Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport, and International Relations Committee

Members, we'll move immediately to item 3. Are Members content that we propose that we exclude the public from items 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 of today's meeting? Members are content. So, I propose, under Standing Order 17.42, to resolve to exclude the public from those items. Are Members content to do so? Yes. We will wait to hear that we are in private session.

Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome Members back to this meeting of the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee. We'll now move to an evidence session with S4C regarding allegations concerning bullying at the channel. I'll ask our witnesses to introduce themselves for the record.

I'm Rhodri Williams, chair of S4C.

Chris Jones, non-executive member of the S4C board.

Thank you. I'll ask whether any Members have any declarations of interest.

Could I just put on record—? It's not an interest in terms of Standing Orders, but I do think I should place on the public record that I used to be a member of the management team at S4C and I know both witnesses before us this afternoon.

Thank you, Alun. This session has been rearranged from 14 December last year following the unexpected and unfortunate illness of the former chief executive, Sian Doyle. We all wish her a speedy recovery, of course.

Before we start today, I'd like to put on record how concerning recent events have been. While S4C is a matter reserved to the UK Government, it is a unique organisation. Every one of us has a personal interest in the channel's success. The channel's work over the last four decades in providing Welsh language content is something that we can all be proud of. S4C also has an important role to play in assisting to deliver the aim of ensuring a million Welsh speakers by 2050. However, as you will be aware, the seriousness of the recent situation has undermined the channel's reputation. This is a cause for concern for us all.

Our session today will focus on the organisational response following the report on the working environment and atmosphere at S4C, as well as questions on S4C's governance arrangements. I don't need to say how important it is that you restore the confidence of those who work in S4C, as well as with S4C, and the people of Wales who rely on S4C content. S4C should be a channel that provides high-quality, unique and independent public broadcasting to the people of Wales. You have a responsibility to repair the recent damage caused. Our hope is that we can get to the root of some of these issues in our session today and start the process of rebuilding our national broadcaster. I'd like to warn viewers watching today that this session's proceedings could include themes that could cause distress for some people.

So, if you're happy, we'll go straight into questions. What do you think S4C has done to restore stability in your organisation since the Capital Law report was published? And what are the next steps you'll be taking?

The first thing that's happened, in terms of providing stability, is that we've put interim arrangements in place where the duties and responsibilities of the chief executive and chief content officer are shared by Elin Morris, the chief operating officer, and Geraint Evans, the director of content and publication strategy. That has given us some stability and it has succeeded in making our staff—. And for me, and I'd like to emphasise this point at the very outset, the priority here, and what is central to this whole question, is the well-being and safety of our staff, and they have responded positively to those new arrangements. They understand, of course, that they are interim arrangements. In due course, we will need to appoint a permanent, full-time chief executive, and then, perhaps, it will be a matter for the chief executive, in consultation with the board, to decide on the shape of the management team. It doesn't necessarily mean that we will fill those roles that existed in the previous regime.

I was very pleased, as you can imagine, to see among the committee's papers for today that you had received a response from BECTU that confirms what I am saying. It's not my reflection on the fact that staff are now happier—BECTU confirm that. As I understand it, they've had two meetings with staff members within S4C, one in December and one Friday of last week, and the response has been positive. So, that's the first step, if you like. The next step, and perhaps we will come to this in due course, is to look at what needs to be—. I would agree 100 per cent with your comments, Chair, that we do need to rebuild confidence in the organisation, because from the moment we received that first letter, as non-executive members of the board, on 28 April of last year, raising these concerns—not raising them with S4C for the first time but raising them with us as non-executive members for the first time—I do think that a great deal of damage was done to the reputation of the organisation, to the confidence of the organisation and to the self-respect of many people. It has been the most difficult period in the history of S4C, I would think.

So, as part of that process—and again, I'd like to refer to the BECTU letter, where they make suggestions—we are eager to work with them and with our staff in order to do what is necessary to restore that confidence. I would place it into four headings, and those are leadership—and that relates clearly to the appointment of a new chief executive; culture—the creation of a culture where people can feel safe at work and where they do not live in fear; that the current policies are in place and that those policies are fit to safeguard staff and do provide ways and means of dealing with concerns that arise; and finally in terms of governance: are there issues around the model of governance currently in place that need to be reviewed or looked at anew? We will need to do all of that during the coming months.

Thank you for that. We'll move on to Carolyn Thomas.

Good afternoon. I will be asking my questions in English.

On 24 November, S4C said it would publish the next steps that you would be taking to ensure that S4C provides a positive and thriving workforce environment and explain the decisions made in due course. You've discussed some of the next steps going forward, but I'd just like to know when will this happen.

If it's okay, I'll continue to answer in Welsh. The board is meeting next a fortnight today, as it happens, and in that meeting we will be discussing a package of measures under those headings. Some of the work, as you would expect, has already begun. By then, officials will have been looking at some of the issues that I've already referred to and will be bringing recommendations to that meeting, and we will put processes in place for that reviewing that needs to be done, and a wider discussion. Because in terms of having policies such as those relating to whistleblowing, respect in the workplace, discipline, complaints, we have policies on those issues already. We will need to review those. But what Capital Law's report tells us is that it wasn't a problem with our policies that was causing the difficulties within S4C and the concerns among members of staff; the culture and the leadership of S4C was creating those problems. The report is very clear on that. I don't want to speak too much about questions that we dealt with yesterday, but there is a danger, I think, that people aren't willing to accept the truth about what's happened here, and that what is in the report on the welfare of staff and our duty of care towards staff is somewhat ignored completely.

I would want to emphasise there that the evidence we received in the Capital Law report shows clearly that there is a need for a culture where people can be safe, where they can express doubts and criticism without fear of consequences. That process of changing culture is key to our success as an organisation in the future. Of course, that includes us as a board—I wouldn't want to disregard our role in providing that example in that context. It also includes the leadership and staff. But I do believe that, for that to be successful, I would foresee that there's a need for external support. I mentioned governance arrangements and our standing orders, which set out how the body works, and I think that, with that also, we would want to hear other people's views regarding our standing orders, not that we decide, 'Oh, this needs to be changed, this is what we're going to do', and that's the end of it. I think we would want to consult widely and look at good practice in other places, and to see if there are lessons that we can learn from other places.

Thank you. Carolyn, before we come back, Llyr just wants to ask a question.

I was just going to ask about how, on that point, the union will be involved—BECTU—in the future in improving working relations. Will you be embedding that as well?

Certainly. We have spoken to BECTU—with their full-time representative in Cardiff, as well as their representative within the S4C workforce—and they have been very happy to collaborate with us. One of the first things we did when this process started—Chris and myself were involved in the meeting, with one other non-executive member of the board—was to speak to BECTU regarding what needed to be done at the outset. And of course, in that discussion with BECTU, that's where we agreed that the only way in which this process could work effectively was if we had in place a mechanism that allowed staff members to speak openly without fear of consequences as a result of the comments that they would make. So, we have co-operated with BECTU in the past. Carwyn Donovan, as is clear in his letter to you, Chair, makes it clear that BECTU have suggestions to make as to how we can work together to ensure that we don't see these kinds of problems arising again. And we will most certainly be doing that in moving to the future.

Could I just add something very briefly? And apologies, I'll answer in English, if I may, just to make sure that I—

We do have simultaneous translation.

I'm doing all right so far, but I will use it if necessary. But I think it's better if I just answer quickly in English. To your point on timetable, I think from what Rhodri said, that's why it's been difficult to put a precise timetable on this, precisely because it's not a sort of top-down change programme—this has to be something that involves all our colleagues, involves new staff fora, involves key outside stakeholders like BECTU in this process. We need to make sure that everybody buys into this process of change and that it meets everybody's requirements.

I was going to ask another question on the timeline and process for filling the senior positions, including the chief exec. Have you got that in place yet? Are you thinking about that?

It's not in place as of yet. As I say, the board will meet in a fortnight's time, and the intention at that time would be to put those arrangements in place.

Thank you. Llyr.

Thank you. It's been very useful that you have scoped out those four areas, if you like, or the themes that you'll be focusing on—leadership, culture, policies and governance. Of course, in presenting those elements, when you were talking about leadership, you referred to a chief executive and perhaps the executive directors. But of course, you have a leadership responsibility too in that context. So, when you said there was a discussion going to be in the board on these issues, do you expect there'll be a discussion on your role as chair?

I would expect us to discuss all of our roles. Clearly, a chair and a board have an important role in setting standards and ensuring that standards are adhered to, and in demonstrating those values and standards that we want to see within the organisation in the way that we ourselves conduct ourselves, and to place an emphasis on the kinds of values that we expect the organisation to act in accordance with.

Because in the way that you presented that context earlier, I just felt that there was a suggestion, and perhaps it could be heard yesterday in the evidence, that this responsibility is for others and other people have to deal with this. Now, that is true to some extent—of course it is—but at the end of the day, you are the chair, and people's perception would be, fair or not, that the buck stops there with you. How would you describe your performance over this last period?

If I could say a few words first of all on where responsibility lies. Of course, at the end of the day, the buck stops with the chair. May I say quite clearly here that I fully accept responsibility for the decisions that have been made by the board, and that they were unanimous decisions by the board? I wouldn't want to suggest for a second that I would turn my back on those responsibilities. I am quite convinced that we as a board had made the right decisions at the right time. More importantly—the crucial thing for me—I am entirely confident that we did the right thing for those individuals within S4C, and some outside S4C, who have suffered under the previous leadership.

In terms of how that formal responsibility is divided, we are there to set expectations. In relation to policies, the board is responsible for strategy, the executive is responsible for executing that strategy. The contract of the chief executive says that it's the responsibility of the chief executive to ensure that S4C has a working environment where everyone treats each other with respect, and where dignity and fairness are at the core of all of the company's activities. If you place that paragraph alongside the Capital Law report, then it is clear that that was not happening.

But are you disappointed that you hadn't picked up on that earlier—I'm sure you are—and do you acknowledge that that perhaps is a failure?

Certainly, I'm sorry that we didn't pick up on it earlier, but I don't think that you can place blame on people for not realising that. Because BECTU wrote to the chief executive first of all on 2 December 2022, and BECTU—just as they have offered to help in the process of making improvements now—did offer the chief executive at that time that they would work with her to deal with the problems. We as a board received reports from the chief executive on that process. We received those through the people and remuneration committee, which is responsible for HR issues, and we received them directly as members of the board. What we were told was that steps were being put in place, that there was a listening exercise with staff, and that everything was moving in the right direction.

So, yes, I am frustrated that we hadn't understood the gravity of the problems earlier and the concerns that staff members had, but on the other hand, there was no evidence. We received some evidence when we met in Caernarfon in January 2023 that there was some disquiet, as I would describe it. But my interpretation of that was that S4C staff in Caernarfon particularly felt that they were being forgotten, that they were out of the picture, not the kind of serious allegations that were raised by BECTU later on.

Alun.

I want to go back to that, if I may, Rhodri. Rhodri and Chris, both of you have been clear in your evidence this afternoon that the first time you heard about the staff experiences and the problems within the organisation was in April of last year. I think that I remember reports that Gwyn Williams had discussed this with you in June 2022, and that there had been reports to you as members of the board at that time. You're smiling, so have I misunderstood, perhaps?

I am trying to work out in my head how to deal with the point that you've raised in an appropriate manner. If I say that there was a process related to HR that was happening at that time, and an appeal was made in relation to that process, and it was heard by the chair of the people and remuneration committee. That appeal was rejected. That was the only involvement that I am aware of from that time. I don't have any record—none of us have a record—of any complaints being raised at that point in relation to the internal culture and the behaviour of senior officials.

Could I just add something very briefly? I think it would be fair to say it was December 2022 when we first became aware of the complaints and the concerns within the organisation from the first BECTU letter on 2 December. It was April 2023 when they wrote to the board, the non-executive members of the board, and asked us to take action. So that, for me, is the timetable. I think a key point, really, both for this question and the previous one, is that, as Rhodri has said, after the first letter from BECTU, which was to the chief executive, asking for the chief executive and team to engage with them and to work to make things better, we were getting reports back on how that was going, but we didn't have, as it were, independent sources of information to draw on in that period. So I think it's really important from this, as well as understanding what happened, to see what are the important lessons and ways we can improve going forward. One of those is to make sure that, actually, we set in place—I think it was going to happen anyway—a staff survey, which was going to happen in the spring of 2023, and that would give us a clear objective point of evidence, then, as to whether things had improved or not. But obviously that was a few months down the track, and was actually overtaken by the BECTU second letter. So I think where we can make improvements as a board—because the board holds the responsibility here—is to make sure that we have, for example, what are generally called pulse surveys—so, more frequently, we're going out to colleagues, possibly to external parties as well, and getting objective, anonymised feedback so that we've got a more regular way of judging whether things are as they are believed to be.

And do you know, Chris, I agree with that way of working—I've got no issue with any of that. But I find it really curious to say the least that—it's not a big board, it's not a large organisation—no non-exec had any inkling of the depth of the problems facing you. Reading the report from Capital Law is absolutely heartbreaking, listening to people saying that they were in tears in work, afraid to go to work. You will have had reports, I assume, from HR about the staff turnover, so you would have known that there was quite a large number of people leaving the organisation, which is unusual—an increased churn, which I would have found curious—and yet there wasn't any wish to investigate or to ask further questions. Rhodri, you seem to have dismissed the reports that we've seen from June 2020, and that's your right, of course, if you wish to do that, but there are a number of indicators here that I would've thought would have raised alarm bells with non-execs about the running of the organisation.

It is about learning lessons from this, isn't it? I mean, during that period, we were aware, because we asked for regular information from the executive team, that they were active and they were doing lots of things and that their view was that this was improving the situation. So, we had that source of information coming to us. We had actually, I think, very recently created a specific pobl a thaliadau, a people and remuneration committee, to focus exactly on these issues, which wasn't there before. So, that was being set up, had had its first meetings and started receiving data on things like staff turnover and reasons for leaving and so on. And at that time, that data, in the way that it was presented, didn't suggest that there was a big spike, or whatever, because that was something we particularly looked at.

You will remember the context as well that, across many organisations, there was quite an increase in churn post COVID and so on, and a bit of pent up change and so on happened. So, we were looking for those sources, but it wasn't suggesting or setting off alarm bells. We were getting reassurances and we knew there was a staff survey coming that would give us an independent data point. Now, as I say, that was overtaken by the second BECTU letter, and a key learning for me, for any board, is that the board has to be able to judge the temperature of the organisation and get feedback from it, and, clearly, that didn't work as well as it should have.

And it can be difficult for non-execs, I accept that, because you're not there on a daily basis; you walk in, and behaviours tend to be different when non-execs are around. I accept and understand that. However, I come back to the point that there were warning signs. The meeting that you had in Caernarfon, I understand, was one where you met members of staff who were, from reports I've read, deeply upset at what was happening in your organisation. Rhodri, you said yesterday and you've said today, briefly, that you felt it was limited to Caernarfon—an issue of Caernarfon feeling left out of the organisational stuff. But wouldn't the issues that were being raised there, alongside the BECTU letter, have indicated that there was perhaps a greater, deeper, more profound problem with the organisation?

I don't believe that we had evidence of that until BECTU wrote to us. The closest we came was, I would say, within the week or 10 days prior to BECTU's letter arriving, I certainly heard from a number of individuals working within the sector that there was a problem and that there was disquiet among staff, but none of that had been reported to us. Now, perhaps, under a different system where people would be working in the office five days a week and where committee meetings, as well as board meetings, would be happening within one of S4C's offices, there may be more opportunity for chats off the record. It was certainly something that I was familiar with when I worked for Ofcom many years ago, where we would go to the headquarters in London to work and we would meet the chair, the chief executive and other members of the board, and we'd have chats. They'd ask, 'How are things going in Wales?', and you'd have the opportunity to do that. But the opportunities to do those things are much reduced now, and one of the things that we need to look at for the future, perhaps, is whether we need to adapt our arrangements, so that we create more opportunities for somebody to come to us over a cup of coffee and say, 'Can I have a quiet word about this?' But that didn't happen until we—. And if you look at the BECTU letter, Carwyn Donovan uses the words 'out of the blue', so he certainly didn't expect us to be aware of these problems.

The problem I have with that is that Capital Law's report suggests and says something quite different. I'll read one part of it to you:

'During our meetings, 10 of the participants broke down crying, mostly while discussing their experiences in the S4C workplace.'

It goes on:

'I left because I didn't feel for any reason that I had a choice but to leave the cause of the situation. The Chief Executive had put me in a very nasty position, many other staff too, I was aware of that. But my friends and my family worried a lot about my mental health at the time. I had become very tearful. I couldn't sleep. And the atmosphere at work during the last few months of employment at S4C were very difficult and I didn't feel like I had a choice but to leave.'

That's the workforce you were responsible for, and you didn't know anything about it.

No, and—

I find that quite incredible, because you are an experienced manager.

But not operating in this context as a manager. In other words, I'd go to an office—

You have decades of experience in this area, Rhodri. Decades of experience. You are an experienced chairperson, and you didn't know until you received a letter from the union what was happening within the organisation where you were chair.

No. None of—

Really?

—the staff had approached me until that time. And there's a reason for that, Alun. I think it's clear in the BECTU letter why that hadn't happened. The reason it hadn't happened was that nobody had felt that they could approach me or another member of the board because of fear of the chief executive. The behaviour of the chief executive and the conduct of the chief executive, and, again, it's described very clearly in the Capital Law report, isn't it? The conduct and behaviour of the chief executive was full of conflict, abusive and didn't take account of people's needs. People were scared—

Thank you. I'd just like to remind people that if we are discussing certain people, they're not here to respond, so we'd like to focus on governance and not individuals.

But the question, Rhodri, is that you were responsible for her and her behaviour and her work. You were responsible for it.

But if one isn't aware—that is, again, what I would say to that, Alun, is that once we learnt of the gravity of these complaints, a meeting of the board was held on that same day. We agreed that day that we would establish an external inquiry so that people could talk—that is, because the letter said that the reason that no complaints had been received was because of fear, we decided that we needed to create this mechanism, this safe space, where people could express their concerns without having to worry about other people's attitudes. We took action very swiftly after that to put that process in place. It was Friday when we received the letter, the Monday was a bank holiday, by the Tuesday, Capital Law had been appointed.

Thank you for that. Tom wants to come in, then we'll go back to Llyr.

If I can go back to the response to the letter you received in December 2022, where you mentioned, obviously, it was addressed to the chief executive, but your understanding was, from management, that things were improving. Now, I appreciate the references you've made to the steps that have been taken since then to ensure that that doesn't happen again, but I am curious how S4C and its board put itself in a position where it was reliant on one source to assess progress. You employ a number of journalists who wouldn't report a story with one source; they would look for a second. So, why is it that S4C wasn't looking for other sources of information to assess progress?

Well, there are processes in place. The board, as we've been describing, has a committee that's responsible for these matters. We have officials who are part of a management team that report regularly. So, for example, on 22 December, I received an e-mail from the chief executive saying that a meeting had been held with BECTU, that it had been a successful one. The meeting had begun with Carwyn Donovan saying he was reassured because of the speed of our response, and it was agreed to work closer with BECTU. So, I think it is reasonable for us to believe what was being said. Now, it's possible that that assessment was not as good as it was, but from the information available to us as members of the board, I think we did really think that steps had been put in place—this listening exercise had happened—and that the problems that had been outlined and discussed with BECTU were improving.

There was no reason for us to think that that wasn't true, and I'm not sure what other sources we could have had—. Certainly, staff members would have had an opportunity to speak with me, to speak with other members of the board, but if they didn't feel comfortable, if they didn't feel safe in raising those issues, then it wasn't possible, and that is the great sadness, because I think, the point that has been made by Alun, the staff had suffered significantly during those months, and that is of great concern to me personally and as chair of the board.

Could I just add as well, briefly, to that? I think it is very important to recognise that there are lessons to learn from this. This is a very, very difficult and very unfortunate situation that has not worked out as any of us would have wanted—we absolutely have to recognise that. So, one of the things we have to look into in this forward programme of work—with the help of our colleagues, with the help of other bodies like BECTU and so on—is to make sure that we do understand the policies and the culture that would be necessary to make sure that concerns of that nature would be shared, would be discussed more openly, so that they can be nipped in the bud much earlier, which would have prevented a lot of the very unfortunate things that have happened since. So, it is very much something that we have to look at going forward. Processes are important, but also it's that culture around processes that people will use, and making sure that we put in place routes for our colleagues to be able to raise information through staff forums, through pulse surveys or whatever it is, to make sure that we have learned that lesson.

But it sounds to me as though those processes were not in place between when that letter was received in December 2022 and April 2023, when you received the further letter. It sounds to me like you, as a board, failed to put those processes in place so that staff could come forward to you and, therefore, there's no wonder that they didn't.

I think, on the word 'processes', I would say that there were processes in place, the trouble was that people didn't feel that they could use them and that's why culture and process have to go hand in hand and we need to focus on that lesson going forward.

Could I just say one other thing? In taking your comments into account, Chair, may I encourage you to look again at the Capital Law report? That makes it clear why people hadn't spoken out—they feared speaking out. There was a culture of fear. It says in the report that that had been expressed as a deliberate policy of creating fear because that's what was needed to secure culture change.

Okay, but there is a responsibility on you to put in place the processes that are independent of any other roles, such as a chief executive, and that staff have confidence that they can use them. I think that's the point I'm trying to get to.

Yes, but we can't create that confidence if they live in a culture of fear and threat, which was the case. I mean, there was a whistle-blowing policy—I don't think that that's necessarily the policy that should have been used. There's a dignity at work policy—someone could have raised questions on that, that it wasn't being implemented effectively. There's a discipline policy, a complaints procedure. Don't think that I think everything's perfect—I'm not suggesting that for one moment—but those opportunities did exist. But what the Capital Law report says—what the staff themselves say—is that they lived in fear, and that's why—

I'm going go over to Alun for a supplementary question, but I'm aware that we only have 20 minutes left from the time allocated. Would you have time, after 2 o'clock, to stay with us for about an extra quarter of an hour, if required?

Yes, of course.

Thank you for that. But I'm still aware of time, so, Alun, if you could be brief.

And that's what causes concern for me. You've described—. And I don't think anyone denies your evidence this afternoon, Rhodri, about the atmosphere in S4C. You were the chair and you didn't know anything about it. And we have to ask the question then: where were you? Where were you when staff members at S4C felt too frightened to speak about their experiences in work and the chair wasn't there?

Well, it's not a matter of my not being there—

Well, where were you? Why didn't you realise? If the situation was as bad as you've described to us this afternoon, why didn't you realise what was happening? That's what I don't understand.

Well, because somebody would have to tell us. Now, I've—

Surely you would have known how—. Come on.

I've spent long enough in our offices in the Egin and in Central Square, less, I have to say, in the Caernarfon office, and during that time there were opportunities. I know many of the staff well enough and have spoken to them informally, outside of meetings, but nobody expressed these concerns. It was only after the BECTU letter arrived that the floodgates opened. After that point, I received text messages, I received phone calls, I had face-to-face meetings with members of staff. But it was only then—. The opportunities existed, I was there before then, but it was only after that letter was received that I received those reports from members of staff.

And you had reports from staff directly.

Yes.

Face to face.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay. We'll move on to Llyr.

Thank you. How did you, as chair, and how did the board, perhaps, consider the impact of publishing the report on the individuals named in Capital Law's report?

Well, as I said at the outset, the people who have been impacted most by this process are S4C staff.

I don't deny that, but that wasn't my question.

No, no, but it was they who were central to the whole process. This question of creating a safe space, of ensuring that—

Yes, I understand all of that.

—all conversations centred on the staff. Now, we told the staff that others would not see the report before they did. I don't think it would have been reasonable or fair for anyone, whatever reference is made to them in the report, to have access to that report before the staff themselves saw it. And, given what was happening and the campaign that was going on in the press against me, against the board, against S4C, against DCMS, against the Secretary of State, would it have been responsible for us to provide that report beforehand to people who would have an opportunity to misuse it and to further—plenty of efforts had been made already, but to further attempt to undermine the content of the report? That has happened since then. It's being denied that any of this happened. Despite the weight of evidence that we have received, it's suggested that there is no truth in it at all. Well, the report demonstrates clearly to us that the concerns expressed by BECTU have been borne out. That is, BECTU's description of the culture of fear was very accurate indeed. And therefore I have no reason to believe that we have treated anybody unfairly. To be honest, it would have been entirely unfair for the staff if they'd heard that people who were no longer employed by S4C had seen the report before they had.

But there is a process of informing people that it's about to be published, not necessarily sharing a copy. Do you think on a human level or on a moral level, or from a courtesy perspective, that people should have some sort of notice that it was about to be published?

Our focus was on ensuring that the staff received the information before anybody else—

Well, yes, of course, receiving the information.

—and that's what our focus has been throughout—. And because of the nature of the report, it wasn't known. We didn't say beforehand, 'This will be published in seven days' time or whatever'. It was very tight in terms of timescale between the time that we were ready to publish and that process of sharing the report with staff and explaining to them, and giving them an opportunity to ask us questions on the next steps. And I have no concerns about not having shared it with anybody else.

No, but in terms of informing people that a report was about to be published, you would expect that somebody who's named would at least have an opportunity, 24 hours or a few hours, just to prepare themselves that something was being published that talks about them. I'm just getting that you're being somewhat rash and very hard-hearted in that regard. I'm not talking about sharing a copy of the report, but in terms of a moral responsibility to individuals, don't you feel any sort of responsibility in that regard?

I feel a moral responsibility towards the staff.

So, once somebody leaves S4C, that's it, is it? If they're former staff, you're not part of—?

No, we're talking here about people, about two individuals who had been dismissed, and, as I've said, were waging a very public campaign, using—

Well, if you want to frame it as one group against another, but you're sharp enough to know that perhaps not informing somebody beforehand would give them something to throw back at you, if that's the game you're playing.

Well, I can understand that point, but in the discussions between ourselves and our legal team, the decision was taken not to do that.

Thank you.

Okay. We'll go on to Alun Davies now.

Can I talk to you, Chris? You're one of the most experienced and respected non-executives I've come across in my time, and I'm interested in the answers you gave to earlier questions about the non-execs not understanding and not appreciating the place and the role and what was happening, and you said in answer to an earlier question that there were lessons to be learned. I was just hoping that you could outline what some of those lessons were and why you think the organisation has found itself in this position.

Well, I think—. A couple of things to say: I think this was an extremely difficult situation, genuinely. It's probably one of the most difficult and unpleasant situations I've had to deal with through a very long career in business. And I, you know, am very aware of the impact that has had on individuals, has had on the community of people and the community of stakeholders and so on, so this was a tough situation to deal with. I think in terms of the lessons to learn from this, I think we really do need to look at how processes and procedures, which work well in other sectors, in other places and so on, why they perhaps did not work here so well. Are there particular cultural reasons for that? Are there particular—? I think in the recent BECTU letter to the committee, that makes reference to the fact that it is a sector with extreme power imbalances, and that is, I think, something that has been looked at by this committee and so on elsewhere. So, that is why I think—

But that's not new, is it, and it's not unique to S4C?

It isn't, but this has brought into sharp relief the fact that that could create or may have contributed to this extremely difficult and distressing situation for so many people, both individuals and collectively. So, that's why I personally feel, obviously, a sense of responsibility—a huge sense of responsibility—for the way that the company, for what has happened in the company over the last year, which is not what any of us would have wanted, and I will give whatever input and support I can to try to look forward, understanding why, given the particular nature of the company, and the sector and so on, that it works in, and how we can best ensure that doesn't happen again. And I think the way to do that is by involving as many different perspectives as possible in that process, as well as looking at good practice from outside, and getting expert input into that. But to come back to your question, for me, it is very difficult to say, because a lot was in place that you would have hoped would have prevented this from happening, but it didn't prevent it from happening, and that's the lesson we've got to learn.

Can I pursue that, please? I want to ask some questions that are quite difficult. You had a responsibility for managing the relationship between the chair and the chief executive, and that was, I thought, well aired yesterday in the select committee meeting. And one of the issues we found in the Capital Law report, of course, was an issue between the chair and I think it was the chief content officer, wasn't it, where a complaint was upheld against the chair. Did non-executive directors, at any time, discuss confidence in the chair, the role—the continuing role—of the chair, in terms of the happenings that were going on at this time?

Yes. The particular issue you're referring to there was that a particular grievance was raised—

Yes.

—under the S4C grievance policy concerning the chair. That was on 16 June, and it referred to a specific event at a meeting that had happened the previous day. So, that grievance wasn't raised with the non-executive directors; it was raised under the policy with the head of HR, who shared that with the company secretary, and they put in place, with appropriate advice from outside, a procedure to hear that grievance on its own merits, and as a specific occurrence. And that was in line with the principles of the internal grievance policy. So, that required two independent people to hear the grievance, one of whom was actually a non-exec director, but one who hadn't been involved in the events the previous day, and therefore was completely separate from that, and one was an experienced external HR professional, who was brought in to provide a further independent view of that.

They heard the grievance from both parties. It was a confidential process. They then reached their conclusion and shared that conclusion with the parties, and there is a confidential report that summarises their findings. Now, because that's a confidential process, the non-executives were not involved in that, but my understanding is that their finding was that, yes, the behaviour of the chair the previous day had been inappropriate on that occasion, it shouldn't have happened, and that a sincere apology should be made, but that that was the appropriate outcome for that specific incident. And that is, as I understand it, what happened.

So, at that point, that dealt with that grievance under what appeared to be a sensible and appropriate policy. So, there wasn't really a question at that stage of, 'Well, does that mean we don't have confidence in the chair?'—

Yes, that's fair enough.

—but it is fair to say that when the Capital Law report was received, which was in, I think, early November, no, early October—apologies—no, early November; I'm confused. At that stage, given various things that were raised in the Capital Law report concerning the chair, it was appropriate for the non-executive directors to meet independently, and to review what had been raised in the Capital Law report, and also any other issues concerning the chair, and take a view as to whether we did have confidence in the chair to continue in that role, to deal with what should be the steps following from the Capital Law report, and what we should do as a board as a consequence.

So, that was a meeting of the non-executive directors not involving the chair; it was advised by suitable independent external legal advice, and we reviewed the issues that had been raised in the Capital Law report concerning the chair, and also including the particular grievance that you've referred to. We also looked at other issues during the process where—. I think it is worth saying that, in a board of directors, what you want is a diversity of view and you want challenge and you want robust debate.

Of course you do.

So, during this whole process, there have been issues in which non-executive directors have challenged decisions that might have been, or suggestions made by the chair; we have debated those, and that is absolutely what you want a board to do. So, we had a full discussion of those issues and decided that, actually, there wasn't anything in the issues raised in the Capital Law report concerning the chair that made it inappropriate for the chair to carry on overseeing, leading, the next stage of the response to the Capital Law report. So, that was a decision that we took collectively as non-executive directors, but did put in place particular mechanisms that would have enabled any point that raised concern—for the chair to have been recused at that point, and for that to have been debated. So, I think we did handle what, again, was a very difficult situation in a sensible way.

I'm grateful to you for your candour there; that's very useful for the committee. Did you—? One of the shocking things that I heard yesterday at the select committee was Rhodri's comment, or answer to a question, that he hadn't met with the Secretary of State in four years. I find it extraordinary that a Secretary of State has not met a chair of a national broadcaster in four years.

If I could just say one other thing on that issue. When—. We have discussed these issues with DCMS officials since the receipt of the first BECTU letter, and made them aware of that, and we do speak regularly.

Yes, clearly.

On more than one occasion during this period, I have asked the official that we deal with whether it would be beneficial to arrange a face-to-face meeting, or a virtual meeting if it came to that, with the Secretary of State, and the response I was given was that that was not necessary.

I find that completely shocking—shocking. For someone who actually thinks that broadcasting shouldn't be devolved, that isn't something I would have wanted to hear. It reflects great problems with the DCMS, I think. But I was going to ask another question to Chris, if I may. During the discussions that you've been having as a board and as non-execs during this period, did you ask for support from the DCMS, the BBC, or Welsh Government, from any one of those governmental organisations?

Did we—

Did you seek support or advice as non-execs?

Perhaps it would be easier for me to answer that, Chris.

Well, I will think whilst you answer.

Well, we did have discussions with the DCMS and Welsh Government to ensure that they were aware of the procedural issues, and I'd like to emphasise that: there was no question of sharing any findings or the results of the report, and that wouldn't have been possible because we didn't know until the team within Capital Law presented their report to us. And, on all occasions, the response—and more specifically from DCMS than anywhere else—was that this was an operational issue for the S4C board, and it wasn't their place to advise.

Yes, yes. But I had a slightly different question, with a different emphasis, to Chris: had you asked for support while you were considering—because I take it, as non-execs, you were discussing amongst yourselves what was happening, and there were reports in the media; it would have been odd if you weren't talking to each other—had you asked for external support to help you deal with these issues?

I think the most helpful thing I can say is that, yes, as a group of non-executive directors including the chair, company secretary, in terms of processes to follow et cetera, yes, as Rhodri's explained, for example, DCMS would have been in the loop on that. For us as a group of non-executive directors excluding the chair, then we looked to expert advice from our legal advisers on those points, and that was provided. So, for example, in response to the issues raised in the Capital Law report, we had specific legal advice on those issues of conflict, and that was very helpful to us. But I don't remember any other circumstance in which the non-execs on their own—. I certainly don't remember where they needed to look to other wider bodies for input.

Okay. Thank you for that. Rhodri, if I could just end on this: you will have seen reports from the select committee after your appearance yesterday. They have said there's a need for new leadership at S4C. When, I think, Steve Crabb, asked you whether you were going to seek reappointment in April, you gave quite an odd answer, in my opinion, that you would be happy to accept reappointment. You didn't say that you were going to apply for that; you said that you would be happy to accept a reappointment. I thought that was an odd way of wording things. Have you considered, overnight, your position and where you stand today after hearing the views of the select committee?

Yes, of course, and I have discussed with others what happened yesterday. What surprised me in our discussion yesterday wasn't this element that the committee wasn't eager to see me reappointed, but the emphasis being solely on process and the end of this process. There was no focus whatsoever yesterday on what staff members in S4C have suffered. There was no concern expressed about what they have had to go through over a long period of months. My concern is that—. Many people have commented on what should happen. I don't doubt their motivation at all, but anything that creates further instability for our staff is not going to help the staff and it's not going to help the organisation as a whole either. That's why, if the Secretary of State were to ask me—. And that is the process—there's no question of making an application. There is no application process, as such; it's a matter for the Secretary of State to reappoint a chair or members of bodies, and it is very clear too in the rules and regulations. And as you kindly referred to earlier, I've been around long enough to know that one should never take it for granted that there will be a reappointment, and that's why I had used the wording that I did.

I understand that. Rhodri, you were arrested in campaigning for S4C, weren't you?

A number of times.

A number of times. Your commitment to S4C has been lifelong. I understand that and I don't question that. But the issues we've seen over the last few years have been very difficult, and I understand that. But what I'm saying is, when you're talking about the suffering of staff members at S4C, you were part of the leadership that caused that. And you said earlier that 'the buck stops'. Don't you feel that you have a responsibility to consider things further?

There is always a responsibility on a chair or a non-executive member of any body, of course that's the case, and that is ongoing from the day of appointment up until the end of your period of service. As I said at the outset, my emphasis and my interest through this whole process was and remains today on the well-being of the staff. Not a word has been expressed to me that any member of the current S4C staff believes that it would be beneficial for S4C if I were to resign today. Not one of the production companies that I've been involved with or have had discussions with during this period have suggested that it would be beneficial. To be honest, the message is quite clear that what they want to see happening is a period of stability, allowing the process of improvement, which is already in play, as I made clear earlier—. Within S4C, the working environment has improved significantly since the departure of two senior officials, and what we need now is stability to allow that process to continue to work.

Okay, thank you for that. We'll move finally to Tom. Okay, we'll go to Hefin and then Tom. Hefin.

Yes, just to observe that the conclusion the WRU took in these circumstances with regard to the chief executive and chair was exactly the opposite. Can you see that that might be something that you would wish to consider?

What I would say is that difficulties of this kind in so many organisations and bodies in Wales have been too common during this recent period. The rugby union is only one body that has dealt with different problems. What I would say is that the circumstances in every case are different, and that the responses have always been different. I don't know enough about the situation in the rugby union to know enough about it to be able to provide a view. What I've said already sets out my views with regards to S4C and what should happen in S4C, and my conclusion in that regard would be that for me to resign today, or at any other time before the end of my term, would not be of any benefit to S4C.

I can imagine that it would make other people feel happy and self-satisfied, but, if you speak to our staff or with our providers, our partners, the response is different, and some of them have expressed that. I see that—. There's a letter from a production company that has been sent to the committee expressing that view. The chair of one of the most successful independent television companies in Wales in a radio interview this morning expressed the same view. Under those circumstances, I am completely at peace that I am doing the right thing.

Okay. We'll move on to Tom.

Can I ask you what assessment you've made of staff absence and sickness levels during the tenure of the last chief executive?

As Chris suggested earlier, the information provided to us wasn't sufficiently consistent and detailed to allow us to identify any difficulties here. We have changed that system during the period in which Capital Law undertook their work, so that the dashboard that is now provided regularly—four times a year—to the people and remuneration committee does identify those patterns. And what it shows is that, during the year 2023, almost twice as many people left S4C than had done in the two years previous to that. So, steps have been taken already. I would accept fully that we need to improve those processes. Just as we have a dashboard that demonstrates how many people are using Clic, and how many people are using iPlayer, we should also be receiving that information.

During this period of time, was that information available to you routinely?

Well, not routinely, no. It did emerge and because this process had taken a long period of time between the end of April and November, there was internal discussion on these issues that was ongoing, and a decision was taken that we needed to improve processes, and, of course, there was a staff survey conducted during that period, and that staff survey told us what would emerge in due time in the Capital Law report—that there was a high level of dissatisfaction with the leadership.

So, just to help my understanding, there was no information that you were privy to that caused you any concern about staff sickness or staff absence prior to receipt of the letter in April 2023.

No, not until we received BECTU's letter. Following BECTU's letter—

Okay. But before the letter, I understand that the staff sickness and absence levels were higher than normal.

It varies over a period of time. In terms of absences from work, there was an increase during this period. I can't, off the top of my head, say whether that had started in 2023, before April, or whether it was from April onwards. And that's why we had to make sure we had better data, and that we received it more regularly. It's something that's been a topic of discussion in the board, to ensure that that matrix of measurements is available, and that they are available regularly. I think that is the point—you have to have them regularly enough to see whether the changes are significant. But, again, there was nothing before BECTU's letter arrived that made us feel that there was something wrong.

Because I think it goes back to the point Alun was making, that even if that information wasn't regularly coming across your desk and you didn't see it, if you had a good temperature gauge, if you like, of the atmosphere in S4C during that period, that might have been something you might have proactively sought out. But I think the fact that that didn't happen suggests that you probably didn't have a good feel of what the temperature was like during that period of time.

Well, it wasn't good enough, certainly, because if it was, we would have been aware that there was something wrong here. But it wasn't, and that's why it has been changed. That's why there is a new process in place now that does provide that information.

What I'm finding difficult to understand is we've got a report that is shocking, that says there was a toxic culture in the organisation for this period of time. You had staff absence levels that were going up, you had an initial letter from BECTU on which you were satisfied there was progress being made based on only one source. And my understanding was as well, as we've talked about earlier, that the churn of staff, if you like, the number of staff leaving during this period, was higher than average as well. But none of this prompted you to take any action up until that letter was received in April 2023. You're telling us that staff welfare was at the heart of all the decisions you've made, but that doesn't seem to apply to the period before the receipt of the second letter in April 2023.

The one thing that I would say is that we weren't hearing from one source only that improvements were happening, or that the complaints that had been presented by BECTU were being dealt with, and that things were improving. It wasn't just the chief executive that was saying that, but there's an human resources director, and there are other members of the management team. So, it wasn't just coming from one source. But as I say, I would have been delighted if we'd had some early warning system that would allow us to say, 'We need to do more', but there wasn't one.

Well, to build on that, staff, as we already mentioned, were leaving the organisation at an irregular level during this period of time. Were staff surveys being undertaken? Were there exit interviews happening when staff left the organisation?

No, I don't think—. There were a number of weaknesses, I think, that came out during our discussions. One was a very low level of performance assessment with staff. During the last year, the performance of the management team wasn't assessed. None of them was assessed for over a year.

What I'm trying to—. You mentioned, 'I would have liked an early warning system', but it seems that one clear way that organisations get that warning system is by having those exit interviews, so that people—people in your position—when individuals leave an organisation, understand what the problems are. But that didn't seem to be happening at S4C. Why wasn't that happening at S4C?

Well, those interviews wouldn't happen with the chair or members of the board as people leave.

No, I appreciate that. But if there is a problem, you would be aware of it, if the exit interviews are happening. Because if the culture of fear was that current staff felt unable to come forward, then staff on their way out would probably have less qualms about doing it.

Well, no. That's not the case, as it happens.

I'm not saying that happens all the time, but it's far more likely that staff—

Well, it didn't happen in this case, and, again, I know personally some of the staff members who did leave during that period. They did provide evidence to the Capital Law team, but they did not express those concerns when leaving. And, of course, and, again, may I refer you back to the report, you will see comments from the chief executive on the number of people she wished to see leave the organisation. I think it said that there were 50 staff that we'd be better off without. So, there was a deliberate attempt here made to see staff leave and that wasn't something that came to my attention until the report itself was received.

And may I also say that, of course, any period of change—when you change how an organisation operates, then it's natural that there will be some churn in staff, that new blood will come in and that some staff will leave. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But there is a way of doing that, and that's what all this is about, I think. It's the way of doing things. As it happens, I sit on the board of the Consumer Council for Water, and during the past three years, they've had a new chief executive, and they have led a process of internal change, but they've done so by taking the staff with them, by ensuring that the performance of the staff of the water consumer council, in their staff surveys, are almost irrationally high, because the focus has been entirely on the health, well-being and care of staff. But that's not what happened with us.

Can I build on one point in terms of understanding the process around the termination and employment of staff. I understand you were responsible for the termination of the employment of the chief content officer, when that took place, and not the chief executive. Listening to your answers yesterday to the Welsh Affairs Committee, you mentioned that the appointment of a new chief content officer would be made by the new chief executive. So, can you help me understand why the termination of the employment would be handled by the chair but the appointment would be handled by a chief executive?

Because, quite simply, the circumstances that led to the dismissal of the chief content officer occurred on a Saturday in Nantes, following a rugby match. The chief executive had attended the same meetings—well, they weren't meetings—but the chief executive was present at the same locations where these events took place, which led to that decision. So, the chief executive had an interest in that issue. She hadn't shared that with anyone within S4C, although the wider industry in Wales all knew what had been said and to whom. It was being reported in the press almost before we'd heard about these events. So, under those circumstances, and having receiving advice on procedure and on employment law and the appropriate steps to be taken, I took the decision that action had to be taken immediately in order to safeguard the reputation of S4C.

As was mentioned earlier, I have been in this business for many years and have never come across a case of a senior official behaving in that way. If the new chief executive were to decide—. Of course, they will appoint somebody, whether that person will be a chief content officer or a director of content or a director of programming—there are all sorts of possible titles. When a new chief executive appoints, I would expect, as it happens, that the chair, whoever he or she may be, would be invited into that process. I was involved in the process of appointing Llinos Griffin-Williams to S4C, because the post was one of those posts that carries the additional duties of being an executive director of the shadow unitary board.

Could I just add on that point very briefly, Chair?

Very briefly, yes.

I think the key point, as Rhodri has described, is the fact that this was an extremely unusual situation and there was a perceived need to act extremely quickly, which is why the chair, with external legal advice, set in place a process for those unique circumstances. So, it would not be the normal way that that would be handled. Indeed, I referred earlier to the fact that there was robust debate amongst directors, but that the non-executive directors were not able to be involved in that process because of the timescale. That was also something that was then discussed after the event, because that was very unusual. Had there been a way to have had a wider process, then that would clearly have been beneficial, but the view taken by the chair, with external specialist advice, was that the circumstances and the need to act so quickly justified taking that unusual process. But you're right, that's not how you would normally go about it.

Just very finally from me on the appointment of a new chief executive, you've mentioned that there's no real time frame on that appointment yet. Is it your intention that that will happen in the remainder of your term?

I think the board will be discussing that—

Sorry, I don't know why I turned to English there. The board will discuss that a fortnight today. In terms of how far we could go, I wouldn't think that an appointment would be made, if I'm perfectly honest, during the remainder of my term of office; I wouldn't expect it to happen within that period.

Thank you. We're very aware of how long you've stayed with us—thank you very much. I have two very brief questions, at the end. You mentioned to Alun, and this was raised yesterday, that you'd asked for many meetings with DCMS and that that hadn't happened. Do you think it's appropriate, therefore, that it's the Secretary of State who has the powers in this situation if the Secretary of State doesn't show an interest in having a meeting?

I think that's beyond my responsibilities in terms of expressing a view on who should—. In other words, that's the framework that we're working within—

But perhaps the framework isn't working as well as it should at the moment.

As I said, we have occasionally met with some Ministers from the department, but as I said, when I proposed that we should meet the Secretary of State to discuss this specific issue, as it happens, that offer was not accepted. It appears to me that when this process was ongoing, there wasn't a great deal of interest shown in it, but because of the way things have panned out—and that isn't how I would have imagined things developing when this whole process started—everyone, now, is taking an interest in all aspects of this. That's to be expected, isn't it?

Thank you. Just the final question: is there anything that you regret about the whole situation?

Yes. I regret this point that we've been discussing that we as a board weren't aware of these concerns at an earlier stage. I do regret, with hindsight, that the remit that we agreed with Capital Law was one that allowed the process to take a long period of time. There were reasons for that. Because of this fear factor that I have referred to, that was a very important part of drawing up the remit in very broad terms that, of course, then allowed everyone to contribute to this process. So, in a way, we created a problem for ourselves.

The BECTU complaint didn't refer to the board or to governance; it related to the management team, as it was referred to, although not every member of that management team was involved, but they couldn't be specific about complaints, and it wouldn't have been appropriate to name individuals in that scenario. BECTU had been very careful in that regard. But, of course, that did mean that the process was lengthier and that the process did allow people who were the subjects of complaints to be contributing to it.

I do believe that it would have been more beneficial, perhaps, for our staff and for the mental health of our staff throughout this period, if we had agreed a remit that focused more on what BECTU were complaining about, rather than saying, 'Come to us to talk about anything that's on your mind.' But, with the information that we had at the time, I was quite content that we needed to put a process in place that was very open, in order to ensure that people had the confidence to contribute to it. But do I regret that now? Yes.

Thank you. We're very grateful for the additional time you've provided this afternoon. There will be a transcript of the meeting sent to you to ensure that it's a fair reflection of what's been said, and perhaps there will be some technical questions that we haven't been able to ask, and we'll want to write to you about those. But thank you very much for being with us this afternoon.

Thank you all very much for your time and for the way in which you have questioned us this afternoon. I have said in this committee previously that do we appreciate and are always willing to be held to account by you as elected Members. Despite the fact that the circumstances are unpleasant, I am grateful for the way in which you have asked your questions and have dealt with us today. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Members, we'll move straight on to papers to note. We have a number of papers to note in your packs, from paper 9.1 through to 9.17. Are you content for us to note those papers? Okay.

So, I propose, as we noted earlier, that we're going to continue in private, and we'll wait to hear that we are in private session before we continue. We'll wait until the gallery is cleared.