Aelodau’r pwyllgor yn bresennol
Committee members
in attendance
|
Peter Black
|
Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol Cymru Welsh Liberal
Democrats
|
Christine Chapman
|
Llafur
(Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor) Labour (Committee
Chair)
|
Alun Davies
|
Llafur
Labour
|
Janet Finch-Saunders
|
Ceidwadwyr Cymreig Welsh
Conservatives
|
Mike Hedges
|
Llafur Labour
|
Mark Isherwood
|
Ceidwadwyr Cymreig Welsh
Conservatives
|
Bethan Jenkins
|
Plaid Cymru (yn dirprwyo ar ran Jocelyn Davies) The Party of Wales
(substitute for Jocelyn Davies)
|
Gwyn R. Price
|
Llafur Labour
|
Rhodri Glyn Thomas
|
Plaid Cymru The Party of
Wales
|
Eraill yn bresennol Others in
attendance
|
Rona Fairhead
|
Cadeirydd, Ymddiriedolaeth y BBC
Chairman, BBC Trust
|
Iestyn Garlick
|
Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru
|
John McVay
|
Cynghrair y Cynhyrchwyr Sinema a Theledu
Producers Alliance
for Cinema and Television
|
Yr Athro/Professor Elan Closs
Stephens
|
Ymddiriedolwr Cenedlaethol Cymru, Ymddiriedolaeth y BBC
National Trustee for Wales, BBC Trust
|
Gareth Williams
|
Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru
|
Swyddogion Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru yn
bresennol National Assembly
for Wales officials in attendance
|
Rhys Iorwerth
|
Y Gwasanaeth
Ymchwil
Research Service
|
Claire Morris
|
Clerc
Clerk
|
Sarah Sargent
|
Dirprwy
Glerc
Deputy Clerk
|
Dechreuodd y
cyfarfod am 09:02.
The meeting began at 09:02.
|
Cyflwyniad,
Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datganiadau o Fuddiant
Introductions, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations
|
[1]
Christine
Chapman: Good morning,
everyone. Welcome to the Communities, Equality and Local Government
Committee. We’ve had apologies this morning from Gwenda
Thomas, and also from Jocelyn Davies and Bethan will substitute
today. So, Bethan Jenkins, welcome.
|
Ymchwiliad
i’r Adolygiad o Siarter y BBC: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth
3—Ymddiriedolaeth y BBC
Inquiry into the BBC Charter Review: Evidence Session 3—BBC
Trust
|
[2]
Christine
Chapman: This is the third
evidence session as part of our inquiry into the BBC charter
review, and I would like to welcome our panel from the BBC Trust. I
wonder whether you could introduce yourself for the record,
please.
|
[3]
Ms
Fairhead: Yes. Hello. Good
morning. My name is Rona Fairhead. I’m the chairman of the
BBC Trust, and I became chairman just over a year ago, last
October. And to my right is Elan, who I know is known to many of
you, but if you’d like her to introduce herself for the
record—it’s over to you, Elan.
|
[4]
Yr
Athro Stephens: Diolch yn fawr iawn. Fy enw i yw Elan Closs Stephens.
Rwy’n ymddiriedolwraig y BBC yng Nghymru ac yn eistedd ar yr
ymddiriedolaeth o dan gadeiryddiaeth Rona. Ac ar un adeg, roeddwn i
hefyd yn cadeirio S4C, ac felly yn gyfarwydd iawn â’r
sianel hefyd.
|
Professor
Stephens:
Thank you very much. My name is Elan Closs Stephens. I am the BBC
trustee for Wales and I am a member of the trust chaired by Rona.
And at one time, I was also chair of S4C, and therefore I’m
very familiar with S4C also.
|
[5]
Christine
Chapman: Diolch. Obviously,
we’ve had a paper from you, and obviously Members will have
read it so we’ll go straight into questions. I just want to
start off. The
Welsh Government has called for a specific evaluation to be
undertaken of what the BBC’s obligations should be to Wales,
separate to the charter review process. What is the trust’s
view on this?
|
[6]
Ms
Fairhead: The trust is
trying to welcome as much public voice and as much input to the
debate as possible, so, frankly, we welcome any input because we
think it produces an informed outcome. And we’ve been quite
clear as the trust that we’re there as the representatives of
the licence fee payers. We have been reaching out to everybody to
ask them to reply to our consultation—over 40,000 have
replied to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—and to
submit papers so that their voices are heard, and so we absolutely
welcome it.
|
[7]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. So,
you’re very open to getting people’s views.
|
[8]
Ms
Fairhead: Absolutely.
|
[9]
Professor
Stephens: Could I just add
as well that yesterday there was a very good summit—I think
you, Bethan, were there—done by the Institute of Welsh
Affairs, and that involved a substantial audit of content. The
BBC’s contribution in Wales goes somewhat beyond
content—it goes into
employment, into the orchestra, into possibly a new broadcasting
house, and so on. But, nevertheless, there was an audit done. So, I
would imagine that that could also be a good foundation for any
paper that was going in as part of this process.
|
[10]
Christine
Chapman: Yes, and I know
that a number of Members and staff were able to get to the summit
yesterday, so that was very positive. I just want—
|
[11]
Ms
Fairhead: And I can say that
we’ve been trying to do seminars around the country; we came
to Cardiff a few weeks ago. The IWA paper had just been reported
on, so we were able to discuss with members of the public and other
stakeholders any concerns they had, and where they would encourage
us to focus. And, frankly, I’ve been really encouraged by
both the amount of people wanting to contribute and the quality and
sophistication of the responses.
|
[12]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Thank you.
You suggested changing the wording of the BBC’s public
purpose relating to the nations and regions, so that the BBC has
to, and I quote,
|
[13]
‘provide
content to meet the nations’ needs rather than merely
representing them’.
|
[14]
Why
have you suggested this wording, and what difference do you think
it would make for Wales?
|
[15]
Ms
Fairhead: I’ll start
and then Elan maybe can add—. Starting right at the top with
public purposes, we were trying to make sure that they were
meaningful and that you could really measure them, because we think
if there’s that, then the public can have more confidence
that they’re getting done.
|
[16]
In
terms of the representation and portrayal, when we have gone around
the country there has been recognition that the BBC has done more
to get production and jobs more out of London—so, more than
50 per cent now out of London. The network supplier review has
allowed more production and more jobs and skills to be outside
London, and to be broad and more representative of the whole
nation. But the role is to serve the whole nation, and the feedback
we were getting in Wales, in Scotland, in Northern Ireland too and
in some regions was: ‘It’s fine to create jobs here,
but we want to be portrayed; we want to see ourselves.’ When
we did the public seminar, there was this real sense of an
enrichment for the whole country if there was that portrayal. So,
our hope would be that it would be not just jobs, which do matter,
and production and facilities, but also a recognition that there
has to be appropriate portrayal. And I mentioned this in a previous
select committee at Westminster that, for example, in Northern
Ireland the responsiveness to The Fall—I don’t
know if you saw the programme—was significant, because it was
Northern Irish people—. It was a fictional story, but it was
set and played out in Northern Ireland, and I think it’s that
sort of portrayal that we’re trying to push the BBC to do and
to embed it in the public purposes.
|
[17]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Did you want
to come in, Elan?
|
[18]
Yr
Athro Stephens: Dim
ond i ychwanegu bod y BBC yn gwario £56 miliwn, rwy’n
meddwl, yn Roath Lock ar y cynyrchiadau sydd yn dod yma. Felly, fel
mae Rona wedi dweud, mae yna gyflogaeth sylweddol yma, ond mae yna
hefyd sgiliau yn cael eu datblygu. A nawr ydy’r amser,
rwy’n meddwl, i weld y sgiliau hynny yn cael eu cyflogi ar
gyfer portread ohonom ni hefyd. Felly, rwy’n meddwl mai
dyna’r pwynt amlycaf. Mae yna ddiffyg, rwy’n meddwl, yn
cael ei gydnabod ar ochr drama ac ar ochr gomedi yn fwy arbennig,
er bod comedi yn faes anodd i bob darlledwr.
|
Professor
Stephens: Just to add that
the BBC does spend £56 million, I believe, in Roath Lock on
the productions made there. So, as Rona has already said, there is
significant employment here, but there are also skills developed.
And now, I think, is the time to see those skills being employed to
portray us, too. Therefore, I do think that that is the most
prominent point here. There is a deficiency, I think, which has
been acknowledged on the side of drama and comedy more
particularly, although comedy is a very difficult area for all
broadcasters.
|
[19]
Christine
Chapman: I’ve got a
number of Members who want to come in. Before I do that, I know
Rona’s talked about meeting the nations’ needs and
you’ve given some examples. How difficult is it try to really
assess that concept? How will you know when you’ve been
successful at it? It’s a bit open-ended in some
respects.
|
[20]
Ms
Fairhead: I think it is
genuinely open-ended. I think there was a good start on the network
supplier review, which said that, broadly, there should be a
similar percentage in terms of the contribution to the network
supply from the regions. So, that’s a sort of hard measure
that’s happened, so 6 per cent of network supply comes from
Wales, which I think is absolutely appropriate. There has been
investment here. Roath Lock is an example and the new centre in
Central Square will be another. So, there’s been investment,
and that’s all good.
|
[21]
I
think it’s a softer thing now; I think it’s about
representation, portrayal and feeling connected and part—. It
was interesting, when we were at this seminar here, as I said, a
couple of weeks ago, that the sense really was: ‘We’ve
sort of got the foundation now.’ The independent sector is
building up, which is—a key part of what the BBC can do is
build the creative industry. Now, it really is about using that and
using it to enrich not just Wales, but the whole of the country,
and to flow both ways. So, it’s a difficult question to
answer, because if I go to Scotland I get the same message, and
there’s only a certain budget. So, it will always be a
struggle to make sure you’re doing enough. I think what
we’re trying to do as a trust is make sure that it’s
not just the hard elements, but that it’s the softer
portrayal/representation side that is acknowledged just as much.
But if you ask me ‘What does success look like?’,
I’m not sure we’ll ever get to a stage where every
single region and every single nation thinks it’s absolutely
perfect. I think we’ve just got to keep—keep
challenging us.
|
[22]
Christine
Chapman: Thank you.
Elan.
|
[23]
Professor
Stephens: I think it might
be useful, because we take what we do for granted, almost, just to
tell you how we measure at the moment. So, for example, with the
public purposes, the trust has a rolling panel, and, I think twice
a year, has an audit of whether people are satisfied with how we
are fulfilling those public purposes. So, every half-year, we have
a wake-up call about, for example, whether we’re doing enough
on citizenship. So, the question is: ‘How important do you
think that is?’—and very often it’s, you know,
nine out of 10—and then ‘How well do you think we do
it?’ We keep track of the gap between the importance and what
we fulfil. So, at the moment, that’s one of the ways in which
we measure. There’s also an audience council here that I
chair that has an annual report on the services of BBC Wales. I
think, as we move forward, and especially with the Sir David
Clementi review on governance, this is one area where we will be
trying to tease out how best to be more accountable and more
visible in the way that we look at Welsh services.
|
[24]
Ms
Fairhead: I’d just add
two things. The good news for Wales is, if you actually look at the
feedback that we do get from the audience, that the highest
audience appreciation score across the country is in Wales and most
viewing hours. So, there’s a lot of support and, you know,
recognition of what the BBC brings. The one area that keeps coming
back is portrayal and representation. So, that’s exactly why
we’ve responded to it.
|
[25]
The
other thing I would say, in terms of the public purposes, is
we’ve also asked that we start looking at the public purposes
in terms of the way that the BBC is run, both as an organisation,
but also how you see it as a consumer, which picks up the audience
appreciation; what it does for you as a citizen; and also what it
does for the economy. So, we’re trying to find ways to
measure more clearly what it is that the BBC as a public service
broadcaster should be doing that is more measurable, because we
think that will give a little bit more focus.
|
[26]
Christine
Chapman: I’ve got a
number of Members who want to come in. I’ve got Gwyn first,
then Bethan, Rhodri and then Alun.
|
[27]
Gwyn R.
Price: Good morning to
you both. The trust says, in its response to the Green Paper,
that
|
[28]
‘representation
of the devolved nations is a key issue that needs to be resolved as
part of Charter Review.’
|
[29]
How
exactly does the trust think that this can be addressed?
|
09:15
|
[30]
Ms
Fairhead: I think
we’re doing some of the hard things. So, some of the things
that we can do, essentially, as a regulator are to, sort of, set
measures and track, and to make sure that areas of concern the
highlighted. In terms of representation and portrayal, it really is
the executives’ role, because it’s for them to decide
what programmes are produced, how they’re produced, how
they’re commissioned and how they schedule, and, therefore,
part of what the challenge is is to make sure that the purposes and
requirements that are set by the trust, as the regulating body, are
challenging the BBC to manage in a way that meets that. I think
this is one of the issues, being that the regulator, when you say,
‘How are we going to do it?’ the answer is,
‘It’s not us that has to do it, it’s the BBC
executive’. What we can do is put in place structures,
processes and measures, highlight where it’s not being done,
and we have to hand it over to the BBC, who we ask to manage this
organisation, to manage it in a way that meets those desires and
objectives of the public.
|
[31]
Gwyn R.
Price: Okay. I have a
question for Elan. You touched on Roath Lock and the drama
there.
|
[32]
Professor
Stephens: Yes.
|
[33]
Gwyn R.
Price: I wonder if you
could expand a little bit, because the committee has heard some
criticisms that it’s the major productions, but it
doesn’t touch the Welsh side of it.
|
[34]
Professor
Stephens: Yes. I think
that’s been the issue that we’ve tried to address
before you. It is a major success as a production unit, but
it’s a UK production unit; we should be very proud of it. I
think it’s unfortunate to have the idea that, somehow,
it’s a sort of cuckoo in the nest. It’s a major
employer, and more than that, a major provider of skills and
expertise in all sorts of areas, such as costume, make-up,
production, sets, et cetera. And, of course, there are also
apprenticeships there. What I think is the next step is to ask how
much of that production actually shows Cardiff bay, north Wales,
mid Wales—the life of Welsh people. Of course, when you look
at what does come out of Roath Lock—Casualty; Pobol
y Cwm, of course, is a portrayal, but in the Welsh language;
then, as part of the whole production unit, you’ve got
Sherlock and the famous Doctor Who—we just have
to make certain that we show Welsh life as well as helping
employment.
|
[35]
I
would suggest, just in terms of the committee’s interest, I
don’t know whether BBC Wales have given you this invitation,
but if they invite you to go to Roath Lock, I strongly urge you to
do so, because it’s a major, major studio facility, the size
of several football pitches, and insulated and soundproofed to a
very high standard. So, please take the opportunity. But as I said,
and as Rona said, it’s the start, not the end.
|
[36]
Gwyn R.
Price: Right. So,
you’ve taken it on board.
|
[37]
Professor
Stephens: Yes.
|
[38]
Gwyn R.
Price: Thank you very
much.
|
[39]
Christine
Chapman: Thank you.
Bethan.
|
[40]
Bethan Jenkins: Rwyf
i jest eisiau mynd yn ôl yn glou at beth roeddech chi’n
ei ddweud ynglŷn â mesur yr hyn rydych chi’n ei
wneud. Dros y blynyddoedd o fod yn gyfrifol am y briff yma i Blaid
Cymru, rwyf i wedi clywed nifer fawr o feirniadaethau o’r
ymddiriedolaeth ei hun, sef nad yw’r ymddiriedolaeth yn dwyn
y BBC i gyfrif yn ddigon cryf. Fe wnes i siarad â rhywun
sy’n aelod o’r cyngor gwylwyr ddoe a oedd yn dweud, er
enghraifft, fod Tony Hall yn dod ac yn dweud bod yna broblemau, ac
roedd James Purnell wedi dweud ddoe bod angen portreadu mwy o
Gymru. Maen nhw’n dod i Gymru a gwneud yr areithiau hyn, ond nid oes dim byd yn newid yn hynny o
beth; yn sicr, mae’n gwaethygu o ran cynnwys sydd yn
portreadu Cymru.
|
Bethan
Jenkins: I just want to go
back quickly to what you were saying regarding measuring what you
do. Over the years that I’ve been responsible for this brief
for Plaid Cymru, I’ve heard a number of criticisms of the
trust itself, namely that the trust doesn’t hold the BBC to
account robustly enough. I was speaking to somebody who was a
member of the audience council yesterday, who said, for example,
that Tony Hall comes and says there are problems, and James Purnell
said yesterday that there was a need to portray more of Wales. They
come to Wales and make these speeches, but nothing changes in that
sense; certainly it’s deteriorating in terms of content that
is portraying Wales.
|
[41]
Felly, beth yn gwmws a ydych chi’n ei wneud fel
ymddiriedolaeth wedyn? Os oes yna dracio sy’n dangos bod
pethau’n ffaelu, sut ydych chi’n eu dwyn nhw i gyfrif i
sicrhau, felly, fod gan wylwyr ffydd yn yr ymddiriedolaeth
a’r ffaith eich bod chi yn gwneud eich gwaith yn effeithiol?
Achos, weithiau, mae hynny’n cael ei gwestiynu yn y sector a
gan bobl sy’n dod ataf i, fel Aelod Cynulliad.
|
So, what exactly
are you doing as a trust then? If tracking is happening and showing
that things are failing, how do you hold them to account to ensure,
therefore, that viewers have faith in the trust and the fact that
you’re doing your work effectively? Because, sometimes, that
is questioned in the sector, and by people who come to me, as an
Assembly Member.
|
[42]
Yr
Athro Stephens: Wel,
rwy’n credu bod angen pwyllo ychydig bach ynglŷn
â’r portread o’r BBC yn gyffredinol. Rwyf i wedi
nodi dwy ardal, sef comedi a drama, lle mae yna ddiffygion, ond
mae’n rhaid i ni hefyd gofio bod y newyddion rhanbarthol am
6.30 p.m. yn llwyddiant cryf iawn, ac yn rhaglen gref o ran y
gwylwyr. Mae’r math o raglenni ffeithiol sydd wedi dod
allan—. Pan rwy’n edrych jest yn ddiweddar iawn, iawn
ar y rhaglen ar Nigel Owens, er enghraifft, a oedd wir yn cyffwrdd
rhywun, ac, yn ôl beth rydw i’n ei ddeall, mae yna dros
0.5 miliwn nawr wedi’i lawrlwytho neu wedi gwrando dros
Brydain i gyd. Felly, mae’n rhaid i ni fod yn ofalus drwy ddweud bod y
portread yma yn gyfan gwbl wael; mae o’n wael mewn
mannau.
|
Professor
Stephens: Well, I think that
we need to take a step back in terms of the portrayal of the BBC in
general. I have noted two areas, namely comedy and drama, where
there are weaknesses, but we must also bear in mind that the
regional news at 6.30 p.m. is a very great success, and a very
strong programme in terms of attracting viewers. The kinds of
factual programmes that have been produced—. If I just look
very, very recently at the programme on Nigel Owens, the referee,
which was truly touching, and as far as I understand, over 0.5
million people have downloaded or have listened to that programme
throughout the whole of the UK. So, we have to be very careful in
saying that the portrayal is poor across the piece. That
isn’t the case; it’s poor in certain areas.
|
[43]
Mae
yna ddau reswm am hynny, rwy’n meddwl. Mae yna ddiffyg wedi
bod ar yr ochr gomisiynu. Am ryw reswm, nid yw’r syniadau
wedi ffeindio eu ffordd drwodd. Ond, mae’n rhaid i ni hefyd
ofyn i ni’n hunain a ydym ni’n barod i roi cwotâu
ar syniadau, ynteu a fyddai’n well gennym ni adael y
creadigrwydd i fod y peth pwysicaf. Yr ail beth ydy, weithiau, mae
cyllideb yn broblem. Roedd yna ddrama o’r enw The Indian
Doctor a oedd yn llwyddiannus iawn ac roedd o’n cael ei
dangos ar y rhwydwaith yn ystod y dydd. Roeddem ni’n
dŵad at gomisiynu, rwy’n creu, y drydedd gyfres ac mi
oedd y gyllideb darlledu yn ystod y dydd wedi ei lleihau yn
sylweddol; nid oedd modd cyllido drama yn ystod y dydd rhagor,
felly mae honno’n syrthio. Felly, mae’n rhaid i ni,
rwy’n meddwl, ofyn i’r BBC chwilio am ffyrdd cyson o
gadw’r portread mewn cof wrth gomisiynu, a dyma, i mi,
ydy’r gagendor sydd wedi digwydd.
|
There are two
reasons for that, I think. There has been a deficiency in terms of
commissioning. For some reason, the ideas haven’t found their
way through the system. We must also ask ourselves whether we are
willing or ready to place quotas on ideas, or would we prefer to
allow the creative process to come to the fore. The second thing is
that, on occasion, budgets are a problem. There was a production
called The Indian Doctor that was extremely successful and
it was shown on the network during the daytime. We were coming to
the commissioning, I think, of the third series and the budget for
daytime broadcasting had been significantly cut, and it
wasn’t possible to fund daytime drama, so that was cut. I
think we do have to ask the BBC to find consistent ways of keeping
portrayal in mind as they commission programming and I think, for
me, this is the gap that has opened.
|
[44]
Nid
wyf yn meddwl am eiliad—. Sori, jest i ailadrodd, rydw i yn
meddwl bod yna bethau da iawn yn cael eu gwneud ac nad ydy’r
peth mor dywyll ag y mae’n cael ei ddangos, ond mae yna
ardaloedd penodol lle y mae angen gwneud mwy.
|
I don’t
think for one second—. Sorry, but if I could just reiterate
one thing, I do think that there are some very positive things
happening and that the picture isn’t as dark as has been
suggested, but there are specific areas where more does need to be
done.
|
[45]
Bethan
Jenkins: Diolch. Nid wyf yn dweud bod yna ddim byd yn digwydd, rwyf
jest yn credu weithiau—. Rŷch chi’n dweud efallai
bod arian yn cael ei dorri, nid yw pobl yn gallu rhoi rhaglenni
ymlaen yn ystod y dydd. Pam felly wnes i ddim clywed unrhyw beth
gan yr ymddiriedolaeth, er enghraifft, pan roedd y datganiad
ynglŷn â rhoi cyfrifoldeb dros y pensiwn dros 75
i’r BBC? Mae hynny wedi tynnu, efallai, i ffwrdd oddi wrth
gapasiti’r BBC. Felly, os oes yna broblemau cyllido yna, pam
ddim gwneud hynny yn rhywbeth mwy vocal, fel yr
ymddiriedolaeth?
|
Bethan
Jenkins: Thank you.
I’m not saying that nothing is happening, but I just think
sometimes—. You say that perhaps money is being cut and that
people can’t broadcast programmes during the day. So why,
therefore, didn’t I hear anything from the trust, for
example, when there was the statement regarding giving
responsibility for pensions over 75 to the BBC? That has taken
away, perhaps, from the capacity of the BBC. So, if there are
funding problems, why isn’t the trust more vocal about
that?
|
[46]
Yr
Athro Stephens: Rwy’n meddwl y bydd ein cadeirydd ni eisiau siarad am
hyn, achos nid ydw i’n meddwl ei fod o’n wir ein bod ni
heb ddatgan a bod yna ddiffyg trafod wedi bod ar y symiau
ariannol.
|
Professor
Stephens: I think the chair
will want to cover this because I don’t think it’s true
that we didn’t actually respond, and we actually did make the
point that there had been an absence of debate on those financial
issues.
|
[47]
Ms
Fairhead: I’m happy
to. We’ve made it very clear that we thought the process was
a terrible process in terms of that funding agreement that was done
in July. The reality is that the trust was involved; it’s not
true that the trust did not speak out. I was contacted by the
Secretary of State shortly before the director general was
contacted. The reality of the situation, we discovered, was
firstly, at the end of the charter, the BBC loses all rights, all
protections. So, you’ll have the charter for 10 years in
which there are clear protections for the licence-fee payer’s
money; at the end of the charter, that disappears. What we’re
saying is that has to change for the next charter. The second thing
is, whether we like it or not, the Government does decide what the
licence fee level is, and that has always been the case.
|
[48]
So,
what was put to us in July, to both the executive and to the trust,
was that the Government was going to take this money that had moved
from being Department for Work and Pensions funded into licence-fee
funded, and then effectively became a subsidy by Government of the
over-75s. We were told that decision had been made by Government;
it would be done. So, we spent the next few days—we said it
was a bad process, it should have been done in
public—negotiating on behalf of the licence-fee payer to get
the greatest set of mitigations. So, it was phased in over time,
the broadband roll-out top-sliced from before is being reduced to
zero and also, very importantly, there was an agreement that the
licence fee from the next charter would go up with inflation, which
is really important.
|
[49]
Now,
it still means that there is, at best, a 10 per cent cut over the
period in the budget, but because of the investment that the BBC
wants to make in partnerships, in these portrayals, and in making
sure that it’s responding to the needs of the audience, then
it’s somewhere between 10 and 20 per cent that will need to
be cut from the budget. We’ve been very clear that, as a
trust, that will mean some tough choices. The BBC will absolutely
encourage, and the BBC executive will do everything they can not to
affect service—[Inaudible.]—but there is an
inevitability that some will be cut and we’ve been very clear
about that.
|
[50]
So,
where I come away from it is, yes, the trust did speak out. The
situation—[Inaudible.]—the next charter, there
should be—[Inaudible.]—with
public—[Inaudible.]—process started
with—[Inaudible.]—out what the scope of the BBC
should be, and what we’ve said is that it should all be open
to public consultation. It should be, ‘Let’s work out
what you want from the BBC and then how much that means that you
need to fund it’. We think that there need to be more
protections at the end of every charter, so that there isn’t
this cliff, so that you actually have an assumption or a
presumption that the charter endures until a new one is put in
place, and there has to be some sort of parliamentary scrutiny of
those decisions. We don’t know exactly how that will
be—I think that will be for Government to decide—and
there will have to be some sort of public process on the amount of
money.
|
[51]
One of
our suggestions, which is done in Germany and is done with a number
of other institutions around the country, is that there is a
commission that makes a recommendation. That could be one way where
there’s a process with an independent body making a
recommendation, because I think the reality is that the Government
has always decided eventually what the licence fee agreement would
be, but we just want to make sure that the process is right for the
future.
|
[52]
Christine
Chapman: Rhodri Glyn
Thomas.
|
[53]
Rhodri Glyn Thomas: A
gaf i fynd yn ôl at y portread yma o Gymru? Rŷm ni’n gwerthfawrogi’n fawr iawn y
datblygiadau o ran cynyrchiadau ar gyfer y rhwydwaith yng
Nghaerdydd, ac mae’r gwaith sy’n cael ei greu gan hynny
a’r sgiliau sy’n cael eu datblygu yn bethau gwerthfawr
iawn, iawn, wrth reswm. Ond, am 16 mlynedd fel Aelod Cynulliad,
rwyf i wedi clywed pawb yn cydnabod bod y portread o Gymru yn
ddiffygiol, yn enwedig y portread o Gymru trwy gyfrwng y Saesneg
gan y BBC. Mae’ch cyngor cynulleidfa chi’n disgrifio’r
sefyllfa fel un ar y dibyn; ac eithrio’r newyddion,
mae’r allbwn ar y dibyn—‘on a cliff
edge’ oedd y disgrifiad a ddefnyddion nhw.
Mae
Tony Hall wedi cydnabod bod yna ddirywiad wedi bod ers degawd a
mwy. Pam nag oes yna unrhyw un, mewn gwirionedd, yn derbyn
cyfrifoldeb am hyn? A
ydy e’n dangos, er enghraifft, nad oes gan yr ymddiriedolaeth
unrhyw ddylanwad ar gynyrchiadau’r BBC? Oherwydd mae’r
ymddiriedolaeth wedi bod yn dweud hyn wrthym ni.
|
Rhodri Glyn
Thomas: May I go back to
this portrayal of Wales? We very much appreciate the developments
in terms of productions for the network in Cardiff, and the work
that is created as a result of that and the skills that are being
developed are very valuable, of course. But, in 16 years as an
Assembly Member, I’ve heard everybody acknowledging that the
portrayal of Wales is deficient, and especially that portrayal
through the medium of English by the BBC. Your audience council
describes the situation as one on a cliff edge; except for news,
the output is on a cliff edge—that was the description they
used. Tony Hall has acknowledged that there has been a decline for
over a decade. Why isn’t anyone, in reality, taking
responsibility for that? Does it show, for example, that the trust
doesn’t have any influence on BBC productions? Because the
trust has been telling us this.
|
[54]
Yr
Athro Stephens: Rydych chi’n mynd yn ôl at yr hyn mae cyfarwyddwr
Cymru, sef Rhodri Talfan Davies, yn gorfod ei wneud.
O
fewn ei gyllideb bresennol, mae ganddo fo’r dewis i wneud ei
benderfyniadau golygyddol ac mi ddewisodd o, yn benodol, ddau beth
yr oedd o’n mynd i’w gwarchod ar bob cyfrif:
un
oedd ei gyllideb chwaraeon, a’r llall, yn bendant, oedd ei
gyllideb newyddion a materion cyfoes. Felly, mi gryfhawyd newyddion gydag aelod staff newydd ac mi
gryfhawyd The Wales Report a phethau tebyg. Nawr,
mae’n wir bod y gyllideb yna, yn amlwg, yn rhy fach i fedru
gwneud y portreadau ychwanegol, creadigol y mae eu
hangen.
|
Professor
Stephens: You’re
returning to what the director for Wales, Rhodri Talfan Davies, has
to do. Within his current budget, he has a choice to make in terms
of editorial decisions and he specifically chose two areas that he
would protect on all counts: one was his sports budget and the
second was the news and current affairs budget. Therefore, news was
strengthened through the appointment of a new member of staff and
The Wales Report and similar output was also strengthened.
Now, it’s true that that budget is clearly too small to be
able to provide those additional creative portrayals that are also
necessary.
|
[55]
Gadewch i mi ddweud am y ddegawd ddiwethaf. Mae’n amlwg, o awdit yr IWA ac o bob awdit sydd
wedi cael ei wneud, fod dirywiad sylweddol wedi bod yn y nifer o
raglenni Saesneg o Gymru. Mae hynny’n rhannol—yn
rhannol—oherwydd bod y gofyniad ar ITV wedi cael ei godi. Mae
eu nifer o oriau wythnosol nhw nawr lawr i chwech. Felly, mae yna
fwy o bwysau ar y BBC a disgwyliadau o’r BBC achos ni
ydy’r unig gyflenwr o bortread o Gymru mewn unrhyw ffordd
heblaw newyddion.
|
Let me just make a
point on the past decade. It’s clear from the IWA audit, and
from all the audits that have been undertaken, that there has been
a significant decline in the number of
English-language programmes produced from Wales. That is
partly—partly—because the duties on ITV have been
lifted. Their weekly hours are now down to six. So, the
expectations of the BBC are greater and the pressures are greater,
because we are the only supplier of Welsh output in any way other
than news.
|
09:30
|
[56]
Ar y
llaw arall, rwy’n meddwl bod y deallusion a’r bobl sydd
yn ymwneud â’r cyfryngau yng Nghymru wedi bod yn weddol
dawel am hyn yn gyffredinol, oherwydd yr holl bryder oedd yna am
ddyfodol S4C. Byddwn i’n dweud o tua 2008 ymlaen mai dyna
ydy’r un o’r prif bryderon a’r brif ddadl sydd
wedi bod. Rwy’n ymfalchïo nawr bod y siarad wedi
cyrraedd y man lle rydym ni hefyd yn gwerthfawrogi pwysigrwydd yr
ochr Saesneg.
|
On the other hand,
I think that the intelligentsia and those involved in the media in
Wales have been relatively quiet on this, generally speaking,
because of all of those concerns about the future of S4C. I would
say that, from around 2008 onwards, that has been one of the major
concerns and that has been the main issue of contention. I am
pleased now that the discourse has reached a point where we also
appreciate the importance of English-language output.
|
[57]
Rwyf
i fel ymddiriedolwraig yn gallu mynegi pryder ynglŷn
â’r portread, ond nid oes gen i hudlath fel rwy’n
gallu dweud, ‘Dyma gyllideb ychwanegol ichi.’
Mae’n wir fod cyllideb y BBC yn ystod y 10 mlynedd diwethaf
wedi mynd lawr yn gyson bob blwyddyn. Yn ystod y pum mlynedd
diwethaf, rydym ni wedi cymryd 20 y cant allan. Nawr, yng Nghymru,
mae 16 y cant wedi mynd allan, ond mae o’n wir ei fod o wedi
mynd—. Mae o wedi yn llai dinistriol nac mewn mannau
eraill—daytime, er enghraifft, sydd wedi cael cyllideb
drom—ond nid oes modd osgoi na allwch chi wneud popeth o fewn
yr arian sydd ar gael.
|
I, as a trustee,
can express concerns about the portrayal, but I don’t have a
magic wand so that I can magic up an additional budget. It is true
that the BBC’s budget over the past 10 years has fallen
consistently every year. During the past five years, we have seen
20 per cent removed. Now, in Wales, 16 per cent is the figure in
terms of decline, but it is true that it’s gone—. It
has been less damaging than in other areas— daytime, for
example, which has seen significant cuts—but you can’t
avoid the fact that you can’t do all things for all people
within the budget that is available.
|
[58]
Byddwn i’n eich annog chi i feddwl am yr hyn roedd
Rona’n dweud nawr. Rydym ni yn rhoi’r drol o flaen y
ceffyl yn aml iawn yn y trafodaethau yma. Rydym ni’n dod i
gasgliad ynglŷn â faint ydy trwydded y BBC ac wedyn yn
cael trafodaeth fawr gyda’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol ynglŷn
â beth y dylai’r BBC ei wneud. Rwy’n annog ein bod
ni i gyd yn gadarn mai ffordd arall rownd y dylai hi fod: beth
mae’r BBC angen ei wneud?
|
I would encourage
you to think about what Rona said a few minutes ago. We are putting
the cart before the horse, very often, in these discussions. We
come to a conclusion about the cost of the BBC licence fee and then
have a great debate with the Secretary of State about what the BBC
should do. I would encourage us all to be firm that it should be
looked at the other way around: what should the BBC do?
|
[59]
Maddeuwch i fi wrth ddweud un pwynt arall. Mae’r BBC yn
gwneud, rwy’n meddwl, os ydw i’n cofio’n iawn, 18
o raglenni gwahanol am 6.30 p.m., trwy Brydain. Mae’r math
yna o beth yn cael ei gymryd yn ganiataol, fel pe bai o jest yn
digwydd. Mae o’n golygu cyllideb gref i fedru gwneud y math
yna o amrywiaethau. Mae angen sylweddoli hynny bob tro mae’r
drwydded yma’n cael ei gosod, achos allwch chi ddim ei wneud
o ar friwsion.
|
Forgive me for
making one further point. The BBC makes, I think, if I remember
rightly, 18 different programmes at 6.30 p.m., throughout Britain.
That kind of thing is taken for granted, as though it just happens.
But it does require a large budget to provide that sort of
diversity. We must realise that every time the licence fee is set,
because you simply can’t do it on thin air.
|
[60]
Rhodri Glyn Thomas: Yr
hyn rŷch chi’n dweud, mewn gwirionedd, ydy, os nad oes
yna gynnydd sylweddol yng nghyllideb y BBC yng Nghymru, mae’r
sefyllfa bresennol yn mynd i barhau a hyd yn oed gwaethygu, ac nid
yw rheolydd y BBC yng Nghymru yn gallu gwneud dim ond amddiffyn
newyddion a chwaraeon.
|
Rhodri Glyn
Thomas: What you're
saying, in reality, is that, if there isn't a significant increase
in the BBC's budget in Wales, the current situation is going to
continue and even get worse, and the director of the BBC in Wales
can only defend sport and news.
|
[61]
Yr
Athro Stephens: Rwy’n meddwl bod yna ffyrdd eraill hefyd, sef ennill
comisiynau rhwydwaith, er enghraifft, fel bod portread o Gymru ar y
rhwydwaith, yn rhywbeth angenrheidiol. A’r cwestiwn ydy: a
oes yna ffyrdd o fedru creu arian seed-corn
felly—arian fyddai’n hybu hynny fel bod gennych chi
pilots ac yn y blaen. Nid yw i fi i ddweud wrth y
weinyddiaeth sut maen nhw’n mynd o’i chwmpas hi, ond,
yn y ffordd yna, mae yna botiau o arian sydd, efallai, ddim yn cael
eu defnyddio yng Nghymru cymaint ag y gallen nhw. So, rwy’n
cydnabod efo chi fod yna broblem; nid wyf i’n meddwl ei bod
hi’n hawdd i’w datrys hi, ond mi ddylai hi fod yn cael
ei datrys yn greadigol.
|
Professor
Stephens: I think that there
are other things that can be done— getting network
commissions, for instance, so that Wales is portrayed on the
network, is a necessary step. The question is: are there ways and
means of generating seed-corn funding—funding that would
promote that so you can have those pilots and so on. It’s not
for me to tell the executive how to go about this, but, in that
way, there are pots of funding that perhaps aren’t being used
in Wales as much they could be. So, I do agree with you that there
is a problem; I don’t think that it’s easily solved,
but it should certainly be addressed in a creative
manner.
|
[62]
Christine
Chapman: Thank you.
I’ve got Alun Davies and then Peter Black. Alun.
|
[63]
Alun
Davies: I’m reading
through some of the trust’s evidence to us, and I think the
committee finds itself in something of a difficult situation
because, politically and culturally, we value the BBC, and we find
ourselves in a situation whereby we value the BBC more than the BBC
values us. In your evidence, Mrs Fairhead, you make the point that
there hasn’t been a major portrayal on BBC tv of Wales for
seven years, since Torchwood and Gavin and Stacey.
Now, that to me is a signal of systemic failure, because, you know,
you wouldn’t consider a week to go by without a portrayal of
England on the BBC. It would be absurd, absolutely absurd, but you
can allow seven years to go past where one of the UK countries is
not represented in a major drama. Now, that, surely, is a signal of
systemic failure.
|
[64]
Ms
Fairhead: Which is exactly
why we think—. At the moment, the public purposes and what we
regulate are more talking about—. The focus has more been on
skills, jobs and activity in particular areas. I think, on that,
there has been real progress. I don’t think you could say the
investment in Roath Lock or in the city centre is negligible.
It’s very significant—1,300 people now work in Wales.
The portrayal point is very real. I think that it is something that
has to be achieved within a budget, which, as we’ve all said,
has been set. It has to be within that budget. The challenge, and
it’s the challenge that we lay down to the management,
because it will have to be the management that fix this, will be:
how do you so organise to make sure that that portrayal happens?
That’s why, if we put it in as a public purpose, then it can
get clearly measured. On all these things, it’s the same old
truism, that what gets measured, gets done, which is why our
recommendation—it’s our recommendation; it hasn’t
been picked up formally in the charter, but that’s why
we’ve put it there.
|
[65]
I know
that, when Tony Hall first came here, he mentioned that it takes
time to commission, particularly drama, but I think it is something
that we will carry on speaking on behalf of—as we hear from
the Audience Council Wales, because the message is very, very
clear. That is why we’ve put in the public purposes. So,
it’s one of the levers that we do have and one of the
measures that we can put in, but we can’t go out there and
make the productions.
|
[66]
The
other thing that I think we are encouraged by is that, if you look
at the executive’s proposal on being more open, more
partnerships, I think, when you actually look at how the BBC will
carry on being able to deliver to the public what the public wants
within this budget, it will be through partnerships too, and that
openness is something we encourage. And I think that’s
something that the BBC has done well in other parts—in other
nations of the world, with Northern Ireland Screen, for example.
It’s something that we are, again, encouraging the BBC to
do—that openness and partnerships—in a way that
addresses the budgetary constraints but also addresses some of
these portrayals. But I can’t disagree with you that
it’s unacceptable. The portrayal has to improve.
|
[67]
Alun
Davies: I accept that, and
I’m grateful to you for that, but, like Rhodri, I feel
frustrated that we’ve had these sessions over a number of
years. The trust does feel like something of a toothless tiger at
the moment: it can make statements and say things, but nothing
really changes. I don’t want to be churlish about the Roath
Lock development, because I think it is a fantastic thing, but I
would point out to you that the 1,300 figure you referenced is less
than half the number of people employed by one of the smallest
borough councils in Wales. It is not a significant, major national
institution, as we would probably anticipate and expect.
|
[68]
On the
Roath Lock issue, you describe it in your evidence as a
‘spectacular success’—the 6.5 per cent figure.
Now, 6.5 per cent is around where it should be. So, I
wouldn’t say it was a spectacular success—it’s
doing what the BBC is funded and told to do by law. Now, my
question to you is: is there a problem with the trust in terms of
its powers, because you don’t seem to have the powers to pull
the levers, and its culture, in that you’re too easily
satisfied by the BBC doing what I pay it to do, and you don’t
actually task and stretch the BBC in a way that we would expect and
anticipate you to do?
|
[69]
Ms
Fairhead: I think that the
trust is a governing body and is a regulator. I think the trust has
used its powers where it can to sort of stop things happening where
they don’t think they should be happening. I think, in
something like the network supply, it was the trust that was
driving that. It was the trust that commissioned the research that
showed that news and current affairs wasn’t properly
reflecting, and wasn’t actually relevant any more as more
powers became devolved and the Welsh Assembly was created—the
BBC was behind. We commissioned that research. We commissioned,
then, the King report, and actions have been taken as a result. So,
I wouldn’t agree that there are no powers.
|
[70]
Alun
Davies: Do you think
so?
|
[71]
Ms
Fairhead: I wouldn’t
agree that there are no powers. I think portrayal is just a more
difficult one because it’s not as hard. When we were here for
the public seminar, there were independent producers there, and,
actually, their message was much more encouraging than where I hear
you’re coming from. Before, there wasn’t even a base.
Now, there is a base. There’s a production facility, and,
with that production facility, as we’ve seen in Salford and
everywhere, and specifically in Glasgow, you have that centre and
then you start building skills around it, and then independent
production companies start being built, and then you start having a
vibrant creative sector. One of the indies—one of the chief
executive officers of one of the indies—was saying,
‘Actually, you have to walk before you can run’. Now we
have the base, now we have the foundation, and it really is for us
to take it up. So, that will be what the trust, or whatever
organisation it is in the new charter, will be focusing on: how you
can take that foundation and make sure that you are addressing the
needs in a tight budget—in a tight budget, but the portrayal
one is a softer issue, as I said earlier, but it’s one that
will have to be taken on. That’s why we’ve put it in
the measures.
|
[72]
Professor
Stephens: Could I
just—?
|
[73]
Christine
Chapman: Sorry, can I
just—? Perhaps you can add to this as well, Elan. Are you
content with the sort of pace of change, or are you saying it
should be quicker, or is it about—? How do you assess
that?
|
[74]
Ms
Fairhead: I think you can
make change more quickly in some genres than others. I’m not
a broadcaster, so I’m not an expert here. But, in terms of
the news and current affairs, you can see how you can do that. With
long commission dramas it takes longer. So, there is a time factor.
So, you can’t say, ‘We’ll just wake up tomorrow
and we’ll do those commission changes’. But I would
agree with you. The director general came here over a year ago and
said that it was an issue. There are budget constraints, but I
think we’re trying to be very clear—that’s why
we’ve put it in the public purpose—that it’s not
just the network supply. It has to be about portrayal and
representation, and it has to be measured and tracked. And if that
doesn’t happen, then there have to be ways to make it
happen.
|
[75]
Rhodri Glyn
Thomas: But this has been
said time and time again over the last decade, and nothing changes.
Is there anything happening now to change that
situation?
|
[76]
Ms
Fairhead: I think news and
current affairs have changed.
|
[77]
Rhodri Glyn
Thomas: Yes, well,
we’re talking about the portrayal of Wales through the BBC,
especially in English. Is there anything at the moment happening to
address that issue?
|
[78]
Christine
Chapman: Okay, I’ll
bring Elan in, and then, obviously, Alun. And then Peter’s
been waiting very patiently.
|
[79]
Professor
Stephens: Two points to Alun
and Rhodri: Alun, it’s not a legal obligation to do the 17
per cent. It’s actually a BBC-devised obligation to the
nations. So, there is a legal obligation of 25 per cent from
independents, but there is no such—. The 17 per cent in
production was devised by the previous director general and is
roughly equivalent to the size of the population. So, it’s a
voluntary thing rather than a legal, and I think that has to be
noted as a positive.
|
09:45
|
[80]
I
share the—you know, your thing about the 10 years. When you
say you’ve heard all this for 10 years, I don’t think
we have. I think we have been very quiet—and I’m
talking now as a Welsh person—about English-language
portrayal in Wales, and we’ve been having this sense of
frustration and passion on its behalf increasingly over the last
two or three years, and I think it’s bubbled up to the
surface as a real issue. But I would take issue with you on whether
it’s been there consistently over 10 years. You ask whether
anything has been done: although Hinterland didn’t
originate with the BBC, it is the BBC that now co-commissions it,
with a substantial figure. So, there is money flowing in to a
certain sort of portrayal, even if we don’t recognise it as a
complete BBC production. In future, I’m sure there will be
many more co-productions with various people that can make the
money go further.
|
[81]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Alun, if you
can be fairly brief, because there are other Members who want to
come in—Peter, then. So, Alun.
|
[82]
Alun
Davies: I can see that
time is moving on. Just two very, very quick questions, then. I
don’t accept your proposition that Wales was a production
desert prior to the Roath Lock development.
|
[83]
Ms
Fairhead: I didn’t
mean that. I meant it was a big amount of investment that was new.
Sorry.
|
[84]
Alun
Davies: And, as I said, we
don’t want to be churlish about that, because it’s a
valued investment and part of the community in Wales. However, we
know the big sea change, or step change, if you like, in Welsh
production was the creation of S4C in 1982. So, this has been in
place for a number of years and my question to you is: is there a
structural and cultural failure in the BBC? Because seven years
without any major drama from Wales, to me, is completely
unacceptable, and you’ve accepted that. My question to you
is: that can’t be a consequence simply of an oversight, so
therefore it has to be a structural and cultural failure, and
I’d be interested to know how you believe that could be
addressed.
|
[85]
A
second question, if I could, because time is moving on: you
mentioned news and current affairs, and I have to say I wholly
disagree with your assumption that Wales is adequately covered in
BBC news and current affairs—and I’m talking about
network programming as well as domestic programming. The original
King report—and I know he’s reported back since
then—painted a dismal picture, and I think a King report
today in 2015-16 would paint a very similar picture. The insertion
of two words, ‘in England’, following a news story does
not reflect the devolved settlement and the reality of lives for
people in the United Kingdom today.
|
[86]
Christine
Chapman: There were two
questions there.
|
[87]
Ms
Fairhead: Okay, so two
points. Is there a structural issue? I suppose it goes to—.
The heads of each of the nations for the BBC are given their
budgets to spend where they think the public wants them. As Elan
has said, Rhodri has kept sport, which has been
important—
|
[88]
Alun
Davies: I was talking
about UK coverage as well, not just domestic Welsh
production.
|
[89]
Ms
Fairhead: No, no; that is
exactly why we are putting it in the public purposes. That is
exactly why. So, within Wales itself, Rhodri has a particular
budget. He has made sure that rugby is properly represented, and
sport is properly represented; that’s what the public is
saying really matters to him. So, there is a budget issue in terms
of what’s to go around. Your point about the broader network,
I think, is a valid one. I’ve acknowledged it to you and
that’s why I think we’ve put it in the purposes,
because I think that needs to be recognised just as much as other
roles.
|
[90]
In
terms of news and current affairs, I wasn’t implying that
everything was perfect. I was saying that there had been material
strides from where it was before. As more powers get devolved, it
becomes a greater and greater challenge. The BBC has said that, in
its budget going forward, it will try to protect the nations as
much as possible and it also recognises, and we’ve
recognised, that it has to get better at news and current affairs
that are relevant to the nations and regions in which they operate.
And it’s not just about labelling; I get your point, but what
I wasn’t saying was that everything’s perfect. I was
saying that material improvements have happened, but, as powers
devolve, there is more to do. There is more to do.
|
[91]
Professor
Stephens: On King, as Rona
said, there have been strides in labelling. I understand the
frustration that just hearing something like ‘the NHS in
England’ is not enough without the comparators. On the other
hand, I think that the experience of the past few years has shown
that things are improving steadily. I think the organ donation that
the Assembly championed was given a very fair hearing. Some of the
work that the Nuffield Foundation has done on the NHS was, I
thought, given a fair hearing. And, recently, the plastic bags did
kick off by saying that England was finally catching up with the
rest of the nations of the UK. So, there’s
progress.
|
[92]
When
Alun said that, if there was a King report now—well, of
course, we didn’t just accept the King report, which was a
trust initiative, and then just leave it on the shelf and not go
back to it. It’s been gone back to constantly on a monitoring
basis, and some of the research and the monitoring has been done by
Cardiff University here. So, there is a monitoring system on King,
and much progress has yet to be done, but I would say that we are
not in failure mode on King.
|
[93]
Ms
Fairhead: And just to make a
point, we’re doing a further news and current affairs service
review, right as we speak, for the nations of the United Kingdom,
and I think some of the feedback we’ve had in terms of this
charter review is that, as more powers get devolved around the
country, there is more desire for proper news and current affairs
reflecting each nation. And I think that will form part of some
revisions in the charter, because I think it’s not the same
across the nations; I think there are different desires in terms of
what that should be. But I think that’s part of why
we’re doing these consultations, and, to the Chairman’s
earlier point, why we need more voices to make sure that it’s
really informed, because what people want in different parts of the
country is different in that coverage, and that has to be reflected
too.
|
[94]
Alun
Davies: Could we ask for a
copy of those monitoring reports, because it would be useful to
actually see some of those?
|
[95]
Professor
Stephens: I’ll have to
see whether that—
|
[96]
Ms
Fairhead: The service
reviews are always—
|
[97]
Alun
Davies: The monitoring
reports which Professor Stephens referred to would be useful to
see, or a précis possibly, if we can’t see the
reports.
|
[98]
Christine
Chapman: That would be
useful, if you could. Now, obviously time is going on. Peter Black
will come in now, and then Mike, and then I want to make sure that
all Members have the opportunity. If there are any other questions,
we’ll try to get those in as well. So, Peter
first.
|
[99]
Peter
Black: I just want to
follow up from the last two questions that Alun Davies just asked
in terms of the way that Wales is portrayed in English media
through non-news and current affairs. It seems to me, listening to
you for the last 20 minutes or so, that you’re looking at
Wales as an add-on, if you like. You’re talking about budget
constraints; you’re talking about the budget that Rhodri
Talfan Davies holds in Cardiff, but isn’t it the case that
the big problem is that, when it comes to commissioning this drama,
it’s an over-centralised process, that actors who want to
take part in productions produced in Roath Lock have to go to
England to audition for that? Do the people who commission
drama—how many of them actually come to Wales and understand
what Wales is about? Wouldn’t it better to address this by
decentralising the process for commissioning, so that people who
are commissioning drama understand that, not just Wales, but the
other regions and nations of the UK—the north is quite well
represented, actually, in my view, in drama, but the other nations
of the UK—should be fairly reflected in the commissioning
process?
|
[100]
Ms
Fairhead: I don’t
accept your sort of definition of Wales as some sort of
add-on.
|
[101]
Peter
Black: That’s the
way it’s been coming across. You talk about budget restraints
and ‘we have to find more money for this.’ You’ve
got a budget; why isn’t the budget being spent in
Wales?
|
[102]
Ms
Fairhead: No, no; what
I’m saying is that Rhodri has his own particular budget, and
that’s where he has to find it. But there is a broader
budget, which I completely understand, which is—I keep coming
back to it—why we’ve said that the portrayal has to
improve and it’s out of that budget, because that’s
where it will come from because, as you know, it’s a much
bigger budget.
|
[103]
In
terms of how commissioning is managed, I think what we have to
do—. We have an executive who are there and who are paid to
manage the organisation, and they have to manage it, to their mind,
to the best creative output and do it as efficiently as possible. I
think it is for them to decide how to manage it, but I do take your
point. I’ve been in creative organisations and, when people
are in the place, there’s just a different mood that comes
out because it’s a greater, richer understanding of the
issues and receptivity. So, I don’t think it’s our job,
frankly, as a trust, to tell Tony Hall how to manage commissioning.
But the challenge that we can make, and you clearly will make in
your submission, is that that challenge has to be met, and that
however they manage commissioning has to result in better portrayal
of Wales and has to enrich both ways, which was the point that came
out in the seminar. It’s not about Wales getting something
just for Wales, it’s about Wales being able to enrich the
whole of the UK, and that’s the right way to do
it.
|
[104]
Peter
Black: But isn’t it
your job to say to Tony Hall, ‘The way you are managing
commissioning is not working, because you’re not portraying
Wales in that commissioning process. The commissioners don’t
seem to understand Wales. They don’t seem to understand
what’s needed for Wales. You need to look at it again.’
Isn’t that your job?
|
[105]
Ms
Fairhead: We can challenge
them on the outcome. We can also suggest ways. However, it is for
the management to decide how they will organise. So, I think
it’s just a—. He ultimately has to manage the
organisation.
|
[106]
Peter
Black: How many times
have you challenged him on that outcome?
|
[107]
Ms
Fairhead: We have regular
discussions about how you can both be efficient and make sure that
these issues on portrayal are addressed and there is constant
discussion in terms of how to do that within the BBC.
|
[108]
Peter
Black: But do you accept
that there is a problem in terms of the over-centralised
commissioning and the over-centralised casting, which, actually, is
leaving Wales on the sidelines?
|
[109]
Professor
Stephens: I think you had
better address this to the management in terms of casting. I think
things have moved on from the early years of Roath Lock, and, when
we talk about a lack of understanding of Wales or of Roath Lock in
the commissioning process, I think it would be fair to say that the
current head of drama in Wales was one of the people spoken about
as the BBC’s overall head of drama, when the vacancy arose
just recently. So, obviously, there is respect for the people who
are working there.
|
[110]
Can I
just differentiate once again between these two aspects of the work
of the BBC in Wales? When you talk about the wider budget—and
not just Rhodri’s budget—the wider budget is the budget
that is going to pay for the new broadcasting house. The wider
budget is the one that keeps the only national orchestra going. It
is the wider budget that actually does the iPlayer and iPlayer
Radio, and it is the wider budget that looks at co-commissioning
Hinterland. There are failures that we have acknowledged
openly on drama and comedy commissioning, but I would urge you to
keep these in some sort of moderation in terms of the way in which
they are seen side-by-side with a very substantial financial
investment that has come from the BBC centrally.
|
[111]
Peter
Black: I think the issue
is that, if I’m switching on my television outside of
Cardiff, anywhere in the UK, that isn’t reflected in what I
watch on the television or listen to on the radio.
|
[112]
Professor
Stephens: Yes, I’ve
taken the point—you’ve made the point very well and we
accept the point. All I’m saying is that there are other
heads of expenditure and they are being spent in Wales.
|
[113]
Peter
Black: I understand that,
but what I want to hear from you is how you’re going to
address the point—how you’re going to actually change
things. I haven’t really heard that. You’re taking the
point on board—you haven’t actually said, ‘How
are we going to change things? What are we going to do differently
that’s going to make this better?’
|
10:00
|
[114]
Professor
Stephens: Well, I think you
heard in the Institute of Welsh Affairs yesterday—
|
[115]
Peter
Black: Well, I
wasn’t at the IWA yesterday; I’m here in this committee
now. What are you going to do better?
|
[116]
Professor
Stephens: I think when James
Purnell spoke and gave his understanding that there were going to
be as many creative solutions as was humanly possible from all the
budgets, including drama and comedy, that that was the—. That
is the only answer we can give you: that the management has to be
more aligned with its public purposes in its commissioning, and we
will ensure that that will happen.
|
[117]
Peter
Black: This is the second
or third of these inquiries I’ve sat through and BBC
executives have said exactly the same thing to all of them, and
nothing has changed.
|
[118]
Ms
Fairhead: Which is why
we’re suggesting it’s formally inside the public
purpose and then measured against. We’re not avoiding the
question, it’s just that it’s the management that will
determine how they construct and organise the BBC to get those
results. What we have to do is make sure that the measures are in
place and we’re challenging them to be as creative—as
Elan said—as possible, to put in place the changes in the way
they approach it, to make sure that portrayal happens.
|
[119]
Peter
Black: Okay. Very briefly
on the King report, I get the impression that things have stood
still since the changes in the King report. That’s the
impression we get looking at it. I’ll give you an example.
The biggest radio audience in Wales is Radio 2, and, if you listen
to Radio 2 in mid Wales, Cardiff, Swansea, you wouldn’t
believe you were in Wales—there isn’t any Wales in the
news or the current affairs on that. Have you thought, for example,
in terms of those big audiences, of maybe having a Wales opt-out in
the news or something like that, so someone listening to something
like Radio 2 can actually hear that they’re in
Wales?
|
[120]
Professor
Stephens: This is precisely
why the BBC has started to look at how it could enable opt-outs on
Radio 2. Where we’ve reached, I think, from the enquiries
I’ve made, is that there are quite substantial distribution
problems, in terms of the way the transmitters work, in opt-out. We
all know how oddly the transmitters in Wales work, and how some of
them go over to Shropshire or Hereford and some of the—. You
know, the regions of Wales are not covered geographically in what
would appear a rational manner. It’s more to do with hills
and valleys than with reason. But—
|
[121]
Peter
Black: All right. I
understand there are technical problems.
|
[122]
Professor
Stephens: But technical
things are there to challenge us and there to be overcome. As we
move forward into a more internet-connected and into a more DAB
future, then the issue of being able to personalise your radio
offering to particular regions would become much easier, just as
the iPlayer will be able to personalise according to your
interests. Therefore, as we progress into, possibly, a
non-transmitter future, I think all of these things will open up
avenues that are slightly closed to us at the moment.
|
[123]
Ms
Fairhead: I think in its own
submission the executive said that it would look at what it could
do more online for the nations, and also what more could and should
be done within television and radio. So, they are in the process of
consulting on those right now, so it’s a point well
made.
|
[124]
Christine
Chapman: Now, I know a few
other Members want to come in and time is moving on. Mike first and
then Janet.
|
[125]
Mike
Hedges: Can I start off
with a positive? I think that BBC news is very trusted and BBC
Wales news is very good, and BBC Sunday Politics from Wales
is also a very good and very watched programme according to my
constituents. Can I then say that I live in Swansea and I represent
Swansea East, and the biggest complaint I get about the BBC is all
about Match of the Day, and it’s about the fact that
we expect Swansea to be the last game on Match of the Day
each week? In fact, somebody put it on Facebook and said,
‘I’ve got bad news for the fans of seven
teams—you’re now going to be the last game on Match
of the Day because you’re playing Swansea City’.
There is concern that, despite being a mid-table team in the
premiership, Swansea’s position on the games coming out on
Match of the Day is consistently last and last but one. That
is a matter that concerns my constituents greatly and it’s
probably the matter I’ve had raised with me most about the
BBC—more than everything else combined.
|
[126]
Alun
Davies: Answer that, Elan.
[Laughter.]
|
[127]
Professor
Stephens: I’m sorry to
sound as if I’m repeating myself, but this is something to be
raised with Tony Hall and with Rhodri. It isn’t really a
matter for the trust. It is an editorial decision, but I’m
sure that, when they do come to give evidence to you, that this
should be top of the list, and you should kick off with this first.
And it leads into portrayal more widely so you’ll be well
covered.
|
[128]
Mike
Hedges: But it is a
matter, coming to Swansea, that is of great concern, and you are
the people here now I can talk to. If Tony Hall was here, I’d
be raising exactly the same with him or anybody else from the
BBC.
|
[129]
Professor
Stephens: Yes. I think, on
the slightly wider issue of how the trust works and how it
doesn’t, when Rona came into post at first, she was the first
to say that there are weaknesses in the structure. And I think
you’re identifying some of what we’ve been quite open
about, that a move, as we’ve suggested, to a stronger unitary
board on the BBC, with a regulator that is able to stand apart and
demand answers in a more monitoring way, is probably the way to go,
and the way that we’ve suggested very openly. So, you know,
we are aware, and we would recognise, that some of the levers we
have we would like to strengthen, and I would hope that, in your
submission—I’m sure you are going to submit something
to Sir David Clementi on governance—you say that, actually
strengthening those regulatory levers and differentiating more
clearly between executive and regulator is probably one of the
things that we would endorse, and want to proceed.
|
[130]
Bethan
Jenkins: I just wanted to
ask quickly whether that would mean we would have a unitary board
for Wales or specific representation for Wales, because, at the
Institute of Welsh Affairs summit yesterday, that was a discussion.
Would we have a specific Wales representation, then, or would it
just be one person? Because I don’t think that would be
sufficient, really, personally—for a nation just to have one
person on that board.
|
[131]
Professor
Stephens: I think this is
absolutely wide open, because what we’ve said in our
submission to the Green Paper—and I think what the executive
has also said in its recent submission—which has been opened
for consultation, is that we haven’t come to conclusions
about how the nations are going to be represented for one clear
reason: there needs to be a discussion, a wider discussion than
just the trust coming to a conclusion. You have a memorandum of
understanding with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and
the BBC about a look at the final draft charter, and I think
it’s of vital importance that—. As Rona said right at
the beginning, the more voices we hear within this consultation
period, and especially within the Clementi review, the more we will
have ideas on structures and models for a future governance
model.
|
[132]
Now,
my personal view is that the structure in Wales as it pertains to
the Audience Council could be strengthened and that greater
accountability to bodies such as yourself on an annual basis would
form part of that strengthening. I think we’ve been quite
open about that as well. So, ‘yes’ is the
answer—better governance, stronger governance, both on the UK
level and within Wales, are on the table, and I think we need to
have the voices to push for them.
|
[133]
Ms
Fairhead: And I would think,
frankly, clearer accountabilities because, when I came into the
trust—. It’s both an overseer, a representative and a
regulator. On some of the areas today where we’re talking
about things that are more what a unitary board might decide, we
have to say, ‘Actually, we have to step back because
we’re the trust and it’s the management’. So,
we’ve been very clear from the beginning that we would say
that the front runner is a unitary board, with proper
representation fed in as effectively as possible from the various
nations and regions, and a regulator. Frankly, a lot of people will
say, ‘What has the trust done?’ The trust has improved
a lot more accountability, it has introduced service licences;
there are a whole bunch of things that I don’t think you
would want to throw out in any future charter. You want to keep
those, but possibly put them into a clearer regulator with a
clearer unitary board. In terms of how the representation happens
of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, I think David
Clementi has been tasked with pulling together, understanding
exactly how it works now, where the issues are, and creating a
recommendation of how it should look in the future. So, we’re
working with him, giving him all the information that we can, and
we’d really encourage you to do exactly the same.
|
[134]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Now,
we’ve got about 15 minutes left and we must cover the S4C
issue as well. Janet, did you have a question? Then
Alun.
|
[135]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: Yes, I suppose,
really, just listening to the evidence alone this morning—and
this is the second inquiry that I’ve been involved in—I
think I feel more frustrated than ever. Alun did a really good job
of teasing out some of the failings. Peter touched on issues of
your wider budget. For me, I’ve just got this impression now
that the BBC is more about grandstanding and building its own
corporation up with iconic buildings. On your wider budget, you say
what it’s responsible for. The point that Peter made: when
people watch a programme, they’re not really too interested
in what the building looks like or where it is even situated. Now,
we must never forget in all these discussions that this is Welsh
taxpayers’ money. It’s not the BBC’s money. But I
get the impression that you’re not too clear of your own role
in how you can regulate, or terms of governance. There seems to be
a whole lot now hinging on this new report and the consultation
that’s going on, but I feel as Assembly Members we’re
quite powerless to be able to influence either now or in the
future. So, how can we actually become more part of the integral
process of being able to scrutinise and challenge and hold the BBC
to account in how they are using taxpayers’ money, or whether
in fact they are actually fulfilling any of the purposes? You
mentioned about—
|
[136]
Ms
Fairhead: I think they are.
I think the less we get dragged totally into portrayal, because if
you actually say, ‘Do the people of Wales support the BBC? Do
they value the BBC?’—
|
[137]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: Well, it’s
iconic.
|
[138]
Ms
Fairhead: It is not just
that it’s iconic; it’s about the fact that there are
programmes and services that the people of Wales love to watch,
love to listen to, and love to use online. So, I would hate to
leave today with the fact that the people of Wales are badly served
by the BBC because the evidence would show that it’s the
highest appreciation of any nation in the country.
|
[139]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: But there are a
lot of failings.
|
[140]
Ms
Fairhead: But there are
failings. That’s exactly—
|
[141]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: But that’s
exactly what I identified in the last inquiry but nothing has
happened.
|
[142]
Ms
Fairhead: I think the
inquiry was—. You’re right. Some of them have been
addressed, or are being addressed; some of them still need to be
addressed, which is what we are agreeing with you today. In terms
of the investment in the areas, the investment in the centre of
Cardiff, I think there are wider things that the BBC can bring. It
also is a more efficient site, so it’s actually better value
for money for the taxpayers, and I think there is a benefit that
the BBC can bring in terms of creating vibrancy in the way that
Salford has created real vibrancy, Roath Lock and a new building in
the city centre will. That’s not to say that the core job of
making great programmes that portray Wales is being done at the
moment to your satisfaction, and that’s—
|
[143]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: I don’t
think it’s to anybody’s.
|
[144]
Ms
Fairhead: But that’s
why I think we are saying, for the next charter, it has to be in
these purposes. Those purposes have to be measured, and there has
to be a way for those to be tracked and then held to account.
That’s what it’s about.
|
10:15
|
[145]
Professor
Stephens: Could I also add,
on the building, just briefly—? I wouldn’t like you to
go away from here thinking that the BBC’s looking after its
own corporate health and building a building in order to shine in
the middle of Cardiff. If you go to Llandaff regularly, you will
know that the building is an old building; it has quite severe
problems of leaking roofs and dampness and it also has a really bad
infrastructure in terms of new technology and new fast connections.
So, the question that the finance committee of the BBC and the
value-for-money committee of the BBC, on which I sat for four
years, had to come up with was: is it better to move to a new
building and build a new building, or, how do you operate the BBC
Wales operation, including its news and current affairs, on a daily
basis, when you’re also hacking the infrastructure of the
building to bits? These are considerations about value for money
for the taxpayer of moving to a place that will make the provision
of news and current affairs a much more efficient and modernised
procedure. That’s the basic reason for it.
|
[146]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: I look forward to
that evolving, then, and we’ll see if that stands the test of
time.
|
[147]
Christine
Chapman: We do need to get
on to the issue of S4C and I know that we are tight for time,
because you’ve got to catch a train, I think. So, we need to
do that. Bethan, do you want to ask your questions—I know
other Members will come in, as well—on the S4C
issue?
|
[148]
Bethan Jenkins: Y
cwestiwn mwyaf amlwg i ofyn yw: beth yw’ch barn chi
ynglŷn â’r ffaith bod y Llywodraeth wedi dweud y
byddai’n rheidrwydd ar S4C i edrych ar yr un lefel o doriadau
â’r BBC, pan fo toriadau ar y gweill? A ydych
chi’n credu bod hyn yn dderbyniol? Yn amlwg, mae S4C wedi dod
atom ni fel pwyllgor a dweud y gallai hyn ddiweddu lan gydag S4C yn
dod i ben. Pa fath o gynrychiolaeth ydych chi wedi’i rhoi
i’r BBC ac i’r Llywodraeth ynglŷn â dyfodol
S4C yn hynny o beth?
|
Bethan
Jenkins: The most obvious
question to ask you is: what are your views on the fact that the
Government has said that it will be a necessity on S4C to look at
the same extent of cuts as the BBC, when cuts are introduced? Do
you think this is acceptable? Clearly, S4C has come to us as a
committee and said that this could lead to S4C coming to an end.
What sort of representations have you made to the BBC and to the
Government in terms of the future of S4C in that sense?
|
[149]
Yr
Athro Stephens: Rwy’n meddwl ei bod hi wedi bod yn egwyddor gennym ni
nad ydym yn ymyrryd yn y dadleuon y mae S4C yn eu rhoi gerbron y
Llywodraeth. Mae S4C yn gorff annibynnol. Rydym ni i gyd yn gryf o
blaid iddo barhau fel corff annibynnol. Mae ganddo ei lwybr ei hun
tuag at yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol ac at y Canghellor
a—rwy’n siarad fel aelod o’r
awdurdod—dyna’r ffordd iddyn nhw wneud eu
cynrychiolaeth. Nid wyf yn meddwl y dylai’r BBC fod yn dweud
a ydy o’n ddigon neu ddim yn ddigon, achos mater i’r
Llywodraeth ydy o. Mae yna ffyrdd gan S4C o fedru cynnal y dadleuon
hynny.
|
Professor
Stephens: I think
it’s been a principle of ours that we don’t interfere
with the arguments that S4C presents to Government. S4C is an
independent body. We are all strongly in favour of retaining that
independent status. It has its own route to the Secretary of State
and the Chancellor and—I speak as a member of the authority
here—that is the way that they should make their
representations. I don’t think that the BBC should be saying
whether it is sufficient or otherwise, because it is a matter for
the Government. S4C does have ways and means of presenting those
arguments to Government.
|
[150]
Y
peth mae’n rhaid i ni ei wneud, fel ymddiriedolaeth, ydy
gwneud yn siŵr y byddai unrhyw ddatrysiad neu argymhelliad y
mae’r Llywodraeth yn San Steffan yn ei wneud yn cael ei gario
allan mewn dull cwbl deg, agored a thryloyw o ran y modd y
mae’r cyllid yn llifo o un corff i’r llall.
|
What we must do,
as a trust, is ensure that any solution or recommendation that the
Government in Westminster were to make is carried through in a
fair, open and transparent manner in terms of the way the funding
flows from one organisation to another.
|
[151]
Bethan Jenkins: Diolch am hynny. Efallai ei fod yn dod fel bach o
syrpréis imi nad ydych yn mynd i gael unrhyw fath o farn,
oherwydd y ffaith bod S4C yn rhan o’r cytundeb gyda’r
BBC. Wrth gwrs, roedd hynny’n benderfyniad gan y Llywodraeth,
ond y realiti yw bod y BBC ac S4C yn gweithio’n gyson
gyda’ch gilydd, fel rydych chi wedi dweud yn barod, ar
raglenni fel Y Gwyll, a bod hynny’n digwydd nawr.
Felly, ar ba bwynt y gwnaethoch chi benderfynu, felly, i beidio
â gwneud sylw ar yr hyn sy’n—
|
Bethan
Jenkins: Thank you for
that. Perhaps it comes as a bit of surprise to me that you
don’t have any view, because of the fact that S4C is part of
the agreement with the BBC. That was a decision by the Government,
but the reality is that the BBC and S4C do work together, as you
have said already, on programmes such as Y
Gwyll—Hinterland—and that that is happening
now. So, at what point did you decide, therefore, not to make a
comment on—
|
[152]
Yr
Athro Stephens: Nid
wyf yn meddwl bod hwn yn fater dadleuol. Mae’r bartneriaeth
rhyngom ni’n gweithio. Rydym ni wedi dweud yn gyhoeddus bod y
bartneriaeth yn un ardderchog, sy’n dod â budd i’r
ddwy ochr—budd creadigol a budd o ran rhannu’r
playout yn y ganolfan newydd, ac yn y blaen. Felly, mae yna
fuddiannau yn y bartneriaeth. Mae iPlayer, er enghraifft, yn cario
S4C yn llwyddiannus iawn. Felly, rydym ni wedi gweithredu ein
cyfeillgarwch. Beth roeddwn i’n ei ddweud ydy eu bod
nhw’n gorff annibynnol, ac nid wyf yn meddwl y dylem ni fod
yn gwneud sylw cyhoeddus ynglŷn â’r ffordd
y
mae’r Llywodraeth yn mynd i’w hariannu nhw neu beidio.
Mae yna ddwy ffrwd, fel rydych yn gwybod. Mae yna un ymhen
pythefnos efo’r CSR, sy’n dod ag arian DCMS, ac nid yw
hynny, yn sicr, yn ddim byd i wneud â’r BBC; nid oes
gennym unrhyw lais yn hynny. Ni fydd gennym lais ychwaith yn y
datrysiad ariannol fydd yn dŵad i S4C. Ffi’r drwydded
fydd yn ei gynnal, ond nid ni fydd yn ei benderfynu.
|
Professor
Stephens: I don’t
think that this is a contentious issue. The partnership between us
does work. We have stated publicly that the partnership is
excellent, and it brings benefits to both sides—creative
benefits and benefits in terms of sharing playout in the new centre
and so on. So, there are benefits to the partnership. The iPlayer,
for example, does now carry S4C productions very successfully
indeed. So, we have acted on that partnership. What I was saying is
that they are an independent organisation and I don’t think
that we should be commenting publicly on the way in which the
Government will fund them, or not. There are two streams, as you
will know. There is one in two weeks’ time, the CSR, which
will bring funding through DCMS, and that certainly has nothing
whatsoever to do with the BBC; we have no voice in the CSR process.
Nor will we have a voice in the financial decisions taken on S4C.
It will be the licence fee that maintains it, but we will not
decide upon it.
|
[153]
Bethan Jenkins: Rwy’n deall hynny, ond, er enghraifft, mae’r
newyddion yn cael ei ariannu gan y BBC, mae yna botiau eraill o
arian sy’n cael eu hariannu gan y BBC ar gyfer S4C, felly
mae’n amlwg y byddai’r gynulleidfa wedyn hefyd â
barn ar hynny.
|
Bethan
Jenkins: I understand that,
but, for example, the news is funded by the BBC, there are other
pots of money being funded by the BBC for S4C, so it is clear that
the audience then would also have a view on that.
|
[154]
Yr
Athro Stephens: Efallai y dylwn i jest ailadrodd er mwyn bod yn hollol glir:
rydym wedi dweud yn gyson bod y bartneriaeth yn gweithio. Rydym
wedi dweud yn gyson y byddwn yn licio i’r bartneriaeth
barhau. Rydym wedi dweud yn gyson bod y 10 awr yn rhywbeth y
mae’r BBC yn browd ohono fe ac yn falch o’i barhau.
Nawr, dyna i mi ydy’r conglfeini o’r bartneriaeth. Yr
hyn nad ydym yn ei ddweud yw beth y dylai’r Llywodraeth ei
wneud efo S4C, achos nid oes hawl gennym ni i ddweud beth
ddylai’r Llywodraeth ei wneud gydag S4C. Felly, rwyf eisiau
jest gwahanu ein cyfeillgarwch a’n cefnogaeth oddi wrth y
syniad ein bod ni’n gallu dylanwadu ar y Llywodraeth mewn
unrhyw ffordd efo S4C achos, yn y pen draw, mae’n rhaid iddyn
nhw fod yn gorff annibynnol. Rwy’n gwarchod eu hannibyniaeth
nhw i fynd at Lywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig.
|
Professor
Stephens: Perhaps I should
just reiterate one thing, just for the sake of clarity: we have
consistently said that the partnership is working. We have
consistently said that we want that partnership to continue.
We’ve consistently said that the 10 hours is something that
the BBC is very proud of and keen to continue. Now, for me, those
are the cornerstones of the partnership. What we are not saying is
what the government should do in terms of S4C, because it’s
not within our remit to say what the Government should do in terms
of S4C. So, I just want to separate our partnership and our support
from the concept that we could bring influence to bear on the
Government in any way whatsoever on S4C, because, ultimately, they
do have to retain their independence. I am protecting their
independence to approach the UK Government.
|
[155]
Ms
Fairhead: I’ve met on
a number of occasions with the chairman of S4C, and when that
agreement was made on the budget in July, I explicitly agreed with
S4C that they’re an independent body and we shouldn’t
negotiate on their behalf. It’s for them to negotiate on
their behalf. Actually, in the letter, it says that there will be
an assumption of read-across to S4C but that any funding decisions
will be made directly between S4C and Government, which I think is
the right place. What Elan was saying was, in terms of how that
read-across happens, that that sets the framework and then S4C is
an independent body and therefore will negotiate on its own behalf.
What we have said as a trust that we will do is make sure that the
read-across is fair so that, if there are any increases or
reductions as a result of that agreement, then that read-across is
fair and we can make sure that S4C is treated fairly.
|
[156]
On the
working relationship, I think the provision of programming and the
news that S4C takes up works incredibly well. I think the
co-production is working incredibly well, and that will carry on.
But in terms of—
|
[157]
Bethan
Jenkins: That can only
carry on, though, if it’s not cut more—. If their
budget is cut so much that they can’t exist anymore, there
will be no more co-commissioning.
|
[158]
Ms
Fairhead: Which is why
it’s important that there is a fair read-across, which is
what we’ve committed to doing, as the trust in the middle.
S4C have the ability—and, actually, that’s their
legitimate right as an independent body—to negotiate
separately with the Government, which is what I’ve agreed
with Huw is the right thing to happen.
|
[159]
Christine
Chapman: Thank you.
We’ve got about four minutes, because I know you’ve got
to catch a train, so I will be closing the meeting at 10.28 a.m. to
make sure that you have enough time for that. Alun, you had a
question.
|
[160]
Alun
Davies: A
gaf i jest gofyn dau gwestiwn? Yn gyntaf, tra eich bod chi yn y
swydd, Elan, nid oes gan neb amheuon am sicrwydd annibyniaeth S4C,
achos bod pawb yn gwybod am dy ymrwymiad personol di ar hynny ac
mae pobl yn deall y sefyllfa a’r cyfeillgarwch rydych chi
wedi ei ddisgrifio, ond a ydych chi’n gwerthfawrogi y dylid,
rhyw ben, cael strwythur yn y BBC i sicrhau annibyniaeth S4C a
chyllideb S4C? Rwy’n gyfforddus gydag arian y drwydded, fel
mae’n digwydd, yn ariannu S4C; nid oes gennyf broblem
egwyddorol gyda hynny, ond mae’n rhaid bod hynny yn cael ei
weld fel arian cyhoeddus sy’n mynd i ariannu S4C ac nid fel
arian y BBC sy’n mynd at ariannu S4C. Felly, sut ydyn
ni’n creu strwythur fydd yn parhau i sicrhau
hynny?
|
Alun
Davies: May I just ask two
question? First, while you are in post, Elan, nobody has any doubts
about the independence of S4C, because everybody knows your
personal commitment to that and people understand the situation and
the partnership that you have described, but do you appreciate
that, at some point, there should be a structure within the BBC to
provide assurances about the independence of S4C and S4C’s
budget? As it happens, I’m comfortable with the licence fee
funding S4C; I don’t have a problem in principle with that,
but that needs to be seen as public money funding S4C and not as
the BBC’s money going to fund S4C. So, how do we create a
structure that will continue to give that assurance?
|
[161]
Yn
ail, wedyn, sut ydym ni’n creu strwythur a fydd yn sicrhau
annibyniaeth olygyddol S4C ar gyfer y dyfodol?
|
Secondly, how do
we create a structure that will ensure the editorial independence
of S4C for the future?
|
[162]
Yr
Athro Stephens: Wel,
dau ateb cyflym iawn. Y rheswm am annibyniaeth ydy’r union
reswm pam nad oeddwn i’n ymwneud efo Bethan drwy ddweud beth
ddylai ddigwydd i S4C, achos mae’n hollbwysig, yn fy marn i,
ei fod yn gorff ar wahân. Yn 2012, mi ddaeth memorandwm o
ddealltwriaeth rhwng y BBC ac S4C, ac rwy’n cymryd y bydd yna
rywbeth tebyg eto—hynny ydy, yn gosod seiliau'r bartneriaeth,
yn gosod modd ymarferol o weithredu ac yn gosod canllawiau
ariannol. Felly, buaswn i’n disgwyl, gydag unrhyw ariannu, y
byddai yna lythyr o ddealltwriaeth yn gorfod digwydd. Unwaith eto,
rwy’n meddwl, drwy eich ymwneud efo S4C, bydd angen ichi
wneud hyn yn glir i Mr John Whittingdale fel Ysgrifennydd Gwladol.
Ond, fel mae Rona’n dweud, rwy’n meddwl mai swyddogaeth
y trust ar hyn o bryd ydy gwneud yn saff bod y llythyr yna o
ddealltwriaeth yn cael ei weithredu yn gyfiawn ac yn dryloyw.
Buaswn i’n gobeithio y byddai unrhyw system newydd a fydd yn
dod, a fydd yn cymryd lle y trust—y bydd yr un math o
ddealltwriaeth a thegwch yn cael ei wneud yn y corff hwnnw. Efallai
y byddai hwn yn rhywbeth y byddech chi eisiau ei
sicrhau.
|
Professor
Stephens: Well, two very
brief responses. The independence is the very reason why I
didn’t respond to Bethan by saying exactly what should happen
to S4C, because it’s crucially important, in my view, that
there should be that independence. In 2012, there was a memorandum
of understanding signed between the BBC and S4C, and I assume that
something similar will happen again, putting in place the
foundations for the partnership, setting out the practical modus
operandi and also putting financial guidelines in place. So, I
would expect, with any funding agreement, that there should be some
sort of memorandum of understanding. Once again, through your
involvement with S4C, you will need to make this clear to Mr John
Wittingdale as the relevant Secretary of State here. But, as Rona
says, I think the trust’s function is to ensure that that
memorandum of understanding is implemented properly and
transparently. I would hope that any new system that may emerge to
replace the trust—that that same understanding would exist
and that same fairness would be provided. Perhaps this would be
something that you would want to ensure.
|
[163]
Christine
Chapman: Thank you.
I’ve got one very brief question from Rhodri Glyn—if
you’re very brief—.
|
[164]
Rhodri Glyn
Thomas: Yn
sydyn iawn, a ydy hi’n eich poeni chi nad oes yna neb o Gymru
ar y panel ymgynghori y mae’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol wedi ei
sefydlu i’w gynghori yn ystod y trafodaethau ar y
siarter?
|
Rhodri Glyn
Thomas: Very briefly, does
it concern you that there is no-one from Wales on the advisory
panel that the Secretary of State has established to advise him
during discussions on the charter?
|
[165]
Yr
Athro Stephens: Rwy’n meddwl y byddai wedi bod yn ddymunol i gael rhywun
a fyddai yn cynrychioli nid jest Cymru ond y
cenhedloedd.
|
Professor
Stephens: Well, I think it
would have been desirable to have someone representing not just
Wales but the nations.
|
[166]
Rhodri Glyn
Thomas: Yn
ddymunol neu’n hanfodol?
|
Rhodri Glyn
Thomas: Desirable or
essential?
|
[167]
Yr
Athro Stephens: Yn
hanfodol, ie. A bod yn onest ynglŷn â’r mater,
rwy’n meddwl fod yna orgynrychiolaeth o’r sector
fasnachol ar y panel hefyd.
|
Professor
Stephens: Essential, yes. To
be honest, I think there is over-representation of the commercial
sector on that panel too.
|
[168]
Rhodri Glyn
Thomas: Diolch.
|
Rhodri Glyn
Thomas: Thank
you.
|
[169]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Thank you.
Well, on that point, I would now like to draw this part of the
meeting to a close. Can I thank both Rona and Elan for attending? I
think we’ve had a very good airing of this subject and it
will continue. We will send you a transcript of the meeting so that
you can check to see if there are any inaccuracies. So, thank you
very much for coming in today. I’m now going to close the
committee for a short break until 10.45. Thank you.
|
Gohiriwyd y
cyfarfod rhwng 10:28 a 10:44.
The meeting adjourned between 10:28 and 10:44.
|
Ymchwiliad
i’r Adolygiad o Siarter y BBC: Sesiwn Dystiolaeth 4—TAC
a PACT
Inquiry into the BBC Charter Review: Evidence Session 4—TAC
and PACT
|
[170]
Christine
Chapman: This next item is
the fourth evidence session as part of our inquiry into the BBC
charter review. I would like to give a very warm welcome to our
panel. I wonder whether you could introduce yourselves and your
organisation for the record. John.
|
[171]
Mr
McVay: Yes. Thank you
very much—pleasure to be here. My name’s John McVay.
I’m the chief executive of PACT, which is the
producers’ trade association for the UK.
|
[172]
Mr
Garlick: Fy
enw i ydy Iestyn Garlick, ac rwy’n gadeirydd
TAC—Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru. Rwy’n mynd i gario ymlaen i
siarad, neu ni fydd yna unrhyw beth i’w gyfieithu.
Rwy’n gadeirydd TAC, sef y corff cyfatebol i PACT yng
Nghymru, ac yn Gymraeg.
|
Mr
Garlick: My name is Iestyn
Garlick, and I am chair of TAC. I will continue speaking, or there
won’t be anything to translate. I am the chair of TAC, which
is the corresponding body to PACT in Wales, and through the medium
of Welsh.
|
[173]
Mr
Williams: Fi
yw Gareth Williams. Rwyf hefyd yn eistedd ar fwrdd TAC. Rwy’n
brif weithredwr cwmni o’r enw Rondo Media, sydd â
swyddfeydd parhaol yng Nghaerdydd, yng Nghaernarfon ac ym
Mhorthaethwy hefyd. Mae Rondo hefyd yn aelod o PACT, fel
mae’n digwydd.
|
Mr
Williams: I am Gareth
Williams. I’m also a member of the TAC board. I am the chief
executive of a company called Rondo Media, which has permanent
premises in Cardiff, Caernarfon and Menai Bridge. Rondo is also a
member of PACT, as it happens.
|
10:45
|
[174]
Christine
Chapman: Thank you very
much. Well, obviously, the written evidence—the Members will
have read that, so, you know, we’ve got a number of questions
and we’ve got a certain amount of time as well. I just want
to start off: what should the BBC’s remit and public purposes
be in respect of Wales, and how do you think they should be
addressed under the next charter? Who’d like to start?
John.
|
[175]
Mr
McVay: Clearly, the BBC
as a national broadcaster, funded by everyone across the UK, should
seek, as I just heard from your previous session, to make sure that
everyone across the UK feels that the BBC not only invests in the
local economies, but also portrays those cultures and economies to
the rest of the people of the UK. I was reflecting on your various
comments to Rona and Elan, just in the previous session, that I
hear the same sort of comments coming from Scotland and Northern
Ireland as well. So, I think this is clearly a significant
challenge for the BBC. I appreciate that maybe the BBC is not going
as fast as you would like as Members of the Assembly, or as Members
of the Scottish Government or the Northern Irish Assembly would
like, but clearly not as fast as my members would like in Wales,
who are not getting enough commissioning to produce programming
that could portray Wales to the UK network. I think that a key part
of the BBC’s public purposes is to make sure that the
investments it makes are not only about spending money in Roath
Lock, but actually developing the creative talents, so that
product, ideas and creativity from across the nations of the UK are
represented to everyone else across the UK.
|
[176]
Mr
Garlick: A
allaf i ddweud o’r cychwyn nad oes unrhyw fwriad gan TAC i
ymosod ar y BBC? Rydym ni’n gefnogol i’r BBC. Mae yna
feiau, yn naturiol, yn y BBC a beth mae pobl yn tueddu i golli
golwg ohono fe ydy bod gennym ni wasanaethau yn Radio Cymru ac yn
Radio Wales sydd yn gwasanaethu Cymru, ac yn gwasanaethu Cymru yn
dda iawn, os ydych chi’n gallu derbyn y signal. Os ydych
chi’n trafaelio lawr o Gaernarfon i Gaerdydd ar hyd yr A470,
mae’n rhaid imi gyfaddef, yn fy nghar i, erbyn cyrraedd
Porthmadog, nad wyf i’n ei gael o. Mae o’n gwestiwn a
ydyn nhw’n gwario’r arian yn y llefydd cywir, ond
rhywbeth arall yw hynny.
|
Mr
Garlick: May I just say
from the beginning that TAC has no intention of attacking the BBC?
We are supportive of the BBC. There are faults in the BBC,
naturally, and what people tend to lose sight of is that we have
services in Radio Cymru and in Radio Wales that serve Wales and
serve Wales very well, if you can receive the signal. If
you’re travelling down from Caernarfon to Cardiff on the
A470, I must admit that, in my car, by the time I’ve reached
Porthmadog, I don’t receive it. It is a question of whether
they’re spending the money in the right places, but that is
something else.
|
[177]
Ond
mae’r cwestiwn, wrth gwrs, yn sefyll: a ydyn nhw’n
defnyddio’r gwasanaeth i werthu Cymru, i arddangos Cymru ac i
addysgu pobl y tu hwnt i Glawdd Offa am Gymru? Mae yna wendidau
mawr yn y fan yna, ac, yn sicr, fel yr oedd John yn dweud, mae
angen iddyn nhw fod yn rhannu’r arian gyda’r sector
annibynnol. Nid yw hynny i’w weld yn digwydd yn
ddigonol.
|
But the question,
of course, stands: are they using the service to sell Wales, to
portray Wales and to educate people across Offa’s Dyke about
Wales? There are major weaknesses there and, certainly, as John was
saying, there is a need for them to share the money with the
independent sector. That doesn’t seem to be happening
sufficiently.
|
[178]
Mr
Williams: I
ychwanegu at hynny, a gobeithio hefyd i fod mewn sefyllfa lle
gallwch chi gael atebion fymryn yn fwy cadarnhaol na’r rhai a
gawsoch chi yn y sesiwn diwethaf, rŷm ninnau hefyd wedi clywed
ymateb Tony Hall pan fuodd e i lawr yn adeilad y Pierhead fan hyn y
flwyddyn ddiwethaf yn sôn am beth oedd e’n cydnabod oedd
yn ddiffyg, mewn gwirionedd, mewn meysydd penodol yr oedd y BBC
wedi bod yn buddsoddi ynddyn nhw yng Nghymru, a faint o
gynyrchiadau a oedd yn ymddangos ar y rhwydweithiau. Mae geirau
Angela Graham yn canu yn fy mhen i—ni ddylem ni
deimlo’n euog, a bod yr arian yna, yn lle cael ei wario yng
Nghymru, yn cael ei wario ar agweddau eraill o gynyrchiadau
rhwydwaith. Mae e’n un o remits y BBC i wneud yn
siŵr bod y cenhedloedd yn cael arian—bod yna
flaenoriaeth, bron, yn cael ei rhoi i’r cenhedloedd. Mae
eisiau i’r ystod eang o leisiau gwahanol yn sicr gael mwy o
sylw ar y cyfryngau yn gyffredinol.
|
Mr
Williams: Just to add to
that, and hopefully also we’ll be in a situation where
you’ll get some more positive responses than you did in the
previous session, we too have heard Tony Hall’s response when
he was down in the Pierhead here last year, acknowledging what he
admitted were weaknesses in particular areas in which the BBC had
invested in Wales and how many productions appeared on the network.
Angela Graham’s words come to me—we shouldn’t
feel guilty, and for that money, rather than being spent in Wales,
to be spent in other parts of the network. It’s part of the
BBC’s remit to make sure that the nations do receive
funding—that a priority is given to the nations, if truth be
told. The wide range of diverse voices certainly needs to be given
more coverage on the media in general.
|
[179]
Roedd yna sylw eithaf diddorol gan Blair Jenkins a oedd yn y
gynhadledd ddoe. Rwy’n gwybod eich bod chi wedi bod yn trafod
cynhadledd yr IWA. Y sylw a wnaeth e sy’n canu yn fy mhen i
hefyd oedd ei fod e’n dod i Gymru, ei fod e’n synhwyro
bod mwy a mwy o bethau’n digwydd yng Nghymru, ond bod llai a
llai o rannu hynny y tu fas i Gymru, a rheini’n cael eu gweld
ar y rhwydweithiau ehangach. Felly, rwy’n credu bod gennym ni
sefyllfa sydd angen ei gwella.
|
There was quite an
interesting comment by Blair Jenkins, who was at the conference
yesterday. I know that you have discussed the IWA conference. What
also struck me from what he said was that when he came to Wales, he
sensed that there were more and more things happening here, but
that less and less of that was covered outwith Wales, and less of
it was seen on the wider networks. So, I do think that we are in a
position where improvements are needed.
|
[180]
Mae
hynny hefyd yn dod yn sgil dirywiad hirdymor. Mae pobl wedi bod yn
cyfeirio mewn sesiynau fan hyn at rywbeth yn dechrau pydru yn 2010
pan welom ni newidiadau sylweddol yn y ffyrdd roedd darlledwyr yn
cael eu hariannu, ond mae’n mynd nôl yn bellach na
hynny. Os edrychwch chi ar ddadansoddi Ofcom, mae’r buddsoddi
mewn rhaglenni Saesneg o Gymru am Gymru a thu hwnt i Gymru wedi bod
yn mynd i lawr a lawr a lawr ers degawd a mwy bellach.
|
That also comes
about as a result of a long-term decline. People have referred in
sessions here to things starting to deteriorate in 2010 when we saw
significant changes in the funding of broadcasters, but it goes
back further than that. If you look at the Ofcom analysis, the
investment in English-language programming from Wales about Wales
and beyond Wales has been going down and down for a decade and
more.
|
[181]
Felly, rwy’n credu ei bod yn amser inni gael y math yma
o drafodaethau a
cheisio ffeindio atebion. Os yw’r gynulleidfa yng
Nghymru—os oes yna werthfawrogiad uchel iawn o
wasanaethau’r BBC, wel dyna’r esgus perffaith dros
fuddsoddi mwy, yn fy marn i, achos mae’n amlwg bod y galw yna
a bod y rhaglenni, pan fyddant yn ymddangos, yn cael eu
gwerthfawrogi ac yn cael niferoedd da.
|
So, I do think
it’s time for us to have this kind of debate
and to
try to find solutions. If the audiences in Wales—if there is
a very high appreciation of the BBC’s output, well
that’s the perfect reason for actually investing more, in my
opinion, because it’s clear that the demand is there and that
the programmes, when they appear, are appreciated and attract good
audiences.
|
[182]
Un
nodyn olaf—o ran Radio Cymru a Radio Wales, mae’r
diffyg a’r golled yn y niferoedd gwrando diweddar fanna yn
profi beth sy’n digwydd pan fydd cyllidebau’n torri.
Mae e’n anoddach marchnata’r cynnwys yna, ac mae
e’n anoddach gweithio ar ystod eang o gynnwys ar gyfer y
gorsafoedd hynny, ac mae hynny’n digwydd yn sgil toriadau
eithaf sylweddol a ddigwyddodd i’r gwasanaethau hynny adeg
Delivering Quality First, pan oedd cyllidebau Radio Cymru a
Radio Wales yn cael eu torri gan y BBC ond o ran Radio 4—nid
oedd yna fawr ddim newid yng nghyllido’r orsaf
honno.
|
One last
point—in terms of Radio Cymru and Radio Wales, the reductions
in the listenership there does prove what happens when budgets are
cut. It’s more difficult to market the output, it’s
more difficult to work on a wide range of outputs and that is
happening as a result of significant cuts that happened to those
services at the time of Delivering Quality First, when the budgets
of Radio Cymru and Radio Wales were cut by the BBC but there was
hardly any change in the funding of Radio 4, for
example.
|
[183]
Christine
Chapman: Thank you.
I’ve got Gwyn on a specific point, then I’ll bring
Rhodri in.
|
[184]
Gwyn R.
Price: Thank you, Chair,
and good morning. Just to touch on funding, what kind of funding
model would TAC and PACT propose for the future of the
BBC?
|
[185]
Christine
Chapman: John.
|
[186]
Mr
McVay: I think the
licence fee is the best way to fund the BBC. We are staunch
defenders of the BBC’s licence fee, and in fact I’m on
Westminster’s parliamentary record as also calling for an
increase in the licence fee linked to inflation over the period of
the next charter. My members have experienced—as I’m
sure my friends at TAC’s members have experienced—cuts
to programme budgets over the past 10 years, an overall decline in
programming investment, and I think if you’re going to have
any sensible discussion about increasing services, programming and
content for across the UK, but in this context for Wales, then you
have to find a way to restore the licence fee back up to the levels
that will give the BBC, as you heard from Elan, the funding to
invest in the ambitions that we face in the family of nations that
is now the UK. So, we are very staunch defenders of the BBC licence
fee; I have to also put on the record that I’m not
necessarily a staunch defender for the people who spend the licence
fee. [Laughter.]
|
[187]
Mr
Garlick: Byddwn i hefyd yn cytuno â’r hyn y mae John
yn
ei ddweud, rwy’n credu y byddai TAC yn ddigon hapus i barhau
gyda status quo ffi’r drwydded, ond hefyd mae eisiau ystyried
sut mae talu am bethau fel yr iPlayer a phethau, a sut mae cael
pethau ar y platfformau ychwanegol yma. Ar hyn o bryd, wrth gwrs,
nid ydy S4C wedi cael ei chreu ar gyfer hynny. Mae angen edrych ar
sut maen nhw’n gallu creu ychydig bach o arian, o bosib o
fynd ar y we. Ond nid ydy’r we yn ddiwedd y byd—y peth
pwysig ydy bod gennym ni ddarlledwr go iawn yn S4C. Dyna sy’n
bwysig.
|
Mr
Garlick: I would also agree
with what John has said. TAC would be quite content to continue
with the status quo of the licence fee, but also there is a need to
consider how to pay for things such as iPlayer and so forth, and
how getting these things on these additional platforms is achieved.
At the moment, of course, S4C hasn’t been created for that,
so there is a need to look at how they can create a little bit of
money, perhaps by going on the internet. But the internet
isn’t the end of the world—the most important thing is
that we have a real broadcaster in S4C. That is what’s
important.
|
[188]
Christine
Chapman: Okay.
Gareth.
|
[189]
Mr
Williams: Rwy’n meddwl o ran y buddsoddiadau sydd yn digwydd,
rŷm ni’n ymfalchïo yn y buddsoddiadau sydd wedi
digwydd, gan y BBC, mewn dramâu er enghraifft, ond, i fi, nid
yw’r darlun hwnnw’n gyflawn. Rŷch chi’n
buddsoddi’n helaeth iawn mewn adeilad newydd ac adnodd newydd
sydd yn creu nifer o gynyrchiadau rhwydwaith poblogaidd, safonol
sydd yn y gwerthu’n fyd-eang, ond bob tro mae yna ryw fath o
gyfiawnhad dros wariant, dros agweddau ariannol. Fel rhywun sydd yn
cynhyrchu, beth sydd fwyaf defnyddiol i gynhyrchydd yw cael
agosatrwydd at bobl sydd yn gallu gwneud penderfyniadau, pobl sydd
yn gallu comisiynu, a’r bobl sydd yn gallu penderfynu ar
gyfer y gwariant ar gynyrchiadau.
|
Mr
Williams: I think in terms
of the investment taking place, we do take pride in the investments
made by the BBC in drama, for example, but, for me, that picture is
incomplete. You are investing extensively in a new building and a
new resource that creates a number of network
productions—very popular, quality productions that are sold
on a global level—but every time there’s a
justification for expenditure. As a producer, what’s most
important is to be close to the people who make the decisions,
those people who commission, and those people who decide on
production expenditure.
|
[190]
Hyd
y gwelaf i, nid yw’r gallu yna, y grym yna, yn bodoli yn BBC
Cymru. Nid yw’r gallu ganddyn nhw i gomisiynu’n
uniongyrchol ar gyfer y rhwydwaith. Rwy’n meddwl bod
hynny’n rhywbeth sydd angen i ni edrych arno fe, os ydym
ni’n dechrau ailedrych ar beth yw—. Eto, gan gyfeirio
yn ôl at y sesiwn ddoe ac at y sylwadau gan James Purnell ac
Elan yn sôn am service licence i Gymru—yn hytrach
na bod y rhain i gyd yn ddarniog, bod yna rannau bach fan hyn yn
sôn am gyllideb ar radio a theledu ac opt-outs ac
ar-lein, ond nad oes unrhyw beth yn clymu’r rhain at ei
gilydd sydd yn ateb y gofyn ynglŷn â beth sydd ei angen
ar Gymru a beth wnaiff helpu Cymru i gynhyrchu mwy y tu hwnt.
Darlun o’r byd drama yna yw’r BBC, wrth gwrs. Mae
Llywodraeth Cymru wedi bod yn buddsoddi mewn cynyrchiadau mawr gyda
stiwdios ac mae yna ddatblygiadau eithriadol o gyffrous yn dod
â mwy a mwy o waith i mewn i Gymru. Ond rwy’n credu bod
angen—fel y mae tystiolaeth PACT yn ei ddweud yn gryf
iawn—gwneud yn siŵr bod cwmnïau cynhenid Cymreig yn
gallu elwa o fodolaeth rhywbeth fel Roath Lock, a buddsoddi a
datblygu dramâu a wnaiff, gobeithio, gyrraedd y rhwydweithiau
ehangach.
|
As far as I can
see, that ability, that power, doesn’t exist within BBC
Wales. They don’t have the ability to commission directly for
the network. I think that’s something that needs to be
addressed, if we start to review—. Again, referring back to
yesterday’s session and comments by James Purnell and Elan
Closs Stephens when they talked about a service licence for
Wales—rather than it all being patchy, that there are parts
here talking about budgets for radio and opt-outs and TV budgets
and on-line, but that there is nothing actually tying all of those
things together that would actually meet the requirement in terms
of what Wales needs and what will help Wales to produce more. The
BBC is a microcosm of that drama world, of course. The Welsh
Government has invested in studios and there are very exciting
productions bringing more and more work into Wales. But I think
there is a need—as the PACT evidence demonstrates most
strongly—to ensure that indigenously Welsh companies can
benefit from the existence of something like Roath Lock, and can
invest and develop dramas that will, hopefully, get to those wider
networks.
|
[191]
Yn
bersonol—un nodyn olaf—nid ydw i’n credu y
dylai’r BBC ymddiheuro am gomisiynu a darlledu cyfres ddrama
Saesneg i wylwyr yng Nghymru, er enghraifft. Maen nhw wedi ffeindio
eu hunain mewn sefyllfa, bron, lle nad ydyn nhw’n gallu
fforddio gwneud hynny, achos maen nhw’n rhan-ariannu cyfresi
sydd yn ymddangos ar rwydweithiau eraill—nid bod dim byd yn
bod ar y model hwnnw, ond mae rhywun rhywle yn edrych ar bris
ddrama yr awr sy’n cael ei chynhyrchu yng Nghymru ac yn gweld
bod yna ffyrdd tsiepach o’i chael na buddsoddi’n llawn
mewn drama—ac rwy’n siŵr y byddai drama Saesneg
yng Nghymru yn boblogaidd iawn gyda gwylwyr yng Nghymru.
|
Personally—a
final note—I don’t think the BBC should apologise for
commissioning and broadcasting an English-language drama series for
viewers in Wales. They’ve found themselves almost in a
position where they can’t afford to do that, because they
part-fund series that appear on other networks—not that there
is anything wrong with that model, but someone somewhere is looking
at the price per hour of drama being produced in Wales and seeing
that there are cheaper ways of achieving that rather than investing
fully in drama—and I’m sure that an English-language
drama in Wales would be very popular with viewers in
Wales.
|
[192]
Mr
Garlick: A
gaf i wneud un pwynt sydyn? A derbyn bod y ffi drwydded yn
dderbyniol ac yn gweithio, dro ar ôl tro, rydym yn clywed Rona
Fairhead yn dweud bod gan Rhodri yn BBC Cymru ei gyllideb, wel
mae’n amlwg felly nad yw’r gyllideb mae o’n ei
chael yng Nghymru yn ddigonol. Mae angen iddo fe gael arian
ychwanegol fel ei fod e yn gallu comisiynu dramâu ar gyfer y
rhwydwaith; nid ei fod yn gorfod mynd efo’i gap i
fyny’r lôn, i fyny’r M4 i Lundain, a gofyn,
‘Plîs, a gaf fi arian i wneud rhywbeth yn fan
hyn?’, ac o bosib, wedyn, byddai’r arian yna yn cael ei
drosglwyddo i’r sector annibynnol, sydd yn hollbwysig i ni ar
ochr yma’r bwrdd, wrth gwrs. Diolch.
|
Mr
Garlick: May I make another
quick point? Accepting that the licence fee is acceptable and
working, time after time, we hear Rona Fairhead say that Rhodri in
BBC Wales has his budget, well, it’s obvious, therefore, that
the budget that he receives in Wales isn’t sufficient. There
is a need for him to have additional funding so that he can
commission dramas for the network, and not have to go cap in hand
up the M4 to London to ask, ‘Please, may I have some money to
do something here?’, and possibly, then, that that money
would be transferred to the independent sector, which is vital to
us on this side of the table, of course. Thank you.
|
[193]
Christine Chapman: John.
|
[194]
Mr
McVay: Yes, thank you
very much. Just as a corollary to the previous comment, PACT was
instrumental in getting the BBC to instigate the network supply
review, which is 50 per cent of all its network spend, to be spent
outside of London. We spent several years lobbying for that and
then we spent several years making sure the BBC would actually do
it, which is always a challenge. But, I have to say—and this
is one of the issues I face across the country—everyone wants
more money, but you’re robbing Peter to pay Paul, or Jock, or
whoever. The 6 per cent that Wales gets is 6 per cent of network. I
think the bigger debate you should have is: is that 6 per cent of
network production originating in Wales, from Wales to the network,
or is it 6 per cent of programming that’s been moved to Wales
to qualify? That’s the distinction. The 6 per cent is a huge
amount of money; it’s £56 million, of which only £2
million is actually being spent in your independent production
sector. That’s the challenge that we think the BBC
faces.
|
[195]
Phase
one of out of London, the network supply review, was what we called
‘lift and shift’—they lifted production from out
of London to break the metropolitan hold on those productions and
moved them to the nations and regions of the UK. That was phase
one. The thing that causes me a lot of work and a lot of debate
with the BBC is phase two, which is how you build capacity across
the nations and regions to create ambitious, creative, successful
network programming, because if you don’t do that, you do not
get the global economic benefits back into your local economy. Yes,
you’ll get spend at Roath Lock, you’ll have skills, but
you’re not getting intellectual property, you’re not
getting the distribution revenues that build businesses.
|
[196]
In
fact, I was listening to the Under-Secretary of State from the
Wales Office yesterday extolling the virtues of a successful Welsh
independent sector. Now, reflect on the fact that, as a
Conservative, his own Secretary of State, John Whittingdale, has
currently instructed Ofcom to produce a report into the terms of
trade, which is the legislation that underpins the success of Welsh
independent producers, allowing them to own their intellectual
property rights. I would urge this committee to make
representations to the Under-Secretary of State to safeguard the
interests of Welsh independent producers, including Welsh language
producers, who are subject to the same legislation, so that John
Whittingdale does not change the legislation, which would remove
their right to own the IP. Otherwise, we are having a very
pointless discussion about the future, because the independent
production sector in Wales would not own anything to get the
benefits. So, I think those two things need to be carefully
considered as well.
|
[197]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Thank you,
John. Now, I’ve got Rhodri Glyn and Bethan who wanted to come
in.
|
[198]
Rhodri Glyn Thomas: A
gaf i jest bigo lan ar y pwynt a wnaeth John McVay yn awr? Wrth
gwrs, rydym ni’n gwerthfawrogi’r ffaith bod y
cynyrchiadau rhwydwaith yma sy’n cael eu cynhyrchu yng
Nghymru yn creu swyddi a sgiliau, ond fe gawson nhw eu symud i
Gymru ac nid oes dim byd i atal y BBC ar ryw adeg i’w symud
nhw o Gymru. Ni fydd yna waddol ar ôl o’r rheini,
oherwydd eu bod nhw’n bethau sydd wedi dod i mewn, a phan
fyddant yn mynd allan, os ânt allan, ni fydd dim byd ar
ôl. Ond, o ran cynyrchiadau o Gymru, am Gymru, sy’n
portreadu Cymru—ac mae Iestyn wedi ateb y cwestiwn yma, i
raddau—a oes rhaid inni gydnabod mai mater o gyllideb y BBC
yw hyn, mewn gwirionedd, yn hytrach na pholisi, neu a oes yna lawer
iawn y gellir ei wneud hyd yn oed o fewn y cyfyngiadau cyllidol
sy’n bodoli ar hyn o bryd?
|
Rhodri Glyn
Thomas: May I just pick up
on the point that John McVay made now? Of course, we appreciate the
fact that these network productions that are produced in Wales
create jobs and develop skills, but they were moved to Wales and
there is nothing to stop the BBC, at any time, from moving them
from Wales. There will be no legacy as a result of those, because
they are things that been brought in, and when they go out, if they
do go out, there will be nothing left. But, in terms of productions
from Wales, about Wales, which portray Wales—and Iestyn has
answered this question, to some extent—do we have to
acknowledge that this is a matter relating to the BBC’s
budget, in reality, rather than policy, or is there much that can
be done even within the funding restrictions that exist at the
moment?
|
11:00
|
|
[199]
Mr
Garlick: Rwy’n credu, i raddau, fod gan y BBC yn dal y broblem
gydag acenion Cymreig mewn dramâu Cymreig. Mae o’n wir,
mae’n debyg, fod drama wedi cael ei chomisiynu flynyddoedd
lawer yn ôl, cafwyd yr arian ac fel roedd y person yma yn
gadael yr ystafell fe wnaethon nhw ddweud, ‘Don’t
make it too Welsh’. Dyna’r agwedd, ac rwy’n
credu bod yr agwedd yna yn bodoli o hyd; mae’n rhaid i ni
edrych ar hynny.
|
Mr
Garlick: I think, to a
certain extent, that the BBC still has a problem with Welsh accents
in Welsh dramas. I think it’s true that a drama was
commissioned many years ago, and the funding was made available and
as this individual left the room, they were told,
‘Don’t make it too Welsh’. That’s that the
attitude, and I think that this attitude persists; we have to
address that.
|
[200]
Ond,
nid yw’n hollol wir, Rhodri, na fydd yna ddim gwaddol. Mae
yna gynhyrchwyr a thechnegwyr yn cael eu hyfforddi yn Roath Lock,
ac mae nifer ohonyn nhw wedi symud ymlaen o fod yn gwneud Pobol
y Cwm yn fanna i fod yn gwneud pethau
rhwydwaith—rwy’n sôn yn benodol am
Broadchurch yn y fan hyn—sydd wedi dod trwy’r
system yna. Felly, mae yna rywfaint o waddol, ond ni fydd cymaint o
waddol ag y byddai rhywun yn dymuno ei gael. Ac hefyd, ar y llaw
arall, mae’n wir i ddweud bod rhywbeth fel Roath Lock yn codi
costau pobl llawrydd i ni fel sector annibynnol, achos nid ydym yn
gallu cystadlu gyda chyllidebau y BBC. Os wyf i eisiau gwneud drama
ym Mhenarth ac rwyf eisiau dyn sain, ac mae gan y dyn sain gynnig i
fynd i weithio yn Roath Lock neu ddod ataf i ym Mhenarth,
rwy’n gwybod lle mae’n mynd i fynd.
|
But, it’s
not entirely true to say, Rhodri, that there will be no legacy.
There are producers and technicians who are being trained in Roath
Lock, and many of them have progressed from working on Pobol y
Cwm to working on network output and then move on to working on
programmes such as Broadchurch, for example, and
they’ve come through that system. So, there is some legacy,
but not as much perhaps as one would like to have seen. And also,
on the other hand, it is true to say that something like Roath Lock
does actually increase the cost of freelancers for us in the
independent sector, because we can’t compete with the
BBC’s budgets. If I want to produce a drama in Penarth and I
want a sound man, and the sound man’s been given an offer to
work at Roath Lock or to work with me in Penarth, I know where
he’ll go.
|
[201]
Mr
Williams: Efallai ei fod wedi amlygu rhyw wahaniaeth. Er ei fod yn
cyfrannu’n enfawr at ddatblygiad sgiliau—ac rwy’n
cytuno bod yn rhaid sicrhau’r gwaddol yna—dyna pam
rwy’n credu bod buddsoddi mewn gwahanol fathau o ddrama yn
bwysicach, yn hytrach na’i fod jest yn dod yn rhyw fath o
siop ffenest ar gyfer cynyrchiadau drudfawr iawn. Achos rydych
chi’n sôn am gyd-destun hefyd o sector annibynnol, er
enghraifft, sydd yn cynhyrchu nifer o ddramâu i S4C, ond mae
cost drama yr awr ar S4C wedi mynd lawr o agos at £200,000 yn
2010 i dan £140,000 nawr. Mae hwnnw’n wahaniaeth
sylweddol iawn gyda dramâu sydd yn ceisio bod yn uchelgeisiol
ac yn safonol ar y sgrin. Felly, mae yna amlygu yn digwydd yn
fanna, rwy’n credu, rhwng y gwahanol fathau o ddramâu,
ac o bosib rhyw gap yn y canol.
|
Mr
Williams: Perhaps it has
highlighted some difference. Although it’s contributing
enormously towards skills development—and I agree that we
have to ensure that legacy—that is why investing in different
types of drama is more important, rather than it just being a shop
window for expensive productions. Because you’re also talking
about the context of an independent sector, for example,
that’s producing a number of dramas for S4C, but the cost per
hour on S4C has gone down from about £200,000 in 2010 to under
£140,000 now. That is a significant difference in terms of
dramas that are trying to be ambitious and of quality on the
screen. So, there is differentiation there between the different
kinds of dramas, and perhaps some sort of gap in the
centre.
|
[202]
Ac
eto, rwy’n credu bod yna gyfresi dychwelyd—mae John eto
wedi gwneud y pwynt ynglŷn â diffyg cyfresi dychwelyd o
Gymru sydd yn adeiladu momentwm, sydd yn adeiladu swmp o waith, ac
wedyn yn galluogi cwmnïau annibynnol i ddatblygu ac i
hyfforddi. Mae’n digwydd i raddau ar hyn o bryd gyda Channel
4, er enghraifft, sydd wedi gweld bod yna ddiffyg comisiynu o Gymru
wedi bod ar eu gwasanaeth nhw, ac maen nhw wedi bod yn comisiynu
bulk—comisiynu volume o waith gan gwmni
annibynnol sydd wedyn yn gallu buddsoddi, sydd yn gallu datblygu
staff ac sydd yn gallu rhoi profiadau i staff o ran gweithio ar
gynyrchiadau rhwydwaith. Llawer gwell hynny na senario lle mae yna
gomisiynydd, o bosib yn Llundain, yn dweud, ‘O, na,
mae’n rhaid i chi ddefnyddio’r cynhyrchydd yma
a’r cyfarwyddwr yma a’r golygydd yma’, a’i
fod yn cael ei reoli, ac mewn gwirionedd wedyn ni fyddai Cymru yn
elwa’n ddigonol o ddatblygu staff. Mae hynny, yn fy mhrofiad
i, yn dechrau gwella nawr. Ond, yn sicr, fe ddylai fod yn
fuddsoddiad tymor hir, pellgyrhaeddol, nid yn rhywbeth sydd jest yn
ateb gofynion in-house y BBC.
|
Again, I think
there are series that are returning—John again made the point
about a lack of returning series from Wales that build momentum,
that build a body of work and enable independent companies to
develop and train. It’s happening at the moment to a degree
with Channel 4, for example, which has seen that there’s a
lack of commissioning from Wales on their service, and
they’ve been bulk commissioning—commissioning a volume
of work from independent companies that can then invest and develop
staff and provide experiences to staff of working on network
productions. That is a much better scenario than where you have a
commissioner, perhaps in London, saying, ‘No, you have to use
this producer, this director, this editor’ and that that is
managed from there and then, in all honesty, Wales wouldn’t
benefit sufficiently from the development of staff. That, in my
experience, is starting to improve. But, certainly, it should be a
long-term, far-reaching investment that doesn’t just answer
the in-house requirements of the BBC.
|
[203]
Rhodri Glyn Thomas: Y
rheswm roeddwn i’n codi’r cwestiwn yma ynglŷn
â’r gyllideb sydd ar gael i’r BBC yng Nghymru ar
hyn o bryd ydy oherwydd y rhwystredigaeth rydym ni’n ei
theimlo. Nid oeddwn yn cytuno â’r hyn roedd Elan Closs
Stephens yn ei ddweud mai dim ond yn ddiweddar mae’r
drafodaeth yma wedi codi—mae’r drafodaeth yma wedi
bodoli ers dros ddegawd yng Nghymru ynglŷn â’r
ffordd mae Cymru yn cael ei phortreadu gan y BBC. Rwy’n credu
cyn hynny ei fod yn wir fod llawer iawn ohonom ni wedi bod yn
canolbwyntio ar S4C, a pheidio â chynhyrfu’r dyfroedd
oherwydd hynny. Ond, dros y ddegawd ddiwethaf, mae’r
drafodaeth yma wedi datblygu, ond nid oes dim byd wedi newid yn
sylfaenol o ran y ffordd mae Cymru yn cael ei phortreadu ar y
cyfryngau. Hynny yw, ai mater polisi yw hynny? Ai mater meddylfryd
yw e, fel roedd Iestyn yn awgrymu? Ai dyna yw e, neu jest problem
sylfaenol nad yw’r arian gan y BBC yng Nghymru i’w
wneud e?
|
Rhodri Glyn
Thomas: The reason I
raised this question on the budget available to the BBC in Wales at
present is the frustration that we feel. I didn’t agree with
Elan Closs Stephens’ comment that it’s only recently
that this debate has arisen—this has been going on for over a
decade in Wales in terms of the way that Wales is portrayed by the
BBC. I think before then it was true to say that many of us had
been concentrating on S4C and hadn’t been muddying the waters
because of that. But, over the past decade, this debate has
gathered momentum, but nothing has really changed fundamentally in
terms of the way Wales is portrayed in the media. Is that a policy
issue or an issue of mindset as Iestyn suggested? Is it that, or is
it a fundamental problem that the BBC simply doesn’t have the
money available to do it?
|
[204]
Christine
Chapman: John, would you
like to come in on this?
|
[205]
Mr
McVay: Yes, and I’m
sure Iestyn will add more to this. I would just reflect on your
comment about ‘don’t make it too Welsh’.
Obviously, you can tell from my accent that I’m from another
part of the country. It’s interesting when you think about
all the continuity announcers on all the major
networks—they’re all from Manchester, Newcastle, Wales,
Glasgow, so I don’t understand—. I don’t think
the British public actually have a problem with things that are too
anything; I think we are in a very diverse country. I think our
different accents and cultures are our strength, and indeed are
used to help commercial channels advertise their programmes. So, I
think that it may be a problem amongst a certain group of
commissioners where they think that. I don’t really think the
British public think that, because they have friends and relatives
living in all parts of the country. So, hopefully, that’s
something that’s going to change, but it does go to a point
that I think is important as well, which is the diversity of our
industry. It needs to be more diverse, so that these comments are a
thing of the past, and I think that’s important.
|
[206]
In
terms of what you can do more with the money you have
locally—and this is something I said at the IWA conference
yesterday, and something we’ve been asking the BBC to engage
with—the nations have dedicated opt-out budgets, so
there’s a spend for Wales, and there’s a spend for
Scotland and there’s a spend for Northern Ireland to make
programming just for those communities. If you live in England, you
don’t get that. All my members in England can only make
network programming; they can’t make English opt-out, or
network. So, it’s a strength; it’s an economic
two-market system. What we’ve long argued is that that money
should be better used to develop local companies to be ambitious
for network. So, instead of it being, ‘You’re sitting
over here and that’s Wales’, it should be, ‘This
is an incubator for talent to help develop programmes for portrayal
from Wales to the rest of the network’, because that’s
a lot of money that you could use to help develop that talent. And,
indeed, that’s what’s happened with some companies in
Scotland: a comedy company in particular, that changed their
business, and they become a network comedy supplier from making
local Scottish comedy. Most of the time, I’m sure they were
told, ‘Don’t make it too Glaswegian.’ So, I think
you’ve got to start looking at the money and cleverer ways to
spend it and align it to the opportunities. We know there’s
not going to be more money, but I think it’s about how you
spend it and the balance between wanting something that’s
specifically about Wales or Scotland, but can you use that talent,
and help develop that talent, to make things for the rest of the
country?
|
[207]
Christine Chapman: Okay. Gareth.
|
[208]
Mr
Williams: Rwy’n credu bod y feddylfryd yn dechrau gwella, ond mae
lot mwy o le i fynd, ac un ffordd dda i’w gwella eto fyth yw
peidio gor-ganoli’r penderfyniadau o ran cynnwys ac elfennau
golygyddol a chyllidol mewn un lle. Mae’n rhaid i’r
rheini, yn fy marn i, gael eu symud yn decach ac yn fwy cytbwys ar
draws y Deyrnas Unedig, os yw’r BBC o ddifri ynglŷn
â beth maen nhw’n ysgrifennu mewn datganiad ac
adroddiadau ynglŷn â gwneud yn siŵr bod y
cenhedloedd a’r rhanbarthau yn cael eu gweld a’u
clywed, a’u trin yn deg ac yn gytbwys. Ac mae hynny yn
cyd-fynd â pholisïau ynglŷn ag amrywiad a
gwahaniaeth o ran portread a phethau fel hynny. Maen nhw’n
dod yn fwy ac yn fwy pwysig i ddarlledwyr, ac nid jest y
BBC.
|
Mr
Williams: I think that the
mindset is starting to change, but there is a long way to go, and
one effective way of changing it is not to overcentralise the
decisions on content, and editorial and funding issues in one
place. Those decisions, in my opinion, have to be devolved more
fairly and in a more balanced fashion across the UK, if the BBC is
serious about what they put in their statements and reports on
ensuring that the nations and regions are properly seen and heard,
and treated fairly and in a balanced way. And that is in line with
policies on diversity and differences in terms of portrayal and
things like that. They are becoming more and more important for
broadcasters, not only the BBC.
|
[209]
Christine Chapman: Iestyn.
|
[210]
Mr
Garlick: Nid
wyf yn credu ei fod e’n fater o bolisi—rwy’n
credu y byddai’n annheg i ddweud hynny— ac nid wyf
chwaith yn credu ei bod hi’n fater o’r gyllideb, achos
nid wyf yn credu am un eiliad fod y BBC wedi symud o Lundain i
Gaerdydd, neu i Salford, achos ei fod e’n costio’r un
faint. Mae e’n rhatach yng Nghaerdydd; mae e’n rhatach
yn Salford; felly, mae e’n dilyn y byddai creu dramâu am
Gymru, yng Nghymru, yn rhatach na’r dramâu maen
nhw’n gwneud yn Llundain. Felly, nid wyf yn gwybod beth yw e;
mae’n ddrwg gennyf nad wyf wedi ateb y cwestiwn, ond nid wyf
yn credu ei fod yn bolisi, ac nid wyf chwaith yn credu mai’r
gyllideb yw e: mae yna ryw broblem.
|
Mr
Garlick: I don’t
think it’s a matter of policy—I think it would be
unfair to say that—and I don’t think either that
it’s a matter of the budget, because I don’t think for
one second that the BBC has moved from London to Cardiff, or to
Salford, because it costs the same. It is cheaper in Cardiff;
it’s cheaper in Salford; therefore, it follows that creating
drama about Wales, in Wales, would be cheaper than the dramas they
are producing in London. So, I don’t know what it is; I
apologise that I haven’t answered the question, but I
don’t think that it’s policy, and I don’t think
that it’s the budget either: there is some sort of
problem.
|
[211]
Mr
Willliams: Ni
chlywais unrhyw un yn dweud nad oedden nhw wedi mwynhau The
Fall—a ydych chi’n cofio’r gyfres arbennig
yna gyda Gillian Anderson a Jamie Dornan—achos bod e’n
rhy Wyddelig. Mi oedd hi’n ddrama ardderchog a oedd yn cael
ei mwynhau gan wylwyr ym mhobman. Ac, i ddweud y gwir, mae’r
rhai sydd yn llwyddo fwy yn apelio i gynulleidfaoedd y tu hwnt i
Gymru, y tu hwnt i Brydain. Rwy’n meddwl bod 80 miliwn o bobl
Tsieineaidd wedi gwylio Sherlock, felly mae’r
dramâu safonol sydd yn boblogaidd iawn yn mynd i deithio, yn
mynd i gael eu hallforio, ac mae eisiau ffeindio mwy o ffyrdd i
hynny ddigwydd, ac i’r sector gynhyrchu annibynnol fod yn
rhan allweddol o hynny.
|
Mr
Williams: I haven’t
heard anyone saying that they didn’t enjoy The
Fall—do you remember that wonderful series with Gillian
Anderson and Jamie Dornan—because it was too Irish. It was an
excellent drama that was enjoyed by viewers everywhere. And, to be
honest, those that do succeed appeal to audiences beyond Wales and
beyond the UK. I think 80 million Chinese people watched
Sherlock, so the quality output that is very popular will
travel, and will be exported, and we must find more ways of
ensuring that that does happen, and that the independent production
sector is a key part of that.
|
[212]
Rhodri Glyn Thomas: Diolch.
|
Rhodri Glyn
Thomas: Thank
you.
|
[213]
Christine Chapman: Okay; thanks.
Bethan, then Alun.
|
[214]
Bethan
Jenkins: Just to come back
on your comment. In a recent survey, I think it was the south-west,
the Swansea area, that people said, across the UK, was the most
popular accent. So, I think we need to have more representation on
network just by virtue of the dulcet tones of our area. Anyway, I
digress. The question I wanted to ask was with regard to the issue
on the licence fee. Specifically, from yesterday, the suggestion
that we could have a situation where it would be specifically
devolved in a roundabout way to Wales, so that the Rhodri Talfan
Davies’s of this world would have more flexibility with that
system. Obviously, the BBC didn’t say that they were
supportive or not yesterday, but I wondered about your
views.
|
[215]
And,
the second question, just because I think it would help me
understand is: because you’re not getting work from
portraying Wales in Wales or on the network, are you then having to
seek work outside of Wales? Can you give us an idea then—for
example, on commissioning—what the percentages are of you
going out and seeking work that you could be doing in Wales but you
can’t because of the funding structures that the BBC has,
which don’t allow for you to do that? I think that would help
the committee understand what you’re doing that is outside of
the remit, then, of the BBC, even though that’s such a big
player.
|
[216]
Mr
Williams: Rwy’n credu bod y cynhyrchwyr yn wastad yn mynd i fod yn
edrych am gyfleoedd, ac maen nhw’n edrych am gyfleoedd i
gwrdd ag unigolion sydd yn gallu gwneud penderfyniadau comisiynu.
Os yw’r BBC wedi ceisio rhoi rhyw strwythur yn ei le sydd i
fod i fod yn hyrwyddo cynyrchiadau y maen nhw’n eu
galw’n nations to network—cynyrchiadau o Gymru sy’n ymddangos ar y
rhwydweithiau—nid
wyf yn siŵr bod hynny’n cael ei gyfathrebu yn ddigon
clir gan y rhai hynny sydd i fod yn ei weithredu a nad yw’n
cael ei ddeall yn ddigonol gan y sector sydd yn chwilio am y
cyfleoedd hynny. Felly, mae rhywbeth yn hynny nad yw’n
gweithio i fi; nid yw i’w weld yn esgor ar nifer eang o
gynyrchiadau sydd yn cael eu gweld yn gyntaf ar BBC Cymru ac wedyn
yn symud i’r rhwydweithiau. Mae yna rywbeth ar goll yn y
ffordd y mae hynny’n cael ei weithredu ar hyn o
bryd.
|
Mr
Williams: I think that the
producers are always going to be seeking opportunities, and
they’re seeking opportunities to meet individuals who can
make commissioning decisions. If the BBC has tried to put a
structure in place that’s supposed to promote
nations-to-network productions—productions from Wales that
appear on the network—then I don’t think that is being
communicated clearly enough by those that are supposed to be
communicating it and isn’t sufficiently understood by the
sector that is seeking those opportunities. So, there is some
disconnect there; it doesn’t seem to be bringing forth a huge
range of productions that are first seen on BBC Wales and then
moved on to the network. There is something missing in the way that
that’s being done at present.
|
[217]
Yn
llawer doethach, rwy’n meddwl, ydy i’r comisiynwyr sydd
yn comisiynu yn uniongyrchol ar gyfer y gwahanol genres ac
ar gyfer gwahanol wasanaethau i gomisiynu yn uniongyrchol gan y
cynhyrchwyr. Mae trio creu rhyw strwythur—. Mae’r BBC
yn eithaf da am ddod lan gyda strwythurau. Mae’r ddelwedd yma
o fersiwn y BBC o musical chairs—pan fo’r gerddoriaeth yn stopio, maen
nhw’n ychwanegu cadair. Weithiau, maen nhw’n creu rhyw
strwythur sydd i fod i fod yn llawn pwrpas da i helpu achos
rhywbeth, ond sydd yn gallu ei gloffi fe, yn llawer rhy aml. Felly,
rwy’n credu bod eisiau ffeindio ffordd fwy uniongyrchol o
gael comisiynwyr yma yng Nghymru. Un mater yw cael rhywun yma yn
barhaol; mater arall yw eu bod nhw jest yn ymweld yn fwy aml â
Chymru.
|
It would be far
wiser, in my view, for the commissioners that commission directly
for the various genres and the various services to commission
directly from the producers themselves. Trying to create some sort
of structure—. The BBC is quite good at coming up with
structures. There’s this image of the BBC’s version of
musical chairs—when the music stops, they add a chair.
Sometimes, they create a structure that is supposed to be well
intentioned and is supposed to help with a case, but it can
hamstring it, on far too many occasions. Therefore, I think we need
to find a far more direct way of getting commissioners here in
Wales. It’s one thing to get someone here permanently;
it’s another that they should just visit Wales more
often.
|
[218]
Un
newid mawr, o’i gymharu Channel 4, eto, oedd y newid wrth
inni gael ychydig o gyfresi a rhaglenni gyda nhw yn ddiweddar;
roedd y comisiynwyr nid yn unig yn dod i weld y cynhyrchwyr yn ein
swyddfeydd ni yng Nghymru, ond roedden nhw’n dod ac yn gwylio
rhaglenni ac yn gwylio’r fersiynau gorffenedig wedi’u
golygu yma yng Nghymru. Mae hynny, i fi, yn newid sylfaenol. Mae
yna newid agwedd, i ddod yn ôl at beth oedd Rhodri yn dweud
ynglŷn ag agwedd tuag at beth mae Cymru yn gallu ei wneud. Mae
llawer gwell syniad gan gomisiynydd beth yw datblygiad cynlluniau
busnes cwmni wrth fod yna’n ymweld â nhw yn hytrach na
chael DVD neu ffeil dros e-bost iddyn nhw ei wylio ar laptop
pan fo amser gyda nhw ar ddiwedd y dydd. Mae hynny’n newid
meddylfryd. Felly, rwy’n credu bod cynhyrchwyr yn wastad yn
chwilio am gyfleoedd, ac mae yna gyfle euraidd yn y fan hyn, yn fy
marn i, i’r BBC fod yn gwneud llawer, llawer mwy dros y
cenhedloedd, a llawer mwy dros Gymru.
|
One major change,
if we look at Channel 4 again, was the change when we had a few
series and programmes with them recently; the commissioners not
only came to see the producers in our offices here in Wales, but
came and watched the programmes and watched the finished edited
products here in Wales. For me, that is a step change.
There’s a change of attitude, to return to Rhodri’s
comments on the attitude towards what Wales can do. A commissioner
has a far better idea of what the business plans of a company are
through visiting them, rather than getting a DVD or a file on
e-mail and watching it on their laptop when they have time at the
end of the day. So, that’s a change of mindset. So, I think
producers are always looking for opportunities, and there is a
golden opportunity here for the BBC, in my view, to be doing far,
far more for the nations, and far more for Wales.
|
[219]
Mr
Garlick: Rydym ni, fel sector, yn sicr yng Nghymru, wedi cael ein
cyhuddo dros y blynyddoedd o fod yn llawer iawn yn rhy ynghlwm efo
S4C, yn rhy ddibynnol ar S4C. Rwy’n credu mai ‘apron
strings’ oedd yn cael ei ddefnyddio. Nid yw hynny’n
wir, achos, mae’r rhan fwyaf o’r cwmnïau
rwy’n gwybod amdanyn nhw, maen nhw i gyd os nad yn gwneud
rhaglenni i Channel 4, Channel 5 a’r BBC, yn sicr yn trio
gwneud rhaglenni iddyn nhw ac yn cynnig syniadau fan hyn a fan
draw.
|
Mr
Garlick: As a sector,
certainly in Wales, we have been accused over the years of being
too associated with S4C and too dependent on S4C. I think
‘apron strings’ was the phrase that was used. That
isn’t true, because most of the companies that I know of, if
they’re not making programmes for Channel 4, Channel 5 and
the BBC, they’re certainly trying to make programmes for
them, and they’re offering ideas here and there.
|
[220]
Byddwn i’n gwneud un pwynt bach ychwanegol: heb y sector
annibynnol yng Nghymru a thu hwnt sydd yn gwneud rhaglenni yn yr
iaith Gymraeg, beth fyddai S4C yn ei ddangos? Pwy sy’n
ddibynnol ar bwy yn y fan hyn? Byddwn i’n dweud bod S4C yn
ddibynnol ar y sector, nid ein bod ni yn ddibynnol ar S4C. Rydym
ni’n gweithio efo’n gilydd; dyna sy’n
bwysig.
|
I would make one
additional point: without the independent sector in Wales and
beyond that produces programmes in the Welsh language, what would
S4C be broadcasting? Who is dependent on whom here? I would say
that S4C is dependent on the sector, not us dependent on S4C. We
work together; that is what’s important.
|
[221]
Mr
Williams: Rwy’n mynd yn ôl, mewn ffordd, i’r pwynt a
gododd Tony Hall pan fuodd yn gwneud ei araith, ynglŷn â
diffyg yr oedd ef wedi’i adnabod. Wel, mae yna amser wedi bod
i wneud rhywbeth am y diffyg hwnnw, ac nid oes dim byd yn
rhwystro’r BBC rhag gwneud rhywbeth yn sgîl
hynny—dweud wrth y sector, ‘Mae yna gyfleoedd comisiynu
fan hyn; dewch â syniadau atom ni, ac, os ydyn nhw’n
syniadau da, sy’n mynd i fod yn apelgar ac yn gweithio
efo’r cynulleidfaoedd, fe wnawn ni weithio gyda chi i’w
datblygu nhw a, gobeithio, eu comisiynu nhw’.
|
Mr
Williams: I’d return,
in a way, to the point raised by Tony Hall when he made his speech
here on the deficiencies that he’d identified. Well,
there’s been time to address that, and there is nothing
precluding the BBC from taking action—telling the sector,
‘There are commissioning opportunities here; bring your ideas
to us, and, if they are good ideas that will appeal to an audience,
then we will work with you to develop them and, hopefully, they
will be commissioned’.
|
[222]
Bethan Jenkins: Roedd Elan Closs Stephens yn dweud nad oedd yn gallu digwydd
dros nos, ond rydych chi’n dweud nad ydyn nhw wedi ymateb yn
ddigon cyflym i—
|
Bethan
Jenkins: Elan Closs
Stephens said that it can’t happen overnight, but you say
that they haven’t responded swiftly enough
to—
|
[223]
Mr
Williams: Nid
yw’n gallu digwydd dros nos, ond mae’n gallu digwydd
dros gyfnod. Erbyn iddo ddod nesaf, yn awr, fis Tachwedd, bydd yn
ddifyr gweld a oes yna dystiolaeth ganddo i weld bod yna
ddatblygiadau wedi bod yn y meysydd hynny, neu byddwn ni’n
rhoi tystiolaeth eto mewn pump neu 10 mlynedd a bydd y diffyg yn
dal yna a bydd y crebachu wedi mynd yn waeth. Felly, mae yna amser
digonol wedi bod iddyn nhw feddwl ynglŷn â threfn ar
gomisiynu ac ar adnabod cyfleoedd comisiynu.
|
Mr
Williams: No, it can’t
happen overnight, but it can happen over a period of time. By the
time he comes again, in November, it will be interesting to see
whether there will have been developments in these areas, or
we’ll be giving evidence again in five or 10 years’
time and the problems will still exist and there will have been
further shrinkage. So, there has been adequate time for them to
think about the arrangements for commissioning and identifying
commissioning opportunities.
|
11:15
|
[224]
Mr
Garlick: Mae
blwyddyn yn noson hir iawn, onid ydy? Mae’n dweud ‘dros
nos’ ond nid yw dros nos. Rydym yn siarad am flwyddyn pan
oedd ef fan hyn yn dweud ei fod yn mynd i’w wneud ef. Wnaeth
e ddim. Bydd ef yma cyn bo hir yn dweud eto; wedyn beth sy’n
mynd i ddigwydd? Hefyd, mae rhywun yn gorfod gofyn y cwestiwn,
‘Pa bwerau sydd gennych chi i’w orfodi ef i wneud
rhywbeth?’ Mae’n rhaid inni weithio gyda’n gilydd
i’r pethau hyn ddigwydd. Sori, John.
|
Mr
Garlick: A year is a very
long night, isn’t it? You say ‘overnight’ but it
is not overnight. We’re talking about a year when he was here
saying that he was going to do it. He didn’t. He will be here
again soon saying it; then what is going to happen? Also, somebody
has to ask the question, ‘What powers do you have to compel
him to do something? We have to work together for these things to
happen. Sorry, John.
|
[225]
Christine
Chapman: John, you wanted
to come in. I need to bring in Alun then, so—.
|
[226]
Mr
McVay: Yes, I’ll be
very brief. I can imagine there’ll be a few people around
this table who will be asking Tony that question—someone on
my left, I imagine, anyway. [Laughter.] I think the
challenge is how you rebalance the 6 per cent network spend away
from purely in-house and lift and shift into indigenous or, if you
want, local production. I think that’s the big challenge, and
indeed it’s the big challenge that the BBC faces in Scotland
and Northern Ireland.
|
[227]
To
your point about what our independent producers are doing, the UK
independent production sector—and you have a very strong
cluster of very strong businesses: Boomerang, Tinopolis and
others—is the world’s most successful independent
sector. We sometimes forget just what a gem we have sitting in the
midst of our broadcasting ecology. I agree with the previous
comment that the broadcasters rely on the creativity, hard work,
blood, sweat and tears of producers, because they are the ones who
will spend a lot more money developing ideas that never get made.
It’s a one in 10 business. The independent production sector,
including Welsh companies, is a global business. Members from Wales
and all across the country work in America. They sell their
programmes around the world. Their formats are remade in 200
countries. The UK independent sector is a success story. It’s
a £3 billion business, delivering jobs, high-value vocations,
across the UK. I’d go back to my earlier point: all of that
is now threatened by John Whittingdale in London, who is
considering removing the interventions that underpin that success.
I’m urging all Assemblies and Governments to make sure that
you represent your concerns about your local businesses to the
Secretary of State, because, if we lose our right to own the
copyright on the works we’ve produced, then we go back to
being a fee-based business, cost-plus, where we can’t raise
investment, we can’t sell around the world, and we
can’t take our formats and remake them for buyers in other
countries. I think that you would lose the entrepreneurship that
Welsh companies have displayed admirably over the past
decade.
|
[228]
Mr
Williams: Os
caf jest ychwanegu at hynny, mae’r busnesau o Gymry, fel yr
ydych chi’n ei ddweud, yn edrych ar y cyfleoedd yma gyda
darlledwyr ym Mhrydain, ond hefyd fwyfwy y tu fas i Brydain. Yn
nhermau S4C hefyd, mae yna fwy a mwy o gydgynhyrchu wedi digwydd yn
ddiweddar ar gyfer darlledwyr yn Ne Korea, er enghraifft. Mae yna
fentrau wedi bod ar y cyd gyda chwmni cynhyrchu JTV. Nawr, mae rhai
o’r cynhyrchiadau hynny yn cyrraedd cynulleidfaoedd o ryw 5
miliwn yn Ne Korea. Felly, mae hynny’n rhoi rhywfath o
gyd-destun i chi o ran beth y mae buddsoddiad o Gymru a buddsoddiad
gan ddarlledwr Cymraeg yn gallu ei wneud o ran hyrwyddo’r
cynnyrch a chael cynulleidfa fyd-eang ar ei gyfer.
|
Mr
Williams: If I could just
add to that, businesses from Wales, as you say, are looking at
these opportunities with broadcasters in Britain, but also
increasingly outwith Britain. Also, in terms of S4C, there has been
more and more co-production recently in terms of broadcasters in
South Korea, for example. There have been joint ventures with the
JTV production company. Now, some of those productions reach
audiences of some 5 million in South Korea. So, that gives you some
sort of context in terms of what Welsh investment and an investment
from a Welsh-language broadcaster can do in terms of promoting
output and getting a global audience for it.
|
[229]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Thanks.
We’ve got less than half an hour, but I know that other
Members want to come in on some other aspects of this. I’ve
got Alun and then Peter.
|
[230]
Alun
Davies: Thank you very
much. I do agree with the point you made, Mr McVay, about the
dangers posed by the policy approach of the current UK Government.
I think many of us would agree with you over that. But I think we
need to go further than simply criticise what Whittingdale and
others are proposing because, in answer to a question, I think,
from Rhodri, you said that you didn’t have any knowledge of a
British audience having any difficulties with drama, for example,
made in any part of the United Kingdom and, you know, elsewhere in
Europe as well. I agree with that. I agree with that. The problem
is, of course, that the commissioners tend not to be very British.
They tend to be very English and very London. That’s the
reality—we’re talking about the BBC here rather than
other broadcasters. Is it not the case, therefore, that, unless we
have a structural and cultural change within the BBC, the BBC will
always be that London-centric organisation, looking towards WC1 and
not looking towards SA1 or NP22? And unless you change that
structurally, you won’t change the culture of that and,
therefore, we will continue to have these conversations for another
decade, and BBC executives will continue to promise to change
things, put different structures in place, and all will fail,
because, fundamentally, we have a broadcast structure and culture
that is based in a London metropolitan culture.
|
[231]
Mr
McVay: I take your point,
as it’s been something that’s challenged me throughout
my whole career. I’m a working-class Scotsman. I think Samir
Shah from Juniper productions did a very cutting critique of this
about seven or eight years ago, when he was at an event with Lenny
Henry, talking about diversity. He said, ‘Look, it’s
not about ethnicity, it’s not about race, it’s actually
about Oxbridge and the fact that senior people in the BBC tend to
recruit in their own image, and that tends to be a certain type of
person who gets into Oxbridge and who is then recruited by the
Oxbridge to run the British industry, and particularly the
BBC.’ That’s why I mentioned the point early on about
diversity. I am the chair of the Creative Diversity Network, the
industry’s body to promote diversity in all
aspects—social inclusion.
|
[232]
I
think that’s the challenge. I think, in order to accurately
reflect where the people of the UK actually are in their lives, in
their understanding and their cultures, you have to have a
television culture at the most senior levels that is diverse and
socially inclusive. Then you get away from the idea about locating
money in a postcode, because the postcode is in the person. They
think differently. I think that’s the challenge that all of
us face and, actually, it’s a challenge that we’ve
argued, certainly from PACT’s perspective—this
isn’t about being liberal and bleeding hearts; this is about
business. If we do not accurately reflect the people of the UK,
whenever they’re from, whatever their backgrounds, then they
will abandon us. They have plenty of other things that they can do
with their time, and plenty of other ways that they can entertain
themselves, so it’s really important that this is taken
seriously so that we see, in the senior levels of management, at
the most senior commissioning levels, more diversity. That includes
having more sensitivities and understanding, and people from Wales
being in senior levels, as, I would say, someone from a BME
community—. When you look at the British industry, it’s
not very diverse, and I think that’s the problem.
|
[233]
Christine
Chapman: Can I just ask,
John? You made a business case for this, and I agree with what
you’re saying, but why is there such a resistance, then? If
it’s good business sense, why do you think there’s this
resistance?
|
[234]
Mr
McVay: I don’t
think it’s active resistance. I think it’s just
that’s how things are. If you’re a senior person in
broadcasting and you’re from Oxbridge, then you think the
only people who can do that job are from Oxbridge. You see it in
other industries, but, unfortunately, other industries have moved
faster. If you look at finance, the legal professions, medicine,
they’re a lot more diverse. I would argue that television, as
a high-level professional vocation for people, has not gone fast
enough. That is changing. There is a lot of hard work going on to
change that, and I wouldn’t want to sound a bit too Tony
Hall-ish by saying, ‘Give us time.’ I don’t think
we have time. I think the industry has got to move faster.
Certainly, as the chair of the CDN, for my brief two-year tenure,
I’m very keen to make sure that the broadcast industry does
go faster.
|
[235]
Christine
Chapman: Thank you.
Alun.
|
[236]
Alun
Davies: If I can just
carry on there, because, again, television isn’t a new medium
anymore, in fact, it’s a very old one and might well be
replaced very soon, I don’t know. But where we are in terms
of production—we’ve got a very good, as you said
yourself, and a very successful, independent production industry in
the United Kingdom, but what we don’t have is the United
Kingdom represented well on our screens. The point about the
BBC—seven years without a significant drama from Wales cannot
simply be an oversight. It can’t be an oversight. It’s
got to be structural failure, yes? If you want to create a
different culture, which you’ve explained, and I don’t
disagree with any of those ambitions or visions, my concern is how
you actually do it and deliver it. The point I’d put to you
is: do you believe it can be delivered with current structures, or
do you believe that, if we want the United Kingdom represented and
our lives represented on the screens by the BBC, we need a BBC that
is structured in the same way as the United Kingdom is structured
today, and not structured as it is, in the way that the United
Kingdom was structured two or three generations ago?
|
[237]
Mr
McVay: That’s a
very good question. I don’t think I’ve got a simple
answer, because I can see number of tensions for me, because I
represent across the UK, so moving money around from one place to
another causes me a
dilemma. But, I think the structure is about a creative engagement
and about the creative development of ideas from across the UK. I
think that hasn’t gone as well, because the lift and shift
gives the BBC their 6 per cent for Wales, but doesn’t go
beyond that, and I think that’s the challenge. That is a
structural thing—they structurally made a decision to move
production from London to Wales; it was a structural intervention;
it was an industrial intervention. So, for me, I think focusing on
what that 6 per cent is and how you change that will give you
quicker results, because that’s a budget that’s
allocated already—that’s money that has to be spent.
We’re encouraging the BBC, and in Scotland, to look at how
they’re spending that money and whether the balance is right.
If it’s just English-language programming that’s made
in Cardiff but qualifies as Welsh, then that’s not really
what the ambition of this was. I think that’s the bit that we
think you can get quicker results from.
|
[238]
Mr
Garlick: Byddwn i’n awgrymu bod angen newid y strwythur, yn yr
ystyr bod yna gomisiynydd drama yng Nghaerdydd, mae un yn yr Alban,
ac yn y blaen, ond ni ddylen nhw fod yn gomisiynwyr drama i
Gaerdydd neu i Gymru—dylen nhw fod yn gomisiynwyr drama o
Gymru neu o’r Alban. Dyna sydd yn bwysig. Sydd yn mynd â
fi nol i beth roeddwn i’n ddweud yn y lle cyntaf—bod
angen i Rhodri neu BBC Cymru gael y gyllideb, a bod yn rhaid
i’r comisiynydd yna ddod i fyny gyda drama neu gyfres unwaith
y flwyddyn. Os nad yw yn llwyddo, mae’n colli ei job. Felly,
oes, mae angen newid y strwythur.
|
Mr
Garlick: I would suggest
that there is a need to change the structure, in the sense that
there is a drama commissioner in Cardiff, there’s one in
Scotland, and so forth, but they shouldn’t be drama
commissioners for Cardiff or for Wales—they should be drama
commissioners from Wales or from Scotland. That is what’s
important. That brings me back to what I was saying in the first
place—that there’s a need for Rhodri or BBC Cymru to
have the budget, and that that commissioner needs to come up with a
drama or series once a year. If he doesn’t succeed, he loses
his job. Therefore, there is a need to change the
structure.
|
[239]
Alun
Davies: Colli job yn y BBC?
|
Alun
Davies: Lose a job in the
BBC?
|
[240]
Mr
Garlick: Ie,
efallai na fyddai hynny mor hawdd, ond—
|
Mr
Garlick: Yes, maybe
that’s not as easy, but—
|
[241]
Mr
Williams: Rwy’n ategu hynny, ond jest i nodi nad oes comisiynydd
drama yng Nghaerdydd.
|
Mr
Williams: I’d endorse
that, but just to note there is no drama commissioner in
Cardiff.
|
[242]
Mr
Garlick: Nac
oes, rwyt ti’n iawn.
|
Mr
Garlick: No, you’re
quite right.
|
[243]
Mr
Williams: Mae
yna gynhyrchwyr ac uwch-gynhyrchwyr, ond nid oes yna
gomisiynydd—nid oes unigolyn sydd yn gallu gwneud
penderfyniadau uniongyrchol dros gomisiynu cynnwys. Mae hynny, ar
ôl yr holl fuddsoddiad, i fi, i’w weld yn beth
rhyfedd.
|
Mr
Williams: There are
producers and senior producers, but there is no
commissioner—there is no individual that can make direct
decisions for the commissioning of content. I see that, after all
the investment that we’ve seen, as being
strange.
|
[244]
Alun
Davies: Ond
dyna’r cwestiwn roeddwn yn trio ei ofyn o’r blaen. Mae
yna broblem yn y BBC sydd yn broblem ddiwylliannol, efallai, neu yn
broblem o strwythur presennol y BBC sydd ddim yn adlewyrchu beth
ydy’r Deyrnas Unedig heddiw, a sut bydd y Deyrnas Unedig yn
datblygu i fod yn y dyfodol. A ydych chi yn gweld bod eisiau newid
sylfaenol i’r BBC a chreu BBC gwahanol—ffederal,
efallai—a fydd yn adlewyrchu anghenion Prydain ac anghenion y
Deyrnas Unedig yn ei chyfanrwydd, a thrwy hynny newid diwylliant tu
mewn i’r BBC? Achos o beth rwy’n weld o’r tu fas,
mae yna ddiwylliant, fel mae Mr McVay wedi ei ddisgrifio, sydd yn
bodoli yno, a heb newid y strwythur nid wyf yn gweld sut y gallwn
ni newid y diwylliant.
|
Alun
Davies: But that is the
question I was trying to ask before. There is a problem in the BBC
that is a cultural problem, perhaps, or a problem regarding the
current structure of the BBC that doesn’t reflect what the UK
is today, and how the UK will develop in the future. Do you see
that there is a need for fundamental change in the BBC to create a
different BBC—federal, perhaps—that will reflect
Britain’s needs and the needs of the UK as a whole, and also
through that change culture within the BBC? Because from what I can
see from the outside, there is a culture, as Mr McVay has
described, that exists there, and without changing the structure I
can’t see how we can change the culture.
|
[245]
Mr
Garlick: Byddwn i’n cytuno; mae angen newid y strwythur, ac fel
mae Rona Fairhead wedi dweud sawl gwaith, mae hwn yn rhan o broses
y siarter a hyn a’r llall ac arall. Wel, gwnewch e,
te—dyma’r amser i’w wneud e. Os ydy hi’n
dweud mai dyma’r amser i’w wneud e, dyma’r amser
i ni ddweud beth rydym angen iddyn nhw wneud. Mae’n ddigon
hawdd codi pais, fel maen nhw’n dweud—mae angen ei
wneud e, a’i wneud e nawr.
|
Mr
Garlick: I would agree;
there needs to be a change of structure, and as Rona Fairhead has
said on a number of occasions, this is part of the charter renewal
process and so on and so forth. Well, do it, then—this is the
time to take action. If she is saying that this is the time to do
it, then now is the time for us to say what we need them to do.
It’s quite easy to close the stable door after the horse has
bolted—it needs to be done, and it needs to be done
now.
|
[246]
Alun
Davies: Ocê; mae hynny’n ddigon amlwg a
phendant.
|
Alun
Davies: Okay; that’s
quite clear.
|
[247]
Christine
Chapman: Thank you.
We’ve only got about quarter of an hour left; I know that
some Members want to come in, and we do need to discuss the S4C
issue as well. Janet, did you have some questions? I know, Peter,
you said that your questions had been covered.
|
[248]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: There’s been
a lot of talk about structure, governance, regulatory functions and
accountability, but what kind of governance structure would TAC and
PACT propose for the BBC under the next charter, specifically in
terms of how Wales would be represented in that
structure?
|
[249]
Mr
Garlick: I believe that we
need some kind of a structure, and it’s not the one that we
have at the moment, because as far as I can see, the BBC Trust has
no power whatsoever. Deals are done between the Chancellor and Tony
Hall with scant regard to the trust and, as a consequence, no
regard whatsoever to S4C.
|
[250]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: If you were
producing a structure, then, how would it look?
|
[251]
Mr
Garlick: I think from my
point of view, the first thing we’d have to make sure is that
there is representation from Wales on that body, whatever that body
is, and I would imagine, probably, it would be something along the
lines of Ofcom. I wouldn’t want it to be called
‘Ofbeeb’ or anything that has ‘Beeb’
anywhere near it. Because this always is the problem—that
it’s the BBC Trust, they’re so close to the BBC,
they’re too close to the BBC, and then you end up saying that
it’s the BBC’s licence fee. It’s not. It never
was and it never will be.
|
11:30
|
[252]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: When you mention
involvement, what level of involvement, in terms of the Welsh
angle?
|
[253]
Mr
Garlick: Sorry—
|
[254]
Janet
Finch-Saunders: The question that
Bethan asked earlier witnesses—a panel to include just one
person, or do you mean a truly Welsh panel?
|
[255]
Bethan
Jenkins: The witness
suggested a unitary board; they couldn’t say exactly what the
make-up of that would be. Would you agree that that would be the
way forward?
|
[256]
Mr
Garlick: I really, at the
moment, don’t have a particular opinion on that.
John—
|
[257]
Mr
McVay: No, I was just
waiting for you to finish. [Laughter.]
|
[258]
Mr
Garlick: I can get very
annoyed about it, but I don’t have a particular answer,
no.
|
[259]
Mr
McVay: I was involved in
the last charter and I’ve been working alongside the BBC for
30 years. I think we’ve all got to recognise that the BBC,
because it is a unique public institution—. It is our money,
but we give it to them, and that always creates a tension. I think
it’s a very hard thing to come up with the right regulator
for it. I think this is work that will go on for a long time. I
think representation and, obviously, with devolution and political
differentiation across the UK—. That becomes more pronounced,
if you look at Scotland now, with a majority of nationalist
politicians there; in Westminster, that’s a big
issue.
|
[260]
The
unitary board we’re not very keen on, because I remember the
bad old days of the BBC governors, who were all meant to be
representing the interests of the licence fee payer from across the
UK and, actually, be there as an independent body overseeing the
management. Effectively, they became the management, because they
get captured. There’s a thing called—what is
it—the Stockholm effect, or whatever—Stockholm
syndrome. [Laughter.] Obviously, I’ve not been
captured by you yet, but I think that one of the problems I have
is: if you create another unitary board, aren’t we just
repeating the mistakes of the past? I think you’ve got to
focus on the functions first and then what it’s called
later.
|
[261]
So, I
think there are two things. You need to have something that
oversees the BBCs editorial independence but also scrutinises and
holds it to account on editorial mistakes; that’s absolutely
vital, and I’ve been involved in quite a few of those
things—‘Queensgate’ being one of them. Then you
need another function, which is overseeing the BBC’s
commercial activities and how it functions in the market. The BBC
is a £4 billion gorilla that plonks itself into the private
sector every single day and distorts the market. That’s going
to be requiring even more oversight, because they’re now
proposing to take in-house production and turn it into a commercial
studio competing against Welsh independent producers, but with a
£450 million cheque from the licence fee payer underpinning
that business. The BBC goes, ‘Oh no, no, it’s all fine;
don’t worry your pretty little head’. We have major
concerns, and I think that’s because the BBC is actually
building a global media business underpinned by the licence fee. I
think people really need to be careful about where that takes you,
not only in terms of the market, which obviously concerns me, but
also in terms of the purposes of the BBC.
|
[262]
Once
you create a commercial production unit, hiring people like me to
run it, then it will no longer be BBC in-house production. You
could end up with a two-tier system in Wales where the people who
work on opt-out Welsh programming are seen as second class because
they’re not part of the network commercial arm. So, instead
of having that blend at a local level for in-house production, you
would then start—if you were looking for a career, you
wouldn’t be working on network commercial programming for
other broadcasters; you’d only be working for BBC Wales, and
is that really good for your career? I think that’s something
that’s not been properly debated; it’s the same issue
in BBC Scotland as well.
|
[263]
So, in
terms of governance, I think, for you, get proper Welsh
representation. How that carves up—how many people—will
be a big debate, and I’m sure my friends in Scotland will
have a view about that as well. You need strong editorial, but you
also need strong market oversight as well. This is a very important
public asset that can do good and bad things, and I think those are
the two things that we are focusing on as this debate goes
forward.
|
[264]
Mr
Williams: Jest
i ychwanegu, os caf, cyn eich bod chi’n symud ymlaen,
mae’r atebolrwydd yn gwbl allweddol ynglŷn â sut
mae’r arian o ffi’r drwydded yn cael ei wario. Roedd
John a minnau mewn sesiwn ddiweddar y Westminster Media
Forum yn trafod yn benodol agweddau ar reoleiddio’r
BBC. Byddwn yn argymell eich bod yn edrych ar y defnydd o’r
sesiynau a’r transcripts o’r sesiynau hynny
achos, mewn gwirionedd, mae cael rheoleiddiwr allanol i’r
BBC, am y tro cyntaf yn ei hanes, yn newid sylweddol mawr i’r
darlledwr—yn newid a allai fod yn gwella ac yn ateb nifer
o’r problemau sydd wedi cael eu codi rownd y bwrdd yma
heddiw.
|
Mr
Williams: Just to add one
point before we move on, if I may, accountability is crucial in
terms of how the licence fee is spent. John and I attended a recent
session of the Westminster Media Forum discussing specifically
aspects of regulation of the BBC. I would recommend that you look
at the transcripts and materials for those sessions because
in reality, having an external regulator for the BBC for the first
time in its history is a major change for the
broadcaster—change that could resolve many of the problems
that have been raised around this table today.
|
[265]
Mae
Ofcom wedi cael ei nodi, wrth gwrs, fel un opsiwn. Mae yna bryder y
byddai Ofcom yn troi’n rhyw fath o
‘arch-reoleiddiwr’ neu
‘super-regulator’ dros bopeth. Mae yna bryder
wedi’i leisio ynghylch hynny, ond mae gan Ofcom systemau yn
eu lle a threfn a gwybodaeth ynglŷn â sut i fynd ati i
ymwneud â thipyn o’r gwaith rheoleiddio hwnnw. Nid ydym
eisiau ffeindio ein hunain mewn sefyllfa lle rydym yn gwario lot
fawr o arian ar greu strwythur newydd, sydd eto byth yn mynd i
orfod golygu torri yn ôl ar wariant ar gynnwys, achos fel
cynhyrchwyr, yn naturiol, rŷm ni’n moyn gwario gymaint
ag y medrwn ni o gyllideb y ffi drwydded ar gynhyrchu cynnwys.
Felly, dyna’r pwyntiau i’w hychwanegu at y pwynt
ynglŷn â rheoleiddio.
|
Ofcom has been
noted as one option, of course. There is concern that Ofcom would
become some sort of ‘super-regulator’ for everything.
Concerns have been expressed about that, but Ofcom does have
systems in place and does have the information available as to how
to deal with much of that regulatory work. What we don’t want
is to find ourselves in a situation where we spend a great deal of
money on creating a new structure, which, yet again, will mean cuts
in expenditure on content because, as producers, of course, we do
want to spend as much as is possible of the licence fee on
production. So, those were the points that I wanted to add on
regulation.
|
[266]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. We’re
going to have to move on to S4C because time is really short, so I
want to move on. Obviously, other Members can come in as well, but
we’re very short on time, and I do want to touch on that
before we finish. So, Bethan, did you want to start?
|
[267]
Bethan Jenkins: Yn
amlwg, roeddech yn gwylio’r sesiwn yn gynharach a’r
cwestiwn wnes i roi yn y sesiwn honno yw’r un cwestiwn rwyf
am ei ofyn yn awr, sef: beth yw eich barn chi ar y ffaith bod y
Llywodraeth wedi datgan eu bod nhw’n disgwyl i S4C wneud yr
un toriadau â’r BBC, os bydd toriadau tebyg i’r
BBC? Beth yw eich barn chi ar hynny? Roedd Elan Closs Stephens yn
dweud mai dim lle’r ymddiriedolaeth oedd ymyrryd yn hynny o
beth. A yw hynny’n rhywbeth yr ydych yn cytuno ag ef? Beth yw
eich barn chi ynglŷn â dyfodol S4C, os bydd mwy fyth o
doriadau?
|
Bethan
Jenkins: Clearly, you were
watching the earlier session and the question that I put in that
session is the same question that I wish to ask now, namely: what
is your view on the fact that the Government has stated that it
expects S4C to make the same cuts as the BBC, if there are similar
cuts to the BBC? What are your views on that? Elan Clos Stephens
said that is was not the place of the trustees to intervene in that
regard. Is that something that you agree with him? What are your
views on the future of S4C, if there are, yet again, more
cuts?
|
[268]
Mr
Garlick: Rhaid i mi ddweud fod sefyllfa Elan yn un anodd iawn, achos
mae hi ar yr awdurdod ac ar yr ymddiriedolaeth. Mae hi mewn lle
anodd iawn.
|
Mr
Garlick: I must say that
Elan’s position is a difficult one, because she is on the
authority and the trust. So, she is in an invidious
position.
|
[269]
Fy
ymateb syml i ydy: na, nid yw’n dderbyniol. Y rheswm am hynny
ydy, mae’n rhaid ystyried y ffaith fod y toriadau sydd wedi
bod dros y blynyddoedd yn 36 y cant, mae’n debyg, mewn termau
real. Mae’r Trysorlys wedi arbed £500 miliwn ar S4C yn
barod dros y pum mlynedd ddiwethaf. Pam fod yn rhaid mynd i botsio
gyda’r £7 miliwn, sydd mewn gwirionedd yn ffigwr mor
bitw yn y byd sydd ohoni? Jest gadwech iddo fod. Mae ansefydlogi
S4C, fel y mae S4C ei hunan wedi’i ddweud, yn golygu y bydd
perygl y bydd yna fwy o ailddarllediadau, ac mae’n bosibl y
bydd rhaglenni plant yn diflannu. Yn y pen draw, mae safonau, o
bosib, yn mynd i ostwng. Rydym ni wedi bod yn lwcus iawn dros y
blynyddoedd ddiwethaf—mae technoleg wedi mynd yn ei flaen ar
y fath gyflymdra fel bod offer gymaint rhatach nag ydoedd. Ond
rydym wedi cyrraedd y pwynt yn awr lle na fydd yn mynd yn rhatach
ac ni allwn wneud rhaglenni’n rhatach na’r ffigwr, ar
hyn o bryd, o £10,000 yr awr. Mae’n anhygoel i feddwl
bod sianel yn gallu bodoli ar £10,000 yr awr, ar gyfartaledd,
wrth gwrs.
|
My simple response
is: no, it is not acceptable. The reason for that is that we must
take into account that the cuts that have been imposed, over the
years, are 36 per cent in real terms. The Treasury has saved
£500 million on S4C already over the last five years. Why then
must you mess around with that £7 million, which in reality is
such a tiny amount of money in the bigger picture? Just leave it
alone. Destabilising S4C, as S4C itself has said, means that
there’s a risk that there will be more repeats, and
it’s possible that children's programmes will disappear.
Ultimately, standards will, possibly, fall. We’ve been very
lucky over the past few years—technology has progressed at
such a pace that equipment is so much cheaper than it was in the
past. But we have reached the point now where it will not get any
cheaper and we can’t continue to make programmes more cheaply
than the current figure of £10,000 an hour. It's incredible to
think that a channel can exist on an average of £10,000 an
hour, of course.
|
[270]
Bethan Jenkins: Felly, rych chi’n gofyn am fwy o arian, sef 10 y cant
ychwanegol—jest un taliad o 10 y cant. Ydy hynny’n
rhywbeth sydd yn realistig neu a ydych yn credu y bydd angen mwy na
hynny dros y blynyddoedd?
|
Bethan
Jenkins: You’ve asked
for an additional 10 per cent as a one-off payment. Is that
something that’s realistic or do you think that more would be
required over the years?
|
[271]
Mr
Garlick: Man
cychwyn fyddai’r 10 y cant. Rwy’n credu bod angen i
rywun rhoi ffigwr yn rhywle. Mae’n ddigon hawdd i bobl
ddweud, ‘O, ia, arian digonol’, ond beth yw arian
digonol? Nid yw arian digonol yn golygu’r un peth i fi ag y
mae i chi. Mae’n rhaid rhoi ffigwr pendant, felly rydym ni
wedi dewis 10 y cant. Rydym wedi dweud ein bod ni eisiau iddo fod
yn index-linked, fel y bydd yn cynyddu. Mae’r BBC yn
pledio’r tlodi anhygoel yma ar hyn o bryd, a’u bod
nhw’n cychwyn o le gwael. Nid ydynt yn ystyried nac yn
cyfaddef bod y World Service yn ring-fenced. Nid
ydynt yn cyfaddef bod y boblogaeth, dros y 10 mlynedd nesaf, yn
mynd i chwyddo ac felly bydd mwy o bobl yn prynu’r drwydded.
Nid ydynt yn cyfaddef eu bod mewn sefyllfa i werthu rhaglenni a
fformatau am filiynau. Nid yw’r holl bethau yma’n
agored i S4C. Felly, mae’n rhaid i S4C gael y 10 y cant yna
yn unol â chwyddiant.
|
Mr
Garlick: That 10 per cent
would be a starting point. I think that someone needs to provide a
figure somewhere. It is easy for people to say, ‘Oh, yes,
sufficient funding’, but what does that mean? Sufficient
funding for me won’t be the same as it is to you. You have to
put a figure down and we’ve chosen that figure of 10 per
cent. We’ve said that we want it to be index-linked, so that
it will increase. The BBC is pleading this incredible poverty at
the moment, and that they are starting from a poor place. They do
not admit that the World Service is ring-fenced. They do not admit
that the population, over the next 10 years, will increase and
therefore, there will be more licence fee payers. They don’t
admit that they are in a position to sell programmes and formats
for millions of pounds. None of those things are available to S4C.
So, S4C must get that 10 per cent in line with
inflation.
|
[272]
Mr
Williams: Os
caf i ychwanegu at hwnnw: does dim byd yn codi calon rhywun fel
gweld copi o lythyr gan y Trysorlys, nag oes, fel copi o’r
llythyr yma at yr Arglwydd Hall gan George Osborne, sydd
wedi’i arwyddo gan
John Whittingdale hefyd. A dyma, mewn gwirionedd, yw’r
sefyllfa sydd ohoni ar hyn o bryd—£6.7 miliwn o arian y
DCMS yn mynd at ariannu S4C. Mae potensial bod hwnnw’n cael
ei dorri ymhellach. Mae S4C wedi gorfod ymateb ar ffurf sawl
sgôp; sgôp hyd at 40 y cant o’r arian yna, ac wedyn
y ffi drwydded—y ffi drwydded yn cael ei phenderfynu’n
hwyrach na’r CSR cyfnodol nawr. Pe byddech chi’n edrych
ar 20 y cant, os ydym yn darllen yr equivalent percentage
reduction yma, ac yn ei gymryd ar ei air, mae hwnnw’n
mynd i fod yn doriad sylweddol, a fyddai’n doriad o ryw
hanner o gyllideb S4C ers 2010. Nid yw ‘trychinebus’ yn
dechrau disgrifio’r sefyllfa honno.
|
Mr
Williams: If I may add to
that: there is nothing that makes one happier than seeing a copy of
a letter from the Treasury, is there, like the copy of this letter
here to Lord Hall from George Osborne, which has been signed by
John Whittingdale as well. And this, in reality, is the situation
that exists at the moment—£6.7 million of DCMS funding
goes towards funding S4C. There is the potential that that is going
to be cut further. S4C has had to respond in the form of many
scopes; a scope of up to 40 per cent of that funding, and then the
licence fee—the licence fee will be decided later than the
periodic CSR now. If you looked at 20 per cent, if we read this
equivalent percentage reduction, and take it as read, that is going
to be a substantial cut, which would be a cut of around half of
S4C’s budget since 2010. ‘Catastrophic’
doesn’t start to describe that situation.
|
[273]
Felly, rydym ni wedi bod yn lobїo’n gryf i sicrhau
bod pawb yn ymwybodol pa mor bwysig yw e fod yr arian yma yn cael
ei warchod. O ran arian ychwanegol, mae pethau allweddol at
ddyfodol S4C ar hyn o bryd nad ydyn nhw’n gallu fforddio ei
wneud, ac rwy’n credu y cafodd y rheini eu trafod gan Huw ac
Ian gyda chi fan hyn ynglŷn â darlledu, er enghraifft,
mewn manylder uwch. Mae cynlluniau ar y gweill ar gyfer mwy o
gyd-gynhyrchu rhyngwladol. Mae hwnna, yn erbyn y gyllideb sydd ar
gael i gynhyrchu rhaglenni ar gyfer gwasanaethau S4C, yn mynd i
fynd yn anoddach ac yn anoddach, ac yn sicr yn sgil toriadau
pellach. Ac mae hwnna, i fi, yn dorcalonnus achos mae modd i S4C
fod yn alluogwr enfawr o gynnyrch sydd yn cael ei weld ar draws y
byd, ac i gyd-gynhyrchu gyda nifer o ddarlledwyr a nifer o
gwmnïau cynhyrchu ledled y byd. Felly, mae yna gyfleoedd yn
mynd i fynd ar goll.
|
So, we have been
lobbying strongly to ensure that everybody is aware of how
important it is that this money is safeguarded. In terms of
additional funding, there are some key things for S4C’s
future at present that they cannot afford to do, and I think those
were discussed here with you by Huw and Ian, in terms of
broadcasting, for example, in high definition. There are plans
afoot for more international co-production. That, against the
budget that is available for producing programmes for S4C services,
is going to get more and more difficult, and certainly as a result
of further cuts. And that, to me, is heartbreaking because there is
a way for S4C to be a huge enabler of production that can be seen
across the world, and to co-produce with a number of broadcasters
and production companies across the world. So, opportunities are
going to be lost.
|
[274]
Bydden i hefyd yn eich cyfeirio chi, ers i S4C fod yma yn rhoi
tystiolaeth, at yr adroddiad y gwnaethon nhw ei gyhoeddi o’r
enw ‘S4C: Edrych i’r Dyfodol’, ac mae cwestiynau
allweddol ynddo ynglŷn â gallu S4C i gynnal yr amserlen,
ac i gynnal yr amrywiaeth o genre. Cofiwch hefyd bod S4C yn
cyfrannu yn sylweddol iawn at fusnesau sydd ar draws
Cymru—yng ngogledd Cymru, yng ngorllewin Cymru—ac mae
cyfleoedd sy’n sicr yn mynd i ddechrau mynd yn brinnach
a’n brinnach i gomisiynu deunydd newydd.
|
I would also refer
you, since S4C came here to give evidence, to the report that they
published ‘S4C: Looking to the Future’, and there are
fundamental questions in it about S4C’s ability to maintain
its schedule and to maintain the variety of genres. Remember also
that S4C contributes greatly to a number of businesses across
Wales—in north Wales, in west Wales—and opportunities
are certainly going to become scarcer and scarcer to commission new
material.
|
[275]
Ac
un nodyn olaf—ailddarllediadau. Ar hyn o bryd, rwy’n
credu bod 57 y cant o gynnyrch S4C yn ailddarllediadau, sydd
eto’n gofyn y cwestiwn: ‘Pa mor gynaliadwy yw’r
gwasanaeth hwnnw yn mynd i fod at y dyfodol, gyda mwy fyth o
doriadau?’ Felly, ni allaf leisio’n ddigon clir y
pryderon, ac rydym wedi rhannu’r pryderon yna gyda’r
amryw Weinidogion perthnasol. Mae e’n ofid. Byddwn i’n
dadlau eu bod nhw eisoes wedi gwneud arbediad anferth o ran ariannu
S4C, os ydych chi’n cysidro, yn 2010, bod agos at £100
miliwn yn mynd o’r DCMS, a nawr mae’n £6.7 miliwn.
Mae hwnna’n eithaf arbediad yn fy llygaid i. Rwy’n
gwybod bod y ffi drwydded o dan bwysau o bob cyfeiriad, ond boed i
ni beidio anghofio am y torri sylfaenol hwnnw, a’r effaith
a’r sgil-effaith rydym nawr yn gweld.
|
And one last
point—repeats. Currently, I think that 57 per cent of
S4C’s output are repeats, which also begs the question:
‘How sustainable is that service going to be in the future,
with even more cuts?’ So, I cannot voice my concerns clearly
enough, and we have shared these concerns with the various relevant
Ministers. Is it is a worry. I would argue that they have already
made substantial savings in terms of funding S4C, if you consider,
in 2010, that almost £100 million went from the DCMS, and now
it’s £6.7 million. That is quite a saving in my view. I
know the licence fee is under pressure from all directions, but we
shouldn’t forget about that fundamental cut, and the effect
and knock-on effect that we are now seeing.
|
[276]
Christine
Chapman: We’ve just
got one minute left, so, John, very briefly, and then I think Mike
had a very brief question, and then we’ll finish.
|
[277]
Mr
McVay: I think it’s
all credit to the chief executive of S4C, Ian Jones—the
incredible work that he’s done over a difficult period. Also,
we were not happy about the BBC becoming, if you want, the
paymaster general for S4C, as a result of the deal that Jeremy Hunt
required him to do to fund S4C. I think it’s broadly for all
content investment; we fund the BBC to make great programming, and
now the BBC has got responsibility for great programming being
financed for S4C as well. I think the BBC needs to be absolutely
clear about what cuts it’s going to make where. Just now,
there is a blur of different statements and reports by the BBC. I
can’t actually work out how much money they’re going to
get; what they’re really going to cut when, and why. So, I
think the BBC’s got to be a lot more specific: ‘This is
how much we’ll get over the period, and why; this is how much
we don’t think—’. And then you can make an
informed decision about the funding for S4C. But my general view
is: don’t cut content budgets—it’s what people
are paying for and it’s what people care about; they care
about original programming, not endless repeats. So, my general
view is that the BBC has to work harder to make sure that the last
thing it cuts is the money that goes into content.
|
[278]
Christine
Chapman: Okay. Thank you.
Gareth.
|
[279]
Mr
Williams: Pwynt arall, jest i gyfeirio at y llythyr, mae’n flin
gyda fi, a’r amseru-. Bydd y CSR nawr yn penderfynu ar y
£6.7 miliwn yna. Mae’r llythyr yma yn cyfeirio at y
ffaith taw’r Llywodraeth fydd yn penderfynu sut i wneud lan y
shortfall os bydd yna doriad. Wel, bydd hwnna’n
shortfall ar beth? Ar doriad o’r ffi drwydded erbyn
hynny? Mae amseru’r peth yma yn gwbl, gwbl allweddol, ac fe
allai S4C ddioddef yn llym oherwydd gwahanol gyfnodau amseru ar
benderfyniadau ariannu gwahanol rannau o S4C, ac y mae hynny i gyd yn mynd i ladd ar allu S4C i fod
yn fwy eang o ran ei hapêl, achos peidiwch ag anghofio chwaith
fod mwy o bobl yn gwylio S4C nawr y tu allan i Gymru ac y mae mwy o
sesiynau gwylio ar-lein hefyd o ran cynnwys S4C, felly mae
hynny’n newyddion da. Dylem fod yn ymfalchïo yn y ffaith
bod y gwasanaeth yn cyrraedd mwy o bobl.
|
Mr
Williams: One other point,
just to refer to the letter, I’m sorry, and the
timing—. The CSR will now decide on that £6.7 million.
This letter refers to the fact that it’s the Government that
will decide how that shortfall should be made up if there is a cut.
Well, what’s that a shortfall on? On a cut from the licence
fee by then? The timing of this is entirely crucial, and S4C could
suffer substantially because of various timing periods on specific
decisions on the funding of various aspects of S4C, and that is all
going to be detrimental to S4C’s ability to be more broad in
terms of its appeal, because don’t forget that there are more
people watching S4C outside Wales now and there are also more and
more online sessions in terms of viewing S4C output, so that is
good news. We should take pride in the fact that that service is
reaching more people.
|
11:45
|
[280]
Christine
Chapman: Mike, very briefly
your question.
|
[281]
Mike
Hedges: Without trying to
put words in your mouth, I’ve listened to what you said and
that you’re in favour of protecting S4C’s funding, but
do you know how BBC Alba is being protected or not being protected
in Scotland?
|
[282]
Christine
Chapman: Does anybody know
that?
|
[283]
Mr
McVay: BBC Alba gets a
direct grant from the DCMS for its programming and it has a
partnership with BBC Scotland.
|
[284]
Mike
Hedges: I know how
it’s funded, but do you know what protection it’s
getting, if any? Is S4C going to be treated less well than BBC
Alba, the same or better?
|
[285]
Mr
McVay: I don’t have
that information.
|
[286]
Christine
Chapman: Does anybody? No.
Okay. Well, we’ll try and find out.
|
[287]
Mr
Williams: Fe
allwn ni drio ffeindio mas mwy am hynny i chi, ond rwyf ar ddeall
fod BBC Alba wedi gweld rhywfaint o gynnydd yn y cyfraniad y
mae’n ei gael ar gyfer eu gwasanaeth gan y BBC, ond efallai
fod hwnnw’n bwynt y gallwn ddod yn ôl atoch yn ei
gylch.
|
Mr
Williams: We could try to
find more information on that for you, but I understand that BBC
Alba has seen some increase in what they receive for their service
from the BBC, but perhaps that’s a point on which we could
get back to you.
|
[288]
Christine
Chapman: That would be very
useful. That’s been a very interesting session. We’re
going to have to close this part now, so can I thank our three
witnesses very much because I think this has certainly helped us
with our deliberations? We will send you a transcript of the
meeting so that you can check for any factual inaccuracies, so you
could have a look at that.
|
11:46
|
Papurau i’w
Nodi
Papers to Note
|
[289]
Christine
Chapman: Before I close the
public meeting, I just want to draw your attention to a paper to
note—a response from the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport
and Tourism to the recommendations in the Historic Environment
(Wales) Bill.
|
11:47
|
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 weddill y
cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(vi).
|
that the committee
resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in
accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi).
|
Cynigiwyd y cynnig.
Motion moved.
|
[290]
Christine Chapman: In closing the meeting, can I now invite the
committee to agree to go into private session for the remainder of
the meeting? Are you happy with that? Yes. Okay, thank
you.
|
Derbyniwyd y cynnig.
Motion agreed.
|
Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am
11:47.
The public part of the meeting ended at 11:47.
|
|
|
|