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

So, we'll move on to item 2, a session on public service broadcasting. Our first evidence session of the day is with the BBC. We have several witnesses with us in the room. I'll ask them to introduce themselves for the record. I'll go from left to right. I'll go to Rhuanedd first.

Rhuanedd Richards, director of nations at the BBC.

Thank you very much. Tim.

Tim Davie, director general of the BBC.

Thank you ever so much. Garmon.

I'm Garmon Rhys, I'm the interim director of BBC Wales.

A warm welcome to all of you.

You're very welcome. We'll go straight into questions, if that's all right. One of the issues that we've been most interested in as a committee over the past few years is the Media Act 2024 and how it's being implemented. Could you talk us through, please, how effectively you think it is being implemented, and, in terms of negotiating with any online platforms about prominence, about accessibility, what you think the effect is on audiences in Wales?

Thank you very much. Overall, of course, we were very supportive of the Media Act; critical. And I'll just say that I think the jeopardy is quite—more than that—the jeopardy is high around the prominence of public service broadcasting and the legacy we leave as a group, both in Wales and across the United Kingdom. So, we've been very supportive of the need for prominence for public service broadcasters.

I think what I would say is that we're working well with Ofcom, and the current process, where they're looking at a code of practice, is right. I could get into detail in terms of—. We are responding to that within—. I think it's 25 March that we have to respond by. And we think that is an incredibly important piece of work for public service broadcasting within Wales and beyond. And I think there is a scope for interpretation, let's just say that, between different parties, between what 'appropriate prominence' is. As you know, we probably would have liked being open about it a bit more in the Act in terms of 'significant prominence'.

Now, we need to look at what comes through that process and the guidelines. I would say it is critical, and I welcome the UK Government's position, which is that if prominence is not delivered, there will be a legislative backstop on that. My worry is simply one of pace and speed, as the world moves so fast, so I would much rather be in a position where we can secure prominence quickly without having to wait for legislation, because by that point, you know, you're waiting quite a long time.

We are having constructive conversations with some of the parties. And if you look at the current position, with the iPlayer being strong enough, we can talk about—. One thing that Rhuanedd can talk about is, as part of the Media Act, of course, one of the benefits was that we could do the work with S4C to make sure they're now on the iPlayer. And the great news is—. We should be very proud of this. You know, if I go around the world, there are very few nations where you're, frankly, in the ring with Netflix and Disney—both good services—but we have scale. So, at the moment, we have that prominence. It is not a burning issue in the next month.

But I would say we need help with leverage for those parties, to ensure that it's not just partnership deals we're doing, but underpinned guidelines and potentially legislation to enforce the Media Act. And the thing I would say—and I've said it many times over the last few months—is probably our biggest issue is speed. We need the pace. We need to get on with it.

Thank you ever so much. I think Rhuanedd—

Just to talk about that S4C partnership, because that's about prominence as well, using the provisions that were afforded to us in the Act to look at a new partnership between the BBC and S4C, to afford S4C that prominence as well in terms of its content on iPlayer in Wales for audiences who are Welsh speakers and non-Welsh speakers. And we're really proud of that new agreement, which will come into place in April 2026, which will give the Welsh language, as well, that prominence on iPlayer.

Thank you. Lee wants to come in.

Can I ask specifically about that agreement? Because that does sound very encouraging at face value. One of the concerns S4C has had about iPlayer is that it didn't have access to the back-end data, to the analytics.

We've sorted that.

Okay.

So, they have full access to that data. The partnership includes—a mature partnership, as you'd expect, between organisations, which allows them access, so they can make those choices that we make about what to put on their platforms as well.

I think, just to add, it is really significant, because it does increase the visibility of S4C content for audiences in Wales, but also, significantly, will allow us to highlight key S4C content for audiences across the UK on occasions, and also adding Stwnsh and Cyw content to the iPlayer kids' section. So, there's a whole raft of developments that we've been discussing with S4C.

I agree. It's a big deal. Good. Diolch.

Okay. We'll move to Alun.

I'm interested in how the BBC serves English-speaking audiences in Wales, because I think we've debated and discussed the Welsh language services on S4C on numerous occasions, and I don't want to go down that route at the moment. But I'm concerned—and we had this conversation, Tim, the last time you were in front of the committee. I think, at that time, you and Elan were making the case that there was a good spend for the English-speaking audience in Wales. I think, since then, the BBC has said that it's seeking to increase that spend. But, in fact, I'm not sure that's happened. So, I'd be interested to understand how you feel you are serving English-speaking audiences in Wales.

Well, Rhuanedd will want to come in, I'm sure, on exactly what the plan is. I am pleased with the progress we're making. So, we might be in slight—. When I took over as director general, we were spending £243 million in Wales and £75 million was S4C. We're now—

Hang on. That is funding S4C through the licence fee.

Through the licence fee. I'm just—

I'm not sure that the use of the word 'we' there is quite appropriate, but carry on.

Fair point. 'We' being the UK public; let us use that escape lane. But, essentially—

So, take S4C out of it.

Well, let me just—. Two hundred and forty-three million of the licence fee—that's why I gave you the S4C figure, so you could take it out—and £75 million was S4C. We're now at £316 million—that's a great story—of which £95 million is S4C. So, we're taking it out; got it. I think, if I look at the medium-term position under my watch, you know how passionate I am about pushing out—

You made that case last time.

I know, but it's important we make it. With respect, that is what we should do.

We accepted it last time.

I haven't even mentioned, by the way, the capital we deployed just around the corner, on the back of Roath Lock a bit earlier, and, as a long-serving BBC board member, I think we've been very keen to deploy capital, not just day-to-day spend and income and expenditure into Wales. I think what I would say is, versus last time, and no doubt Rhuanedd wants to come in, I think we're seeing some creative success, by the way. We'll debate the exact levels of investment. I do want to see the investment continue to rise, I want to keep pushing money out of London, for what it's worth. But you do begin to see—. You know, The Guest. I watched Death Valley; I finished the last episode the other day. I think English audiences are beginning to see world-class network productions coming out of Wales on a level they haven't seen previously, and we should be really proud of that.

The other thing I would say, for English-speaking audiences, is, when it comes to news provision, the biggest news service—and thank goodness we've done it for public service broadcasting—the biggest news service in Wales, as you know, is BBC News Online, and the biggest television programme in Wales, as I keep telling Westminster politicians, for what it's worth, is the 6.30 p.m. Wales Today.

So, look, I would say we come before you saying, 'We've got more to do.' I think one of the most successful things I've done in my tenure, for what it's worth, is push money out of London. I couldn't be prouder when I see network teams here and the kind of drama we're producing. Could we do more? Of course we could. Would I like to do more? Yes. But the story's pretty good.

Can I just come back on a few things I have first, Rhuanedd? The BBC has clearly changed. When I was first elected, nearly 20 years ago, we had different conversations. I remember Michael Grade appearing in front of us when he was chair, I think, of the BBC at the time, and we were having these conversations—

When I joined the BBC. Yes, that's right.

When you joined the BBC. That puts me in my place, doesn't it? [Laughter.]

No, it's all right, we've equal tenures on this.

We had very basic conversations about production and the rest of it, and the situation's certainly different and has changed, and I think that is recognised. There's no issue about that. The situation with the funding of S4C has changed as well. I think S4C's in a more powerful position as a consequence of that, and I think we welcome that as well. The relationship between S4C and the BBC has improved out of all recognition, and that's welcome as well. So, all those things are very, very good. And the move outside London has clearly happened, and it's had an impact, not just here, but the stuff in Salford and Pacific Quay as well. It's clearly a different change, and we accept all of that, and this isn't simply knocking the BBC.

However, there's also, as you accept, room to move and progress that's still required to be made. Because the programming that you've described is good, excellent programming—no question about the quality of it—however, how informed are audiences in Wales—English-speaking audiences—about Wales? And I think there, there is a significant failure still. As somebody who speaks Welsh, I watch S4C, and I watch BBC Wales, and the rest of it, as anybody else does. As a Welsh speaker, I find myself far more informed about events in Wales than I do as an English speaker.

Understood.

Can I come in on that? Because, Alun, I think we're on the same page on this. It's been a priority for me since I became director of BBC Wales in fact, to look at how we can leverage more money into content that's about Wales, made in Wales, to the people of Wales, right? I accept what you're saying about network spend. That's very nice, of course, it's great to have and really important for the economy, but we also need to reflect the nation. That's why it's encouraging for me, within those figures you see in the annual report, where you see—I think it's £90 million that network has invested in Wales in 2024-25—that a proportion of that is match funding, if you like, as we used to speak in old terms about European funding, that is match funding to support BBC Wales content and commissions, in order to support the portrayal of Wales. So, we've got a plan now from 2027-28—and we'll see budgets going up this year, next year, and then by 2027-28—to guarantee a minimum level of portrayal spend on programmes about Wales, for Wales, across the devolved nations, which will see an increase in what we're spending. Now, that is going to be fantastic, and I couldn't have been more proud to make that announcement before Christmas.

However, there is one caveat in that. What our audiences have been telling us—. We've just done this huge survey with audiences in Wales, asking them what they want from us over the next 10 years. I think over 38,000 of them responded. Eighty-five per cent of them told us they want us to back the best storytelling from Wales—homegrown storytelling. Now, the best storytelling costs a lot of money these days, so volume does become an issue. But our role, and my job, Garmon's job now, in particular, is to ensure that, when we get that extra spend, we continue to provide the breadth that you would expect from our programming, so that we continue to do programming about the arts, about history, about culture, about politics. That's really important. I think you're reflecting the nation with a whole suite of genres to inform the audiences in Wales.

And that isn't happening at the moment, which is why I come back to you. The debate we had, if you remember, around the last charter renewal was very much—there was a reflection of Scotland here as well—'Do you want to go down the route of the BBC Scotland digital channel, or do you want to have more services on the main BBC One and BBC Two platforms, and the rest of it?' My view was very clear at the time. Having had the experience of trying to build audiences on S4C, I did not want to go down the route of BBC Scotland. That's a decision that the BBC took for Scotland, and I make no comment on that—that's a debate for another country. But I have kept an eye on some developments there and on audience numbers, and what of course you've got when you've got those hours to fill, you've got to produce content, clearly. What I see in BBC Scotland is an engine building content, designed in and produced in Scotland. But what we haven't had is the similar development of that engine to deliver content in Wales, simply for Wales, producing content from Wales for Welsh audiences. I thought Tony Hall was very convincing, actually, when he was making a point that we want to produce more English-language programming for our major platforms. And I'm not sure, despite what you said, that that vision has been delivered.

Understood. I think this is a challenge as we go into charter renewal—the shape of the output. I think to emphasise Rhuanedd's point, I don't think there's a vision in which we're not serving some of the needs you're talking about.

Okay, so—

Bear with me a minute. This idea of Welsh art, culture, I've got it. This is part of our thinking. Rhuanedd made a very important point there, which is this balance between what we would all like to see versus what we need to make in order to justify the licence fee, or whatever funding mechanism we have. We are in a new landscape, where it is ferociously—. We've got infinite choice now. I look lovingly back at the time we had two out of four channels. Getting an audience was not that challenging. Jeopardy was a different type of jeopardy.

In that context, I think it's really important to understand how do we create programmes that do—. This is not about making international mush—in fact, that is not what we want to do. I think locally placed storytelling, Welsh history, Welsh art—. But there is a challenge, which is how many hours of that—this balance between breadth and depth and the quality and the scale of it. Because the bar has gone up.

Whereas I take the challenge, I think it's very important between us that we look to spend and quality and cut-through and get a bit of scale, because I look lovingly sometimes—like we all do, probably, who've been around for 20 years—at what it used to be like. If we're going to present Welsh art, history, it's got to be of a standard and we've got to get to a point where we get the budgets together. Sometimes, that does mean doing slightly fewer hours, but increasing investment. On that nuanced conversation, I've got the point, I've got the challenge, and I'm not pushing back—I'm just talking about how we take that challenge. And I think it's an absolutely fair pushback for us going into charter.

Can I just add as well that I absolutely recognise that tension? But we do invest in arts content, in culture content. I can point to documentaries on Gwen John, on Richard Burton, on Cool Cymru—

The Burton stuff was fantastic.

And it has gone well across the UK. So, if you're in my job, it's absolute—.

But more broadly, in terms of that high-impact strategy, as Tim was explaining, as you all know, in such a competitive landscape, we do have to invest more in content that demands the attention of audiences. I do think that when we look ahead to 2026-27, it is going to be a landmark year in terms of the visibility of Wales due to that strategy. We've got Death Valley coming back, we've got a drama series called The Rapture, we've got Better Later, co-written and co-starring Ruth Jones and Steve Speirs. We do have further announcements that will be announced over the coming months. And on top of that, there is the change of Casualty to be a Welsh portrayal drama for around 20 weeks a year. I genuinely think it is going to be transformative in the way that people in Wales see themselves reflected on screen.

On Alun's point on comparison with Scotland and spend, because you have this separate channel in Scotland, spend on English-language programming is double that in Wales, even though Welsh audiences remain your most loyal.

We think the gap is going to close as we build, because of this announcement that we've made. For me, it's always been about the growth and the impact of Welsh content. I was talking to my predecessor last night, and he was reminding me that in 2015—

Which one?

Rhodri Talfan Davies. In 2015, talking about big shows from Wales, we were spending, the BBC, less than £2 million a year on these shows. By 2027, I think we'll be spending over £40 million. That's the scale of the investment. But it goes back to that question of volume and balancing it. Getting the eyeballs to the screen so people feel represented is so important. In the annual report as well, it's just worth noting that, of all the devolved nations, our audiences are telling us they feel more represented here in Wales than they do elsewhere. But we've got more to do.

And yet you're spending half on us what you're spending on Scotland. How do you justify that?

In terms of the money we're spending here versus licence fee raised, by the way, you're at £221 million—

That's a different point, and I recognise that point. That's not my question. My question is why do you justify spending double the amount on English language programming in Scotland.

There are differences in the broadcasting shape. There are differences in the population numbers. There are all kinds of differences.

Not half, there isn't.

If I may, I think it does make a difference.

No, it doesn't.

What, the numbers of the population?

If you're making a programme, you're going to broadcast it—

That's what we've done wonderfully in Wales, for what it's worth. I agree with you on that, absolutely. But I do think that's a valid metric. If you take different parts of the UK, they're looking at how much they've invested within their region or their nation for the licence fee. In Wales, we're spending £221 million. Don't take this the wrong way, because I want to push that further, but I'm just looking at the metrics and saying we have different shapes as well.

I do recognise the challenge, which is you've got a channel, and channels in the old world pulled through volume, if you know what I mean. And I think there's a question there. There's a valid question about the volume. I would say that relationship is not quite what it was, because sometimes you've got coverage that goes across channels, all of that.

I would say bespoke investment wholly for channels in my world is getting less rather than more, whether that's a programme on BBC Two or anywhere. You've just heard Rhuanedd. We want to be clear. We want to grow money in Wales. The creative success of Wales is very potent at the moment. Because we're looking at the numbers, but we're also looking at our creative business, attracting talent, bringing in people, the quality of the productions. The fact you've had hits this year in my world is material. You've had hits, your creative delivery is strong. That will attract more money. That will attract more money alongside policy objectives.

I accept all of that, but I think Lee's point stands and his challenge stands. I'm not sure you've fully answered that, if I'm quite honest with you. Because if you look at BBC Scotland, it also enables them to do different things. I watch Scottish football every so often on it, which I couldn't do with BBC services. And it is what it is in terms of the genres available, the breadth of coverage available, and the reflection of a country back to it.

To answer the point directly, we recognise the issue. We want to increase Welsh spend. I'm being marginally defensive, if I may, about our current investment levels versus what we raise in Wales, so we're in the middle here, but I do take the point, which is we could do more, and we're quite excited about doing more. Fair point.

Let's move on to that territory. Three of us here have all served in government, and we've had our feet pressed to the fire by your colleagues, as it should be. But we're not challenged sufficiently in this place. When I look at the challenge given to Ministers in other administrations in the United Kingdom—. It might not feel like it sometimes for those of us who sit in those seats, but there isn't sufficient challenge from the BBC in this place. You do have stories, easy stories to some extent, but virtually never cover committees in this place the way you cover committees in Westminster, and I've seen covered in Holyrood. You virtually never cover some of the debates that take place here.

I think the days when The Times would just print out Hansard are long gone. I accept all of that. However, we do govern this country, and that demands a level of not just news coverage, but also scrutiny. My concern is, in terms of the volume of broadcasted hours, you simply don't have the capacity to provide sufficient scrutiny and accountability for politicians who serve here, and that means that you're not serving the people who are governed in Wales by this place. There is a real serious issue there, and I think that is placed directly into the role of the BBC in terms of charter renewal and the rest of it.

I know we've got to move on here, but what would be useful would be, perhaps, if you wrote to the committee outlining some of the plans that you have for extending the service provided in Wales over the next, say, charter period, what your ambitions are, what your vision happens to be, and how that will be funded. Because the point made by Lee is a fundamental point of inequality in the union. I don't think the numbers argument gets close to answering that inequality question. I think the BBC does have a requirement. I pay your salary by law, and, therefore, you have a responsibility that goes over and above any other broadcaster.

There's no doubt about that.

And that means serving your audiences in Wales properly.

You guys might want to respond.

Are you talking about services in Wales or services across the network?

Services in Wales, serving Welsh audiences.

The one thing I would say is I believe passionately that we do need to hold power to account, and we do need to reflect this institution. It is absolutely a vital part of our mission, and our news programmes are very aware of that, I can tell you. Only this week, we sent out a news alert about the story about somebody departing from the Conservative group, for example. That was a news alert to the people of Wales—

And it was covered well, to be fair.

I'm glad you can point to examples where we do it very well.

But it's not the norm. That's the question.

What I would challenge you on that about is when you think about the increased audiences, for example, to our breakfast programme on Radio Wales, where we're holding more people to account now than ever before, I would argue, that's a good news story. When I look now at the fact that over 4 million people every single week are coming to BBC Wales news online content on our services, there we're regularly holding people to account. Of course, we can always do more, and I'm hoping, coming up to the elections in May, you will see an increased level of coverage—I can guarantee that. You will see an increased level of coverage. We recently brought down all our colleagues from network news at editor level to meet with the political parties, so that they can hear from them about the coverage and the—

Key to an election coverage isn't just covering the election itself, but the consequences of that election, and then holding those people elected to account afterwards.

Indeed. It's particularly important with a new mandate for this place and with a new institution, newly formed, and an increased number of Members. We've got an explaining job to do as to how this all works, but I'm quite excited by that challenge. And now, we don't exist in a world in the BBC where you have a network team, a Wales team; we are running this election coverage as one team, and we are driving that from Wales. That is new, that is exciting.

Just briefly to add to what Rhuanedd said as well, in recent years there has been a significant focus in our news department on developing our online offer. There are multiple aspects to that, but one of them is increasing the visibility of stories about Wales to audiences in Wales. When we analyse the volume of stories that we cover on the BBC News product, politics by far and away is the category of story that has the biggest volume. So, we are absolutely committed to political coverage.

There are a number of strands to this conversation. Firstly, we should all be worried about the quality of democracy as it stands today, globally. We are facing a major jeopardy in what I would call a participative society, where people feel—. And the role of the BBC—. And this is the bigger thing, which is, as we go to charter, I believe the BBC has never been more needed.

Yes, I agree with you.

I can probably be more free to say—. I'm unhindered, as I am—

We'll invite you back.

You'll always invite me back, thank you for that. I think that you are absolutely preaching to the converted in terms of our need for that accountability, Welsh politics, and, absolutely, within the nation, getting at that in detail. In fact, I'm interested in how you almost get to local council level and how do we make that happen.

The answer to your question is, over time, we have actually made massive cuts in the BBC, so we can make sure that public service broadcasting doesn't just sit in broadcast, but is also available—. We have the biggest news offer. This is pretty impressive. We are the biggest news service. It means we can begin to have online alerts. We can send you to online debates, discussion, analysis in a way that we have not been able to do in broadcast.

Having said that, you haven't seen us take a step back on broadcast. I'm not being too defensive. I was listening to BBC Wales Today this morning. We've got fully funded—. The regional news programmes, current affairs, we put more money into over time. We're committed to it. There is a tension, which is how you deliver that. I'm going to be very blunt. Some people think with committees, you just put on a channel or whatever. It doesn't work. You've got to work on what's the format, what's the analysis. So, it's not as simple as just doing more and more.

Having said that, the answer to your question is that online, over time, gives us a massive opportunity to increase democratic transparency and get to a lot of the issues you've talked about. I think you're seeing indications of that, but we want to do more.

And YouTube will be an opportunity as well, following yesterday's announcement.

It's actually exciting, but we better get on with it. It links directly to the charter, which is you pay and play. You've got to get the money to do that.

Thank you. I'm going to move on to Lee.

I'll just pick you up on that YouTube announcement just there, which I thought was very encouraging. The figures on the demographics are quite alarming, from your point of view, and the affinity of younger people towards the BBC is significantly weakened from the generations that have gone before them. The YouTube announcement was, I thought, encouraging. The question I had is this: to what extent is your PSB duty going to reflect your YouTube coverage? Because, obviously, you're going to be chasing a younger audience. But how much of that is going to be within the traditional BBC offer, and how much portrayal of Wales is going to be part of that?

I'll come straight to you on Wales. I would say the first thing is the editorial guidelines are not for negotiation. So, everything we do on YouTube and everything we put out there in short form has to hit our guidelines around impartiality. And we make mistakes and we do odd things, but overall I'm very proud of our delivery. Actually, trust in BBC News remains pretty strong, despite all the oncoming headwinds we face, and we shouldn't discount that.

The position with YouTube is we're going to experiment with formats, like verified or short or update—. I don't think public service broadcasting should be constrained by format. We've seen it around the world, where it sits on broadcast and suddenly it becomes old-fashioned very fast. I think that's going to make some of us who've been around the block slightly uncomfortable in the delivery or whatever, but actually the journalistic standards hold true.

Now, when it comes to Wales, this does give us, to the previous one, lots of opportunity to go direct to people on the ground, so-called younger people—all of that. YouTube, by the way, I wouldn't just put as a young person's service. It's pervasive. The other thing is, we're not in a disastrous situation. I would say quite a few young people are watching a certain show about being faithful and treachery, and it's not politics. [Laughter.] So, we still get 60 per cent to 70 per cent of 16 to 34-year-olds every month. Having said that, the challenge is very profound for public service broadcasting. If we can't get into YouTube, and I'm very pleased with the partnership—. But do you want to talk about Wales specifically?

Yes, and Garmon, please pitch in. The plan is that we launch a BBC Wales YouTube channel, which is a really exciting opportunity, actually, to do exactly what you're talking about, reflect Wales to younger audiences in particular, but not exclusively to them. But on top of that, we're also going to be supplying the BBC News channel on YouTube with content from Wales, BBC sports similarly, and we're going to be piloting some new formats. Garmon, do you want to come in on that?

Yes. I think it is a challenge in terms of how do we transfer that public service ethos to platforms, including YouTube. We are doing a lot of work in the background in terms of testing formats. We've got a partnership with Media Cymru, who are working with the sector to look at how we can take some of our existing content and brands and transfer it to YouTube. In terms of your question on whether that is going to be completely the same as linear tv storytelling, 'No, it isn't.' But that is precisely the development work that we're doing at the moment, just looking at what can work in that space. But we are committed. I think, in terms of younger audiences, it is a significant challenge. We are committed to doing more in that space. We've got a BBC Cymru Wales TikTok account. Our BBC Wales News Instagram account now attracts about 24 million views a month. When we look forward to our election campaign coverage—explaining to younger audiences the importance of the election, and even the basics in terms of how do you vote, what are the policies of the parties—that will be integral to our offer on BBC News, but also on social media platforms as well.

I think, possibly on this point, Heledd wanted to come in.

Yes, I just wanted to ask in terms of Welsh language and where you see it within YouTube. Because, obviously, one of the things that we are seeing is more younger people saying that they are watching YouTube, but also that they think that they have to create content in English to try and get any traction. So, how are you going to balance that?

We are committed. The Welsh language challenges are exactly the same as the English language challenges in terms of discoverability, in terms of attracting younger audiences. We are launching a BBC Wales YouTube channel. In the digital space, I think it is 'test and learn'. It is slightly different to linear tv, where you build up to a launch of a specific programme and then review it after a few years. I think we can try Welsh language content within that BBC Wales YouTube channel, but, if that doesn't work for audiences, we can then look at alternative approaches in terms of separation. But I think we need to test with audiences how best to engage with them.

And, of course, S4C are already using that content that we make for them already on YouTube, which again is another element of the partnership that's important. I would be interested to see, in terms of Radio Cymru—Radio Cymru is doing a lot more visualised content now with their podcasting. News—the same in the Welsh language. I don't think we can be confined by language or genre. We just need to get content that's going to work for audiences in Wales on that platform.

Can I also ask a point in terms of the Welsh language? Often we see, on news coverage, in terms of speeches from the Senedd and so on, if people are speaking in English, they may be shown—those clips—but in English language broadcasting, it is not always the case, if people are speaking in Welsh, that those clips are used. There may be a comment by that person. Is that something that you're keen to see? Obviously, subtitles have been used, and I've seen some great examples on BBC News here in Wales, in English with subtitles, but not often from here. I'm just wondering: is that something that you're considering?

It's something that we're encouraging. I think that people are just used to subtitles, regardless of whether they want them for accessibility purposes or for linguistic purposes. Subtitles are a norm, in terms of how people watch. I feel quite strongly that, if you live in Wales, you tend to be proud of both languages. You're used to bilingualism. We just need to make it as natural as possible, and we should be completely relaxed about that. If you're finding clear evidence where you think that's not happening, then we're happy to look at that, definitely.

Diolch.

Diolch. Lee.

Just to return to news, I'm sure that we can expect, in the run-up to the election, the BBC to be doing its full PSB duty of bending over backwards to do the Welsh election coverage, but then we revert back to normal. And the prominence of Welsh coverage within network in normal times I think has reverted back to where it was pre COVID. The difference, it seems to me—. There is some improvement from where it was 10 years ago. At least we now have, on the Today programme, for example, 'This applies to England.' We don't then have the follow-up of, 'Well, what about everywhere else?' So, they are clear in showing that it is England only, but they don't really show any curiosity about what's happening beyond England. So, I don't really see that changing. So, how do we make sure that we don't just revert back to type?

Well, we've worked hard over the— . Again, I think that you're not in totally dissimilar territory to some of the debates that we're having, which is that the BBC has made significant improvements and efforts. I recognise the issue, and there's more to do. Rhuanedd has been, for many years, working on this and is working very closely with network news.

I appreciate your comments, by the way, because I think that we have worked hard. There are different levels of problems, just mistakes, that we've tried to really get on top of and make sure that network news can—. We hosted network editors to make sure— . You've just got a basic level. Sorry, these are the minimum table stakes, but there's a basic level of understanding of devolved politics and what it is, right down into the institution.

We have also relocated network news teams, because the network news team—. The centre of the BBC does not have to be London. As you know, I feel that passionately. So, social media teams are in Cardiff, in Glasgow. We are beginning to change the soul of the BBC. That will take a bit of time in terms of how we recruit, how people think.

You're going to get the normal from me, which is that, I think, overall, we work really hard on network. It's not without mistakes now and again, if I'm honest, because—. I'll be very open about it. We're on it. We're constantly listening and trying to get on the briefs—health, education, all the other topics—to make sure that you recognise the differences between nations and the countries. We're very, very clear about what's going on.

I think there is attention, and if you're the editor of the Today programme, just in broadcast terms, how do you cover that? I don't want to make excuses for us, but in a 90-second package, how do you do that? I take your concern. I think that we're talking about it a lot and trying to work out how we could explain things. I do think that we then come back to the online environment, which is where most people get their news. That does free us up from that rather restrictive, make your piece in 60 seconds—to explain, have links. There's a lot we could do, which is—. Remember, most people are going to those stories, looking at a story, and going, 'What does this mean for the nations?' We come out, and we use the capability we've got. That does open up real opportunities. So, I think we're on it. I think we've improved. I think we've got some work to do.

And just to briefly add, in terms of online news, essentially, virtually all of the stories written about Wales are written in Cardiff, by the BBC Wales news team. So, there is no distinction between—. They are, essentially, the network news team, and we do have a very strong relationship with the BBC news team in London and, to Tim's point, elsewhere. So, we are seeing, consistently, stories about Wales—yes, being promoted within Wales on our own index and to audiences in Wales on the app, but also being promoted across the UK.

I think the point I'm making is a broader one. It's a more difficult cultural one, in that your charter explicitly says that you would cover—I forget the wording—the character and the nature of the UK, and it's news of a multinational and devolved sense.

Totally right.

And that, in terms of a metropolitan mindset, and this doesn't just apply to the BBC, is a big shift. What I'm not seeing is a creative and journalistic curiosity of thinking beyond the usual London-centric mindset. So, it's not just about a bean-counting approach of how many mentions have there been, and it's more a cultural change, which the BBC in its position has a responsibility to lead. But how do we think differently about what the UK is?

I'm going to react a little defensively on that, if I may, because I think the BBC is a completely—

The floor is yours.

I think the BBC is a completely different place to where it was 10 years ago. I think the idea—

I agree.

—that everyone is sitting there in some metropolitan bubble in London and we've got different fiefdoms is for the birds now. I think we've got network news—. Your point is—. Your diagnostic, by the way—totally agree. We talk about biases within organisations; I worry that there is that slightly metropolitan—. That works in sensitive territory, as an Englishman in Wales, but that would be in Cardiff as it is in London and any area of the UK. Who's coming into our organisation?

I've sat close to you in an England-Wales rugby match, I fully know your cultural biases.

Thank you, only on the sports field. [Laughter.]

We have similar tensions. [Laughter.]

This is a really important point, though, because I think this could be fatal to institutions, and you can see the worry, if we don't address this issue. The biggest issue for the creative industries, and this committee looks across the sweep, is actually socioeconomic diversity. It's been the hardest one to move—through apprentices all the way to senior staff—how do you move? Because this industry can often feel a little less secure. It can be often freelance work, all kinds of things. Now, we have moved the number, and this is the change that will affect, to your point, making sure that in Central Square we've got people who understand all of Wales. Network news is no longer a London-based function. It is somewhere that is spread across the UK. Now, that brings complexity, to a degree, cost. It links to the funding as well, but it's something we've committed to. Is it work in progress? Could we do more? Do I think we've moved fast enough? I think we've moved pretty fast, but we've got a lot of work to do in that area. I totally agree with you.

And after Rhuanedd has come in, Mick has a question and wants to come in, but Rhuanedd first.

And to bring that alive—. And by the way, we can't just decentralise to Cardiff as well—we've got to make sure that we're reflecting the whole nation. But, I think, to bring it alive—. I remember, before all the science units moved to Wales, a member of staff based in London telling me, 'But how can we do this when we don't have that close proximity to Oxford, Cambridge and the London universities?', and I chuckled. I think my reaction was, 'Well, we've got Merthyr, Treorchy and Aberdare, you'll be fine.' But they moved, and what they've found is a different perspective, different stories from Cardiff University, Aberystwyth, Bangor. We're regularly now seeing those universities and their perspectives reflected in our science coverage. So, I think there's a point that the more decentralised we become, the more the mindset changes. It is a cultural shift. And I think our plan is to have greater decentralisation in the years to come, as long as we have a decent charter, decent funding, and I think that is going to change the way we report, and we'll get even better.

My question was about news, though—that's a very different point to news.

But this is news. These are scientists working in news on news stories.

These are network news journalists.

It's about where you source your storytelling, the choices you make when it comes to storytelling, who you get to speak on our behalf, and that is changing.

Mick, you had a question.

Undoubtedly, enormous progress has been made. I think we all understand that, when you have nations that represent a minority of the global UK population, there are real challenges in terms of how you present that, and divergence is clearly something that is growing. I would say, divergence is as much a problem for Westminster in terms of its politics. I think there are enough problems there in terms of understanding what is happening around different parts of the UK. But it's certainly better now in terms of the reference that 'this applies to England', but it seems to me that that's almost as far as it goes. I'll give you an example. I listened to the report when it came out, when there was an announcement at UK level on the policy now of free school meals. There was the fact that this was for England, but the fact that it didn't then actually expand and say, 'Well, of course, this already applies in certain parts of the UK', so the explanation—. So, effectively, what you then have is the news almost being, 'Well, this is now a broadcast for England, as opposed to the UK', which has a number of different things. And it seems to me that's almost a journalistic understanding, and it is part of that sort of London-centric or metropolitan-centric, however we want to describe it—. And it seems to me that it's something that's becoming increasingly important, because, as you get greater devolution taking place in the regions of England, the challenge becomes even greater. I'm just wondering how the guidance, the training of that—. Because it irks, it irritates, even though there has been significant progress.

I totally understand. Do you want to talk about some of the efforts you guys are making on—? Because it links to all this discussion, which is rich, in terms of culturally—. And also your point about the society fragmenting—it's much harder now to cover politics across the UK in terms of its complexities, fewer people are wedded to a party, so it is more complex, and we need to reflect that, and that is bringing challenges. Having said that, we are making significant efforts recognising—we're in the same place—progress, work to do. Do you want to talk about some of the efforts you've been doing? It would be really helpful.

I think, in terms of Wales, it's even harder for us, right, because we haven't got that critical mass of journalists from all organisations based here, supporting that storytelling, showing there's divergence of policy and a different narrative. But, to take the example you mentioned there on free school meals, I remember picking up on that story that morning and we were on the phone, sending e-mails straight away; it was corrected. But we do have to work hard to educate all our teams about that divergence of policy. But what we are trying to do is to build in now regular training on policy issues—ahead of the election we're doing it, but throughout the year and beyond election time, we're doing it—and having regular discussions so that we can reflect a broader perspective.

Yes, and I think, to your question about guidance, it is clear that we should properly, proportionally, label content that's got limited applicability across the UK, but the same guidance does also encourage us to compare and contrast, and I do accept that we need to do more of that. I think, in terms of enabling that, there are clear structures in place. There are daily editorial calls including representatives from right across the UK; we're involved in the planning and commissioning of upcoming stories. So, it is a live conversation. But, as Rhuanedd said, we do engage with our colleagues on this issue, and I accept that—

It's about signposting, isn't it?

It's about signposting, yes.

Back to the question of network activity, and recognising the progress you have made, I was reflecting last night on my first experience on this committee 10 years ago with Tony Hall, when we gave him a very hard time on the level of network spend in Wales, and there has been huge progress since then. So, I think it's right that we recognise that.

The BBC is not the only public service broadcaster, so I just wanted a reflection, really, from you on the journey that you've been on and the lessons others can draw from it. Because I was struck by the evidence session we had last week with ITV, when they were defending their very poor spend outside of London on network drama, and the arguments they were making reminded me of the arguments that former BBC heads of drama made in the pre-Tony Hall era, which were very similar, which is, 'We are location agnostic. We will fund the best ideas. It's about telling the best stories, we don't care where it comes from.' Now, the BBC no longer takes that view and you're now proactively cultivating and nurturing different stories in different parts of the UK. That's not where you were 10 years ago, but it's where ITV and others are now, and Channel 4 is now. So, what are the transferable lessons that other broadcasters can learn? And specifically for you, Mr Davie, from a chief executive point of view, from a London point of view, what could you say to your contemporaries in other organisations to give them some reassurance that it is possible to do it differently?

Yes. I don't know what I can offer from a London point of view; I live in Oxfordshire and I look in at London, and there you go—

You pop in the office every now and again, don't you?

Yes, I pop in the office now and again. More seriously, look, I think we've got a lot of learning around this, and I have been personally a huge champion of what I call the creative clusters and what we've seen in Cardiff, in Salford. These bring high value. This committee knows the value of these things. We could talk at length about the factors that come together to make that happen. I'm not here to speak for other broadcasters. What I would say is that I do think this communal, societal choice we've made to have the BBC intervene is slightly different to even a PSB with a different commercial model, where you have to make advertising, quarterly returns, work. I'm not going to opine too much on ITV, but you have to make your quarterly earnings work in a market that is ferociously competitive.

Sure.

We're seeing so. So, I just think the—. Well, I think some—. There may be transferable things that have worked, like ITV has been an incredible partner in terms of Salford, but there are also things that I would just point to: the unique and precious nature of an organisation—we talked earlier about public purposes, about the fact that there's a coalition of interest for the BBC with its funding model.

I understand that, and that's fair. My point is a different one; it's about the quality of storytelling.

Right. So, what I would say is that gives us enough—. What we would say is the learning is you have to make a long-term commitment to storytelling, and where you're going to get—. You have to make talent partnerships—you know, Russell T. Davies, all the—. Things come and go. But, at the end, it was a long-term play, Roath Lock, and long-term commitment. It is about long-running strands, like Casualty now. I'm very excited, by the way. I mean, the medical drama in the UK—

I'm quite excited about that with Casualty.

—will based in Wales, properly in Wales, with a Welsh cast. All I would say is: I haven't got any magic here for you; I think you have to decide that, creatively, you want to soak up the talent and the creativity across the UK, and all I would say is that is hardwired into BBC's objectives. I think it is probably harder for commercial organisations to do that, but there are some transferable learnings in terms of clusters. The great thing for us, finally, is, if we can come and be the first domino, we can get the barriers to others coming—. I think we need support and your help in saying, 'Look, the BBC have put a lot in.' I do think if you look at the PSBs together, we've come up with, actually, a very clear request and set of ambitions. Tax credits could help, yes?

Mmm-hmm.

So, let's get economic about it: what the tax position is in a country or countries, or UK, versus Hungary, versus others, is material to where people want to—. What is your proposition for talent and writers coming in? How can you incentivise their work? What's your skills strategy? And all those things would help. I think the learning is probably that you have a long-term discussion with a number of partners, bring them together and say, 'That's the vision.' Now, what we've done with that with the BBC, because of our uniqueness, our scale—and I'm very, very proud of it—I think that conversation probably could happen with a wider group of parties to say, 'Okay, what is the vision?' Well, I'd lean the other way a bit: what could we do to attract more commercial investment into Wales? How can we get—? What would be the right incentive package for Netflix and others—and ITV—to bring more broadcasting in? Sometimes I don't think we are giving enough incentives to people to come.

Forgive me, Tim, I'm going to go off script a little bit, in that there's another factor as well, I think—and that's not detracting at all from ITV's challenges commercially, the commercial organisation, but—I've got to say, I've felt backed in my role as director of BBC Wales, I've felt backed as director of nations, by having a DG, the leadership of the organisation, believing in this, believing in shifting jobs, shifting investment, out of London. And Tim has backed that vision. And obviously, we're going to have a new DG, and I'm very much hoping we'll have a similar situation there. But, as Tim says, having that leadership for a sustained period of time backing the principle has embedded it; it's baked it in now to the BBC, and I'm confident that the BBC board as well will push this as we head for the new charter. But thank you to Tim.

Thank you very much. The long-term bit is important, and this will come through the charter. If you can't get sustainable long-term funding, you ain't going to make these strategic changes, because you have to play long. Now, I think the interesting thing is, in some of the things that we've worked with ITV and the others, we've said, you know, tax credits, digital prominence—. If you have some security around what business you're building, you can invest more. And that could be a—. I'd be transactional about it: 'We've got this. Let's make it happen.'

And on that point exactly, over to Heledd.

Yes, and I think we may come to Creative Wales and your work with them afterwards.

Yes, very important as well.

But, obviously, the charter review comes at a critical point for the BBC, but also in terms of public service broadcasting. In terms of the Green Paper, I just wondered in terms of your reflections, perhaps, in terms of its importance and the opportunities for Wales within it, because it struck me that one of the things—obviously, it's a Government Green Paper that they are consulting on in terms of options—is how

'to unlock the BBC’s full potential to tell a unifying national story,'

which seems very much at odds in terms of what you've been saying in terms of allowing the diversity of the United Kingdom to be reflected in content and so on. Mick, you mentioned earlier divergence—well, obviously, there's divergence of policy, priorities and so on. So, I just wondered: where do you see the charter and Wales being taken forward, everything you've outlined? Do you see any risks in some of the options that are under consideration? And were there any discussions about having a charter with each of the nations, or that it would be really explicit about how the BBC are working in Wales, Scotland et cetera, rather than having it as the United Kingdom, given that we've talked about all those differences?

There's quite a lot there, but yes—. I'm going to hand to Rhuanedd in a second. I think this is—. Every age says their charter is the most important, but I think the internet's changed everything: the business models, how wealth is distributed, how broadcast works. In that regard, I think this is an incredibly important moment for the BBC in terms of its charter and protection of public service broadcasting, but not just defensive protection, but also growth.

I'm less troubled than you are by that line, because I think—. I've said: what are the three things the BBC can do? And I've set three roles that I think you're going to see shape a lot of our plans. I'm very focused on what the offer is to households, not the high—. And, actually, households—. Let me give you some topics: disinformation, basic education provision. That story on Radio Wales today about how parents are getting children ready to get into primary schools. I mean, honestly, we can—. CBeebies is a trusted brand. How can we use AI for good? There are all kinds of things.

So, I think we've got a few roles. There's obviously a trusted source of information with no agenda, apart from editorial guidelines; the second role, you'll be pleased to hear, is telling stories from across the UK and the nations, which is really important, because that's not—. Everything I'm listing—and it's not a criticism—is not what US multinationals do, or Chinese companies. We want to tell the story, our stories. And the last one is bringing people together. Now, I don't see that as a kind of unifying mush—l used the word earlier. I don't think that's it. I think proper political debate is unifying, yes? It may not be—. I think it was an earlier point; it may not that we're all agreeing, but it is a communal—. We may be going to sports fixtures together—we may have slightly different views of events on the field, but they are bringing people together. So, I don't see—. And I haven't read it like that, in that, when I say 'bringing people together', I don't see it as UK amalgamation. In fact, I am interested in local democracy, how that works, how we invest in that.

A final point from me, and then I'll hand to Rhuanedd for through a Welsh lens, is that the funding is a very, very serious issue. If we do not get proper, sustainable funding for the BBC for the long term—. And we want reform, because just sitting with live television and iPlayer is—. We've got to think of other ways in which we fund and nurture, alongside the other things I've talked about—prominence, tax credits, all those things. If we don't make those moves—if we just discuss them but we don't do them—it will be a recipe for the decline of public service broadcasting. So, the stakes are very high. I'm not that concerned—I don't want to be glib about it, but I'm not that concerned—about that line, because I think the very essence of what we'll be proposing is local and national identity in that.

And I think the good news here is that there's a whole chapter dedicated in that Green Paper to looking at across the UK and how we tell the stories from different parts of the UK and invest in those regional clusters. I saw the Department for Culture, Media and Sport Minister last night, and was making the point to her as well, and she acknowledged that this is a really important part of the economy. And the interventions that can be made at a UK level—there are interventions that can be made here in Wales as well to support that.

But I think, in terms of the charter, all of that applies to Wales: delivering impartial, accurate news, reflecting Wales properly in our news, tackling disinformation—all of that. Backing our storytelling, backing our producers, our sector, who are working so hard to ensure our relevance on global platforms, I think is really important, and that needs investment.

And then, of course, bringing people together in Wales and in Welsh contexts, that can mean our sporting events and having the rights to sporting events, and having the funding to be able to have those rights for sporting events. That's about bringing people together, as is covering elections as well. And then we have the added layer about the Welsh language and the importance of continuing to serve Welsh language audiences well. I think we've got a strong story to tell for the next charter period. My only hope is that people in Wales will take the opportunity to get involved, to respond to that consultation, and to outline what they want for Wales. Now is the moment.

And in terms of any consideration about a charter specific to each of the nations, is that something that's been explored, considered?

It's not something I've spent much time working through, for two reasons. One is that I think that that is a matter for Governments to work on what the structure is. If I may, I'll answer as an operating CEO. We do need to be agile, responsive. This is not about accountability. I could not be more—. We need to be fully accountable. Like all of us here, I think that the process of being properly interrogated on our plans, held accountable for our delivery is absolutely right. And I think that, in public service, we need it across the board, it's a—[Inaudible.]—subject to be ensuring delivery, and for Wales. So, don't misread my comments.

What I would say is that I think, if you're going to add any paperwork, regulation, bureaucracy, we have to be sure that it's really going to deliver versus what we could put into a core charter. That's beyond me; it's for Governments to decide how they want to structure. What I would say, from the executive, we want a clear vision of what success is and we'll deliver against it, and I think we can prove we're doing that. And I think our interests are very aligned, because at the end of the day, if you've got a universal fee, it's about every household and everyone thinking, 'The BBC are offering me great value, and unique value.'

The complex job, among other things, about running the BBC is that it's not just enough to get reach or usage, you've got to get usage against the purposes. But what I don't want as part of the charter is a vision of what I call just a market failure public service operation. This is the debate. The debate is not whether the BBC exists, the debate is what type of BBC we have. Is it a market-making BBC where we get the drama, we get everything? And some of the proposals that we've seen being floated around I don't think are about being a world-leading public service operator that grows the economy. This is incredible venture capital for the UK, if we get it right, because it's a fee that people actually think they get great value from and we can use it for the good of Wales. That is very potent. I've gone a little way from your question. I just think that that's where the energy should be. I'll let others decide what the document structure above it is. I'm not being flippant about it, it's very serious, but I would say from my point of view, I've just got to operate and get the job done, and my successor will feel the same way, I'm sure.

In terms of your comments around—. As you said, every charter's important, but at this point in time, in terms of that funding model, do you have a preferred way that you'd like to see, as the BBC, because obviously all the evidence points, where there is that investment by Government into public service broadcasting, it actually helps commercially as well for other channels, et cetera, and platforms? So, I just wondered in terms of your views, firmly in terms of that licence fee—

Well, we are in a consultation phase, so I think we need to listen and understand all of the consultation and the Green Paper, and this is a Government-led process. What I would say is that we firmly believe in universal funding. I think a lot of it is that the conversation is often—you talk about funding and then you talk about what we do as though they're unrelated. The funding drives the editorial enterprise. If you are trying to serve subscribers, you will do something different to if you've got a universal—. The joys and tortures of this job, as for many in the room, is that you are serving everyone. And that is something that we want to protect. So, we believe it should be a universal mechanism or fee. That is really important.

The second thing is that, in terms of scope, we've been very clear that we think that the World Service should be funded by Government, and that there should be clarity about that. We don't think advertising and subscription—. We have a hybrid model in the UK with UKTV and some of our archive going through that. That's fine. But I would say those people who think there's a magic solution around suddenly—. I mean, we've done a phenomenal job of growing the commercial arm to £2 billion, but if you take a reasonable margin on that, and do the maths, as they say, you're not going to do the kinds of things we've had a discussion about today through that kind of model. So, we don't like subscription for the BBC in that way. We don't like advertising, and I think that would have massive implications for not only the editorial output, but for the creative economy. So, we want a reformed fee.

Now, what I would say is that we do need reform. Just with the current description, exactly as configured today, and I think there is—. Who gets a concession? Where does it stop and start? What does it cover? Those things need to be in debate, and that's the Green Paper process. That's probably what I'd say at this point.

Just before Heledd moves on, Mick wanted to come in.

It's clear that we're at a watershed and the issue of public service broadcasting, I think, both culturally and in terms of our democracy, is one of the most important watershed challenges that we have—

Agreed.

—to basically direct the nature of our society, I think, in the coming—. So, creating a sort of twenty-first century public service broadcasting, I think, is really important.

Totally right.

Now, broadcasting devolved, there is a whole variety of differing views as to what it actually means. My concern, I think, is really what the Welsh voice is within these processes. So—perhaps more taking this a little bit to Rhuanedd, really—what is the level of engagement with Welsh Government and what do you see as being the role of Welsh Government within this particular process? How satisfied are you that we are actually punching our weight in any of this?

Well, just to say, first of all, the level of engagement since I was director of BBC Wales and now of nations—and I think Garmon would have the same experience—has been very good. I know the director general, as well, has met with the First Minister, as have I, on regular occasions to talk about the creative industries policy, as well as to raise some of the issues you've raised today about content as well. So, the level of engagement has been good.

They've been very interested in the issue of news and plurality within news, how democracy is covered and our role within that, throughout, but also in terms of our future investment and how that impacts our production sector and, of course, the Welsh economy. So, throughout, it's been good. Obviously, our main relationship has been with Creative Wales. We signed a partnership back in 2021, and that has leveraged great investments—a great level of investment—into content, supporting the sector in Wales and supporting our ambitions.

So, in terms of charter, it's a continuation of that conversation. It's about, 'So, what's the vision for the next 10 years? How can we build on this?' I don't want us to plateau at a certain level. I don't think anybody should try and limit our ambition in terms of what can be achieved in Wales with regard to the investment, but also the level of coverage and how we serve audiences in Wales. So, I'm sure the Welsh Government will respond, as they would do usually, in due course.

Can I just echo what Rhuanedd said in terms of that relationship with Creative Wales? It is a really strong and valuable partnership. In terms of content investment and reflecting on the earlier conversation about the development of the creative sector and our success in high-impact drama and comedy, they've enabled the licence fee to go further. So, when we look at projects like Mr Burton, or high-impact productions like Death Valley, which is, I think, now sold to more than 100 countries across the world, they have supported those projects directly. They also do a lot of great work around developing skills and the sustainability of the sector. So, to give one example, we've partnered with them on some of those initiatives. One example is that the BBC and Creative Wales funded the development of a major factual entertainment series, and that process is ongoing at the moment. So, we have invited production companies who are rooted in Wales to develop returnable formats. That is a specific example of us working in partnership with Creative Wales to grow and develop the sector.

If I may, to your point, I think the need for fully funded, proper coverage across countries and getting local provision, as you might call it, in England, is well recognised and the voice is strong. I think that's clear. I think people recognise that. They can see the UK changing. They can see the diversity of that.

I think, also, the recognition of what—. And Cardiff is a—. I say 'Cardiff', but Cardiff-out is a glowing example of a creative cluster. I think the earlier question was interesting in terms of just how many parties you bring alongside the BBC and, 'What's your ambition for that?' I would say Government are interested. I was in a conversation recently in another cluster, where they were just looking at, 'How many jobs could we get? What would that look like? What new—?' We've got things going on in the west midlands, in Digbeth, where we're redeveloping an area. So, that is very much, I think, at the forefront of some of the discussions and well recognised.

The final thing is I think the economic arguments—. You asked me about that, and I'm here asking for help, and I think the hard economic growth arguments about why we have the BBC, alongside what it does from a societal point of view, need to be made, because we are in an age where we're all suffering from acute budget pressures. So, at the end of the day, you can agree on principle, but we'll need funding. You asked me where we are in the game, and where the voice needs to be heard. I think proper investment leads to a return, and that return is economic as well as societal. The more you can help with that case, that, I think, is important for the BBC going into this phase.

Is there a strong enough Welsh voice at the central level in this process?

What do you mean by 'the central level'?

Well, I mean in terms of the BBC board and so on. There will be clear engagement, with, for example, Rhuanedd and so on, but the extent to which that then gets reflected.

I think the board and the nations directors, you're clearly represented. The voice of Wales is there. You've also got—. To be honest, at the senior levels of the BBC, we've got strong Welsh voices. So, I think you're well represented within the executive, certainly. We have these conversations front and centre. It's not a marginal conversation.

But, I come back to it. I think, we can worry a little bit about that, but I worry that the real issue is a cast-iron case around the investment and the need for public service broadcasting in a very—. Sorry, honestly, we could waste—. I'm going to be very provocative: you could spend a lot of time on some areas, but when this gets down to it in terms of the charter, it's going to be about what kind of investment and what levels we can get for the BBC, and the importance of that to Wales. I love the fact that this is an economic and societal case, and you put the two together, and I think we've got a very compelling case for the BBC at the moment.

Heledd.

Certainly. I don't think we'd dispute that, I think, in terms of your traineeships, where that then takes them to other broadcasters and so on.

Absolutely. Totally.

It's really important in terms of the media landscape here in Wales, and independent companies as well. It plays a vital role. And I'm not surprised to hear the First Minister having those important discussions around the creative industries, which is a huge area of potential growth for the Welsh economy.

I think Mick's point, though, is really perhaps one best placed at the UK Government and DCMS, in terms of that formal role for Wales and the Welsh Government. Because you mentioned in your response, Rhuanedd, 'I'm sure the Welsh Government will respond', and, obviously, all of us, individually, can take that opportunity. But I think it's that formal role for Welsh Government, given the importance of the BBC for so many different areas, like the Welsh economy and so on. There doesn't seem to be that mechanism in place currently. Am I right?

I think you've got the wrong—

No?

—people in the panel. [Laughter.]

No, no. In terms of that you were saying that it doesn't seem—. It's just that they can try and influence you, but the influence is perhaps—

I have no doubt, given how many references there are in the Green Paper to the devolved nations, that there will be engagement with the devolved nations. I have absolutely no doubt about that. I think you would be considered as an important voice as a committee in this process and how you respond. Welsh Government Ministers the same. I haven't got an insight into those conversations.

I think it's critical.

We will ask Government when they're here as well.

I would just say that it's critical that voices are heard. We can't answer that process; the Green Paper is out there and we're doing our business. But I think that is absolutely a very important question.

It's a good challenge for us as a committee then as well. Thank you.

Thank you. We have 15 minutes left. We'll move to Gareth.

Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning, everybody. I want to focus on sport, and particularly sport of national importance or significance. We're obviously embarking on the six nations tournament in the next couple of weeks. From a personal aspect, I'm wishing all the very best for Wales, although on current form it could be a challenging tournament. But I hope that's not the case, and I hope I'm wrong in that sense.

But in terms of greater protection to encourage their broadcast on free-to-air platforms, we heard from ITV last week that the current deal is in place until 2029, but what proactive work is being undertaken by the BBC at the moment, perhaps through discussions with the UK Government, or anyone else with influence or authority, to look at how we protect free-to-air platforms in regard to the six nations specifically?

Well, Mr Davies, it's probably no secret to this committee that I'm a big sports fan, and I think I've spotted you on the terraces watching the Wales international football team as well on occasion.

Yes, indeed.

This is really important. This is part of our story about bringing the nation together, particularly sport of national significance. I think the best protection for that free-to-air coverage of our national sports team is a decent funding settlement so that we can continue to compete for the rights. These rights are so expensive, and I think when I was in front of this committee last time I expressed my concern that that could be prohibitive for us in terms of competing.

I'm glad to say we're in a much better position today than we were when I appeared in front of this committee last. Our sports portfolio is strong; we have the rights to the men's and the women's football internationals, to the world cup qualifiers, to the six nations in our partnership with ITV, and, of course, S4C as well. We've got a very strong story to tell, and I hope our commitment to those sports is in no doubt.

I've had various conversations with Government Ministers over the years, from different parties, actually, about how we protect this. It does come back to funding—No. 1—for me. Secondly, there is the listed regime in place and we've had conversations about using that in the past around the six nations. It's a tool that's available to Ministers, but they've chosen not to pursue that tool. My interest is ensuring that these sports remain free to air by whatever means, and hopefully we'll have the sort of settlement that will allow us to stay in the game—excuse the pun—in future when it comes to this coverage.

I think that's where we are. I'm thrilled, because last time I was here we were talking about the jeopardy around the six nations, the jeopardy around various things, and actually, I think we've navigated—. We're ducking and diving in a way that's impressive. Also, to be fair, I think many of the—. I'm not talking specifically about this deal, but I think many of the sports bodies recognise the value of being free to air. And actually it's more than free to air; being on the BBC or ITV, one of the big platforms, where you really—

No adverts, for one thing.

Yes, exactly. You can watch it in all its glory. I think people value that. The truth is, on a slice of our licence fee budget, we are doing, I think, amazing work with sports bodies as well to try and preserve an incredible package of sport on a relatively—. It's a lot of money, but a relatively small amount of money versus what we're now seeing globally, which is, because sport is one of those things where if you're running a subscription video on demand business, it gets interesting, because sport, in my mind, is more predictable. You can predict how many people are going to watch a game, more than you can maybe a drama that could be more risky. So, we're seeing people piling into sport.

In that context, I don't want to get drawn into specifics on what gets listed or not. All I would say is a listed environment or a listed regime is so precious to the UK, and it relates to bringing us together. These are moments we cherish. I think that is going to be more rather than less important. We've talked in this committee about jeopardy—there's going to be more jeopardy, longer term, on this. So, I think we've done a really good job. In the medium term, we're in a really good spot, and, really, credit to the team, who have done a lovely job of not only securing the rights—

What reassurances would you potentially be looking for in the run-up to 2029, when this existing deal expires? Do you think there is potential there to have conversations with the current UK Government about how we protect those? Because, yes, technically, it's three years away, but it's not long at all, really, is it? So, is there anything that can be done within that interim period, under the existing deal, to look at how we can protect that beyond 2029? That's ultimately what I'm asking.

There may be, Mr Davies. I'm going to do a sidestep, as we're talking sport. I really think that is—. The BBC, in some ways, just has to—. I just want to say we support, overall, a listed events regime. I think it's for you and the UK Government to have discussions about what you want to do in terms of—. Because it goes beyond the BBC; it's a free-to-air discussion and a public service discussion that goes a little bit beyond the BBC. I really think that's a matter for—. What we want to do is get value rights for—. Sport works for us, sport works for everyone. Any protections we get, frankly, from Governments—appropriate protections, because you've got the market and everything—can only be a good thing for public service broadcasting. I'll leave it there.

Are there any opportunities with collaborative work in that sense, then, between the free-to-air broadcasters? Because we know, don't we—and it's widely accepted—that the six nations men's rugby championship, predominantly, carries a lot of national pride amongst the UK nations. It's the most watched rugby tournament in the world, possibly. I think it is. So, in that regard, are there any opportunities for collaborative work with ITV, and anyone else who wants to add weight to the argument?

As per the six nations, we're very much talking, appropriately, because you've got to be within competitive legal frameworks, absolutely, I should say, and we are very, very cautious on that—. But the sharing of rights and using our resources—. Because these can be eye-watering budgets, so, actually, sharing rights and all that, using innovative ways to partnership—. I can't speak for the other broadcasters at PSB level. I would guess they're probably in a similar position as I am, to the answer I just gave you, in terms of where we are in terms of sports events and protection.

But be in no doubt, we totally understand how important this is to audiences here in Wales. I've got Scotland to look after now—very excited, by the way, for qualifying for the world cup—so there's a challenge for Wales as a nation to follow them. But we totally understand the importance, and we will continue to work with others in order to progress this.

I don't think anyone—. Everyone realises how important it is. That's not the question. The question is the mechanics.

Just to touch briefly, if I've got time, on the FA Cup, because I noticed there's been a change for this season's FA Cup to what was the case previously, with a large portion of the games going over to TNT Sports. I think it was last Sunday, there were four or five, or possibly six, FA Cup games, where none of those were on free-to-air. I know the final itself is one of the crown jewels. But, in terms of the remodelling of the FA Cup in recent years, and the fact that there's no replays between the first round and, indeed, the final nowadays, that dictates fewer games, which, from a lay person's or an anecdotal point of view, should lower the price, in some regards, possibly. So, could you explain to the committee what the process was behind that, and what the BBC's future commitment to the FA Cup is? Because we talk about rugby and the six nations, but then, equally, there's a lot of affection for the FA Cup, something that the BBC has been very strongly linked with for many decades, going back as far as the 1950s and 1960s, probably. So, in that regard, could you explain to the committee what the future package may look like, or the BBC's ambitions for the FA Cup?

We're thrilled to have done a deal, bluntly, because you could see a situation where more would have gone. As a Crystal Palace fan, by the way, I should declare an interest, because the FA Cup is not that good—. There's been a moment of history and a moment of despair, but that's 58 years of supporting Crystal Palace in a sentence. I don't think you need to convince me of the magic of the FA Cup. I've also been to replays of FA Cup finals, so I've got my scars.

We're totally committed to football, but there are budgetary—. It's not complex, this. Sorry to be—. As a chief executive officer, I've got my sports budget, and only, as you say, a sliver of the FA Cup is protected. The great thing about the Football Association is I think they did recognise—and we had very good conversations with the FA—that actually taking the FA Cup fully behind the paywall would not be great for the competition, because it is so—. It is a community moment; it's an incredible thing when Macclesfield have a good game.

We're totally committed to the value of the FA Cup. I actually think the deal we did—. When you're a sports body, you're trying to—. I'm happy with the partnership we've got with the FA and with TNT to say, 'Okay, together, if you look at the amount of audience we deliver, you look at the highlights—', because remember the digital packages now come in. That has really helped in terms of balancing out how much people can get. I think we've got a great package.

I can't forecast the future, because it's a very simple thing, in which you've got—. It's all very well me saying the BBC are committed, but it could be another public service broadcaster, which could be for audiences—. You get the free-to-air competition. But I can't forecast where it would be in the next phase.

Just on the FA Cup specifically, within the context of budget constraints, we do need to be responsive, and I'm pleased to say that last Friday, when the opportunity came up to secure rights for Wrexham in the fourth round of the FA Cup, we secured those rights, and we will be showing that game live on BBC One Wales and on iPlayer.

We can do a bit of deal making to secure games of particular importance, of which Wrexham's run would definitely be making the cut, so Hollywood drama at its best in Wales. You can hear from this team and the answers that we're committed to sport. We see the value of it. But I can't give commitments. I'll be blunt, they're somewhat meaningless if I just say I'm committed, or if my successor is committed. These are sports bodies, there's a regime, and that will lead to a negotiation. It's a commercial negotiation, and you live with the result. I am very encouraged that many sports bodies, including the FA, do see the value. Because we've seen sports go wholly behind a paywall, and it's a very different situation in terms of the economics of that sport, beyond even the social benefits that we're all talking about. If you're running a sport long term, I think on the ability to be on free-to-air, we have a good case, which sits alongside pure economics.

Thank you.

Diolch, Gareth. There were some other areas, but we have run out of time, so we will write to you with those.

May I thank all of you?

This will be the last time that any of you appear before us as a committee, of course, because this Senedd will shortly be finishing, but Mr Davie, this may be the last time that you appear before a committee in the Senedd. We're not sure of the timings, of course—

I think any committee, I'm hoping, but I could be—[Laughter.] I think it's about 30 all in with different nations, but I'm hoping that an arm may come and grab me for something. So, this is a treat for me. Thank you.

In all sincerity, can I thank you for being so willing to come before us to accept challenge and for getting it? Because it shouldn't be a bar that is there, but it is. Not everyone does, and we do appreciate that. The challenge will be for your successor to have Wales as high on the agenda, and to build on what you've done. So, that challenge is very much down to them.

Thank you very much for your support.

So, thank you very much to you.

A transcript of what's been said will be sent to you to check for its accuracy. As I say, there may be a few extra things we might want to write to you about.

Thank you very much to all of you for your time this morning. Members, we'll take a short break until 11:10.

Good morning and welcome back. We're going straight to item 3. We're still looking at public service broadcasting. We have an evidence session with S4C. I'll ask our witnesses to introduce themselves for the record; I'll go to Delyth first.

Delyth Evans, chair of S4C.

And Geraint.

Geraint Evans, chief executive of S4C.

Wel, mae’n bleser gennym ni eich cael chi gyda ni y bore yma, felly diolch yn fawr iawn. Fe wnawn ni yn syth i mewn i gwestiynau, os yw hynny’n ocê. Un o’r pethau dŷn ni wedi bod yn ffocysu lot arno fel pwyllgor ydy Deddf y Cyfryngau a sut mae’n cael ei gweithredu. Pa mor effeithiol ydych chi’n meddwl yw honna o ran goblygiadau Cymru? Beth ydy’r effeithiau ar Gymru o ran—? Wel, beth bynnag rydych chi’n meddwl. Lle mae’r sialensiau, lle mae’r heriau, ond efallai cyfleoedd ar gyfer Cymru hefyd?

Perhaps Geraint will come in with the details in a moment, but, in terms of the legislation itself, I think what's important to understand is that the Media Act is hugely important for the future of S4C and the public broadcasters. I was very pleased with the content of the Act, which followed on from the very hard work done by the public service broadcasters to ensure that the legislation safeguards us for the future. We can talk more about the details, but, in terms of the principle, the principle in the Act about prominence is crucially important to us. So, I was very pleased to see that in the legislation, and it was evidence of the fact that the public broadcasters had come together to convey that message, and that worked very effectively. But Geraint will be able to talk more about the details of implementing the Act.

Thank you. Geraint.

I think the Act is crucially important, and timely, because we've moved to a world where the competition for the audience's attention has increased, obviously. So, we needed the Act. I think, in general, as Delyth mentioned, as public service broadcasters we have welcomed the Act, but—and there is a 'but'—it's all in the detail and how the Act is going to be implemented. It was passed in 2024, it's now 2026, and, in reality, it's not being implemented yet.

We welcomed the draft code published by Ofcom last week, but, again, with the draft code, there's a little bit of work to be done on the detail, and we welcome the fact that there is now a consultation period on the draft code, so that we can give our input. But what this is supposed to achieve is that we have prominence for public service broadcasters on smart tvs in particular—when people are increasingly watching through internet protocol tv and through the internet, that there is prominence there. We're moving from a world of viewing four channels—we've long since moved away from that. So, now the ability to have prominence for public service broadcasting content is crucial for us.

I don't want to talk for too long, because I'm sure there'll be questions on this, but ensuring that we in S4C are going to have prominence, that what comes as a result of the Act is, in a way, going to provide what the electronic programme guide gives us, namely that we're in the fourth position in Wales, that we're going to have something similar on smart tvs in future—. We have some concerns about that. I'm happy to go into detail on that, if the panel wants to ask questions on that.

Yes, perhaps on that point, I think Lee wants to come in.

I just don't understand how that would work. So, for example, I have a Roku set-top box, whatever it is. I don't have an aerial going to my signals, so I don't receive the EPG; I have tiles that I can subscribe to. So, under a due prominence regime, how would that work?

This is exactly what needs to be ironed out, I think, Lee, as part of this consultation. What we've already learned from it is that PSBs will occupy the first nine tiles, but that in itself doesn't give us the guarantee that S4C would be as prominent as we are now with the EPG, for example, in fourth position. So, those are the types of concerns that we're very keen to work through with Ofcom. From what we understand, there's no regionalisation that's being mandated across all tech platforms. So, that is, you could have a situation where, shall we say, Roku, to discuss your example, may decide that S4C won't get any further prominence in Wales than it gets across the whole of the UK. That would be a concern to us, because, if viewers are consuming television in this way in future, will they be getting public service content served to them in a prominent position? Because, if it isn't, they're less likely to watch it. And if you as politicians and as Members feel that public service is important, then it needs to be served up in a prominent position. I'm sure that we have your support in that.

But even where you secure a prominent slot, on No. 9, it's a significant downgrade from the EPG, isn't it? Because the EPG, you still have to scroll through, and you still may catch someone's eye and they may watch an S4C—. Presumably, under a new regime, they simply can just delete the tile, if they didn't want to see it.

Lots of these platforms will have some kind of a programme guide. So, I think there's an element of prominence that will be available to us there. But you're absolutely right. People, from what we understand, with the draft prominence code, will be able to reorder these tiles or delete the tiles. Now, that is not going to give us prominence. It may give us prominence when they purchase their television set, but they could adjust that prominence themselves and get rid of PSB content from being prominent on their screen.

Further on that as well, will it be on the homepage? There's no guarantee that the PSB rail will be on the homepage. So, you'll be seeing these big hero images, possibly, on your screen, which will be drawing your eye, catching your attention, and you're more likely, maybe, to watch that than you are to watch S4C. So, there are several concerns that we will be raising with Ofcom as part of this, because we do feel that our current prominence could be diminished unless these securities are put in place.

Okay. Diolch.

Somebody used the phrase recently, 'visibility is viability', and that's what it's about. If you're not visible, nobody's going to watch you and you're no longer viable. So, that's why it's so important.

We raised this when Ofcom came to Cardiff—I think you were there, Lee—when they sent a representative down to take part in a discussion with the PSBs in Wales. We were definitely not convinced that Ofcom would do our work for us with the tech platforms. There was a suggestion that S4C would pretty much have to fight their own corner with the tech platforms to secure prominence. And, because this is not mandatory, there's a question then, with regard to dispute resolution, as to whether Ofcom will be standing up for S4C if we're not given the appropriate prominence—in Wales, especially, but we would like a degree of prominence for PSBs, alongside others, across the UK as well, of course.

Thank you. We have recently received news about an agreement between you and the BBC about prominence on iPlayer. Could you talk us through any long-term plans that you have about the Clic streaming service and any impacts that you think might emanate as a result of this news, if you ensure that it won't reflect poorly on Clic?

I was very pleased to announce last week that we are going into a new partnership with the BBC to expand what we're able to offer on iPlayer. We know that iPlayer is a very popular viewing platform across the UK, but it's also for S4C content. The growth in digital viewing has been amazing just in the last year. If you were to go back about a year, you'd see that about 12 per cent of all S4C viewing was happening through streaming platforms such as Clic and iPlayer and YouTube. By now, it's about 30 per cent, so it's increasing quickly. People are viewing through streaming on an increasing level.

For us, what we want to ensure is to get S4C's content out there in an easy, accessible way for anybody to view. We are here so that people can enjoy Welsh language content and are attracted to view content in Welsh. In looking at our streaming viewing figures, if we break that down to what percentage of that is happening through iPlayer, through YouTube and through Clic, the majority of that is happening through iPlayer. Because it's an app that's available on every smart tv, people are familiar with using it to watch BBC content, and so then they see that the S4C channel exists there.

What is important about this new partnership is that we, as things stand currently, exist within a walled garden, as it's called. So, you have to know, really, that the S4C channel is there and know your way to get to it. Now, these walls are coming down. We're going to be on the iPlayer homepage. Prominence will be given to S4C content on that first rail, new and trending, on iPlayer, so people are going to know about and see our content there—particularly in Wales, but also, in terms of some content, across the UK. So, that's important, I think, for S4C and for the Welsh language, that our content is going to be as prominent as that.

The other element that's important, and I will answer the question in a minute—. It's important for people to understand what the partnership is and what it means for the Welsh language. If you were a parent looking for content for children on iPlayer before this partnership, it was very difficult to find it. If you use a child's login to get into iPlayer, you won't see S4C content. You have to go and look for it. Now, a three or four-year-old child isn't going to type in S4C programme titles to search for something, I'm sure.

So, what this now means is there will be prominence for the Cyw and Stwnsh brands alongside CBBC and CBeebies on the children's homepage. So, again, that's important for the Welsh language, to enable families—particularly families, perhaps, who aren't Welsh speaking but want to raise their children as Welsh speakers—to access S4C content. And then there will be more live streams. There will be Welsh subtitles on iPlayer. That's not possible, currently. So, the partnership is going to expand a lot on where we are now, and that's to be welcomed.

Thank you. Heledd wants to come in on this.

I'm very pleased about that assurance on Clic, for that exact reason. So, I think that's a very important point to emphasise, that you still need the funding to be able to invest in Clic for that prominence, because, otherwise, it'll be a BBC iPlayer tile. You'd be losing S4C from that.

Exactly. And you've made the point about the funding, and I don't want to anticipate what further questions will be on funding, but that is a valid point about funding. For us in S4C, in order to get prominence for our content and to get that content out there to people on the platforms that they use, there is a need to invest in more than one platform. So, there's a cost to that. So, when we come to discuss, I'm sure, adequate funding for S4C, well, adequate funding for what? Well, adequate funding to be able to service our audiences on Clic, iPlayer, YouTube and also on social media. I've said it before—the battle for the language isn't on television now; it's a battle on several fronts. It's a battle on all those popular platforms. And it's important that the Welsh language is there, and we need to be able to fund that.

Thank you. That's clear. We'll go back to Lee.

Just on the ongoing case for investing in Clic, it strikes me there's a parallel here with separate HD channels on S4C. It felt the need to have its own HD channel, which was a considerable cost and proved to be unsustainable and it collapsed. Is there a danger we're not learning the lessons of history, that you feel that you should have your own one for all the reasons of proprietary instinct that you have, whereas, actually, this is quite a significant opportunity cost? How much are you investing in Clic? Have you judged whether that would be investment best used to making programmes?

First of all, with regard to HD, I wouldn't say it collapsed. But I think, when our funding was cut significantly, choices had to be made. So, it did disappear for some time, but it is now back, and audiences do want to see their content in HD, especially sports content. When you're competing with other broadcasters, it's essential that we did return to broadcasting in HD. So, that did come back, and it wasn't a decision that S4C wanted to make because of any collapse; it was forced on us in many ways. But with Clic, yes, we have to fund two players currently, but whilst the Act insists that our player, the S4C player, is what will get prominence as part of this new regime, well then we have to maintain Clic. It's not really a choice that we have to invest in one or the other, we have to maintain both, which is why, then, when it comes to a case for sufficient funding, we'll be making the case to DCMS that, if we are to maintain two players, then we need the funding to be able to do so.

So, the Act specifies you have to have your own digital platform?

To get prominence, it does, yes.

Okay.

And there is a tension there, because that's—. Geraint's explained the reason why we need that in this new environment, particularly on these smart tvs, but the reality is that more and more of our viewers are going via iPlayer and YouTube, and we need to be where the viewers are. That's how we get audiences. So, it's not straightforward. We do need to maintain Clic to have that prominence on these new smart tvs, but there is a cost, and I think it's fair to say that that's the plan for the medium term. The landscape is changing incredibly quickly. So, 10 years down the line, we don't quite know what the situation will be. We just need to be very alert to viewing behaviour and follow that, really.

But if there's a literal interpretation of the Act, you could be lumbered for 10 years or more with a legacy platform that you're having to fund, to maintain, which isn't driving much viewership potentially. Are you talking to the Government about potentially revising the legislation to give you greater flexibility in how you deliver your services?

We are having conversations, but it's visibility and prominence for what. That is, for us to be prominent—and you've spoken about the tiles on your Roku tv—well, there will need to be an S4C there somehow, and the question is then what sits behind that S4C tile that you have on your tv: is that Clic, our current player, or could it be some form of iPlayer infrastructure that sits behind that? That's also a possibility, but at present, it needs to be our own player that sits behind that S4C tile, which will mean that we will need to continue to invest in Clic. And we do have an audience who are very loyal to Clic. People like the fact that we can put so much content on Clic, that it's curated to their needs and so on. So, I think that there is a loyal audience for Clic. Yes, iPlayer drives most of our streaming views, but Clic's audience still exists. And particularly when we see consumption of content on mobile devices, that far exceeds the tv, and there's a good reason for that, because Clic is not available on many smart tvs. So, we may see the viewing numbers for Clic increase significantly if it's given the prominence that you're talking about.

Currently those loyal Clic viewers are, per head, per viewer, rather expensive to serve compared to your other platforms.

Yes, but essential to serve as well, because of the current regime that we're discussing with Ofcom.

Sure. Okay.

Thank you. We'll move to Alun.

A very interesting conversation about how you're reaching viewers. I look at the viewing figures and we've seen a consistent decline over the years. What is your analysis of why that's happening?

A change in viewing patterns and the huge competition that we face from global operators. Geraint and I were at the Royal Television Society Cambridge conference, and what interested me there was that it's not just a problem for S4C, it's not just a problem for other PSBs in the United Kingdom. Commercial operators worldwide—we're all competing for the same viewers.

When S4C was established, there were four channels; now there are hundreds of channels. So, that competition means it's going to become increasingly challenging to attract viewers. Also, people are viewing in different ways, using all of these different devices. So, we're living in a broadcasting and content world that is entirely new, and we have to fight for our place.

So, you don't think there's anything associated with S4C itself in terms of this decline?

No, because the viewing figures are declining, but they're declining at the same level as other PSBs. And we're also seeing an increase in other ways of viewing. There's an increase in digital viewership and in iPlayer viewership. We're not measuring viewership by children—Barb doesn't measure that—and we know that we have very strong audiences amongst that particular audience, which is hugely important to us. So, there is a good story to tell, but the situation is challenging and we're facing up to that.

So, how does that shape your strategy for the future? I accept what you're saying, Delyth, and that is something that we've been discussing. I was at the RTS Cambridge 20 years ago and was having the same discussion, so this isn't anything new. But how is that now going to shape the way that you provide services and commission programmes and content for the future?

The strategy focuses on developing digital. Do you want to talk more about that?

Yes, certainly. The decline isn't unexpected; it's been forecast for years. If you look at viewing patterns, people such as Enders Analysis forecast the future, and that line is going to continue to go down for every broadcaster. What's good for us is that we're not declining faster than any other broadcaster, we're keeping our share of the market, so it's television viewing as a whole that's going down. How do we respond to that? Well, in September, we launched S4C's new strategy, 'More Than a TV Channel', because we need to be more than a tv channel in many ways, of course. That is, we're there to service people across all platforms beyond traditional tv, but we also contribute to economic success all over Wales. So, we're not just a channel that commissions and creates content.

As a result of that challenge, we have been moving towards commissioning and looking at digital content first. So, a digital transformation needs to happen, so that we do go to the audiences where they are. So, we have heard the BBC mention this morning about their new partnership with YouTube, for example. Well, in launching our strategy, we have gone out there and we have asked companies to bring more ideas about producing content for us for YouTube. We've been on YouTube for a few years; it's nothing new for S4C. We are aware that there is a young audience that gets its content from there, and if we don't go there—. People have asked this question to me before, 'Why are you spending S4C's content funding on YouTube content?' Well, there's a Welsh language audience there that's not going to have Welsh language content if we're not there, so we have to adapt, and we have to commission for every platform.

We see this already across every genre. We launched a digital news service during COVID because we could see that we and everybody else were getting our news through our smartphones, not at 7.30 p.m. when S4C's news programme was on the television. We see it with drama, where we've been publishing content as a box set, not by episode, week by week, which is the same as what we announced last week with our soap operas—you can watch Pobol y Cwm and Rownd a Rownd now in the morning, instead of having to wait and view them in the evening.

It's true as well for large formats such as entertainment and factual. The reason that they are digital is that if you commission ambitious and high-quality content, you're going to push streaming methods of viewing, so you're appealing to the new ways that people are viewing. The content of Hansh, of course, has existed in that digital world since the beginning. We were publishing a vertical drama on TikTok a few months ago, which is something completely new for S4C. But that content expenditure has to be spread across all these platforms, so that when we see any decline in viewership, traditional linear viewership, which is inevitable, we see the chart on the other side increasing with the digital viewership.

I'm pleased to hear that, Geraint, but there is a difference between S4C and the other channels, because when people say that they are watching fewer BBC services, they go to Netflix or whatever—they go from one English language service to another. But when people leave S4C, they're leaving the world of the Welsh language, and they're watching content in English. As the Government that we have in Wales wants to see more people using the Welsh language, we're seeing fewer opportunities to enjoy content through the medium of Welsh and to live life through the medium of Welsh. I believe that you have foreseen my question in your response to the previous question, but how do you see S4C developing from being a linear channel as it used to be in 1982, I think it was—I was at university then—to now, as a content producer for a range of different platforms? Does that make sense?

Yes, exactly. People have told me recently that there's a need to have more than one S4: 'You need to be BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, ITV, Channel 4 and everything.' But I don't think that we need another traditional linear channel. Linear viewing is declining. It's going down. So, what we need is to strengthen the S4C brand across every platform. So, wherever you are viewing content, there is Welsh language content, and it goes hand in hand with its prominence and that it's visible for you.

One of the concerns we had about developing a relationship with YouTube, because Ofcom had this report recently, 'Transmission Critical', where they talk about the decline of linear tv and the need for more digital content to grow—. They were encouraging us as PSBs to go to YouTube to develop a relationship with them, because this wasn't in the Act. The Act, in a way, has come too late already, and the Act isn't looking at the relationship we have with YouTube. So, there isn't a public service algorithm going to be there in terms of S4C content and viewing.

But the problem for us here is that we're a small channel compared with everybody else in the UK. I have been to YouTube, and I've asked the question, 'Can we create a closer relationship with you? Can you give prominence to Welsh language content?' And the answer is, 'No, you're too small.' So, when Ofcom tells ITV and BBC and us to go to YouTube to create a partnership, YouTube does that, as we heard this week, with the BBC, because they know that that will drive large numbers to view, but they're not so willing to do so with S4C. So, there are challenges associated with this.

We can spend more on digital content, and we are doing that, because we have to go to the platforms where young people particularly are viewing. But there's no assurance that they'll see that content if no prominence, on those digital platforms as well, is assured for S4C.

The point about a responsibility to the language is an important one, I think. I'm a part of the generation that was there when the channel was established, like you. So, we have a kind of loyalty to the channel. That's not the case for younger people, I don't think. My children don't feel any loyalty to any channel— not to the BBC, S4C, not to any other channel—they go to where the content is that interests them. So, the challenge for us, with that younger audience, is to develop content that is sufficiently attractive to draw them into viewing the channel, because if we can't convince those young people that the Welsh language is relevant to their lives outside of school, we've lost that battle, haven't we? So, that challenge is one that we take very seriously.

And it's already happening on a number of levels. Some of you will be aware, perhaps, that we commissioned a series called Y Llais last year, a Welsh language version of The Voice—even though it was a version in the Netherlands originally, so we haven't stolen an English version and turned it into Welsh, in case someone was thinking that. But we saw with that series that over 50 per cent of the viewers were under 45 years of age, which is amazing for tv at the moment. We created a new format ourselves—because that's part of our strategy as well to develop new formats—called Amour & Mynydd. Again, over 50 per cent of those viewers were under 45 years of age. So, there is a way of reaching young people who perhaps aren't as loyal to the Welsh language, as Delyth said, with content that appeals to them now and again. It doesn't mean that they're going to change their habits and sit and watch S4C all night; that's not going to happen anymore. But we can reach them now and again with this content, and that's where the use of social media is important, so that they're aware of that, and that that can drive them to tv series.

And another thing, if I can mention the importance of language, is the children's content for S4C, because this is the first opportunity to grab people to quality Welsh language content. And again, we have a strategy of creating original content for children, but also to buy popular formats now and again. And we've just had the rights to Bluey. It doesn't mean much to me, but for some parents, I know it's very useful to put their children in front of Blŵi on iPlayer and Click, and we've seen a number of people turning to that over Christmas.

So, the strategy in terms of attracting people to S4C because of the Welsh language is crucial, but it has to happen on a number of different levels, from the children to the content of Hansh, and to young people's content more generally on S4C's platforms.

I appreciate that. Both of you have said that there is a need for change, to some extent, when it comes to the legislative framework, and it would be good if you could write to the committee outlining exactly what kinds of changes you would like to see to the legislation from the point of view of S4C, to enable you to do what you are trying to do. Thank you.

Thank you. We will move to Mick.

Just a couple of, I think, fairly succinct questions, moving on a little bit. Obviously, we have the Senedd elections coming up. These are going to be a major political event in Wales, and maybe the most interesting ones in a while, since the commencement of devolution. Obviously, there are always challenges with regard to impartiality and the reporting. Just wondering what your plans are for the covering of those elections, what your engagement has been with Ofcom over the preparation for them, and what do you see as the challenges and risks that have come from that?

Just as a sort of general point, it's an incredibly important time for S4C in terms of representing the voices of Wales and the politics of Wales to our audience, and we're taking that very seriously, doing a lot of careful planning. So, that's a sort of general point, but Geraint can talk in more detail about specific programmes and Ofcom.

Yes, I'm a journalist. Well, I was a journalist; I was reminded of that recently. And obviously, news and current affairs is very important to S4C and to me personally. I think it's essential, as we look ahead to May, that we are really playing our part in informing people about what's changing, but also about what parties will have to offer. So, it's a critical part of our schedule for the coming months. We do have several series. You'll be aware of our Newyddion S4C coverage, which will cover things on a daily basis. We've added to that with a reporter specifically to cover content for young people on social media platforms, and that's all being done in conjunction with BBC Wales. We also have Pawb a'i Farn, which is our discussion programme. There'll be a couple of episodes of that debating the issues around the election. We've got Y Byd yn ei Le, which is currently on air, and we'll have, again, special election programming leading up to the May election. So, there's a breadth of coverage, I think, that we do have lined up. Obviously, it's going to be interesting for us, but it's also very important that we cover it impartially and with due scrutiny.

One of the challenges, of course, is always trying to keep Senedd elections focused on Wales, isn't it, within the global news image? Do you have any particular strategy as to how you intend to do that or to do the best that you can whilst maintaining that impartiality?

I think in general, people in Wales sometimes are influenced by the media they consume from across the border and from what they get from the BBC and ITV. I think there are, sometimes, challenges around that as to whether they acknowledge devolution and so on appropriately in their coverage. For us, it doesn't pose the same problem, really, because we're speaking to an audience that knows quite well about devolution. The S4C audience, I think, is very well informed about what powers have been devolved. So, I've no real concerns with regard to our coverage as to how that will land. I think that people will be well informed by S4C's coverage and there are no real concerns around that as far as I can see.

I think it's the education around the new voting system and the new constituencies—that's the more challenging thing, so that people know which constituency they're in and what their vote means and so on, because that's all new to everybody. That's something that we're planning for.

And presumably there'll be engagement as well with the Electoral Commission in terms of the mechanics of that, because, obviously, they're doing a lot of work in this area, and it is a major cultural and political challenge, isn't it?

Yes.

I could do with a quiz on what they're called.

Yes, exactly.

We'll develop an online quiz for you. [Laughter.]

You heard it here first.

Gwleidydda, one of the BBC's podcasts, asked their political correspondent to name the various constituencies, and they couldn't remember. So, if they don't know, the rest of us are struggling.

Just bearing in mind time and progress et cetera, obviously, with S4C, there's been turmoil over the not-too-distant past. You said, when you came here in May, that there's a new culture and that it's being embedded and so on. I'm just wondering how successful you think you've been in embedding that now and how you're actually monitoring and what your thoughts are now.

I've been in post for seven months. When I started at S4C, I think I was pleased to see the amount of progress that had already been made in developing the culture of the organisation, moving on from the problems that they'd had previously. A lot of really good work has gone on. One of the things that I've done since being there is have regular meetings with all of the different departmental teams, in groups of four or five sometimes, asking them directly how they feel things are going and whether they feel comfortable, and if they did have a problem with behaviour, that they would know how to deal with it and so on. I feel that that's been important. I'm very visible in the office, because, again, I think people need to see me around and about, which I do.

In terms of the way we monitor that, the board takes it very seriously. We call the pobl a diwylliant team, the people and culture team—the HR division—to come and talk to the board about the work they're doing. We had the BECTU representative in Wales—the trade union—come and speak to us at the last board meeting, to ask him what he was picking up about how things were going. That was a very positive report from BECTU, so that was very welcome. Then we have internal processes like what's called a pulse questionnaire, where staff are regularly asked about how they feel about the way things are going internally, which people take very seriously. And we have a staff forum, which is also a new thing, which enables staff to talk amongst themselves and report to Geraint directly about any issues they have.

From a chair's point of view, I feel confident that we're definitely going in the right direction and there's been a huge improvement—people tell me that and that they feel that it's a different organisation now, and it's a place where people feel happy and proud to work. But as a board, we're very alert to the need to be on top of that all the time: it's not something that's happened and we can just say that it's been sorted—it's an ongoing thing that we have to keep our eye on.

Just to add from me, we've taken a real deep-dive into our culture after the events of a few years ago. We have embedded a new culture code. We do have new values. This has been rolled out with all staff participating in the forming of those values. Also, it's not a one-off event. You can't just look at a culture once and say, 'There we are, we've done that', it's ongoing. We do have an external consultant coming in to train all staff and to embed the new culture across the organisation, which means that you can be at your best—you can be challenged as well, but respectfully, and that you do push yourself, because we want people to remain ambitious for S4C. It doesn't mean that we're sitting there quietly, all behaving well, with no ambition. You have to drive, as an organisation, to be able to face some of the challenges that we've noted. But it's not a one-off event; looking at our culture is something that's part of the way that we work at S4C now.

Can I just ask about the concept of challenge and respect? There's a real danger that that becomes self-censorship, isn't there? People whose performance is not where it should be can easily seize on this new culture code to say, 'I don't like the way I'm being challenged' as a way of masking their mediocre performance, potentially. How do you guard that it doesn't go too far the other way?

There's always that risk, but I think that the team that we have, in terms of the new senior leadership team, the new director of people and culture now, will be speaking to staff on a fairly regular basis and ready to respond when there are challenges coming our way. There have been instances over the past year where people have been prepared to come forward to complain about something. I think that that's a good thing, it shows that they feel that they can and will be listened to. But then you have to make a judgment, if someone is excusing poor performance and saying that any challenge to that is disrespectful. I think that we all have to be quite professional in the way that we approach that, as you would in any organisation. I don't think we should fear what's happened in the past, we should look at that as something that did happen, draw a line underneath it and embed the new values that we have now, going forward, and act on those.

Thank you. Just before we turn to Heledd on this, I take it that the results of the pulse surveys are something that the board is looking at. Are you happy with the way that the results are looking?

Yes, we are. The staff are asked all sorts of questions about how they get along with their fellow staff, how their contributions are appreciated, and so on. Are they quarterly? I think that they are—

Twice a year.

Twice a year. So, we can compare one survey with the previous one, and the results are very positive. But it's a good way of gauging the temperature internally on paper. We're very content with those at the moment.

Thank you for that. We'll turn to Heledd.

Thank you very much. You've mentioned how you're monitoring the internal culture, but what about externally? Because clearly, the relationship that you have with the independent sector, for example, is key in terms of dignity and respect and that sort of relationship. So, how do you monitor that so that the culture doesn't just look internally, regarding how people are as line managers, but also that that's something that's external and visible in terms of the necessary change that was required?

As a broadcaster in Wales and through the medium of Welsh, we have a close relationship with Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru, the body representing the independent producers, and we speak to them regularly. We encourage them to raise any concerns that they have that come to their attention as the body that represents the sector, or perhaps they hear about S4C. We want that conversation to be open. We want people to be able to raise complaints with us. That's part of our culture now, that we're ready to speak openly as soon as possible.

We also arranged a conference for the first time this year, jointly between S4C and TAC, where we, yes, discussed the challenges that face us in terms of broadcasting, but also our director of people and culture spoke to TAC discussing the ways in which they have the ability to speak to S4C about concerns that arise in the workplace. And things have come to our attention as a result of that as well. There's also a body called the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority, CIISA, which has been established by the UK Government, and we as PSBs are very supportive of that body, because it will mean that there are standards in place across the world of broadcasting across the UK.

Thank you for that. Clearly, as a board, that's something that you're monitoring as well.

Yes, and it is a cause of concern in the sense that—. Carwyn Donovan from BECTU mentioned to us, when he came to the board, that mental health is a problem in the sector and that bullying is more visible in the sector than in other sectors. It's something to do with uncertainty, which is part of the world that we're working in—work pressures on people, the pressure to deliver things on time. So, the atmosphere in these companies can be challenging, and I think, as a board, what we're trying to do is to strengthen our relationship with the production companies so that we're more transparent in terms of the decisions that are being made and the commissioning processes. We've been keeping a careful eye on those, in order to strengthen the relationship, but also to make things easier for the sector as far as we can. But it is an area where there's a lot of uncertainty, and we have to look after that more general culture, I think, because of that.

Thank you for that. I now want to turn to the BBC charter. There is a prominent role in the Green Paper in terms of the Welsh language and so on, but it would be good to have your views in terms of the licence fee and so on and the role, perhaps, that you're playing within this process at the moment, or the role that you would like to see this committee playing. We accepted the challenge earlier in terms of responding to the Green Paper, so this is an opportunity for you to emphasise any points.

The first thing to say is that we've welcomed the Green Paper. We were pleased to see that there was recognition of S4C through the Green Paper. It wasn't just one reference in one sentence. We felt that the Green Paper recognised and appreciated the importance of S4C as a public service broadcaster and the contribution we make to the Welsh language and Welsh culture. That was very important for us, and it followed on from very hard work that had been done by S4C with the Government in London and officials in the culture department to explain what we're doing, and they do appreciate the work that we're doing, so it was great to see that on paper. What's important for us now is that that follows through into the White Paper and into the new charter. So, there's work to be done there, but in general we were very positive about that first step.

I think what we welcomed specifically was that it was noted that there is a commitment there for adequate funding for S4C, as is in the Communications Act 2003, that the Secretary of State now says 'Yes, we do feel that we need to provide sufficient funding for S4C.' For us, that's the big thing that's part of this process—that we can ensure that the funding is adequate, that it's sustainable, and I think that's a challenge, of course. That's the challenge that is being faced in this process of charter review, namely how sustainable that licence fee is, and that it's predictable as well, namely that we know what our funding is going to be, not just for a year but for a period of, say, four or five years, and then we can plan effectively to use that funding effectively. When you do things such as buying sporting rights or producing and commissioning dramas, you need that long-term funding certainty to be able to do that. So that's what's key to us.

Euryn Ogwen Williams, in drawing up a report on the future of S4C a few years ago, mentioned that the funding for S4C should come from the licence fee to provide this assurance, because we were in a period at that time where funding was coming through the licence fee but also through DCMS. What S4C faced at the time was annual uncertainty about what the top-up would be from the DCMS. That doesn't help us to plan effectively. That's what the recommendation was at the time: that S4C would be funded entirely through the licence fee. There's a question about the future of the licence fee, but what we see in the Green Paper is that there's no other option, really, on the table. There are questions about taxation or a tax on homes and so on—that's not under consideration at the moment.

So, what I would emphasise as part of the process, and we'd be calling for your support again, is to ensure that adequate funding for S4C, because that's the conclusion and that's what we want to see proceeding into the White Paper and becoming law.

What is adequate funding?

I was expecting that question from Alun. It is an extremely important question, and this is what we'll be working on. There are two steps to the process, I would say, now. There are the responses to the Green Paper in terms of the model of funding, and then the next step for us in S4C will be to prepare a funding request to the DCMS regarding what is adequate funding.

To go back to what I was talking about at the beginning of the discussion, adequate funding now means not only ensuring that we have funding to be able to commission a timetable of linear content; it’s more than that. It does mean serving audiences across platforms. There are costs associated with ensuring prominence on new tech platforms, which means that you need an additional team to feed metadata into systems like that, which is going to mean that your content can be found.

So, there are great costs. So, there’s a lot of work for us to do, I think, at the moment, to air, 'Right, what do we need?' Yes, sometimes we have to spend on less content, but content that’s of a high standard, that cuts through. All of this will be assessed by us as we go forward to prepare funding bids to DCMS on behalf of S4C. But we would really call for your support on this, because I think that this principle of adequate funding is an important one.

I think, in terms of your next question, Alun, 'adequate' is going to mean more, if you're coming back to ask, 'How much?' That is, if we’re talking about adequate funding, we’re not likely to ask to remain as we are, because of the additional requirements that we feel are being placed on us as a channel, not to exist, but so that we achieve our purpose to undertake our work on behalf of the Welsh language.

Yes.

In that regard, clearly, as part of the current agreement, your funding has been increasing in line with inflation on the consumer price index. How important has that been for S4C, and what is your call, therefore? Is it the same level of assurance? Because, in real terms, clearly you have faced a significant cut as compared to where you should have been, in looking at the funding that you were receiving in 2010, even.

So, I think we’re trying to understand how much of an increase you need. Perhaps you can’t give us an exact figure, but I take it that it should not just be in accordance with inflation, and that you need additional investment on top of that.

If we look back at that period of 2010, S4C’s budget at the time was about £100 million. It’s taken 15 years for us to come back to the same level following that cut. So, the CPI increase that has been given to us hasn’t got us back to that level until now.

And, as part of the current settlement, the first two years were flat. So, not having an increase for two years, when inflation costs were very high, has also been damaging. We welcome the fact that CPI has been added to our budget in recent years. Certainly, we’d want that to be in place. But when I talk about those additional demands on S4C, I think we're talking about more than CPI here, if truth be told, if we’re to be that multi-platform broadcaster that can appeal with content of a high standard, across platforms, to audiences of all ages. I think we’re talking about more. And I think that we're talking about more, not in order to give more money to be the S4C as we are now, and to be safe. There are people who probably think that S4C funding is a burden, but the truth is that S4C funding is an economic catalyst for Wales.

We commissioned a report last year from a company called Wavehill, that looked at the economic and social impact of S4C on this nation, and it showed that we produce £150 million-worth from what we’re getting from the licence fee across Wales, and that we support 2,500 jobs, and that 57 per cent of our expenditure—and this is also important—is outside of Cardiff, so that there is financial growth spread across Wales, not just in the south-east. So, yes, we are talking about more money, but one shouldn’t think of it as a cost only. It brings added value on every level, economically, and for the Welsh language.

And may I ask how much of a challenge it is to invest in these platforms? Because, often, I think that the content on Instagram has been excellent, and, often, it's seeing something on Instagram that will draw me in to watch a programme on S4C nowadays. But, obviously, that's—. I follow the content, and so on. And getting people to follow the content initially is a challenge, isn't it? So, how difficult is it to find those resources within the funding that you currently have? And, as a board, how do you ensure, in terms of workforce development, and Welsh-medium in particular, that you have the resources to ensure that you can—? It’s not just a matter of funding, is it; it’s about people as well, with relevant skills.

Difficult decisions have been made, where we have invested more in our services, in our social media. We’ve invested in that team, and we’ve added to the team. So, there are young people coming into S4C now to be on social media all day, which sounds an odd thing, but truly they are making a great contribution in attracting people like you to Welsh language content. So, a decision has been made there intentionally to invest in new members of that team. That money has to come from somewhere. And those are the expenditure priorities we always have to tackle. And that’s why, sometimes, we’re talking about, perhaps, less content, in terms of the amount of content, but content of a high standard, and deciding where we spend that money, and that we're seen to be spending it wisely. Not expecting the same in order to stay in the same place, but expecting more so that we can do more, particularly on the new platforms. Those are the difficult decisions that we're having to make at the moment, but they are decisions that we would welcome making because they make a difference.

Okay. Alun.

Can I just come in to follow on from that line of questioning on the budget? You have agreements and a good relationship with the BBC at the moment, and that includes collaborating on content creation and other aspects, but also sharing resources and sharing technical resources in particular. Now, I take it that that saves a great deal of resources for S4C. Is that the case?

Yes. Co-locating with the BBC, as we have done, at Central Square, the aim of that was that there wouldn't be two buildings in Cardiff being maintained for two broadcasters—that we came under the same roof, and that broadcasting came under the same roof. So, the aim of that was to be more cost-effective. Also, in terms of our partnership with the BBC in terms of the content they produce for S4C under the programme plan we have, about £20 million-worth a year of content comes through partnership with the BBC as well as those things such as the iPlayer. So, it's a good relationship, and I think it shows that every £1 of the licence fee in Wales is being spent cost-effectively.

I understand that. So, you have not just the budget—the cash—that comes from the licence fee, but you also have a great many resources that come through the BBC as well, so there are two elements, if you will, of support for S4C from taxpayers.

S4C's budget goes to contribute towards the services that we receive from the BBC, of course. So, that's not all given. There is a price to pay for space in the building, for broadcasting services and so on, just like everyone else.

So, you pay the BBC.

We do.

It would be interesting for the committee, I think, to understand that in terms of where and how much of the budget goes between both broadcasters. Because, to me, it seems—as somebody from the outside, clearly—that we are in a world where there are fewer public resources available and a greater need for resources. So, to me, it seems increasingly clear that you will have to work even more closely with the BBC in the future than perhaps you have done historically.

What's important to us, I think, and I think it's important to people in Wales as well, is that S4C continues to exist as an independent broadcaster.

Why is that important?

I think it's important that there are editorial decisions made by an independent broadcaster. I think there is some suspicion about the BBC in some places. Well, it's not salutary for there to be just one broadcaster in Wales, therefore, making decisions about content through the mediums of both Welsh and English. So, I think there is overall support for the editorial independence of S4C and its organisational independence, but that, of course, we use—

Do both things go hand in hand?

I think we'll have to move on in a minute, I'm sorry, because we're so short of time. Sorry.

Sorry.

But we would feel that it's important that that continues whilst working in close partnership with the BBC to be cost-effective.

There's a brief question—

I know time is beating us. One thing I was interested in was the relationship with Creative Wales and the potential there in terms of developing content. Perhaps we haven't got time to go into that, but I wonder, if you had a view, whether you could perhaps provide us with some written information.

In writing, if you could.

We're very willing to provide that. And it's important to note that our partnership with Creative Wales has been very beneficial to S4C. The UK Government had a content fund—the young audience content fund—that disappeared, and Creative Wales stepped into the breach and has funded a number of productions that we wouldn't have been able to commission were it not for that funding that came through Creative Wales. So, the partnership with officials and with the Minister has been hugely beneficial over the last year or two.

If you could write to us about that—

Of course.

That would be excellent. Thank you very much. Right. We've only got five minutes left, I'm sorry. But, Gareth, I'm very keen to ensure that you can ask a question as well. So, over to Gareth for the final question.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everybody.

I want to cover nations' broadcasting rights briefly, if I may, because I know we're short of time, as the Chair has alluded to, just to explore whether sports of national importance, such as the six nations, which we're going to be embarking on in the next couple of weeks, require greater protection to encourage their broadcast on free-to-air platforms. Have you had any conversations with the UK Government at all on this? Because I'm aware that the current deal in place is effective until 2029, but I'm keen to explore whether there's any work or discussions going on at the moment, ahead of 2029, to ensure the protection of elite-level rugby on free-to-air platforms, particularly in regard to the Welsh language as well.

We've had no direct discussions with the UK Government about the listed events regime, but we're clearly keen that we secure rights to national sporting events for our audiences. Sport is vitally important for S4C. It enables us to reach audiences who maybe wouldn't come to us specifically for Welsh language content, but it draws them in to the channel, and we hope that they stay with us.

So, we do have the rights in place for the men's six nations alongside ITV and BBC up until 2029. We're also about to announce—but I've kind of announced it in a few places already—that we'll have the rights to the nations championship until 2029 as well, alongside ITV, which is also important. S4C will be the only place where you'll be able to see all of the Wales men's international rugby games for the next three years.

Men's football internationals as well, there was a period when they were to disappear behind a paywall, when they went to Viaplay, but we were able to go in there and secure Welsh language rights for those. So, that's the kind of way we operate, with fleet of foot, going in to negotiate, if things are snapped up by some of the streamers, that we're able to go in there to try and secure Welsh language rights, which means that audiences in Wales, then, will be able to consume that content on free-to-air television. What we get as well is a great response, be they Welsh-speaking fans or not, to the passion and the understanding, I think, that our commentary teams have for Wales sport at a national level.

Diolch.

Thank you very much. Well, as I said, time has beaten us and we're into the afternoon now, but may I thank you very much for the time that you've given to us this morning? As we've already said, there are some additional things, perhaps, that we will be writing to you about, and to ask questions. There'll also be a transcript of what's been said sent to you to check that it's a fair reflection of what's been said. But, on behalf of the committee, may I thank you once again for your evidence? It's been extremely useful to us. So, thank you very much for everything that you do. Members, we're moving on, but we thank our witnesses once again for their time. Thank you very much.

Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr.

Members, we move straight on to item 4, namely papers to note. There are a number of papers to note today. Are you happy for us to note these? Content? Yes.

So, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), I resolve to exclude the public from items 6 and 9 of this week's meeting. Are you content for us to do so? We'll wait to hear that we're in private session.

Good afternoon and welcome back. We're moving on to item 7, the panel on public service broadcasting and an evidence session with Ofcom. And I'll ask our witnesses to introduce themselves for the record, and I'll go to Phil first.

Good afternoon. I'm Phil Henfrey. I'm Wales director at Ofcom. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

I'll get myself back there. I joined Ofcom recently, after spending 35 years in journalism and broadcasting in Wales, the last 17 years of which were leading ITV Cymru Wales.

Thank you very much. Cristina.

I joined Ofcom two years ago, after 35 years as well in the broadcast and digital news game, most recently at Sky, but before that at Channel 5 and ITV. And I just want to say 'thank you very much' for inviting me to come along today. I've admired the building from the outside so I've got a chance to look inside today, so thank you very much for that.

Thank you so much. You're very welcome. I'm sorry that you're not seeing as much of the grander parts of the building as would be normal, because we are preparing for the new Members.

You're very welcome.

Thank you so much. We'll go straight into questions, if that's all right. Firstly, we wanted to look—. As a committee, we have been concerned over our tenure, I suppose, as a committee about the supply of media content in Wales, and we have said that it is inadequate. Is that something that you would agree with, and if it is, if I can anticipate that, what efforts are you making in order to change that, please?

I'll kick off, if that's okay. I think there have been quite a lot of changes in recent years. and we're seeing more content being created in Wales. I think that Ofcom's regulation has played a fairly positive role in making the wider public service broadcasting model that represents and is loved by people here, but also across the United Kingdom, a real global success story. It's envied the world over and is at the heart of the creative industry, which I've noticed in my career has been migrating increasingly away from being just London, and we're getting these cultural, creative hubs in different parts, and here in Cardiff is just one of them.

In Wales, of course, the success of the independent production sector is down to the skills and talent of the people here, but I do think it's been supported and encouraged by our effective and increasingly proportionate regulation. Look, there are challenges at the moment. The broadcast and creative content industry here is facing the same headwinds that people are elsewhere, and as audiences' habits change and we're getting fragmentation, it's much harder to get commissions, for example, from just one company and to do co-productions, et cetera. But I have definitely seen in the last two or three years, certainly in the time I've been at Ofcom, that there does seem to be a flourishing of particular Welsh content. I'll let Phil pick up, but I think Casualty is a real example of that.

In terms of the question of do we feel it's inadequate, I think, from my perspective, what I would say is to look through the lens of what public service media does, and that PSM then sits within a wider media environment. If you look through the lens of what PSM contributes from the UK PSBs into Wales, actually, I think there's quite a substantial story to tell there.

If you look through the lens of spend, for example, Wales accounted in 2024 for 6 per cent of network hours and 5 per cent of qualifying network spend. If you look through the lens of viewing, our audience is still feeling that PSB is relevant in a Wales context. Audiences in Wales watch more PSB content than any other nation. And if you look through the lens of news, which is a really important contributor to the PSB system, audiences in Wales, where do they turn to first to get their news about Wales? They continue to turn to the PSBs in Wales, particularly the BBC and ITV.

So, I think there's a substantial contribution, but is there room for improvement? I think there's always room for improvement, and one of the things that Ofcom does is it measures and analyses the sector, and what we see when we ask audiences, 'What do you want more of?'—we looked at about 10 or 15 attributes of what PSB means to people—the thing that comes the bottom or the lowest in those are two that stand out for me. One, they want to see more programmes about Wales, and two, they want to see more representation of people like themselves. It's hard, in a sense, to regulate for those things, but what then are the broadcasters doing about that? We're really clear at Ofcom that nations and regions content is something that we want to see PSB delivering, and I think you've seen a number of announcements over the last six, 12, 18 months that really speak to the broadcasters' commitment themselves to that. Cristina mentions Casualty. On one level, recommissioning that is really great news for the production sector in Wales—it is. But that does that of itself provide portrayal? No, it doesn't. But the BBC has taken the decision that, actually, they're going to move the storyline into Wales, which really increases portrayal.

I think there are a number of other aspects that you can look at and say, 'Over the last five years, have we seen the broadcasters in Wales looking to do more for audiences in Wales?' I think the answer to that is 'yes', and I could list some of those if you'd like me to, but I think the characterisation that PSM of itself is inadequate, I think there is something to distinguish it from the wider media sector. Of course, if you then look through the lens of non-PSM, if I could put it that way—your streamers and your London-based media—perhaps there is very little content for and about Wales, but I don't think that of itself leads to a conclusion to say that PSM is of itself inadequate. I think we're seeing a direction of travel where the broadcasters within the system are looking to maximise and do as much as they can within the constraints within which they sit for audiences in Wales.

Thank you. Alun is keen to come in.

I think that's a very courageous start this afternoon. I have to say I'm not convinced, Cristina, that BBC decisions over Casualty have anything to do with Ofcom at all—nothing at all. If I think about the time that I and Phil have faced each other across these tables, it's largely been Ofcom telling us what little they can do to regulate the market, and ITV telling us how little they are able to deliver because of different marketing conditions. As far as I can see, what Ofcom has done has been to manage the decline of PSB in Wales, and not done very much at all to encourage it.

As you could expect, I might not necessarily agree with you.

I'd like to see examples that really show success.

I'll give you examples. Every year, we do an annual report on the performance of the BBC and we measure its delivery on its public purposes and values, and making sure that they are representing people from all the different nations United Kingdom is part of that. We've also highlighted in the recent past, in the time that I've been here, the challenge the BBC has with young audiences, and actually, in the most recent report, which came out in July, they have actually improved in that area. We've also made the point, and we continue to make it in the most recent report, that they need to work harder to engage people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. So, I would say that, actually, some of the decisions that they're making are perhaps—. Can I prove an absolute link to the regulation? But we hold the BBC very strongly to account on what it delivers right across the UK, but also to what it delivers here in Wales.

Well, I'm not sure you hold any of the broadcasters really strongly to account, but BBC less so, possibly, than the others. In terms of BBC decision making, I've had BBC witnesses in front of me for most of the last 20 years or so, isn't it? They've never mentioned Ofcom in terms of their decision making, and in the correspondence I've seen in more recent years there's been no reference to Ofcom at all. I can't easily identify any causal link at all between the numerous reports that Ofcom produce and decisions taken within that particular broadcaster. So, I think it's very difficult to demonstrate the accuracy of that. But in terms of where you are as a regulator, I think it's probably fair to say that, for most of the time, you've probably acted more like a cheerleader for shareholders than for citizens.

Again, if you step back from this, I would say that one of the superpowers of PSM is that it's a system, and within that system, it's a proportionate system. So, each contributor contributes something different within it, proportional to their funding, proportional to their remit, proportional to their share of viewing. And depending on which lens you look through, as I said at the beginning, if you look through the lens of spend, the spend of UK PSM in Wales is equivalent to population share. So, on that level, is it being a cornerstone, an important cornerstone of the production sector in Wales? Yes, it is.

Now, in terms of that causal link, I do think that Ofcom has a role where it sets the terms of the debate. I don't think you can see any document that we would produce around public service broadcasting that does not have the really key levels of what public service broadcasting is here to do. We set the tone for that debate. So, for example, you will see, in our public service media review, trusted news is right there on the first page, children's programming is right there on the first page, and nations and regions is right there on the first page. I do think that does translate through into action by the broadcasters, I do, because it sets the wider context. But, of course, it's only one lever that we have. When people think of regulation, they do really think of quotas, and we are seeing that, in certain areas where it's appropriate and proportional, we do look to increase that. So, if you looked at the out-of-England quota, for example, Channel 4 in 2010, it stood at 3 per cent. In 2030, it will stand at 12 per cent. And that's a direct thing that Ofcom is doing, to say, 'Actually, that broadcaster could be doing more outside of England.'

I think that there are other areas, and I'm sure we'll talk about Welsh language broadcasting, but one of the things we did right at the beginning of 2024 is that the broadcasters themselves can come to us and tell us, 'We want to do more.' And there's a case that happened in Wales, in the sense that BBC Cymru Wales came to us, as part of its operating licence, wanting to add another service, Radio Cymru 2, which we approved. We looked at the market and said, 'Actually, yes, you can see the direction of travel that's going there in the commercial sector, and that would be really good for audiences if we approve that.' We did approve that, and, actually, what that's showing as well, our audience data, is that, for young people, that is particularly attractive.

One of the other things, going back to the analysis piece, is we produce data that says, actually, how representative are your workforce and your programmes, and so on and so forth. That is something that we do for all of the PSBs, not simply the commercial PSBs, but also the BBC. Whether you can prove a direct causal link—I understand the point you're making—we've drawn attention to that. We draw attention to that in our operating report, which is one of the tools of regulation. And what are we seeing in terms of action from the PSBs? Both ITV and BBC have introduced apprenticeship schemes in Wales to draw in new talent, new pathways, which not only benefits the richness of their content creation, but will almost certainly, in my experience, lead to content that might be better suited to the new platforms and new audiences that these broadcasters have to transition to. There is no point looking through the lens of broadcasting in the traditional sense of linear TV. The challenge for these broadcasters and the challenge for regulation is that these broadcasters are having to transition from a legacy model and legacy regulation into a digital-only world. I do think that one of Ofcom's roles here is to enable them to do that. I can see how that can potentially be interpreted as, 'You might be reducing regulation here, there and everywhere', but we have to appreciate every request that we get, and we have to look at it through those lenses of, 'Is that helping the transition, or will that help audiences?'

May I just give another example of where I do think our regulation has had an effect? The BBC came here earlier on today, didn't they, and talked about the launch of their YouTube services. When I started this job, the BBC weren't interested in going on YouTube. They wanted everyone to go back to iPlayer. And we called it out publicly in the last review that we did of public service broadcasting. We said that the BBC had to put its content where audiences are. I do think that that has been a result of what was announced earlier on today.

Thank you. On some of the points that you've already been talking about, actually, in terms of prominence and in terms of the shift towards more digital platforms, looking at the implementation of the Media Act, could you please talk us through any experiences that you've had of the negotiations that broadcasters have had with platforms about how they can receive greater prominence on different platforms? It has come up various times, particularly the fact that, at present, there doesn't seem to be any regionalisation—. I don't like that word, actually, because it implies that Wales is a region. Nationalisation, then. In terms of S4C, especially, the demands or the expectations or needs of audiences in Wales might be different from those in other parts of the UK.

As you know, Ofcom's role is to enact that legislation, in terms of the Media Act. I think the piece that you're talking about is Part 2, prominence on smart tvs, which we published a consultation on last week. For the first time, the public service broadcasters, including S4C, are going to have, if our proposals are accepted, prominence on the landing page, irrespective of where you are.

Some of the tv platforms are able to do nationalisation/regionalisation, and some aren't. We needed to have a regulatory system that works and is flexible for all of the different tv makers—not only for what they do now, but also for what they might do in the future. Just because, at the moment, there's a landing page on Amazon that gives you a rail of apps, we don't know that they are going to stick to that in the future.

We've worked quite closely with S4C to make sure that they were represented in those talks. There will be a system of what we call dispute resolution if any of the PSBs, and them included, can't come to good commercial terms with the tv platforms. But we have made sure that they have had a voice at that table.

I think that, in some ways, the Media Act shows an evolving relationship with S4C. The prominence regime is specifically for connected tvs. One of the things that we've been really keen to do, as the Ofcom Wales team, is to facilitate the conversation between senior executives at S4C and the people that are designing this new system within Ofcom. I think that there has been really good engagement. I think that the Ofcom team really understand the needs of S4C, and I think that comes through in the consultation itself.

It's a really technical document. I understand that. It's a really complicated matter. I think that you can see within that—. But it is a consultation as well. Again, I think that, with the way that Ofcom works, it is an incredibly transparent organisation coming into it. We put out our ideas. It is a first step in terms of something that is brand new. It's the biggest updating of media regulation in 20 years. Now we are inviting views. But I think that it's a really important first step that we see.

Diolch. Heledd and then Lee.

I'm sure that you must have heard S4C's comments earlier in terms of this very point. I just wondered if you want to respond, because they said how inadequate the dispute resolution would be, and would like to see Ofcom take a prominent role, rather than leave it to them to negotiate with each of the individual ones. So, I wanted to provide that opportunity for you to—

I didn't actually the see the evidence. I have read it. I was in another meeting at the same time, but I have read what he said. I think that it's a bit premature to say that the dispute resolution process isn't adequate, because we haven't actually introduced it yet.

But the challenge was should it be their role or should it be Ofcom's role to do this. Is there a role for Ofcom? I wonder why you think it's up to S4C rather than Ofcom.

What we proposed in the proposal that we put out last week was a framework of deciding which bits of the real estate, if you like, on a screen should be free to PSBs—and they should have appropriate prominence there, because that's the key word in the legislation. And then there are other bits that, already, other commercial broadcasters do make money out of, or pay for. So, we don't want to get ourselves involved in every single bit of market negotiation. But where two parties are unable to reach a conclusion, the plan is for us to be involved in that case.

Lee wanted to come in.

This goes back to Alun's question about the role of Ofcom. Parliament has decided that you are a regulator. Regulators impose rules to reflect the values that Parliament has decided upon. Parliament has decided there should be prominence for public service broadcasters. What you said earlier was that the commercial market is developing in such a way you want to give them flexibility to decide how on their platforms they show public service broadcasters. The water regulator doesn't say, 'We think there should be safe water quality and it's up to you how you provide that'; they say, 'There needs to be safe water quality and you need to design your systems to provide safe water'. Why aren't you, as regulators, saying to the platforms, 'There has to be prominence for public service broadcasters', not saying, 'Well, you do this as you like, and maybe it'll be a landing page on you and not a landing page on another one'. That's not going to provide prominence.

That's not what we're proposing. First of all, the legislation says 'appropriate prominence', and so that's appropriate to the audiences. We're also proposing that, for example, when you turn on a Samsung tv or whatever tv, you'll always see the PSB apps very clearly, for free. They have to be there. It's not an option. That's what we're proposing, it has to be there. So, they will be getting that prominence.

Where does that definition of appropriateness come from?

'Appropriate prominence' was in the legislation.

You defined it as appropriate to audiences.

That's my personal understanding of it, but Ofcom's understanding I think is already in the proposal.

Okay. Is that codified somewhere?

I'm pretty certain. I'll come back to the committee with the exact wording on that.

Because that's quite important, isn't it?

Just on that point, I think there are two things here. And again, we can share the consultation document, if you've not seen it, and genuinely we would love people's views if you do have concerns. I'm no expert on this, but from my understanding, as Cristina says, we are being prescriptive, we are saying, 'You must do this', but there is also an element of the thing that you are prominent on is also an evolving thing. There has to be some room for innovation, in the sense that these are different platforms, as in some ways you can set a sort of prescription that says, 'We want to see broadcasters representing the diversity of the nations and regions', but that will be interpreted differently by the broadcasters depending on their—

Regulation also spurs innovation, doesn't it?

Indeed. So, we've got to leave room for innovation, so we are being prescriptive—

Or you catalyse innovation.

Yes, so we are—

Sorry, that's an important point.

It is, absolutely.

You've decided it's not your place to catalyse innovation; it's your place to make space for it.

No. I disagree. What we are doing is we are being really specific and proscriptive in terms of what these platforms must do in terms of prominence of apps and so on, but there are other parts of the screen where we are potentially being a little less prescriptive in order to be the catalyst for innovation and so on and so forth.

But as the chair of S4C said, visibility is viability. If, in allowing for innovation, as you say, and that flexibility, that means that the S4C tile can be deleted, can be disordered, cannot be on the main landing page—

It can't.

You've just said some platforms will have it on the landing page, others won't.

No, I didn't say that. I said where they have apps, because I think Apple doesn't have a landing page with apps. But where they have apps, the S4C one will be there.

And we are being prescriptive about that. Just to be clear again, we know that with the platforms we're talking about, some do not have a regionalised service. We are being prescriptive; we are saying, 'If you cannot give S4C prominence in Wales, you must give them prominence everywhere across the UK'. We're being prescriptive about that, to be clear. And just to come in on the point there in terms of, 'Where do you act?, we are the regulator, and as Cristina has said, we will step in. But it's at what point do you step in. Do you step in right at the beginning of the conversation, or at what point? And I think, again—

Yes, if you've got red lines.

But you have you to have the conversation to understand where it is, if you see what I'm saying. We are saying to the broadcasters, 'This is the framework', not just the broadcasters, but also the platforms, 'This is the framework in which we expect both of you to operate within'. If we find that, actually, that is not, in fact, happening, then we will step in. But it does require the two sides to come together initially to discuss all this. From our perspective, we think that's the appropriate thing to do, that the broadcasters and the platforms have that conversation, but we stand ready to step in if we feel that the platform is not going to give the prominence we are prescribing.

But also, it's a proposal at this stage, and we're really keen to get input from all sorts of stakeholders on that. It's very complex. It's a 184-page document, I'm afraid. But it's a complex, brand new piece of legislation in a world that's never been regulated before, so we're very keen to hear people's views on it.

But shared understanding is important. Reconciling your evidence with S4C's evidence, you seem to think that the platforms are clear that they have to provide due prominence for S4C on their main landing page, and then they negotiate from that point. S4C, if I've interpreted their evidence correctly, seem to think that that was a far more open proposition, and you're expecting them to have that negotiation rather than going in and setting those parameters. So, why is it that S4C is not understanding what you're saying?

I don't know.

I think there's something else I would probably put in. In the Act, the BBC is automatically a part of this regime. The other PSBs have the option about whether to join and to be a part of it, if that makes sense. So, we're not prescribing on any PSB that you have to be a part of this, because at the end of the day, a PSB can take a decision, because there are requirements on the PSBs. The PSBs, in the same way, if you think about it, if you go back to, say, a legacy world, to try and explain it, the transmitter network is the transmitter network, but how you connect to the transmitter network and what infrastructure you put in place is for you as a broadcaster to work out. And it's a similar sort of thing. In terms of the work that is going to be needed to keep these apps updated in order to be on these platforms, a broadcaster is going to have to take a view in terms of the cost-benefit analysis as to, 'If that's what the regime requires, is that something I want to do?' So, there's almost a first step before we even get here. The broadcasters themselves have got to decide whether they want to be a part of it. We can't force them to be, and we're not forcing them to be a part of it.

All right. Thank you so much. I'm afraid we're going to have to move on, because we're now almost halfway through our session and barely through the topics that we need to cover. So, forgive me, I know that this is very important and I'm sorry to—

We might reach out, Chair, to clarify with them as well.

That would be useful. Thank you ever so much.

We'll move on to Heledd.

Thank you very much. I wanted to ask about the Act and radio, because we saw some commercial radio stations in Wale, saking the decision not to continue with their content offered through the medium of Welsh. Is there anything that you're doing in this particular area? You spoke about Radio Cymru 2, but this is not the same as normalising the use of the Welsh language within commercial radio in its entirety.

I totally understand the point. I think with the Media Act, in terms of the Welsh language, in that sense, it has given some things in terms of the things we've been talking about now in terms of prominence for S4C, and in other areas, it led to deregulation. Again, we've got to step back and see why is that happening. That is happening because the sector of radio is being impacted in similar ways to video broadcasting. There's more competition in the market, and that competition is able to be much more flexible, because it is unregulated, and so on and so forth. But leaving aside the decision by the UK Parliament to deregulate, I don't think we've been standing still in this space.

There are three things that I would draw attention to. Yes, I think the new licence for BBC Radio Cymru 2 is an important part of that. What we're seeing over the last sort of 10, 15 years is a growth in community radio, and I think there are 11 community radio stations that we've licensed, and of those, eight have Welsh language content. We're also licensing a new form of reaching audiences, because what we're talking about here is FM licences very often, which started back in the 1970s. In 2020, we started to license a new form of broadcasting in local areas, small-scale digital audio broadcasting, and more of those community stations are getting together on that.

But if it is the case that Welsh language content on commercial radio is no longer commercially viable, then I think we still see ourselves as having a role as kind of a catalyst to try and understand what could fill that gap, what could give plurality in that sort of space. We've been very active in drawing together various parties—the DCMS, the Welsh Government and the radio sector themselves—to see what can be done in that space, because Welsh language content provision in all forms of media very often attracts public support. So, if this is now the new reality of this market, what then can come into this market and what role can Governments take as well as the regulator, and as well as the content providers themselves?

We see that in our public service media review. We make a number of recommendations about the future of public service media. Some of those are Ofcom's requirements, yes, but some of those too rely on the broadcasters innovating, and some of those too are going to rely on Governments themselves making decisions and deciding where to apply public intervention.

Thank you for that. If I may ask specifically about the review currently under way, the Green Paper regarding the BBC charter, I would be interested in hearing Ofcom's view on how you hope the interests of Wales will be best reflected in that charter review.

Obviously, it's early stages. They put out that Green Paper, didn't they, just before Christmas. Actually, at the end of the day, the decision, the outcome is signed off by the Government and by the BBC themselves. So, we have a role in discussions, and, as Phil and his team already have started inputting, the views of audiences in Wales are a really big part of that. The BBC has got to be relevant to everybody, wherever they are, and so I think that making sure that it reflects the interests of the Welsh audience and the important things to Welsh audiences—I'll just call them consumers, because the BBC is consumed in lots of different ways now—is a really important part of charter review. I'm sure that the Welsh Government and this committee will be inputting into that.

Yes, again, all I would add to that is I think it's a real opportunity for a national conversation in Wales. What do people want from the BBC, going forward? Yes, funding is going to be a really important outcome of that, not least for the BBC, but also for S4C, but I think it goes beyond that as well in terms of what role we want, as I say, for the BBC to be playing. Coming from the background that we both come from, the whole debate, I think, when you've got uncertainty about your funding, when you've got real concern around where your audience is going and how you follow that, that can have, potentially, a really big chilling effect on innovation and on content creation. Ultimately, I think framing the conversation that says how does the charter renewal really drive creativity and innovation in a Welsh context, that's an important aspect to it.

Coming out of this, whatever decisions are taken, it's probably reasonable to assume that the BBC is going to be one of the most significant media players in Wales at the end of charter renewal. So, I think there's something around what partnership looks like for the BBC in that context. We've got a really good example in a Welsh context between BBC and S4C. We've been talking about prominence for S4C content, and that's really important, but, actually, there was a really significant announcement by both broadcasters a few weeks ago about prominence on the iPlayer. That's an example of where the BBC in partnership can really support the wider sector.

We probably won't have room to talk about it today, but, PSM, as I've said in the past, sits within a wider ecology. What can the BBC in that sort of space—? How can it partner with the wider ecology in a meaningful way that enables that sector to give as much as it can? Without having the answers myself, I think those are some of the areas of questioning to have a conversation around.

I personally have a real passion about local news and a real concern about local news, because I think it's really important for democracy, but also it's been really, really challenged. The BBC has the local democracy service, which some newspapers can use, and I think that framing the BBC's role in making sure that people get local news—. Wales isn't alone, but I know there are large parts of Wales where local newspapers aren't there anymore, and I think it's really important that the BBC plays its part in that. That's a personal view of mine, but it's something that we'll be urging.

And that kind of sub-national conversation, when we talk about public service media in Wales, we're really talking about national organisations that take a national viewpoint on Wales, and there's clearly a really strong case for that. But, in the Wales of 2027 plus, et cetera, what should that look like, and at a sub-national level? If you look at the degree of spend at a sub-national level, it's huge. There's something like—. If you took the local authority spend, local health board spend and emergency services spend, which are all managed at a sub-national level, where is the accountability for that within Wales?

And can I ask what is Ofcom's role, then? Obviously, the upcoming Senedd election is going to be really important with the changes and so on and, but also in terms of devolution and people understanding when news is reported that, actually, that it is correct in terms of it being applicable to them. So, how are you ensuring that there is better reporting, more accurate reporting, and relevant reporting? Also, in relation to the Senedd election, are you developing guidelines to broadcasters so that they're aware?

The short answer is 'yes'.

Okay.

And the slightly longer answer is that, obviously, for me, accurate, impartial, truthful news is really, really important. I've dedicated my life to it so far. Obviously, we have the tools, if you like—we have section 6 of the broadcasting code. It gives special requirements during an election period, which will start at the end of March. Ofcom has an election committee that gets set up when there are elections going on to expedite any particular issues there are with reporting, and we hold all the broadcasters very firmly to account on that. Given the nature of this next round of elections, we are doing some Wales-specific events—in fact, we've got one next month. I think you're organising it—Phil can pick up on it—where we are bringing our 'making sense of media' team as well as our broadcast team and our online safety team to talk about best practice and how the election rules apply to you, et cetera, et cetera, because I think it is really important. I don't know if you want to pick up on that.

What I'd say in terms of the accuracy of reporting, and so on and so forth, and of devolved matters in particular devolved policy areas, I think, again, I would distinguish potentially between the newsrooms in Wales and the network correspondents for the UK PSBs in Wales. Their standards of reporting are very, very high and very, very accurate. This is possibly an election where the interest outside of Wales will be perhaps greater, so, again, internally, when we're thinking about our guidance, we'll be thinking in that wider context. As Cristina says, we've got an event at the beginning of February here in the Senedd to draw attention to what we're doing and to invite views ahead of us publishing anything, and what I would also say, from the conversations that I've been having with the broadcasters in Wales, is that their election coverage is going to be the cornerstone of their content over the next six months—it's one of the big stories that they're going to be covering—and they've got really detailed plans in place. Yes, we have a role in terms of our rules and so on and so forth, but these are tried and tested rules as well. The broadcasters themselves know what our rules are. There are no surprises in those rules, and they have got procedures and things in place to make sure that they will adhere to those rules.

As well as the regulations, of course, we have a responsibility in media literacy, which I think is really important, particularly amongst younger audiences who are now getting their news from different places. How do we make sure that they're getting accurate information when it comes to choosing who they're going to vote for? So, we are partnering—and if you'll forgive me, I can't remember the name of the organisation, so I can write to the committee—with a grass-roots organisation about getting that kind of education. In Wales, you're ahead of other nations in terms of media literacy in putting it on the curriculum, but we're working with an organisation to make sure that people know where to get their news from.

Can I just ask specifically in terms of the online world? We've heard increasingly—and Professor Cushion from Cardiff University was mentioning this in terms of his research—and perhaps in the traditional broadcast sense, there's better awareness through editorial guidelines. But, online, where people often access news, actually some of those short clips or the headlines used—. Are you looking to extend how you regulate to take into account all of that, in terms of editorial guidelines?

One of the things we're doing now—and this was a result of a midterm review of the current BBC charter—we are now bringing in an online code for the BBC. So, the BBC content, however it's delivered, will be subject to regulation. At the moment, it isn't; we only cover BBC broadcast and audio content. So, that will change. We're consulting on that, I think, in May. It won't be in time for this election, but it will certainly be in place for the general election.

I think your wider point about social media and where people are getting their news from is really important. Interestingly, all the broadcasters that we regulate, however they deliver their content, do—in all the newsrooms I've worked in—keep their content regulated to the same standard as the broadcast code. But I agree with you, there's a real challenge there in making sure that people know who is giving them trusted, impartial news, and how they can find that, which is why prominence and discoverability are really important. But I do think it's a big part of the conversation that we need to be having about what regulation in the future looks like.

Okay. Diolch. We have just under 20 minutes left. We'll try and see how many—. We'll need to write to you with some points, if that's all right, because we're fast running out of time. We'll move to Lee.

Thank you. So, on the broader point about the changing nature of the landscape—just to take a step back, because, as you said, the technology and the environment are moving rapidly—the ability of PSB to survive in this world, it seems to me, is in question, and what PSB looks like. You've already, just to give a small example, mentioned that you're going to be briefing the broadcasters about content for the Senedd elections. And yet, we know from your figures that lots of people are not getting the information from what you will regard as, or what the law regards as, the broadcasters as relevant to the regulation. So, already there's a massive gap between what's intended to cover content to Welsh audiences and what the legislation allows you to regulate. So, already that gap is growing.

And also, then, is the viability of the public service broadcasters. You mentioned YouTube earlier. We know, from the event that you held late last year, how channels are being forced, in effect, to reach agreements with YouTube, because that's where the audience has gone. But the commercial terms in which they're able to do that are not viable for them, and nor do they have access to the analytics, which allows them to plan and meet their audiences. So, it does seem to me that, already, the regulatory framework is not able to deliver the intention of public service broadcasting.

I'll answer that point. So, as you know, we put out a report in the summer called, 'Transmission Critical', and it is critical. The PSBs are facing very difficult commercial headwinds as audiences get their entertainment, content, news—whatever it is—on different platforms. And we recommended that there should be a discussion about, 'Okay, we're giving prominence on smart tvs. What's the next logical step on that?' We suggested investigating what that might look like on video sharing platforms such as YouTube. Now, much to YouTube's annoyance, we focus on YouTube intentionally because it's being used in the living room increasingly.

It's the market leader.

Yes. And we did say we'd be doing some research, which we're just starting, into what people are watching on YouTube. What kind of content are they getting, and are they being able to distribute it? And we said that, actually, there was a role to be played by Government, by YouTube, and by the companies themselves to work on this. I think there's a much closer relationship now between the broadcasters and YouTube.

In terms of the commercial deals and stuff, as you quite rightly say, we don't have any legislative powers on that at the moment. That is something, I know, that the UK Government is exploring, and what that might look like. We're inputting into that, and so it is a discussion that's continuing. As I said, we're doing research into it and we're very mindful of that, of what does that next step of regulation look like. So, we're not just leaving it to broadcasting and not moving—we are making suggestions and are in discussions.

And do you have an interim view?

An interim view? So, look, it's really hard—what does prominence look like on YouTube? When we had an EPG, it was easy, or easier. On a smart tv, which is what we're proposing now, there are all sorts of discussions about what prominence looks like. I don't have a single answer to what prominence on YouTube looks like. I'd really like people to engage with us on what it might do.

Isn't the principle of public service broadcasting unchanged, but the technology to deliver it has changed? So, the principle was, if you are broadcasting to audiences in the UK, you have to provide content that reflects the UK. So, why should that be any different just because the technology has changed?

I think the fundamental principle should remain. It's just how do you then translate that into action? And that may well require legislation, which I'm sure, if the UK Government decide to take that on, and I think that they might be minded to have discussions about it, then we would obviously input to that.

Meanwhile, you're still having to regulate the existing system and the obligations on current broadcasters for their licences. We had a discussion with ITV about their success rate at providing content relevant to Welsh audiences, specifically producing content outside of London, because their target refers only to outside of the M25, it doesn't stipulate where, and their content production in Wales has been very flat. They told us that it's gone up in this last year, but, even by their standards, it's still only I think 1.3 per cent; they've been under 1 per cent for the last decade. The BBC has clearly shown that there is a way of doing that differently, and they have steadily increased their content. What do you think your role is as regulators to act as a spur to try to get ITV to think about how it increases its share of production in Wales?

I think, again, the principle is the important one, that PSB content needs to reach audiences wherever they are. In terms of the specifics, the BBC and ITV are very different. The BBC has got guaranteed public income, ITV doesn't. But, in terms of what ITV is doing in terms of its spend in Wales, you're probably more of an expert on that than me—well, not 'probably', you are.

Well, look, I think what we can do—. We re-licensed ITV, I think from the beginning of 2025, and we can write to the committee about the process that follows, but actually that process steps back a number of years, it does involve Government, and, in terms of what that licence looked like, the process, as I say, we can write to the committee. It's quite complicated, but if—

Do you have any powers to get them to produce more in Wales?

Yes, well, I think that there are two ways of looking at it. There's the quota power, but in some ways the fact that we're having this conversation at all is a result of our information-gathering powers, which says, if you've got an out-of-London quota, what in Wales—

Your data shows there's a problem—what can you do about it?

Well, again, it comes back to that point we were talking about before, about, if we set out the intent, we would like to see more representation of the nations and regions of the UK on our UK PSBs. Does the quota achieve that, enable us to give us any more? No, it doesn't. But, in setting out that intent, are we seeing from ITV a sense of, ‘Yes, we do want to do something about that’? Are they looking to do something about that? I looked at their evidence last week, and there is an intent there. That becomes a question of: is it far enough, fast enough and enough? Yes, I understand that. But I think there is, because of the attention that has been drawn to this, largely because of our own information-gathering powers, I think that helps, but have we got specific tools—

Look, I intend to lose weight, and my weighing scale gives me data that I need to lose weight—that's not going to make me lose weight. Again, my question is not a trick one, it's a straightforward one: what powers do you have as regulators to get them to increase their production in Wales?

I don't believe we do have that specific power.

I don't think we have a specific power for ITV in Wales, no.

Okay.

But, again, it's about making sure that they are—. We have a responsibility to assess what they're delivering to audiences everywhere and, for ITV, they need to make commercial decisions, and we know that ITV is consumed quite highly in Wales, therefore it's in their best interests to make more Welsh—

It's not made quite highly in Wales.

Pardon?

But not made quite highly in Wales.

Well, their news obviously is, and that's one of the biggest parts of the PSB requirements, but obviously not enough for what you'd like to see.

Well, I hope that it's what you'd like to see too.

Well, yes, I want to see them reflecting the audiences and audiences' lives, in a way that also is sustainable.

But you're not going to do anything about it.

It's not in my power. It's not up to Ofcom to write the rules—to write the laws, rather.

You have soft power, though, don't you?

We do have soft power, and we use that all the time. We speak to all of the broadcasters about making sure, as I said, that they are reflecting everyone's lives.

Okay. I'm afraid we've only got 10 minutes left, so I'm going—

Can I, just very briefly, just to finish that point—

Very briefly.

So, what specifically are you doing to get them to increase their level of production in Wales?

Well, I think you ask—. Again, stepping back from this, the public service media system requires different things of different broadcasters. If you look through the lens of spend, which you are currently doing, there is a significant differential, as you say, between the publicly funded BBC and ITV. If you look through the lens—

Sorry, but, with respect, you're not answering my question and we need to move on. It's a very simple question. What specifically are you going to do, using your soft power, to get them to increase their production? Could you reflect on it and maybe come back to us?

Yes.

Thank you.

All right. Okay, thank you very much. I think that probably our last section will be Alun's, because I'm afraid we've nearly run out of time.

Over to you, Alun, for the final questions.

One of the issues I think we have is the lethargy of Ofcom as a regulator. You do have powers over channel 3 licences—you know you have. Denying that those powers exist is a ludicrous proposition, trying to come here and argue—. You do have powers over the licence. You know you do have. The problem we have is that you don't seem to want to use those powers, and you don't seem to understand, and you've failed to convince me this afternoon that you have a vision for public service broadcasting in Wales. You've talked about writing reports, and I think, if marks were given for writing reports, Ofcom would be top of the division. There's no doubt about that. You write a lot of reports. But my issue is that you don't seem to understand what you're publishing, and you don't seem to understand or be able to articulate a vision for the consequences of those numbers and that analysis. So, we end up with Ofcom managing decline and then trying to claim some sort of success every time somebody else does something, and it feels a very, very unsatisfactory situation for us to be in in Wales.

I'm sorry you think that way. I don't think I've ever been described as 'lethargic' by anybody.

I described the regulator, rather than individuals.

As I said, I think we need to make sure that our regulation is able to—. We have a vision specific to all of the different nations, but it is common in that people want—. You refer to our reports, which we're 'great at writing'—thank you for that—but it's the information—[Interruption.] It's the information in those reports—the research that we do, media nations, the audience consumptions—that tells us that audiences love to see great content made in all sorts of different places, but people do want to see quite a lot of—. They don't want to see only their own lives reflected, but they do want to see some of that. Equally, we don't want to have a regulatory system that's so prescriptive that it stops companies making stuff that's for everybody.

I'm not asking you to be prescriptive.

So, for example, industry—. What we're really into is making sure that there's a flourishing production centre here in Wales that brings Welsh jobs and Welsh skills and money into Wales. So, the best way of regulating is to make sure that we have a balance between being prescriptive about things like quotas on Channel 4, which we have been successful in, as well as giving companies the freedom to make the content that they can make and that gives them the commercial return and also brings money to this nation. I think that's a really—. It's a tricky balance, but I think it's a really important one.

But you set the programming obligations.

Pardon?

You've set the programming obligations for channel 3 licences.

Yes, we have. They were set two or three years ago, before I joined.

So, to argue that you don't have any power over those licences to me just sounds very, very curious.

Once they've been set, no, we can't wade in. But, equally, there's no power to make them hold to them. Now, ITV, as you know, are in discussions with Sky at the moment about trying to see if Sky and ITV might merge. There is nothing to stop ITV turning around to Ofcom and saying, 'You know that licence we've signed up to for 10 years? Here, have it back.'

[Inaudible.]—come here and say that quite regularly.

But I think it's a risk, and so we need to make sure that we're not making regulation too rigid so that these companies can't survive.

The problem is that you're not making regulation at all, and that's my real issue.

Well, I'd dispute that—obviously I would.

Yes, clearly you would, but the people I represent don't feel that Ofcom is particularly on their side. And you know, I've heard representatives of channel 3 licence holders, in the wider sense, come here and say, every time an obligation is required of them, 'We'll hand the licence back.' They cry wolf on every occasion, and the problem I have is that Ofcom gives in on every occasion, and Ofcom doesn't hold any feet to the fire. As a consequence, we've seen a decline in the quantity and the range of PSB requirements on channel 3—but we could be talking about others—in Wales over the years, and Ofcom has managed that decline.

That obviously is your point of view, as I say. We don't—

Well, tell me I'm wrong. You know I'm not wrong.

We don't wade through everything. We quite often have—. We don't just give in. I wouldn't agree with that.

Well, my experience is that you do.

Well, we've—. There have been quite a few occasions where some of the PSBs have come to us and wanted to do something and we said 'no'. We've done that fairly recently.

Look, I do think it's important to—. There's a risk here that, by overly focusing on one statistic of one public sector broadcaster, that we do fail to see the bigger contributions we've made. So, yes, and you've made your views very clear about what you feel ITV should be doing in terms of network production spend, but let's not lose sight of the contribution that ITV does make through its news and through its current affairs. That provides the—

So, do you think 0.7 is adequate?

That provides—. What I'm saying to you is that, if you look through the lens—. We know, in Wales, that the wider news market is an indigenous news market—

That's a condition of its licence; it's not an act of kindness.

No, but that's the whole point. What is Ofcom doing? Ofcom is setting 'This is what you must produce', and as a result of them producing that—

The news, yes.

—that provides an alternative to the BBC, and that provides competition and choice. And there's also an element of a sort of multiplier effect here as well. So, that regulatory requirement that we set, that has not been reduced, I don't think, since 2009, which, when you think in the changes in the sector, that's a great period of stability in that regard. But, by setting that licence requirement on them, they have to—. It's up to them to decide how they deliver on that requirement—

Okay. We're running out of time.

Okay. We are—

Let me just finish that point.

Okay, yes.

They have to put journalistic resources and production resources into Wales. And, as a result of that, they are then able to compete for, and have secured, contracts in the Welsh language for current affairs, for S4C, providing plurality in current affairs. So, yes, it's not as a result of our regulation directly, but our regulation leads to that scale, which then leads to that opportunity in Wales, which contributes to Welsh audiences.

Okay. The question was: is 0.7 adequate and sufficient?

But my answer to that is: if you focus on the contribution solely through that statistic, you are missing the wider contribution that—

I understand the context. I understand that. 'Yes' or 'no'?

Sorry?

Is it adequate? 'Yes' or 'no'.

Well, it's within the rules that we settled.

Okay. Thank you ever so much. I'm afraid we are almost completely out of time, so I wonder if you could write to us with the information I was going to ask about, which is what percentage of Ofcom's UK staff are based in Wales, please, and how senior those roles are, so that we can get more of a sense of how the median pay of those roles compares with the UK Ofcom median pay. That would be very useful.

And I know there were a number of other areas we wanted to cover with you. We will write to you—

Do write to us, yes.

—if that's all right. We do appreciate you coming before us. A transcript of what's been said will be sent to you for you to check it's accurate. And, as I say, we will be writing to you with those extra questions.

But we're really grateful.

We're very grateful that you've come in. Thank you very much for your time this afternoon. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch—I tried not to mangle it. Thank you very much.

Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Ac, Aelodau, dŷn ni yn torri am bum munud. Byddwn ni'n dechrau eto mewn pum munud—chwe munud.

Good afternoon, and welcome back. We're moving on now to item 8. We're again looking at public service broadcasting. We have an evidence session now with Channel 4. We're very grateful to our witnesses for joining us. I'll ask them to introduce themselves for the record. I'll go to Kevin first of all.

Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Blacoe. I'm head of partnerships and skills at Channel 4.

Thank you so much. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Pete.

My name is Pete Andrews. I'm head of sport for Channel 4.

Lovely. You're very welcome. And Jo.

I'm Jo Street. I'm director of commissioning for nations and regions and head of lifestyle at Channel 4.

As I said, you're very welcome to this session. We'll go straight to questions, if that's okay.

One of the issues that has interested us most, and has been most timely for us and topical as a committee, is the implementation of the Media Act and the effects that it has in terms of the prominence of different channels, and the effect that that has on audiences in Wales. Could you please talk us through to what extent you think that that Act is being implemented effectively, whether you've had experiences of negotiating with online platforms in terms of prominence and discoverability, and the effect that you think this would have in Wales? Who would like to go first?

I can take that question. Thanks very much for the question, and thanks for the invite here to talk to you and the committee about the work that Channel 4 is doing and these issues. We're really happy to be here and talk through those things.

Obviously, we really welcome the implementation of the Media Act. We think that there's a lot of important stuff in there. It's ultimately a matter for Ofcom to progress that, and I think they're doing that effectively. The No. 1 issue for us, as we've said, and I think as other broadcasters have said, is prominence. It's about how you ensure that the public service content that we make and that other broadcasters make, and that we're really proud of, and that serves audiences in Wales and across the UK, is effectively served and is prominent on the changing and evolving platforms within the UK media landscape, in particular connected tvs.

Ultimately, like I said, it is for Ofcom to progress that, to implement that. We would like to see it done as quickly as possible, but at the same time, in a way that's thorough, robust and rigorous, because it's a really complex set of issues. It's better to get it right than to rush ahead. We will work really closely with Ofcom, with other broadcasters and with partners to make sure that's the case.

I think it's worth saying, in terms of those relationships that you mentioned with other platforms and the likes of video-sharing platforms like YouTube, Channel 4 has always been on the front foot in terms of how we will look to distribute our content to audiences in Wales and in the UK. We obviously have a remit to try and serve younger audiences, and they're at the forefront of a lot of these new technologies, although at the same time those things are becoming mainstream as well now, and that's the case for young people and for all individuals in Wales who are accessing content.

We've had a partnership with YouTube for several years now and have done a number of different things to share our content on that platform in different ways, short form and long form stuff, and across different genres. I think we will continue to do that and build on that. And more recently, we've started to do that as well thinking about platforms like Spotify.

While we have a positive relationship and a constructive one, and I think it works well, that doesn't then mean that I think there isn't a very clear question about prominence on those sorts of platforms. It's a really rapidly changing landscape. YouTube is now one of the biggest, if not the biggest, video platform across all of the UK and including Wales. So, on the question of prominence, if we believe in the importance of the public service content that we're making, I think it needs to apply to those platforms as well. That's an issue that Ofcom would need to look at, and we're supportive of how that can be addressed in a timely fashion.

Thank you ever so much.

We'll move to Lee.

Thank you. I'd like to know what measurements you take of representation of Wales on Channel 4.

Hello. Thank you for having us. Please bear with me because this is my first time giving evidence at a select committee.

You're very welcome, Jo.

So, bear with me while I find my feet. Capturing Welsh representation is at the heart of what we do across the UK and specifically in Wales, which we're here to talk about today. We continue to celebrate Wales, Welsh culture and storytelling through the mix of programmes that we commission and broadcast, but also the work we do in terms of boots-on-the-ground activity and investment into Wales and the creative sector. We're really aware that there's always more to do, but there's progress over recent years in terms of the commissioning spend that we're putting into Wales and also the shows that reflect life.

If I could bring to the committee's mind examples that we're really proud of in recent years, The Light in the Hall was one of the biggest dramas that we've had in recent years on Channel 4, with more than 6 million views, featuring really strong Welsh talent—Alexandra Roach, Joanna Scanlan—and filmed in Carmarthenshire. We have Our Welsh Chapel Dream, which is on its third series, showcasing the wonderful community of Pwllheli, as Keith and Marj do up their derelict chapel, but as that becomes a community hub.

I hope the committee saw the incredibly poignant Michael Sheen's Secret Million Pound Giveaway, which shone a light on Port Talbot and his hometown, but told an incredibly broad story about the impact of debt on communities, but through the spotlight of that. And this year, we've got Fires of the Moon, our Welsh language opera, which we're really excited about, which has been a co-commission with colleagues at S4C and made by stalwarts of the sector in Wales, Afanti Media.

We're really aware there's still more to do. Part of my role as director of commissioning for nations and regions is to really build on solid foundations and the work that we do, the companies that we work with, all across Wales, but how we can be better partners, as well, for the creative ambition of producers in Wales.

That's good to hear about. I'd be interested to know if you have any figures for what percentage of Welsh representation there is for your output. Perhaps you could answer that, if you have those figures.

But just to make a broader point, we had an interesting session with Tim Davie from the BBC earlier, reflecting on the progress the BBC have made over a decade, because they were in a bad space 10 years ago, and they're in a much better space now, and how they got there, contrasting that to the evidence we had last week from ITV, who took a view—a view that the BBC used to take—that they were location agnostic. They went for the best ideas, best commissions; they didn't proactively see their role to go out and create content in different parts of the UK.

The BBC has changed deliberately its view, and as a result, has changed its output while maintaining its standards. Tim Davie had a number of suggestions, based on their experience, of what broadcasters could do. So, I just want to understand from your mindset as an organisation which space you're in. Are you in the space of the BBC 10 years ago or the BBC today, namely do you see it as your role to proactively create more representative content, or do you simply take an agnostic view that the best ideas will rise to the top?

I'm very pleased to report that I think we've got a similarly successful story to what Tim Davie was telling you about at the BBC. In 2014, our spend in Wales was £4 million. Our latest audited figures, which are for 2024, show that we spent £15.5 million on Welsh content. That's an amazing trajectory, and we want to build on that. Part of my role in initiating the nations and regions strategy is to not be agnostic, but to be proactive in terms of how we engage with the sector.

The strategy has got three key pillars. The first one was about identifying what we needed to do differently as an organisation. Welsh producers fed into the strategy at the very early stages, and we listened to what they needed, and they needed to get their ideas heard. There was a blocker. We addressed that by appointing lead commissioning editors for every genre, with a specific and accountable responsibility for Wales. That's real proactive action on our part to get to know producers better. This is a business of relationships now. We know that a good idea can come from anywhere, but if we're not hearing the good ideas that are coming from Welsh producers, that's a problem for us, because we're missing out on creative content. So, that's the first pillar of the strategy.

The second pillar is about the creative imperatives, about prioritising slots, about making sure we've got development money that we can spend with Welsh producers or Welsh creative partners to realise the ambition that we know exists in Wales. We've got fantastic content already coming through. The strategy has only been live for a year, but already when I sit down with producers, I'm hearing positive noises that this is what they've been advocating for, and they're starting to see a real difference and real engagement. Pete can probably come in to speak to investments that we've made elsewhere in the business in terms of the commitment to spending with companies in Wales.

Before he does, can I just try and nail you down on the figure point? You mentioned £15 million. What does that represent as a proportion of your overall spend?

If, with any of the figures, you need to write to us, that's absolutely fine.

The £15.5 million represents about 40 per cent of our total out-of-England spend. The way that our quotas are calculated covers Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so that figure would represent about 40 per cent of our entire out-of-England spend. The early indications for 2025 are that we're on track to match that at the very least, if not exceed it.

Do you know what that represents in population share? Because Wales has roughly got 5 per cent share of the UK population. Do you know what that spend represents as a population share for the UK?

We don't operate on population share quotas, because of Channel 4's scale and business model—publicly owned, commercially funded. We don't have the scale and the guaranteed income that the licence fee affords the BBC. Our quotas are set by Ofcom as 12 per cent. One of the reasons that works for Channel 4 is it allows us to manage—. Tv and content production is volatile—it's a creative industry and things can not deliver quite when we think they're going to deliver, they take longer, talent is not available. And so we need a degree of flexibility in how we manage our quotas across the piece.

How about we try and come at it in a different way? So, it's 40 per cent of your out-of-England spend. What total of your overall spend is your England spend? Are you spending 95 per cent of your budget on England, and then we're getting 40 per cent of the 5 per cent? Just give us some sense of comparison.

I think Kevin wants to come in on this.

As part of our nations and regions strategy, we have a requirement from Ofcom to spend more than 35 per cent on our content outside of London. We have then, as Jo was saying, the requirement to spend a percentage in the devolved nations of the UK, and that's increasing. We'll hit that target by 2028. I think it's probably best that we write back to you in terms of exactly what that proportion is in the context of overall content spend, because I don't think we have that to hand to do that.

But the one other thing that I wanted to add, because I think it's really relevant to the question as well, is around representation. Also it's about really strong, good and high-quality content and representation; it's not just about the quantity. We are doing a piece of research that hopefully the committee will be really interested in. We're working with Media Cymru, which is the media consortium in south Wales, looking at innovation in television, broadcasting and media, and doing a piece directly on what does national and regional audience representation look like, what is the impact of being able to tell really good interesting stories, how does that impact on other parts of the UK, and vice versa.

That work is just getting under way and we're hoping to have that back within a few months. I think that'll be a really good thing to be able to follow up with you about what that tells us about some of the more qualitative aspects of representation, as opposed to always the quantitative side of it as well.

Thank you ever so much. We will move on to Mick.

Thank you. Following on from those questions that you've had now, in terms of your engagement within the four nations of the UK, you have an office in Leeds, you have an office in Manchester, you have a hub in Glasgow. Your presence in Wales is pretty minimal. I think there’s some representation in the Tramshed in Cardiff, isn't there? But why is that? Because it seems to me that, in order to fulfil a lot of the things you're talking about, having an actual presence within Wales would seem to be pretty fundamental to that.

Kevin.

Shall I start, and maybe ask Jo to follow up on the commissioning side? Because I think it's a really good question and a really important one. I think it goes back to when, actually, Channel 4 stepped outside of London in the first tangible ways back in 2019, 2018, and we launched our '4 All the UK' strategy. And as part of that—. Previous to that point, actually, the vast majority of decisions and creative decisions were taken by the channel in Horseferry Road, in London, in Victoria. And I think the channel had been seen to be quite London-centric, and the whole purpose of moving outside of London was to enable us to engage with indies and creatives across the UK in a much better way. We ran a process to establish where national HQ would be and the creative hubs, but obviously that moved us from a position where we had a London base to one where we had a London base and then now have bases in Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow and Bristol.

But I think, really critically, the purpose of that strategy was not about how do we build production and relationships in those cities. It was purposely called '4 All the UK'. It was about how we use that process, that strategy, that move of creative thinking and structure to enable us to work with partners, with indies and with organisations in all parts of the UK in a way that we weren't doing before. I joined the channel in 2019 at the start of that process, and was immediately working with a whole range of organisations in Wales and in Cardiff that that strategy then enabled. I mentioned about the Media Cymru work. That came directly from building up those relationships that we had. We worked closely with the likes of Creative Wales as part of that in a way that I think we wouldn't have done before, and while we only have a certain number of bases and we don't have the same sort of set-up and on-the-ground scale as ITV and the BBC and their production models, I do think we made—as Jo talked to you with the figures before—enormous progress in Wales, working with Welsh indies and working with Welsh talent. Jo, would you like to talk about the commissioning part of how we do that?

Yes. I'm mindful that Pete's keen to come in, but, in terms of our engagement, appointing lead commissioners has been game changing, to use the language that suppliers have used to me, because it's about having a person, ultimately. It's about having a relationship with a commissioner who will hear your ideas, who will build trust, who will develop ideas with you in line with our commissioning strategy. And as we have all learned through COVID—we're speaking to you today remotely—the connectivity between suppliers and commissioners is easier. That doesn't remove the need for meaningful relationships, understanding the USP of different suppliers in different parts of Wales, and us being good partners and engaging with the stories that matter, because that, ultimately, will deliver representation to us. It also allows us to reflect the audience. That's what Channel 4's remit is ultimately about.

I think a lot of our skills work is speaking to that piece as well. We have limited scale, we have limited resources. We have to use those resources smarter. I do want to invite Pete to speak about the big investment in terms of the sport facility we have there.

Thank you, Jo. Yes, Pete. You've been very patient.

Thank you. Thanks very much, Jo. Thanks very much. Yes, I wanted to talk about the Tramshed, as you mentioned. I think it's a really good example of how Channel 4, although we do have a certain scale, we could really make a difference. Obviously, as you know, the Paralympics is part of Channel 4's DNA. It's really, really important to us. Paris was a huge opportunity for us, the most important thing in 2024. When we put out a tender for it, we heard from Whisper, Sunil Patel's excellent team at Whisper, and particularly Whisper Cymru, with Carys Owens. Their proposal was to produce the Paralympics from the Tramshed in Cardiff, as we've mentioned, which was something that, as a commissioner, we can firstly take on board, and that's one of the reasons that we awarded it to them, and also we can help make sure it happens. They did an unbelievable job.

I think what really hit to us was the fact that we transmitted the Tokyo remote production from Ely, and there wasn't an existing remote production facility in Wales, and, if we could get that working for the Paris Paralympics, we could leave that behind as a legacy that anybody could use. The Whisper team were brilliant about that. They would help build it, and with Media Cymru's help as well, and everybody, actually; it was a huge effort. We then transmitted the entire Paris Paralympics from Cardiff—that's where I was for the whole time.

We are also doing the Winter Paralympics there in March. You're all invited to come down and see us. It's a lot of fun down there. But I think being able to help to put through the building of something that is a legacy and also then employ local staff—. I'll take a slight tangent. The brilliant thing about what they did there was, because the Paralympics is so important for giving a start to people with a disability, it's a really fully accessible gallery. It's the best, we think, the most accessible gallery, particularly in Europe, to allow people to get a start. And of course, the great thing about Channel 4 and our commissioning was also then to allow us—. Okay, so we did all of the Paris Paralympics from Cardiff, which is fantastic, but then sometimes in sport we have the problem that, because we're sports rights-based, we pop up, we do something, we disappear. But then, with the award of our next Formula 1 contract, we awarded, but only on the insistence that the Formula 1 production should move to the Tramshed, because we wanted to give people who'd started in that area the chance to then keep working in an accessible space. And so now our Formula 1 coverage is at the Tramshed as well, which means, in March—there are two galleries there—we'll have the Australian Grand Prix and the Winter Paralympics going out at the same time, which could be a good weekend to come, although it'd be very, very busy. Building on that, what you're then doing is—.

Can I just ask then, just following on from that, because you started talking about the skills, the skill mix, developing local skills and so on, how do you see that developing? Because, at the moment, it is a good news story in terms of some very important sports, but, in terms of the broader range of things that are being produced and the work you do and the development of skills and the engagement within the creative sector, do you actually have a strategic plan about the development of that and to broaden it out, or is it, basically, 'Well, this is our bit within Wales', that's it? Do you actually have a plan for expansion, for broadening out of the remit and so on?

I'll take it from a sports point of view, and then I know Kevin is involved with 4Skills as well. I think, for us, the continuity comes with having technical roles involved, because, as I said to you before, with sports, it's quite sports-rights dependent. Obviously, what we want to do is bring as much to the Tramshed as possible, and then, when we do, we can place more people, we can upskill. But we are dependent on, 'Do we have enough money to buy certain sports rights?' 'Do we win the rights?', which is not necessarily within our control.

So, I think, the twist to technical means that you don't have to be sport-specific, but if someone can run an edit suite—when you talk about editing, or grading, or vision, or sound, that can be used on anything in that area. So, technically, the move to technical skills would help us to have more continuity. Editorially, it is so based on what we can get, from a sports perspective, it's hard to broaden out at this point—specifically in sport.

That's why I asked about the broadening out of the remit, because is it being part of a plan and strategy, or is this really a sort of one-off? I'm just wondering if, perhaps, you could expand a little bit on what your future look is in respect of Wales.

I can talk to that, in terms of the—. It's a really good question. It's really—. I look after our 4Skills team, and we work closely with partners in Wales, with Creative Wales, with the National Film and Television School, with others, thinking all the time about what are the right things, what are the right interventions, what are the things that we should be doing to help support and develop talent in Wales.

The first thing I'd say is that we've really increased our investment overall in 4Skills, and, last year, we spent £10 million on skills and training in the UK. And most of that, the vast majority of that, is outside London. And, in Wales, approximately £1 million of that was spent on skills and training in Wales, which, given the size of us as an organisation, is a really phenomenal amount.

I think, from a strategic point of view, there are two things that I would say. Firstly, what we do is work really closely with Jo, and with Pete, with all the commissioning teams, to understand what are the strategic needs of the channel. Because, ultimately, what we don't want to do is to be investing in skills and training activities where it's not ultimately helping, as Pete was describing, to develop, both in the medium and the longer term, those skills and those roles that are needed for Channel 4 productions and for the sector as a whole. And I think that's something that is always evolving. So, for instance, we're increasingly looking at our offer in terms of digital skills and short-form content. That's an ever-increasingly important part of our Channel 4 slate. So, that's something, as an example, that we're doing there. And that's definitely the case in Wales. We ran, last year, a whole host of digital-related content development and production training initiatives, working with our digital content teams, working with talent in Wales.

I think the other thing that we would say, which is really important, is the work that we've done to support—. If you had had this conversation a few years ago, a lot of it was about entry-level talent, how you can bring new people into the sector. And while that remains massively important, a challenge over the past couple of years, given some of the issues in the industry, is around existing freelance talent and how those people can progress and develop without the need to either drop out of the industry or move to London, which is often the trend. And so we launched Accelerate—which Pete referenced a little bit there in terms of some of the work with Whisper and with the Paralympics—which fully funds roles at mid and senior level. So, it's a really huge intervention in terms of enabling producers to work at the next level or on bigger productions.

And actually, we're really pleased that we funded about 100 roles last year across the UK, 25 of which were on productions in Wales, so it's one of our most important areas in terms of training and skills. And that covers indies such as Whisper, Yeti, and we've worked with South Shore, in different genres. And I think, for us, that's just incredibly important, focusing on not just always looking at what the next generation is—that will remain important—but how you then progress the careers of the people who are existing already.

Can I just, very quickly, ask you, then—? Because you talk about skills and you talk about freelancers: one of the criticisms that's been around, of course, is that what happens is you have, obviously, locations, for example, in Manchester, Leeds, Bristol and so on, but what's happening within Wales is that you'll have freelancers who are coming in, but what you're not doing is creating and developing the pool of freelancers with the skills and so on within Wales itself. Do you see that as being reflective, as being a problem, or something that you can counter?

Through the work that we do, I don't think we do see that. For the things that we fund and the things that we support, it's about talent on the ground in Wales working on our productions, fundamentally so that you don't lose that talent from that ecosystem. Enabling those people to step up on those productions is critical to us. I know Jo wants to come in.

Thank you so much. Jo, please forgive me, but I'm afraid we might have to move on. Would the three of you by any chance be able to stay with us for an extra 10 minutes until 3 o'clock? Would that be okay? In that case, I will bring Jo in for this answer.

Thank you. Jo will just take a moment to remember what she was going to say.

I'm sorry.

No, it's absolutely fine. This is what we're working with. I just wanted to make the point—. The question was about keeping skills in Wales and building on the talent base there. This alignment between me and our commissioning teams and Kevin has been really crucial. The ambition from the Welsh sector is to be winning more big, ambitious commissions, in genres like factual entertainment, for example. The more we can amplify the skills that exist in Wales and keep that talent there, crucially, then it feeds the beast, if you like, the ripple effect of having senior people with those skills in the sector and staying in the sector.

A colleague in entertainment and reality, for example, has collaborated with Creative Wales. One of Channel 4's biggest shows is Married at First Sight. It's a big machine. It's a place to go and learn how these very big machines work. Ultimately, growth for Wales looks like winning commissions that are big entertainment or reality pieces. The collaboration is funding a role that will be embedded with the Married at First Sight team, absolutely absorbing all of that experience, all of that learning, all of those skills associated with real challenging content, welfare, story producing, that kind of really massive opportunity, but with a candidate who's very keen to take that experience back to Wales. That helps feed shows like Worlds Apart, which was a factual entertainment commission recently made out of Cardiff. So, it does all ladder together—

I'm so sorry to have interrupted you. Forgive me. I'm so sorry. It's because we've got a lot of areas that—. Everything you're saying is very useful. I'm so sorry to have interrupted you. We have three remaining areas that we're going to try and get through before 3 o'clock. Let's see how agile we can be. I'll go to Heledd first, please, and then I'll go to Alun and then to Gareth.

I just wondered in terms of your reflections on the Green Paper that we see with the BBC charter. I presume we won't want to spend as much time as we did with S4C and BBC on this.

Thanks for the question. That's probably my area, and I will keep things fairly brief. Obviously the consultation is out there and we are looking at that, and we'll listen to all the debate and evidence and then we'll come back to that in due course. I think the one thing we would say is clearly the BBC does play a hugely important role in the media ecosystem in Wales, in the UK and beyond. I think from a Channel 4 perspective, it having that critical role is important and we want to see that continue. We don't have details to share, I guess, at this point in time on what our consultation response would be.

Thank you. I think, if you were in a position to share in future with us as a committee or future committee, I think that would be really helpful, because obviously one of the things we're looking at is public service broadcasting in its totality. And obviously it does have a bearing on Channel 4 what the future of the BBC looks like.

Yes, I absolutely hear that. It's a discussion that's going on at the moment. It is a very live discussion to understand that. One of the areas that we do think about is around the different funding models. There are debates around the different ways in which the BBC could and should be funded, and ultimately that's a matter for Government. One of the possibilities is around advertising funding, and I think our view is that things like that could be quite challenging in terms of the impact on the sector. So, there are a lot of pros and cons to these different things, and that's why we are working that through at the moment. But there are areas like that where it feels like that could be particularly challenging, if changes like that were introduced.

Thank you.

We'll move on to Alun.

Thanks very much. We've discussed production and the portrayal and representation of Wales in the different genres. But in terms of your news, Channel 4 News is a great programme; I've been enjoying the reporting of the chaos in Davos this week. You do have a strong emphasis on international affairs—I accept all of that. But in terms of its domestic outlook, it's very Westminster centric, isn't it? It's very much marching to the beat of the Westminster drum, if you like. I'm interested as to whether you see the requirement or any need to expand the outlook of the news programme in the same way as you do in other genres.

Who would like to take that? Jo.

I think I'm going to speak to news. I'm very pleased that Channel 4 News is—. I'm not sure 'enjoyed' is the word for what we're witnessing at the moment. But we're really proud of Channel 4 News, its impartiality, its accuracy. I do think it's worth noting—although they're based in your building, so I'm sure you're aware—that there's a dedicated news bureau in Wales, which is really important in terms of feeding in stories about Wales, but also interpreting national stories to the Welsh experience, and how it impacts the lives of Welsh people. I think the team have made a real reputation for themselves in terms of bringing those stories, for example of how people were affected in floods or the cost of living or COVID, telling stories of devolved issues like the Welsh NHS. And we've got Ciaran Jenkins, a proud Welshman, as a key anchor for the bulletin in Leeds every night. There'll be much more to do, especially this year with elections in Wales, for that team, in terms of feeding in to the national agenda. I know the team are planning an audience debate around the elections in May to foreground—

Can I push you on this a bit? Sorry. Andy does a great job in terms of being a reporter from here, and he does a fantastic job in bringing Wales onto the agenda. Obviously we know Ciaran; his sister used to sit here, of course, so we know these people. But what I'm talking about is the editorial decision making. When I look at Channel 4 News, I enjoy Channel 4 News, I enjoy the international outlook and the rest of it. It's one of the most comprehensive news services we have in the UK, but it is very London and Westminster centric in terms of its current affairs and political outlook. And my question was—and it appears that you don't—have you any plans to actually change that emphasis and that approach to news.

Our news bulletin is UK-wide. Unlike other broadcasters, we don't have a—

Yes, but Wales is still a part of the United Kingdom.

I accept that. I am not a news specialist. I think this might be an area where I can get a written response to this. In the interest of time and my non-specialism in news—I apologise for that—

That's fine.

—we can respond to you in the follow-up.

Okay. Fair enough.

Okay. That's absolutely fine, Jo. Thank you ever so much.

We'll move to Gareth.

Thank you very much, Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to focus on sport this afternoon, as I have done throughout the day, and ask a question around sports of national importance, such as the six nations men's rugby championship. What I've asked previous witnesses today, and what I'll ask yourselves, is do we require greater protection to encourage the broadcast of such championships on free-to-air platforms. I know the current deal is in place until 2029, but in terms of taking proactive measures to protect the sport on free-to-air platforms, do you think there's anything that can be done in terms of discussions with the UK Government, any collaboration together with other broadcasters to make sure that such sports of national significance are protected?

Pete, I'm going to bring you in. You don't even have to put your hand up.

Thanks. The listed events is my favourite bit of legislation, I think, working for a public service broadcaster. Particularly when you go around Europe, it's so important that things are protected that people can watch, as we splinter more digitally, and this, that and the other, having those national moments where families can sit together. And as you say, the six nations is hugely important. We would always be in favour—obviously, we have a slightly vested interest, of course—of things being protected for free-to-air. As you say, the six nations continues to be free-to-air. Our colleagues at the BBC and ITV do a really good job of it.

I suppose another thought about it is does that limit the ability for the federations to make as much money as possible. But I think, obviously, from our point of view, things free-to-air, we would be supportive of. I think probably because they currently are free-to-air, there are no plans to go out there and advocate. But I think when we've been asked—and we have been asked recently—we would always favour that that list includes really important events, and the six nations is a really important event.

I suppose the answer is we probably wouldn't be going out there—. If somebody was going to do it, I think we'd be supportive. From our point of view, at the moment, the six nations is probably out of our price range, as it goes, which is great for rugby. It's not so good for Channel 4, but it's brilliant that the BBC and ITV have kept it. And as I say, that legislation is key. So, I think if we thought that that legislation was going to lose us something as great as a six nations weekend, then I think, absolutely, we would be on board.

Are you able to express any opinion on the categorisation of the six nations? Because it's currently group B—

It's category B, yes.

Or category B, I should say. Should it be category A, in your opinion?

In my opinion, at least B plus. I think we're right on the cusp, aren't we? I think the brilliant thing about S4C is that that often does allow Welsh language coverage and then a choice of two different coverages. And sometimes, things that are locked behind a paywall are on S4C as well. I've watched quite a lot of football on S4C myself. I think that's a really good thing that really serves the people of Wales. It is really important that we put it—. The six nations is fantastic; I shall be watching. I don't have to work on it, so I'm super keen. I'm going to go with a B plus for it. I'm almost there.

Very diplomatic. Thank you very much. That's all from me.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Can I congratulate you all, because you have all been so quick on your feet that we actually have finished within the time that was scheduled? Thank you ever so much. There were a few extra areas that we wanted to ask you about, but we'll write to you with those questions, if that's all right. I know there were a few things that you said that you would write to us with as well. Can I thank you very much for the time that you've given us this afternoon? It's been a pleasure to have you in front of us.

Thank you very much to all of you. A transcript of what has been said this afternoon will be sent to you to check for accuracy. But thank you very much to you all for your evidence.

Members, we'll be now moving into a private session.