Pwyllgor Diwylliant, Cyfathrebu, y Gymraeg, Chwaraeon, a Chysylltiadau Rhyngwladol

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

09/10/2024

Aelodau'r Pwyllgor a oedd yn bresennol

Committee Members in Attendance

Carolyn Thomas
Delyth Jewell Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor
Committee Chair
Laura Anne Jones
Lee Waters
Sian Gwenllian Dirprwyo ar ran Heledd Fychan
Substitute for Heledd Fychan

Y rhai eraill a oedd yn bresennol

Others in Attendance

Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson Chwaraeon Cymru
Sport Wales
Brian Davies Chwaraeon Cymru
Sport Wales
Christopher Catling Comisiwn Brenhinol Henebion Cymru
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales
Hayley Roberts Comisiwn Brenhinol Henebion Cymru
Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales

Swyddogion y Senedd a oedd yn bresennol

Senedd Officials in Attendance

Manon George Clerc
Clerk
Robin Wilkinson Ymchwilydd
Researcher
Sara Moran Ymchwilydd
Researcher
Tanwen Summers Dirprwy Glerc
Deputy Clerk

Cofnodir y trafodion yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r cyfieithu ar y pryd. Lle mae cyfranwyr wedi darparu cywiriadau i’w tystiolaeth, nodir y rheini yn y trawsgrifiad.

The proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the transcript.

Cyfarfu’r pwyllgor yn y Senedd a thrwy gynhadledd fideo.

Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:30.

The committee met in the Senedd and by video-conference.

The meeting began at 09:30.

2. Cyflwyniad, ymddiheuriadau, dirprwyon a datgan buddiannau
2. Introductions, apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest

Bore da. Hoffwn i groesawu'r Aelodau i'r cyfarfod hwn o'r Pwyllgor Diwylliant, Cyfathrebu, y Gymraeg, Chwaraeon a Chysylltiadau Rhyngwladol. Hoffwn nodi ymddiheuriadau gan Alun Davies a Heledd Fychan, a chroesawu Siân Gwenllian a fydd yn dirprwyo ar ran Heledd Fychan gyda ni y bore yma. Croeso mawr, Siân. Oes gan unrhyw Aelod fuddiannau i'w datgan? Dwi ddim yn gweld bod, felly, symudwn ni'n syth ymlaen.

Good morning. I'd like to welcome Members to this meeting of the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee. I would like to note apologies from Alun Davies and Heledd Fychan, and I'd like to welcome Siân Gwenllian who will be substituting this morning on Heledd Fychan's behalf. A warm welcome to you, Siân. Do any Members have any declarations of interest? I don't see that anyone does, so we'll move straight on. 

3. Effaith gostyngiadau cyllid ar ddiwylliant a chwaraeon: Sesiwn dystiolaeth gyda Chwaraeon Cymru (4)
3. Impact of funding reductions for culture and sport: Evidence session with Sport Wales (4)

Byddwn ni'n cymryd tystiolaeth heddiw ar gyfer ein hymchwiliad ar effaith gostyngiadau cyllid ar ddiwylliant a chwaraeon, ac yn gyntaf, mae gennym ni sesiwn dystiolaeth gyda Chwaraeon Cymru. Fe wnaf i ofyn i'n tystion i gyflwyno'u hunain ar gyfer y record.

We will take evidence this morning for our inquiry into the impact of funding reductions for culture and sport, and first of all, we have an evidence session with Sport Wales. I will ask our witnesses to introduce themselves for the record.

Tanni Grey-Thompson, chair of Sport Wales.

Brian Davies, prif weithredwr Chwaraeon Cymru.

Brian Davies, chief executive officer of Sport Wales.

Mae croeso mawr i'r ddau ohonoch chi. Gwnawn ni symud yn syth at gwestiynau, os yw hwnna'n ocê. Fe wnaf i ofyn yn gyntaf.

Welcome to both of you. We will move straight into questions, if that is okay. I'll ask the first.

In your evidence paper, you said that,

'participation in sport is already significantly skewed against inequality and people on low incomes'.

So, that was in the evidence that you've given us. How will that inequality gap be affected by these further cuts, both those that are being seen by central Government and local authorities, as well?

Time will tell, I guess, but the initial cut we received this year of 10.5 per cent does mean that we've impacted on our funding to partners, and partners are key in delivering to those communities and those groups that are proportionately disaffected in terms of participation in sport. So, it's inevitable that, if our partners can do less in those areas, then there will be an impact. How much of an impact is always difficult to quantify. We minimised as much as possible that impact by passing on only 3.5 per cent of that 10.5 per cent cut to partners, but it's still an impact, and in some cases, we were already changing the investment into some of those partners in line with our strategy and the Vision for Sport and so, a further cut was going to exacerbate some of their issues. The whole investment approach that we adopt is predicated, in the main, on trying to address those inequalities. The Vision for Sport talks about everybody having a lifelong enjoyment of sport and the key being 'everybody'. So, what the actual impact will be is difficult to say, but there will be an impact, for sure.

And I think the group of people who find it hardest to get involved in sport, that's quite a difficult thing to change. So, the partner approach, in terms of where our funding is going, everyone is absolutely understanding that those are the people who we need to get to, but it's difficult to keep engaging those people. So, we might not see the impact of it for a couple of years, actually, in terms of when we get to see people who come through sport and through the data we collect and the data that the partners collect. But there will be an impact in terms of what people are able to deliver.

Yes. I just want to explore this issue a bit, because obviously nobody wants your funding to go down, least of all you, and there's going to be an adverse impact somewhere, clearly. But in terms of this argument that you're advancing that it's going to particularly disadvantage those who you've failed to really engage with in the first place very well, you said that the cut for partner bodies is 3.5 per cent, but how does that compare with other pots of activity? Your elite sport programme, for example, how much has that been cut?

That was across the board; it wasn't just community sport.

So, it is ultimately up to partners what they prioritise, but they know, they are in full knowledge that our next set of investment decisions is predicated on improvements in these areas that we are prioritising, such as inequalities in provision. So, it was across the board, so they could change their elite provision if they wanted to. 

So, you could have chosen to protect participation funding in this round.

We don't work like that any more. We leave it to our partners to decide what their priorities are, as I said, in the full knowledge that they know what our priorities are. So, we're not prescriptive, as such. We do identify that—. The full budget that we give them is broken into two, one being revenue from Welsh Government and the other one being lottery, which also comes through Welsh Government but is a separate funding stream, in effect. And lottery tends to be used for performance purposes rather than community by our partners. But we also run a community access scheme—Be Active Wales is lottery funded—and that is open to communities and clubs to apply for short-term grants.

09:35

I just want to test the arguments, really. Obviously, you’re having a reduction in funding, which you don’t want, and I understand that, and the group you’re choosing to illustrate the impact of this most on is disadvantaged groups, when actually you could have done more yourself to protect them.

I was actually responding to a question about what the impact on that part of the community was, so I wasn’t saying it was our priority to cut that area.

We did a significant amount of in-house modelling, when we had what the indicative figures may look like, to work out what that impact would be on sport, and then did a lot of work with the partners to brief them and prepare them for what cuts might look like. Then, when we had the actual figure, we did further work on that. We’re moving away from a process of—. I’ve sat on various sports councils for probably the last 30 years and seen quite a big evolution in the models, in terms of, 25 years ago, Sport Wales and the other home country sport councils would have been very, very prescriptive as to what they wanted from the partners. But, actually, the partners are the experts in that particular sport in the areas, they know the coaches, they know the clubs, so I think the model where we are now is quite a grown-up model. And Brian’s absolutely right, it’s up to the partners to decide, with our priorities, how best to use the money that they have available.

But I would assume their instinct is going to be to protect elite sport first.

No, I don’t think that’s fair. In fact, I know that’s not correct.

The governing bodies, in the main—. We have several types of partners, but, in the main, governing bodies have such a broad range of responsibilities for their sport in the sector. Elite sport is only one. There’s an awful lot of work that goes on with safeguarding, community coaching. You know, pick a subject that sport doesn’t touch, and governing bodies tend to be doing some work in that area. In terms of elite sport, it’s only a part of what governing bodies do, for sure. It gets a lot of attention though. Understandably, in a year of the Olympics and Paralympics, it gets heightened attention, and I can see why people think governing bodies prioritise, in the main, elite sport, but they do an awful lot of work across the board.

And we’ve moved away from demanding medal targets from the sports, because that drives a culture and a set of behaviours that aren’t positive in terms of how they impact the grass roots and the pathway and the development. We believe that if you produce well-rounded athletes then the medals look after themselves. Actually, if you ask the public, most of the public don’t remember the numbers; they might remember special moments or they might remember a gold medal. Actually, gold, silver, bronze, at whatever level, is not what connects. The focus especially is on seeing these amazing moments, but I think the partners understand that if they don’t develop that broad base, you’re not going to get the medallists. So, it’s a long-term view. The Vision for Sport as well, which is not time limited, which I think is important, is about developing that culture change.

Ie, dau beth gen i. Un, fedrwch chi ddarparu rhestr o’r partneriaid sydd yn derbyn arian gennych chi a faint y maen nhw’n ei gael, er mwyn i ni weld sut mae’r gostyngiad yna wedi effeithio arnyn nhw mewn termau ariannol? Byddai hynny’n ddefnyddiol i ni jest gweld hynny.

Yes, two points from me. One, can you provide a list of the partners who receive funding from you and how much they receive, so that we can see how that reduction has impacted them in financial terms? That would be very useful for us to see that.

Gallwn, yn bendant. Gallwn ni wneud hynny trwy'r Cadeirydd.

Certainly we can. We can do that through the Chair.

Diolch. Wedyn, yn ail, rydych chi’n dweud eich bod chi ddim cweit yn gwybod beth yw'r effaith ar gyfranogiad yn y gymuned eto. Ydych chi wedi ystyried gwneud rhyw fath o impact assessment, equalities impact assessment, fel sydd yn cael ei wneud gan fudiadau eraill? Achos mi fyddai hwnnw wedyn yn helpu gwneud yr achos dros lai o doriad.

Thank you. Secondly, you say that you don't quite know what the impact is in terms of community participation. Have you considered undertaking some sort of impact assessment, an equalities impact assessment, as is done by other organisations? Because that then would help make the case in terms of mitigating the reduction.

Ie, yn bendant. Fel dywedodd Tanni yn gynharach, fe wnaethom ni asesiad o beth allem ni ei wneud yn gyffredinol pan oedd y Llywodraeth yn sôn am doriad. Ar y cychwyn, wrth gwrs, roedden nhw’n sôn am doriad o dros 20 y cant. So, fe wnaethom ni edrych ar beth fyddai’r ymateb i doriad o’r fath, a gwnaethom ni impact assessment o’r gwahanol sefyllfaoedd oedd o’n blaenau ni. So, ni wedi gwneud un. Dyna pam ddaethom ni lan â thrio cadw cymaint o’r toriad ac y gallem ni yn fewnol, cyn darparu unrhyw beth i’n partneriaid ni. So, dyna ganlyniad yr impact assessment a wnaethom ni, yn gyffredinol: trio dod yn fewnol â'r toriad gymaint ag y gallem ni.

Yes, certainly. As Tanni mentioned earlier, we did an assessment of what we could do generally when the Government was talking about cuts. At the start, of course, they were talking about a cut of over 20 per cent. So, we looked at what the response would be to a cut of that kind, and we did an impact assessment of the different situations that could be in front of us. So, yes, we have done one. That's when we came up with trying to keep as much of the cut as we could internally, before providing anything to our partners. So, that was the result of the impact assessment that we did, generally: it was to try and do things internally in terms of the cut, as much as possible.

09:40

Ac roedd hwnna'n edrych ar gydraddoldeb yn benodol. Oedd o'n equalities impact assessment, neu jest—?

And that looked at equality specifically. Was it an equalities impact assessment, or just—?

Na, achos mae i wneud â—. Beth yw'r gair yn Gymraeg? Dwi ddim yn siŵr. Pob peth rŷn ni'n responsible for, mae'n rhaid inni edrych ar impact assessment ar bob un—so, yr iaith, cydraddoldeb, rhyw, popeth.

No, because it related to—. What's the word in Welsh? I'm not sure. Everything that we're responsible for, we have to look at the impact assessment for each of those—so, language, equality, gender, everything like that.

'Integrated impact assessment' yw'r term Saesneg, sori.

It's an integrated impact assessment—that's the English term, sorry.

Diolch am hwnna. Jest yn olaf gen i, beth fyddai'r effaith pe bai'r un gostyngiad ag yr ydych chi wedi'i weld eleni yn cael ei ailadrodd gyda'r gyllideb nesaf?

Thank you for that. Just finally from me, what would the effect be if the same funding reduction that you saw this year were to be repeated with the next budget? 

Problem fawr. Roeddem ni'n ffodus y tro diwethaf. Roedd yna sawl peth yn y fantol wnaethom ni gymryd mantais ohonyn nhw i drio 'absorb-o' y toriad gymaint ag y gallem ni'n fewnol. Bydd rhai o'r pethau yna ddim ar gael y flwyddyn nesaf, so bydd e'n anodd iawn, a bydd mwy yn cael ei basio ymlaen i'r cyrff llywodraethol a'r partneriaid. I fod yn onest, i rai o'r partneriaid, bydd hwnna—unwaith eto, y gair Saesneg—yn existential iddyn nhw. Maen nhw wedi gweld newid mawr mewn sawl ffordd, a bydd toriad mawr oddi wrthym ni unwaith eto yn broblem fawr iddyn nhw. Bydd rhai yn gallu cario ymlaen os ydyn ni'n rhoi toriad mawr iddyn nhw, ond bydd rhai o'r cyrff llai yn wynebu problemau mawr.

It would be a big problem. We were fortunate last time. There were several things in the balance that we could take advantage of in order to try to absorb the cut as much as we could internally. Some of those things won't be available next year, so it would be very difficult, and more of a reduction would be passed on to the partners and governing bodies. To be honest, for some of the partners, that will—once again, it's an English word—be an existential matter for them. They've seen major changes in several ways, and a large cut from us again would be a major problem for them. Some will be able to continue if we pass on a large reduction to them, but some of the smaller bodies will be facing major problems. 

Ymddiheuriadau am y sŵn. Dŷn ni ddim yn siŵr beth sydd yn—.

Apologies for the noise. We're not quite sure what is—.

Just on that point—diolch, Robin—in terms of how you're able to support secondary tier governing bodies to cope with the effect of reduced incomes, is that going to create more of an issue, do you think, if this is repeated next year?

It would definitely have an impact, if it was to be repeated, because some of the options we had this year, to absorb some of that cut internally, won't be available to us. There were things like, with our pension deficit, we were able to manipulate some of the issues to do with that pension deficit. We've done that; we won't be able to do that twice. There were other things like underspends on certain projects, or delays in internal projects, that we could instigate, but we've done that; we won't be able to do it twice. So, a further cut of any nature would be difficult to absorb to the level we did last time, and, therefore, passing it on will cause problems to the sector.

We are working with the sector, mainly with the governing bodies of sport, to look at their resilience. There's a project going on at the minute where we can try and encourage efficiencies, or help with efficiencies across the board, in terms of collaborative working, looking at a future model of governance for governing bodies, especially maybe the smaller ones. So, there are some things that are being undertaken to try and futureproof the whole situation, but a substantive cut would be very problematic, because we wouldn't be able to absorb the same level as we did last time.

Ocê, diolch. Symud ymlaen at Carolyn.

Okay, thanks. We'll move on to Carolyn.

[Inaudible.]—events in the Senedd were about the importance of sport with health—the connection with mental and physical health. Would you just explain or talk about the impact, perhaps on the NHS, that these cuts might have, and people not being able to participate in sport, and the impact of that?

Thank you. Physical activity is such an important part of keeping people out of the NHS, and, obviously, that goes with being able to have a good diet—it's, you know, you need places or programmes to be able to participate. We know, at a UK level, that type 2 diabetes costs the UK £10 billion a year, and that's set to rise in the next couple of years. I think they're looking at it going up to £15 billion in the next three years. That is largely preventable by having access to physical activity. We know the mental health benefits of being physically active. I think, at the Senedd event, we talked about impact on young people in terms of building resilience and developing relationships and connections. So, physical activity across every part of Wales is incredibly important. But if you like sport and you like physical activity, that's one thing. The groups of people we're talking to who are the hardest to reach or the easiest to ignore, if we can't connect with them, then the detriment to their long-term health is significant. So, now we know that people are hitting frailty in their 40s and taking a long time to die. It sounds really harsh when you say it, but living with frailty for 40 years costs a huge amount of money, and a lot of that can be prevented by physical activity.

So, a lot of the work that Sport Wales does then with the partners is about that lifelong love. And we also know people drop in and out. It's not as easy to say that, if you have a brilliant experience as a child, you will definitely keep going. We know that mums have different experiences with physical activity, families do. There's not one lever to pull to bring about the change. So, physical activity is such an important part, and the vast majority of people I know want to keep the NHS free at the point of delivery, but we also know it's an incredibly difficult place right now. So, physical activity is a really important part of changing that pattern of behaviour. But people tend to worry about physical activity when they've hit issues with their health, and some of it's reversible, but actually that's why we need to do so much more with young people and the harder to reach, easy to ignore groups to get them to develop good patterns of behaviour now.

09:45

[Inaudible.]—any cuts to the NHS. They see the NHS as the NHS and the hospitals and the health boards. And when they might distribute funding to sports facilities through local authorities or whatever, or social health care, then it's criticised because it's taking away from the NHS. But would you say that prevention at this early stage is important, really, and should be included as part of that measure, maybe, going forward?

Yes, I would. I’d fully agree with that. It was a great event last week. It was fantastic to see some unfamiliar faces in the room, which is good news for us because that means we're reaching new audiences in terms of potential partners. We’ve talked a lot so far about governing bodies of sport and those kinds of partners, but, in terms of this issue and the preventative health agenda, it's the other partners that we're currently not entwined with the way we should be—so, the health boards, Public Health Wales, education even. So, I think that the words I'd use in terms of the priorities of Government spending is that cutting sport, which is a fantastic tool for the preventative health agenda, is a false economy. We've got fantastic stats that show, for every £1 of public money spent on sport and physical activity, there's a £4.44 return in terms of social investment for Wales. That's a great return for public investment, and it should be celebrated. So, if you cut sport, you're cutting that return as well.

I think this is a focus—I know this is a focus for us. It's hugely important in our strategy and our business plan. The priority we've put on establishing sport partnerships across Wales is vital here. Their links with the local health boards are going to be crucial. The Cardiff and Vale health board were at the Senedd event last week, Claire Beynon, and just to have her insight, knowledge and support for the physical activity and sport agenda is crucial. Repeat that across all the other health boards and we've got a very powerful method of trying to make sport the greatest preventative health tool in Wales.

I think in the past we've talked about the importance of access to sports and facilities for disadvantaged communities, and the findings were that having local access was really important—in community centres, village halls and local sports centres was really important. And we've heard also that the health boards use community centres and local leisure centres as well for preventative, for physiotherapy more nowadays, moving towards community provision. So, how concerned are you regarding cuts to local authorities' budgets? We're hearing this year of further cuts, they're having to look at the core funding for education, social healthcare, and looking to close more leisure centres, community facilities, which they don't see as statutory—you know, they're not in legislation. So, do you talk to local authorities? Have you got connections with them? Is there any way you can help connect? 

09:50

Yes, we do. We have regular contact with local authorities, but it tends to be at the leisure provision, so the sport development or a department like that within a local authority. One of the purposes of the sport partnerships is to be more strategic with local authorities and have education, health, police and crime, housing around the table as well—so, more strategic input and discussion about how local authorities and sport can work together to gain much better synergies. So, the relationships with local authorities are good but they're at a level that has been a traditional level, and we want to try and change that relationship. 

The facility issue is crucial—obviously, it's critical—and there are some particular facilities that are facing heightened issues. Those with high energy usage costs are particularly vulnerable. So, the obvious ones would be swimming pools. We're not aware of any immediate or imminent closures; however, we are aware of the pressures on local authorities when it comes to that kind of facility stock. It's a bit more complicated because the facility landscape in Wales is complicated—it's private, it's community clubs, it's leisure trusts, it's local authorities, and, in some cases, a complete mix of all that.

So, there's no one-size-fits-all solution to the facility issue here, but we are aware of it. We have introduced a couple of direct schemes to try and help. So, the energy savings grant scheme is there for community clubs to apply for solar panels, insulation—things that will help reduce not only their running costs, but also help their sustainability and their environmental credentials as well. But that is a limited pot, and some community clubs can't apply because they don't have a long enough lease on the facilities that they're operating out of. 

Since COVID, we've heard about a decline in volunteers coming forward. Have you seen a return of volunteers coming to help with various—? 

I think that's variable. There's a couple of good schemes out there, though; the Welsh Sports Association and a few other organisations are running surveys and some awareness opportunities for volunteering, but it has been difficult. It's probably no different to a lot of other things that were negatively impacted during COVID. There's been a gradual change back to normal, but volunteering is not back to the levels that we once saw. But the study that is being conducted will be quite insightful to see what, if anything, we need to do specifically.  

Sorry, just to add that volunteers are a really important part of the landscape, not just in terms of what they give to people who are participating, but actually, by being a volunteer, they're doing a lot of physical activity themselves and making connections. I think sometimes when we talk about sport we just think about the participants, not about everybody else who's involved. 

We learned at committee that, to encourage people in communities to take part in sport, if they had just somebody they knew, they could connect with, to actually lead them into it, that made such a difference. 

Yes. Just one thing to add, sorry. I talked about the social return earlier—for every £1, it's £4.44. Part of that is volunteering and there's a benefit to the Welsh economy of £430 million from sports volunteering. So, it's a significant sum. It would have been higher, probably, pre COVID, so it's worth noting. 

Our insight department will be delighted to know, I'm sure. [Laughter.

Thank you. Sorry, for being late, No. 1. I'm just wondering, I do—. Of course, I share my colleagues' concerns that sport and culture are the first things to always be cut, yet, as you've just outlined—and I've always been a big advocate for it so there's no point hiding it—as a preventative agenda, sport is such an important tool in bringing up the health of our nation to a good standard, especially with childhood obesity, that sort of thing. There is evidence of it in the cross-party group on sport; I don't know if you're aware of that, that we did a big report into that. What became very apparent was that things shut down in the winter as well—that was one of the major concerns. We're used to a lot of rain in Wales. So, what happens in those times? As my colleague just said, leisure centres are closing down; obviously, that's something we're all concerned about, and you've answered that already. But what about outside sports—football, rugby, hockey, whatever it might be, junior particularly—that rely on pitches? You can only rotate the pitches so many times and then you have to cancel training, you have to cancel matches, and, basically, there's nothing for those young people to do—and adults as well. A lot of the clubs haven't had the investment at the lower level that they should have had, so that's a concern. There's maybe a priority on the top clubs, but those middle tiers particularly, community sports are getting a lot, but middle tiers particularly are not getting the funding to be able to train or for things outside. So, it's not fair, it's a bit slapdash, especially in Wales, as I said, with the lack of all-weather facilities. And also what we've recognised—sorry, Chair—is that those all-weather facilities have not been done very strategically, in terms of they're heavy in some cities and towns, but what about the rural areas? There's not that spread, there's not that accessibility for all that we all want to see. So, I just wonder if you could comment on that. Thanks.

09:55

—but they're all valid points, for sure. In terms of the facility stock for pitches or outdoor facilities, there is some good work going on with some of the bigger governing bodies, especially—so, football and rugby, we have a joint programme with football, rugby and hockey for replacement artificial pitches. But it's a small amount of money, really, in terms of the scale of the issue. So, we set aside £1 million of our capital funding to work with those three governing bodies on a programme of replacement, or enhancement, or even new. But £1 million doesn't go far. The scale of an artificial turf pitch cost is upwards of £700,000. That's for a replacement; brand new, you're talking £2.5 million, potentially, depending on the location. So, it's a contribution, but it will only achieve so much. But the FAW, the WRU and Hockey Wales do try and be strategic about where those facilities ought to be, and, if there's a proposal to replace a hockey pitch in a particular area, there ought to be provision for hockey somewhere else in that locality, otherwise they don't get some of the financial support from us. But with only a pot of £1 million, you're scratching at the surface, really. But it does help, and there are some excellent examples out there of artificial pitches that have been put into communities and making big improvements and having a positive impact.

In terms of rurality, it's an interesting subject. It's come up quite a bit in the conversations we have with our partners—they're called 'What matters' conversations. Rurality has come up as one of the top items. Again, it is one of the aspects of the sport partnerships. We're hoping that they will have a much better handle on those issues in their areas and give them due attention. We also use our investment approach for those sport partnerships to consider rurality as part of the weighting mechanism. So, it does get taken into account in terms of the money we give to the sport partnerships once they're established. But, again—maybe I haven't mentioned this enough—the nearly £21 million we get in terms of revenue is 0.2 per cent of the health budget. And yet all we're talking about here are the issues that sport can help alleviate. Well, if you're only given 0.2 per cent of a budget, your impact is going to be a lot less than it could be.

It would be amazing if we could do more for facilities, in terms of—. I think that, if you're sporty, or considered sporty, you don't necessarily mind training in cold, rain, whatever, but there's a group who, actually, are the ones that you want to keep involved, and it comes back to that facilities make a huge difference. This was way before my time. The first athletics club I joined was Bridgend Athletics club. We had a grass track, and we used to train in the multistorey car park in the winter. It was fine. But, actually, something that Bridgend's done, when they had funding to build a track, they built a 300m track, which is really unusual in athletics, but, actually, it's about space, it's about use, it's about what you need that facility for. It was really controversial at the time; I'd never heard of a 300m—. I don't think anyone had heard of a 300m track. But, actually, in terms of being able to get people participating, it's really good. So, actually, do we need an Olympic, Paralympic-standard athletics facility? No. It's about what we need for the community to involve people. A lot of work has been done on that in terms of being quite realistic, but it would be nice to be able to do more. 

10:00

Just to add a bit as well, we're talking quite a bit about increasing participation, and the evidence seems to show that trying to change people's motivation is not that successful; what you really need to do is make it welcoming and something they see themselves as wanting to do. That does hit onto the facilities agenda quite a bit. You know, if it's a muddy old pitch with ramshackle changing rooms with no facilities for women or young people, then it's not creating that environment to try and encourage more people to participate in sport and physical activity. So, the facilities agenda is very much interrelated to everything to do with what we're trying to achieve through the Vision for Sport.

Is it my questions now? Great. Good, that follows on. My next question is to what extent Sport Wales collaborated with other institutions to mitigate the impact of declining public funding. On this—I just have a supp before I give you that question—I used to be shadow education Minister, and we were talking about opening up twenty-first century schools to use their facilities, and that was a way of dealing with the non-facilities available in rural areas. That's a great idea. If there are more twenty-first century schools being built, that's great, with great facilities, but not all of them—and old schools as well—are being opened to the public, due to safety reasons or lack of staff. So, it's a lovely idea, but it's not actually happening on the ground. Have you had conversations around that, as well as other institutions, to try and mitigate that? Thanks.

Yes, we have. Again, if I'm going to be frank, I'd say there have been shards of light on that kind of progress. We did a pilot; we reported to the last inquiry on sport in disadvantaged areas that we were running a pilot on exactly that, so the beyond the school day pilot, the results of which have been published, and we've rolled it into a proposal called Daily Active, so making children active from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to bed, and that includes the facilities stock at these community-focused schools. There has been some improvement in terms of relationships with the relevant areas of Government on the community-focused schools side, but, as I said, they are shards of light, really. What we want to do is focus the glare of attention on the potential here, and so it is something we are attempting to improve. But it is proving difficult, for all sorts of obvious reasons, in terms of the pressures other areas of Government are under in terms of their own budgets and what they're trying to achieve. But I'll come back to a comment I used earlier about the false economy: if you want more out of your children in terms of educational return and potential, then keeping them active is a really good way of doing that. It improves their attention and the way they can cognitively act at school. So, it is a priority for us, but there's not enough happening.

I agree with you there. As you were saying earlier, not enough of the health budget is coming in, so not enough of the—. The staff to man those out-of-hours to enable those facilities to be used I'm assuming iwould come from the school budget, so that's cutting into that, so how do we get around that? Are you having conversations to try and ask the Welsh Government to try and give more money to local authorities, to set that aside for schools specifically, so they can have those out-of-hours facilities? Because otherwise, it's not going to happen, is it? How are you going to get round that, and the safety issue as well?

I think one of the keys to success in this area is not to focus on one particular area of Government; I think it is collaborative across several. The Daily Active programme is designed to be collaborative between public health, maybe local health boards, education, and ourselves. It is an area that we think could have a huge impact, but we've hit a bit of a brick wall. We're still trying to climb that wall. We haven't given up. We're pretty sure that we can make some progress, but it's going to take a lot of effort, and it's a little bit slow. But, yes, I don't think we will be successful if we just focus on education or, 'The local school needs to—'.  It needs to be collaborative across several agencies. 

10:05

They tend to be in the end, yes. But, as I say, sometimes, you can convince more locally once you point out the benefits to them of their agenda, because they might think it's a sport agenda that's being pushed, whereas, really, it's an educational agenda and a health agenda, as much as a sport participation agenda.

I think that's where the sports partnerships can also be really helpful in terms of knowing the local area, because it could be—obviously, with appropriate safeguarding—teachers, it might be volunteers, it might be clubs, depending what's in the area, depending what sports facilities are there. But that daily activity is so important. What I've seen in other areas, in terms of what happens in the summer holidays, six weeks—. Okay, the weather might be nice, but, in terms of how parents want to protect their children's safety—. I'm not sure this sort of misnomer that when we were all young we all went out from dawn till dusk with half a packet of sandwiches, 2p in our sock for a phone call—. I'm not sure that ever existed for a lot of people.

But parents now want to know where their children are. The world has changed. So, actually, in terms of opening school sites, it's not just before school and after school. There are lots of options. And, actually, again, in terms of families and how they participate, there are programmes mums and daughters participate in together. It's really important. We know that if a woman has had a poor experience of physical activity, and this is a bit of a generalisation—. They recognise boys, slightly like puppies, need to be fed and exercised, but girls are quite often protected. Some of those inequalities that exist are really hard to change. So, there are lots of ways that, not just thinking about young people being active in their local community—. It's about families, about mums, about grandparents, and if there's an opportunity to unlock that school site, that could have a really big impact.

I think Tanni has just hit on something I should have mentioned, which is that there is some optimism in that there are a couple of example schemes that we can point to when we're talking to partners or potential partners about where they can gain success. There's the 60 plus scheme that we've done with Welsh Government funding, and the PIPYN scheme, which is the children and families scheme. There are pilots in three areas. And then there's our 'beyond the school day' pilots as well. There are some interesting outcomes from each of those schemes that we can point partners to, but it does require resourcing if we're going to roll anything out wider, or enhance even those schemes. But I think, yes, I've got to give some credit to areas of Government that have seen the benefits and want to help. But it's about whether we can, as I said, turn those shards of light into some sort of glare and massive sunshine.

Just really quickly, Chair—. Thank you for that. Just to say that it's great, as you said, for opening up the school facilities after hours for the families and the children, but it's also for the adults, it's also for those sports clubs that can't train on their muddy pitches if they've done their crop rotation—not crop rotation, sorry, I'm a farmer’s daughter; I mean field rotation—and they can't do any more. So, it's for adults as well, isn't it, bringing them into the clubs. So, it would solve quite a few problems in one, not just, obviously, wanting our young people—

And that's where the 60 plus scheme could demonstrate benefits, for sure. Most local authorities have got a scheme, and I'm sure they'd want to do more in that area than the funding currently allows for, and so opening up school facilities beyond the school day might be a method of enhancing that scheme at very little cost. But we do need to address some of the issues that it presents the people who run the school.

Diolch. Just to alert Members and witnesses, we've got 20 minutes left. Would you have time to stay with us an extra five minutes at the end? Would that be all right? Diolch. But if Members could be as concise as possible so that we can get to as many questions as possible, that would be fantastic. Carolyn.

Have you tried to access additional funding from trusts or foundations—you know, private funding? Is that something you've looked at?

10:10

No. Back in 2015, we managed to change the royal charter to allow us to set up a subsidiary, or subsidiaries, if necessary. We haven’t enacted that. We’d still need Welsh Government permission, and the Privy Council, were we to establish a subsidiary. We think that’s probably the only way we could access funds of that nature, or commercial sponsorship, even. The reality, though, is that our remit letter does allow for clawback if we generate our own income in terms of value for the public purse. So, it is a very—. It's not a difficult area, but it’s an interesting area that we haven’t progressed, and I don’t believe any other sports council has either.

Sport England do have a subsidiary called Caversham Lakes Ltd, and that was set up for London 2012 to build the rowing facility, and they’ve used it to fund the This Girl Can programme, which is an advertising programme on terrestrial television, plus support for local authorities. But that’s the only thing they’ve ever done, and they used lottery funding for that, I believe, rather than commercial funding. We’re not allowed to spend lottery funding on ourselves, or any schemes that we run.

There is work ongoing at UK level in terms of how to bring sponsorship into the governing bodies of sport. At the UK level, there’s quite a lot of value in kind, but in terms of cold, hard cash, it’s actually considerably lower than you might imagine. Around 2012, there was a lot of sponsorship, but at the end of the Olympics and Paralympics, a lot of those big sponsors went to other places. So, definitely, at UK level, it’s a governing body issue.

I think the arts council have also mentioned that it’s difficult to balance attracting, say, commercial sponsors away from your partners. You could be treading on their toes, really, if you’re out in the market looking for commercial sponsors as they are. They may see it as being not supportive. But in answer to the question, it’s not an area we’ve—

Carolyn, forgive me, would you be happy if we moved on to other Members? Is that all right? Forgive me, because I'm very aware that Lee and Siân haven't asked as many questions. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thanks, Carolyn. 

Fe wnawn ni symud at Siân. 

We'll move to Siân. 

Diolch yn fawr. Gan droi at y llythyr cylch gorchwyl—y remit letter—rydych chi wedi sôn amdano fo yn fras yn fanna, dwi’n cymryd bod hwnna wedi cael ei gytuno yn ôl ar ddechrau'r Llywodraeth bresennol. Ydy o wedi newid o gwbl i adlewyrchu’r newid mewn cyllid?

Turning to the remit letter that you mentioned briefly there, I take it that that was agreed back at the beginning of this current Government’s term. Has it changed at all to reflect the change in funding that you receive?

Cwestiwn diddorol, Siân. Na, dyw e ddim wedi newid yn gyffredinol. Rŷn ni’n cael un bob tro mae newid i’r cyllid, ond mae’n rhoi gwybodaeth am y newid. Dyw e ddim wedi newid beth yw anghenion y Llywodraeth, neu ofynion y Llywodraeth. So, mae e dal mewn bodolaeth fel oedd e, oni bai am y swm oedd yn y llythyr cyntaf. Mae’r swm wedi newid, ond dyw’r anghenion ddim wedi newid.

That’s an interesting question, Siân. No, it hasn’t changed in general. We get a new one each time there’s a change to the budget, but it just gives information about the change. It hasn’t changed in terms of the Government’s needs, or the requirements from the Government. So, it does still exist as it was, apart from the sum that was in the first letter. That sum has changed, but the requirements haven’t changed.

Oes yna unrhyw drafodaeth ynglŷn â newid hwnnw? Oes yna awydd gennych chi, efallai, i gael y drafodaeth yna?

Has there been any discussion about amending the remit letter? Is there a desire on your part, perhaps, to have that discussion?

Mae yna awydd i’w wneud e'n fwy syml yn gyffredinol. Ond o ran y toriadau y cawsom ni, ar y cychwyn pan roedd sôn am ryw 20 y cant o doriad, roeddem ni yn sôn am angenrheidrwydd i newid y llythyr hwnnw, achos roedden ni’n methu â gweld sut roeddem ni’n mynd i ddarparu rhan helaeth o’r llythyr yna o fewn toriad o’r fath.

Pan ddaeth y toriad, ac roedd e’n llai, ac fe wnaethon ni edrych arno fe, gwnaethon ni roi esiampl i’r swyddogion o beth fyddai’r impact, ond dŷn ni ddim wedi sôn am newid y llythyr yn gyffredinol. Mae yna ddwy flynedd ar ôl, efallai, o dymor y Llywodraeth, so beth fyddai’n fwy handi yw cael gwybodaeth fwy hirdymor am y cymorth sydd ar gael, yn hytrach na'r llythyr ei hunan. Mae long-term funding, a sicrhad o ran hynny, yn fwy effeithiol i ni, ac i’n partneriaid ni. Achos rŷn ni yn gwneud offers iddyn nhw bob blwyddyn, ac mae'n anodd annog newid hirdymor pan fyddwch chi jest yn rhoi swm blynyddol iddyn nhw. 

There is a desire to make it more simple in general. But in terms of the cuts that we received, at the beginning, when there was talk of a 20 per cent reduction, we were talking about the need to change that letter, because we couldn’t see how we were going to provide a significant part of what that letter required with a cut of that kind.

When the cut came, and it was smaller, and we looked at that, we gave the officials an example of what the impact would be, but we haven’t spoken about changing the letter in general. There are maybe two years left in terms of the Government's term, so what would be more handy would be to have more long-term information about the support that’s available, rather than the letter itself. So, long-term funding and assurance, certainty, in terms of that, would be more effective for us, and for our partners too. Because we do make offers to them every year, and it's difficult to try to encourage long-term change when you're just giving an annual sum to them. 

10:15

Felly, ydych chi'n gallu ticio bob un bocs sydd yn y remit letter?

So, you can tick every box in the remit letter, can you?

Bydd rhaid i fi ailedrych arno fe. Mae dwy flynedd ar ôl, felly mae rhai pethau y gwnaethon ni ddweud nad oedden ni'n mynd i'w gwneud yn y flwyddyn neu ddwy gyntaf. Felly bydd yn rhaid inni edrych i weld os ydyn ni'n medru cyrraedd y rhai y gwnaethon ni ddweud fyddai'n fwy hirdymor. 

I'll have to look again at it. There are two years left, so some of the things we were saying we wouldn't do in the first  and second years. So, we'll have to look to see if we can still reach some of the things that we had said would be more long term. 

Fedrwch chi roi enghreifftiau, jest inni gael blas o beth sydd yn y gofynion?

Can you give us examples, just so that we can have a flavour of what is in those requirements?

Mae'n anodd. Mae'r llythyr bron i 12 tudalen o hyd, so bydd yn rhaid i fi edrych nôl arno fe. Ond rôn i'n eithaf ffyddiog ar y cychwyn, mae'n rhaid dweud, oherwydd bod y llythyr wedi cael ei sefydlu ar raglen y Llywodraeth, ac roedd rhaglen y Llywodraeth wedi cael ei hysgrifennu drwy lens y Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, ac roedd y weledigaeth chwaraeon a strategaeth chwaraeon Cymru wedi cael eu creu drwy'r un math o beth. Felly, roedd lot fawr o overlap. Felly, rydyn ni'n eithaf ffyddiog y bydd yn iawn, ond bydd yn rhaid i fi ailedrych nawr, neu bydd yn rhaid i'r bwrdd ailedrych i wneud yn siŵr bod popeth yn gallu cael rhyw fath o gyfranogiad, hyd yn oed os dyw e ddim yn cael ei gwblhau'n llawn. Bydd yn rhaid inni edrych.

It's difficult. The letter is almost 12 pages long, so I'll have to look back at that. But, I was quite confident at the start, because the letter had been established under the programme for government and the programme for government had been written through the lens of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and the sports vision and the sports strategy for Wales had been created following the same kind of thing. So, there was quite a bit of overlap and I was quite confident that it would be okay, but I'll have to look at it again, or the board will have to look at it again, to make sure that everything can have some sort of participation, even if it isn't completed fully. We'll have to look at it again. 

Oes yna rai dyletswyddau cyfreithiol sylfaenol—diogelu, er enghraifft—sydd yn cael eu tanseilio oherwydd y diffyg cyllid, gennych chi fel corff ond hefyd gan y partneriaid a'r cyrff llywodraethu?

Are there some basic legal duties—on safeguarding, for example—that are undermined because of the lack of funding, for you as a body but also for the partners and the governing bodies?

O'n rhan ni, na. Rydyn ni wedi cario ymlaen gyda'r cytundebau sydd gennym ni gyda'r NSPCC a'r Ann Craft Trust. Mae'r rheini'n dal mewn bodolaeth ac rydyn ni'n dal i'w hariannu nhw. O ran partneriaid, dwi'n gobeithio na. Mae proses lle mae cyrff llywodraethol, yn bennaf, yn mynd trwy broses o sicrhau eu bod nhw'n cyrraedd lefel o ran y CPSU, y child protection in sport unit. Felly, y lefelau safeguardingsafeguarding level 1, 2, 3. Mae gwahanol gyrff wedi cyrraedd gwahanol safonau. Mae'n rhan o beth rydyn ni'n galw ein capability framework ni, felly mae'n rhaid iddyn nhw wneud gwaith a rhoi rhyw fath o garantî i ni eu bod nhw'n creu strwythur sydd o les i blant a phobl ifanc, ac i oedolion o ran yr Ann Craft Trust

For our part, no. We have carried on with the agreements or contracts that we have with the NSPCC and the Ann Craft Trust. Those are still in existence. We still fund those. In terms of partners, I hope that that's not the case. There's a process where governing bodies, primarily, go through a process of ensuring that they reach a particular level in terms of the child protection in sport unit. So, those are the safeguarding levels—safeguarding level 1, 2, 3. So, different bodies have reached different standards there. And it is part of what we call our capability framework. So, they have to be working on that and giving us some kind of guarantee that they are creating a structure that is of benefit to children and young people, and to adults, in terms of the Ann Craft Trust.

Felly, rydych chi'n ffyddiog bod hyd yn oed clybiau ar lefel grass roots yn cyflawni eu dyletswyddau o ran DBS a'r holl wiriadau yma sydd angen eu gwneud. Ydy hwnna'n flaenoriaeth o ran defnydd y cyllid, sydd wedi prinhau?

So you are confident that even those clubs at the grass-roots level are fulfilling their obligations in terms of DBS and all of these other checks that need to be undertaken. Is that a priority in terms of the use of the funding, which has reduced?

Y cyrff llywodraethol sy'n gyfrifol am lawr gwlad, a'r clybiau. Nid ein clybiau ni ydyn nhw; clybiau'r cyrff llywodraethol ydyn nhw, felly nhw sydd â'r ddyletswydd fanna. Y ddyletswydd sydd arnon ni yw i wneud yn siŵr bod gan y cyrff llywodraethol strwythur yn ei le i drio gwneud yn siŵr bod hynny'n wir. Mae hwnna'n gwestiwn mawr o ran a ydy popeth yn saff ym mhob rhan o Gymru, ym mhob clwb, achos mae chwaraeon, gan amlaf, jest yn adlewyrchu beth sy'n digwydd mewn cymdeithas, ac mae pethau'n mynd yn anghywir mewn cymdeithas. Felly, beth rydyn ni'n trio gwneud, trwy ein partneriaid, yw gwneud yn siŵr bod rhyw fath o risk assessment a'u bod nhw'n lleihau'r siawns o rywbeth yn mynd yn anghywir.

So, it's the governing bodies who are responsible for the grass roots, and the clubs. They're not our clubs; they're the governing bodies' clubs, so they have the responsibility there. The duty that's on us is to make sure that the governing bodies have structures in place to make sure that that is the case. That is a big question, though, of everything being safe in every part of Wales, in every club, because sport very often just reflects what is happening in society, and things go wrong in society. So, what we are trying to do through our partners is to make sure that there is some sort of risk assessment done and that we reduce the chance of something going wrong.

Pa newidiadau buasech chi'n licio'u gweld ym mhroses cyllideb Llywodraeth Cymru? Rydych chi wedi sôn am gael y tymor hir, ond dwi'n meddwl, yn y gorffennol, rydych chi wedi sôn am greu rhyw fath o gyllideb ataliol o fewn iechyd, er enghraifft. A allwch chi sôn ychydig bach am hynny?

What changes would you like to see in the Welsh Government's budget process? You've spoken about having that long-term view, but in the past I think you've talked about creating some kind of preventative budget within health. So, could you tell us a little bit more about that?

Do. Dywedodd Carolyn yn ddiweddar am yr achlysur yr wythnos diwethaf yn y Senedd. Roedd y comisiynydd future generations, Derek Walker, yna a dywedodd Derek rywbeth oedd yn ddiddorol i fi. Doeddwn i ddim wedi meddwl amdano fe o'r blaen, ond roedd e'n sôn am greu, o ran cyllideb gyffredinol y Llywodraeth, rhyw fath o swm preventative. Ac mae hwnna'n ddiddorol iawn. Dwi ddim yn siŵr pa mor synhwyrol mae e o ran y bobl sy'n rhedeg y gyllideb, ond o ran cyrff fel ni, mae hwnna'n gwneud lot o synnwyr. Ond, oni bai am hynny, dŷn ni ddim wedi sôn—ond gyda'r swyddogion tipyn bach—am y ffaith mai dim ond canran fach o'r gyllideb sy'n cael ei darparu i ni. Ond mae'r llythyr oddi wrth y Llywodraeth yn 11 tudalen o hyd ac mae'n gofyn i ni a'n partneriaid ni i wneud lot o waith o ran rhaglen y Llywodraeth, ond canran fach rŷn ni'n ei chael o arian y Llywodraeth, felly mae'n rhaid i bobl fod yn synhwyrol o ran beth sydd yn mynd i gael ei ddarparu.

Yes. Carolyn mentioned that event last week in the Senedd. The future generations commissioner, Derek Walker, was there, and Derek said something that I found interesting. I hadn't thought about this before, but he spoke about creating, in terms of the general Government budget, some sort of preventative amount of money, and that is very interesting. I'm not sure how sensible that would be in terms of the people who run the budget, but, in terms of a body like ours, that makes a lot of sense to us. Apart from that, we haven't spoken a great deal—only a little bit with officials—about the fact that it's only a small percentage of the budget that is given to us. But the letter from the Government is 11 pages long and it asks us and our partners to do a lot of work in terms of the programme for government, but we only receive a small percentage of the Government's money, so people have to be sensible in terms of what will be provided.

10:20

Oes yna rywbeth arall y gall Llywodraeth Cymru ei wneud heblaw am symleiddio'r cylch gorchwyl a rhoi cyllid ychwanegol i chi, ac efallai rhoi cyllid hirdymor i chi a meddwl am waith ataliol yn fwy penodol? Oes yna rywbeth arall y gall Llywodraeth Cymru fod yn ei wneud i helpu?

Is there anything else that the Welsh Government could do other than simplify the remit and provide additional funding to you, and perhaps provide long-term funding and think about preventative work more specifically. Is there anything else that the Welsh Government could be doing to assist?

So, mae'r berthynas sydd gyda ni gyda'r swyddogion yn y Llywodraeth yn un dda—mae'n agored, ac mae hwnna'n help mawr. So, mae hwnna'n iawn. Ond, o ran pethau eraill, fel ein helpu ni i drio delio gyda phethau rôn i'n siarad amdanyn nhw jest nawr gyda Laura, ynglŷn â gweithio ar draws y Llywodraeth, byddai hwnna'n ddefnyddiol iawn—cael mwy o gymorth o ran hynny.

So, the relationship that we have with the Government officials is a good one—it is open, and that's a great help. So, that's good. But, in terms of other things, to help us to try to deal with the things that I was talking about just now with Laura, about working across Government, it would be very useful to have more support in terms of that.

I think that collaboration is incredibly important. Trying to spin all the plates that Government has to, I don’t envy anyone trying to do that. At Sport Wales, we do have conversations with lots of other bodies, but collaboration is really important. And any way that you could take a helicopter view of that from the Welsh Government would make a difference. It’s really easy to sit here and say, ‘Just give us more money’, and I won’t turn it down, but that’s not necessarily the answer to what we’re trying to do to change that pattern of physical activity, physical literacy. It’s education, it’s health, it’s Public Health Wales—it’s all those bodies having to work together, being able to work together.

Wales’s size is often used as a negative in terms of, certainly, resource availability et cetera, but it’s also a superpower in terms of being able to get people together—everyone knows someone who knows someone. The idea of six degrees of separation is down to about four in Wales, I think, if not less—

Two, yes, in certain areas of Wales for sure. But, in seriousness, I think that ought to be our superpower—being able to bring bodies and key personnel together more quickly, like we did in COVID, as an example, to address some of the issues instantly. I think we're not doing a very good job of that at the moment. Lots of public bodies are facing different pressures that mean that they stay isolated. We know we need to do more work with some of those public bodies and it is something we need to focus on.

And we've got some internal work going on at the moment in terms of what that collaboration could be like—connections, how to make it happen. It's about getting the right people in the room.

Okay. Fantastic. If you could send us some more information about that, that would be really useful, please.

Members, please forgive me, I'm afraid that, because we're so tight on time, I'll have to go to Lee's questions. I'm sorry, but there'll be other things that we can pick up on in writing. Forgive me, I'm sorry about the time. Over to Lee.

Yes, just some snappy ones really, just to pick up on some of the things you've said. So, on your point about the clawback of any privately funded money that you had raised being prohibited by the remit letter, would you welcome that being removed from the remit letter, just to be clear?

Yes, sure. I mean, it's pretty vague in the remit letter, it's pretty flexible, but the chances are, were we to secure a multimillion-pound deal from a suitable commercial company, I'm pretty sure that the Treasury would look at that and go, 'Well, hang on, we used to give you £21 million. You've now secured, £x million. Why do you need our £21 million?'

Okay. Then, in a separate point, you mentioned that you found Derek Walker's argument of some preventative spend superficially attractive but would need to think it through. I guess the same argument could apply to you as an organisation. How practical would it be for you to identify some of your internal funding for preventative spend?

The way we currently invest, not very useful, because we don't prescribe, whereas the Welsh Government prescribe to us in fairly lengthy detail, in 10-, 12-page remit letters, so it's pretty prescriptive. It's very difficult then for us to do something with our partners in a similar vein, when we're not being that prescriptive. The investment approach is different now—we calculate the amount of investment a partner gets on the basis of an approach that allocates scores for what they are doing, so they are in control of changing that when we rerun the investment approach.

10:25

So, it might not be practical for you, but you still think it might be practical for the Welsh Government to do it themselves?

Yes, to look at it.

Okay. And then, just one other quick question, as you mentioned earlier the impact on your partner bodies of the funding squeeze. I'm aware there's some concern in the sector that the stand-alone Welsh bodies may find it increasingly hard to sustain an operation in Wales, and there's some concern that some of them might revert to the mothership, if you like, to go back to GB bodies or England-and-Wales bodies, which would have other adverse consequences on the Welsh civil society ecosystem, I guess. I just wonder if you have any reflections on that.

Yes, we could spend quite a long time on that.

Well, the headline would be that there are various models out there already in terms of Welsh, British, English-Welsh, no British. It's very complicated, and each sport is different. So, we are doing a current piece of work about the resilience of the sector, which does cover that, and what is right for the Welsh body. Again, it is going to be different depending on the sport, but we are supportive of Welsh bodies. In terms of their current existence, it doesn't necessarily need to change and be absorbed by a British body. But it might be—

I'm sure it would have an impact, but there's an impact in the British situation at the minute as well, and they're doing the same piece of work, really.

They're going through system master planning, which is looking at that, so it's important that we do what's right for Wales, but with a lens of the UK as well.

I don't see them being inherently linked, because we do fund some very small governing bodies that have always existed separate to a British body, and it's not related to the level of investment we give them. So, in one or two instances, a change in our level of investment might impact on that, but it doesn't necessarily impact on it, but it might.

Okay. And just to close, I'm going to pivot onto a different subject, which is just a progress report on the way the WRU are getting on in implementing the recommendations made to it, and if you have a view on how they're doing with that.

Yes. We have constant dialogue with the Welsh Rugby Union, as we do with all the other governing bodies. They've made significant change and progress against the governance report that was part of the changes that were required to reinstate our funding. What they've done on the board level is substantial. That change is significant, as I said.

The other conditions that necessitated our withdrawal of funding back two years ago, they have now met them, so funding has been reinstated to the Welsh Rugby Union. But they go through the normal processes of accountability and capability review. So, they, for example, have developed a strategy, which was one of the conditions, but I know there are further stages to that strategy that are required. They've established an oversight group to see how progress is being made against the Rafferty review. Dame Anne Rafferty herself chairs that oversight group. We have Dame Katherine Grainger on it, from UK Sport. So, they've made significant progress.

On the Rafferty oversight board, do you have any sense of how often that's been used, of cases referred to it?

It's not about cases being referred to it; they look at the Rafferty recommendations and the progress being made. So, I think there is a set schedule for that oversight group to meet to check on progress.

That is active, yes. There are three members on that group—it's Anne Rafferty herself, Kath Grainger from UK Sport, and the director of HR from the Football Association of Wales, Hannah—. I've forgotten her surname.

Okay. Very good. It's good to see that there's balance. Just in terms of the learning from that whole WRU experience for the rest of the sector, how have you sought to apply those lessons to the organisations that you fund?

Initially, I think the main learning is that our partners have recognised that bodies, no matter how big they are, need to be following principles of good governance. So, the guidance that was in existence then still exists now—the governance and leadership framework for Wales and the capability framework that we operate. It's basically given that some weight, so that the WRU experience has helped others realise why that's there and why it's important. So, in a sense, nothing else has changed, because that guidance is still valid. We are currently reviewing that to try and simplify it and bring in the behavioural aspect, because you can have all the policies in the world and have all the documentation that says you're a good organisation, but if your behaviours aren't right, then it's pointless. So, we are trying to change those documents to include an element of the behavioural aspect, and that's the bit we've learned from the WRU—

10:30

And are you considering an oversight board, then, for the rest of the sector?

No, the oversight group for the WRU is there to check on everything that came out of the recommendations for the things that had gone wrong—

Yes, but the principle of having oversight to make sure those cultures and procedures are followed through—

Well, there's a current process. So, we would just implement the current process for checking on partners' progress—

So, every governing body has a full review once every four years, which is consultants going in, a bit like an internal audit. Currently, there's a self-assessment process that we ask everyone to do annually, but we're changing that in the capability framework to more of an adult relationship, if you like. But there are five principles in the new capability framework, and so they'll be monitoring regularly against those principles with partners.

I think that's what they are, really, without using that term—

No, that's a full governance review. 

The checks against the principles ought to be regular. I mean, spot checks—. If we're told of an issue, then we can do within our regulatory powers what we can do. Our regulatory powers are limited though.

Yes, that gets us into a whole other discussion about whether we should be a regulator or an ombudsman or—

Yes, we are reliant on a very healthy relationship, a mature relationship with partners, but when things go wrong, there's a limit to what we can do. Ultimately, our only course of action is to withdraw funding, but sometimes that can have worse effects than—

That's not always the answer. I think the issue with WRU brought it very close to home to Wales. So, I think when there had been breakdowns in governance and other issues in the past, they'd been UK bodies, and it might have felt sort of distant, or a lot of the things that are public have been at senior performance level, whereas I think what happened with WRU just made Welsh governing bodies realise that it can happen anywhere. I think it's really important that governing bodies take that—. They do take the responsibility through the framework, but it can happen at any time. Any body can have things that go wrong, and it's how quickly they recognise it and fix it. That's really important, that they don't just ignore what is going on, but they bring about change.

In terms of the spot-check issue, there are examples at the minute where there are some partners that we're withholding funding from while we await some changes that we've recognised need to be made. So, it is a bit of a constant dialogue. We have a relationship manager for each of the governing bodies. There's a team of five that have a cohort of governing bodies allocated to them. So, that relationship is important; it's about attending board meetings, and partners achieving what we've put in their offer letters. 'Spot checks' is just a different term, I think, for what we do.

I'm so sorry, we're out of time.

Diolch yn fawr iawn i’r ddau ohonoch chi am eich tystiolaeth. Diolch am aros rhai munudau’n hwyrach hefyd. Bydd transgript o’r hyn sydd wedi cael ei ddweud yn cael ei ddanfon atoch chi i chi wirio ei fod e’n gofnod teg o beth sydd wedi cael ei ddweud. Hefyd, mae yna rai cwestiynau doedd dim cyfle gyda ni i’w gofyn, felly gyda’ch caniatâd gwnawn ni eu gofyn nhw mewn ysgrifen. Ond diolch yn fawr iawn am eich amser y bore yma. Diolch eto.

Thank you very much to both of you for your evidence. Thank you for staying a few minutes over time too. A transcript of what's been said will be sent to you for you to check that it's an accurate record of what's been said. Also, there are some questions that we didn't have the opportunity to ask, so, with your permission, we will ask them in writing if that's okay. But thank you very much for your time this morning. Thank you once again.

Thank you very much.

Aelodau, gwnawn ni dorri am bum munud. 

Members, we will take a break now for five minutes. 

Thank you so much again.

Gohiriwyd y cyfarfod rhwng 10:34 a 10:43.

The meeting adjourned between 10:34 and 10:43.

10:40
4. Effaith gostyngiadau cyllid ar ddiwylliant a chwaraeon: Sesiwn dystiolaeth gyda Chomisiwn Brenhinol Henebion Cymru (5)
4. Impact of funding reductions for culture and sport: Evidence session with the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales (5)

Bore da a chroeso nôl. Dŷn ni nawr yn symud at sesiwn dystiolaeth olaf y pwyllgor heddiw, a dŷn ni nawr yn mynd i glywed gan Gomisiwn Brenhinol Henebion Cymru. Gwnaf i ofyn i'n tystion ni i gyflwyno'u hunain ar gyfer y record, ac fe wnaf i fynd at Christopher yn gyntaf, sydd yn yr ystafell.

Good morning and welcome back. We now move on to the committee's final evidence session of the day, and we're now going to hear from the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales. I'll ask our witnesses to introduce themselves for the record, and I'll go to Christopher first of all, who is in the room.

Christopher, would you like to introduce yourself?

Yes, of course. Bore da, bawb. I'm Christopher Catling, I'm the chief executive or secretary of the royal commission. I am coming up to my tenth year; I joined on St David's Day in 2015.

Ffantastig. Diolch yn fawr iawn. A Hayley.

Fantastic. Thank you very much. And Hayley.

Hayley Roberts, is-gadeirydd y comisiwn brenhinol.

I'm Hayley Roberts, I'm the deputy chair of the royal commission.

Grêt. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Os yw'n iawn gyda chi, gwnaf i fynd yn syth i mewn i gwestiynau. O ran y lefelau cyllid cyffredinol sydd gennych chi, pa strictures mae'r rheini'n eu rhoi ar eich gallu chi i gyflawni'ch cyfrifoldebau statudol a'r rhai sydd yn eich llythyr cylch gorchwyl?

Great. Thank you very much. If it's okay with you, I'll go straight into questions. In terms of the current levels of funding that you receive, what strictures do they place on your ability to fulfil your statutory responsibilities and those outlined in your remit letter?

That's a very good question. We have two governing documents, if you like, at the royal commission. One is the royal warrant itself, which, if I could summarise in a sentence, requires us to make an inventory of the buildings and monuments of Wales that illustrate the life of the people of Wales at all times in the past. So, that's our core duty: to create an inventory. Back in 1908, that meant published books; these days, it's a digital inventory, it's our Coflein, our digital platform. At the same time, we have a remit letter from Welsh Government and a set of key performance indicators that, I'm afraid, don’t really address that core warrant duty. They are social objectives. They are objectives to do with young people, older people, community cohesion, apprenticeships, social prescribing, promotion of the Welsh language—I could go on, there are many others. All of which are extremely worthy objectives, but I think the assumption is that we can just deliver those as a by-product of the core duty, but of course that’s not the case. You can’t send somebody out with very specialist skills to record a listed building that’s due to be demolished and bring with you a lot of volunteers and other people to help. Simply, the burden of health and safety and safeguarding legislation and guidance and so on just prohibits that. It also adds to the time and capacity involved.

So, the way that we have addressed those objectives, which we embrace—I’m not for a moment objecting to them—is by seeking external funding. We have been very successful in that. Perhaps the most recent example is our Pendinas community engagement project, which has been hugely successful. I’m hoping and praying that it will win an archaeological achievement award—the shortlist is going to be announced tomorrow. It has enabled us to do all sorts of wonderful things with the local community in Penparcau, which is a suburb of—sorry, they would hate me to call it a suburb—which is the community south of Aberystwyth. [Laughter.]

10:45

I’m really pleased to say that, when we brought in specialists to do a social audit of whether we’d achieved the objectives of creating the community well-being that we’d set out to achieve, we discovered that all the volunteers who’d taken part—and we’re talking about people with mental health issues like grieving, loneliness, anxiety; we’re talking about people whose lifestyles meant that they were not as healthy as they should be—they had all taken part in the project and they said they valued it because (a) they were out in the open air doing wonderful exercise, (b) they were learning things, (c) they got the sense of belonging to a community, but most important of all they said, 'We felt we were contributing to a very worthwhile project. We felt we were making a personal contribution.'

So, we do try to do both objectives as hard as we can. But, as I say, the social objectives are not funded by Welsh Government to the same degree. Quite honestly, our funding from Welsh Government pays for the salaries of our staff and the things that we have to do, like computing, cyber security—that comes at a big cost, £110,000 a year just for our computers, before we even sit at our desks. So, we’ve had to work very, very hard to win external funding for the KPIs.

Diolch am hwnna. Hayley, ydy hyn yn rhywbeth sydd wedi gwaethygu dros y degawd diwethaf?

Thank you very much. Hayley, is this something that has worsened over the past decade?

Yn sicr. Dwi’n meddwl efallai fod y pwyllgor wedi cael ffigurau a data gan Christopher yn dweud bod yna leihad mewn staff wedi bod o bron iawn 50 y cant, sy’n eithaf—. Mewn ffordd, dydyn ni ddim yn gallu gwneud mwy efo llai, a dydyn ni ddim yn gallu gwneud yr un peth efo llai ychwaith. Mae’n anodd bod efo dau feistr, mewn ffordd. Mae gennym ni'r llythyr cylch ac mae gennym ni'r warant frenhinol, ac fel mae Christopher newydd sôn, dydy’r ddau ddim bob tro yn cyd-fynd. Yn amlwg, maen nhw yn gallu: mae treftadaeth yn bwysig iawn ar gyfer y nodau ddaru Christopher sôn amdanynt sydd yn y llythyr cylch, megis cefnogi’r cwricwlwm newydd ac apprenticeships. Roeddwn i wedi nodi ychydig bach o enghreifftiau oedd yn y remit letter:

Certainly. I think that perhaps the committee has received figures and data from Christopher saying that there has been a reduction in staff numbers of almost 50 per cent, which is quite—. In a way, we can't do more with less, and we can't do the same with less either. It's difficult having two masters, in a way. We have the remit letter and we have the royal warrant, and as Christopher just mentioned, the two don't always correspond. Obviously, they can do: heritage is very important for the aims that Christopher mentioned that are in the remit letter, such as supporting the new curriculum and apprenticeships. I had noted a few examples that were in the remit letter:

develop international cultural partnerships, opportunities for learning exchange programmes, work with partners to develop school holiday enrichment programmes.

Mae’n ddrwg gen i, mae fy nodiadau yn Saesneg. Ond, yn sicr, dydy’r rheini ddim yr un peth â’r warant sydd gennym ni. Wedyn, mae balansio’r ddau yn anodd. Yn mynd yn ôl at y cwestiwn gwreiddiol, yn sicr mae hynny wedi gwaethygu ers i fi ddod yn gomisiynydd. Dwi'n meddwl, ers pump, chwe blynedd bellach, mae hyn wedi bod yn destun pwyllgor dro ar ôl tro.

I'm sorry, my notes are in English. But, certainly, those aren't the same things as are in the warrant that we have. Then, balancing both of those things is difficult. Going back to the original question, certainly that has got worse since I started as a commissioner. I think, since five of six years now, this has been a topic of many committees time after time.

10:50

Diolch am hwnna. Fe wnawn ni symud at Carolyn.

Thank you for that. We move to Carolyn.

A lot of public bodies have faced inflationary pressures for the last 10 years, or more. So, how are the pressures faced by the royal commission compared to that, do you think—to everybody else, other public bodies?

You're absolutely right. Our costs have gone on rising at as astonishing rate. Cyber security certification, which is a requirement, used to cost us £700 and now costs £10,000. It's a reflection not just of inflation, it's the lack of people with the skills to do the work, so their salaries have risen, and also the companies that provide those services have recognised that they enjoy a degree of monopoly and that they can charge that much. Other costs that have risen are pay rises. We also have seen increases in the costs of employers' pension contributions. And there are many, many other costs that you're probably well aware of, like the cost of petrol, the cost of overnight stays when our staff go out to work in the field and have to stay in a hotel and so on. So, the way we've coped, I'm afraid, is simply by freezing posts. As people have left the commission, we have not replaced them, unless their role is so absolutely fundamental to our delivery that we have to. And this has been much regretted by the sector. For example, we do a lot less now with going out and giving pre-planning advice to local authorities and applicants for listed building consent, because we no longer have the specialist who used to do that work.

Local authorities can charge for the service, but we don't. Our principle is that our services are already paid for by Welsh Government, so, therefore, we provide them as a free service to the people of Wales.

Okay. If you have a similar budget next year, and looking forward to the budgets, going forward, what would the impact be, do you think?

Well, the major impact is that quite a number of our staff are now doubling up and doing two jobs. Our governance officer is now our human resources manager, even though she has none of the qualifications or skills to do that job. Our procurement manager and operations manager is doubling up as our finance manager. We have two members of staff running the library and inquiries service, which is a room within the National Library of Wales that is remote from where the archives are. Now, if you can imagine, there's got to be one person there all the time, invigilating visitors, and somebody else has got to go and get stuff from the archive store. If one of those two members of staff is ill, having lunch, on holiday, whatever, we have to close the service. So, the impact is that we continue to operate at high levels of stress for staff, providing a service that's off and on, and without the capacity to deliver the sorts of things that we should be.

Can I just go back to having a charging model? So, local authorities charge for pre-planning advice to developers. Is that something that you might be able to take forward in the future?

We've thought very long and hard about this, and we've looked at other models. English Heritage—no, Historic England, sorry, pioneered a premium service of this kind, and it completely failed. They hired staff to deliver these services—nobody wanted to pay for them. We've done calculations that suggest that the income from such services, paid-for premium services, would not cover the cost of delivering them, and certainly wouldn't sustain the entirety of the commission.

Could I just follow that up? In your evidence, you mentioned that you're struggling to meet the demand for windfarm developments and other renewables, because you're not able to give Natural Resources Wales the information they need as quickly as they do it. When you speak to the sector, they often say they'd be happy to pay to speed up the process, because that would give them certainty. So, it may be that pre-planning has proven to be not viable, but specifically around renewables, have you considered whether—?

Yes, we have. Every time we are asked to deliver this sort of data to underpin master planning, we always say, 'We don't have the capacity, will you pay us?', and the answer is 'no'. And often what happens is, then, that the person who's requesting the service goes to a consultant, and, ironically, the consultant charges more than we would have done.

10:55

No, no, it's the agencies. So, one of the things that we have identified as a major task facing the commission is to make better known the services that we can provide to the master planners and agents like Natural Resources Wales. But as I say, the level of income from that sort of work is never going to pay for extra staff or sustain the commission.

Sure, but I'm also thinking not just of the impact on you, I'm thinking of the impact on the speed of getting through planning applications for developers.

Yes, yes, speeding up the process. Absolutely, yes. 

Maybe, Chair, that's something we could think about in terms of follow-up action. Thank you.

How do funding restrictions impact on the ability to contribute across different policy areas, for example health?

I think there are two answers to that. One is the pure capacity issue, that it actually is a very time-consuming and people-heavy project to deliver some of these services, and I think we saw that. I sat in front of this committee several years ago to discuss the Fusion project and the same sort of problems. You can help a small number of people, but you can't help tens of thousands. It's a one-to-one relationship, very often.

But the other thing is—I hope my sponsor division don't mind my saying this, but they like to give the same objectives to all the arm's-length bodies that they manage, so that they get what they call read-across between the different organisations. I personally think it would be far better to identify one organisation to lead on a particular delivery objective, and make it quite clear who is responsible for the delivery of, let us say, social prescribing. And then I think we'll get more results if you do that.

I visited the national library recently in recess, and the royal commission was part of that building, and I am sorry, I’m very naive—I hadn't understood all that, and really fully understood what you did. So, it was very useful for me to attend as a member of the committee. Is there more that could be done, do you think, working across between the national library and the royal commission?

We already work very closely with the library, the museum and Cadw. And we try very, very hard. There is a danger that co-operation actually doesn't mean what it says. It often means just parallel; you're doing things, but not actually doing them together. We are increasingly trying to do things together. I don't know whether it has yet been announced officially in the Senedd, but we are engaged in talks with Cadw at the moment, and we are holding workshops—Cadw and commission staff coming together to discuss how we can do that better. If you remember, a previous Cabinet Secretary for culture announced that, as a result of the Cadw governance review, she was asking us to engage in these talks. Well, we've begun the talks, we've got a working group, we've got terms of reference and we're running staff workshops. And we're considering the options of remaining as independent institutions, merging together or some middle way whereby we have formal project agreements to work together.

Diolch yn fawr. Yn dilyn ymlaen o'r pwynt yna, ydy'r cydweithio sydd ar waith yn mynd i helpu hefo'r sefyllfa ariannol?

Thank you very much. Following on from that point, is the collaboration that is happening going to help with the financial situation?

No, it won't help with the financial situation. What it will do is focus on the core irremediable tasks, the things that—you know, the minimum that the commission and Cadw have to do in terms of statute, in terms of international treaties like world heritage site management. It will mean change, and it will mean probably doing less than we currently do, but doing it differently. And one example of that is that, currently, I think there's an expectation that the royal commission will be the body that goes out and records every building that is going to be demolished or substantially altered—partial or total demolition. We have one and a half people to do that. Wales is going to lose 500 places of worship in the next 10 years—just do the maths. We can't record all those buildings. So, we are thinking hard about how we delegate that work to other people, and what we're trying to do is encourage local conservation officers to place a recording condition on listed building consent, and then use the private sector to do the recording work and then we get the results into the national monuments record, where they're available for everybody to consult. So, that's an example of creative and different thinking. It's not going to solve the financial problem, but it is going to enable us to try and mitigate the problem; that's what I'm trying to say.

11:00

Sori, dwi'n meddwl bod Hayley eisiau dod i mewn yn fanna.

Sorry, I think Hayley wanted to come in there. 

Sori, roeddwn i jest mynd i ddod mewn i atgyfnerthu hynna. Dwi'n meddwl ei fod o'n hynod o bwysig ein bod ni'n gweld y ddwy broses yna fel prosesau cwbl ar wahân. Felly, yr effaith o'r toriadau yma a'r sefyllfa gyllidol, ond hefyd y gwaith dŷn ni'n ei wneud efo Cadw i weld sut fedrwn ni weithio yn agosach. A beth bynnag ydy outcome y broses yna, dwi'n meddwl ei fod o'n bwysig i ni bwysleisio—ac yn sicr i'r Llywodraeth weld hynny hefyd—mai pwrpas yr adolygiad efo Cadw ydy sicrhau bod Cymru yn cael yr historic environment gorau posib, ac nad yw hynny wedi cael ei ddreifio gan doriadau cyllidol ac yn y blaen. Felly, jest eisiau adio hynny at beth ddywedodd Christopher yn fanna. 

Sorry, I was just going to come in to reinforce that point. I think it's important that we see those two processes as entirely separate processes. So, the impact of these cuts and then the financial situation, but also the work that we do with Cadw to see how we can work more closely together. And whatever the outcome of that process is, I think it is important for us to emphasise—and certainly for the Government to see that too—that the purpose of the review with Cadw is to ensure that Wales has the best possible historic environment, and that that isn't just driven by financial cuts and so on. So, I just wanted to add that to the point that Christopher made there.

Felly, beth dŷch chi'n ddweud ydy nad ydy'r cydweithio o angenrheidrwydd yn mynd i arwain at arbedion ariannol, sydd yn ychydig bach o syndod, a dweud y gwir, achos mae'n amlwg bod rhaid i gydweithio ddigwydd fel nad ydy'r dyblygu, efallai, sydd yn digwydd, yn digwydd i'r un graddau. Dŷch chi ddim yn derbyn y ddadl yna, felly, nac ydych?

So, what you're saying is that that the collaboration isn't necessarily going to lead to financial savings, which is a bit of a surprise, to be honest, because it's clear that collaboration needs to happen in order for that replicating of work that, perhaps, happens, doesn't happen to the same extent. You do not accept that argument, therefore, do you? 

For the last 10 years, we have been continuously encouraged to look at efficiency savings, particularly by combining back-office functions. We have worked really hard at that and we've never identified a single saving. Our organisation—all of us—are working to the bone, and I mentioned that two of our staff are now wearing two hats—human resources and finance manager, key functions for any organisation. When those two posts became vacant, we tried really hard—we asked the library, we asked the museum, we asked Welsh Government, we asked Cadw: could we share the resources? And they said, 'We'll provide the service to you but we'll need to hire somebody to do the job.' So, there's no saving there, and you would lose the direct connection with your HR manager.

I think the picture that I should paint is of a number of organisations working in historic environment who are very lean and don't have any fat at all. It has no low-hanging fruit, to mix my metaphors.

Yes, but in terms of the example you've chosen there in terms of sharing HR, it makes sense that the HR services of the other bodies involved—the human resources, the HR element, could be restructured in order to facilitate bringing you into that as well.

Structurally, there is no question that that could happen, and we do get a huge amount of advice and help from the HR manager at the library, in particular. But it won't save any money—that's the key point. 

Jest cyn i chi symud ymlaen, mae Lee eisiau dod mewn. 

Just before you move on, Lee wants to come in. 

Just on that theme, you gave us an example earlier that you're spending £110,000 a year on computers. Is there not room for collaboration there? 

It's not computers per se, it's the running of our Coflein system, the means by which everybody gets their access to our collections. It's the cyber security, it's the back-ups, it's the total package, it's our—

There's an additional £10,000 for cyber security, or is that within the—? 

That's within the £110,000, yes.

Okay. Have you engaged with the Centre for Digital Public Services, for example? 

Yes, we do talk to them all the time. I would say that the royal commission is a very sophisticated user of computer systems, often ones that are not supported by Welsh Government, or even understood or known about by the Welsh Government. The nature of our work means that we use an awful lot of either bespoke software or high-tech software, CAD systems. When we go out, we use laser recording backpacks, which collect data, point data, and then they have to be—

11:05

—but I find it hard to believe that CAD, for example, is not used across the public sector.

No, it isn't, no—not by any of our partners. We are the only users, and—

But, anyway, even if they are used by other sectors, you pay a licence per user, so there's no benefit to—. We drive our licence fees down by registering as an educational organisation, or under the Welsh Government licence.

I just struggle, from a commonsense point of view, to understand that there are no savings across those organisations. Because I remember an inquiry by this committee eight years ago, when Ken Skates, as Cabinet Secretary, looked for back-office functions, and we heard the same story then. I remember David Anderson coming here, complaining about the awful procedures they'd had to go through and how it wasn't possible to find any savings. And that is a very hard argument to sustain.

I'm afraid we have the evidence to the contrary. I would be very, very—

You also have declining funding, so something's got to give at some point, doesn't it?

Ah, yes. Well, that's a different question. There's a different question between efficiency savings, and I would argue that we are—. As chief execs, we work all the time very hard to keep efficient and to find the best possible savings. Structural changes, and doing things differently, that's a different issue.

Right. And is that captured by the work you're doing with Cadw, structural changes?

That is what the purpose of the working group review is, yes.

Okay. And is there a working group looking specifically at digital, procurement and HR?

Okay. And who exactly—remind, me sorry—is in that cluster, that work?

Right. The chief execs of Cadw and the royal commission, the chairs of Cadw and the royal commission, an external heritage expert—

And the unions and staff representatives—

They are all going to be consulted. They are key stakeholders, and we've grouped our stakeholders according to those that we will have detailed conversations with, which are the library, the museum and Heneb—the Trust for Welsh Archaeology—and then those who will be consulted by means of a workshop.

I'm just wondering, in terms of specifically how you might restructure to share functions, limiting yourself to just one other body is probably not the most optimum of search criteria.

Well, Cadw doesn't have its own functions; Cadw uses the Welsh Government. So, we would—

So, you're unlikely to find much ground to share functions, in that case.

Okay. So, you're asking the wrong question, then, with respect, aren't you? So, why aren't you looking at other bodies that you might be able to share functions with?

Because we don't—. The work of the royal commission and Cadw is very complementary.

Well, with respect, cyber protection is not something specific to Cadw and the royal commission. That's a skill that can be shared across other bodies. But, if you're only looking to collaborate with one body, you're unlikely to come up with much room for improvement, are you? So, why are you narrowing your search criteria to just that?

Okay. Well, there are two answers to that. One is because that's what the Minister has asked us to do, and the other one is because, as I say, we don't have—. There are no other organisations that have similar needs and delivery objectives to ours. What I—

Lee, who would you suggest we talk to? Come on, be specific.

I said, 'Be specific'. Who would you suggest we talk to?

No, I'm not not calm. I'm asking you a serious question. You—

Excuse me, can I just finish this? You're special pleading the whole time that—. I don't doubt that you're very efficient and you're doing a tough job with limited resources and that's frustrating. I completely understand that; I'm not questioning the value of your work. I'm simply challenging some of your evidence that there aren't functions you couldn't share with other bodies. There are generic HR skills, there are generic cyber skills, there are procurement skills that could be found beyond simply looking just at Cadw, is my point.

And when I addressed that question earlier, I said that we had worked really hard to find people to share it with. They had said, 'Yes, we can offer you the service, but we will need to hire staff to deliver it.' So, you haven't saved any money.

Can I just finish specifically on that? Because you've mentioned, I think, the national museum and the Welsh Government—the national library, sorry, and the Welsh Government. Have you looked beyond those for sharing those?

We have not, no, because I would not be able to identify another organisation that would be able to offer those skills to us, which is why I asked the question, 'Have you got a suggestion?'

11:10

All right. Okay. Thank you.

Gwnawn ni fynd yn ôl at Siân.

We'll go back to Siân.

Diolch yn fawr. I ba raddau ydych chi wedi ceisio codi arian ychwanegol, er enghraifft yn fasnachol neu o trusts neu sefydliadau eraill, er mwyn lliniaru effaith y dirywiad cyllid cyhoeddus? Gwnaethoch chi ddweud eich bod chi wedi bod yn chwilio am

Thank you very much. To what extent have you tried to raise additional funding, for example commercially or from trusts or other institutions, in order to mitigate the impact of the decline in public funding? You said that you had been looking for

external funding for the KPIs in the remit letter.

O le mae'r arian yna'n dod? Pwy ydy'r cyrff allanol?

From where is that money coming? Who are these external bodies?

The table that I submitted as part of the written evidence to this committee gives you some details of the external funding that we have received in the last 10 years. We've been conspicuously successful. But, as I said, when I gave evidence to another culture committee inquiry into the impacts of leaving the European Union, that most important source of funding has now been cut off for us. That funded a major six-year climate change project, which has been very well received.

Our main sources of funding now are the National Lottery Heritage Fund and the Arts and Humanities Research Council. The sorts of moneys that we can get from the AHRC are quite small, and we're not allowed ourselves to lead projects, so we're very dependent upon being brought in as partners to universities or analogue research organisations like the National Museum. But, nevertheless, we have a number of small projects that bring in about £10,000 a year. We've developed some quite innovative deep-mapping proposals as a result of that—award winning.

The National Lottery, we are doing quite a bit to help them strategically. I mentioned the loss of places of worship just now. The National Lottery is very concerned about places of worship and their future, and we're trying to undertake an audit to find out what the different denominations are planning in terms of church and chapel closure over the next 10 years, and what their needs are. So, we work really hard and we're quite successful.

Ydy'r cynllun Aberystwyth, er enghraifft—ydych chi wedi cael arian ychwanegol tuag at y peilot yna ac oes yna—

Is the Aberystwyth scheme, for example—have you received additional money towards that pilot and is there—

—botensial i wneud mwy o'r math yna o waith er mwyn cyrraedd at beth mae Llywodraeth Cymru'n disgwyl ichi ei wneud o ran y remit letter?

—potential to do more of that kind of work in order to reach what Welsh Government is expecting you to do in terms of the remit letter?

Yes. Yes, we are involved in that, but often as a very, very small partner in the projects. So, the sorts of sums we're talking about are £4,000 to £10,000.

Sorry, were you referring to the Pendinas project?

Ah. That was a much more generous funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund. Cadw put in £10,000, we put in an equivalent amount, and the lottery put in about £0.25 million [Correction: £143,243]. I need to check that fact, but I think that's roughly what they contributed.

Dwi'n meddwl bod Hayley eisiau dod i mewn fan hyn hefyd.

I think that Hayley wanted to come in at this point.

Ie. Jest i adio at hynny eto, dwi'n meddwl bod y comisiwn wedi bod yn llwyddiannus iawn yn cael cyllid ar gyfer pob math o brojectau, sydd yn hollol, hollol wych. Dwi'n meddwl y broblem efo cyllid allanol—fel dwi'n siŵr bod unrhyw sefydliad yn gwybod—ydy dydy o ddim yn guaranteed. Felly, dydy o ddim yn rhywbeth medrwn ni rely ar, mewn ffordd. Hefyd, fel mae Christopher wedi sôn, does gennym ni ddim charitable status, does gennym ni ddim IRO status—Independent Research Organisations status—felly mae o'n anodd inni fynd i mewn i'r UKRI, er enghraifft. Sori, dwi'n siŵr bod yr acronym yna rhywle—UK Research, ie, dyna fo—a'r EU funding, felly fedrwn ni ddim mynd i mewn i'r rheini. Felly, mae'n rhaid inni ddisgwyl i fod yn ail bartner, mewn ffordd, a dydyn ni ddim yn gallu gyrru projectau ein hunan, felly mae hynny wedi bod yn anodd. Er ein bod ni wedi bod yn eithaf llwyddiannus, dydy o ddim yn rhywbeth y medrwn ni, yn rheolaidd, fod yn rely arno.

Yes. Just to add to that again, I think the commission has been very successful in drawing down funding for all sorts of projects, which is of course excellent. I think the problem with external funding—as I'm sure any organisation will know—is that it isn't guaranteed. It isn't something that we can rely on, in a way. Also, as Christopher has mentioned, we don't have charitable status, we don't have IRO status—Independent Research Organisations status—so it's difficult for us to apply for UKRI funding, for example. Sorry, I'm sure that that that acronym is there somewhere—UK Research, yes, that's it—and the EU funding, so we can't enter that bid process. So, we have to wait to be a secondary partner, in a way, and we can't drive projects ourselves, so that's been very difficult for us. Though we have been relatively successful, it isn't something that we can regularly be relying on.

Ydy'r opsiwn o fynd am statws elusennol yn rhywbeth sydd yn gwneud synnwyr?

Is the option of going for charitable status something that makes sense for you?

Ydy, yn sicr. Dwi'n meddwl bod hon wedi bod yn drafodaeth ers cyn i fi fod yn gomisiynydd. Dwi ddim yn gwybod a fuasai Christopher yn gallu dweud mwy am hynny efallai.

Yes, certainly. I think this has been a discussion since before I became a commissioner. I don't know whether Christopher would be able to tell you more about that, perhaps.

11:15

Yes, we took legal advice on this and were told that we'd have to dissolve the royal commission, that it would be incompatible to be a royal commission and a charity, and we decided that, on balance, being a royal commission was the stronger governance for us.

I just remembered something that I think is really important to stress about external funding. We're not using that—. When we win external funding, we set up a separate project team, and we hire people to work on it. And if any of our staff work on the project, they're paid for from the project funding and we backfill their posts. We're not using Welsh Government money for any of these external projects at all. They are absolutely additional to what we do.

As far as charitable status is concerned, there is a special status that some organisations enjoy without actually registering as a charity if their work is deemed to be charitable. Some church organisations, for example, benefit from that. We are trying very, very hard to see if we can benefit from that, because some of the philanthropic bodies that give money to projects only give to charities. Some of the most wealthy philanthropic trusts only give to charities.

Ond o gofio yr argyfwng ariannol, onid ydy hi’n bryd i chi, efallai, ailymweld efo’ch penderfyniad ynglŷn â'r balans yma? Efallai fod y balans wedi sifftio ychydig bach rŵan a'ch bod chi angen y statws elusennol yma er mwyn cario ymlaen efo’r gwaith rydych chi'n dymuno ei wneud.

But, keeping in mind the financial situation, could it maybe be time for you to revisit your decision in terms of the balance here? Maybe the balance has shifted a little bit now and maybe you need that charitable status in order to be able to carry on with the work that you want to do.

Absolutely, yes. The commissioners have that on their agenda at every meeting.

Thank you. What is the impact of the royal commission receiving additional funding from the Welsh Government midway through the financial year? In September, the royal commission received an extra £90,000 revenue—

—from the Welsh Government. A previous witness from the arts council called it a 'sticking plaster'.

Well, yes, it is a sticking plaster in that it is time limited. It's for use this year. This is the mitigation fund. We're really grateful for it. What we've done is that we've hired six additional staff for a period of six months to work on absolutely vital projects. Two of them will support the library and enquiry service, two of them are going to undertake scanning of our most used archive collections, and two of them are doing an audit of the data that we deliver to the public via our Coflein digital platform. If we'd had a decision on that earlier in the year, we would have—. The impact of having that decision halfway through the year is that we've hired twice as many people for half the time.

Okay, thank you for that. And to what extent do you think that the Welsh Government’s draft culture priorities, which were discussed in the summer, should help cultural bodies mitigate the impact of the reduced funding?

I understand from Catrin Hughes that about 400 responses were received to that consultation. So, she's working her way through them. But I think there's a common thread through all the responses, which is, 'These are admiral objectives, but we need the tools to do the job.' We would be very happy to have that culture strategy as the framework for our future delivery.

Okay. Diolch. And, finally then, what else do you think that the Welsh Government could do, aside from additional funding, that would mitigate the effect that's being seen?

As I say, we're working hard on thinking of mitigations. Sometimes I think the culture sector, the heritage sector, the historic environment sector is seen as a 'nice to have'. But, actually, we're more than a 'nice to have'—we're actually fundamental to the delivery of Welsh Government's statutory responsibilities in certain areas and to the planning system and master planning and infrastructure planning and so on. So, Lee has mentioned windfarms, afforestation, offshore aggregates extraction, and various other things like that where we are the source of the information that Government agencies use to make sure they're not harming the historic environment, which is excellent.

The major mitigation is for us to say, 'Right, what is absolutely core?' and we will focus on that. And that is what the workshops that we're having with Cadw are designed to do at the moment. Rather than aspiration, what would we love to do with all the funding in the world, we're actually saying, 'What is the irremediable core of what we have to do? And is that going to be best delivered on our own, together, or through merger?'

Ocê, diolch am hynny. Dwi ddim yn gweld unrhyw gwestiynau eraill.

Okay, thanks for that. I don't see any other questions.

11:20

Rôn i'n defnyddio'r botwm i roi fy llaw i fyny. I adio at hynny, dwi’n meddwl buasai cael cyllid dros amser hirach—longer term funding—yn gymaint o help. Dydy cael cyllid wedi cael ei osod yn flynyddol ddim yn help ar gyfer planio long-term o gwbl. Hefyd, rydyn ni'n methu rili cario llawer o gyllid, os dim byd, o flwyddyn i flwyddyn, ac mae hynny, dwi’n meddwl, wedi bod yn anodd—methu cael y strategic thinking yna ar gyfer hynny.

Hefyd, o ran y weledigaeth ddaru Christopher sôn amdano, dwi ddim yn gwybod os buasai cael Gweinidog llawn ar gyfer treftadaeth neu culture yn gyffredinol yn helpu i gael y weledigaeth yna o fewn y Llywodraeth, i jest wneud yn siŵr nad ydy treftadaeth yn cael ei weld fel, ‘O, mae hwnna jest i bobl sy’n licio hanes' neu beth bynnag. Yn sicr, mae o’n bwysig ar gyfer iechyd, well-being, yr economi, pob math o bethau.

Roeddwn i jest eisiau cloi drwy fynd yn ôl i beth roeddwn i’n sôn amdano yn gynharach efo’r adolygiad efo Cadw. Dwi ddim yn gwybod os bydd yna arbedion i gael ar gyfer y merger yna. Dwi’n meddwl ei bod hi’n rhy gynnar i ddweud, os mai merger, yn amlwg, ydy’r outcome yn fanna. Ond dwi’n sôn mwy am y motive, rili, o wneud yr adolygiad yna. Dylai'r motive ddim fod i arbed; dylem ni gadw’r motive fel gwneud yn siŵr ein bod ni’n gwneud pob dim posib i amgylchedd hanesyddol Cymru.

I was using the button to put my hand up. To add to that, I think that having funding over a longer period of time—longer term funding—would be a lot of help. Receiving money that’s set annually isn’t much of a help for planning in the long term at all. Also, we can’t really carry forward a lot of funding from year to year, or no funding from year to year, and that, I think, has been difficult—not being able to have that sort of strategic thinking for that.

Also, in terms of the vision that Christopher mentioned, I don’t know if having a full Minister for heritage or culture generally would help, perhaps, to get that vision within the Government, just to make sure that heritage isn’t seen as, ‘Oh, that’s just for people who like history' or whatever. Certainly, it is important for health and well-being, and the economy, all kinds of things.

I just wanted to close by going back to what I was talking about earlier in terms of the review of Cadw. I don’t know if there will be savings to be had in terms of that merger; I think it’s too early to say, if a merger, obviously, is the outcome there. But I’m talking more about the motive, really, for doing that review. The motive shouldn’t be to make savings; we should keep the motive as making sure that we’re doing everything possible for the historic environment of Wales.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Diolch i’r ddau ohonoch chi am eich tystiolaeth y bore yma. Bydd transgript o’r hyn sydd wedi cael ei ddweud yn cael ei ddanfon atoch chi ichi wirio ei fod e’n gofnod teg. Ond diolch yn fawr iawn ichi am y dystiolaeth, rŷn ni’n ddiolchgar iawn. Aelodau, dŷn ni’n symud yn syth ymlaen, ond fe wnawn ni ddiolch unwaith eto i’n tystion ni y bore yma.

Thank you very much. Thank you, both, for your evidence this morning. A transcript of what has been said will be sent to you, for you to check that it is an accurate record. But thank you very much for your evidence, we’re very grateful. Thank you. Members, we will move on, but we'll thank our witnesses once again. 

Thank you so much. Thank you very much indeed. 

5. Papur(au) i’w nodi
5. Paper(s) to note

Dŷn ni’n symud yn syth at bapurau i’w nodi. Fel y byddwch chi’n gweld, mae nifer o bapurau gennym ni, o 5.1 yn eich pecynnau, hyd at 5.6. Ydych chi’n fodlon i ni nodi'r rhain? Ac i unrhyw un sydd yn gwylio, dŷn ni’n eu nodi nhw yn gyhoeddus, ond bydd yna rai y byddwn ni eisiau'u trafod yn breifat. Felly, i unrhyw un sydd wedi ysgrifennu atom ni—a dŷn ni’n gwybod bod rhai aelodau o’r cyhoedd wedi ysgrifennu atom ni—dŷn ni yn mynd drwy’r rhain, a bydd ymateb gennym ni fel pwyllgor yn dod, yn sicr. Felly, os ydych chi wedi ysgrifennu mewn atom ni, diolch yn fawr iawn ichi am wneud hynny. Ydy’r Aelodau yn fodlon i ni eu nodi nhw? Diolch.

We move straight on to papers to note. As you’ll see, there are a number of papers in the pack, from 5.1 in your packs, to 5.6. Are Members content for us to note these papers? And for anyone watching, we note these papers in public, but there are some that we’ll want to discuss in private. So, anybody who has written to us—and we know that some members of the public have written to us—we do go through these papers, and we as a committee will issue a response, certainly. So, if you have written in to us, thank you very much for doing so. Are Members content for us to note the correspondence? I see that they are. Thank you very much.

6. Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i benderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod hwn
6. Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of this meeting

Cynnig:

bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(ix).

Motion:

that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix).

Cynigiwyd y cynnig.

Motion moved.

Rwy’n cynnig, o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42, bod y pwyllgor yn gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod heddiw. Ydych chi yn fodlon i ni wneud? Iawn, ocê, fe wnawn ni aros i glywed ein bod ni’n breifat. 

I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42, that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of today’s meeting. Are Members content for us to do so? I see that you are. We’ll wait to hear that we’re in private.

Derbyniwyd y cynnig.

Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 11:23.

Motion agreed.

The public part of the meeting ended at 11:23.