Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I've got something to declare. I'm a member of the BBC National Chorus of Wales. I think Lee also has something.

Yes, I declare that my son is a BBC apprentice.

Tim Davie, director general of the BBC.

Thank you ever so much. Garmon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you ever so much. I think Rhuanedd—

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

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

We've sorted that.

Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Through the licence fee. I'm just—

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

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

So, take S4C out of it.

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

You made that case last time.

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

We accepted it last time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understood.

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

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

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

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

Okay, so—

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

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

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

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

The Burton stuff was fantastic. 

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

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

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

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

Which one? 

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

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

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

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

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

Not half, there isn't. 

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

No, it doesn't. 

What, the numbers of the population? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's no doubt about that.

And that means serving your audiences in Wales properly.

You guys might want to respond. 

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

Services in Wales, serving Welsh audiences. 

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

And it was covered well, to be fair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I agree with you.

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

We'll invite you back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diolch.

Diolch. Lee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Totally right. 

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

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

The floor is yours. 

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

I agree. 

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

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

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

We have similar tensions. [Laughter.]

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

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

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

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

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

These are network news journalists.

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

Mick, you had a question. 

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

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

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

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

It's about signposting, isn't it?

It's about signposting, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

Sure.

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

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

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

I'm quite excited about that with Casualty.

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

Mmm-hmm.

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

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

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

And on that point exactly, over to Heledd.

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

Yes, very important as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

Totally right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you mean by 'the central level'?

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

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

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

Heledd. 

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

Absolutely. Totally. 

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

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

I think you've got the wrong—

No?

—people in the panel. [Laughter.]

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

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

I think it's critical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, indeed.

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

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

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

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

No adverts, for one thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much for your support. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. Diolch.

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

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

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

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

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

To get prominence, it does, yes.

Okay. 

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

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

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

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

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

Sure. Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. 

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

Yes, exactly. 

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

You heard it here first.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr.

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

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

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

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

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

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