Cofnod y Trafodion
The Record of Proceedings

Y Pwyllgor Diwylliant, y Gymraeg a Chyfathrebu

The Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee

18/5/2017

Agenda’r Cyfarfod
Meeting Agenda

Trawsgrifiadau’r Pwyllgor
Committee Transcripts

Cynnwys
Contents

.........

4....... Teyrnged i’r Cyn Brif Weinidog Rhodri Morgan
Tribute to the Former First Minister Rhodri Morgan

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

6....... Cyllid ar gyfer Addysg Cerddoriaeth a Mynediad at yr Addysg Honno—Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 12
Funding for and Access to Music Education—Evidence Session 12

33..... Dyfodol S4C: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 10

......... The Future of S4C: Evidence Session 10

61..... Papurau i’w Nodi
Papers to Note

61..... Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o’r Cyfarfod
Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public from the Meeting

Cofnodir y trafodion yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r cyfieithu ar y pryd. Lle 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
Dawn Bowden 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
Huw Jones	Cadeirydd, Awdurdod S4C Chairman, S4C Authority
Ian Jones	Prif Weithredwr, S4C Chief Executive, S4C
John Pugsley	Pennaeth y Gangen Cefnogi’r Cwricwlwm Head of Curriculum Support Branch
Steven Price	Swyddog Cefnogi’r Cwricwlwm Curriculum Support Officer
Kirsty Williams	Aelod Cynulliad, Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Addysg Assembly Member, Liberal Democrats, Cabinet Secretary for Education
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
Lowri Harries	Dirprwy Glerc Deputy Clerk
Sian Hughes	Y Gwasanaeth Ymchwil Research Service
Adam Vaughan	Ail Glerc Second Clerk
Robin Wilkinson	Y Gwasanaeth Ymchwil Research Service

Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:00. The meeting began at 09:00.
Teyrnged i’r Cyn Brif Weinidog Rhodri Morgan Tribute to the Former First Minister Rhodri Morgan
[1] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch, gyfeillion. Rwy’n falch iawn i groesawu Kirsty Williams i’n cyfarfod yma y bore yma i roi tystiolaeth ar ein hymchwiliad i addysg cerddoriaeth. Fodd bynnag, cyn inni symud ymlaen at ein busnes heddiw, bydd yr Aelodau yn ymwybodol o’r newyddion trist iawn a ddaeth dros nos am farwolaeth Rhodri Morgan, y cyn Brif Weinidog, a oedd yn hen ffrind ac yn gydweithiwr i lawer ohonom yma heddiw. Rwy’n gwybod y byddwn ni i gyd am nodi ein cydymdeimlad diffuant â Julie a’r teulu, ac rwy’n sicr y bydd sawl teyrnged yn cael ei thalu i Rhodri dros y dyddiau a’r wythnosau i ddod. Ond, am y tro, hoffwn ofyn i bob aelod o’r pwyllgor sefyll am funud o dawelwch fel arwydd o barch i Rhodri Morgan. Diolch yn fawr iawn.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you, colleagues. I’m very pleased to welcome Kirsty Williams to our meeting this morning, who will give evidence on our inquiry into music education. However, before we move to our business today, Members will be aware of the very sad news overnight about the death of Rhodri Morgan, the former First Minister, who was a long-standing friend and colleague to many of us here. I’m sure that we will all want to pass on our sincerest condolences to Julie and the family, and I am in no doubt that many tributes will be paid to Rhodri over the coming days and weeks. But, for now, I’d like to ask all Members to observe a minute’s silence as a mark of respect to Rhodri Morgan. Thank you.
Safodd y rhai a oedd yn bresennol am funud o dawelwch. Those present stood for a minute’s silence.
[2] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch.
09:02
Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan Buddiannau Introductions, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of Interest
[3] Bethan Jenkins: Rydym ni’n symud ymlaen yn awr at y cyfarfod ffurfiol ac eitem 1—cyflwyniad, ymddiheuriadau a dirprwyon. 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 ni’n gweithredu yn ddwyieithog fel Cynulliad, ac mae clustffonau sain ar gael i bobl gael y cyfieithiad hwnnw. Peidiwch â chyffwrdd â’r botymau ar y meicroffonau gan y gall hwn amharu ar y system, a gofalwch bod y golau coch ymlaen cyn dechrau siarad. A oes unrhyw fuddiannau i’w datgan gan Aelodau Cynulliad? Na. Nid oes ymddiheuriadau, felly rydym ni’n gallu symud ymlaen yn iawn gyda hynny.	Bethan Jenkins: We move now to our formal proceedings and item 1—introductions, apologies and substitutions. In the event of a fire alarm, please leave the room and follow the instructions of the ushers. We’re not expecting a fire drill today. Everyone should switch their mobiles to silent. We operate bilingually as an Assembly, and the headphones are available for interpretation. Please don’t touch the microphones as this can interfere with the system, and ensure that the red light is on before you start to speak. Any declarations of interest from Assembly Members? No. There are no apologies, and we can move on immediately to our next item.
09:03
Cyllid ar gyfer Addysg Cerddoriaeth a Mynediad at yr Addysg Honno—Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 12 Funding for and Access to Music Education—Evidence Session 12
[4] Bethan Jenkins: Felly, symud ymlaen at eitem 2 a chyllid ar gyfer addysg cerddoriaeth a mynediad at yr addysg honno—sesiwn dystiolaeth 12. Croeso i Kirsty Williams, sef Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Addysg, John Pugsley, sef pennaeth y gangen cefnogi’r cwricwlwm, a Steven Price, swyddog cefnogi’r cwricwlwm. Croeso yma heddiw. Jest i ddechrau, a oes datganiad byr i gychwyn ynglŷn â sefyllfa addysg cerddoriaeth y tu allan i’r cwricwlwm a’r hyn yr ydym yn ei weithredu o fewn ysgolion gennych chi, fel Gweinidog, yn y maes yma?	Bethan Jenkins: That brings us to item 2, funding for and access to music education. This is evidence session No. 12. I’d like to welcome Kirsty Williams, the Cabinet Secretary for Education, John Pugsley, head of curriculum support branch, and Steven Price, curriculum support officer. A very warm welcome to you all. If I could just start, do you want to make a brief opening statement on the situation of music education outside of the curriculum and how we operate in schools, from you as Minister responsible in this area?
[5] The Cabinet Secretary for Education (Kirsty Williams): Well, thank you, Bethan. May I just say that this is a very sad day for all of us? He was a giant of Welsh politics. For those of us who were here in 1999, we all know what a debt we owe to Rhodri Morgan, who steadied a very unstable ship when he took over as First Minister, but I know he’d want to talk about this subject today. He had a huge passion and enthusiasm for all aspects of the cultural life of Wales, and I personally was very grateful for his personal commitment and support for the Brecon Jazz Festival, of which he was a huge fan.
[6] I think what’s important to note is that these are challenging times for music services in education, but I don’t believe that the word that I know has been used in some evidence sessions, ‘crisis’, is an accurate description of where we are, but there is more to do. What’s important for me, as Cabinet Secretary for Education, is that schools are able to access services that can enhance the delivery of the curriculum, including music, and it’s only right that schools are able to commission and buy in services that they believe are the right services for supporting their learners to grow academically, personally, and creatively. So, my passion is for services and arts organisations to work collaboratively, to co-operate effectively, with teachers and education professionals to tailor their services to best meet the needs of our children in Wales. I hope, over the first 12 months that I have been in office, we’ve been able to add some new momentum to the work of the task and finish group by making progress on the recommendations of that report.
[7] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch yn fawr iawn am yr ateb cychwynnol hwnnw. Efallai nad oedd pawb oedd wedi dod i mewn wedi dweud mai creisis oedd e, ond roedd lot o bobl yn dweud bod y sefyllfa yn weddol ddifrifol. Gwnaeth rhai tystion ddweud os na fydd yna newid efallai na fydd yna rai systemau lleol o gerddoriaeth yn bodoli yn y dyfodol, neu na fydd cerddorfeydd cenedlaethol yn cael digon o bobl i ymwneud â’r cerddorfeydd hynny i greu’r cerddorfeydd hynny. Felly, sut ydych chi’n credu y gall awdurdodau lleol weithio yn well er mwyn blaenoriaethu cerddoriaeth mewn addysg? A ydych chi’n credu bod angen, efallai, rhoi mwy o arian i’r sefyllfa bresennol, neu a oes yna gynlluniau yr ydych chi’n edrych arnyn nhw fel Llywodraeth i geisio mynd i afael â’r ffaith bod nifer o awdurdodau lleol yn dda ond bod nifer o rai eraill yn wan wan iawn neu ddim â system o gwbl?	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you for that initial response. Not everyone who came in described it as a crisis, but many people did say that the situation was quite serious. Some witnesses said that if there isn’t change then some local music provision may not exist in the future, or the national orchestras will not get enough flow through to actually create those orchestras. So, how do you believe local authorities can work more effectively in order to prioritise music in education? Do you believe that there is a need, perhaps, to provide more funding for the current set-up, or are there plans that you’re considering as a Government to try and tackle the fact that many local authorities are performing well, but others are very weak indeed or have no provision or system in place at all?
[8] Kirsty Williams: I think what’s important from my perspective is, having had a great deal of work done, primarily by the task and finish group, that we make progress on the recommendations of that group. My priority has been to look to see what opportunities I can, as the Cabinet Secretary, take to progress some of those findings. As for how individual local authorities wish to constitute or organise themselves, that really is a matter for them, and I wouldn’t want to be in a position to dictate to them. I note that there are challenges in being able to move to different models, whether those be financial challenges or, actually, a political will to move to a different model, which has been alluded to by other witnesses that you have heard from.
[9] What’s been important to me, as I said, has been to identify the positive steps Welsh Government can take, so with regard to some of the findings of the task and finish group and being able to ensure that we have that progression of children who take part in musical activities in school, develop a passion, a talent for it, and how that can be developed further. You’ll be aware that we have, firstly, made £220,000 available for the purchase of instruments. That’s £10,000 for each local authority. That was a recommendation within the task and finish group. We’ve also made £280,000 available for the national ensembles. So, that is recompensing the local authorities for their spend in the last financial year, on the condition that they will continue to support this financial year.
[10] But, as for the individual structures, that really is a matter for the local authorities to decide how best they can deliver them. I am concerned that there is equity and excellence in our provision, and we will continue to work with the chair of the task and finish group and local authorities, the Welsh Local Government Association, regional consortia, and, indeed, Estyn, to try and give us some assurance about equity and excellence.
[11] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch am yr ateb hwnnw. Jest yn olaf gen i, mae cwestiwn ynglŷn â’r grŵp gorchwyl a gorffen. Gwnaethom ni glywed tystiolaeth gan Emma Archer o Gymdeithas Addysg Gerdd Awdurdodau Cymru, CAGAC, fod yna ddiffyg gweithredu ar nifer o’r pwyntiau o’r grŵp gorchwyl hwnnw ers iddo gael ei weithredu ac, o ran un o’r tasgau allweddol—2—mae’r diweddariad yn dweud eu bod nhw wedi llwyddo sicrhau cysondeb rhwng awdurdodau lleol o ran ffioedd dysgu. Nawr, nid dyna beth yr ydym ni wedi ei glywed gan dystion yma heddiw. Rydym ni wedi clywed bod yna lot fawr o wahaniaeth rhwng awdurdodau lleol. Rydym ni hefyd wedi clywed nad oes yna lot wedi digwydd gyda rhai o’r argymhellion gan y grŵp gorchwyl hwnnw. Beth fyddech chi’n ei ddweud i hynny? A ydych chi’n hyderus y bydd popeth o fewn yr argymhellion yma nawr yn cael eu delifro i’r dyfodol?	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you for that response. Finally from me is a question on the task and finish group. We heard from Emma Archer from the Welsh Authorities Music Education Association, CAGAC, evidence that there was a lack of action on a number of points made by the task and finish group since it reported, and that, on one of the key tasks—2—the update states that they have succeeded in ensuring consistency between local authorities in terms of fees, but that’s not the evidence that we’ve heard from witnesses. We’ve heard that there’s a great deal of inconsistency between local authorities, and we’ve also heard that not much has happened in terms of some of those recommendations made by that task and finish group. How would you respond to that? Are you confident that all the recommendations will be delivered for the future?
[12] Kirsty Williams: I think it’s important to be clear that the majority of the recommendations made in the task and finish report were for local authorities to take forward themselves. My job is to ensure that Welsh Government takes forward the ones that we have some auspice and some impact upon and therefore you will be aware of, as I said, the issue around musical instruments that was raised in the task and finish report. I appreciate that budgets are tight in the local authority. That’s why, when I was able to identify some funding within my own portfolio, we tried to help the local authorities to invest in musical instruments. One of the other findings of the task and finish report was the establishment of a database. So, in fact we’ve used a bit of a carrot-and-stick approach here, where we’ve given local authorities money for the instruments on the condition that they will go on to develop that database so those instruments can be widely shared across boundaries and borders. So, that will make progress on that recommendation.
[13] There was the recommendation with regard to the establishment of a musical endowment and I’m sure Members will want to talk about that later as we progress in the meeting. Welsh Government has taken early steps to do that. Technically, it’s not within my portfolio, but Government needs to work together across departments to make progress on these issues. I was in the fortunate position to be able to start that off. My colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates, will pick that up, but we didn’t want to wait for him to be in a position to start that work when I could start that work earlier. We’re also setting up the musical instrument amnesty—again, a recommendation from the task and finish report—that no progress had been made on. We will have an initial event here at the National Assembly for Wales in conjunction with the Commission and Welsh Government and the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama. We hope to establish that. I hope I can demonstrate that, where Welsh Government has had an opportunity to make progress and have an impact on some of those recommendations, I’ve been able to do that.
[14] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch yn fawr iawn. Rydym ni’n symud ymlaen yn benodol nawr at gyllido’r gwasanaeth, ac mae Dai Lloyd yn arwain ar hyn.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you very much. We move on specifically now to funding for the service and Dai Lloyd is leading on this.
[15] Dai Lloyd: Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. Bore da, Ysgrifennydd. Jest i fynd i rai manylion ar bethau rydych chi wedi eu cyffwrdd eisoes, yn naturiol rydym ni wedi cael tystiolaeth o bob man o’n hawdurdodau lleol ar faint o arian maen nhw’n ei wario ar eu gwasanaethau cerddoriaeth, ac yn naturiol mae’r ffigyrau yn amrywio o sir i sir. Oes gyda chi farn am yr amrywiaeth yna yn y cyllid sydd ar gael i wasanaethau cerddoriaeth yn ein siroedd ni a’r effaith ar ddisgyblion?	Dai Lloyd: Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning, Secretary. Just to have more detail on some of the issues you’ve touched on already, naturally we’ve had evidence from everywhere from our local authorities on how much they spend on their music services, and naturally the figures do vary from county to county. Do you have a view about that variability in funding that’s available for music services in our counties and the impact on pupils?
[16] Kirsty Williams: Well, Dai, as with most issues, we try to avoid hypothecated funding in most cases, believing in the principle of subsidiarity and the principle that local government and locally elected politicians are best placed to make financial decisions about services in their area. It is challenging and, as you said, it is a mixed picture, and, because many counties have devolved funding down to schools, it’s very difficult to be able to get a grasp on exactly all the funding that is available. What’s important to me is to look at the evidence of impact of spend, because we spend a lot of time looking at inputs, but actually we need to look at the output of that spend and the activity that is going on. What’s important to me is that music is a crucial part of all aspects of our current curriculum. We can talk about future curricula, but, in foundation phase, key stage 2 and 3, I want people to have the opportunity—and key stage 4—to study, and I’m confident that we’re being able to provide that. But there are challenges in ensuring that all young people, regardless of their background and personal circumstances, are able to benefit. One of the things we haven’t talked about to date is the joint work between Welsh Government and the Arts Council of Wales, which is a £20 million programme delivered between 2015 and 2020 to enhance the opportunities not just to see music as a standalone—and art as a standalone—subject but actually incorporate that into learning approaches right the way across the curriculum. I think that’s an important aspect of how we’re supporting these endeavours in schools, also.
[17] Dai Lloyd: Diolch yn fawr am hynny. Jest i symud ymlaen i gwpwl o gwestiynau ynglŷn â’ch cyhoeddiad diweddar o’r £10,000 yna ar gyfer pob awdurdod lleol—rwy’n clywed beth rydych chi’n ei ddweud ynglŷn â pam y gwnaethoch chi, ond a allaf holi ymhellach sut y bydd yr arian yma’n cael ei ddefnyddio mewn awdurdodau lleol lle nad oes darpariaeth gwasanaethau cerddoriaeth ar hyn o bryd, fel Powys, er enghraifft?	Dai Lloyd: Thank you very much for that. Just moving on to a few questions on your recent announcement of £10,000 for each local authority—I’m hearing what you’re saying about why you did this, but can I ask you further how this money will be used in local authorities where there is no music service provision at the moment, such as Powys, for example?
[18] Kirsty Williams: My understanding is that the grant that has been given to Powys County Council will be split between the two youth orchestras that Powys have. Obviously, given the size of the county, it’s impossible just to have one, so the money will be split between the youth orchestra in the north of the county, and South Powys Youth Music. I have personal knowledge of South Powys Youth Music, having had three children participate in the activities of that organisation, led so ably by Mr Gedge and Mr Cronin. That organisation, run by a dedicated team of volunteers, provides opportunities for well over 100 children in a whole variety of forms, from the choir, through to our very youngest children who start off in the percussion group, through to the south Powys orchestra, and that’s how Powys will use their money.

09:15
[19] Dai Lloyd: Yn bellach i hynny, a allaf i eich holi chi a wnaethoch chi roi unrhyw gyfarwyddyd neu amodau mewn perthynas â’r £10,000 yna, er enghraifft gorfodi rhyw fath o dargedu tuag at y disgyblion mwyaf difreintiedig?	Dai Lloyd: Further on from that, were there any conditions or guidance in relation to the £10,000, for example targeting those most disadvantaged pupils?
[20] Kirsty Williams: The £10,000 per local authority is specifically for the purchase of instruments, because, as you will be aware, the task and finish group stated that this was a real challenge for local authorities: ensuring that there was a ready supply of good-quality musical instruments. The only strings attached, if you don’t mind the pun, are that the local authorities and the Welsh Local Government Association make progress on the issue of the database, because what’s also clear is that we don’t want this money being spent on having musical instruments sitting in one local authority where there is not a demand for and not a use for, when, in the neighbouring authority, just maybe a couple of miles away, there is a young person who could benefit hugely from access to that instrument. So, as I said, the only condition is that the WLGA—and they’ve given us that commitment—will make progress on the issue of the database. But, John, I don’t know if there’s anything else you want to add.
[21] Mr Pugsley: With the funding, obviously, that’s gone to the WLGA—as the Minister rightly pointed out, the £10,000 for each local authority—naturally, as the Welsh Government, we’ll be monitoring that spend, and we’ll be having regular monitoring discussions with the WLGA over the coming months.
[22] Bethan Jenkins: Can I just ask, specifically—Dai, if you don’t mind—does that include money for upkeep or improvements of the instruments? Because some of the peripatetic teachers I speak to say that the £10,000 will only go and buy one instrument—we had evidence to say it would buy one harp—but they actually want money for improving some of the instruments that they have in stock already.
[23] Kirsty Williams: What we’ve done, Bethan, is take on the recommendation that was in the task and finish report. The task and finish report stated explicitly the need for more musical instruments. I appreciate that some musical instruments are very expensive, but let me be absolutely clear here. We have been able, via investment in the endowment fund, via the investment in the instruments, via the investment for the ensembles—we’ve been able to lever in £1.5 million extra into music this year that was not planned to be spent. I was concerned, on coming into office, that progress hadn’t been made on the findings of the task and finish report. I had asked and challenged officials to find additional resources to make some progress. I appreciate that people want more, but in the current financial circumstances we are in, I don’t think we’ve done a bad job in being able to lever in, as I said, the additional £1.5 million that we had not anticipated we would be able to find. We have found it, because this is an important issue, and we will continue to work with the chair of the task and finish group, and with the WLGA, to see what more we can do to support music.
[24] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch. Sori, Dai.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you. Sorry, Dai.
[25] Dai Lloyd: Diolch, Gadeirydd. Wel, dim ond, yn olaf, i fynd ar ôl hyn ychydig bach yn ehangach. Rydw i’n cymryd, felly, i’r penderfyniad i ddosrannu’r £10,000 yma gogyfer offerynnau gael ei wneud yn unol â dymuniad y task and finish group. Felly, a oedd yna unrhyw ymgynghoriad pellach gydag unrhyw rhanddeiliaid i ddod i’r casgliad efallai y gellid defnyddio’r £10,000 yna mewn ffordd wahanol? Yntau a oeddech chi’n aros yn gaeth i argymhellion y grŵp yna?	Dai Lloyd: Thank you, Chair. Well, just finally, I just want to go after this a little bit more. I take it, therefore, that the decision to distribute this £10,000 for instruments was made according to the wishes of the task and finish group. So, was there any further consultation with any stakeholders to come to the conclusion that that £10,000 could be used in a different way? Or were you sticking to the recommendations of that group?
[26] Kirsty William: The decision was taken in conjunction with discussions with the chair of the task and finish group and the WLGA.
[27] Dai Lloyd: Okay.
[28] Bethan Jenkins: Lee Waters.
[29] Lee Waters: Can I just ask about practicalities of the database, because the evidence we received from the WLGA was that it wouldn’t be practical to do that within the resources available, so I’m curious as to how you think this is going to work, given the evidence they submitted to us?
[30] Kirsty Williams: John.
[31] Mr Pugsley: We’ve had discussions with the WLGA, when we discussed with them the £220,000 for the purchase of the instruments, and they accept that that was part of the condition: that they would look at how we can get a database in place so that we can actually then use the instruments to be shared across—as the Minister said—all local authorities. It is really for the WLGA now to come back to us with their proposals on how they actually believe this database will be moved forward.
[32] Lee Waters: Okay. Well, that’s not particularly illuminating. Does the condition with it only apply to the instruments bought with the new funding or with old instruments?
[33] Kirsty Williams: The intention is to develop the database to include all instruments. Obviously, the new instruments are a useful addition, but it would not be useful if we didn’t capture all of the data. The challenge for the WLGA is to develop solutions. They can’t just keep coming to the committee and wringing their hands and saying, ‘It’s all too difficult.’ They’ve said that they have an issue with purchasing instruments. We’ve been able to find additional resources to help them to do that. They now need to develop a solution to the issue around the database, and that’s my expectation of them. They’re aware of that. They say that they will be able to do so.
[34] Lee Waters: Equally, with respect, Minister, it’s not good enough of the Welsh Government either simply to pass on very difficult pledges to implement, given the resource picture that you painted earlier, and simply wash your hands of it, when they’ve said to us, in practical terms, ‘Putting together a database: that’s complex, and maintaining it across Wales’, given the resource they have, and the given the resource you’re giving them of only £10,000 a year for a new instrument, which buys a harp per county, as we were told in evidence. I appreciate that’s the condition you’ve set, and it’s now for them to come up with a solution, but if they said to us, ‘That’s going to be very tricky to do given the circumstances’, it’s not good enough to simply say, ‘Well, that’s tough luck, that’s your problem’, is it?
[35] Kirsty Williams: Can I just take you back to the findings of the task and finish group report? The issue of the database was identified as an important one, and the task and finish report said that local government should make progress on this. It wasn’t a job that was laid at the door of the Welsh Government; it was a recommendation the task and finish report made for the local authorities. We are trying to assist them in what ways we can, given the resources that we have as the Welsh Government and the competing demands on those resources. Now, as I said, I appreciate that some musical instruments are expensive, and if the £10,000 was all that we were doing, then I could understand people’s frustration, but you have to look at this in the package of measures that we are trying to take as a Welsh Government in the short term, the medium term and the long term to address this situation.
[36] Lee Waters: And I appreciate that, I’m just going back to your earlier evidence that you thought that this was now for local government to sort out—it wasn’t for you to dictate to local government. Given that the chair of the task and finish group has said to us he does not think, given that nothing has happened in his evidence—nothing has happened since his report to the local level, the local authorities were failing to take this forward—. He’s of the view that there’s another role for national Government, for the Welsh Government, to step in and be more directive. So, I appreciate you’re saying you’re trying to implement those recommendations, but the chair of that panel has said he doesn’t think the structure as it stands is able to deliver the spirit of those recommendations. Your evidence to us is—well, your content for that structure to continue unhindered.
[37] Kirsty Williams: No, I said it is a matter for local authorities to decide on, and describe the structures they want to work in. We continue to work closely with the chair of the task and finish report. I am due to meet with him shortly to have discussions about what more Welsh Government can do to move the recommendations on. I share his frustration that there was little movement. That’s why I’ve taken the action I have to address some of the recommendations, which certainly fell at the feet of Welsh Government, to make progress on those, and we will continue to work with him to see what more I can do to move the agenda on.
[38] Lee Waters: So, you’re open, finally, to take a more directive role, then?
[39] Kirsty Williams: Well, as I said, I don’t want to dictate to local authorities, but I am continuing, as officials are, to work with the chair of the task and finish group to take advice and guidance about what more we can do to move forward and make progress. As I was once famously told in the Chamber, ‘The job of a progressive politician is to make progress’, and I believe that we are beginning to make some progress.
[40] Bethan Jenkins: Thanks. We move on now to the second tranche of questions on finance, and Jeremy Miles leads on this.
[41] Jeremy Miles: Thank you. We’ve covered some of the ground I was planning to explore with you in that last few exchanges, but just to take that one step further, just to understand the scale of the ambition, if you like. There are all sorts of challenges in this area, and many of them are organisational. They strike me as being more easily solvable than some of the capital issues, which is what we’re talking about at the moment. There is going to be, given what we’ve just heard about the cost of a harp—and I played a brass instrument, and I think they were about £1,000 each when I was playing them—so there is, as you’ve acknowledged, a cost issue there. What is the perception that the Government has of how much it will cost to maintain a stock of instruments, if you like, over a set period of time into the future? Is there an analysis under way of the level of demand for instruments over the next 10 years, five years, or whatever window? And if not, do you think that would be a sensible contribution, which could be made to this analysis? Because it seems to me that the database is a good step forward, but unless that is part of a Wales-wide picture about the level of demand and the level of resource required, then it’s only part of the solution.
[42] Kirsty Williams: Yes, I think there are real challenges in being able to anticipate demand, but what we do know is that the current funding regimes that we have probably will not be sufficient. So, if we rely on traditional methods to solve these problems, we’re going to struggle, given the financial situation the Welsh Government finds itself in, and is likely to find itself in, going forward, which, for instance, is one of the reasons why we have invested in the endowment so that we look at new ways of being able to lever in financial resource into the system. Because if we continue to rely on old ways, we will fall short. So, the investment in the endowment, which is a medium to longer term plan to find resources to put into potentially purchasing instruments and supporting individuals, is a part of the wider conversation and action that we’re taking.
[43] Jeremy Miles: So, it is envisaged that the purchase of instruments may be one use to which the endowment is put.
[44] Kirsty Williams: It could well be. Again, it’s not for me to dictate. We’re in the early stages of the endowment. The board has been created. They are looking at structures, roles, remits. They are due to go out to advert, I understand, shortly for a fundraiser, because that’s absolutely crucial in growing the fund, otherwise we won’t be able to do any of this. But I would anticipate that, potentially, the purchase of musical instruments might well be something that the endowment will want to support in the years going forward.
[45] Jeremy Miles: And from your perspective, that will be an executive decision for the endowment to take itself.
[46] Kirsty Williams: Oh, gosh, yes—the endowment will be run by a charity, in a sense, and it will be completely divorced from the Government. The role of the Government is to provide the seed funding and the initial investment in the fund to get it up and running because, again, it was a task and finish report—it was languishing in the papers of that report, nothing was happening, so we’ve taken the opportunity to move that forward.
[47] Jeremy Miles: But will you be giving directions to the arts council about the sorts of projects that you would expect to be funded, but in a manner of a remit letter of some sort? What’s the expectation around that?
[48] Kirsty Williams: Actually, that doesn’t fall into my portfolio. We’ve kicked it off with education money because I wanted to make some progress, but, technically, that is a matter for Ken Skates.
[49] Jeremy Miles: Okay. All right. Thanks, Minister.
[50] Bethan Jenkins: Ocê. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Rydym yn symud ymlaen at y cwricwlwm nawr, ac mae gan Neil Hamilton gwestiynau ar hyn.	Bethan Jenkins: Okay. Thank you very much. We’ll move on to the curriculum now. Neil Hamilton has some questions on this area.
[51] Neil Hamilton: Diolch. In respect of pioneer schools developing the curriculum, do you see any role for local authority music services in connection with that, and if there is one, are they actually taking a part in the curriculum development at the minute?
[52] Kirsty Williams: Okay. With regard to the new curriculum, I think the new curriculum gives us an opportunity to celebrate and to better integrate creative activity of all kinds into the curriculum because it will be on an equal basis to all the other areas of learning and experience. At the moment, the pioneer schools are at the stage of development where they’re looking at what will be the basis of the curriculum—what we would expect to be delivered in that area. They’re working collaboratively from school to school, but they’re also taking advice from outside organisations as to what the content of that AoLE would be.
[53] In terms of local authority music services, they will have an opportunity to feed into that process, but in the end, the delivery of the new curriculum post 2020 or 2021 will, again, be a matter for individual schools as to how they best see delivering the AoLE within their own individual institution.
[54] Neil Hamilton: So, it’s an opportunity for local authority music services, but they’re not necessarily expected to take part. It’s up to them whether they do or not.
[55] Kirsty Williams: The curriculum will be school based, so it will actually be for the schools to decide whether they want to involve the local music service. But, obviously, as we develop the content of the AoLE, we want to hear from experts and enthusiasts in a wide variety of areas to help feed in so that, when we develop the curriculum, we know what kind of resources schools will be able to rely upon or be able to engage with.
09:30
[56] Neil Hamilton: Because, of course, local authority music services vary quite a lot around Wales—in some places there aren’t any. So, I was wondering to what extent this might disadvantage some areas compared with others. It seems from the evidence that you’ve just given that it’s not really going to make that much difference to the—
[57] Kirsty Williams: Not to the content of the curriculum. It’ll be up to the individual schools then as to how they apply the curriculum within their own institutions, as I said. So, it should not impede the development of the curriculum in any way.
[58] Neil Hamilton: Thanks.
[59] Bethan Jenkins: Just in conjunction with that, what effort are you putting in to trying to get more people to take music as a course in and of itself for GCSE and A-level? Because, what we’re seeing is the numbers decreasing. And is that linked, do you think, into potentially the weakening of the music service on the peripatetic side? Because I’ve heard evidence anecdotally from when I’ve visited different orchestras that if you don’t have a strong music service, then the interest in taking up the curriculum wanes in many areas, so I wondered whether you’d made an analysis of that.
[60] Kirsty Williams: To be clear, 98 per cent of Welsh secondary schools will offer music GCSE. So, the vast, vast, vast majority of our schools give children the opportunity to sit a GCSE in music, and the children who do perform excellently. So, there is an 80 per cent pass rate of A* to C for those students who sit music. It’s one of our highest performing GCSEs, so those students who take it do very well, and that is a testament to the hard work of our music teachers and professionals working in our education system for children to be achieving those kinds of grades.
[61] There has absolutely been discussion about what some headteachers and some teachers would describe as a shrinking of the curriculum. I have no evidence to suggest that any drop in people taking music would be as a result of changes to music services. What we do hear is that it is as a result of unintended consequences of high-stakes accountability measures within the education system. So, for instance, the move towards, by the previous administration, a capped point score as to how you would judge the success of your school has actually put pressure on the curriculum and sometimes subjects like music and drama, and sometimes modern foreign languages, are squeezed out because of the unintended consequences.
[62] So, what I have said since taking office is that capped point score is something that we will look at when looking at the performance of the school, but it is not the only measure. We will look at a suite of measures in how we monitor the performance of our high schools in particular, to try and take some of that pressure off. So, I’ve not heard or been told about the fact that music is being squeezed out because of a lack of music services, but undoubtedly we have had evidence from headteachers that the way in which we measure performance has had some unintended consequences for the curriculum. We’ve taken measures to address that and we are in the process at the moment of radically changing our accountability measures, and we will be mindful of the effect that it has on subjects. The whole purpose of our new curriculum is to encourage children to have the broadest based educational experiences, and that will include creativity, whether that be through music, drama, dance—a whole variety.
[63] Bethan Jenkins: Lee.
[64] Lee Waters: Could I just ask you about the creative learning through the arts plan that’s been funded jointly with the arts council? What sort of evaluation are you doing there to check how it’s going? I hear mixed things from teachers about the way it’s working in practice. Is that being assessed as you go?
[65] Kirsty Williams: Yes. We receive annual feedback from the arts council about the impact that programme is having in terms of the number of schools that are participating in it, and the nature of the experiences that children are having. Off the top of my head—how many schools, Steve?
[66] Mr Price: We have a third of schools in Wales—
[67] Kirsty Williams: A third of schools.
[68] Mr Price: —that are participating in the lead creative schools element of the creative learning through the arts plan.
[69] Kirsty Williams: And, as I said, I meet with the arts council, as do officials, and we have an annual—I don’t know if ‘evaluation’ is the right way to describe it, but an impact on how that programme is going.
[70] Mr Pugsley: That’s correct, Minister. We’re also undertaking an evaluation with the arts council of the delivery of the lead creative schools scheme, so we actually are doing a full evaluation.
[71] Lee Waters: Good. As in, that’s a critical look, is it?
[72] Mr Pugsley: Yes.
[73] Lee Waters: Okay. Thank you.
[74] Kirsty Williams: As we said, about a third of Welsh schools are participating in it. It has a number of different strands, and we can, if you want, give you some specific examples of some of the things that schools get to do. One of the really interesting parts of it is the Go and See programme, which actually allows schools to take children to a live performance, which I think, for some children, especially children from our more deprived backgrounds, the opportunity to go to a venue and see a live performance is something that can really spark the imagination. They may not be able to get that from their family, because there may not be the ability for the family to afford those experiences. So the Go and See part of the programme, I think, is particularly exciting if we want to engage people and give them that experience, especially for our children from our poorer backgrounds.
[75] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch yn fawr iawn. Mae gan Dawn Bowden gwestiynau hefyd, nawr. Diolch.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you very much. Dawn Bowden now has some questions.
[76] Dawn Bowden: Thank you, Chair. Can I just take you back, Cabinet Secretary, to something you were talking about in response to the question that Neil Hamilton asked around the curriculum? Previous evidence that we’ve had, which I think you’ve identified, was that headteachers are having to prioritise because of the budgetary constraints, and, as a result of that, some of the non-statutory functions have kind of been squeezed, as you’ve talked about. You mentioned in answer to Bethan’s question earlier on about the involvement of Estyn in that to inspect what is actually happening in schools, because, again, some of the evidence that we’ve received says that unless it is inspected at that level, the chances of schools voluntarily picking up and running with music as a core subject in the way that we would want to see it is probably going to be difficult. Can you just expand a little bit more on the role of Estyn as you see it?
[77] Kirsty Williams: I think it’s important to distinguish that Estyn, potentially, has a number of issues to look at. First of all, they’re independent, so I’m not really supposed to interfere in what Estyn looks at in that sense, on a school-to-school basis, and their inspection framework is being refined to reflect on what they believe are the important factors that they need to look at in an individual school. However, there is the opportunity, via a remit letter to Estyn, to look at thematic reviews. And I would be very interested to hear the views of this committee on whether they think that that would be something that, usefully, could be included in a remit letter. I would be very interested to hear this committee’s conclusion on that, having had all the evidence that you’ve had.
[78] Dawn Bowden: That might be well worth us having a look at and I suppose we can come back to that. Just a couple of questions now, because, again, this has been touched on, but we’ve taken quite a lot of evidence previously on the impact that budgetary constraints have had on children who come from areas of deprivation. You’ve already touched on that. We heard evidence from Tim Rhys-Evans from Only Men Aloud, or Only Boys Aloud—the Aloud Charity, anyway—talking about the danger of music becoming an elitist subject. Can you say a little bit more about the pupil deprivation grant, for instance, or the pupil development grant, as we’re now going to be calling it—it’s still got the same initials—how that could potentially be used to help? As I say, a lot of the evidence that we’ve had is that some of these kids are not coming forward, because they know that the impact on parents having to make contributions is just a non-starter, and so on. So, your views on that, really.
[79] Kirsty Williams: I think this is a really important point for me, personally. I said at the beginning of the evidence session that I want to develop an education system based on the principles of equity and excellence. Therefore, I see my role and the role of the state as trying to mitigate, wherever possible, those disadvantages that some children, through no fault of their own, are suffering.
[80] So, PDG—pupil development grant—and I think the name change is significant and demonstrates an appropriate usage, because we want to develop those students: we don’t want to focus on what is difficult in their lives, i.e. deprivation; we want to focus on what we can do for those children and that is develop them. I regard music and cultural activities as an important part of an individual’s development. The Welsh Government will spend over £90 million this year on PDG. In the guidance that goes out to local authorities about how they can spend their PDG, we’re quite clear with them that subsidising music provision is a very acceptable use of that funding. Indeed, one of the case studies that go out alongside the guidance is of a student who has been helped to access music tuition by using the PDG. So, we’re very explicit that this is an appropriate use of those funds by individual schools.
[81] I am aware of some very creative usage of the funds. So, Cefn Hengoed school in Swansea, one of our outstanding schools, working in a very challenged and tough community—I hope they don’t mind me saying that, but it is a community that has a number of disadvantages—they use their PDG to purchase membership of the local orchestra. So, if they have a child who would benefit from, could contribute to and grow from membership of the local youth orchestra, then they use some of that PDG to purchase membership and, in some cases, purchase a bus pass so that child can actually access that provision, because being a member is fine, but, actually, if you can’t get there—. So, that is a very creative use of that money, because an individual child’s talent and enthusiasm have been recognised, and the school has responded to that.
[82] Dawn Bowden: Are you satisfied—? Sorry.
[83] Kirsty Williams: Incidentally, they also do it for drama, so it’s not just music. They look at the individual needs of individual children to make the most of their potential.
[84] Dawn Bowden: Sure, and that’s a really good example. I’m just wondering, Kirsty, whether you’re satisfied that, generally, headteachers do appreciate the value of music education, not just in terms of learning to play a musical instrument, but the wider development and well-being of pupils.
[85] Kirsty Williams: In terms of well-being, yes, but, actually, there is a growing body of evidence that participation in music can have a profound effect on literacy and numeracy, because the principles around music and numeracy are very, very simple. There’s a whole study that was done recently in England about drumming, and the impact that participation in drumming can have on other aspects of a child’s achievement.
[86] And I see some excellent practice. Recently, I went to Woodlands primary school in Cwmbran—again, a school in an area of quite high levels of deprivation—and the teachers see music as an absolutely intrinsic part of that curriculum for those children. They buy in a range of services. When I was there, we had guitar playing. They have musical professionals who come in and do singing and drumming. I can’t tell you that all schools are doing it, but there is certainly good practice out there, and an understanding from teachers that, actually, this can have an impact on other aspects of learning. That’s part of the creative learning school. The arts programme is actually how you can use creative endeavour to better engage some students in their learning and use a different approach to tackle numeracy and literacy. So, there was a drumming project, wasn’t there, in Rhymney—was it Rhymney?
[87] Mr Price: Rhymney are doing a brass—
[88] Kirsty Williams: Brass. Right up Jeremy’s street. [Laughter.] So, there are lots of examples of how using that fund actually engages learners who potentially might be disengaged from their learning. So, we’ve got evidence of—not quite music and musical instruments, but rap and a rap artist going to a school, and that addresses boys’ literacy, and getting boys to write. So, using music as a way into re-engaging, sometimes, children who are in danger of disengaging and developing other skills that are necessary in the curriculum.
[89] Dawn Bowden: Thanks.
[90] Bethan Jenkins: Just quickly, Lee.
[91] Lee Waters: Yes, I just want to follow that up, because I know of an example in Llanelli, in Stebonheath, a deprived area, where headteacher Mr Littler is passionate about music and where music is absolutely throughout the school. It has been able to do that up to now through the PDG, but that is becoming a more challenged source of funding, with more demands on it. There are other schools, also in deprived areas, where they do nothing, and schools in federated arrangements in more rural areas where they do nothing. So, how can we tackle this inequality of provision?
[92] Kirsty Williams: Well, with regard to PDG, as I said, we are spending a record amount on PDG in this financial year, and within the constraints of the usual budget planning processes that I find myself in, we have tried to give headteachers a certain level of guarantee for the next two years that that money is available, because I think people will make better use of that money if they know there is a continuity behind it, and as I said, within the constraints of what I am able to do, we’re trying to reinforce that message with teachers that this money will be there. It’s a priority for me personally, as the Cabinet Secretary, and it is a priority for the Welsh Government as a whole. Increasing the pupil deprivation grant is part of the agreement that I had with the First Minister that brought me into Government in the first place. So, we’re trying to give some certainty around that.
09:45
[93] With regard to variation, again, these are conversations for us to have with regional consortia, with the Welsh Local Government Association, and, as I said, potentially there could be a role for Estyn in looking at a thematic review. I don’t want to pre-judge anything that this committee might say, but your views on that would be very helpful to me.
[94] Bethan Jenkins: Okay, thank you.
[95] Byddwn ni’n symud ymlaen nawr at gwestiynau ynglŷn â materion strwythurol a materion y gweithlu gan Hannah Blythyn.	We’ll move on now to some questions on structural and workforce issues from Hannah Blythyn.
[96] Hannah Blythyn: Thank you, Chair. Actually, just picking up and expanding on what Lee just said about ensuring equality of provision, you said at the outset that you’re not going to dictate to local authorities about what they need to do, but it’s also about ensuring equality of opportunity. So, how do we ensure equality of opportunity if there’s not equality of provision? Some of the things that people who have come in have suggested are: do we need to look at a regional model to ensure that there is equality of opportunity across local authorities?
[97] Kirsty Williams: As I said, it’s not for us to dictate from the centre around models, but, as I said in answer to the earlier question, I am due shortly to meet with the chair of the group, and will take on board advice that he may have about next steps to drive the agenda forward.
[98] Hannah Blythyn: A lot has been touched on already, but one of the things in previous evidence sessions that has been raised, specifically by the Musicians Union and things like that, is concern about the provision and impact on teachers, the lack of music teachers, and whether the current mixed picture in schools is having an impact on teachers’ continuing professional development. What more can the Welsh Government do to support that?
[99] Kirsty Williams: Well, obviously, we continue to be engaged in a recruitment and retention programme for teachers right the way across the piece in Welsh schools. Regional consortia have recently launched a new recruitment campaign working together, Discover Teaching, which is trying to up the profile of the opportunities to teach here in Wales. With regard to professional learning, the Welsh Government is—I am currently engaged in a review of how we operate professional learning opportunities for our teachers, and we will continue to update the Assembly on progress that we’re able to make. What’s really important about the professional learning offer that I want to create for the Welsh teaching workforce is that it responds to individual teachers’ needs. Therefore, that’s an important part of it. The ability to access that professional learning—indeed not just the ability, but the expectation, that we would expect teachers to continue to engage in their professional learning post their qualification—is also an important part of our new professional standards, which, as I said, give an expectation but also a right to a teacher to demand that they undergo professional learning. It’s one of the—in other professions, we would simply not say, ‘Well, you’ve qualified today and therefore we don’t expect you to go on and have an interest in professional learning’. In the medical profession, in the care profession, revalidation is accepted as a part of maintaining your registration as a nurse or as a doctor. Now, I’m not saying we’re going down that route, but that expectation to comply with your professional standards, that you will participate in professional learning, is an important one, and we are developing our offer for teachers to be able to do that.
[100] If the committee would like some more advice on current recruitment figures into initial teacher education for music, I don’t have them off the top of my head, but would be happy to supply them to let you know what the intake has been for the last couple of years in terms of people going on primarily to do a postgraduate certificate of education that will qualify them to teach music. We can supply those to you if that would be helpful.
[101] Hannah Blythyn: Okay, thanks. Just one final question, then. In one session we heard from a Denbighshire Music Co-operative about how they set themselves up to actually plug that gap where there wasn’t provision in schools. Now, it was a really good model, and a very interesting session, but clearly that’s perhaps not the most sustainable solution for the future. But are there ways in which perhaps—. I think they highlighted with us in terms of support and advice that might have helped them get off the ground a bit better, which they didn’t have. Are there perhaps ways—? There are clearly limits to the funding that’s available, but are there ways that perhaps Welsh Government could more innovatively support initiatives like that when they are plugging the gap when there’s a lack of local authority provision?
[102] Kirsty Williams: The co-op is a good model, and we have others in different parts of Wales—South Powys Youth Music, for instance, work up in Bangor. Again, there are lots of very innovative models where people have been able to pick up the slack and tried to move into the space to ensure that there is ongoing provision. I’m happy to look at that. I’m not aware that we are looking at that at the moment, but I’m happy to undertake to see whether there is more that Welsh Government could do, or who is best placed to be able to provide that practical assistance. Maybe we’re not best placed to do it, but I’m certainly willing to look at where that kind of advice would be best placed to deliver, so that organisations could avoid some of the traps I’m sure that they fell into in trying to set up.
[103] Bethan Jenkins: I think it was the fact that the night before they ended the service, and the day after they had to start it again from nothing. So, I guess having an interim period or guidance to WLGA that something like that just wouldn’t be acceptable, really, in future, where it’s left with nothing to be provided, so they had to do it, otherwise there would be no provision.
[104] Kirsty Williams: I think what saddens me about that, Bethan, is that there wasn’t the forethought to think that there had to be an interim period. I mean, it’s not—. You know, one would have hoped that common sense would dictate that that’s not the way. We need all sectors to be working collaboratively and collectively to solve this problem. No one body or level of Government can solve this problem. We have to utilise all the resources that people can bring to the table, and proper relationships and partnership working is crucial to that.
[105] Bethan Jenkins: Yes. Suzy Davies.
[106] Suzy Davies: Thank you. I hear what you say about not wanting to dictate to local authorities and, actually, I think a variety of types of delivery is quite healthy, but there is a difference between variety and variability. I’m convinced, actually, from what you’ve been saying that you don’t want variability from that standard of equity and excellence. So, there’s a gap there between how much influence Government has in all of this, really. So, I wanted to ask you specifically about the first year progress report, where it was suggested to the WLGA that they form a Welsh music plan. Bearing in mind what we’ve talked about in this evidence session alone, do you think they’re the people who are best placed to, first of all, ensure the collaboration that you were talking about, but with this focus on equity and excellence?
[107] Kirsty Williams: Well, I would hope that some progress could be made on that particular recommendation and, again, this will form part of my conversation with the chair of the group about what he believes the barriers are to that happening, and what more Welsh Government can do to move things along. There are some things Welsh Government have to start off, like the endowment. If we hadn’t done that, it would have languished. There are some things that other people need to do, but if we can remove some of the barriers or if we can provide some assistance initially to get that work started, then I hope I have been able to demonstrate with the initiatives we’ve taken so far that I’m willing to play that role in getting things moving, and facilitating some progress.
[108] Suzy Davies: I appreciate what you say, that, actually, the recommendations that came from Welsh Government have been pretty closely followed. But I was a little bit concerned that your approach to this was conversations with the WLGA and with regional consortia. And bearing in mind the pressures on WLGA specifically from other priority areas, do you think there might actually just be an argument here for Welsh Government to have an overall strategy in which it gives guidance to local authorities, setting out not just the specifics of the obligation to provide services, regardless of how various they look or how variously they’re delivered, but also to connect them up with other policy areas that should be of core importance to any local authority? Because it is easy to say, ‘We will not put money into music because we need to spend it on tackling poverty’, when actually there is a role for Government here to say, ‘Do you know what? Investing in music helps tackle poverty.’ Actually, for Government to help join the dots, really, and that would mean a national strategy.
[109] Kirsty Williams: I take your point, and that’s what we’ve been trying to do in Welsh Government. As I said, this is not the committee that I would usually find myself in front of, and I’m very glad to be here, but I suspect I am here because I’ve been trying to do something, while, actually, the main focus of this lies with another Minister. So, for instance, ensemble funding is not a matter for me, but we just can’t work in that way anymore if we’re going to have an impact on the citizens of Wales. That perhaps has been a frustration in previous administrations, where Governments have been very siloed and we haven’t recognised the impact that the spending decisions that one department will make will have on another. We’re trying very hard—Ken Skates and I—to break down those barriers and I hope that we’ve demonstrated that we’re beginning to achieve that because what the citizen is interested in is the service in the end and not the gubbins and the machinery of Government that have led to that service. What do they say about sausages and legislation? You don’t want to see the process being undertaken; you just want the end result.
[110] Suzy Davies: We like to know the gubbins in these committees.
[111] Kirsty Williams: We’re trying to break down those barriers and, as a whole, Welsh Government is looking at how we get consistent policymaking across the board and that decisions made in one department don’t adversely affect another. We have all got a role to play in addressing key priorities such as tackling poverty.
[112] I will take into consideration any advice that this committee has on the relevance, the need for and the potential impact of a national strategy. Like you, I’m an enthusiast for this; I want to make it happen for children in Wales, and, as I said, I’m willing to listen to suggestions that the committee may have on next steps to drive the agenda forward.
[113] Suzy Davies: Okay, thank you.
[114] Bethan Jenkins: I’m glad you said that, because I remember a debate when Eluned Parrott led on calling for a national strategy in the previous Assembly. So, we might look back at the Record and see what ideas she put forward.
[115] Kirsty Williams: I’m picking up an honourable tradition of the Welsh Liberal Democrats’ enthusiasm for this subject. [Laughter.]
[116] Bethan Jenkins: I’m sure she’d be glad to hear it. We are going to have some questions on the ensembles from Lee Waters, appreciating that you’ve said that it’s not your responsibility, but in the spirit of cross-Government working, we hope that you can respond to some of them.
[117] Lee Waters: Just into those gubbins for a second then—
[118] Kirsty Williams: Is that a word? [Laughter.]
[119] Lee Waters: It’s an excellent word.
[120] Kirsty Williams: I’m really worried that that’s not a word now, sorry.
[121] Lee Waters: It’s definitely a word.
[122] Kirsty Williams: It’s my dad’s word; it’s a Llanelli word, Lee.
[123] Lee Waters: I’m familiar with it. This is the communications committee as well, so we embrace all colloquialisms.
[124] Just in terms of the internal workings of Government, how is it that you and the Cabinet Secretary for the economy are working together to advance this agenda. Are there any formal structures in place?
[125] Kirsty Williams: Formal structures? Probably not, but there is a desire to look at the programme for government—the manifesto commitments that has been made by my party, which I represent, as well as the Labour Party, and a desire to make progress. It seems to me that decisions that Ken Skates might make will have an impact on children and young people, and if I want to give them the opportunities that I want to, then we need to work closely together on that. So, there has been a series of meetings—we have a series of meetings to look at this particular subject and to see how we can take it forward collectively together.
[126] Lee Waters: The ensembles is a good example of it the other way around: the decisions that you make will have an impact on something outside of your portfolio. You also said earlier about the important need for transition funding, and I think we’ve seen an attempt at that in ensembles, to say that funding will be tapered down, but there’s an interim measure in place. But it’s the ‘what happens next’ that, I think, has troubled us in the evidence that we’ve had. We’ve had some evidence from the Denbighshire Music Co-operative. You questioned at the beginning whether or not ‘crisis’ was the correct word. Their evidence was quite clear that unless something is done in primary schools now, in the next five years there will be a real crisis. There are already signs, with the recruitment to ensembles, of the early stages of that crisis emerging.
[127] So, a separate charity is now being set up. I’m slightly concerned about the potential confusion—or the potential for confusion at least—between the endowment fund, which is to be set up as a stand-alone charity employing a fundraiser, and the charity that’s been set up to take forward the ensembles, which is also going to recruit a fundraiser. Both are attempting to attract similar pots of funding, without a great track record for Wales attracting anything from those sorts of pots of funding, and ramping that up very quickly in terms of the ensembles. So, what thinking is taking place about making sure that those two separate bodies are not chasing the same pots and what support can be given to them?
[128] Kirsty Williams: I’m very pleased that, by being able to find the £280,000, we’ve been able to secure a level of investment for this forthcoming financial year, which has relieved some of the immediate pressure that the ensembles were facing, which gives their new charity an opportunity to bed in. The endowment is at its early stage. The work that was done previously and the advice that Welsh Government has received is that we believe that we will potentially be able to start making grants, hopefully, by 2020. I would have anticipated that the ensembles would be able to be potentially considered for support from the endowment. But, undoubtedly, that will depend on the success of the ability of the endowment to develop its pot of money, to be in a position to do that. The advice that Welsh Government has received is that the endowment is a positive step forward to try and address some of these issues in the medium to long term. We would certainly expect both organisations to work collectively and collaboratively to avoid the situation that you describe where we’re all chasing the same pot of money and diminishing the ability of each organisation to prosper and to grow. John, I don’t know if you’d like to add further details.
10:00
[129] Mr Pugsley: One of the recommendations from the ensembles task and finish group was to be able to access the endowment money once it gets to the position of actually having finished—. So, it’s very much the ensembles looking forward in the longer term to be able to access moneys from the endowment fund once, as the Minister rightly points out, we get to the figure that we have to work on now during the medium to long term, so that we can actually start allocating moneys from that endowment.
[130] Lee Waters: If one of the intentions from the outset is that the endowment will in large parts help to fund the ensembles at some point when it’s mature enough is there (a) not the potential for duplication but also a sort of strategic fuzziness? Would there not be a case for aligning these two bodies together at an earlier stage to make sure that they’re supporting each other’s objectives?
[131] Mr Pugsley: I know it’s a recommendation from the ensembles task and finish group to set up a fundraising—. That was one of their recommendations that was put forward, not to our Cabinet Secretary, but the Cabinet Secretary for economy. They clearly have got their recommendation to actually start getting their funding for the short term. I think that’s the difference, really. It’s in the short term they need to get their funding in place, whereas the endowment—what we’re looking at—is more longer term.
[132] Kirsty Williams: It’s a more medium and longer term solution, but the expectation would be that both organisations would potentially have a relationship to look to see whether—to avoid any duplication. That’s not what the intention would be.
[133] Lee Waters: I guess my question is: should it be left to potential? Shouldn’t this be hardwired and thought of at this stage, at the design stage?
[134] Kirsty Williams: Well, we are at the design stage. The endowment is at its design stage at the moment.
[135] Lee Waters: But it doesn’t seem to be part of the official thinking that the endowment and the ensemble fundraiser should be aligned at an early stage, to make sure they’re supporting each other’s objectives.
[136] Kirsty Williams: I will take that up with the arts council.
[137] Lee Waters: Okay, thank you.
[138] Bethan Jenkins: Dyna’r unig amser sydd gyda ni nawr ar gyfer cwestiynau. Felly, diolch yn fawr iawn i chi am ddod i mewn yma heddiw. Byddem yn sicr yn croesawu unrhyw wybodaeth ychwanegol rydych wedi dweud y byddwch yn ei hanfon atom heddiw yn y man. Ond byddwn yn anfon yr adroddiad atoch, mae’n siŵr. Diolch yn fawr am ddod mewn i roi tystiolaeth gerbron y pwyllgor.	Bethan Jenkins: That’s all the time we have available for questions now. So, thank you very much for joining us today. We would certainly welcome any additional information that you have said you will provide for us shortly. But we will, of course, send our report to you. Thank you very much for providing your evidence to the committee this morning.
[139] Kirsty Williams: With your indulgence, Chair, could I ask a favour of the Members of this committee? We have been, in conjunction with the commission, setting up our musical instrument amnesty. Can I appeal to all Members around this table to have a look in their cupboards to retrieve that almost forgotten flute or cornet or viola?
[140] Bethan Jenkins: No. My viola is staying with me. [Laughter.]
[141] Kirsty Williams: Whatever you’ve got lurking, then please do take the opportunity in July to bring your musical instruments in. We’re working very closely with the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama, who will do any repairs for us with their network of fixers, and we will ensure that those instruments—their lives—can be renewed with an individual that will enjoy playing them and using them again. So, please go home and have a look to see what you’ve all got.
[142] Bethan Jenkins: It would be lovely to have those adverts where you see, ‘Sponsor a little child in Africa’ or something. We can have, ‘Buy a little viola from the Valleys that hasn’t been used very often.’ I promise to use it more often.
[143] Kirsty Williams: Have a look at what you’ve got.
[144] Bethan Jenkins: We will.
[145] Suzy Davies: Does your amnesty include privately owned instruments that never came from school in the first place, out of interest?
[146] Kirsty Williams: Well, yes, anything that you’ve got. The issue is—
[147] Suzy Davies: [Inaudible.]—a guitar that is never played.
[148] Kirsty Williams: Exactly—a guitar that you’ve never played, which will find a very happy home in one of our schools. I suspect, even within the small family that we are in the National Assembly, we could add quite significantly to the national database of instruments that are available.
[149] Neil Hamilton: Perhaps we should have our own orchestra here.
[150] Bethan Jenkins: Well, we could’ve done when we had Edwina Hart as a viola player. Eluned was a saxophonist as well—
[151] Kirsty Williams: A violinist, I think.
[152] Bethan Jenkins: Yes, a violinist also, but I thought she played the sax—no, Nerys Evans played the saxophone. There were certainly three viola players in the last Assembly, but we didn’t have the trio. But Jeremy’s here now—we can talk about it in private session.
[153] Jeremy Miles: Somewhat rusty, Chair.
[154] Bethan Jenkins: Somewhat rusty. Thank you very much. Anyway, we digress. We will go into private for two minutes for a break and then we’ll have the next session. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 10:05 a 10:14. The meeting adjourned between 10:05 and 10:14.
Dyfodol S4C: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 10 The Future of S4C: Evidence Session 10
[155] Bethan Jenkins: Rydym ni’n symud ymlaen yn awr at eitem 3: dyfodol S4C, sesiwn dystiolaeth 10. Croeso i’r tystion: Huw Jones, cadeirydd awdurdod S4C, ac Ian Jones, prif weithredwr S4C—[Torri ar draws.] Os yw pawb yn gwrando—. Rwy’n teimlo fel fy mod i yn yr ysgol, weithiau, gyda’r Aelodau Cynulliad yma. Diolch i chi am ddod i roi tystiolaeth gerbron y pwyllgor. Rydym ni’n gwybod ei fod e bach fel groundhog day. Rydym ni wedi eich cael chi i mewn yn barod, ond rydw i’n credu ei fod yn bwysig ichi roi tystiolaeth yng nghyd-destun y ffaith ein bod ni wedi cael tystion i mewn yn sgil yr adolygiad rydym ni’n ei wneud ar S4C.	Bethan Jenkins: We move on now to item 3: the future of S4C, evidence session 10. I’d like to welcome our witnesses: Huw Jones, the chair of the S4C authority, and Ian Jones, the chief executive of S4C—[Interruption.] If everyone is listening—. I feel like I’m a schoolteacher, at times, with these Assembly Members. Thank you very much for coming to provide evidence to the committee. We know that it’s a little like groundhog day. You have been in already, but I think it is important that you do provide evidence in the context of the fact that we have received a great deal of other evidence as part of our inquiry on S4C.
[156] Jest fel cwestiwn cyntaf, fel y gwnes i ofyn y tro diwethaf, a oes yna ddiweddariad o gwbl ynglŷn â’r sgyrsiau rydych chi wedi eu cael gyda DCMS ynglŷn â chwmpawd gwaith yr adolygiad? Pwy fydd yn arwain yr adolygiad, a phryd fydd yr adolygiad hwnnw? Wrth gwrs, rydym ni’n parchu’r ffaith bod yna etholiad ar hyn o bryd, ac efallai bod y trafodaethau wedi bod yn fwy anodd, ond os medrwch chi roi rhyw fath o wybodaeth i ni, byddai hynny’n grêt.	Just as an opening question, as I asked last time, can you give us any sort of update on the conversations that you’ve had with DCMS on the remit of the review? Who will lead that review, and when will that review take place? Of course, we respect the fact that there is an election on at present, and perhaps discussions may have been a little more difficult, but perhaps if you could give us some sort of update, that would be excellent.
[157] Mr H. Jones: A gaf i ddechrau, efallai, jest drwy ychwanegu teyrnged S4C i Rhodri Morgan? Rydw i’n siŵr eich bod chi wedi trafod hyn y bore yma, ond buaswn i yn licio gwneud hynny yn ffurfiol, ac i nodi y bydd yna raglenni ar S4C heno: y newyddion, wrth gwrs, ond rhaglen arbennig yn nodi ei gyfraniad o, a’n gwerthfawrogiad ni, mewn ffordd, o’i waith o fel Prif Weinidog.	Mr H. Jones: May I start, perhaps, by just adding S4C’s tribute to Rhodri Morgan? I’m sure you’ve discussed this this morning, but I would like to do so formally, and to note that there will be programmes on S4C this evening: the news, of course, and a special programme noting his contribution and our appreciation of his work as First Minister.
[158] Nid oes gennym ni wybodaeth swyddogol ychwanegol i’w hychwanegu ynglŷn â’r adolygiad, felly na, nid oes unrhyw beth mwy y gallaf i ei ddweud wrthych chi o ran gwybodaeth swyddogol rydym ni wedi ei chael.	We don’t have additional official information regarding the review, therefore, no, there is no more that I can tell you regarding official information that we’ve received.
[159] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch am hynny, ta beth. Yr ail gwestiwn oedd gen i oedd ynglŷn â’r ffaith bod y Gweinidog, Alun Davies, wedi dod i mewn a dweud nad oes adolygiad gan y DCMS wedi digwydd ers 2004, ac roedd e’n awgrymu y dylid cael adolygiad pob pum mlynedd, ond nid yw hynny wedi digwydd. A oes yna gonsyrn gennych chi am y ffaith nad yw’r DCMS wedi gwneud adolygiad hyd at y pwynt yma? Nid ydym ni’n gwybod pryd fydd un eleni yn digwydd. A ydy hynny yn rhywbeth sydd yn fater o gonsyrn i chi?	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you for that. The second question I had was on the fact that the Minister, Alun Davies, provided evidence and said that there had been no DCMS review since 2004, and he suggested that a review should take place every five years, but that hasn’t been the case. Do you have any concerns about the fact that the DCMS hasn’t carried out any review up to this point? We still don’t know when this year’s will take place. Is that an issue of concern for you?
[160] Mr H. Jones: Rydym ni’n derbyn yr egwyddor bod adolygu rheolaidd yn egwyddor resymol, ac un y byddem ni’n ei groesawu. Rydym ni hefyd yn ymwybodol o’r pwysau gwaith sydd ar wahanol adrannau, ac yn dymuno sicrhau bod unrhyw adolygiad sydd yn digwydd yn un effeithiol a thrwyadl. Felly, yng nghyd-destun beth rydym ni wastad wedi’i fynegi ydy’r consyrn bod penderfyniadau am gyllido S4C yn cael eu gwneud heb ystyriaeth o beth yw gofynion y gwasanaeth. A dyna, hwyrach, yw’r pwynt mwyaf sylfaenol rydym ni’n ei gyflwyno yn ystod yr holl drafodaeth yma: yr angen i geisio diffinio proses briodol a ddylai gael ei dilyn—ac efallai bod hynny’n cynnwys adolygiad, efallai ei bod hi’n cynnwys ymgynghoriad; beth bynnag ydy o—ond bod yna broses dryloyw sydd yn arwain at gyllido S4C, beth bynnag yw’r penderfyniadau, beth bynnag yw’r ffynonellau, a bod hynny’n agored ac yn cael ei ddeall gan bawb.	Mr H. Jones: We accept the principle that regular reviewing is a reasonable principle, and we would welcome that. We’re also aware of the work pressures on various departments and wish to ensure that any review that is undertaken is effective and thorough. Therefore, in the context of what we’ve always expressed is the concern that decisions regarding the funding of S4C are made without considering what the requirements of the service are. And that, perhaps, is the most basic that we’re presenting during this discussion: the need to try and define an appropriate process that should be followed—that may include a review, it may include an inquiry; whatever it is—that there is a transparent process that leads to the funding of S4C, whatever the decisions are, whatever the sources are, and that that is open and is understood by everybody.
[161] Bethan Jenkins: Rydym ni wedi clywed gennych chi a gan dystion eraill fod angen newid y cylch gwaith i ymwneud a’r byd modern sydd ohoni. A oes yna mwy o drafodaethau wedi—? Yn sicr, rydym ni wedi darllen eich adroddiad, ond sut fyddech chi yn gweld hynny yn newid yn yr oes sydd ohoni, pe byddai cylch gwaith a thelerau S4C yn newid yn y dyfodol?	Bethan Jenkins: We’ve heard evidence from you and other witnesses that there needs to be a change in the remit of S4C to deal with modern technology and so on. Have there been further discussions—? Certainly, we’ve read your report, but how would you see that changing if your remit were to change in future?
[162] Mr I. Jones: Efallai'r ffordd orau o ateb y cwestiwn hwnnw yw edrych ar esblygiad teledu a’r cyfryngau dros y 12 mlynedd diwethaf. Mae yna newid enfawr wedi bod. Mae yna newid yn y dechnoleg wedi bod, ond hefyd newid yn sut mae’r gynulleidfa yn gwylio rhaglenni ac yn ymwneud â chynnwys. Os ewch chi nôl 12 mlynedd yn ôl, un sianel a oedd gan S4C bryd hynny; un ac ychydig sydd gennym ni nawr, gan ein bod ni ar yr iPlayer. Ond y ffordd y mae darlledwyr eraill wedi delio gyda chynulleidfaoedd yn gwylio ar wahanol lwyfannau yw lansio mwy o sianeli. Roedd gan Channel 4 un gwasanaeth 12 mlynedd yn ôl; bellach mae ganddyn nhw 15. Roedd gan y BBC ryw saith gwasanaeth; bellach mae ganddyn nhw 25. Roedd gennym ni un; mae gennym ni un, ac rydym ni ar yr iPlayer. Felly, mae’r sianeli eraill, a Channel 5, hefyd, ac ITV, wedi lansio sianelau ychwanegol er mwyn dal y cynulleidfaoedd hynny sydd ddim yn gwylio’r brif sianel deledu. Ac mae’r darlledwyr i gyd wedi gweld gostyngiad sylweddol yn y gwylwyr sy’n gwylio yn yr oriau brig dros y 12 mlynedd diwethaf. Y sialens i ni yw: yn ystod yr un cyfnod, mae technoleg wedi newid hefyd. Mae mwy o lwyfannau—YouTube, Facebook Live, ac yn y blaen—felly mae’n rhaid i ni, bellach, esblygu. Rydym ni wedi methu â fforddio lansio sianeli ychwanegol; nid oedd gennym ni'r adnoddau i’w wneud. Ond nid oes dewis gennym ni nawr; mae’n rhaid i ni ddelio â hynny. Mae’n rhaid i ni sicrhau bod cynnwys S4C yn weladwy—yn Saesneg rydw i wedi sôn am ubiquitous content delivery—mae’n rhaid i ni sicrhau bod y cynnwys hwnnw ar draws cynifer o lwyfannau ag sy’n bosib ac yn weladwy ar y llwyfannau hynny er mwyn targedu’r cynulleidfaoedd gwahanol. Mae’n rhaid i ni sicrhau bod y cynnwys iawn yn cael ei gyflwyno i’r gwahanol gynulleidfaoedd, cynnwys ffurf fer—un munud, tri munud, 10 munud—a chynnwys ffurf hir, ac mae’n rhaid i ni sicrhau bod ein pwerau masnachol ni yn rhoi mwy o latitude i ni i wneud mwy o bethau masnachol.	[163] Mr I. Jones: Perhaps the best way of answering that question is by looking at the evolution of television and the media over the last 12 years. There has been a massive change. There’s been a change in technology, but also a change in how the audiences view programmes and relate and engage with content. If you go back 12 years, S4C had one channel at the time; we have one and a bit now, because we’re on the iPlayer. But the way that other broadcasters have dealt with audiences viewing on various platforms is launching more channels. Channel 4 had one service 12 years ago; now it has 15. The BBC had around seven services; now it has 25. We had one; now we have one, plus we’re on the iPlayer. Therefore, other channels, Channel 5 also, and ITV, have launched additional channels in order to capture those audiences that do not view the main tv channel. And all broadcasters have seen a significant reduction in the number of viewers who view during peak hours, over the last 12 years. The challenge for us is: during the same period, technology has changed. There are more platforms—YouTube, Facebook Live, and so forth—therefore we now have to evolve. We haven’t been able to afford to launch additional channels; we didn’t have the resources to do so. But there is no choice for now; we have to deal with that. We have to ensure that S4C’s content is visible—in English I’ve spoken about ubiquitous content delivery—we have to ensure that that content is across as many platforms as possible and is visible on those platforms in order to target the different audiences. We have to ensure that the right content is given to the various audiences, including short-form content—one minute, three minutes, 10 minutes—and long-form content, and we have to ensure that our commercial powers provide us with more latitude to do more commercial things.
[164] Wrth gwrs, o wneud hynny i gyd, rydw i’n meddwl bod yn rhaid i ni ddelifro mwy o werth cyhoeddus. Dyna yw sylfaen ein gweledigaeth ni ar gyfer y dyfodol, a dyna’r ffordd rydym ni wedi edrych arno fe: beth mae’n rhaid i ni wneud. Nid oes dewis gyda ni. Mae’n rhaid i ni sicrhau bod cynnwys Cymraeg yn weladwy ar draws cynifer o lwyfannau ag sy’n bosib, neu, yn y dyfodol, mi wnawn ni golli rhai cynulleidfaoedd. A gaf i orffen jest drwy grynhoi hynny? Mae yna gwmni o’r enw Enders Analysis sy’n gwneud lot o ddadansoddi yn y maes yma, ac maen nhw wedi paratoi dau graff sydd yn gyhoeddus dros y misoedd diwethaf. Mae’r graff cyntaf yn delio â’r oedran 16 i 35, ac mae’n dangos, ers 2010, mae yna ostyngiad dramatig yn faint o’r oedran hwnnw sy’n gwylio’r prif sianel deledu—unrhyw sianel deledu, nid jest S4C. Mae’n mynd reit i lawr. Ar y llaw arall, mae yna graff tebyg ar gyfer oedran 65, ac mae’r graff hwnnw’n sefydlog. Beth sy’n fy mhoeni i, os na dilynwn ni’r strategy yma, a’r weledigaeth yma, pan fydd y graff ar y chwith, 16 i 35, pan fyddan nhw yn heneiddio, mae’n mynd i greu problem os ydyn nhw’n dal i wylio ar wahanol lwyfannau yn fwy na’r prif sianel yn y dyfodol. Mae’n rhaid ni ddelio â’r broblem honno nawr, er efallai na fydd e’n digwydd am ryw 10, 12, 15 mlynedd.	Of course, in doing all of that, I think we have to deliver more public value. That is the basis of our vision for the future, and that’s the way we’ve looked at it: what we have to do. We have no choice. We have to ensure that Welsh language content is visible across as many platforms as possible, or, in the future, we will lose some audiences. May I finish by just summarising that? There is a company called Enders Analysis that undertakes a lot of analysis in this field, and they’ve prepared two graphs that are public over the last months. The first graph deals with the 16 to 35 age group, and it shows that, since 2010, there’s been a dramatic reduction in the number of those people in that age group that view a main channel—any channel, not just S4C. It’s going right down. On the other hand, there is a similar graph for the 65 age group, and that is stable. What concerns me is that, if we do not follow this strategy and this vision, when the graph on the left, 16 to 35, when they age, it’s going to create a problem if they’re still viewing alternative platforms more than the main channel in the future. We have to deal with that problem now, though perhaps it won’t happen for 10, 12, 15 years.
[165] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch yn fawr iawn am hynny. Mae yna gwestiynau nawr ynglŷn â chyllido, ac mae Dai Lloyd yn arwain. Diolch.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you very much for that. We now have some questions on funding from Dai Lloyd. Thank you.
[166] Dai Lloyd: Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. Wrth gwrs, rydym ni wedi cael yr adroddiad ‘S4C: Gwthio’r Ffiniau’, ac, wel, rydym ni wedi cael cynifer o dystion yn dweud, wrth gwrs, ‘Mae’r dyfodol yn mynd i fod yn aml-lwyfannol’, fel rydych chi wedi’i grybwyll hefyd, a hefyd yn yr adroddiad. Wrth gwrs, diwedd y gân ydy’r geiniog, ynte? Wedyn, pa asesiad rydych chi wedi’i wneud o’r gost gyffredinol o gyflawni’r weledigaeth yma? Mae TAC, er enghraifft, wedi dweud eu bod nhw’n galw am gynnydd o rywbeth fel 10 y cant yng nghyllid S4C i gyflawni’r fath weledigaeth. A oes gennych chi rhyw ffigur o’ch blaenau chi, felly, i ni allu dylanwadu ar faterion petawn ni’n gwybod y ffigur sydd gyda chi mewn cof?	Dai Lloyd: Thank you, Chair. We’ve had the report ‘S4C: Pushing the boundaries’, and we’ve had a number of witnesses telling us, ‘The future is going to be multi-platform’, as you’ve also mentioned, as well as the report. Of course, money is the bottom line. What assessment have you made of the general cost of achieving this vision? TAC, for example, has said that they’re calling for an increase of around 10 per cent in S4C’s funding to achieve such a vision. Do you have some sort of figure in front of you that we could use to influence issues, if we knew the figure?
[167] Mr I. Jones: Y pwynt cychwyn i fi yw’r weledigaeth, nid yr arian, i ddechrau. Gan fy mod i wedi amlinellu beth yw’r weledigaeth, mi wnaethom ni fynd drwy broses o edrych ar hynny, ac wedyn eistedd nôl a phenderfynu, ‘Reit, a allwn ni fforddio hwn? Faint mae’n mynd i gostio?’ A dyna pryd daethom ni i’r casgliad bod dim dewis gyda ni, bod yn rhaid i ni wneud a dilyn yr weledigaeth, ond ei fod yn mynd i gostio’n ychwanegol. Yn y ddogfen, fe welwch chi ein bod ni wedi edrych ar dair elfen o gost ac ariannu.	Mr I. Jones: The starting point for me is the vision, not the funding. As I’ve outlined what that vision is, we went through a process of looking at that, and then sat back and decided, ‘Right, can we afford this? How much is it going to cost?’ And that’s when we came to the conclusion that we had no option, that we had to pursue that vision, but that it was going to have additional costs attached to it. In the document, you will see that we looked at three elements of cost and funding.
[168] Y pwynt cychwyn yw: os yw chwyddiant, ar gyfartaledd, yn 2 y cant i 2.5 y cant dros y pedair blynedd nesaf, yna bydd ein hincwm ni—yn sicr o dan yr arian o’r drwydded, os nad arian DCMS—mewn termau real, yn gostwng o ryw £9 miliwn. So, dyna’r pwynt cychwyn i ni. Mae’n rhaid i ni ddelio â hynny yn y dyfodol os yw chwyddiant o gwmpas 2 y cant i 2.5 y cant.	The starting point is that if inflation, on average, is 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent over the next four years then our income—certainly under the licence fee funding, if not DCMS funding—in real terms, will reduce by some £9 million. So, that’s the starting point for us. We have to deal with that in the future if inflation is in the region of 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent.
[169] Yr ail bwynt yw: edrychom ni ar yr isafswm roedd eisiau i fynd ar lwyfannau eraill, i gynnal HD a gwasanaeth HD, i wneud ein harchif yn agored a darparu jest y de minimis o gynnwys ar gynnwys ffurf fer. Daethom i ffigur o o gwmpas £6 miliwn ar gyfer hynny.	The second point is that we looked at the minimum required to access other platforms, to maintain HD and a HD service, to ensure that our archive was available, and to provide de minimis content in terms of short-form content. We came to a figure of some £6 million for that.
[170] A’r trydydd elfen yw, os ydym ni’n dod o safbwynt na ddylai siaradwyr Cymraeg gael llai na beth sydd ar gael i siaradwyr Saesneg, sut ydym ni’n delio â hynny? Achos mae yna gannoedd o sianeli Saesneg, mae’r gyllideb The Crown yn £100 miliwn, sydd, am 10 awr, yn fwy na holl gyllideb S4C. Sut ydym ni’n delio â hynny? Ac mi benderfynom ni ei bod hi’n anodd iawn i roi ffigur ar gynnwys uwchben hynny, ond mae yna ddadl gryf ar gyfer ychwanegu ffigur at y £6 miliwn yna ar gyfer cynnwys priodol. Er enghraifft, mae pob prif sianel deledu arall sy’n darlledu drama, heblaw am y sianeli arbenigol, yn darlledu drama—uwchben y soaps nawr—dwy, dair, bedair, pum gwaith yr wythnos. Rydym ni’n darlledu un slot ar nos Sul am ran o’r flwyddyn. A ddylwn ni fod yn cynyddu’r slot yna neu beidio? Felly, dyna’r tair elfen, ac felly rŷm ni’n teimlo mai’r isafswm ar gyfer llwyfannau yw £6 miliwn. Mae’n rhaid i ni gymryd ystyriaeth o chwyddiant a’r gostyngiad real, ac rydym ni’n teimlo’n gryf y dylai fod yna arian ychwanegol ar gyfer cynnwys,	The third element is, if we approach this from a perspective that Welsh speakers shouldn’t receive less than what’s available for English speakers, then how do we deal with that? Because there are hundreds of English language channels, the funding for The Crown is £100 million, and that is, for 10 hours, more than the whole of S4C's budget. How do we deal with that? And we decided that it was extremely difficult to place a figure on content over and above that, but there is a strong argument for adding to that £6 million figure for appropriate content. For example, all main tv channels broadcasting drama, apart from the specialist channels—this is over and above the soaps—have dramas three, four, maybe five times a week. We have one slot on a Sunday evening for part of the year. Now, should we be increasing that drama provision? So, those are the three elements that we’ve looked at, and we feel that the minimum required for platforms is £6 million. We have to take into account inflation and the real-terms reduction in funding, and we strongly feel that there should be additional funding available for content,
[171] but how long is a piece of string?
[172] Dai Lloyd: So, mae o’n £9 miliwn a £6 miliwn a beth bynnag arall, ie?	Dai Lloyd: Therefore, it's £9 million and £6 million and whatever else, then.
[173] Mr I. Jones: Mae’n rhaid i ni ddelio â chwyddiant. Rydym ni’n teimlo, jest i weithredu’r strategy, bod yn rhaid i ni gael £6 miliwn.	Mr I. Jones: We have to deal with inflation. We believe, just to implement the strategy, that we need £6 million.
[174] Dai Lloyd: Reit.	Dai Lloyd: Right.
[175] Mr I. Jones: Os na gawn ni fe, jest i ddweud hynny, nid oes dewis gyda ni, mae’n rhaid i ni wneud e, ond fe fydd rhaid i ni dorri yn rhywle arall—torri’r gyllideb cynnwys i wireddu hynny.	Mr I. Jones: Just to make this point: if we don’t get it, we will have no option, but we will have to make cuts elsewhere—we’ll have to cut the content budget to achieve that.
[176] Dai Lloyd: Ie, rydym ni eisiau gwybod pethau ffeithiol yn fan hyn, achos mae yna nifer o dystion yn wedi bod gerbron yn dweud bod y weledigaeth wedi bod yn aml-lwyfannol, ac mae pawb, rydw i’n credu, yn cytuno efo hynny, ond fel rydw i’n dweud eisoes, ar ddiwedd y dydd, mae’n rhaid i bres ddod o rhywle, ac rydym ni eisiau rhyw fath o amcangyfrif o faint o bres sydd ei angen i gyflawni hyd yn oed isafswm y weledigaeth yna.	Dai Lloyd: We want to know facts here, because a number of witnesses have been before us saying the vision has been multi-platform, and I think everybody agrees with that, but, as I have said already, at the end of the day, money has to come from somewhere and we want some sort of estimate of how much money is required to achieve even the minimum of that vision.
[177] Jest yn symud ymlaen, rydych chi wedi crybwyll yn barod pwerau masnachol a sut y maen nhw wedi cael eu cyfyngu ers 2003, yn y lle cyntaf. A allwn ni jest olrhain beth rydych chi wedi cael eich rhwystro rhag cyflawni achos y cyfyngiad yna yn y pwerau masnachol cyn i ni fynd ymlaen i sôn yn fwy cyffredinol?	So, just moving on, you've mentioned already commercial powers and how they had been restricted since 2003, in the first place. Can you just outline for us what you have been prevented from carrying out because of that restriction in the commercial powers before we go on to discuss more broadly?
[178] Mr I. Jones: Wel, a gaf i ddechrau o sefyllfa ychydig yn wahanol? Rŷch chi’n iawn, mae ein pwerau masnachol ni efallai heb eu cyfyngu, ond nid ydyn nhw mor eang â phwerau masnachol darlledwyr eraill, ac rŷm ni’n awyddus i newid ein cylch gorchwyl ni i ddelio â hynny. Rydym ni wedi cael arweiniad ein bod ni’n cael gwneud pethau sydd yn	Mr I. Jones: Well, may I start from a slightly different perspective? You’re right, our commercial powers haven’t perhaps been restricted, but they’re not as broad as the commercial powers of other broadcasters, and we are eager to change our remit in order to deal with that fact. We've been given some guidance that we can do things that are
[179] incidental and conducive to the main television service.
[180] Mae hynny’n golygu pethau yn gysylltiedig â’r sianel deledu. Ond, os rŷm ni eisiau cynyddu ein incwm masnachol, nid wyf yn credu dylwn ni fod yn cael ein cyfyngu i hynny, a dyna’r pwynt rŷm ni’n ei wneud. Yn hytrach na jest—. Dylwn ni fod yn gwneud brand extensions, dylwn ni fod yn gwneud pethau sydd yn atodol i’r sianel deledu, ond dylwn ni fod â’r hawl i wneud, yn fy marn i, unrhyw beth gall ddod â mwy o arian i mewn dros gyfnod er mwyn cyfrannu at y sianel deledu.	Now, that means things that are related to the television channel rather than ancillary to the television channel. But if we want to increase our commercial income then I don’t think that we should be restricted to that, and that is the point that we’re making. We should be doing brand extensions, we should not be doing things that are ancillary to the television channel, but we should also have, in my view, the right to do anything that can bring more income in over a period of time to contribute to the television channel.
[181] Dai Lloyd: Ie. Dyna ti; mae hynny’n iawn.	Dai Lloyd: Yes. Thank you, that’s fine.
[182] Bethan Jenkins: Jest o ran y cyllid eto, roeddwn i jest eisiau gofyn cwestiwn ychwanegol i hynny. Rydych chi’n dweud,	Bethan Jenkins: Just in terms of the funding again, I just wanted to ask an additional question on that. You say,
[183] ‘How long is a piece of string?’
[184] ond a oes gyda chi rhyw fath o benchmark ar gyfer beth fyddai’n dderbyniol o ran cynnwys, achos, er eich bod chi’n dweud bod gweledigaeth yn bwysig, rydych chi wedi dweud hefyd nad ydych chi’n gallu creu sianel newydd oherwydd nid oes cyllideb gyda chi. Felly, pe byddech chi’n cael rhyw fath o benchmark—efallai mynd yn ôl i ble oeddech chi pan wnaeth y toriadau ddigwydd yn y lle cyntaf, 10 y cant ar ben hynny, er enghraifft—byddai fe efallai yn ein helpu ni i ddadlau i DCMS beth fyddai isafswm yr hyn dylen nhw rhoi i S4C. A oedd hynny’n rhywbeth roeddech chi wedi trafod yn fewnol? Neu a oeddech chi jest wedi dweud ‘Wel, mae angen mwy o arian. Dyna ni’?	but do you have a benchmark for what would be acceptable in terms of content, because, even though you say vision is important, you’ve also said that you can’t create a new channel because you don’t have a budget. So, if you had some kind of benchmark—perhaps going back to where you were when the cuts were incurred in the first place, 10 per cent on top of that, for example—perhaps it would help us to argue with DCMS what would be the minimum they should provide for S4C. Is that something you’d discussed internally? Or had you just said, 'There is a need for more funding. That's it'?
[185] Mr I. Jones: Rwy’n credu mai ffolineb byddai dechrau o safbwynt, ‘Mae arnom ni eisiau mwy o arian.’ Rydym ni wedi gweithio gweledigaeth allan, rydym ni’n gwybod am y £6 miliwn yna a gyfer llwyfannau. Mi wnaethom ni edrych ar gynnwys, mi wnaethom ni edrych ar, er enghraifft, faint y byddai fe’n costio i gael drama  rownd y flwyddyn, faint y byddai fe’n costio i gael pethau rownd y flwyddyn, faint y byddai fe’n costio i gael chwaraeon rŷm ni’n methu â fforddio, a mi wnaethom ni drafod ystod eang o ffigurau, ond daethom ni i’r casgliad yn fewnol na ddylwn ni fod yn pennu un ffigur penodol. Achos nid ‘benchmark-io’ yn erbyn sianeli eraill rŷm ni’n ei wneud, ond delio â beth rŷm ni eisiau delifro o ran gweledigaeth ar gyfer y dyfodol.	Mr I. Jones: No, I think it would be foolhardy to start from the point of view ‘We need more money’. We’ve worked out our vision, we know of that £6 million for platforms, we did look at content, and we looked, for example, at how much it would cost to have drama throughout the year, how much would it cost to have year-round provision, how much would it cost to have sport that we can’t currently afford, and we discussed a broad range of figures, but we came to the conclusion internally that we shouldn't be coming to a single figure. Because we’re not benchmarking against other channels, but dealing with what we want to deliver in terms of our vision for the future.
10:30
[186] Bethan Jenkins: Beth oedd yr ystod yr oeddech chi’n ei gael yn fewnol wedyn?	Bethan Jenkins: What was the range you had internally?
[187] Mr I. Jones: Roedd e ar yr ochr ridiculous. Os yw cyllideb The Crown am ddeg awr yn £100 miliwn—[Chwerthin.] Na, jest i roi blas ar hynny, os ŷch chi’n edrych—ac mae hwn yn y ddogfen, ar un o’r tudalennau—ar ein cost ni yr awr, o gymharu â sianeli eraill, rydym ni’n gost-effeithiol tu hwnt. Ar gyfer adloniant rŷm ni’n gwario £60,000 yr awr. Mae sianeli dros y ffin yn gwario rhyw £600,000. Am ddrama, yr uchafswm yr ŷm ni’n ei wario yw £0.25 miliwn yr awr—The Crown £10 miliwn yr awr, drama ar ITV a BBC o gwmpas £800,000 yr awr. Felly, mae’n anodd cael cymhariaeth a benchmark gyda sianeli eraill. Ond mae eisiau arian ychwanegol.	Mr I. Jones: Well, on the ridiculous side of things, if The Crown budget for 10 hours is £100 million—[Laughter.] Just to give you a flavour of those discussions—and this is contained within our document—if you look at the per hour cost for us, as compared to other channels then we are extremely cost-effective. For entertainment we spend £60,000 per hour. Channels over the border spend some £600,000. For drama, the maximum is £0.25 million per hour—The Crown £10 million an hour, drama on ITV and BBC around £800,000 per hour. So, it’s difficult to draw a comparison and have a benchmark against other channels. But we do need additional funding.
[188] Bethan Jenkins: Iawn—jest gofyn y cwestiwn. Rydym ni’n symud ymlaen at gwestiynau ychwanegol nawr ar gyllid gan Dawn Bowden.	Bethan Jenkins: I was just asking the question. We now move on to questions on funding—more on funding from Dawn Bowden.
[189] Dawn Bowden: Thank you, Chair. I was just interested, Ian, in what you were just saying there, because I’ve got two sons in their early 20s and neither of them watch TV. They watch everything through Netflix. They don’t watch any of the main channels at all, and that seems to be, actually, quite a trend for younger people, and I’m sure that’s something that you’ve thought about and are looking to address as well. But, following on from the point that Dai was making about the broader commercial powers, you were talking about what you would like to do and what you think you could do, but you are doing some stuff now—you’re looking at exploring some of the international subscriptions and so on. What other work are you doing at the moment to see if you can identify the streams of additional funding for the channel?
[190] Mr I. Jones: Well, our starting point is the service, obviously, and to look at the brands we have, and to look at extending those brands into the commercial arena. You’ll note, in the published document, that we refer to Fferm Cyw/Cyw Farm, which we’ve been looking at and thinking about for quite some time, and that is: should we be extending our kids’ brands into a more commercial market? Can we do that on our own? Should we partner with commercial partners to do it? Our job is not to run a Cyw Farm. Our job is to commission and broadcast programming, but if we can work with partners whose experience is in that area and we can use our commercial funds to invest in those opportunities, and they have a chance of delivering downstream revenue, then why shouldn’t we do that?
[191] Dawn Bowden: And can you give any indication that that will happen, or is that the concern that you’ve got, that you won’t be allowed to do that?
[192] Mr I. Jones: We’re looking at a specific project in that area, and I think that brand extension, I would argue, is incidental and conducive to the main service, because it benefits the main service and feeds back and fore. We’d like to do more in that area—and, Huw, perhaps you could add to this—but, if it is not incidental and conducive, as far as I’m aware, we have to have the Secretary of State’s permission on every single project. That’s impossible because (a) it takes a long time to get permission (b) we have tens and hundreds of things that we’re looking at, and look over a period. So, what we want to do is to say, ‘We want to change our remit so it’s absolutely clear that we have the latitude to do brand extension, to do sponsorship, to do advertising and to do other things that might not necessarily be directly related to the television service’.
[193] Mr H. Jones: The best example from the past of commercial activity that turned out to be successful was our investment in S4C Digital Networks, which was a digital multiplex. The argument as to whether it was incidental and conducive—and this was before 2003, so we didn’t have to run the same arguments then—I think could well have held us up from being able to go ahead with that investment at the time, which turned out to be very successful for us. There’s an element of bureaucracy in this provision, which potentially restricts us from being fleet of foot when commercial opportunities come along.
[194] Mr I. Jones: Can I just add something? Our approach internally, over the last five years certainly, has been, first and foremost, how would we extend our brands and how do we create commercial revenue from that? How do we create commercial revenue on-stream? The analogy I’ve been using internally is to think of an onion. Right in the middle of the onion, you’ve got S4C, but there are layers that go out from that onion. And, what we want to do is work with all layers of that onion, not just the ones that are in the central part.
[195] Dawn Bowden: Good analogy.
[196] Bethan Jenkins: As long as they don’t make you cry [Laughter.]
[197] Dawn Bowden: One of the things, again, that you were talking about, in answering Dai Lloyd’s questions earlier on, was the funding and what the appropriate amount of funding might be, and so on. In your submissions, you were saying that one of the issues for you is actually understanding the process that is gone through to reach the point at which a determination is made about the level of funding. What would you like to see the process look like, because you talk about the fact that you’d like to see something more open and transparent? What would you like to see that you don’t think has happened now, that’s brought us to this point?
[198] Mr H. Jones: We think that there should be criteria that are defined as to what should be taken into consideration when a decision is made as to what level of funding S4C should enjoy. That could include, for example, inflation. It could include an assessment of current costs of programme production, as compared with past benchmarks. It could include a consideration of what other channels are providing. You could have a series of four or five criteria of that kind, which the Secretary of State would commit to looking at, in some way, and then coming to a conclusion that, based on an assessment—and the other thing, of course, would be agreement as to the remit and what the requirements of the remit are, particularly if the remit changes—and, on that basis, makes a decision as to the level of funding and how that is to be provided.
[199] Dawn Bowden: So, an agreed formula.
[200] Mr H. Jones: Well, it’s close to a formula, but it’s more of a description of a process, rather than a—. That would give—. It would fall short of being an actual formula, but it would be close to it in its effect.
[201] Dawn Bowden: There’d need to be some flexibility in it, yes.
[202] Mr I. Jones: I would argue strongly, Dawn, that funding in future shouldn’t be a ministerial whim. It should be a clear, transparent process linked to something and not just, ‘How much shall we give to S4C?’
[203] Dawn Bowden: Okay. My final question, Chair, if I might, is just on your views about the beneficial aspect of the plurality of funding. You talk about that, and you want it to continue. Would you still feel the same about that if the decision on funding was directly from Welsh Government? Would that still be an issue for you?
[204] Mr H. Jones: Plurality is an important principle. Plurality of funding is a clear signal of a range of stakeholders, if you like, and it helps to maintain our links with all the related parties, rather than having a single accounting stream, or accounting trail, and we think that’s a good thing.
[205] Bethan Jenkins: Mae gan Suzy gwestiwn ychwanegol, os yw hynny’n iawn. Diolch, Dawn.	Bethan Jenkins: Suzy has an additional question, if that’s okay. Thank you, Dawn.
[206] Suzy Davies: Just on this question of commercialisation, really, because I think we probably all agree that you’re far too limited in that at the moment. But we have had evidence—I think it might’ve been on a different inquiry, actually—from ITV, and their concerns about the level playing field in the commercial world. It wasn’t necessarily levelled at S4C, as it included the BBC as well, about whether big commercial opportunities for publicly financed broadcasters was completely fair when there are solely commercial operators out there. My own view is that S4C, because of its role within the Welsh language, is an exception anyway. But how would you answer their concerns when making your own case for more commercial powers?
[207] Mr I. Jones: Personally, I don’t understand their concerns, because, for me, competition is good. It helps develop skills, it helps drive value, and I don’t see the argument.
[208] Mr H. Jones: One fundamental point here is that we are only allowed to enter into commercial enterprises with our commercial revenues. So, we couldn’t use our public funding to do commercial enterprises—not allowed, clearly. Therefore, if we make such and such an amount of advertising revenue, or whatever, and we decide that we will invest that in a commercial enterprise, that is surely only doing the same as ITV are doing. So, I don’t see that that, in our case, is unfair competition. I think your point about scale and the nature of our activities means that there’s a sort of common-sense element here as well, in that I don’t think we’re going to be treading on ITV’s toes.
[209] Suzy Davies: No, I just wanted to get all that on the record. Thank you.
[210] Bethan Jenkins: Rydym ni’n symud ymlaen at welededd gwasanaethau S4C, ac mae gan Hannah gwestiynau.	Bethan Jenkins: We’ll now move on to the visibility of S4C services, and questions from Hannah Blythyn.
[211] Hannah Blythyn: The issue of visibility across new media and multiplatforms is something you touch on in quite a bit of detail in your ‘Pushing the Boundaries’ report, and issues about getting it on iPlayer and things like that. But, in previous evidence sessions with a digital consultant, one of the things they raised about the world of Apple TV and things like that was actually trying to get it on a number of platforms to ensure that visibility. So, I was wondering: have you had any discussions with ITV about getting S4C productions on the ITV Hub?
[212] Mr I. Jones: I haven’t had any discussions at all, but can I—? There’s another point you make there, implicit in what you said. I think the word ‘broadcasting’ is archaic today, as you said about your children—they watch other things—and we’re in a world of creating playlists, of curating content and placing that content across platforms relevant to parts of the audience. That’s what we should be doing. Because of that—this is in the document—we’re arguing strongly that S4C’s role as a public service broadcaster needs to evolve, and it needs to evolve—we’ve used the term ‘a public service media provider’, so that we’re providing content, curating content and putting that content across different platforms, and, more so in future, that content will be even more personalised. You go on Amazon now, and you order something, and the next time you go on, it recommends things to you. That’s going to happen more and more on different video platforms in future, and we’ve got to be a part of that. We’ve got to be across as many platforms as possible. I feel we need to evolve to be a public service media provider because of that.
[213] Just to add an allied point to that, which we really shouldn’t forget, and this was discussed last time—public service prominence on platforms. Now, we’re fortunate at the moment that we’re on No. 4 on the EPG, but, on smart tvs, how do you find us? As the market fragments in future, and the Welsh Government’s aim of creating 1 million Welsh speakers at some point in the future—in 2050, is it?—how are people going to find Welsh language content unless there’s an element of prominence across all platforms? So, coming back to your question, no, I haven’t had any direct discussions, but that’s our vision and that’s what we have to do. We’ve got to be visible, and evolving to be a public service media provider and trying to ensure long-term public service prominence are integral to that.
[214] Hannah Blythyn: In terms of ensuring that prominence, I know, in your report, you do say that you’ve already worked with Amazon Fire and Samsung, and we’re seeing the ongoing evolution of smart tvs. Do you think additional regulation is going to be needed to enable you to ensure that prominence or that it can be done without regulation?
[215] Mr H. Jones: I think if regulation can be delivered, it will clearly be a huge step forward in that direction. We know there’s resistance to regulation on that front, but the answer to, ‘Would we like to see regulation?’ is, ‘Yes, we would.’
[216] Mr I. Jones: There was an amendment, I believe, to the Digital Economy Act 2017, going through the House of Lords, which wasn’t adopted, that pertains to this.
[217] Bethan Jenkins: Rydym ni’n symud ymlaen at lywodraethu ac atebolrwydd, ac mae gan Lee Waters gwestiynau.	Bethan Jenkins: We will move on to governance and accountability, and Lee Waters has some questions.
[218] Lee Waters: Diolch. Can you update us on where things are at in terms of the clarity of S4C’s relationship with the new BBC governance structure?
[219] Mr H. Jones: We are working on a new agreement. That has been held up while a BBC member for Wales is being appointed, at the BBC’s request. So, we expect that there’s work going on in the background on that, but we expect the formalisation of that agreement to happen after the new member is appointed.
[220] Lee Waters: Do you have a vision of ideally what you’d like it to look like?
[221] Mr H. Jones: Yes, I think we do. It’s a relationship based, essentially, on recognising the BBC’s duty to account for the uses to which the licence fee is put and therefore we need to provide them with mechanisms of assurance that that is what is happening in terms of the money that is being used by S4C. So, it’ll be in that direction.
10:45
[222] Lee Waters: Ron Jones, in his testimony to the committee, suggested a service licence akin to that of the other BBC channels for S4C, so it would be clear what the accountability is and what the performance against those measurements would be. Do you have a view on that?
[223] Mr H. Jones: Well, the words ‘service licence’ have been used in a number of contexts in relation to this review. Reference has also been made to the possibility of a licence from Ofcom. The starting point is that we have a statutory remit, and that comes from Parliament—from Act of Parliament. So, that is our core responsibility, to deliver that remit.
[224] I think there’s room for discussion as to whether licences, whether it’s through Ofcom or the BBC, and bearing in mind that the BBC now has licences from Ofcom, so you’ve got quite a complicated trail if you’re not careful there—the one thing that we would argue is that whatever is put in place, and if there are new structures put in place, they should be for the benefit of the service, so that we can see how it benefits the service, and secondly that it’s proportionate to the issues concerned. So, in terms of both accountability to the BBC for the funding and the regulatory relationship with Ofcom, we’re open to discussions as to how this can happen, but it should be proportionate, whatever it is.
[225] Lee Waters: Do I correctly interpret what you’re saying—that you’d be resistant to a service licence with the BBC, but you’d be open to a service licence with Ofcom?
[226] Mr H. Jones: We have managed the relationship with the BBC in different situations for the past four years based on an operating agreement that was created for a specific purpose and for a specific accounting trail. We are happy to enter into discussions on the same understanding—that what we’re trying to do is to meet a need. So, what is the need? The need is for us to account for the way the money is being used, but it remains S4C’s responsibility as to how to define the remit and how to deliver the remit. So, we want to maintain that clarity of accounting, which is that S4C is responsible for the way the remit is delivered.
[227] Lee Waters: Okay. I think I understand that. We’ve had some evidence that suggests that the governance of S4C would be better placed—neater, more fit for purpose—if it was held entirely with Ofcom. Can you make a case for retaining the S4C authority?
[228] Mr H. Jones: Yes. I think we need to be clear about the difference between governance and regulation, because there is a danger that the two terms are conflated. They’re not the same. Governance in terms of broadcasting is about defining a remit, adopting a strategy, delivering a strategy and monitoring the performance of that strategy. Regulation is about conforming to codes and being open to complaints and so forth. Now, there is some confusion, I think, as to whether S4C is regulated by Ofcom or not. S4C is regulated by Ofcom. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. We are bound by Ofcom codes, we give Ofcom reports about all sorts of different things, including how much we spend on programmes and viewing figures, and we need to conform to the codes in terms of fairness, lack of bias and all the rest of it. We also have to fulfil certain quotas in accordance with Ofcom requirements. For example, how many hours of current affairs programmes we deliver, hours of news programmes, what proportion we deliver of subtitling—that sort of thing. So, there is quite a substantial chunk of regulation through which we are already accountable to Ofcom. We pay Ofcom several thousand pounds a year for being regulated by them.
[229] So, the S4C authority is the body that defines the remit and interprets how it’s delivered and then keeps an eye on how it’s going. It does that through commissioning research. It does that through a process of committees, which interrogates the officers as to what is being delivered, interrogates audience requirements and then, at the end of the year, produces a report that summarises that. That is governance; that’s what the authority does.
[230] Lee Waters: I understand clearly that’s your view as the chair of S4C Authority. Could I ask Ian Jones as the outgoing chief executive for the benefit of his reflections of his time in the role, and whether or not he thinks that’s a model that is—it sounds quite a lot like a local authority to me—the most fleet-of-foot model for the needs of a broadcaster in the next period?
[231] Mr I. Jones: I think the model as it’s set out at the moment—I would call it ‘light touch’ regulation—with Ofcom works. And certainly in my dealings with the authority, I’m held to account, questioned and challenged on everything. I’d be concerned if that holding to account on a strategic level and operational level would be external, because I don’t think it makes sense at all. Whether the authority evolves to be more of a unitary board—. In fact, the truth is that a lot of the role of the unitary board is undertaken by the authority anyway at the moment. So, I’d be really concerned if there wasn’t somebody that could challenge me or the future chief exec, hold them to account, not just on quotas and subtitling and other regulatory matters, but on operational matters as well. In my view, the best people to understand operational matters are those engaged on the board internally, and not externally.
[232] Lee Waters: In terms of governance rather than regulations, to take Huw Jones’s distinction, you think a unitary board model, which we now have with the BBC, could work for S4C, too.
[233] Mr I. Jones: Yes, I do.
[234] Lee Waters: Would you favour that?
[235] Mr I. Jones: I would favour that because the authority, as it’s currently structured—. There is one S4C body, okay, and the authority is that body. I’m the operational side, Huw is the governance side. Call it what you want, I would favour a board, whether it’s called a unitary board or some other board, but that’s just a name change and some tweaking.
[236] Lee Waters: Can I just briefly ask Huw Jones’s view on the unitary body model?
[237] Mr H. Jones: My view is that, to a large extent, we already operate as a unitary board in practice, so I don’t see that there’s a huge amount of difference in that. I think what we need to be clear on is if we’re saying that S4C becomes formally a unitary board, and at the same we’re saying that Ofcom should take on additional responsibilities, I want to be very clear about what that means, how it works—does it involve additional bureaucracy, how much will it cost and is it worth it? I think there are other ways for us to engage with Ofcom because there is this, I think, lack of clarity as to exactly what the relationship is. That might be sorted, for example, in the form of a memorandum of understanding, which lists all the different responsibilities, and who does what.
[238] Lee Waters: Okay, thank you.
[239] Bethan Jenkins: Jeremy.
[240] Jeremy Miles: Jest cwestiynau ar impact diwylliannol a, maes o law, impact economaidd—o ran gweledigaeth y sianel am ei dyfodol fel corff cyhoeddus yng Nghymru, mae’n amlwg bod gan y sianel rôl bwysig yn nhermau cyflawni amcanion strategaeth iaith y Llywodraeth. Rydych chi wedi sôn amdano fe y bore yma’n barod. Beth ydych chi’n ei weld—? A oes yna ryw ofyniad gennych chi fel sianel o Lywodraeth Cymru am gefnogaeth neu rywbeth arall i allu eich caniatáu chi i gyflawni’ch rôl o fewn y strategaeth honno?	Jeremy Miles: I have some questions on the cultural impact and then on the economic impact. In terms of the channel’s vision for its future as a public broadcaster in Wales, it’s clear that the channel has an important role to play in terms of achieving the Welsh Government’s language strategy. You’ve already alluded to that. What do you see—? Is there any requirement placed upon you by Welsh Government to provide support or anything else that would you enable you to carry out your role within that strategy?
[241] Mr H. Jones: Sori, a allwch chi ofyn darn olaf y cwestiwn eto?	Mr H. Jones: Sorry, could you ask the second part of your question again?
[242] Jeremy Miles: Mae gan y sianel rôl i helpu’r Llywodraeth gyrraedd y nod o gynyddu nifer y siaradwyr Cymraeg. Efallai nad ydych chi’n derbyn hynny, ond—	Jeremy Miles: The channel has a role in assisting the Government in reaching its target of increasing the number of Welsh speakers. Perhaps you don’t accept that, but—
[243] Mr H. Jones: Mae hwn, wrth gwrs, yn gwestiwn—. Beth rydym yn ei dderbyn yw bod S4C—. Mae gwasanaeth teledu Cymraeg, pwy bynnag sydd yn ei ddarparu o, yn mynd i gael effaith ar yr hinsawdd sydd yn cynnal yr iaith. Rydym yn derbyn hynny. Mae’n rhaid i ni hefyd bob tro nodi mai ein cylch gorchwyl statudol ni yw darparu gwasanaeth darlledu. Felly, nid yw yn rhan o’n cylch gorchwyl statudol ni i gyfrannu at gynyddu siaradwyr Cymraeg, ond yn anochel, rydym yn derbyn bod yr hyn rydym yn ei wneud yn cyfrannu yn gadarnhaol at yr hinsawdd yna.	Mr H. Jones: This, of course, is a question—. What we accept is that S4C—. A Welsh language television service, whoever provides it, is going to have an impact on the climate that supports the language. We accept that. We also always have to note that our statutory remit is providing a broadcast service. Therefore, it is not part of our statutory remit to contribute to increasing the number of Welsh speakers, but inevitably, we accept that what we do contributes positively to that climate.
[244] Felly, mae’n rhaid i ni droedio yn lled ofalus fan hyn. Nid ydym yn gallu camu y tu allan i’n cylch gorchwyl. Beth rydym yn ei wneud yn ymwybodol iawn yw sicrhau ein bod ni’n deall beth yw impact diwylliannol yr hyn rydym yn ei wneud, yn ymarferol, yn nhermau rhaglenni unigol. Er enghraifft, rydym yn cynnal ymchwil sydd yn gofyn i bobl nodi i ba raddau y mae S4C wedi’u helpu nhw i wella’u Cymraeg, i ddysgu Cymraeg et cetera, ac mae hynny’n bwydo i mewn i’r math o raglenni rydym yn eu gwneud, achos mae o’n rhan o werthfawrogiad cynulleidfa.	So, we have to be careful here. We can’t step outside the remit. What we are doing, and we’re very aware of it, is ensuring that we understand the cultural impact of what we’re doing on a practical level, in terms of individual programmes. For example, we’ve undertaken research that asks people to note to what extent S4C has helped them to improve their Welsh, to learn Welsh et cetera, and that feeds into the sort of programmes that we do, because it’s part of the appreciation of the audience.
[245] Jeremy Miles: Gan fod gyda ni drafodaeth ar y cylch gorchwyl, a bod gyda ni drafodaeth ar y strategaeth yn digwydd ar yr un pryd, beth yw’ch barn chi ar newid y cylch gorchwyl i gynnwys cyfrifoldeb i ehangu nifer y siaradwyr, neu i gefnogi hynny?	Jeremy Miles: As we’ve had discussion on the remit, and there is a discussion on the strategy happening simultaneously, what’s your view on the change in your remit to include a requirement to enhance the number of Welsh speakers, or to support that?
[246] Mr H. Jones: I’r graddau bod yr iaith Gymraeg fel y cyfryw yn bwnc sydd wedi’i ddatganoli, ac nad yw darlledu, mae yna gwestiynau deddfwriaethol tipyn bach yn gymhleth yn y fan yna. Rwy’n meddwl bod angen troedio yn ofalus. Yr hyn buaswn i yn ei ddweud ydy bod y fantais sydd yn dod i bolisi iaith Gymraeg y Llywodraeth o fodolaeth S4C yn amlwg—ein bod ni’n gweithio mewn partneriaeth yn gyson gyda chyrff sydd yn cael eu hariannu gan y Llywodraeth er mwyn macsimeiddio’r gwerth maen nhw’n cael, ac rydym ni’n ei gael allan o’n gweithgareddau ni, ac mae hynny i’w weld yn gweithio. Ac rydym yn hapus iawn i gymryd rhan mewn trafodaethau sydd yn asesu beth yw’r impact ac ati. Ond rydym yn rhan o’r byd darlledu yn y lle cyntaf.	Mr H. Jones: To the extent that the Welsh language as such is a subject that has been devolved, and that broadcasting isn’t, there are complex legislative questions there. And I think that there is a need to tread carefully. What I would say is that the benefit that comes to the Welsh language policy of the Government from the existence of S4C is obvious—that we work in partnership regularly with bodies that are funded in order to maximise the value that they get and that we get out of our activities, and that seems to work. And we’re very happy to take part in discussions that assess what the impact is and so on. But we are part of the broadcasting world in the first place.
[247] Jeremy Miles: Ocê, rwy’n derbyn y pwynt ar y setliad datganoli, ac nid wyf eisiau agor y cwestiwn hwnnw lan yn y drafodaeth hon. Ond o’ch safbwynt chi fel sianel, a fyddai mantais i chi petasai hynny’n gallu cael ei sortio, fel petai?	Jeremy Miles: Okay, I accept your point on the devolution settlement, but I don’t want to go into that area as part of this discussion. But from your point of view as a channel, would there be any benefit to you if that could be sorted, as it were?
[248] Mr H. Jones: Wel, byddai mewn ffordd yn rhoi sail ddeddfwriaethol i beth sydd yn synnwyr cyffredin. Wrth gwrs, rydym ni yma, ac rydym yn rhan o gytundeb bod yr iaith Gymraeg yn werth ei chynnal, a bod angen creu sylfaen ddiwylliannol dderbyniol i gynnal pobl sydd am siarad yr iaith. Rydym yn derbyn ein bod ni’n rhan ganolog o hynny. Rwy’n meddwl mai beth rwy’n pwyntio allan yw’r ystyriaethau ymarferol deddfwriaethol y mae'n rhaid i ni fod yn ofalus ohonyn nhw.	Mr H. Jones: Well, in a way it would give a legislative basis to what is common sense. Of course, we’re here, and we’re part of an agreement that the Welsh language is worth supporting, and that there is a need to create a cultural basis, an acceptable one, to support people who want to speak the language. We accept that we’re a central part of that. I think what I’m trying to point out is the practical legislative considerations that we need to be careful of.
[249] Jeremy Miles: Ac ar y cwestiwn o impact economaidd, felly, rydych chi wedi disgrifio model newydd, Ian, yn benodol y bore yma, ac rwy’n cymryd bod hynny yn mynd i olygu lot mwy o gynnwys sy’n cael ei ddosbarthu ar-lein ac ati yma, ac mae patrymau comisiynu, efallai, yn mynd i esblygu yn sgil hynny. Oes gyda chi unrhyw asesiad neu ddarlun yn eich meddwl o ba fath o gwmnïau rydych yn debygol o fod yn comisiynu yn y dyfodol ar gyfer y math hynny o gynnwys? Ydyn nhw yr un bobl rydych yn comisiynu yn barod, ond eu bod nhw’n gwneud gwaith ychydig yn wahanol, gyda chyllidebau gwahanol, a’u bod nhw’n ffurf fer ac ati, neu a ydych chi’n gweld bod y patrwm o gomisiynu, a’r cwmnïau y byddwch chi’n eu comisiynu efallai’n hollol wahanol? Efallai ar gyfer rai cynnwys, byddai gyda chi berson â chamera a dim lot mwy. Oes gyda chi unrhyw ddarlun o hynny ar hyn o bryd?	Jeremy Miles: And on the question of economic impact, therefore, you have described a new model, Ian, this morning, and I assume that that will mean a great deal more content distributed online and so on, and commissioning patterns may evolve as a result of that. Do you have any assessment or any picture in your own mind in terms of what kind of companies you’re likely to commission in the future for that kind of content? Are they the same people that you currently commission, but that they would be doing work that is slightly different, with different budgets, in short-form and so on, or do you see that the commissioning pattern, and the companies that you would commission would perhaps be entirely different? For some kinds of content, you may have a camera person and very little else. Do you have any picture of that at the moment?
[250] Mr I. Jones: Rwy’n meddwl bod rhaid i ni wneud popeth, yn syml iawn. Mae gyda ni—. Fe wnaethon ni benodi rhywun i gomisiynu deunydd digidol short-form—yn atodol i raglenni ar y foment, oherwydd bod ein remit yn caniatáu i ni wneud hynny—ryw chwech, saith mis yn ôl. Mae’r person hwnnw yn rhan o’r tîm comisiynu, ac un rhan o rôl y person hwnnw yw comisiynu syniadau da. A dyna’r peth pwysig—nid cwmnïau mawr, nid cwmnïau bach, nid unigolion, ond syniadau da wrth bawb.	Mr I. Jones: I think we have to do everything, simply. We appointed somebody to commission short-form digital material—ancillary to programmes at the moment, because our remit allowed us to do so—about six, seven months ago. That person is part of the commissioning team, and one part of that person’s role is to commission good ideas. And that’s the important thing—not large companies, not small companies, not individuals, but good ideas from everybody.
[251] Nawr, mae gwahanol syniadau yn costio’n wahanol. Rwy’n meddwl ei bod hi’n bwysig ofnadwy, gan fod 97 y cant o’r gwylio dal i fod ar y sianel linol, nad ydyn ni’n ‘dilute-o’ beth rydym yn gwario ar rhai genres o raglenni ar y sianel linol. Ond hefyd, rwy’n meddwl y dylem ni fod yn gwario ar rai syniadau yn amodol ar y syniad—arian bach. Nid wyf yn meddwl bod yna un rheol. Yn amlwg, mae syniadau sydd yn rhedeg i funud neu dair munud yn mynd i fod yn lot tsiepach na syniadau awr. Maen nhw’n mynd i fod yn tsiepach na’r cyfresi drama rydym yn comisiynu ar gyfer y brif sgrin. Felly, i fi, ni ddylem fod yn diffinio neu gomisiynu’r cwmnïau yma, ond y syniadau gorau, waeth o ble mae’r syniadau yna yn dod, a chydag ystod o brisiau—syniadau sy’n costio bron i ddim byd, reit lan i syniadau high-end rydym yn gwario arnynt.	Now, different ideas cost different amounts. I think it’s very important, because 97 per cent of the viewing is still on the linear channel, that we don’t dilute what we spend on some genres of programmes on the linear channel. But also, I think we should be spending on some ideas on the condition of the idea—small amounts of money. I don’t think there’s one rule. Clearly, ideas that run to a minute or three minutes are going to be much cheaper than hour-long ideas. They’re going to be cheaper than drama series that we commission for the main screen. Therefore, for me, we shouldn’t be defining or commissioning these particular companies, but the best ideas, wherever those ideas come from, and with a range of costings—ideas that cost next to nothing, right up to high-end ideas that we spend money on.
11:00
[252] Jeremy Miles: Ocê. Pan roedd y Gweinidog gyda ni yn ddiweddar, dywedodd ei fod yn credu y gallai’r sianel wneud mwy i gynyddu’r sail sgiliau yn y sector yn gyffredinol. Rydym hefyd wedi cael tystiolaeth gan BECTU, er enghraifft, nad yw cwmnïau cynhyrchu, mewn rhai mannau, yn ymwneud digon gyda’r agenda sgiliau na chwaith gyda nhw, fel mae’n digwydd, fel undeb. Rwy’n sicr bod eich termau comisiynu chi’n cynnwys gofynion i gynnal sgiliau a phob math o bethau, ond a ydych yn gweld bod mwy y gallech ei wneud, fel sianel, i gymryd rôl proactive wrth sicrhau bod hynny'n digwydd ar lawr gwlad ar draws y sector?	Jeremy Miles: Okay. When the Minister was with us recently, he said that he believed that the channel could do more to enhance the skills basis in the sector more generally. We’ve also received evidence from BECTU, for example, that production companies don’t get engaged enough with the skills agenda or with them as a union. I’m sure that your commissioning terms include some requirements to maintain skills and all sorts of other things, but is there more that you could do, as a channel, to take a proactive role in ensuring that that happens on the ground across the sector?
[253] Mr I. Jones: Yn bersonol, oes, ond jest i fynd yn ôl cam, i fyny at ddwy flynedd yn ôl, rwy’n meddwl, roedd dau gorff yng Nghymru: Cyfle, a gafodd ei setio i fyny, ac yr oedd S4C yn rhan o’r tîm a wnaeth ei setio i fyny yn ôl yn y 1980au, ac roedd yn gorff a oedd yn y pen draw yn delifro hyfforddiant; ac roedd Creative Skillset Cymru. Mae’r ddau wedi diflannu, felly mae’n rhaid inni wneud rhywbeth. Nid oes pwynt inni jest eistedd yn ôl a gadael i bethau ddigwydd yn awtomatig.	Mr I. Jones: Personally, yes, but just to go back a step, until about two years ago, I think, there were two bodies in Wales: Cyfle, which was established, and S4C was part of the team that established it back in the 19802, and that was a body that ultimately delivered training; and there was also Creative Skillset Cymru. Both have disappeared, so we have to do something. There’s no point in us just sitting back and allowing things to happen automatically.
[254] Beth rydym ni wedi bod yn gwneud ers rhyw flwyddyn neu 18 mis yw trafod gyda’r diwydiant, trafod gyda’r rhanddeiliaid a chyda’r cwmnïau. Mae gan bob cwmni sydd â chytundeb hirdymor gyda ni lein yn eu cytundeb nhw sydd yn eu gorfodi nhw i ddatblygu sgiliau, fel rhan o'r cytundeb hynny—a chytundebau dwy neu dair blynedd yw’r rheini. Yn y trafodaethau rydym ni wedi’u cael, rydym wedi dod i'r casgliad bod eisiau i TAC a chynhyrchwyr annibynnol roi arweiniad, ond y dylem ni fod yn rhan o hynny. Ac rydym yn y broses ar hyn o bryd o roi cynllun at ei gilydd—a fydd yn cael ei wireddu, rwy’n gobeithio, rhywbryd o flwyddyn nesaf ymlaen—a fydd yn helpu i ddatblygu sgiliau ymhellach yng Nghymru a hyfforddi. Ond yn ychwanegol i hynny, fe welwch chi o’r adroddiad ein bod ni’n credu hefyd y dylem fod yn gwneud mwy gydag addysg yn gyffredinol. Mae yna ddarn weddol sylweddol yn y ddogfen ynglŷn â hynny: addysg ynglŷn â sgiliau ieithyddol, sgiliau digidol a gwneud pethau ar gael i’r cwricwlwm sydd yn helpu pobl ifanc hefyd i feithrin y sgiliau y maen nhw eu heisiau ar gyfer bywyd y tu hwnt i’r ysgol.	What we have been doing for about a year or 18 months is discussing with the industry, stakeholders and with companies. Every company that has a long-term agreement with us has a line in their contract that says that they have to develop skills, as part of that agreement—and those are two or three-year agreements. In the discussions that we’ve had, we’ve come to the conclusion that there is a need for TAC and independent producers to provide leadership, but that we should be part of that. We are in the process at the moment of putting a plan together—that will be realised, I hope, from next year on—which will help to develop skills further in Wales and training. But in addition to that, you will see from the report that we also believe that we should be doing more with education in general. There is quite a substantial piece of work in the document on that: education relating to language skills, digital skills and doing things that are available for the curriculum that will also assist young people to nurture the skills that they require for life outside school.
[255] Mr H. Jones: A gaf fi ddweud un peth penodol am sgiliau? Mae yna dri pharti yn fan hyn, onid oes? Mae’r cynhyrchwyr, mae’r darlledwyr ac y mae Llywodraeth Cymru a’r holl ystod o ddarpariaeth sgiliau sydd yn mynd drwy’r system addysg. Mae gennych chi hefyd ariannu o’r tu allan, sydd wedi dod yn y gorffennol o Ewrop, ac mi fydd arian Ewrop ar gyfer hyfforddi yn diflannu. Mae’r holl bethau yma yn gofyn mwy o sylw gan y partïon i gyd ac rwy’n meddwl y byddem ni’n croesawu bod yn rhan o hynny.	Mr H. Jones: Can I say one specific thing on skills? There are three parties here, aren’t there? There are the producers, the broadcasters and the Welsh Government, and the whole range of skills provision available through the education system. You also have external funding that, in the past, has come from Europe, and European funding for training will disappear. Now, all of these things do require more attention from all interested parties and we would welcome being part of that.
[256] Jeremy Miles: Rwy’n derbyn nad dim ond chi sydd yn gyfrifol am hyn, wrth gwrs. A ydych yn gweld bod rôl gyda chi o ran cytundebau cynhyrchu? A ydych yn gweld fod rôl awdit gyda chi i weld a yw’r cytundebau yn cael eu gwireddu ar lawr gwlad? Mae’r BBC o bryd i’w gilydd yn gwneud hyn gyda’u cynhyrchwyr—	Jeremy Miles: I accept that not only you are responsible for this, but do you think that you have a role in terms of the producing agreements? Do you see that you have an audit role to see whether those agreements are being realised at grass-roots level? The BBC occasionally does this with their producers—
[257] Mr H. Jones: O ran hyfforddi?	Mr H. Jones: In terms of training?
[258] Jeremy Miles: O ran hyfforddi yn benodol.	Jeremy Miles: In terms of training specifically.
[259] Mr I. Jones: Rwy’n meddwl bod—rwy’n cytuno’n llwyr.	Mr I. Jones: I do think we do—I would agree.
[260] Jeremy Miles: Ocê, diolch.	Jeremy Miles: Okay, thank you.
[261] Bethan Jenkins: Diolch am hynny. Oherwydd diffyg amser—mae’n rhaid inni fynd ar ymweliad—yn anffodus, nid ydym yn mynd i gael y cwestiynau ychwanegol gan Suzy a Neil Hamilton, fel yr oedd wedi cael ei benderfynu, ond rŷm ni’n mynd i ysgrifennu atoch chi, os yw hynny’n iawn, gyda’r cwestiynau a oedd yn weddill ynglŷn â pherthynas y BBC a gweddill y cwestiynau ar yr economi. Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi am ddod i mewn a byddwn, rwy’n siŵr, yn cysylltu â chi yn y man gyda chanlyniadau’r ymchwiliad. Diolch yn fawr iawn am ddod i mewn.	Bethan Jenkins: Thank you for that. Because of a shortage of time—we are going to undertake a visit—we’re not going to be able to fit in Suzy’s questions or Neil’s questions, but we will write to you with those questions, if that’s all right, in terms of the relationship with the BBC and the rest of the questions on the economic impact. Thank you very much for joining us and I’m sure that we will be in touch with you in due course with our findings. Thank you for your attendance.
[262] Mr H. Jones: Diolch am eich amser.	Mr H. Jones: Thank you for your time.
11:03
Papurau i’w Nodi Papers to Note
[263] Bethan Jenkins: Rydym yn symud ymlaen at eitem 4—papurau i’w nodi. Mae yna bapur, 4.1—ymateb gan gynullydd Pwyllgor Diwylliant, Twristiaeth, Ewrop a Chysylltiadau Allanol Senedd yr Alban i’r llythyr gennyf fi ynglŷn â phenodi aelodau bwrdd y BBC. A oes unrhyw sylwadau gan Aelodau ar y llythyr hwnnw? Na.	Bethan Jenkins: We will move on to item 4—papers to note. There is paper, 4.1—a reply from the convener of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee of the Scottish Parliament to my letter on the appointment of BBC board members. Do Members have any comments on that piece of correspondence? No.
11:04
Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i Benderfynu Gwahardd y Cyhoedd o’r Cyfarfod Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to Resolve to Exclude the Public from the Meeting
Cynnig:	Motion:
bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o’r cyfarfod ar gyfer eitemau 6 a 7 yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(vi).	that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the meeting for items 6 and 7 in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi).
Cynigiwyd y cynnig. Motion moved.
[264] Bethan Jenkins: Felly, symudwn ymlaen at Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i wahardd y cyhoedd o’r cyfarfod ar gyfer eitemau 6 a 7. A ydy pawb yn hapus? Diolch yn fawr iawn.	Bethan Jenkins: Therefore, we will move to a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the meeting for items 6 and 7. Is everyone content? Thank you very much.
Derbyniwyd y cynnig. Motion agreed.
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 11:04. The public part of the meeting ended at 11:04.