. I hear nothing from DCMS, and that is not good enough. Neither are they happy to discuss the nature of any review with us. That is not good enough. If we, as officials and politicians and UK Ministers, are going to succeed in collaborating and co-operating with each other, then there has to be open discussion, and I don’t see enough of that from DCMS.
[10] Bethan Jenkins: Rydych chi yn adeiladu’r ddadl yn weddol gryf, fod datganoli yn rhywbeth efallai y dylai gael ei ystyried.	Bethan Jenkins: You are building quite a strong case for devolution to be considered.
[11] Alun Davies: Na, nid wyf i. Rydw i’n dweud na ddylai gael ei ystyried.	Alun Davies: No, I’m not. I’m saying that it shouldn’t be considered.
[12] Bethan Jenkins: Ar ba sail rydych chi’n penderfynu hynny, oherwydd rydym ni wedi gwneud holiadur fel pwyllgor, ac rydw i wedi gweld y canfyddiadau cynnar, ac mae bron i 80 y cant o bobl Cymru a oedd wedi ymateb i’r holiadur hynny yn dweud bod datganoli yn opsiwn? Felly, rwyf i jest am ddeall yn iawn pam rydych chi’n dweud eich bod chi more siomedig bod diffyg cyfathrebu yn digwydd, bod diffyg gweledigaeth—pam, felly, nad yw datganoli ar y bwrdd?	Bethan Jenkins: On what basis do you come to that view, because we carried out a survey as a committee, and I have seen the early findings, and almost 80 per cent of the people of Wales who have responded to that survey said that devolution is an option? So, I just want to fully understand why you say that you’re disappointed that there is a lack of communication, that there is a lack of vision—so why isn’t devolution on the table?
[13] Alun Davies: Efallai mai’r geiriau ‘wedi ymateb’ yw’r geiriau pwysig yn y frawddeg honno. Rydw i’n gwybod o le mae’r Cadeirydd yn dod ar hyn. Nid ydw i wedi clywed unrhyw achos i ddatganoli darlledu sy’n gwneud sens i fi. Nid ydw i’n credu y dylai S4C gael ei rhannu o’r byd darlledu, a’i datganoli ar ei phen ei hun. Mae S4C yn ddarlledwr. Mae’r ffaith ei bod hi’n darlledu yn y Gymraeg yn gwbl bwysig, yn hollbwysig, ond mae’n ddarlledwr, ac un o’r rhesymau y mae S4C wedi goroesi yn gryf dros y blynyddoedd diwethaf oedd oherwydd y ffaith ei bod hi’n bodoli oherwydd y statute yn 1981—y Broadcasting Act 1981—ac rydw i’n credu bod hynny wedi cryfhau S4C yn y trafodaethau rydym ni wedi eu cael ers iddi gael ei sefydlu, ac nid ydw i eisiau symud i ffwrdd o hynny.	Alun Davies: Maybe the important words in that sentence are those ‘who have responded’. I know where the Chair is coming from on this. I haven’t heard any case for the devolution of broadcasting that makes sense to me. I don’t believe that S4C should be split from the broadcasting world and devolved separately. S4C is a broadcaster. It’s important that S4C broadcasts in the medium of Welsh, but it is a broadcaster, and S4C has survived strongly over the past years because of the fact that it exists because of the statute of 1981—the Broadcasting Act 1981—and I believe that has strengthened S4C since it was established, and I don’t want to move away from that thinking.
[14] Rydw i yn meddwl ein bod ni’n trafod pwerau'r lle yma gormod o weithiau ambell waith, ond mae yna bwerau pwysig y mae’n rhaid iddynt aros yn Llundain i sicrhau bod gwladwriaeth y Deyrnas Unedig yn gallu gweithredu, a rhai o’r pwerau felly ydy’r pwerau i sicrhau bod yna farchnad sy’n digwydd, neu fod y farchnad sengl, os ydych chi’n licio, tu fewn i’r Deyrnas Unedig, yn gallu gweithredu, ac rydw i’n meddwl bod darlledu yn rhan o hynny. Rydw i’n credu bod darlledu yn rhan o’r diwydiannau sy’n creu platfform Prydeinig i bob un ohonom ni, ac, fel rhan o bolisi diwylliant y Deyrnas Unedig, rydw i’n meddwl ei fod e’n bwysig ei fod yn aros yn Llundain. Ond, mae’n rhaid iddo fe aros yn Llundain gyda chydweithio, ac nid heb gydweithio, a dyna le’r ydym ni ar hyn o bryd. Oherwydd, rydw i’n credu, y dylai’r cyfrifoldeb gweithredol am ddarlledu aros yn Llundain, nid yw hynny’n meddwl fy mod i’n meddwl y dylai’r cyfrifoldeb am gynnal system o atebolrwydd aros yn Llundain yn unig chwaith. Rydw i yn meddwl bod gan y lle yma, y Cynulliad—nid y Llywodraeth; y Cynulliad—rôl bwysig i’w chwarae i sicrhau bod darlledwyr yn ymateb i anghenion Cymru ac yn ymateb i’w gobeithion a’u cyfrifoldebau nhw yng Nghymru.	I do think that, possibly, we discuss the powers of this place too often here, but there are some important powers that must remain in London to ensure that the United Kingdom state is able to operate, and some of those powers are there to ensure that the single market, if you prefer, within the United Kingdom, can operate, and I think broadcasting is part of that. I believe that broadcasting is part of the industries that create a British platform for each one of us, and, as part of the culture policy of the United Kingdom, I think it’s important that it remains in London. But, it has to remain in London with collaboration and co-operation, and not without that, and that’s where we are at the moment. Because, I believe, that the operational responsibility should remain in London doesn’t mean to say that I think that responsibility for sustaining a system of accountability should remain in London too. I do believe that this place, the Assembly—not the Government but the Assembly—has an important role to play in ensuring that broadcasters do respond to the needs of Wales and do respond to their aspirations and responsibilities in Wales.
[15] Felly, rydw i eisiau gweld darlledwyr yn bod yn fwy atebol i’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol—nid y Llywodraeth; y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol—ac rydw i’n meddwl bod yn rhaid i ni fod yn fwy creadigol y ffordd rydym ni’n ystyried atebolrwydd yn y Deyrnas Unedig, ac mi liciwn i weld y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol yn cydweithio mwy â Senedd Prydain i sicrhau bod gennym ni fwy o bensaernïaeth rhwng sefydliadau yn y gwledydd gwahanol i allu creu atebolrwydd newydd a  gwahanol i beth rydym ni wedi ei weld yn y gorffennol. Rydw i’n credu bod honno’n sgwrs bwysig inni ei chael.	I want to see broadcasters being more accountable to the National Assembly—not the Government, but the National Assembly—and I do think that we must be more creative in the way in which we consider accountability within the United Kingdom, and I would like to see the National Assembly collaborating more with the British Parliament in order to ensure that we have more of an interface between the institutions in the various nations in order to be able to create a new and different accountability to what we’ve seen in the past. I think that’s an important conversation for us to have.
[16] Bethan Jenkins: Fe wnawn ni gytuno i anghytuno ar y mater o ddatganoli. Mae gennym ni fwy o gwestiynau nawr gan Lee Waters.	Bethan Jenkins: We’ll agree to disagree on the issue of devolution. We have further questions now from Lee Waters.
[17] Lee Waters: Diolch. Can I just follow up on your opening remarks? I understand the point of principle about broadcasting being best decided on a single-market basis, and I’m sympathetic to that, but you also describe, in operational terms, a relationship primarily of neglect on the behalf of DCMS towards S4C, and bordering on contempt, especially when allied with the way that the Welsh Government was treated on the appointment of the BBC trustee, of how that works in practice. I appreciate that the optimum conditions would be a UK-wide basis with a strong core working relationship with the Welsh Government, but, given that doesn’t exist, should we not be open-minded to reviewing this if there isn’t a change of attitude on the part of Whitehall?
[18] Alun Davies: Look, my view is that we should—I say ‘devolve’—but we should take a determination on where powers within the United Kingdom should lie on the basis of principle and what works. I keep referring to this, and I would always refer any committee I sit in front of to the Welsh Government’s evidence to the House of Lords Constitutional Committee in the last Parliament on this, which, I thought, gave an absolutely excellent, first-class analysis of how we determine where powers should rest within the United Kingdom. I thought it was a very, very good piece of work, and one which has not been produced by any UK Government at any time in the last 20 years.
[19] I understand the point, Lee. I am sympathetic to it, but I think there are real dangers in taking decisions on where powers should rest on the basis of failure—failure of the UK to work as a multinational state. I really worry about that because that could mean that we would go in all sorts of different directions without thinking hard about what the destinations of that would be. I’m disappointed with the way DCMS has operated, certainly since my appointment. It doesn’t reflect my previous experience in Government of dealing with Secretaries of State and Ministers of State in the United Kingdom Government. I’ve dealt with a number of different departments of state at different times and always of different political complexions, and this recent experience does not reflect my overall experience in Government.
[20] What I would say is that DCMS needs to recognise its overall UK responsibilities. It needs to recognise that it has to work alongside other Governments in the United Kingdom in order to provide good governance of the United Kingdom. When it doesn’t do that, then we fail the United Kingdom as a whole, and not individual parts of it, because we’re not simply discussing the constitution of Wales; we’re discussing the constitution of the United Kingdom. I’ve been profoundly disappointed by the attitude and the tone from DCMS over the period of my appointment. I sought a meeting with the DCMS Secretary of State almost as soon as I was appointed, to discuss a lot of broadcasting issues. Clearly, you had a change of Government and a reshuffle, so a meeting took place in September. I feel that DCMS does not give sufficient consideration to its role as a UK department. It sees itself too much as a department for England and it then sees itself as having responsibilities outside of England, but those responsibilities cannot and must not be shared and must be defended at all costs. That is such an immature attitude to democracy, an immature attitude to Government, and an immature attitude to political reality, and I would certainly hope that DCMS would change its view on these matters.
09:45
[21] Lee Waters: But given that, and given that you described that there’s been a neglect—15 years overdue—in having a review of S4C, and then a significant cut despite legislating to say there should be sufficient funding, and now this latest episode, I’m not entirely clear—we seem to be defending something in theory that doesn’t exist in practice.
[22] Alun Davies: That might be a fair criticism. And, you know, you do sometimes feel very disappointed. You could determine how my tone comes across in the committee this morning. But I sought—we had a conversation about the appointment to the BBC board—a conversation with the Secretary of State, I sought a conversation to discuss different candidates, I sought a conversation to discuss how we would take this forward. I’ve rarely had a conversation with somebody who speaks in such short sentences—mainly starting and ending with the word ‘no’, and, ‘I’m not willing to discuss this, I’m not willing to do this’. And I’m thinking that there’s a sense of a lack of political judgement there, a lack of political reality and a lack of common sense. And I don’t think we should determine the constitution of the United Kingdom based on the lack of common sense from one department.
[23] Lee Waters: Let it not be said that you speak in short sentences, at least [Laughter.]
[24] Can I just move on to the question at hand? We’ve heard consistent evidence about the need for an updated statutory remit for S4C—that the current one both holds S4C back and prevents it from responding to the needs of audiences. Does the Welsh Government share that view?
[25] Alun Davies: Yes, I think it’s important to review the remit of S4C. The remit remains broadly what it was in 1982 and the world has completely changed since then. I’d be very, very happy to see an expanded remit, but I think we do need—and this is one of the disappointments that I think all committee members would agree with, over the lack of a review. I think we should approach a review of S4C in a positive way, looking at what S4C can contribute, looking at how we build and strengthen, protect, and develop S4C for the future, and look at how we can enrichen our broadcast environment within Wales and from Wales elsewhere. So, I would approach this remit by looking at it in those terms, with that tone, looking at how S4C can continue to grow and continue to be a success. Then, what can it do in the future—what does it need to do in the future?
[26] But I also think we do need to look at S4C in the context of other wider broadcasting issues. I’m probably one of the few people who don’t have a problem, as it happens, with S4C receiving its funding through the licence fee. I don’t have a problem with that. I would expect there to be a structure in place to ensure that it actually gets that funding and sufficient funding; and that that funding is then used independently, and that the S4C board has a free hand then to determine how it uses that funding, and it isn’t simply delivered to it with a number of very significant strings from the BBC. So, I think we do need to look at its remit, but also then to look at how it’s structured and funded, and how its independence is protected for the future. So, I think there’s a very broad and wide conversation to be had there, and a remit is a part of it, but not the only part of that, clearly.
[27] Bethan Jenkins: Diolc. Rydym ni’n symud ymlaen nawr at gyllid, ac mae Dai Lloyd yn arwain ar y cwestiynau yma.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you. We’ll move on now to funding, and Dai Lloyd will lead on questioning here.
[28] Dai Lloyd: Diolch, Gadeirydd. Jest yn fyr, achos rydych chi wedi cyffwrdd â rhai o’r materion yma. A gaf i jest ofyn a oes gennych chi farn bendant am lefel cyllid a fyddai’n ddigon ar gyfer y sianel?	Dai Lloyd: Thank you, Chair. Just briefly, because you’ve touched on some of these issues. Can I just ask whether you have a specific and distinct view on the level of funding that would constitute sufficient funding for the channel?
[29] Alun Davies: Na.	Alun Davies: No.
[30] Dai Lloyd: Reit. A oes gennych chi farn bendant ynglŷn a sut y dylai cyllid S4C gael ei chyfrifo?	Dai Lloyd: Do you have any distinct view on how S4C funding should be calculated?
[31] Alun Davies: Wel, rydw i wedi awgrymu fy mod i’n gyfforddus iawn gyda’r penderfyniad i symud ariannu S4C o’r DCMS—y rhan fwyaf—i’r BBC, ond mae’n rhaid bod yna rywfaint o ddiogelwch a rhywfaint o bensaernïaeth tu fewn i gyllid y BBC i S4C i sicrhau bod gan S4C gyllid ddigonol. Nawr, rydym ni i gyd wedi gweld y gymhariaeth sy’n cael ei gwneud rhwng cyllideb S4C a chost creu a darlledu rhai rhaglenni. Rydw i wedi gweld cymhariaeth gyda The Crown a The Great British Bake Off, er enghraifft. Beth sy’n amlwg i mi yw nad yw cyllid presennol S4C yn ddigonol. Nid yw’n ddigonol i gynnal y math o sianel deledu yr ydym ni i gyd eisiau ei gweld. Nid yw’n ddigonol i gystadlu â holl fyd darlledu Saesneg yr ydym ni yn rhan ohono fe. Felly, rydw i yn meddwl bod yn rhaid sicrhau mwy o gyllid i S4C—nid wyf eisiau dweud ffigur y bore yma, ond rydw i yn meddwl bod yn rhaid edrych yn realistig ar beth y buasai’n ei gostio i weithredu sianel deledu Cymraeg o’r safon uchaf bosibl ac, wedi hynny, y gwasanaethau wrth ymyl y sianel deledu, i sicrhau bod gyda ni wasanaeth â’r gallu i gomisiynu a chreu cynnwys yn y Gymraeg sy’n gallu cael ei ddefnyddio nid jest ar y sianel deledu, ond ar y llwyfannau gwahanol eraill hefyd. Felly, mae’n rhaid i S4C wneud job gwahanol yn y dyfodol nag a wnaeth yn y 1980au, ac mae’n rhaid i’r gyllideb fod yno i sicrhau ein bod ni’n gallu gwneud hynny.	Alun Davies: Well, I have made a suggestion. I’m very comfortable with the decision to move funding to S4C from DCMS—in the main—to the BBC, but you have to have some kind of safeguarding or some architecture within the BBC’s S4C funding to ensure that S4C has adequate funding. We’ve all seen the comparison that is made between the S4C budget and the cost of creating and broadcasting some programmes. I’ve seen a comparison made with The Crown and The Great British Bake Off, for example. What is evident to me is that the current funding for S4C is inadequate. It is not adequate to sustain the kind of television channel we all want to see. And it’s not adequate to compete with the whole English-medium broadcasting world that we’re all part of. So, I do think that we should secure more funding for S4C—I don’t want to name a figure this morning, but I think we need to look realistically at what the cost would be of operating a Welsh-medium channel of the highest possible standard, and also the peripheral and associated services with the television channel, to ensure that we have a service with the ability to commission and create content through the medium of Welsh that is used not only on the television channel, but on the other platforms as well. So, S4C has to do a different job in the future compared to what it did in the 1980s, and the funding has to be in place to ensure that it can do that.
[32] Dai Lloyd: Dyna ni. A dilyn o hynny, mae S4C wedi galw am bwerau masnachol ehangach. A oes gyda chi farn ynglŷn ag addasrwydd hynny?	Dai Lloyd: There we are. Following on from that, S4C has called for broader commercial powers. Do you have any views on the appropriateness of such a move?
[33] Alun Davies: Rydw i’n gyfforddus iawn i S4C gael y pwerau y maen nhw wedi awgrymu bod eu hangen arnyn nhw. Rydw i’n meddwl nad yw’r system bresennol yn gweithio yn y ffordd efallai y dylai hi. Nid wyf yn gweld pam dylai S4C gael gweithredu gyda llai o ryddid nag unrhyw ddarlledwr cyhoeddus arall. Ac, os ydym ni’n edrych ar sut y mae S4C yn cael ei rhedeg, ar y remit, a’r strwythur, rydw i yn meddwl y dylem ni sicrhau bod gyda hi’r pwerau i allu bod yn innovative hefyd yn y ffordd y mae’n gweithredu.	Alun Davies: I’m very comfortable with S4C receiving the powers that they’ve suggested they need. I don’t believe that the current system works in the way that perhaps it should. I don’t see why S4C should have to operate with less freedom than any other public broadcaster. And, if we look at how S4C is run, at its remit and its structure, I do think that we should ensure that it has the powers to be able to be innovative in its operation, too.
[34] Dai Lloyd: Ac yn olaf gennyf i, a alwch chi ymhelaethu ar y canlyniadau yr ydych chi’n gobeithio eu gweld o’r £3 miliwn y mae Llywodraeth Cymru wedi eu cyfrannu at gyllid Yr Egin?	Dai Lloyd: And finally from me, could you elaborate on the outcomes that you hope to see from the additional £3 million funding that the Welsh Government has contributed to Yr Egin?
[35] Alun Davies: Rydym ni wedi bod mewn trafodaethau fel Llywodraeth, fel y mae’r pwyllgor yn ymwybodol, â’r brifysgol i sicrhau bod gan S4C bencadlys newydd yn y gorllewin. Rydw i’n gweld hyn fel buddsoddiad pwysig yn y gorllewin. Rydw i’n credu fy mod yn ei weld fel buddsoddiad yn strwythur economaidd y gorllewin, ac yn yr iaith yn y gorllewin. Pan fyddwn ni’n edrych ar beth ydy rôl Llywodraeth pan ŷm ni’n dod i fuddsoddi yn yr economi, rydw i yn meddwl bod yna rôl bwysig i’r Llywodraeth fuddsoddi lle mae yna fethiant yn y farchnad a sicrhau ein bod ni’n gallu creu swyddi, a swyddi o ansawdd da, yn y Gymraeg, mewn ardal megis sir Gâr, ac rydw i’n credu bod hynny’n mynd i ddigwydd gyda’r buddsoddiad yr ydym ni wedi ei weld yn Yr Egin.	Alun Davies: We have been in discussions as a Government, as the committee is aware, with the university to ensure that S4C has a new headquarters in the west. I see this as an important investment in west Wales, and I see it as an investment in the economic structure of west Wales, and in the language in west Wales. When we look at the role of Government in investing in the economy, I do think that there is an important role for the Government to invest where there is a failure in the market to ensure that we can create jobs, and high-quality jobs, through the medium of Welsh, in an area such as Carmarthenshire, and I do think that that will happen with the investment that we’ve seen in Yr Egin.
[36] I ateb eich cwestiwn yn uniongyrchol, mae’r brifysgol wedi dweud bod yna impact sy’n gallu creu rhywbeth fel 600 o swyddi. Nid ydw i yn gwybod os yw hynny’n bosibl, ond rydw i yn hyderus bod gennym ni bartneriaeth gydag S4C a’r brifysgol i sicrhau ein bod ni’n creu hwb neu greu cyfle newydd i’r diwydiannau creadigol yn y gorllewin.	To answer your question directly, the university has said that there is an impact that could create something in the order of 600 jobs. I don’t know whether that is possible, but I am confident that we have a partnership with S4C and the university to ensure that we create a hub or new opportunity for the creative industries in the west.
[37] Dai Lloyd: Diolch yn fawr.	Dai Lloyd: Thank you very much.
[38] Bethan Jenkins: Cyn symud ymlaen, a allaf i jest gofyn ynglŷn â’r ffaith eich bod chi wedi dweud nad ydych eisiau rhoi swm ar yr arian o ran S4C? Rydych chi, yn amlwg, wedi dweud bod angen £30 miliwn ychwanegol y flwyddyn ar y BBC. Pam ydych chi wedi penderfynu peidio â rhoi swm ar beth fydd yn ddigonol ar gyfer S4C, ond eich bod chi wedi bod yn eithaf uchel eich sain ynglŷn â faint y dylai’r BBC gael i Gymru?	Bethan Jenkins: Before moving on, can I just ask about the fact that you’ve said that you didn’t want to put a number on the funding for S4C? You’ve clearly said that there is a need for an additional £30 million for the BBC. Why have you decided not to specify a figure on what would be adequate for S4C, but you’ve chosen to be quite vocal about the BBC’s funding for Wales?
[39] Alun Davies: Rydw i wedi bod yn ddigon clir bod yn rhaid i gyllideb S4C gael ei chynyddu o ble mae hi heddiw, ac yn ffordd y mae’n cael ei hariannu. Nid ydw i’n teimlo, y bore yma, fod gen i’r math o wybodaeth a fyddai’n fy ngalluogi fi i roi swm penodol i chi. Ond, fel rhywun sydd wedi gweithio i S4C, ac fel rhywun sy’n edrych ar faint mae’n costio i greu rhaglenni o safon, rydym ni wedi gweld y byd creu cynnwys yn newid yn gyfan gwbl dros y blynyddoedd diwethaf. Rydym ni yn gweld buddsoddiadau mawr iawn yn digwydd. Rydw i’n credu mai The Crown ar Netflix wedi costio rhywbeth fel £100 miliwn i’w chreu—un gyfres deledu. Ac, pan ydych chi’n edrych ar y symiau yma, y symiau anferth sy’n cael eu buddsoddi mewn creu cynnwys yn yr iaith Saesneg, nid ydw i’n credu ei bod yn cymryd lot o ddychymyg i sylweddoli fod y math o gyllid sydd gan S4C ar hyn o bryd ddim yn ddigonol i gystadlu. Mae’n fater i S4C ac eraill wedyn benderfynu ar ba lefel buasen nhw’n licio anelu ato, ond, o’m safbwynt i, fuaswn i ddim yn credu bod y safon bresennol yn ddigonol.	Alun Davies: I have been clear enough that S4C’s funding has to be increased from its current level, and in the manner in which it is funded. I don’t believe this morning that I have that kind of information that would enable me to give you a specific figure. But, as a person who has worked for S4C, and as one who looks at the cost of creating quality programmes, we have seen the way of creating content changing completely in recent years. We’ve seen massive investments. I think The Crown on Netflix cost £100 million—just for one television series. And, when you look at these sums, huge sums, that are invested in English-language content creation, I don’t think it takes very much imagination to realise that the kind of funding that S4C has at present is not adequate, and not enough to be able to compete. It’s a matter for S4C and others then to decide to decide at which level they would like to aim, but, from my point of view, I would not believe that the current level is adequate.
[40] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch. Lee, a oes gennych chi fwy o gwestiynau ar atebolrwydd neu lywodraethu, neu ydych chi wedi—?	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you. Lee, do you have any more questions on accountability or governance?
[41] Lee Waters: Yes, I do.
[42] Bethan Jenkins: I don’t know why I asked, actually. [Laughter.] Crack on.
[43] Alun Davies: He’s run seminars on this for decades.
[44] Lee Waters: The governance arrangements between the BBC and S4C have remained pretty unclear as to how S4C’s going to fit in to the new BBC board structure. I just wonder if you have a view about how that should work. You say in your written evidence that the arrangements more generally must reflect the reality of devolved government in the UK and support the delivery of policy objectives set in Wales. I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit on that, please.
[45] Alun Davies: Yes, I think I’d go back to the conversation I had with the Chair at the beginning of this session. The world has changed since 1982. You know, I remember seeing S4C being turned on. I was in the lolfa fawr in Pantycelyn in Aberystwyth at the time, and there was great excitement seeing the new Welsh-language channel being created. We were very excited at seeing the result of many years of campaigning, with great visions and ambitions for the future. S4C has actually delivered on a lot of that initial vision, and there have been a number of different step changes through the years—the advent of the move to digital broadcasting and online broadcasting are probably the most significant. But we need to look again at the structures that sustain S4C and the structures that hold S4C to account. I think it’s reasonably clear now that the current structures will not be sufficient into the future, and we need to reinvent, if you like, as we’ve suggested before, the UK in terms of how we hold broadcasters and others to account. I would like to see a much richer accountability framework, whereby the National Assembly plays a role alongside the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the UK Parliament, in holding broadcasters to account for delivering a public service remit across the whole of the United Kingdom and not simply broadcasting to those within the M25, and ensuring that all of our lives and all of our experiences are reflected on screen across different platforms in different languages across the whole of the range of broadcasting in the United Kingdom—public broadcasting in the United Kingdom. I think that’s a very, very important conversation to have. It’s an important conversation to have for parliamentarians across the whole of the UK and not simply something that should remain in London and London alone. I think we need to have that inter-institutional conversation, if you like, to enable a much richer form of accountability, and I would like to see accountability to the institutions rather than accountability to the Governments. I think there’s a very important difference between a public broadcaster and a state broadcaster, and we want our public broadcasters to be held to account, and not the creation of a broadcaster that’s accountable to a Minister. I think that’s an important differential to make.
[46] The structures of governance of S4C, I’ve no doubt, will change in the coming years. I regret the fact that we haven’t had a more regular review of S4C to enable us to make evolutionary incremental changes to recognise the changes in the environment within which S4C operates.
[47] Lee Waters: But do you have a view on what those governance arrangements should look like?
[48] Alun Davies: I don’t want this morning to start the review process with a view of where it should end. What I want to do is to contribute to a debate and then for that debate to happen and for us to reach a conclusion as a consequence of a debate, rather than start a debate with the position of the Welsh Government.
[49] Lee Waters: So what would your contribution be about what those governance arrangements should look like?
[50] Alun Davies: My contribution would be that we need a form of governance that generates both accountability to people, to viewers, to service users in Wales and beyond, and one that is able to govern S4C effectively for the future. I’m not going to be tied down this morning, Lee.
[51] Lee Waters: It’s becoming apparent. Can I just—as you’re with us, can you update us on what the latest situation is with the appointment of a board member for Wales to the BBC?
[52] Alun Davies: Clearly, the UK general election has meant that the process we’d agreed with the DCMS—‘we’d agreed with the DCMS’; the DCMS had determined—is going to be put back now. The closing date for new applications has been put back beyond the general election into June.
10:00
[53] Lee Waters: You said in your preamble at the beginning that you felt it was important that the Assembly had a role to ensure that broadcasting needs reflect Welsh audiences. Given the recommendation we made in our report about the Assembly having an opportunity to take evidence from the nominee before the Welsh Government gave its approval to that appointment, as time is no longer an issue, do you think that the Welsh Government would be able to comply with our request?
[54] Alun Davies: The appointments process for BBC appointments is a UK appointments process, not a Welsh Government appointments process. So—
[55] Lee Waters: But you have to give your approval.
[56] Alun Davies: We do have to give our approval, and—
[57] Lee Waters: Before you give that approval, I wonder whether there’s a chance for us to have a chat with them.
[58] Alun Davies: If you give me a chance, I might even answer your question. So, it isn’t in my gift to take that decision. What I’ve said to you—and you quote your report; I’ll quote my response to it—is that I have no in-principle objection to that at all. I would like to see the National Assembly play a bigger role in these appointments. I’ve got no issue at all with what is being suggested. I will say to you, though, that this is a UK process and not a Welsh Government process. We are contributing to it; we are not controlling it.
[59] I would like to see an agreement between the UK Government and the parliaments of the United Kingdom whereby we have an understood role for all of those parliaments in all of these appointments. I hesitate to do it on a piecemeal basis, but I would certainly like to see the sort of process that the committee has proposed being a part of the way we make appointments into the future.
[60] Lee Waters: Thank you.
[61] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch. Rydym yn symud ymlaen nawr at effaith ddiwylliannol ac economaidd, ac mae Jeremy Miles yn arwain. Diolch.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you. We move on to economic and cultural impact and Jeremy Miles will lead on this. Thank you.
[62] Jeremy Miles: Diolch. Rwyf i’n moyn edrych ar gwestiwn effaith economaidd a diwylliannol a’r cwestiwn os oes tyndra rhwng y ddau amcan. Cyn i’r gyfraith newid, roedd yn arfer i’r BBC ac ITV gomisiynu llai o gynnwys o’r tu allan nag yr ydyn nhw’n ei wneud nawr. Roedden nhw’n creu lot fwy o gynnwys eu hunain. A ydych chi’n gweld bod gwerth i S4C edrych ar a ddylai gynhyrchu mwy o’i gynnyrch a’i gynnwys o fewn S4C yn hytrach na chomisiynu hynny o gynhyrchwyr annibynnol?	Jeremy Miles: Thank you. I want to look at the economic and cultural impact and the question of whether there is a tension between those two objectives. Before the law changed, it used to be that the BBC and ITV commissioned less content externally than they do now. Do you see that it would be worth S4C looking at whether it should produce more of its own content within S4C, rather than commissioning it from independent broadcasters?
[63] Alun Davies: Na. Nid ydw i’n gweld yr achos am hynny. Mae S4C wedi cael ei sefydlu fel darlledwr comisiynu ac mae wedi bod erioed. Rwy’n credu bod y model hwnnw wedi creu diwydiant yng Nghymru, diwydiant sydd wedi gallu cystadlu ar lefel Brydeinig a rhyngwladol, ac rydym ni wedi creu busnesau llwyddiannus oherwydd hynny. Felly, rydw i’n gyfforddus iawn gyda rôl a remit S4C fel darlledwr sy’n comisiynu’r cynnwys. Beth buaswn i’n ei ystyried yw sut, wedyn, rŷm ni’n defnyddio’r cynnwys ar ôl ei gomisiynu fe, a phwy sy’n berchen ar y cynnwys ar ôl iddo gael ei greu. Rydw i’n credu bod yna drafodaeth i’w cael yn fanna, ond rydw i’n gyfforddus iawn gyda lle’r ydym ni ar hyn o bryd.	Alun Davies: No. I don’t see the case for that. S4C was established as a commissioning broadcaster and it always has been. I do think that that model has created an industry in Wales, an industry that’s been able to compete at a UK and international level, and we’ve created successful businesses as a result of that. Therefore, I am very comfortable with the role and remit of S4C as a commissioning broadcaster. What I would want to consider is how we actually use the content once it has been commissioned, and who owns that content once it has been created. I think there are some discussions to be had there, but I am very comfortable with where we are at present.
[64] Ond, ie, ambell waith, mae yna dyndra rhwng yr imperative economaidd a diwylliannol, ac rydw i’n credu bod yn rhaid i ni ddelio gyda hynny pob dydd. Ambell waith, mae’r tyndra yna, wrth gwrs, yn gallu bod yn beth positif hefyd.	But, yes, on occasion, there is some tension between the economic imperative and the cultural imperative, and I do think that we have to deal with that on a daily basis. On occasion, that tension can be very positive.
[65] Jeremy Miles: Ai’ch safbwynt chi, felly, yw bod angen edrych ar bwy sy’n rheoli’r hawliau mewn cynnwys ar ôl iddo gael ei gomisiynu a’i ddarlledu, ac efallai nad yw’r cydbwysedd presennol yn iawn? Ai dyna’ch barn chi?	Jeremy Miles: So, is it your standpoint that we must look at who regulates the rights for that content after it’s broadcasted, and that possibly the current balance isn’t right? Is that your view?
[66] Alun Davies: Efallai. Efallai dyna fydd y casgliad, ond, eto, nid ydw i eisiau dod i gasgliad cyn cael y drafodaeth. Rydw i’n awyddus iawn ein bod yn ariannu S4C i wneud dau beth: cael yr impact diwylliannol, creu rhaglenni a chynnwys darlledu yr ydym ni i gyd yn gallu mwynhau fel rhan o’n bywydau pob dydd ni ac wedyn ei bod yn cael yr impact economaidd ar draws Cymru. Rydw i’n gobeithio bod gyda ni y model sy’n gwneud hynny. Rydym ni wedi gweld llwyddiannau yn y gorffennol ac mae’n rhaid inni sicrhau bod gyda ni’r fath o fodel sy’n gallu sicrhau llwyddiant yn y dyfodol hefyd.	Alun Davies: Perhaps, yes. That may be the conclusion, but, again, I don’t want to pre-empt that conclusion before we’ve had that discussion. I’m very eager that we should fund S4C to do two things: to have that cultural impact, to create broadcast content that we can all enjoy as part of our daily lives, and then, also, that it has that pan-Wales economic impact too. I do hope that we have a model that achieves that. We have seen successes in the past and we must ensure that we do have the kind of model that can secure success for the future, too.
[67] Jeremy Miles: Wel, mae hynny’n uchelgais da, ond y cwestiwn yw—. Pan sefydlwyd S4C, nid oedd yn comisiynu 100 y cant o’r schedule, roedd lot o gynnwys Saesneg, fel mae’n digwydd, o Channel 4. Ers i’r system ddigidol dod i mewn, wrth gwrs, maen nhw’n comisiynu schedules llawn ar gyllideb lai. Felly, pa mor realistig yw’r model hwn roeddech chi’n sôn amdano fe?	Jeremy Miles: Well, that’s a laudable aim, but the question is—. When S4C was first established, it didn’t commission 100 per cent of the schedule, there was a lot of English content, as it happens, from Channel 4. Since the digital system has been introduced, of course, they commission full schedules on a smaller budget. So, how realistic is this model that you talked about?
[68] Alun Davies: Mae’r model presennol, rwy’n credu, yn realistig. Rydych chi’n iawn; mae S4C wastad wedi bod yn hybrid, os ydych chi’n licio. Rwy’n cofio’r holl lincs Planed Plant, er enghraifft, yn dod o S4C ei hun. Mae hynny wedi newid ers y dyddiau roeddwn i’n gweithio yna. A hefyd, wrth gwrs, mae cyfraniad y BBC sy’n mynd at S4C. Felly, yn amlwg, mae’r newidiadau yma wedi digwydd dros y blynyddoedd diwethaf, ond nid wyf i wedi gweld unrhyw achos i sefydlu S4C fel rhyw fath o gwmni cynhyrchu ei hun. Nid wyf i wedi gweld y ddadl dros wneud hynny. Rydw i’n gyfforddus iawn gyda’r model ble mae S4C yn comisiynu creu cynnwys yn allanol.	Alun Davies: I think the current model is realistic. You are right, though; S4C has always been a hybrid, if you like, because I recall the Planed Plant links coming from S4C itself. That’s changed since the time that I worked there. And, of course, there is that BBC contribution provided to S4C. Therefore, it’s clear that these changes have occurred over the past years, but I haven’t seen any case made for establishing S4C as some sort of in-house production company. I haven’t seen the argument made for that. I am very comfortable with a model where S4C commissions content externally.
[69] Jeremy Miles: Rhai wythnosau yn ôl, fe wnaeth Llywodraeth Cymru gyhoeddi rheoliadau newydd yng nghyd-destun polisi caffael cyffredinol—nid darlledu yn benodol—a oedd yn dweud bod angen cadwyn gyflenwi i allu sicrhau bod pobl yn cael eu cyflogi ar y telerau iawn, a hefyd bod eu sgiliau nhw’n cael eu datblygu. Arian cyhoeddus, wrth gwrs, sydd yn mynd mewn i S4C, ac rwy’n cymryd o’ch tystiolaeth chi, neu’r nodyn wnaethoch chi ei roi i’r pwyllgor, nad ydych chi’n credu bod y diwydiant yn gwneud digon i gynnal sgiliau yn gyffredinol. A allech chi sôn mwy am beth hoffech chi weld yn digwydd? Rŷm ni wedi clywed tystiolaeth, er enghraifft, oddi wrth BECTU nad ydyn nhw’n teimlo bod eu rôl nhw o ran darparu sgiliau yn cael ei fanteisio arno fe. Beth yw eich barn chi ar hynny?	Jeremy Miles: Some weeks ago, the Welsh Government published new regulations in the context of general procurement rules—not just broadcasting, now—and they said that we need a supply chain to ensure that people are employed on the right terms and conditions and that their skills are also at the right level. Public funding goes to S4C, and I assume from your evidence and the notes that you gave to the committee that you don’t believe that the industry is doing enough to sustain those skills generally. Could you talk a little bit about what you’d like to see them doing? We’ve heard evidence from BECTU that they don’t feel that their role as a skills provider is being optimised. What is your view on that?
[70] Alun Davies: Rydw i yn meddwl bod yn rhaid inni edrych ar y gyllideb gyhoeddus yn ehangach fel rhyw ffordd o siapio’r economi a’r cymunedau rydym ni i gyd yn eu cynrychioli. Felly, liciwn i weld bod y gyllideb sydd gan S4C yn cael ei defnyddio i greu cynnwys o safon uchel, ond wrth sicrhau bod y bobl sy’n gweithio yn gweithio o dan delerau teg gyda chyflogau teg—cyflog byw. Rydw i’n credu bod hynny yn hollbwysig. Ac wedyn ein bod ni’n edrych ar sut rŷm ni’n sicrhau dyfodol a sicrhau tyfiant yn y diwydiannau creadigol, ac mae hynny yn meddwl sgiliau—sgiliau newydd a phrentisiaethau—a bod cwmnïau sy’n gweithio ac yn cael eu hariannu gan S4C i greu cynnwys yn cymryd prentisiaethau ac yn rhan o system o sicrhau sgiliau ar gyfer y dyfodol, ac yn buddsoddi mewn cymunedau ar draws Cymru, fydd yn ein galluogi ni i weld impact economaidd S4C, a mynd ymhell tu ôl i bencadlys S4C.	Alun Davies: I do think that we need to look at public funding in its broader sense as one way of shaping our economy and those communities that we all represent. I would like to see that S4C’s budget should be used to create the highest quality content, but doing so by ensuring that the people working in that industry are working in fair conditions and are paid a fair wage—the living wage—. I think that’s very important. And also that we look at how we secure a future for the creative industries and their growth, and that does require skills—new skills and apprenticeships—and that companies that are funded by S4C to create content should take on apprentices and should be part of a system of ensuring that we have the future skills in place, and also invest in communities across Wales, which will enable us to see a real economic impact provided by S4C going way beyond its headquarters.
[71] Jeremy Miles: Beth ydych chi’n gweld y gall S4C ei wneud yn y cyd-destun hwnnw? Wrth gwrs, byddwn i’n cymryd bod eu telerau comisiynu nhw yn cynnwys goblygiadau ar eu darparwyr nhw i wneud y pethau rŷch chi’n sôn amdanyn nhw. Ond y cwestiwn yw: beth yw eu rôl nhw yn plismona hynny a sicrhau bod hynny actually yn digwydd? A oes gennych chi syniad am hynny?	Jeremy Miles: What do you think that S4C can do in that context? Because we assume that the commissioning terms and conditions include obligations on their providers to do all the things that you’ve alluded to. But the question is: what is their role in policing that and ensuring that that actually happens? Do you have any ideas on that?
[72] Alun Davies: Nid wyf fi’n meddwl bod rhaid iddyn nhw blismona fe. Rwy’n credu y gallan nhw fod yn greadigol. Mae gan bob un darlledwr gyfrifoldeb am ddyfodol y diwydiannau creadigol, ac os ydym ni eisiau gweld y diwydiannau yma yn bod yn llwyddiannus yng Nghymru, mae S4C yn mynd i chwarae rôl hynod bwysig i sicrhau ei fod e’n digwydd. Mae hynny yn meddwl cydweithio gyda Llywodraeth Cymru, gyda darlledwyr eraill a gyda’r diwydiant i sicrhau bod y buddsoddiadau mewn cynnwys yn arwain at gynnwys ac unrhyw beth arall. Rydw i’n gweld bod S4C eisiau gwneud hynny. Nid ydw i wedi dod ar draws unrhyw awgrym bod naill ai S4C neu unrhyw ddarlledwr arall, actually, ddim eisiau gweld hyn yn digwydd. Achos mae’n bwysig iddyn nhw i gael gweithlu sy’n gallu gweithio yn y dyfodol a hefyd i sicrhau bod y busnesau yma yn ddigon cryf i allu cynnig syniadau a hefyd datblygu syniadau a chynhyrchu rhaglenni ar yr un pryd. Mae hynny yn meddwl cwmnïau sydd gyda rhywfaint o rym ariannol ei hun. Felly, os ydym ni’n mynd i greu diwydiant sy’n mynd i lwyddo cystadlu, mae’n rhaid bod yna fusnesau mawr yn cael eu creu ar yr un pryd.	Alun Davies: I don’t think they need to police it. I do think that they can be creative. Each and every broadcaster has a responsibility for the future of the creative industries, and if we do want to see these industries thriving in Wales, then S4C is going to play an extremely important role in ensuring that that happens. That requires collaboration with the Welsh Government, with other broadcasters, and with the wider industry in order to ensure that the investments in content lead to content and other outcomes. I do believe that S4C wants to achieve that. I haven’t seen any suggestion that either S4C, or any other broadcaster for that matter, wouldn’t want to do that. Because it’s important for them to have a workforce that is fit for purpose for the future, and also to ensure that these businesses are robust enough to provide new ideas and develop those ideas and produce programmes all simultaneously. That requires companies that do have some financial power themselves. So, if we are to create an industry that is going to succeed and compete, then big businesses need to be created simultaneously.
[73] Jeremy Miles: Ocê. Ar drywydd gwahanol mae’r cwestiwn olaf. Faint ydych chi’n poeni bod y sialensiau o flaen S4C yn mynd i amharu ar eich gallu chi fel Llywodraeth i ddelifro ar y strategaeth iaith?	Jeremy Miles: Okay. And to go down a different route for the final question. How worried are you that the future challenges of S4C will impair your ability as a Government to deliver on the language strategy?
[74] Alun Davies: Nid wyf i’n gweld mai sialens sydd gan S4C. Rwy’n gweld cyfle i S4C gyfrannu at sut rydym ni’n gwneud hynny. Rydym ni i gyd yn gwybod ein bod ni’n gweld bod plant ifanc yn defnyddio mwy o Gymraeg na phlant a phobl ifanc yn eu harddegau, ac wedyn rydym ni’n gweld bod oedolion yn dod nôl, os ydych chi’n licio, at y Gymraeg. Rydw i’n awyddus iawn i weld sut y gall S4C gyfrannu at greu mwy o gynnwys a fydd yn apelio at bobl yn eu harddegau, sydd ddim really wedi llwyddo ar hyn o bryd, a hefyd bod yn rhan o rwydwaith, os ydych chi’n licio, sy’n creu ac yn cynnig cynnwys i bobl ar lwyfannau gwahanol. Liciwn i weld trafodaeth fwy eang ar sut rydym ni’n gwneud hynny. Ond rwy’n gweld y rhain fel cyfleoedd gwahanol, newydd i S4C wneud mwy yn y dyfodol nag y mae wedi ei wneud yn y gorffennol a chymryd mantais o fwy o ryddid masnachol, cymryd mantais o’r dechnoleg sydd ar gael ar hyn o bryd ac wedyn ein galluogi ni i greu’r un fath o dirwedd darlledu cyfoethog ag sydd gennym ni yn Saesneg.	Alun Davies: I don’t believe that there’s a challenge for S4C. I think there’s an opportunity for S4C to contribute towards that project. I think we all know that young children use more Welsh than teenagers, and then we see that adults return to the Welsh language later in life. I’m very eager to see how S4C can contribute to the creation of more content that will appeal to adolescents—they haven’t necessarily succeeded in that area at present—and to be part of a network that creates and provides content for people on various different platforms. I would like to see a broader discussion on how we could achieve that. But I see these as new, different opportunities for S4C to do more in future than they have done in the past and to take advantage of the greater commercial freedom and the technologies available at present and then to enable us to create the same kind of rich broadcasting landscape that we currently have in English.
[75] Jeremy Miles: Diolch.	Jeremy Miles: Thank you.
[76] Bethan Jenkins: Jest yn glou, a ydy’r rheini yn drafodaethau rydych chi’n eu cael fel Gweinidog, neu ai’r Gweinidog addysg—? Oherwydd pan aethom ni i mewn i ysgolion, roedd nifer o bobl yn astudio Hedd Wyn, a dyna’r unig opsiwn, really, iddyn nhw weld ffilm Cymraeg, ac roedd rhai yn gweld ei fod e’n ddefnyddiol, ond roedd rhai eraill yn meddwl nad oedd e’n berthnasol, efallai, iddyn nhw. Felly, pa waith ydych chi’n ei wneud i siapio’r hyn mae S4C yn gallu ei wneud i apelio at bobl yn eu harddegau o ran y mesurau addysgiadol?	Bethan Jenkins: Just quickly, are those discussions that you are holding as a Minister, or is that for the education Minister? Because when we went into schools, a number of people were studying Hedd Wyn, and that was the only option for them to see a Welsh-language film. Some thought that it was useful, and others didn’t think that it was relevant to them. So, what work are you doing to shape what S4C can do to appeal to teenagers as regards the educational content?
[77] Alun Davies: Wel, rydw i’n credu bod hynny’n rhywbeth i S4C, ac nid y Gweinidog. Ond—	Alun Davies: Well, I think that’s a matter for S4C, not for the Minister. But—
[78] Bethan Jenkins: Os yw e ar y cwricwlwm, nid yw e jest i S4C.	Bethan Jenkins: If it’s on the curriculum, it’s not just for S4C.
[79] Alun Davies: Nid wyf i eisiau bod mewn sefyllfa lle mae’r Gweinidog yn awgrymu i S4C beth ddylen nhw fod yn ei wneud pan mae’n dod i greu cynnwys. Rydw i’n meddwl bod yn rhaid inni sefyll nôl rhag gwneud hynny. Ond rydym ni, fel Gweinidogion addysg, yn trafod y cwricwlwm drwy’r amser. Os oes gan y pwyllgor gwestiynau penodol ar hynny, rydw i’n hapus iawn i ysgrifennu at y pwyllgor.	Alun Davies: I don’t want to be in a position where a Minister suggests to S4C what they should be doing when it comes to content creation. I think there has to be some separation and we need to step back from doing that. But we, as education Ministers, discuss the curriculum on an ongoing basis. If the committee has any specific questions on that, then I’m more than happy to write to you as a committee.
[80] Bethan Jenkins: Sori, jest i gadarnhau, nid eich bod chi’n dweud wrth S4C, ‘Rydym ni angen ichi wneud rhywbeth ar—’. Ond efallai bod yna rywbeth yn yr archifau sydd ddim wedi cael ei ddefnyddio a bod yna dueddiad i fynd at un ffilm neu un rhaglen yn hytrach nag edrych ar gynnwys mwy eang S4C ar gyfer y cwricwlwm. Dyna oeddwn i’n ceisio’i ddweud, nid eich bod chi fel Gweinidog yn dweud, ‘Wel, gwnewch raglen ar bobl sydd yn hoffi reidio beicio modur yn y Cymoedd,’ neu rywbeth.	Bethan Jenkins: Sorry, just to confirm, not that you should be telling S4C ‘You need to be doing something on a particular subject—’. But there may be something in the archive, something that, perhaps, hasn’t been used for some time. There’s a tendency to return to one film or one programme, rather than looking at the broader output of S4C for the curriculum. That’s what I was driving at, not that you as Minister should be saying, ‘Well, you should make a programme on people who ride motorbikes in the Valleys,’ for example.
[81] Alun Davies: Ocê.	Alun Davies: Okay.
[82] Bethan Jenkins: Suzy Davies.
[83] Suzy Davies: Thanks very much. I wonder if I could just turn to a paragraph in the evidence that you gave us that relates to intellectual property. The beginning of that paragraph goes:
[84] ‘S4C should continue to work in partnership with Welsh writers, artists and others…and…organisations such as the Arts Council of Wales, the Welsh Books Council and other partners’.
[85] Because those are organisations that are, themselves, pretty important in promoting the use and understanding of the Welsh language, have you been having any conversations with them about how they can work better with S4C? Because I get the impression from the way you phrase this that things could be improved. It may be one for Ken Skates, rather than you, but with the Welsh language angle, I thought you might have a view.
[86] Alun Davies: I think we’re trying to do two things, aren’t we? We’re trying to ensure that we have this synergy between different organisations that have slightly different remits, whilst, at the same time, maintaining the level of independence of those different organisations to take decisions that are important to them. But I would hope that all of those institutions that you’ve named and that we list in this evidence are able to look at how they maximise their impact in the community they seek to serve, and—
[87] Suzy Davies: Can I just ask what you mean by ‘impact’ there? Is it economic, is it skills, is it cultural or is it all of those?
[88] Alun Davies: It’s all of those things. You create synergies and you try to have the greatest impact possible. To perhaps go back to the Chair’s earlier question about how you ensure that we have the widest possible access to these different aspects of culture, then the national library as well, for example, I think, has always got an important role to play in terms of ensuring that we have access to our history and our culture, and that we find different ways of communicating that in new and more relevant ways in the future. So, I would want to see all of those organisations trying to create those synergies to enable us to work together to deliver more for the audiences we serve. You know, to what extent would you want the Minister to be very deterministic and prescriptive about this? I don’t know—
10:15
[89] Suzy Davies: Well, I don’t, actually—
[90] Alun Davies: But certainly, I would—
[91] Suzy Davies: But then I’d ask you the question.
[92] Alun Davies: Right, okay. I would prefer the Government to occupy a position of being an enabler rather than a determiner of some of these things.
[93] Suzy Davies: Okay. Well, that partly answers my question. Just my final one is: this is a review of S4C now. Is there anything in the current system or something that prevents better co-operation between these bodies; or should something go into the review about—as you say—enabling those bodies to work, or encourage them to work a little bit more closely together? I’m trying to work out whether the loose arrangement is lack of interest from these bodies or lack of interest from S4C, or because there are actual legislative problems preventing them working more closely together.
[94] Alun Davies: Do you know, I’m not convinced it’s any one of those things. My feeling is that there are a lot of good people in all of these institutions trying to do the right thing.
[95] Suzy Davies: Okay. That’s good.
[96] Alun Davies: Sometimes we need that fresh pair of eyes to look at things that we see every day to help us see some things differently. I would see this as a very, very positive way of contributing to the strengthening of some of our important national institutions to enable them to deliver more together than they can separately.
[97] Suzy Davies: Okay. Thank you. Diolch.
[98] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch. Neil Hamilton nawr ar gydweithredu.	Bethan Jenkins: Neil Hamilton now on collaboration.
[99] Neil Hamilton: Yes, just to follow up a bit more on what Suzy has started to explore in relation to your paper and the way in which S4C co-operates with other bodies in the cultural world in Wales. In particular, in your paper you say that the partnership between S4C and the BBC should be
[100] ‘updated and renewed, to support and enable the growth and diversification of S4C’s services in a multi-platform world.’
[101] Can you perhaps flesh out a bit what you mean by that, and in what way should this partnership be updated and renewed?
[102] Alun Davies: I think it’s quite clear that the relationship between S4C and the BBC today is far better than it has been for many years, and has been strengthened over the past few years. I think that’s something to be welcomed. I think public service broadcasters such as S4C and the BBC can share back-office facilities and back-office services. I think there are savings, particularly, to be made there, but also to create synergies again in terms of what they’re seeking to achieve. We’re trying to create this balancing act, aren’t we, whereby you have the editorial independence of S4C guaranteed, the integrity of S4C guaranteed—I presume by statute—and then you have the BBC being able to provide it with services, facilities, programming and the rest of it, and then you have funding for S4C coming through the licence fee.
[103] So, you’re trying to find a balance between all of those different things. For example, I think one of the most important aspects of strengthening this partnership over recent years has been S4C programmes on the iPlayer. I haven’t seen any figures recently, but I’m absolutely convinced that that’s led to a big increase in the numbers viewing and accessing those services and those programmes and that content, and I think that’s a great thing. I think it’s a good thing. I would encourage the leadership of S4C and the leadership of the BBC to sit down and constantly review what they’re doing together, how they improve what they’re doing together, and opportunities to do that in the future. We’ve seen some co-productions recently, I think, and we’ve seen the broadcasting of programmes on BBC Four, for example, which I think is absolutely first class and something that is to be welcomed. I think there are great synergies between two great broadcasters to achieve great things.
[104] Neil Hamilton: Well, there’s no doubt of the importance of the iPlayer to S4C, and that’s been acknowledged in evidence to us, both by Rhodri Talfan Davies and by Huw Jones from S4C. S4C’s evidence also, of course, has extended beyond that into other platforms, like YouTube and so on, where the future of television is undoubtedly going So, I think you’re broadly on the right lines there.
[105] You also say in your paper that S4C should
[106] ‘strengthen existing ties with organisations such as the Arts Council of Wales, the Welsh Books Council’,
[107] as Suzy’s referred to. Can you tell us a bit more about what role the Welsh Government would have in encouraging that strengthening of ties? I appreciate what you’ve just said—you don’t want to give orders to broadcasters or to determine the direction, but as an enabler yourself, there is a great deal that you can contribute to it.
[108] Alun Davies: Yes, and I hope that the approach of the Welsh Government of seeking to maximise the value of different partnerships between Welsh public bodies is one that will encourage that to happen. As I said, there is a memorandum of understanding between the arts council and S4C, and that is designed to support great creative talent in Wales. I hope we’ll see that grow and I hope it’s a model that, perhaps, can be used in different ways, in different circumstances and in different contexts with, potentially, the books council. I’d love to see the national library play a much wider role in the cultural life of Wales. I think the national library is one of the great cultural institutions of Europe and I think it’s an absolute treasure that we probably, as a country, don’t appreciate or value enough. How can we use some of what it has there in order to create content in the digital world? I think it’s a fantastic question to ask and I think it’s something that we would all benefit from. I think it would make great programming as well.
[109] But I think the role of Government, as you said, or suggested, is to be that nudger/enabler, rather than being a dictator. I do constantly try to shy back as a Minister from saying, ‘This is what I want broadcasters to do’, in a very deterministic sort of sense, because, as somebody who, as I’ve said, has worked for S4C, I remember when I was there we had some very robust views, colourfully expressed, by some very colourful politicians during those times, mainly on what we should and shouldn’t be broadcasting—from right across the political spectrum. I’m always aware that we need to find a balance between proper public accountability and where that accountability to elected politicians goes too far and we try to interfere in editorial judgments. I always try to step back from that.
[110] Neil Hamilton: As somebody who spent at least a year of his life buried in the vaults of the national library doing a research project, I fully agree with you about the role that that institution ought to play. The last thing I’d like to ask you to expand upon is about what you say in your paper about—
[111] ‘S4C should ensure that it commissions more programming based on intellectual property…from and about Wales and that it builds a converged, multi-platform offering around that IP in partnership with others’.
[112] Again, what role can the Welsh Government play in promoting that development?
[113] Alun Davies: I think, again, I’d repeat my answers—as an enabler, I would want the Government to be a proactive Government. You and I would probably disagree on the role of Government in the economy. I think the Government should have—I certainly hope so [Laughter.]—an activist role in the economy that doesn’t just correct market failure, but actually seeks new opportunities and takes risks, possibly, that the private sector wouldn’t wish to take. So, I would see Government as an activist player in the economy, seeking to develop economic activities, seeking to stimulate economic activity where the market has failed or where there is no opportunity for a market to function effectively. I would always look for opportunities for the Welsh Government to play that role to the greatest extent possible, supporting and sustaining cultural activities and economic activities based on accessing our culture across the whole of Wales.
[114] Bethan Jenkins: Weinidog, rydym ni’n methu â gadael ichi fynd heddiw heb ofyn ichi ynglŷn â’r fforwm annibynnol darlledu. Roedd wedi cael ei ddatgan ym mis Mehefin 2016, ac yr wythnos diwethaf, gwnaethoch chi ddweud mewn fforwm ar y mudiadau creadigol eich bod chi’n mynd i wneud rhywbeth am hyn cyn bo hir. A oes modd ichi roi mwy o wybodaeth inni ynglŷn â hynny a sut fath o ddatblygiad ydym ni’n gallu edrych ymlaen ato, neu a fyddwn ni yma ymhen blwyddyn arall yn gofyn y cwestiwn yma?	Bethan Jenkins: Minister, we can’t let you leave today without asking you about the independent broadcasting forum, which was announced in June 2016. Last week, you said in the forum on the creative industries that you were going to do something in this area before too very long. Can you provide us with some more information on that, on what kind of development we can look forward to, or will we be here in another 12 months’ time asking the same question?
[115] Alun Davies: Very diplomatically put, Chair. [Laughter.] I said at the policy seminar some weeks ago that I would make a statement on that before the summer recess, and I will do so.
[116] Bethan Jenkins: We’ll look forward to having it sometime between now and the summer recess, then. [Laughter.]
[117] Alun Davies: I didn’t say which year, but there we go. [Laughter.]
[118] Bethan Jenkins: Or not.
[119] Alun Davies: But if you’re content, we’ll leave it at that.
[120] Bethan Jenkins: Okay.
[121] Diolch yn fawr iawn ichi am roi tystiolaeth gerbron y pwyllgor. Rwy’n siŵr y byddwn ni’n anfon unrhyw sylwadau atoch chi os oes rhai gennym ni ar ôl y pwyllgor yma heddiw. Rydym yn mynd i gael seibiant o bum munud cyn cael y sesiwn nesaf. Diolch yn fawr iawn am ddod i mewn. Diolch.	Thank you very much for your evidence before the committee this morning. I’m sure we will send any further comments to you if we do have some after this committee meeting. We’re going to take a five-minute break now before we move to our next session. Thank you very much for your attendance.
Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 10:25 a 10:32. The meeting adjourned between 10:25 and 10:32.
Craffu ar y Cynllun Ieithoedd Swyddogol Drafft: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth Scrutiny of the Draft Official Languages Scheme: Evidence Session
[122] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch. Rydym ni’n symud ymlaen at eitem 3, sef craffu ar y cynllun ieithoedd swyddogol drafft—sesiwn dystiolaeth. Mae Adam Price, Aelod Cynulliad sy’n Gomisiynydd y Cynulliad dros yr iaith, Craig Stephenson, cyfarwyddwr gwasanaethau’r Comisiwn, a Sarah Dafydd, rheolwr y cynllun ieithoedd swyddogol, yma heddiw i roi tystiolaeth ger ein bron. Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi am ddod i mewn yma heddiw. Jest yn fras ac yn glou, a allwn ni gael eich barn chi ynglŷn â’ch gweledigaeth ar gyfer y cynllun yma yn benodol a sut y mae wedi newid o’r cynllun blaenorol? Byddai hynny’n help o ran rhoi rhyw fath o sgôp i’n trafodaeth yma heddiw.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you. We’ll move on now to item 3: scrutiny of the draft official languages scheme. This is an evidence session. We are joined by Adam Price AM, who is the Assembly Commissioner with responsibility for the language; Craig Stephenson, director of Commission services; and Sarah Dafydd, official languages scheme manager. They are here to provide evidence to the committee. Thank you very much for your attendance this morning. Just briefly, could we ask for your views on your vision for the official languages scheme and how it has changed from its predecessor scheme? That would assist us in giving us some context for our discussion today.
Adam Price: Wel, bore da, Gadeirydd. Rwy’n croesawu’r cyfle, wrth gwrs—y cyfle cyntaf inni gael craffu, rwy’n credu, ar y cynllun ieithoedd swyddogol yn y pwyllgor. Yr uchelgais sydd yn sail i’r cynllun ieithoedd, yn syml iawn, ydy i’r corff yma gael ei gydnabod fel corff sydd yn gweithredu mewn ffordd wirioneddol ddwyieithog. Ystyr hynny, wrth gwrs, yw bod y ddwy iaith yn cael eu trin yn gwbl gyfartal a bod y gwasanaethau ar gael yn y naill iaith a’r llall yn ddiofyn. O ran y datblygiad sydd wedi bod, o gymharu’r cynllun gyda’r cynllun blaenorol, efallai y byddai’n briodol, gan fy mod yn Aelod newydd i’r sefydliad, wrth gwrs, imi dynnu’r swyddogion i mewn i ddadlennu’r cynnydd sydd wedi bod o gymharu â’r cynllun blaenorol.	Adam Price: Well, good morning, Chair. I welcome the opportunity, of course—the first opportunity for us to be able to scrutinise the official languages scheme at the committee. The ambition that is the basis or foundation of the official languages scheme is that this organisation should be acknowledged as a body that works in a truly bilingual manner. The meaning of that, of course, is that both languages are treated with complete equality, and that the services are available in either of the two official languages as a default. As regards development compared to the previous scheme, it may be appropriate as, of course, I am a new Member to the institution here, for me to bring in the officials to talk about progress as compared to the previous scheme.
[123] Mr Stephenson: Iawn. Rwy’n meddwl efallai mai’r prif newid yw—. Mae cael ein cydnabod fel sefydliad gwirioneddol ddwyieithog—mae hynny wedi parhau. Dyna beth yr ydym yn anelu ato. Ond rydym wedi ei addasu fe i gynnwys pethau fel cyfathrebu yn naturiol yn y naill iaith—defnyddio’r gair ‘naturiol’ a sicrhau ei bod yn haws i bobl wneud hynny. Dyna un o’r prif newidiadau ar gyfer y cynllun yma, a fydd yn parhau drwy’r pumed Cynulliad.	Mr Stephenson: Well, I think that, perhaps, the major change is—. Being recognised as a truly bilingual organisation—that has remained in place. That remains our target. But we have adapted it to include things such as natural communication in either language—that word ‘natural’ has been included and we want to facilitate that. That is one of the major changes for this scheme, which will run throughout the fifth Assembly.
[124] Bethan Jenkins: A fedrwch chi ddarparu mwy o wybodaeth ynglŷn â’r gwelliant o 20 y cant mewn effeithlonrwydd sy’n gysylltiedig â’r model Cymraeg byd-eang ar gyfer Microsoft Translator? A ydy hynny’n golygu eich bod chi wedi arbed arian, neu fod pethau wedi newid o ran staffio yn hynny o beth, gan fod y system 20 y cant yn fwy effeithlon? Beth mae hynny’n ei olygu mewn realiti i chi fel aelodau staff?	Bethan Jenkins: Could you provide more information on the improvement of 20 per cent in efficiency, which is associated with the worldwide Welsh model for Microsoft Translator? Does that mean that you have saved money, or that things have changed as regards staffing, as it has given you 20 per cent more efficiency? What does that actually mean in reality to you as staff members?
[125] Adam Price: Un o’r nodweddion, wrth gwrs, o ran ymwneud y sefydliad yma â dwyieithrwydd yw bod yna berthynas agos wedi cael ei hadeiladu gyda chwmnïau technoleg gwybodaeth—yn fy marn i, wrth gwrs—a budd helaeth i ddwyieithrwydd yng Nghymru yn bellach i ffwrdd hefyd. O ran y cynnydd mewn effeithlonrwydd drwy ddefnyddio cyfieithu peirianyddol, fel rydych chi’n ei ddweud, mae hynny wedi arwain at effeithlonrwydd sydd wedi ein galluogi ni i gyrraedd, nawr, targed o gyfieithu 360 gair yr awr. Ac, wrth gwrs, beth sydd wedi digwydd yn yr un cyfnod, mae yna gynnydd, rydw i’n credu, wedi bod ym maich gwaith y gwasanaeth cyfieithu hefyd. Felly, mae’r cynnydd yma mewn effeithlonrwydd wedi golygu ein bod ni wedi medru cynhyrchu mwy o ran y gwaith sy’n cael ei gyfieithu. Ond os ydy Craig neu Sarah—.	Adam Price: One of the characteristics in terms of this institution’s dealing with bilingualism is that there has been a close relationship built with IT companies—in my opinion, of course—and that brings substantial benefits to bilingualism in Wales more broadly too. In terms of the efficiencies achieved through the use of machine translation, as you have said, that has led to efficiencies that have enabled us now to reach a target of translating 360 words per hour. And, of course, what’s happened simultaneously is that there has been an increase, I think, in the demand for translation. Therefore, this efficiency has meant that we have been able to produce more in terms of output. I don’t know if Craig or Sarah have anything to add to that.
[126] Mr Stephenson: Y gwahaniaeth ers i’r gwaith peirianyddol ddod i mewn: fe wnaethom ni beilot ar ddiwedd y pedwerydd Cynulliad a sicrhau bod y briffs ar gyfer pwyllgorau ar gael yn y ddwy iaith dros bedwar pwyllgor. Mae hynny wedi cynyddu, yn naturiol, dros yr holl bwyllgorau erbyn hyn. Ac fel dywedodd Adam, rydym ni’n cynhyrchu mwy o waith oherwydd y gwaith peirianyddol. So, mae yna dargedau i gyfieithu testun ei hun, yn unigol, i gyfieithu 20 y cant yn fwy o fewn awr, achos mae’r gwaith peirianyddol yn cyfrannu at hynny. Rydym ni newydd asesu—. Mae yna fwy o bwyllgorau wrth gwrs, so mae yna fwy o waith i’w ddarparu, fel bod Aelodau yn gallu gweithio yn y naill iaith. Rydym ni newydd asesu beth yw nifer y geiriau rydym ni’n eu cyfieithu yn flynyddol, ac mae hynny wedi mynd lan 15 y cant dros y flwyddyn ddiwethaf. So, mae beth rydym ni wedi’i safio yn cael ei ddefnyddio’n dda er mwyn annog pobl i ddarllen pethau yn Gymraeg, a defnyddio eu Cymraeg nhw wedyn yn y pwyllgorau.	Mr Stephenson: The difference since the introduction of machine translation: the pilot we did at the end of the fourth Assembly was to ensure that the briefs were available for four committees in both languages. And that of course, naturally, has been rolled out to all the committees by now. And as Adam said, we are producing more translation work because of the machine translation. So, there are targets for text translation itself to produce 20 per cent more within an hour, because the machine translation does support and facilitate that. We have just assessed—. Of course, we have more committees, so there’s more work to be done so that Members can work in either language. We’ve just assessed the number of words translated annually, and that has increased by 15 per cent as compared to the previous year. So, what we’ve saved has already been put to good use in encouraging people to read their papers in Welsh and use the Welsh language more.
[127] Adam Price: Felly, mae’r cynnydd mewn effeithlonrwydd wedi golygu bod mwy o ddeunyddiau briffio, er enghraifft, yn gallu cael eu cynhyrchu yn Gymraeg ar gyfer pwyllgorau ac yn y blaen.	Adam Price: So, the efficiency saving has meant that there is more briefing material available through the medium of Welsh for committees and so on.
[128] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch, ac mae gan Jeremy gwestiwn atodol.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you. Jeremy has a supplementary question.
[129] Jeremy Miles: Jest ar y cwestiwn technoleg. Rydw i’n defnyddio’r interface Cymraeg ar fy nghyfrifiadur, ac mae’n gweithio’n dda iawn. Felly, llongyfarchiadau ar y system honno, sy’n llwyddiannus. Fe es i’n ddiweddar i sefydliad sydd yn darparu gwasanaethau hygyrchedd i bobl sydd â diffyg golwg, pan fyddan nhw’n ymwneud â gwefannau’r Cynulliad a gwefannau Llywodraeth Lloegr a sefydliadau eraill. Fe gawson ni demonstration hefyd ar y ffordd roedd e’n gweithio. O edrych ar y cyfieithu—yr esbonio—i bobl gyda phroblemau gyda’u golwg, nid oedd y fersiwn Gymraeg yn ddealladwy fel Cymraeg—roedd yn phonetically yn Saesneg. A oes cynlluniau ar y gweill i gywiro hynny?	Jeremy Miles: It’s a question on technology. I use the Welsh interface on my computer and it works very well. So, congratulations on that system; it works very well. I recently went to an institution that actually provides accessibility services for visually impaired people when they wish to interact with the Assembly’s website or the English Government’s websites and those of other organisations. We had a demonstration of how it worked. And looking at the translation—the explanation—for visually impaired people, the Welsh version was not intelligible as Welsh—it was phonetically in English. Do you have plans to correct that?
[130] Adam Price: Nid ydw i’n ymwybodol o unrhyw gynlluniau sydd ar y gweill. Ond os gallaf i ddod yn ôl atoch chi ar hynny, fe fyddwn i yn awyddus iawn i edrych ar hynny a dweud y gwir. Felly, diolch i chi am dynnu fy sylw i ato fe.	Adam Price: I’m not aware of any specifics in that area. But if I could return to you on that issue, I will do so, as I’d be very eager to look at that issue. So, thank you for flagging it up.
[131] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch, a Suzy Davies.	Bethan Davies: Thank you. And Suzy Davies.
[132] Suzy Davies: Rhywbeth tebyg hefyd—rydw i’n iwsio Microsoft Translator yn fy swyddfa i, i fy helpu i ddarllen Cymraeg yn lot cyflymach, ond wrth gwrs mae cymaint o staff Aelodau nad ydynt yn siarad Cymraeg o gwbl. Pa fath o adborth a ydych chi wedi’i gael eu bod nhw’n iwsio’r system newydd? A ydy hynny yn rhoi unrhyw sens o’u safonau nhw pan maen nhw’n dod yn ôl atoch chi i ofyn am gyngor ar beth mae’r translator yn ei wneud?	Suzy Davies: Something similar too—I use Microsoft Translator in my office to help me to read Welsh much more quickly, but of course there are so many non-Welsh-speaking Assembly Member support staff. What feedback have you had as regards the use of the new system? Does it give you any sense of their standards of fluency when they come back to you and ask for advice on what the translator does?
[133] Adam Price: Nid ydw i’n siŵr a ydym ni wedi asesu’r defnydd sy’n cael ei wneud ar sut mae—	Adam Price: I’m not sure whether we have assessed the use that’s made of—
[134] Suzy Davies: Ar y ffordd y’i defnyddir hefyd.	Suzy Davies: It’s the way it’s used as well.
[135] Ms Dafydd: Nid ydym ni wedi edrych yn fanwl iawn ar y defnydd, yn enwedig ymysg staff Aelodau, ond rydym ni’n ymwybodol trwy ein rhwydweithiau ni o’r staff sydd yn ei ddefnyddio fe, ac wrth inni drafod gyda’r staff hynny a’u helpu nhw i weithio yn ddwyieithog ym mha bynnag ffordd, rydym ni wedi bod yn gosod gwasanaethau newydd—er enghraifft, rydym ni wedi trafod gyda chwmni sy’n darparu gwasanaeth prawf ddarllen cyfieithiad peirianyddol i Aelodau a’u staff hefyd. Felly, mae hynny wedi dod yn sgil adborth gan staff Aelodau i ddweud taw dyna’r ffordd maen nhw’n defnyddio’r peth, ond rydym ni’n trafod yn rheolaidd i wneud yn siŵr ein bod ni’n darparu gwasanaethau o amgylch y dechnoleg, fel ei fod yn fwy na dim ond technoleg ar gyfer pawb.	Ms Dafydd: We haven’t looked in great detail at the use, particularly amongst Member support staff, but we are aware through our networks of the staff that do make use of it, and as we have discussions with those staff and help them to work bilingually in whichever way, we have been introducing new services—for example, we’ve been having discussions with a company that offers a machine translation proof reading service for Members and their staff also. That has come out of the feedback that we’ve got from Members’ staff to say that’s how they want to use it, but we discuss regularly to make sure that we’re providing services around the technology, to make it more than just technology for everybody.
[136] Adam Price: Ond fe wnawn ni gymryd yr awgrym yna i ffwrdd, ac efallai gweld os gallwn ni gynnal arolwg neu drafod gyda chroestoriad o staff i weld a ydy’r dechnoleg ei hun yn gallu rhoi gwersi inni ynglŷn â sgiliau iaith ac yn y blaen, a’u defnydd ohonynt.	Adam Price: We will take that suggestion away, and see whether we can have some sort of survey or discussions with a cross-section of staff members to see whether the technology itself can teach us any lessons on language skills and so on, and the use made of them.
[137] Suzy Davies: Ie, achos mae wedi bod o help, ond pan fydd pobl yn dweud eu bod nhw’n siarad Cymraeg, weithiau nid ydyn nhw’n ei wneud e’n ddigon da i weld y camgymeriadau sy’n dod mas o Microsoft. Diolch yn fawr.	Suzy Davies: Yes, because it has been a great help, but sometimes when people say that they can speak Welsh, they don’t speak it well enough to spot the errors that come out of Microsoft. Thank you.
[138] Adam Price: Ie, diolch.	Adam Price: Yes, Thanks.
[139] Bethan Jenkins: Jest cwestiwn ynglŷn â’r adroddiad blynyddol. Nid oedd adroddiad yn 2016; roedd yr adroddiad diwethaf ym mis Gorffennaf 2015. Pam oedd hynny? Ac a ydych chi’n credu y dylai fod wedi bod adroddiad yn 2016? Beth oedd y broblem gyda hynny?	Bethan Jenkins: Just a question on the annual report. There was no report in 2016; the last report was in July 2015. Why was that? And do you believe that there should have been a compliance report in 2016? What was the problem there?
[140] Adam Price: Rydw i’n credu ei bod yn dyddio yn ôl cyn fy amser i. Mae deiliad y portffolio bryd hynny yn aelod o’r pwyllgor nawr, ond ni wnaf i ofyn iddo ateb drostyn ni. Ond rwy’n credu mai’r penderfyniad oedd y byddai wedi bod yn anodd cael adroddiad cydymffurfio ychydig fisoedd ar ôl ffurfio’r Comisiwn newydd, a gan ein bod ni yn mynd i gyflwyno cynllun ieithoedd swyddogol drafft newydd, y byddai’n well oedi a chyhoeddi adroddiad cydymffurfio yn crisialu felly y cynnydd ar yr hen gynllun a’r cynllun newydd ochr yn ochr, fel bod modd craffu ar y ddau ohonyn nhw yn effeithiol.	Adam Price: I think it dates back before my time. The portfolio holder is now a committee member, but I won’t ask him to answer that question on my behalf. But I think that the decision was that it would have been difficult to have a compliance report a few months after the formation of the new Commission, and as we were to table a new draft official languages scheme, it would be better to defer the compliance report and to publish that report looking at all of the progress in terms of the old scheme and the new scheme hand in hand, so that we could scrutinise both together effectively.
[141] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch. Wedyn, cwestiwn ynglŷn a safonau’r Gymraeg ac i ba raddau rydych chi’n credu bod y cynllun yn cwympo uwchben ysbryd safonau’r Gymraeg. Mae’r comisiynydd iaith wedi dweud efallai fod yna ddwy enghraifft lle mae’r cynllun yn cwympo islaw, er enghraifft, cael dogfennau gan sefydliadau allanol a thrydydd parti yn y ddwy iaith, ac hefyd papurau ategol eraill gan drydydd parti a gohebiaeth gan Lywodraeth Cymru sydd yn cael eu cyhoeddi yn yr iaith y cânt eu cyflwyno ynddynt, ac felly ddim yn cael eu cyfieithu. A oes yna unrhyw sylw yn hynny o beth gennych chi ynglŷn â’r comisiynydd iaith?	Bethan Jenkins: Thanks. And then a question on Welsh language standards, and to what extent you believe that the scheme actually falls above the spirit of the Welsh language standards. The Welsh Language Commissioner has said that there are two examples where the scheme might fall below that, for example, having documents from external organisations and third-party organisations in both languages, and publishing other supporting papers from third parties and correspondence from Welsh Government in the language in which they were presented, and they are therefore not translated. Do you have any comments regarding the comments of the Welsh Language Commissioner?
[142] Adam Price: Ie, rŷm ni wedi cynnal trafodaeth gyda Chomisiynydd y Gymraeg ers derbyn yr ymateb yna, ac rŷm ni wedi adlewyrchu rhai o awgrymiadau swyddogion Comisiynydd y Gymraeg yn y cynllun drafft newydd. O ran y pwynt penodol roeddech chi wedi’i godi, Gadeirydd, ynglŷn â chyrff eraill felly yn gohebu neu’n cyflwyno tystiolaeth yn uniaith, ein teimlad ni yw nid ein rôl ni yw bod yn wasanaeth cyfieithu ar gyfer cyrff statudol eraill, yn sicr y rheini sydd o dan ofyniad eu hunain i gydymffurfio â safonau Comisiynydd y Gymraeg. Wrth gwrs, lle mae’n rhaid cyfieithu yn fewnol ar gyfer Aelodau a staff, rŷm ni’n gwneud hynny, ond hyd yn oed yn yr achosion hynny, ni fyddem ni eisiau cyhoeddi’r cyfieithiadau hynny, achos mae yna berygl wedyn y byddem ni drwy hynny efallai yn annog pobl i esgeuluso eu cyfrifoldebau eu hunain o ran dwyieithrwydd.	Adam Price: Yes, we have had discussions with the Welsh Language Commissioner since the receipt of that response, and we have reflected some of the commissioner’s officials’ comments in the new draft scheme. In terms of that specific point that you raised, Chair, on external organisations corresponding or presenting evidence monolingually, our feeling is that it’s not our role to be a translation service for other statutory bodies, certainly not those that have their own requirements to comply with standards set by the Welsh Language Commissioner. Of course, where we do need to provide internal translation for Members and staff, we do that, but even in those cases, we wouldn’t want to publish those translations, because there is a risk in so doing that we would encourage people to neglect their own obligations in terms of bilingualism.
[143] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch. Ac rydym ni’n symud ymlaen at dargedau. Mae Cymdeithas yr Iaith a Mentrau Iaith Cymru wedi dweud, er bod yna dargedau yng nghynllun 2013-14, nid oes targedau o’r fath yn y cynllun drafft penodol yma. Maen nhw’n cynnig eu targedau eu hunain, ac mae yna dri yn amlwg yno ac rydw i’n siŵr eich bod chi wedi darllen rheini. Mae un ohonyn nhw, er enghraifft, am sicrhau bod 50 y cant o’r staff yn cyrraedd lefel 4 neu 5 yn y Gymraeg erbyn diwedd y Cynulliad hwn. A ydych chi’n credu bod y ffaith nad oes yna dargedau clir yma yn mynd i’r afael â’r sefyllfa sydd ohoni, neu a ydych chi’n cymryd barn y tystion sydd wedi rhoi gwybodaeth gerbron bod angen targedau mwy clir yn y cynllun drafft yma?	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you. And if we move on to targets. The Welsh Language Society and Mentrau Iaith Cymru have said, although there are targets in the 2013-14 scheme, there are no such targets in this specific draft scheme. They propose their own targets, and there are three obvious ones there and I’m sure that you’ve read those. One of them, for example, is to ensure that 50 per cent of staff reach level 4 or 5 in Welsh by the end of this Assembly. Do you believe that the fact that there are no clear targets will address the situation as it stands, or do you take the view of the witnesses who have presented information that we need more specific targets in this draft scheme?
[144] Adam Price: Rydym ni wedi cael trafodaeth ynglŷn â hyn. Mae yna ofyniad o dan y Ddeddf i gael targedau. Rwy’n credu mai ein barn ni yw ei bod yn anodd defnyddio targedau meintiol fel y prif gyfrwng ar gyfer mesur cyrhaeddiad.	Adam Price: We have had some discussion on this. There is a requirement under the Act to have targets. Our view is that it is difficult to use quantitative targets as the main mechanism for assessing attainment.
10:45
[145] Hynny yw, ein nod yn y pen draw, fel y dywedon ni, wrth gwrs, oedd sicrhau bod y sefydliad drwyddo draw yn un sydd yn wirioneddol ddwyieithog. Er mwyn cyrraedd y targed hwnnw mae yna nifer helaeth iawn o gamau, a dyna’r targedau mewn gwirionedd, ontefe—y camau gweithredu er mwyn gwireddu’r targed hwnnw? O ran y targedau penodol yr oeddech chi’n cyfeirio atyn nhw, mae rhyw draean o’r staff ar hyn o bryd yn siarad Cymraeg, ac mae tri chwarter ohonyn nhw yn siarad Cymraeg neu yn ddysgwyr.	The aim ultimately, as we said, was to ensure that the organisation in its entirety is a truly bilingual institution. In order to reach that target there are a vast number of steps that need to be taken, and they are the real targets—the operational steps that need to be taken in order to attain that target. In terms of specific targets, those that you referred to in your question, around a third of staff at present speak Welsh, and three quarters of them are either Welsh speakers or learners.
[146] Mr Stephenson: Mae tua traean yn rhugl, ac wedyn mae tri chwarter o’r staff naill ai yn dysgu neu yn rhugl. So, mae yna niferoedd mawr o’r staff yn cymryd mantais o’r hyfforddiant yr ydym ni’n ei roi i wella neu ddysgu.	Mr Stephenson: About a third are fluent, and then three quarters of the staff are either learning or are fluent. So, there is a huge proportion of the staff taking advantage of the training that we provide to either improve or learn Welsh.
[147] Adam Price: Rŷm ni o’r farn, hynny yw, y byddai fe yn anodd iawn i bennu un ffigwr, a dweud y gwir, ar gyfer cyrhaeddiad o ran y nifer sy’n rhugl. Wrth gwrs, mae yna bwyslais cynyddol ar sgiliau iaith yn y cynllun ieithoedd yma, ond fyddem ni ddim—. Pam gosod 50 y cant, er enghraifft? Hynny yw, rŷm ni eisiau hyrwyddo cymaint o bobl ymhlith y staff sydd eisiau dod yn rhugl i gyrraedd y nod hwnnw. Felly, nid ydym wedi ein darbwyllo mai targedau meintiol ydy’r ffordd orau o gyrraedd y prif nod, sef, wrth gwrs, cyrraedd sefyllfa o sefydliad gwirioneddol ddwyieithog.	Adam Price: We’re of the view that it would be difficult to set a single figure for the target in terms of fluency. Of course, there is an increasing emphasis on language skills in this official languages scheme, but we would not—. Why set that threshold at 50 per cent, for example? We want to encourage as many staff members as possible who want to attain fluency to reach that level. Therefore, we haven’t been convinced that quantitative targets are the best way of reaching that main objective, namely reaching a position where we have a truly bilingual organisation.
[148] Bethan Jenkins: Ond os ydych chi’n edrych ar farn pobl allanol, efallai y byddan nhw’n ei ffeindio fe’n anoddach wedyn i asesu datblygiad. Rydw i’n deall beth rydych chi’n ei ddweud, ond wedyn, pe byddent yn gallu gweld bod yna darged penodol, byddent yn gallu sgrwtineiddio yn haws yn hynny o beth. Beth fyddech chi’n ei ddweud i sylw felly?	Bethan Jenkins: But if you look at the views of external organisations, they might find it more difficult to assess the progress made. I understand what you’re saying, but if there were a specific target they would be able to scrutinise better your progress. What would you say in response to that kind of comment?
[149] Adam Price: Rydw i’n credu bod hwnnw’n sylw digon teg, ond rydw i’n credu beth fyddwn i’n dweud yw dyna le mae craffu, wrth gwrs, yn hollbwysig. Felly, yn ystod y broses o gyrraedd at y cynllun ieithoedd newydd yma, rydym ni wedi cael ymgynghoriad allanol ein hunain; rydych chi wedi gofyn am ymateb eich hunain; ac rŷm ni’n mynd trwy’r broses graffu. Rydw i’n credu ei fod e’n bwysig nawr fod y broses yna yn parhau yn ystod y Cynulliad yma, ac efallai y byddwn i’n croesawu yn fawr y cyfle i ddod nôl i’r pwyllgor i adrodd ar gyrhaeddiad yn erbyn y targedau. Wrth gwrs, mae yna dargedau penodol ar gyfer diwedd y flwyddyn. Mae’n bosibl, oherwydd y craffu, bydd yr amser ar gyfer mabwysiadu’r cynllun ychydig bach yn hwyrach na beth yr oeddem ni wedi gobeithio, felly. Bydd yn rhaid i ni adolygu, rydw i’n credu, yr amserlen ar gyfer cyrraedd y targedau hynny. Ond byddwn i’n croesawu yn fawr iawn y cyfle i ddod nôl a chynnig, wrth gwrs, i gyrff allanol hefyd ein cadw ni i gyfrif am y cyrhaeddiad yr ydym ni’n llwyddo i’w sicrhau.	Adam Price: I think that’s a valid comment, but what I would say that that is where scrutiny is crucially important. So, during the process of drawing up this new languages scheme, we had an external consultation; you yourselves have asked for a response to the document; and we’re now going through the scrutiny process. I think it’s important that that process should continue throughout this Assembly, and I would welcome the opportunity to return to the committee to report on attainment against targets. There are specific targets for the end of this year. It is possible, because of the scrutiny, that the timetable for adopting the scheme will slip a little. We will have to review the timetable, I think, for attaining those targets, perhaps. But I would certainly welcome the opportunity to return and would also offer external organisations the opportunity to hold us to account on our attainment.
[150] Bethan Jenkins: Rydw i’n siŵr y byddan nhw’n edrych ymlaen at wneud hynny, Adam. Rydym ni’n symud ymlaen at Aelodau’r Cynulliad a’u staff cymorth, ac mae Neil Hamilton yn arwain ar hyn.	Bethan Jenkins: I’m sure that they look forward to doing that, Adam. We’re moving on to Assembly Members and their support staff, and Neil Hamilton is leading on this.
[151] Neil Hamilton: We’ve heard from Cymdeithas yr Iaith and Mentrau Iaith Cymru that they would like to see a simultaneous translation of proceedings in the Assembly from English into Welsh. Taking a purely utilitarian view of this, there wouldn’t be much of a case for that given that everybody speaks English, but I can see the arguments that, if we’re going to produce a bilingual nation of people able to use and work in and through the language of their choice, then it should also be a right to be able to hear the proceedings in Welsh. Given that resources are limited, that obviously means making a choice between one set of priorities and another, but perhaps you could tell us what your broad view is of that suggestion.
[152] Adam Price: Rydw i’n ymwybodol o’r drafodaeth honno ac, ie, rydw i hefyd yn cydymdeimlo o ran yr egwyddor graidd. Y cwestiwn yw: ai dyna’r defnydd mwyaf buddiol o ran adnoddau sydd wastad yn mynd i fod yn gyfyngedig? Mi wnes i ofyn am ymchwil ynglŷn â hyn, ac rwyf i wedi methu dod ar draws unrhyw enghreifftiau o ddefnydd helaeth o gyfieithu ar y pryd o’r Saesneg i’r Gymraeg. Felly, mi fyddai’n golygu, a dweud y gwir, hyfforddi cyfieithwyr ar y pryd, achos nid ydynt yn bodoli yng Nghymru gyda’r sgìl arbennig hynny ar hyn o bryd. Mae’n rhywbeth, rwy’n credu, y dylem ni gadw o dan oruchwyliaeth, i’w ystyried fel posibilrwydd ar gyfer y dyfodol, a pharhau i wneud ymchwil a chynnal deialog. Ond, ar hyn o bryd, nid wyf yn credu y gallem ni ei gyfiawnhau e fel blaenoriaeth, yn arbennig yn wyneb y ffaith nad yw'r sgiliau penodol ar gael ar hyn o bryd.	[153] Adam Price: I am aware of that debate and, yes, I also have some sympathy in terms of the core principle. I think the question is whether that is the most beneficial use of resources, which are always going to be stretched. I did ask if there was any research in this area, and I have failed to find any examples of broad-ranging use of simultaneous interpretation from English to Welsh. And, therefore, it would mean that we would need to train interpreters because they currently don’t necessarily exist in Wales with that particular skill. I think it is something that we should keep an eye on and certainly we should consider as a possibility for the future, and continue to carry out research and to have a dialogue on the issue. But, at the moment, I don’t think we could justify it as a priority, particularly in light of the fact that the specific skills aren’t currently available.
[154] Neil Hamilton: I understand that. And a related point also, but not in relation to the Assembly itself, is whether Welsh-only materials at certain events like the Eisteddfod would comply with the requirement to treat both languages equally. I was on the receiving end of controversy in this area last year at the Eisteddfod myself, which I took in good part, because I do understand that this is the principal Welsh institution of its kind. I do think that, if we are to make the case for Welsh as a national language, it isn’t productive to have a kind of laager mentality about this and take it to extremes, but I’d like to know your view on the use of materials produced only in Welsh.
[155] Adam Price: Rwy’n credu ein bod ni yn cynhyrchu yn Gymraeg yn unig—er enghraifft, ar gyfer dogfennau briffio lle mae’r Aelod wedi gofyn amdanyn nhw yn Gymraeg yn unig. Felly, mae hynny’n digwydd i fi ar bwyllgorau, ac i Aelodau eraill. Rwy’n credu bod deunyddiau’n cael eu cynhyrchu yn Gymraeg yn unig ar gais y Llywydd, iddi hi. Felly, mae yn digwydd ar gais yr Aelod, ac rwy’n credu bod hynny yn ddigon synhwyrol.	Adam Price: I believe that we do produce documents in Welsh only—for example, briefing documents where the Member has asked for that briefing in Welsh only. That happens to me on committees and to other Members. I believe that materials are produced in Welsh only at the request of the Llywydd, for her. So, it does happen on the Member’s request, and I believe that that is sensible enough.
[156] Bethan Jenkins: Beth am ddogfennau cyhoeddus? Rwy’n credu mai dyna oedd y cwestiwn-dogfennau sydd yn mynd at sefydliadau fel yr Eisteddfod Genedlaethol neu Eisteddfod yr Urdd.	Bethan Jenkins: What about public documents? I think that was the question—documents provided to organisations such as the National Eisteddfod or the Urdd Eisteddfod.
[157] Adam Price: Byddwn yn tybio bod ein dogfennau ni neu ein gwaith brandio ni yn yr Eisteddfod yn defnyddio’r un gwaith brandio rydym ni’n ei ddefnyddio fel arfer.	Adam Price: I would assume that our documentation or our branding work for the Eisteddfod uses the same branding that we use normally.
[158] Mr Stephenson: Ie, yn ddwyieithog.	Mr Stephenson: Yes, and it’s bilingual.
[159] Adam Price: Yn ddwyieithog.	Adam Price: It’s bilingual.
[160] Mr Stephenson: Ie, felly bydd gohebiaeth yn cael ei hanfon yn iaith yr ohebiaeth wreiddiol. Felly, os yw rhywun yn cyfathrebu gyda ni, er enghraifft, yr Eisteddfod neu Eisteddfod yr Urdd, yn y Gymraeg, byddwn ni’n cyfathrebu yn naturiol yn ôl yn Gymraeg. Ynglŷn â’r deunydd, rydym ni hefyd—. So, mae dwy iaith swyddogol gennym ni, o fewn y ddeddfwriaeth, ac wedyn mae’r brandio yn dilyn hynny, a’r posteri ac ati yr un peth. Ac rydym ni’n gwybod bod lot o ddysgwyr yn mynd i’r eisteddfodau, so rydym ni eisiau eu hannog nhw i deimlo’n rhan o’r holl beth, yn enwedig pan mae nhw’n ymweld â stondin y Cynulliad, sy’n cynrychioli pob cymuned yng Nghymru. So, dwyieithog, yn ôl y cynllun, yw’r ffordd rydym ni wedi gwneud hynny.	Mr Stephenson: Yes, so correspondence would be answered in the language of the original correspondence. For example, if the National Eisteddfod or the Urdd Eisteddfod were to correspond with us in Welsh, then, naturally, we would reply in Welsh. As regards other materials, we also—. So, we have two official languages, under the legislation, and the branding follows that, and posters and so on in the same way. And we know that many learners attend the eisteddfodau, so we want to encourage them to feel part of the whole thing, particularly when they visit the Assembly stand, which represents all communities in Wales. And, so, bilingual, according to the scheme, is the way in which we’ve worked it.
[161] Adam Price: Felly, byddai deunyddiau dwyieithog ar gael. Rwy’n credu bod eich cwestiwn, Neil, yn ymwneud, mewn ffordd, nid ynglŷn â pholisi cynllun ieithoedd y Cynulliad, ond â pholisi iaith yr Eisteddfod Genedlaethol o ran cyfarfodydd ar lafar. Ac, wrth gwrs, rwyf i’n gyfrifol am y cynllun yma, ond nid wyf i’n gyfrifol am bolisi iaith yr Eisteddfod Genedlaethol, mae arnaf ofn.	Adam Price: So, bilingual materials would be available. I think your question, Neil, relates in a way not to the official languages policy of the Assembly, but to the language policy of the National Eisteddfod itself in terms of meetings held on the Eisteddfod field. Now, I am responsible for this scheme, but I’m not responsible for the language policy of the National Eisteddfod.
[162] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch, Adam. A oes yna gwestiynau eraill?	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you, Adam. Any further questions?
[163] Neil Hamilton: I’ve got one more, and that is that the Welsh Language Commissioner has raised an issue with us in relation to clause 2.3 of the service standards section, and that is that, in the request for consultation responses bilingually from external organisations and third parties from the committee, the final sentence in that scheme no longer appears in the draft scheme, which is that,
[164] ‘Welsh language documents are translated to English for Members’ use’.
[165] Can you confirm that Welsh language consultation responses will continue to be translated?
[166] Adam Price: Ie, yn sicr, ac rwy’n credu yr oedd yna rywfaint o amwysedd o ran y drafftio. Rydym ni wedi trafod hynny gyda’r comisiynydd, felly rwy’n credu eu bod nhw’n fodlon nawr gyda’r esboniad rydym ni wedi ei roi iddyn nhw. Nid wyf i’n gwybod os oes gennych chi rywbeth i’w—	Adam Price: Yes, certainly, and I think there was some ambiguity in the drafting. We’ve discussed that with the commissioner, and so I think they’re happy with the explanation we’ve given to them. I don’t know if you have anything to add.
[167] Mr Stephenson: Roedd Sarah yn y cyfarfod. Ond, mae’n dibynnu ar yr arfer, a, gan nad ydyw yn y cynllun drafft sydd o’ch blaen chi, rydym ni wedi bod yn trafod rhoi y frawddeg yn ôl i mewn i’w wneud e’n glir, achos fe wnaethon ni dynnu hwn mas achos roedd yn rhan o’r broses fewnol o ran sut rydym yn ymdrin â gohebiaeth sy’n dod mewn yn uniaith Gymraeg. O ran eglurder, efallai y dylem ni ei roi yn ôl i mewn yn y cynllun sy’n mynd at y Cyfarfod Llawn.	Mr Stephenson: Sarah was in the meeting. But, it depends on the practice, and, because it is not in the draft scheme before you, we’ve been discussing reinserting that sentence to make it clearer, because it was taken out because it was part of the internal process of how we deal with Welsh-only correspondence. Perhaps for clarity we should reinsert it in the scheme before it goes to Plenary.
[168] Adam Price: Unwaith eto, rydym ni’n annog sefydliadau sydd o dan gyfyngiad i gynhyrchu deunyddiau yn ddwyieithog i wneud. Mae’n bwysig ein bod ni’n tanlinellu hynny, ond, wrth gwrs, lle mae rhywbeth yn dod mewn yn uniaith, byddwn ni yn darparu, fel y dywedais i gynnau, y cyfieithiad i Aelodau a staff yn fewnol.	Adam Price: Once again, we encourage organisations who have requirements in terms of producing bilingual materials to do so. It’s important that we emphasise that, but, of course, where something is submitted monolingually, we will provide, as I said earlier, a translation for Members and staff.
[169] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch. Rydym ni’n symud ymlaen at gwestiynau gan Dai Lloyd ar safonau gwasanaeth ar gyfer staff Comisiwn y Cynulliad.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you. We’ll move on to questions from Dai Lloyd on service levels for Assembly Commission staff.
[170] Dai Lloyd: Bore da. Yn sylfaenol, sut ydych chi’n sicrhau bod staff y Comisiwn yn ymwybodol o’r holl ddarpariaethau gwasanaeth sydd ar gael iddyn nhw er mwyn cefnogi eu gwaith?	Dai Lloyd: Good morning. Basically, how do you ensure that Commission staff are aware of all the service provisions available to them in order to support them in their work?
[171] Adam Price: Wrth gwrs, mae hwn yn gyfrifoldeb eithaf pwysig, sicrhau bod yna hyfforddiant ymwybyddiaeth parhaus, a bydd y tîm yn ceisio sicrhau bod y wybodaeth am y gwasanaethau sydd ar gael i staff ar gael yn rhwydd, gyda negeseuon rheolaidd ar y fewnrwyd, ac yn y blaen. Mae yna DVD hefyd fel rhan o’r hyfforddiant cynefino ar gyfer staff newydd, cyfle iddyn nhw gwrdd â’r tîm ieithoedd swyddogol a’r tîm sgiliau iaith fel rhan o’r broses gynefino hynny. A ydych chi eisiau ychwanegu rhywbeth at hynny?	Adam Price: Of course, this is an important responsibility in terms of ensuring that ongoing awareness training is available, and the team will seek to ensure that the information on the services available to staff is easily accessible, with regular messages published on the intranet, and so on. There is a DVD available too as part of the induction training for new staff, there’s an opportunity for them to meet the official languages scheme team and the language skills team as part of that induction process. I don’t know if you have anything to add to that.
[172] Ms Dafydd: Dim ond i ddweud yn fras ein bod ni yn mynd i gael rhaglen barhaus o godi ymwybyddiaeth, nid yn unig y DVD sy’n cael ei ddangos ar y dechrau. Mae yna gydgysylltydd o fewn bob gwasanaeth sy’n gyfrifol am ieithoedd swyddogol, a rhan o’u rôl nhw yw sicrhau, ar gyfer unrhyw staff, fod yna bwynt cyswllt ar gyfer cyngor, ar gyfer cymorth, arweiniad ar y cynllun—y math yna o beth—neu gyngor ynglŷn â gweithredu’n ddwyieithog. Mae’r tîm sgiliau iaith a’r tîm ieithoedd swyddogol ar gael bob amser i helpu unigolion neu dimau i wneud y gorau o’r gwasanaethau sydd gyda ni ac i dynnu sylw at y gwasanaethau hynny mewn ffordd sy’n helpu’r timau i weithio’n ddwyieithog.	Ms Dafydd: Just to say briefly that we are going to have a continuous programme of awareness raising, not just the DVD that is shown initially. There is a co-ordinator within every service that is responsible for the official languages scheme, and part of their role is to be a point of contact for advice and support, and to give guidance on the scheme or advice on working bilingually. The language skills team and the official languages scheme team are always available to help individuals or teams to optimise the services that we offer and to draw attention to those services in a way that assists teams to work bilingually.
[173] Dai Lloyd: Grêt. Pa gynlluniau sydd gennych chi fel Comisiwn i gefnogi gwella sgiliau iaith staff y Comisiwn yn y ddwy iaith? Hynny yw, cynllun ieithoedd swyddogol ydy hwn—y Gymraeg a’r Saesneg—ac, wrth gwrs, i rai pobl, fel minnau, Saesneg yw’r ail iaith, ac rwy’n pryderu weithiau am fy niffyg rhuglder yn yr iaith fain. Wedyn, yn naturiol, bydd aelodau’r staff yr un peth. Wedyn, holi oeddwn i pa fath o weithredoedd sydd yn digwydd tu ôl i’r llenni, math o beth, i wella sgiliau’r staff yn y Gymraeg, ond hefyd rhai staff penodol, efallai fel rhai ohonom ni, yn y Saesneg.	Dai Lloyd: Thank you. What plans do you have as a Commission to support the improvement of language skills within the Commission in both official languages? Because this is an official languages scheme for Welsh and English, and for some people, like me, English is their second language, and I’m sometimes concerned about my lack of fluency in English. So, naturally, staff members may feel the same. I was asking therefore what kind of work is happening behind the scenes to improve staff skills in the Welsh language, but also other staff, such as myself, in English.
[174] Adam Price: Dyfal donc a dyr y garreg. Daliwch ati. [Chwerthin.] Na, cwestiwn difyr, a dweud y gwir, achos, fel rydych chi’n dweud, cynllun ieithoedd swyddogol yn lluosog ydy’r cynllun yma, ac mae yna raglen lawn o hyfforddiant ar gael ar gyfer hyfedredd yn y Saesneg hefyd. Efallai nad yw’n cael yr un proffil, ond rydym ni’n awyddus iawn i hyrwyddo hynny, a dweud y gwir. Felly, mae yna gyrsiau i staff ac Aelodau ar sgiliau cyfathrebu ysgrifenedig, sgiliau iaith clir, sgiliau cyflwyno, cyfathrebu rhyngbersonol, darllen yn gyflym—byddai hynny yn ddefnyddiol i ni i gyd, rwy’n credu. [Chwerthin.] Iaith Arwyddion Prydain—mae honno’n un newydd i fi.	Adam Price: Persistence is everything. Keep at it, I say. [Laughter.] It’s an interesting question, to be honest, because, as you say, it’s the official languages scheme in the plural, and there is a full programme of training available for English language proficiency, too. Perhaps it isn’t given the same profile, but we’re eager to promote it. There are courses for both staff and Members on written communication skills, plain English, presentation skills, interpersonal communication, speed reading—I’m sure that would be useful for us all. [Laughter.] British Sign Language—that is a new one for me.
11:00
[175] Felly, rŷm ni’n awyddus iawn, a dweud y gwir, i hyrwyddo’r amrediad o hyfforddiant yn y ddwy iaith.	Therefore, we are very eager to promote the full range of training in both languages.
[176] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch. Rydym ni’n symud at thema 1, sef recriwtio, ac mae gan Lee Waters gwestiynau.	Bethan Jenkins:  Thank you. We now move on to theme 1, namely recruitment, and Lee Waters has some questions.
[177] Lee Waters: The Commission is moving away in terms of recruiting from the old system of categorising jobs as being ‘desirable’ and ‘essential’ and so on to a new spectrum of scoring. It’s assumed that all new staff will be able to extend at least the basic courtesies in Welsh. My question is about existing staff and what the requirement will be for them and what the consequences will be of not being able to reach that standard.
[178] Adam Price: Rŷm ni yn y broses, fel rŷch chi’n ei ddweud, o symud tuag at system newydd ar gyfer recriwtio, ac mae’n system sydd wedi cael ei ddefnyddio’n eithaf llwyddiannus gan nifer o gyrff—gan Heddlu Gogledd Cymru, ac yn y blaen. O ran staff presennol, mae’r system cwrteisi ieithyddol yn berthnasol yn bennaf ar gyfer swyddi newydd neu swyddi gwag. Nid oes disgwyl, nid wyf i’n credu, i unrhyw un presennol ddysgu’r sgiliau ychwanegol yma, oni bai eu bod nhw eisiau gwneud hynny wrth gwrs. Mae yna gefnogaeth iddyn nhw ei wneud ac mae’r hyfforddiant ar gael i bawb. Felly, mae hyn yn ffocysu ar recriwtio aelodau newydd o staff, ond mae ar gael i bawb, pe dymunen nhw.	Adam Price: We are in the process, as you say, of moving towards a new system in terms of recruitment, and it’s a system that’s been used quite successfully by a number of organisations—by North Wales Police, and so on. In terms of existing staff, the basic linguistic courtesy is mainly relevant to new posts or vacant posts. I don’t think that anyone who is an existing staff member would be expected to learn these new skills, unless they wished to do so, of course, and there is support available to the, should they wish to undertake that training and that training is available to all. So, this focuses on the recruitment of new members of staff, but it is available to everyone who wishes to take advantage of it.
[179] Lee Waters: Just to clarify—It won’t apply to existing staff.
[180] Adam Price: Na, dim ond staff newydd, ond mae ar gael i staff presennol os ydyn nhw eisiau cyrraedd cwrteisi sylfaenol neu, wrth gwrs, raddau eraill o allu ieithyddol hefyd. Mater o ddewis ydyw i staff presennol.	Adam Price: No, only to new staff, but it is available to existing staff, should they wish to undertake that training in basic linguistic courtesy or the other levels of linguistic ability. It’s a matter of choice for existing staff.
[181] Lee Waters: In their evidence, Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg have advocated using this approach not just in terms of recruitment, but in terms promotion—that the ability to speak Welsh to a particular level should be a key part of the decisions made for advancement. Is that part of your thinking too?
[182] Adam Price: Nid wyf i’n credu, na. Hynny yw, mae, wrth gwrs, amrediad o sgiliau yn rhan o’r broses asesu ar gyfer unrhyw swydd, ond nid wyf i’n credu y byddai’r awgrym hynny’n rhywbeth y byddem ni’n ei gofleidio. Nid wyf fi’n gwybod—	Adam Price: I don’t believe so, no. That is to say that there is a range of skills taken into account in the assessment process for any post, but I don’t think that that suggestion would be something that we would wish to embrace. I don’t know whether—
[183] Mr Stephenson: Na, rwy’n cytuno.	Mr Stephenson: No, I agree.
[184] Lee Waters: I sense, from the evidence, some anxiety from the trade unions in particular about how this is going to work in practice. They’ve asked to see the result of an equality impact assessment on this new approach, which implies that they haven’t seen one. Has one been done and is it available to us?
[185] Adam Price: Mae yna asesiad wedi’i ddatblygu ac mae’r ddogfen gyda chorff allanol ar hyn o bryd er mwyn cael adborth arbenigol ar y ddogfen. Hefyd, ar y dulliau o liniaru unrhyw risgiau, fel rhan o’r broses o ran amrywiaeth a chynhwysiant ac effaith posib, er enghraifft, ar staff BME, fe fyddwn ni’n rhannu’r asesiad terfynol gyda chydweithwyr a hefyd i asesu’r posibilrwydd o gyhoeddi’r asesiad ar ein gwefan.	Adam Price: An assessment has been developed and the document is currently with an external organisation in order to get expert feedback on that document. Also, on the approaches to mitigate any risks, as part of the process in terms of diversity and inclusion and the potential impact on, for example, BME staff, we will share the final assessment with colleagues and also assess the possibility of publishing the assessment on our website.
[186] Lee Waters: Can you just say a little bit more about the mitigation measures that you have in mind for BME groups in particular?
[187] Mr Stephenson: Yes. So, we’ve been working on an equality impact assessment for some time. We plan to implement this particular recommendation—that we have a working group to work through the issues because it will impact on staff, who are applying for jobs, or for external applicants. One of the big things on our mind, and we’ve had an action plan in place for a while, is to ensure that our staff represent the communities of Wales. As a management board, a couple of years ago, we spotted that the number of BME staff in the organisation hadn’t kept pace with the statistics for the Cardiff travel-to-work area. We had an action plan in place anyway. That forms an important part of this equality impact assessment. When people deselect because they think everybody needs to speak Welsh in the Assembly, we want to make visibility of our BME staff on our recruitment pages more prominent. We want examples of how people work, with quotations from members of our BME staff network. We’ve been working with them, and we’ve met with them a few times, on the equality impact assessment itself and the draft scheme, and we’ve committed, as we develop the work of the working group to take forward these recommendations, to continue to work with them so that they’re engaged in the process. They’ve been really useful in advising us as well. So, in terms of developing resources for the basic linguistic courtesy in what we put on our website, so that applicants can understand what the expectations are and not be frightened off by them, they’ve been useful, and they will continue to be useful in terms of issues that we need to take into account in developing those resources.
[188] Lee Waters: Okay. Thank you.
[189] Bethan Jenkins: Mae gan Suzy gwestiwn ar y pwynt yma yn benodol.	Bethan Jenkins: Suzy has a question on this specific point.
[190] Suzy Davies: [Inaudible.]—that you’re making and that perhaps special materials need to be developed, as you say, but a considerable proportion of our BME community will have been to school in Wales now. Are you making any differentiation between how you treat individuals in that situation, rather than those who perhaps haven’t been through the Wales school system? They’ll have a level of Welsh, like anyone else who has been through the Wales school system. That’s what I’m trying to—
[191] Mr Stephenson: I see what you mean, yes, of course—[Inaudible.]
[192] Suzy Davies: Well, allegedly.
[193] Mr Stephenson: But on the basic linguistic courtesy, it’s a fairly simple test. So, I would imagine that most people would be able to pass it, either at the point of recruitment, or—we say ‘at recruitment or during the induction period’. We’ll put as much resources in as are required, because we’re not just recruiting them for the fact that they can have a basic linguistic courtesy for the range of skills required for that job—and that’s important. So, we will support them all the way through an induction period and beyond, if necessary, particularly if perhaps somebody’s first language is not English or Welsh. Those are the things that we need to work through carefully.
[194] Suzy Davies: That’s the distinction I was trying to make.
[195] Mr Stephenson: Our main point is that we don’t disadvantage anybody. We want this to be an organisation that does represent people from across Wales.
[196] Adam Price: Ond rydych chi yn gwneud pwynt pwysig iawn, wrth gwrs. Mae’r canrannau o siaradwyr Cymraeg ymhlith y gymuned BME yng Nghaerdydd, er enghraifft, yn newid yn eithaf cyflym oherwydd effaith addysg ddwyieithog. Felly, mae eisiau inni gymryd hynny i ystyriaeth hefyd wrth drafod y cysylltiad rhwng dwyieithrwydd a’r gymuned BME.	Adam Price: But you do make a very important point. The percentages of Welsh speakers among the BME community in Cardiff, for example, are changing quite swiftly because of the impact of bilingual education. Therefore, we do, of course, need to take that into account too in discussing the link between bilingualism and the BME community.
[197] Bethan Jenkins: Jest yn glou, beth yw’r diffiniad yr ydych chi’n ei roi ar ‘gwrteisi ieithyddol sylfaenol’? A yw e’n mynd i olygu ateb y ffôn, dogfennau, e-byst yn ddwyieithog? So, sut ydym ni’n deall yn iawn beth fydd y gofyniad ar staff?	Bethan Jenkins: Just quickly, what is the definition that you give on ‘basic linguistic courtesy’? Is it going to mean answering the phone or writing bilingual e-mails and documents? How do we understand what will be required of staff?
[198] Adam Price: Mae yna ddisgwyliadau i allu dweud ‘Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru’, ac wedyn cyfarchion syml: ‘Bore da’, ‘Prynhawn da’ ac yn y blaen. Felly dyna’r lefel o gwrteisi sylfaenol yr ydym yn ei ddisgwyl.	Adam Price: The expectations are  that you will be able to enunciate ‘Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru’ and that you could provide basic greetings: ‘Bore da’, ‘Prynhawn da’ and so on and so forth. That’s the kind of level of basic linguistic courtesy we’re talking about here.
[199] Mr Stephenson: Wrth baratoi hwn, rydym wedi peilota efo un ymarfer recriwtio yn fewnol. Rydym wedi rhoi cefnogaeth i un person drwy’r broses honno. Mae yna dair elfen iddi: deall e-bost—. Mae yna e-bost byr: ‘Pryd mae’r cyfarfod yn dechrau?’ Rydym yn gofyn, ‘Ym mha ystafell mae e?’ Felly, dealltwriaeth sylfaenol o ddarllen, a’u bod nhw’n gallu llefaru enwau Cymraeg ac ati. Os oes angen mwy o hyfforddiant, rydym yn ei roi i mewn. Mae’n eithaf syml, ond rydym eisiau datblygu hynny i sicrhau ei fod yn cael ei ddefnyddio’n gyson ar draws y sefydliad.	Mr Stephenson: In preparing this, we have run a pilot with one internal recruitment exercise. We’ve supported one person through that process. There are three elements to it: understanding an e-mail—. There is a brief e-mail and we ask ‘When does the meeting start? In which location or venue is it?’ So, it’s just a basic understanding of an e-mail, and that they’re able to pronounce Welsh names. If they need more training, we give it immediately. It’s quite simple, but we want to develop that further to ensure that it’s used consistently across the organisation.
[200] Bethan Jenkins: Ocê. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Mae thema 2 y cwestiynau gan Hannah, ar sgiliau iaith. Diolch.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you very much. On theme 2, we have questions from Hannah on language skills.
[201] Hannah Blythyn: The Assembly Commission has made a commitment to help every staff member develop their language skills. I think, in answer to one of the earlier questions, Craig, you said that about three quarters are now learning.
[202] Mr Stephenson: Are learning or are fluent, yes. That’s the range.
[203] Hannah Blythyn: Or fluent, yes. What strategy is there in place—is there a strategy for reaching the other quarter? How can people be encouraged? Also, particularly with respect to moving towards a new system of grading and recognition, how will that meet that need as well?
[204] Adam Price: O ran y system graddio newydd, fel y gwnes i gyfeirio ato’n gynharach, ni fydd hynny’n uniongyrchol berthnasol i ddeiliad swyddi presennol, ond mi fydd ar gyfer staff newydd. O ran datblygu sgiliau staff, un o’r pethau newydd rŷm ni eisiau archwilio ydy hyfforddiant trochi—hynny yw, lle rydych yn rhyddhau aelod o staff am gyfnod hirach o amser, yn hytrach na chynnal gwersi, wrth gwrs, yn ystod yr wythnos.	Adam Price: As regards the new grading system, as I said earlier, that won’t be directly relevant to current post holders, but it will be for new staff members. As regards developing staff language skills, one of the new things that we want to explore is immersion training—that is where you would release a staff member for a longer period of time, rather than giving them lessons during the week.
[205] Gyda llaw, nid wyf yn siŵr os mai datgan buddiant ydw i, ond, mae fy mrawd, Dr Adrian Price, hefyd yn rhan o’r tîm hyfforddi iaith fan hyn yn y Comisiwn.	By the way, I’m not sure whether I’m declaring an interest, but my brother, Dr Adrian Price, is also part of the language skills training team in the Commission.
[206] Model arall o ddysgu iaith yw cael eich rhyddhau am gyfnodau hirach. Mae wedi profi yn llwyddiannus iawn. Mae pobl yn gyfarwydd â chanolfan iaith genedlaethol Nant Gwrtheyrn ac yn y blaen, ac mae yna ganolfannau eraill ar gael trwy Gymru.	Another model of language learning is being released for longer periods. It has proven to be very successful. People are familiar with the national language centre at Nant Gwrtheyrn and so on, and there are other centres available also throughout Wales.
[207] Felly, rydym ni eisiau arbrofi gyda dulliau gwahanol. Mae pobl yn dysgu mewn ffyrdd gwahanol. Felly, fe fyddem yn awyddus i gynnal peilot yn edrych ar y posibilrwydd o gyfraniad hyfforddiant trochi at gyrraedd lefel uwch o bobl sydd yn rhugl o fewn y sefydliad. Felly, mi fydd hynny yn digwydd yn y man.	So, we want to experiment with alternative methods. People learn in different ways. We would be eager to run a pilot scheme to look at the possibility of the contribution of immersion training to securing a higher level of speakers within the organisation. That will be happening in due course.
[208] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you.
[209] Hannah Blythyn: Thanks. Your brother Adrian is actually my Welsh language tutor. I’m interested in what you said about the new plans for tailoring the learning programme to bespoke needs in a particular area of work. Will that apply from the outset for new staff and new learners in the future?
[210] Adam Price: Wel, rwy’n credu bod teilwra hyfforddiant iaith yn sicr yn greiddiol i’r dynesiad rydym ni’n ei gymryd. Fe fyddwn i’n awyddus i weld hynny’n parhau. Mae yna lot o sôn am y continwwm iaith yn y cyd-destun addysg. Rŷm ni i gyd ar y continwwm iaith, yn y ddwy iaith. Felly, rwy’n credu mai rhan bwysig iawn o lwyddiant gyda chynyddu sgiliau ieithyddol ydy adnabod ble mae’r unigolyn o ran eu gallu nhw a ble mae eisiau canolbwyntio ac yn y blaen o ran hyfedredd ieithyddol. Felly, yn sicr, fe fyddem ni eisiau sicrhau ein bod ni yn cymryd y math yna o ddynesiad. Nid wyf yn gwybod os ydych chi eisiau—.	Adam Price: Well, I think tailored language training is certainly centrally important to the approach that we’re taking. I would be eager to see that continue. There is a great deal of talk of the language continuum in education. We are all on that language continuum, in both languages. So, I think an important part of success in terms of developing language skills is to identify where the individual is in terms of their ability and where they are on the continuum and where you need to focus your efforts in terms of linguistic proficiency. So, certainly, we would want to ensure that we do take that kind of approach. I don’t know if there’s anything that you—.
[211] Mr Stephenson: Un o’r pethau y gwnaethom ni ei wneud ar ddiwedd y pedwerydd Cynulliad oedd adolygu sut roeddem ni’n rhoi gwersi i bobl ac ati. Dyna pam, nawr, rydym ni wedi recriwtio ein tîm sgiliau iaith ein hunain, fel bod dysgu yn y gweithle yn ymwneud efo’r Cynulliad a gwaith y Cynulliad lot yn fwy nag yr oedd o’r blaen, lle efallai y byddan nhw wedi dysgu ynglŷn â blodau, y tymhorau ac ati—termau mwy cyffredinol. So, mae hynny’n gweithio. Wedyn, wrth gwrs, efo’r dysgwyr fel y timoedd diogelwch, maen nhw’n dysgu geiriau fel ‘sganio’ a ‘dewch draw fan hyn i’r sganiwr’. So, mae’n addas i’w gwaith dydd-i-ddydd nhw.	Mr Stephenson: One of the things that we did at the end of the fourth Assembly was to review the way in which we provide lessons and so on. That is why, now, we have recruited our own language skills team, so that workplace learning pertains to the work of the Assembly much more than it did previously, where perhaps previously they learnt about flowers, seasons and so on—more general terminology. So, that’s working. Then, of course, with learners such as in the security teams, they are taught terminology such as ‘scanning’ and ‘come over here to the scanner’. So, it’s relevant to their daily work.
[212] Bethan Jenkins: Unrhyw gwestiynau eraill, Hannah? Ocê, rydym yn symud ymlaen at gwestiynau gan Jeremy Miles nawr.	Bethan Jenkins: Any other questions, Hannah? Okay, we’ll move on to some questions from Jeremy Miles.
[213] Jeremy Miles: Wel, mae rhywfaint o’r cwestiynau a oedd gyda fi wedi cael eu hateb yn barod, ond mae gyda fi gwestiwn ynglŷn â gallu’r Comisiwn i ddelifro’r cynllun yn gyffredinol, o ran adnoddau ac ati. Beth yw’r gyllideb sydd gyda chi ar gyfer cyflawni amcanion y cynllun hwn?	Jeremy Miles: Well, many of my questions have already been answered, but I do have a question on the Commission’s ability to deliver the scheme generally, in terms of resources. What’s the budget available to you for delivering the objectives of this scheme?
11:15
[214] Adam Price: Fe wna i droi at Craig fan hyn; ond efallai bydd rhaid inni ysgrifennu atoch chi gyda’r ffigur hwnnw—oni bai ei fod yn y fan hyn.	Adam Price: I’ll turn to Craig here; but perhaps we might have to write to you with that figure—unless it’s here.
[215] Mr Stephenson: [Anghlywadwy.]	Mr Stephenson: [Inaudible.]
[216] Adam Price: Reit. Felly, o’i dorri fe lan yn ôl y gwahanol elfennau, dyma’r costau cyfieithu: cyllideb flynyddol o £266,000 ar gyfer cyfieithu allanol, gwariant ar y Cofnod yn £178,000, gwariant ar gronfa gyfieithu i’r Aelodau bron yn £12,000, a chyfieithu testun yn £75,000. Wrth gwrs, nid yw hynny cynnwys elfennau eraill o ran y cynllun, er enghraifft, hyfforddiant sgiliau iaith ac yn y blaen. Felly,  gyda’ch parodrwydd chi, Gadeirydd, fe wna i ysgrifennu atoch gyda rhagor o fanylion a chyllideb gyfan ar gyfer holl elfennau’r cynllun.	Adam Price: Right. So, if we break it down according to the various elements, these are the translation costs: an annual budget of £266,000 for external translation, expenditure on the Record of Proceedings is £178,000, expenditure on the Members’ constituency translation fund is almost £12,000, and text translation is £75,000. Of course, that does not include other elements as regards the scheme, for example language skills training and so on. So, with your permission, Chair, I will write to you with more details and the whole budget for all the elements of the scheme.
[217] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch am hynny. Y cwestiwn sydd gen i yw: beth yw’r broses nawr o ran dod â’r cynllun gerbron y Senedd? Yn amlwg, rydym ni wedi cymryd tystiolaeth am y tro cyntaf, ac efallai y byddwn ni am gynnig sylwadau neu argymhellion. Pa fath o strwythur wedyn y byddwch chi’n ei roi er mwyn cymryd hynny i mewn i ystyriaeth, gan ein bod ni wedi cymryd tystiolaeth, a’n bod ni wedi edrych i mewn i’r mater yma yn weddol drylwyr?	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you for that. My question is: what’s the process now in terms of bringing the scheme before the Senedd? We’ve taken evidence here for the first time, and perhaps we will have some recommendations or comments to make. So, what kind of structure would you put in place in order to take that into account, as we have taken evidence, and have scrutinised this issue in some detail?
[218] Adam Price: Wel, byddwn i’n awyddus iawn i dderbyn unrhyw argymhellion gan y pwyllgor, a byddwn ni wedyn yn rhoi ystyriaeth deilwng i’r rheini fel comisiwn cyn dod â’r cynllun terfynol arfaethedig i’r Cyfarfod Llawn er mwyn, wrth gwrs, cael ei gadarnhau gan Aelodau’r Cynulliad. Felly byddwn i’n croesawu’n fawr iawn unrhyw sylwadau. Gwaith ar gynnydd—work in progress—ydym ni i gyd, ontife, yn ieithyddol; felly mae yna fodd gwella. A byddem ni’n croesawu unrhyw sylwadau, unrhyw syniad sydd gennych chi i’r perwyl hwnnw.	Adam Price: Well, I would be most eager to receive any recommendations from the committee, and then we will give worthy consideration to those as a Commission before we bring the proposed final scheme to Plenary in order to be ratified by Assembly Members. And so I very much welcome any comments. We’re all work in progress, linguistically, aren’t we? So, there is room for improvement. And we would welcome any comments or any ideas you may have to that end.
[219] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch yn fawr iawn. Dyna’r cwestiynau sydd gennym ni heddiw. Byddwn ni’n anfon unrhyw sylwadau atoch chi yn y man. Diolch yn fawr iawn.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you very much. That’s all the questions that we have this morning. We will send any comments to you in due course. Thank you very much.
[220] Adam Price: Diolch yn fawr i chi.	Adam Price: Thank you very much.
[221] Bethan Jenkins: Rydym ni’n mynd i gymryd seibiant arall nawr. Diolch yn fawr iawn.	Bethan Jenkins: We’re going to take another break now. Thank you.
Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 11.17 ac 11.28. The meeting adjourned between 11.17 and 11.28.
Trwydded Weithredu Ddrafft ar gyfer Gwasanaethau Cyhoeddus y BBC yn y DU: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth gydag Ofcom Cymru Draft Operating Licence for the BBC’s UK Public Services: Evidence Session with Ofcom Wales
[222] Bethan Jenkins: Rydym ni’n symud ymlaen yn awr at eitem 4, sef ‘Trwydded weithredu ddrafft ar gyfer Gwasanaethau Cyhoeddus y BBC yn y DU: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth gydag Ofcom Cymru’. Mae’r cyfieithu’n—. A ydy’r cyfieithu’n gweithio’n iawn i chi? Grêt. Mae gyda ni dystion yma heddiw, sef Rhodri Williams, cyfarwyddwr Ofcom Cymru, ac wedyn Jacquie Hughes, sef cyfarwyddwr polisi Ofcom Cymru. Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi’ch dau am ddod i mewn atom heddiw. Jest i ddechrau, a allaf i ofyn cwestiwn ynglŷn â’r graddau y gellir disgwyl i’r dull rheoleiddio newydd a gynigir gan Ofcom gyflawni newid sylweddol o ran y portread o Gymru a bywyd Cymru ar y BBC, a hynny yng Nghymru ac ar rwydweithiau’r Deyrnas Unedig? Pa gymalau penodol a fydd yn gwneud y gwahaniaeth mwyaf i’r hyn sydd yn bodoli yn barod yma yng Nghymru? Diolch.	Bethan Jenkins: We now move on to item 4, which is the ‘Draft operating licence for the BBC’s UK Public Services: Evidence Session with Ofcom Wales’. Interpretation is available—is that working? Excellent. We’re joined by witnesses this morning: Rhodri Williams, director of Ofcom Wales, and Jacquie Hughes, director of content policy at Ofcom Wales. Thank you both very much for joining us today. Just to start, can I ask a question on the extent to which the new regulatory approach proposed by Ofcom can be expected to achieve a step change in terms of the portrayal of Wales and Welsh life on the BBC, both within Wales and on UK networks? What specific clauses will make the most difference in terms of what’s currently in existence here in Wales? Thank you.
[223] Ms Hughes: Can I just make one correction? I’m director of content policy for Ofcom, not for Ofcom Wales.
[224] Bethan Jenkins: Okay, thank you. My notes were wrong.
[225] Ms Hughes: That’s okay. Sorry. My responsibility was to draw up the draft operating licence for all of the BBC UK public services and to have separate consideration for the nations and the regions. It’s probably worth saying that our starting point is to take our duties directly from the charter and agreement. The charter and agreement have very specific general duties that are laid on the BBC and very specific general duties that are laid on Ofcom. They set out really clearly what the new public purposes are and the agreement sets out specifically how it expects us to interpret some of them.
11:30
[226] And you’ll know from your reading of the agreement that schedule 2 in particular goes into fairly granular detail about some of the public purposes, and so the language around distinctiveness, for example, is very detailed and very descriptive and goes into much detail about what we must have regard to, and some of it is what we may have regard to. So, there’s a degree to which everything we’ve done in our draft operating licence is drawn from the general charter and agreement. Some of it from schedule 2 has a degree of compulsion that we have no wriggle room for, and the rest of it is given a degree of interpretation. And so what we’ve done is we’ve looked at all of the new public purposes and gone through each of them in turn. All of them apply to all of the UK, and some of them have specific regard to improving provision, representation, portrayal of the nations and regions, and a lot of that is contained within the specific purpose around that.
[227] So, what we did is we looked at what was there before. So, you’ll remember that the way the trust regulated and governed the BBC was to have an individual service licence for each of the defined public services that are in schedule 1 and to take the old public purposes and to sort of cascade them down over each of the individual service licences, giving them each a greater or lesser degree of share for that purpose, and you’ll see the language was all ‘BBC1 must have significant responsibility for delivery of purpose 1, and BBC2 must have considerable’ and a lot of it was phrased like that. We didn’t take that approach. We decided to have a single operating licence for all of the BBC, and to take the purposes one by one, look at how they were represented in the old service licences, and then decide what, in our view, given that, given what we wanted to achieve, and given what the charter and agreement said, would be the best way of setting out what is ultimately the desire of Parliament via the charter and agreement. So, we came up with one operating licence with specific separate, as you’ve got here, versions for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we went through each of the purposes in turn and our starting point was that first of all we have to maintain separation from the BBC—it’s for the BBC to also read its duties from the charter and agreement and to set its strategy, because it has to fulfil its duties under the charter and agreement; it also has very specific general duties that are facing on it, like workforce diversity and so on, that are nothing to do with us—and to make it the case that, where we thought this was for the BBC to decide what it was going to do, we would expect to see that in its creative plan. And we’ve made it clear through here that, where we haven’t set super-granular conditions about certain things, we wait to see what the BBC sets out in its own creative plan, which it has to publish before July.
[228] We then looked at the things that were really clear in the charter and agreement around distinctiveness, greater provision for nations and regions and diversity—those are the slightly newer ones. News and current affairs was there before, creative endeavours in other programmes was there before, so these were the new ones. And we looked at what was there already, the commitments the BBC had already made, and what we wanted to do to either bake in performance that the BBC was already offering that we thought was good and worth preserving, and make a clear statement where we thought voluntary arrangements or no arrangements were in place and we wanted to make them formal conditions. So, you’ll see that the headline around both hours and investment spend in each of the nations and the English regions we’ve pegged to percentage proportion of population for Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Now, the BBC made a country commitment on spend to that before, but it was never hard-baked, so we’ve hard-baked those into the percentages, so they have to invest in line with proportion of the population.
[229] We’ve also come up with a new requirement, which mirrors that one, around percentage of hours in each of the nations and regions. And, for the first time, we’ve set an English regions quota, whereas before it was just out of London. And that’s a big step change for the BBC, partly because, before, because it was a voluntary arrangement, it had a degree of flex and it could satisfy its nations commitment collectively, and it did that, and it did that by over-indexing Scotland, say. It’s never had an hours commitment before, and that will prove stretching, given its strategy on spend, and it’s never had an English regions percentage before. So, that will also be challenging, but we thought they were important statements to make and, from a policy position, pegging them to percentage of population was right. So, that’s the biggest change in terms of where we get as close to a strategic intervention as we’re probably comfortable with, because it’s about spend and furniture. Other things are to do with—
[230] Bethan Jenkins: We’ll come to some of the questions.
[231] Ms Hughes: Sure, sure; I’ll just trot through what I think are the main areas that are relevant, as you asked, and then we can talk about questions.
[232] The other things are around diversity and around insisting that the BBC improve representation and portrayal, and that it reports to us annually on a code of practice it will put in place around all of its commissioning for new content. We don’t really have locus over workforce; that’s covered slightly by some other work we’re doing, partly to do with project Diamond and partly to do with our own voluntary diversity code for all the industry.
[233] We’ve also made it clear that some of the things that we want to see retained go to the aid of distinctiveness—whether that’s specific language services, whether it’s to do with whole networks, like the Asian network, whether it’s to do with high levels of coverage of Parliament—some of the things the BBC does already come to the aid of the ‘distinctiveness party’, and we’ve asked to see the BBC’s other plans there.
[234] Representation and portrayal are very different things, as you know. Representation is about the extent to which you can count and see and actually experience representation. Portrayal is about how that feels and how authentic that representation feels. So, they need very different ways of measuring performance and measuring success there, and we’ve built a performance framework that, hopefully, captures both of those things. But, again, you know, it’s for the BBC to deliver in the first instance.
[235] So, those are the hard-baked sort of nations and regions spend, investment, hours, the commitment to maintaining current levels of production that are set at this year’s performance levels. We’ve increased all performance levels by roughly 10 per cent—which will be a stretch for the BBC as it faces cuts generally—and we’ve made some quite specific things around diversity.
[236] Bethan Jenkins: Thank you. I just mentioned that we have questions on various different aspects.
[237] Ms Hughes: Sure.
[238] Bethan Jenkins: That’s why I was intervening. I just want to take you back, therefore, to the initial question, because you have this operating structure, but, obviously, our committee and the BBC in Wales have said that they would wish to see a separate operating licence for Wales. So, how do you see that potentially fitting into this? Because, of course, you’ve taken a UK-wide approach to this. Would you see that as being something conceivable for the future?
[239] Ms Hughes: So, the decision that we came to and which was passed by the board was that we would have a single operating licence for the whole of the UK, but that we would separate out and collect in one place what the expectations were for Wales, for Northern Ireland, and for Scotland, so that these things exist as—I don’t know what you would call them, but they’re not in and of themselves separate licences, because many of the conditions and many of the public purposes cover the whole of the UK. So, our decision was to produce a single operating licence for the whole of the UK with separate sections, chapters, for the nations. So—
[240] Bethan Jenkins: For example, on Radio 1, I can’t see anything in there about Wales and Welsh music being represented, a percentage or a number there, unless I haven’t seen it. So, if you’re going to do it as a UK-wide thing, why isn’t there, engrained in some of the recommendations for Radio 2, Radio 3 and such—what from Wales should be there in terms of portrayal or in terms of content, for example?
[241] Ms Hughes: So, there have never been—on the network radio services—percentage commitments to specific nation content or language content and so on, because that would be—. I mean, to put those down into proportions on the radio services would be quite tricky, and I don’t think it’s ever been done, and it’s quite a regulatory intervention that we wouldn’t make as a first move. Portrayal and representation are completely different, and we’ve set quite tasking, stretching targets for the BBC on representation and portrayal across the whole of the BBC, which they have to report back on to us. And you’ll see in the regulatory conditions, if you look at that section, they have to report on that, and they have to show us all of their audience research on how portrayal is regarded, and we can insist on improvements, but that’s not something that we would move to capture in quotas of output.
[242] Bethan Jenkins: Okay, thank you for that clarification. We’re going to move on to network expenditure in Wales, and Lee Waters has some questions for you.
[243] Lee Waters: Thank you very much. You mentioned that you were going to hard-bake in the production targets based on population share, but currently, because there’s a centre of excellence for drama in Cardiff, Wales gets above the population percentage share. So, you would anticipate, then, under the new regime, that the spend in Wales would decline.
[244] Ms Hughes: No. So, with all of these we’ve said it’s a floor and not a ceiling. So, it means that’s a level below which the BBC cannot drop. It’s the same situation in Scotland: they overspend in Scotland, not on hours but on spend. As you say, in Wales, because of creating the centre of excellence and the emphasis on drama and entertainment, it’s always going to be higher spend here. We’re not saying you have to peg it to that; we’re saying this is a floor below which you cannot drop.
[245] Lee Waters: You say it’s always going to be a higher spend here. What do you base that confidence on?
[246] Ms Hughes: Because, unless the BBC changes its current strategy, which is to build a centre of drama excellence here, there would be no reason for that investment to fall. I think one of the challenges for Wales and for the BBC in Wales, is to meet the hours target as well as the spend target, because if you have a strategy that is investment in high-cost, high-quality drama and entertainment, by necessity you can commission fewer hours of that with that money. How you then meet your hours target is challenging, because you can meet your hours target with high-volume, low-cost programming, but that’s not the current BBC creative strategy for the nations.
[247] Lee Waters: But within the new charter, there are other targets that pose a tension to the target and may not justify the confidence you’ve justified. So, in making production contestable to the independent sector, for example, there’s no guarantee that the BBC Cardiff studio would be able to maintain its output. Therefore, your confidence that we would maintain current levels couldn’t be sustained.
[248] Ms Hughes: Well, there are a number of challenges. There’s contestability, as you say. There are things like the launch of a new service in BBC Scotland—you know, a massive amount of investment, but in one channel. What that does to the rest of our requirements, via our quotas in Scotland, is a huge challenge. But our view is: this is our position currently, because we think it’s our best interpretation of how to secure the desires of the charter and agreement around better representation and better investment. It is for the BBC to make the case to us as to why it needs to vary that licence—‘Can’t meet it until 2019’, ‘Might have to change after 2020’. We have to give it the chance to say how it can meet our requirements, or where the clashes are with its strategy, and I think you’ll find, when you talk to Tony Hall, that contestability is one of the things they’ll worry about.
11:45
[249] The hours in Wales will be another thing they worry about. The over-indexing of Scotland, and the possible need to shift some of that to England will be—. These are strategic challenges for the BBC, and what we have said is, ‘If you want to—’. First of all, everyone can respond to this consultation, and we will absolutely have regard to it and say, ‘Has anything come out of this that we think, “Crikey, we never saw that” or “We never thought of that clash”, or “That’s a good point”?’ Or will they make a case that we can do that, but we may not be able to do it beyond 2020, because, you know, most of their investment plans are already in place for the next few years, and they need to come and make a case to us as to why they would want a variant to their licence?
[250] Lee Waters: But if expenditure on network production falls below its current level, you as a regulator will be on it, will you?
[251] Ms Hughes: The BBC is facing a cut to its overall funding anyway. That’s out of our control and it’s out of the BBC’s control. We’re asking for—. And, again, you know that as well as Ofcom taking over, the National Audit Office is now involved as the tripartite regulator of the BBC, so they will want to see really clear and transparent accounts of the network expenditure and what they call network expenditure, and what it goes on, and what’s in that calculation, and how much is overheads and so on, and so on. That level of transparency is new. We can’t do anything about the overall funding, but what we can do is press on the appropriate proportion of that that is spent on programming and how that is allocated to the nations according to our desires.
[252] Lee Waters: Sorry, I’m no clearer. I thought I was. BBC have made commitments for extra spending for Wales, but you’ve said, specifically, in terms of hard-baking these things, that it’s a floor not a ceiling and you don’t anticipate it falling below its current levels. If it does fall below its current levels, you, as a regulator, will make an intervention.
[253] Ms Hughes: So, if it falls below the percentage levels, then they will be in breach of one of our conditions, which they don’t want to be.
[254] Lee Waters: Right. So, it’s not based on population level per se, it’s based on its current levels.
[255] Ms Hughes: Yes.
[256] Lee Waters: Right. So, there shouldn’t be any deterioration of current levels.
[257] Ms Hughes: There shouldn’t be any deterioration. From what I understand from early conversations with the BBC, they do not anticipate it going any lower than it is. If anything, they’ll push it to the opposite way.
[258] Lee Waters: So, you say it’s hard-baked based on population levels, but it’s actually hard-baked on current levels.
[259] Ms Hughes: It’s on current levels. That’s all we can go on, and the same with production levels—we can only go on the data that we have for 2016, and we have some early sight of 2017, but we just don’t have the data yet.
[260] Lee Waters: Okay, thank you.
[261] Bethan Jenkins: Ac wedyn Jeremy ar amodau rheoleiddio eraill.	Bethan Jenkins: And now Jeremy has some questions on other regulatory conditions.
[262] Jeremy Miles: I’m just going to stay with that point, if I may, for the time being. Am I correct—maybe I’ve misunderstood—the figure in the licence is 5 per cent? The current level of network spend is 7 per cent. So, there’s a window beneath which, to Lee’s point, if they fall, you will be able to make an intervention. My reading of what we’ve seen is that that figure is the 5 per cent figure and not the 7 per cent figure.
[263] Ms Hughes: Correct.
[264] Jeremy Miles: Okay. So, it would be the case, I believe, that the BBC could drop by two points, without you having any ability—
[265] Ms Hughes: Locus.
[266] Jeremy Miles: —to intervene. Okay. So—
[267] Lee Waters: Sorry, my apologies—that’s not what I understood your answer to mean.
[268] Jeremy Miles: That’s why I’m pursuing it.
[269] Lee Waters: Yes.
[270] Ms Hughes: So, 5 per cent is our condition. As I said, it’s a floor. What I said is: I don’t expect investment in Wales to fall. It’s not what the BBC have indicated. But if their own personal strategy is to invest in Wales to 7 per cent, and in Scotland to 15 per cent, they own that strategy, and that’s for them to fulfil or change. Where it would come into our purview: one, if it fell below 5 per cent, or, two, if that disinvestment led to a reduction in other things that we’ve required of it.
[271] Jeremy Miles: Okay. But we are agreed, I believe, that they have headroom within the current regulatory framework that you’re proposing, to drop by a third what they spend in Wales, more or less, or a little bit less than that, without you having any ability to intervene.
[272] Ms Hughes: Yes, but my understanding is it’s not that big a gap. I don’t think I’ve got my figures with me, but I didn’t think it was 7 per cent.
[273] Jeremy Miles: My figure is—. Okay, perhaps I’ve misled you—let me just look at this.
[274] Ms Hughes: I thought it was about 5.8.
[275] Bethan Jenkins: It’s 7.1 per cent, yes.
[276] Ms Hughes: For this year?
[277] Bethan Jenkins: For 2015-16.
[278] Jeremy Miles: So, that is a little bit less than a third of what they spend before you can even intervene on your proposal.
[279] Ms Hughes: On that specific condition—.
[280] Jeremy Miles: Indeed. Okay, so there are two—it seems to me we’re at different stages in the progress of the celestial city here, looking at hours and looking at expenditure. Expenditure is a thing that the BBC already understands—you know, it can get there or not. Hours is a different ball game, for reasons that you’ve given. Did you give consideration, in coming to those 5 per cent figures, to applying in principle a different percentage to each of those two criteria? Or have you, from the start, said it’s got to be the same number?
[281] Ms Hughes: That’s a good question. We did and we may well, depending on what we get back from people submitting evidence, for the very reason that you’ve said. So, from a policy position, it’s quite clear and clean and neat. But if the charter and agreement says that we must do this for both hours and investment, in line with population, then that’s a clear and obvious steer as to where you set your levels. That was our starting position. The reason that was there was because, again, as I said, it’s a proxy for better representation and better portrayal. The more hours you’re making, the chances are you are more likely to better reflect—
[282] Jeremy Miles: Okay, So, just on that specific point, you are open, as it were, because this is a document in consultation, to responses coming back that could persuade you to change those numbers.
[283] Ms Hughes: I think we’d have to be if there was compelling evidence that—. What we would need evidence of is a compelling case that that would really damage the other creative strategic plans for Wales, and investment, and it would mean fewer commissions of high-end drama and more daytime, and that would be a loss. And if the BBC could make the case as to how it would satisfy what the hours requirement was trying to do, which is to improve representation and portrayal by other means—and they know we’re expecting to hear that from them, because we know this is an area that they will push back on—.
[284] Jeremy Miles: Okay. You’ve mentioned two different day parts there—you mentioned daytime, and I can’t recall the other one. Did you take a view as to whether or not the hours commitment would be reflected in different parts of the day? So, obviously, a peak hour is worth vastly more than a daytime hour or an off-peak hour. Is that something you would consider, or do you not feel that’s a relevant criterion?
[285] Ms Hughes: So, we were trying to, again, have a clean policy position on the percentage of hours. We didn’t think that going into an exercise of trying to weight those hours, because that slightly gets you back into the value of a high-cost drama hour, you know, and the BBC making the case that that counts for 1.5. So, we didn’t do that, no.
[286] Jeremy Miles: So, if the BBC do breach the 5 per cent threshold, let’s just say it raises that for now, what will you be able to do?
[287] Ms Hughes: So, we have a range of regulatory tools, which include—you know, on the spectrum from calling them in and saying, ‘You don’t want to do this, do you? You’ve given us warning—that will not look good, we suggest you go back’, what you would want them, ultimately, to do is to not be in breach, right through to fining them £0.25 million for each breach, and they have to remedy it anyway. Obviously, that’s really tricky because it’s all public money. You could say it’s small beer, but it’s still—. So, you know, that’s our range of tools, and that’s exactly—. The reason the conditions are so important is because they have regulatory import, in that we can act on every one of the breaches. The old trust licences had loads of stuff in them, but they weren’t enforceable.
[288] Jeremy Miles: So, this is great—that it’s enforceable.
[289] Ms Hughes: Yes.
[290] Jeremy Miles: Let’s say—just a final question—that we end up with a licence that has the same numbers as there are in here—i.e. you haven’t been persuaded by submissions to your consultation around the sorts of things you’ve just been discussing—on what basis would you consider, during the lifetime of the licence, moving those numbers, if you like, or creating more stringent conditions? What would that process look like to get to that outcome?
[291] Ms Hughes: Do you mean giving the BBC a glide path or setting them in for the period of the licence?
[292] Jeremy Miles: Well, I suppose I'm asking you: is there a mechanism, during the period of the licence, where you feel, actually, the economic situation has changed or the strategy could comfortably encompass or accommodate more stringent targets? How would that work in practice?
[293] Ms Hughes: So, we’ve said that the licence is not a 10-year thing, or even a five-year thing; it’s a living, evolving document. Every year, we have to produce an annual report on the BBC’s performance. We’ve put in place a massive performance framework and a performance tracker. We’ll look at that every year. It doesn’t mean we’ll alter the conditions every year, but we might. We’ve also said that we’re open to the BBC—and we did this with Channel 4, when we increased their regional quota; we gave them a glide path. So, we don’t expect you to suddenly turn the tanker around for 2018, but, by 2020, we expect to see this. So, we would have to be open to that kind of conversation, which is—. Because I suspect—you know, this may just be my instinct—that the BBC’s trickiest problem will be Scotland, because it’s so over-indexed. To bring down Scotland will be politically tricky, but, to satisfy the English regions quota, they will have to. I suspect that’s where they will have to seek it. So, they are going to have to do a big bit of strategic thinking about moving those things around, and I suspect that they’ll offer us a transition date for that.
[294] Jeremy Miles: Okay, thanks.
[295] Lee Waters: Can I just quickly ask, interpreting your language, ‘over-indexed’, you mean, ‘get more than their fair share’?
[296] Ms Hughes: So, they invest way above the percentage quota that we’ve set.
[297] Lee Waters: Yes, thank you.
[298] Ms Hughes: And they’ve been able to count that collectively.
[299] Lee Waters: Okay, thank you.
[300] Bethan Jenkins: Suzy.
[301] Suzy Davies: Yes, it’s on this point again. I just want to make sure I completely understand this. Investment per head of population for network production in Wales is higher than the level of population that we have, you’ve established that—you mentioned, of course, Scotland, and the disparity’s even greater. Does that necessarily mean, at the moment, there are other parts of Britain that are achieving under the percentage per head? So, now that those parts of Britain are going to have to achieve a floor, isn’t the inevitable consequence that Wales’s chances of getting 7.1 per cent investment are pretty nugatory?
[302] Ms Hughes: So, the BBC has a number of choices. It can take money out of London, it can move money from Scotland, and it can play at the edges where it’s overinvesting; but, it’s unlikely, in my view, to move money from Northern Ireland or Wales—just because I know its long-term creative strategic plan for this country and Northern Ireland. So, yes, the English regions are underserved. They’re different in that it’s a very diverse set of regions. Salford feels okay, but Durham doesn’t, and so on—and that’s tricky. So, they will absolutely have to think about what the investment map looks like in order for it to be slightly more equitable, it’s true. How they do that is up to them, but, again, this is not the BBC’s position, I’m just telling you what I think instinctively. It would seem that they would have to think about London and think about Scotland. Tony Hall may say something completely different. I’m not speaking for the BBC.
[303] Suzy Davies: No. Thank you. That’s nice and clear.
[304] Bethan Jenkins: Neil Hamilton.
[305] Neil Hamilton: Ofcom will have to sign off the new commissioning code of practice for the BBC. In view of what you’ve said about diversity of commissioning and so on, to what extent do you think there will have to be a step change in increasing diversity of commissions to the BBC? Can you tell us, perhaps, how you will monitor the effectiveness of the guidance that is set out?
[306] Ms Hughes: So, as you can imagine, this and, probably, distinctiveness are the hardest areas to get at and to secure via regulatory conditions, because not all of the qualitative change that you’re trying to see is measurable by numerical quotas or quantitative things. So, they’re the hardest things to get to when you’re trying to change the dial, culturally. Some of that stuff needs a number of different approaches, and diversity of supply, diversity of talent, diversity of workforce, and diversity of—obvious outcomes on screen and radio are the things you’re trying to achieve.
12:00
[307] And so we looked at it on many different levels. We had a massive debate about ring-fencing money for diverse productions and workforce stuff and whether that was an intervention too far because it’s not part of our duties. But we also looked at the BBC’s own 2020 diversity strategy, which is quite stretching. It’s set itself some quite hard targets about, basically, the existing protected characteristics that are in the equalities Act—you know, about gender representation, race, sexuality, disability. They’ve set themselves some very hard targets. We looked across the whole industry, we looked at America, we looked at loads of other creative organisations; no-one goes beyond what the BBC has proposed it would do itself.
[308] Now, the BBC has said it would do these things before and it hasn’t, but what we’ve done is we’ve taken the BBC’s voluntary commitment to diversity and voluntary commitment to a new code of practice and we’ve made them conditions. So, they have to meet them, and they’re very stretching. All of our expert advice has been that no other broadcaster meets their own internal set of diversity requirements at the moment. So, we’ve made the BBC’s own code of practice, about who it commissions from, what you have to say as part of your compliance in order to get a commission, the commitments you make to representation within each of those productions—we’ve made those conditions. I think they’ll be a stretch for the BBC to meet.
[309] Diversity is one of the things that our chief executive has gone out and said is really important for the industry. We are under a lot of pressure to go further than we have and to produce workforce targets from politicians and others in the industry. That’s a conversation we need to have over the summer. We’re thinking that we may well have some kind of an event—an Ofcom-launched event—in the summer to bring lots of people with different views about how we best get at this, from academics to campaign organisations, to representatives, and see, because all of it pushes you to define diversity, which is really tricky.
[310] So, we think this basket of measures, to use a horrible cliché, is quite challenging. And, remember, we’ve said in here that if the BBC doesn’t—. It has to report to us on every single commission and whether every single commission met its own commissioning code. If it doesn’t, it’s in breach—and it falls into the same category.
[311] Neil Hamilton: It’s quite a task to monitor all this as well—
[312] Ms Hughes: It’s huge.
[313] Neil Hamilton: —given the diversity of the diversity criteria set out in paragraph 1.32, for example. If you’ve got to do that for the whole range of content of the BBC, it’s a massive task, administratively.
[314] Ms Hughes: It’s huge. One of the pushbacks we had, internally and from our own board and others, in designing this licence is just how onerous a task we’re setting ourselves, just in terms of data collection and performance monitoring and just what that costs and what that involves and how we’re going to do it. But there is no other way around trying to find out whether they’ve done what they’ve said they’re going to do, unless we—. We can’t rely on self-reporting anymore; it hasn’t delivered.
[315] Neil Hamilton: And it will be important to have an element of proportionality in this as well, won’t it, in the approach that you take to it?
[316] Ms Hughes: Completely. You know, this is a real challenge for Ofcom, because the position of a regulator is normally backstop—you know, you go and perform, and, if you don’t do something, we step in. This whole charter and agreement has set Ofcom in a position of being on the front foot and not just sitting back and saying, ‘Well, we’ll see how you interpret it and then we’ll step in’. We’re very much set up, especially in the schedule 2 stuff, to be all but setting strategy, which is a really wrong and uncomfortable thing for a regulator to do. So, you’re right, it’s a really careful—. Everything we do in our general duties is about proportionality and so on. Even things like, you know, the demands you make on the BBC for information have to be proportionate. Otherwise, it’s a hugely onerous, interventionist mood. So, we’re all slightly learning this new relationship and I suspect we’ll finesse it for a wee while yet.
[317] Neil Hamilton: Yes, indeed. In relation to regulatory conditions pertaining to online content, you’ve got a similar task to perform. The conditions that we’ve seen don’t include any quantitative measures. I realise, of course, that you can’t quantify everything, but I was wondering to what extent you’re going to use quantitative measures in this process.
[318] Ms Hughes: So, this is one area that the charter and agreement are really light on. When you compare what it compels us to do for Radio 1 and Radio 2, there’s virtually nothing about online. It’s a general, throwaway—you know.
[319] Neil Hamilton: It’s going to become a growing area of importance.
[320] Ms Hughes: Exactly, and it’s one of the areas that we’ve made it clear to the BBC we expect it to make pretty extensive commitments about its online services in its creative plan. This is our holding position, until we see. And there are other things like BBC 3 was a channel, it’s now an online service. That’s sort of flying a bit free in the wind, because it was under the trust and the trust said it would review its performance within 18 months—the trust is no longer there, we don’t have to do what the trust said, but it’s a really important area of output for young people.
[321] So, one of the most powerful tools we have in the charter and agreement is the ability to conduct ad-hoc reviews of anything that we think is an area of—. We’ve been thinking about what they may be, and they could be anything, but one of the areas we’re thinking that we feel slightly blind to, and we feel, instinctively, the BBC underserves, is younger audiences and young people, so we may well do an early, thematic review of provision for young people, which would take into its sweep BBC3, BBC online, and look at all of that. And so we have other ways of getting at some of this stuff that we just don’t know yet.
[322] It’s probably worth saying as well that—you may know that Ofcom’s come under pressure about editorial stuff online and that it should fall into our general policing of accuracy and impartiality and all the other things. That’s been resisted so far, other than, I think, fairly limited areas of text, because it’s like policing the web.
[323] Neil Hamilton: Like trying to fill a sieve, I should think.
[324] Ms Hughes: Yes.
[325] Bethan Jenkins: Okay. I think Lee Waters has a supplementary to this.
[326] Lee Waters: I was going to ask about portrayal, Chair. I don’t know if now is the best time to go into that.
[327] Bethan Jenkins: It’s fine.
[328] Lee Waters: Thank you. I just want to test my understanding of how—. Under the new service licence, the BBC has a requirement to accurately represent and authentically portray all audience groups from the nations and regions.
[329] You’ve said, in your evidence, that you fulfil this by asking the BBC to show you all its audience research, and you made the distinction between representation and portrayal. Your evidence to us says you’ll be carrying out your own audience research to assess the extent to which people feel authentically portrayed.
[330] Okay, so that’s the context. I’m just thinking of a live example—so, Line of Duty, produced by BBC Northern Ireland. I’d imagine that, under the new terrain, that will be part of the portrayal of Northern Ireland in the BBC’s output. It’s a tremendous drama. Its chief character is identifiably Northern Irish—great character, great acting. Beyond that, as a viewer, I struggle to understand how Line of Duty portrays Northern Ireland. So, how do you go about assessing that? Do you feel, instinctively, that that does portray Northern Ireland?
[331] Ms Hughes: I have to say I haven’t seen it, even though I hear it’s very good.
[332] Lee Waters: You’re head of content for Ofcom and you haven’t seen Line of Duty.
[333] Ms Hughes: Yes, I know—there’s a lot of telly to watch.
[334] Lee Waters: That’s your job. [Laughter.]
[335] Ms Hughes: If only. So, just winding back a bit, first of all, the language in here reflects the language in the charter and agreement, about what our duty is around authentically representing and portraying. So, that’s where we take our steer from. We make a clear distinction—the BBC doesn’t, but we do—about the difference between representation and portrayal and how you measure those things differently. The representation is easier; it lends itself slightly more easily to a classic content analysis and quantitative analysis. The portrayal can only be your sense of how that felt, and the only way we can get at that is audience research. We’ve compelled the BBC to do its own audience research. The charter allows us to carry out and conduct performance measurement in addition to the BBC’s. So, we can’t just randomly do whatever we want, but we can do things in addition to the BBC. So, we’ve designed a performance measurement framework, which I think is in the consultation in terms of the criteria that we’re going to use to measure each of the purposes. That’s up for consultation as well; you can see it. We’ve said we’re going to run an additional BBC performance tracker, and that we will also run on some of the specific—. We’ve just done a big piece of research around distinctiveness, and on around authenticity of portrayal, we will run our own research. So, if the BBC reports back and says, ‘We did this audience research and everyone said they were really happy, and they saw themselves represented’, but our research—and we would use different measures—shows that someone doesn’t, well, we would push back at them and say, ‘But our research doesn’t show that. Our research shows that people in the west of England have never seen any authentic portrayal of themselves’, and that would be our push back to them. We have the tools to be able to say, ‘We disagree with your data sets’, or ‘We’ve used different measures, and we expect to see an improvement on this.’ Remember, all of this will be public. Everything we say will be public. The other thing we’re saying is that this licence for the BBC won’t come into effect until September. It’s not live now. It will come into effect at the end of September, and it will run from that point on. Our first annual report will probably be March next year, so we’ll have six months of findings, but then the really full one won’t be until the following year.
[336] Lee Waters: I presume that your research methods will encompass both qualitative and quantitative.
[337] Ms Hughes: Absolutely, because some of this stuff—you just can’t, you know—. At the moment, the distinctiveness research is huge, and to satisfy all the duties under diversity, we have to do really deep dives, focus groups with every one of the different groups and the different diverse groups within each of the nations and within each of the regions as well, which is why the research takes forever and is quite extensive. We’ll publish that soon. We’ll publish the quantitative element very soon, and we have to wait until after the election to finish some of this because we can’t be surveying people during the election. So, we’ll publish the rest of that. That’s mainly around distinctiveness, but it’s also a general piece of deliberative research, fresh research about people’s relationships with the BBC.
[338] Lee Waters: Okay. Thank you.
[339] Bethan Jenkins: Suzy.
[340] Suzy Davies: I don’t want to tramp into the performance measurement here, so apologies if I do a little bit, but I just want to develop Lee’s theme a little bit around Line of Duty. Because what I’m trying to get from you is some confidence that the framework that you’ve just described will prevent the following happening. So, for example, we might complain that Wales gets very little network coverage in terms of current affairs, for example, but I don’t want the BBC to be in a position that it can come back and say, ‘Oh, well, that’s okay; we’re not giving you much current affairs, but we are giving you lots of coverage in the sense that we’ve just commissioned something for S4C.’ Well, that’s a very small audience. That’s not exactly covering the network. Or, ‘Yes, we’re commissioning dramas in Wales.’ Well, you may not even know that they’re in Wales, which is kind of Lee’s points, or, ‘We have done something, but it’s tucked away online or sort of disappeared into the schedule somewhere.’ Bearing in mind you’ve got to report annually, which is why I don’t want to stumble too much into this territory, realistically, what period are you going to be assessing the BBC’s commitment over, and through which genres, bearing in mind that there are plenty of hiding places for the BBC on this?
[341] Ms Hughes: Sure. I understand. So, we’ll be reporting annually on all of the purposes and all of the conditions within each of the purposes. Alongside each purpose is quite an extensive performance measurement framework that’s bespoke to each purpose. So, if you went to the news and current affairs purpose, you would see the question areas, the data sets that will be sought, the measures that we’ll be looking for, and they’re a mixture of quantitative and qualitative with every single one.
12:15
[342] Suzy Davies: Okay. I don’t want you to answer too much, because I think you’re going to get more questions on that, but I just wanted some reassurance that failure in one purpose can’t be compensated for in another.
[343] Ms Hughes: No. Absolutely not.
[344] Suzy Davies: There we are. Thank you for that.
[345] Bethan Jenkins: We don’t have much time, but—
[346] Suzy Davies: Yes, sorry.
[347] Bethan Jenkins: —we have a few questions on performance measures, starting with Hannah.
[348] Ms Hughes: Sure.
[349] Hannah Blythyn: Thanks, Chair. I think quite a bit will have been touched on already. To expand on my colleague Lee and Suzy’s questions in terms of how the performance is measured, Lee said about the representation, reflection and the portrayal, but, in particular, how will Ofcom assess the BBC’s performance in terms of servicing the different diverse communities and nations, and also how that supports the creative economy of the UK?
[350] Ms Hughes: I’m not sure what you mean by the connection with the creative economy in terms of representation and portrayal.
[351] Hannah Blythyn: So, talking about two—. It’s perhaps two separate things, really. So, how, actually, you would assess how the BBC was meeting its purpose to service the different nations, but also it’s a purpose to actually support the creative economy within those nations.
[352] Ms Hughes: Sorry. Sure. Within those requirements, there are quite distinct duties on us—as you say, to serve, represent and reflect—which we’ve interpreted in specific ways. One is to do with investment in the creative economy and supporting production in the country. The other, as you say, is about reflecting and representing, and we’ve broken that down in terms of representation, which is something we’re very used to. Ofcom has to do all of this for its annual public service broadcasting reports and its report on Channel 4, and all of the other research it does, and its comprehensive market report. It does massive amounts of research with different focus groups in every single one of the diverse characteristics, protected characteristics, nations, regions and so on.
[353] The portrayal bit is the new—. The BBC generally talks about representation and portrayal as one and we don’t. Our research has never viewed them as both quantitative measures. So, the new stuff that we’ve developed—. We do it elsewhere; we do it for the PSB review, we do it for Channel 4. The new stuff that we’re applying to the BBC is to separate out representation and portrayal. So, Ofcom is quite practised and quite skilled at doing really, really thorough research and audience research on authenticity of portrayal and portrayal. You’ll see bits of it if you find the performance framework in the consultation doc; you’ll see how we set out to do it in relation to nations and regions and in relation to diversity. And then we’ll report on it in our annual tracker and we’ll always report on any bespoke audience-focused research to try and get at some of these trickier things.
[354] Going back to my earlier point, one of the things we need to agree as a nation and one of the things we’ll try and get at in our diversity seminar is: how do you define diversity? How do you come up with—? How can you represent inclusivity of the whole nation beyond just the protected characteristics? Because that’s what we’re aiming for. We need to agree that and it’s something, from my understanding and I’m quite new to Ofcom, that’s been resisted, because no-one’s agreed on how to define it.
[355] Bethan Jenkins: Thanks. One last question from Dai Lloyd.
[356] Dai Lloyd: Diolch, Gadeirydd. A allaf ofyn, felly, jest i orffen, i ba raddau y byddai Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru yn gallu bwydo i mewn i asesiadau Ofcom o berfformiad y BBC?	Dai Lloyd: Thank you, Chair. Can I just ask, to conclude, to what extent the National Assembly for Wales could feed into Ofcom’s assessments of the BBC’s performance?
[357] Ms Hughes: We would expect a formal submission, and all of the submissions from everybody everywhere are public, and we are duty bound to respond and to reflect all submissions to the consultations in our final findings. We’ve said openly, ‘This is our draft operating licence and it’s absolutely open to responses from wherever they come—from national bodies, Government, the BBC, other stakeholders, individuals—and we’re duty bound to take regard of your submissions within our final findings.’ We’re also duty bound so that if we think that anything we have regard to would result in a material change to what we’ve set out in the draft, we would have to probably re-consult.
[358] Bethan Jenkins: A allaf jest ofyn cwestiwn clou i orffen ynglŷn â rôl Ofcom Cymru? Yn hwn, mae yna ddisgrifiadau o’r hyn y byddai Cymru yn gorfod gwneud. A oes rôl gyda chi i ymgynghori Ofcom yn ganolog?	Bethan Jenkins: Could I just ask a brief question to conclude, on the role Ofcom Wales? In this, there is some narrative on what Wales would be required to do. Do you have a role to consult with Ofcom centrally?
[359] Mr Williams: Wel, nid ydym yn ystyried ein hunain yn wahanol i’r corff canolog. Rydym ni’n rhan o Ofcom, ac yn cydweithio gyda pha bynnag dimoedd yn Llundain sydd yn gweithio ar ba bynnag brojectau sydd yn berthnasol i Gymru. Felly, ar lefel swyddogion, rydym ni wedi bod mewn trafodaethau gyda Jacquie a’i thîm hi ynglŷn â’r ddogfen hon, ynglŷn â’r darnau sydd yn berthnasol i Gymru.	Mr Williams: Well, we don’t consider ourselves as different to the central organisation. We are part of Ofcom, and we collaborate with whichever teams in London work on whichever projects are relevant to Wales. So, on an officer level, we have been in discussion with Jacquie and her team on this document, and as regards the sections relevant to Wales beyond that.
[360] Y tu hwnt i hynny, byddwn i hefyd yn tynnu sylw at y mewnbwn o Gymru sydd yn dod drwy aelod Cymru o’r bwrdd cynnwys, sydd hefyd yn cael trafodaethau ar wahân ynglŷn â’r materion yma, ac, wrth gwrs, mae gan Ofcom yng Nghymru bwyllgor cynghori annibynnol, sydd hefyd yn darparu cyngor i Ofcom. Fel mae’n digwydd, ar yr ymgynghoriad penodol yma, mae’r pwyllgor cynghori eisoes wedi ymateb i’r ymgynghoriad, gan ei fod yn awyddus i gael yr ymateb i mewn yn gynnar, fel bod y tîm yn cael digon o amser i gymryd hynny i ystyriaeth. Felly, lle rydym ni yn y cwestiwn, mae’r ymwneud â’r broses o lunio’r polisïau yma, ac o’u gwerthuso nhw dros amser, yn un lle mae’r mewnbwn o Gymru yn digwydd ar sawl lefel, ac yn digwydd yn gyson.	I would also draw attention to the input from Wales that comes through the Wales member of the content board, who also has separate discussions on these issues, and of course, Ofcom Wales has an independent advisory committee, which is independent, which also provides advice for Ofcom. As it happens, on this specific consultation, the advisory committee has already responded to the consultation as it’s eager to get the response in early so that the team will have sufficient time to take that into consideration. So, as far as we’re concerned, the involvement in the process of drawing up these policies and evaluating them over time is one where the input from Wales takes place on a number of different levels, and that happens consistently.
[361] Bethan Jenkins: Lee, did you have a quick question?
[362] Lee Waters: Yes, sorry. Apologies; indulge me if you might. It’s on a separate issue; it’s just I thought we would have covered it, we haven’t, and I think it’s important. It relates to the area of discussion on population share spend, but also, I see from the conditions that you’ve set in terms of hours, the targets for hours are consistently—across a range of measurements—worse, less, than is currently the case. So, for example, BBC Two Wales: the 2015 output figure is 201 hours, the figure in the licence is 175 hours. Non-news programming on BBC One Wales: the current figure is 95 hours, the new figure is going to be not less than 65 hours. There’s a whole range of these, and in every single one, the ‘not less than’ figure is considerably worse than the current figure. So, going back to the conversation we had earlier about not wanting them to fall from the current standard, as well as spend, in terms of hours, we could unwittingly find ourselves in a less fortunate position than we currently are under this new licence.
[363] Ms Hughes: So, it goes to what I said before about the percentages that we arrived at for each of the nations being a floor and not a ceiling. So, where we would have bite is if they fell below these—
[364] Lee Waters: Below the floor.
[365] Ms Hughes: Below the floor.
[366] Lee Waters: Which is considerably lower than where it currently is.
[367] Ms Hughes: Well, I don’t think it is for—. I mean, you’ve picked out a certain genre, and I think, overall, the figure is not. I don’t think—.
[368] Lee Waters: Well, I can quote you a battery of figures, if you like, on BBC Two, Radio Wales, Radio Cymru, online, BBC One Wales; all of which are significantly lower than the current provision.
[369] Ms Hughes: The BBC is on record as saying it’s protected certain genres at the expense of others in Wales and in other nations and regions, of which news and current affairs is one of them. But if the BBC chooses strategically to continue at this level, that’s entirely up to it, and that’s a conversation you might want to pick up with the BBC, about your concern that a floor actually may allow them slippage below. In setting a principled percentage position in line with population, this is how those figures come out, but it doesn’t mean they have to drop to that.
[370] Lee Waters: Okay, thank you.
[371] Bethan Jenkins: Suzy. Ultra quick.
[372] Suzy Davies: Just out of curiosity, concerning the numbers of hours for news and current affairs, why is it lower for Radio Cymru than it is for BBC Radio Wales? It’s 23 for Radio Cymru and 32 for Radio Wales. It’s one of the differences really, isn’t it?
[373] Ms Hughes: Okay, off the top of my head I can’t remember. Our general principled position with those was to bake in current performance and uplift in all cases by about 10 per cent. So, the difference must reflect current performance levels.
[374] Suzy Davies: Where they’ve started from.
[375] Ms Hughes: Where they’ve started from.
[376] Suzy Davies: Okay, thank you.
[377] Bethan Jenkins: Ocê, diolch yn fawr iawn. Roedd hynny’n ddiddorol iawn. Diolch ichi am ddod mewn i roi gwybodaeth inni. Byddwn ni siŵr o fod yn ymateb i’r ymgynghoriad yn y man. Diolch yn fawr iawn ichi am ddod i mewn.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you very much, that was most interesting. And thank you for your attendance and for providing information. I’m sure that we will be responding to the consultation in due time. Thank you very much.
Papurau i’w Nodi Papers to Note
[378] Bethan Jenkins: Rydym yn symud ymlaen at eitem 5, papurau i’w nodi. Mae papur 5.1 yn llythyr ataf i gan Beverly Francis ar yr ymgyrch i achub Stryd Womanby. Papur 5.2: ymateb S4C i argymhellion yr adroddiad ‘Y Darlun Mawr—safbwyntiau cychwynnol y pwyllgor ar ddarlledu yng Nghymru’. Mae’r ddadl ar hynny ar 14 Mehefin nawr, ar ôl yr etholiad cyffredinol. Ac wedyn papur 5.3 ar ddyfodol S4C: rhagor o wybodaeth gan Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru. Ynglŷn ag eitem 5.1, roedd deiseb wedi cael ei chyflwyno ddoe ar ddiogelu cerddoriaeth fyw yng Nghymru, ac mae’r ddeiseb wedi derbyn 5,383 o lofnodion. Felly, rydw i’n credu bod y Pwyllgor Deisebau yn edrych ar hynny ar hyn o bryd. Gan ein bod ni wedi cael cryn e-byst ar y peth, jest i adael i bobl wybod bod yna bwyllgor yma yn edrych ar hynny. Ac ynglŷn ag eitem 5.2, rydw i wedi dweud bod y ddadl ar 14 Mehefin. A oes una unrhyw sylwadau ar hynny? Na.	Bethan Jenkins: We move on to item 5, papers to note. Paper 5.1 is a letter to me from Beverly Francis on the Save Womanby Street campaign. Paper 5.2 is S4C’s response to the recommendations in the report ‘The Big Picture—the committee's initial views on broadcasting in Wales’. The debate on that will be on 14 June now, after the general election. There’s also paper 5.3 on the future of S4C: further information from TAC. In terms of item 5.1, a petition was submitted yesterday on safeguarding live music in Wales, and the petition has received over 5,383 signatures. So I think the Petitions Committee is looking at that. We’ve received a number of e-mails on the issue, so I just wanted to let people know that there is a committee here looking at that issue. And on item 5.2, as I’ve said, the debate will be on 14 June. Any comments on those papers?  No.
12:26
Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o'r Cyfarfod ar gyfer Eitem 7 Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public from the Meeting for Item 7
Cynnig:	Motion:
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(vi).	that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi).
Cynigiwyd y cynnig. Motion moved.
[379] Bethan Jenkins: Felly eitem 6, a chynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i wahardd y cyhoedd o'r cyfarfod. A ydy pawb yn hapus gyda hynny? Diolch yn fawr iawn.	Bethan Jenkins: Item 6 is a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the meeting. Is everyone content with that? Thank you very much.
Derbyniwyd y cynnig. Motion agreed.
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 12:26. The public part of the meeting ended at 12:26.