Welsh Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: Broadcasting in Wales, HC 450
Monday 7 December 2015
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 7 December 2015.
Members present: David T C Davies (Chair); Byron Davies; Chris Davies; Christina Rees; Antoinette Sandbach; Liz Saville Roberts; Mr Mark Williams.
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Meri Huws, Welsh Language Commissioner, and Ania Rolewska, Policy and Research Officer, Welsh Language Commission, gave evidence.
Q1 Chair (Translation): Thank you very much indeed to Meri Huws and Ania Rolewska—hopefully I have pronounced that correctly—from the Welsh Language Commissioner’s office. Thank you very much indeed for coming today and for giving evidence to us. We will be starting with Byron Davies, please. Thank you.
Byron Davies: Good afternoon, I will do it in English, if you don’t mind, because I do not think my Welsh will be sustainable. Can we start by looking at the role of broadcasters in relation to the Welsh language? You have said that it is vital that the Welsh language presence on public broadcasting platforms in Britain continues and increases. How content are you with it at present?
Meri Huws (Translation): Thank you very much for the question. When we first saw the statement in the Green Paper that considered the charter review of the BBC, I was genuinely concerned that there was no recognition of the importance of broadcasting through the medium of Welsh. There was one brief reference only in the Green Paper to broadcasting in Wales and in Welsh. We realised at that point that there was a lack of understanding of the importance of broadcasting through the medium of Welsh in Wales—and you have also considered it across the UK—not only as a matter of creating entertainment or factors relating to value for money; the contribution it makes to the Welsh language outweighs simple value for money indicators.
Broadcasting through the medium of Welsh knits into the rich network of life in Wales. It is more than simply broadcasting on a box in the middle or in the corner of a room; it is a key part of identity. This is not unique to us in Wales. If you look at the work undertaken in other countries where there are minority languages, it shows that broadcasting, media communication through the medium of that minority language, has a particular importance. That in itself is recognised in the European Charter on Minority Languages, which acknowledges the importance—and the extreme importance—of broadcasting. It is also recognised in other documents.
It is recognised in documents, but we see it from day to day in Wales. Can I share with you one fact? Last week, we published a comprehensive piece of work, a review of use of the Welsh language. It is a piece of work that is undertaken every decade in Wales, and we undertook it jointly with the Welsh Government. One of the figures that struck me in the results was the fact that today in Wales, four out of five of the 13 to 15-year-old young people who speak Welsh have learnt it outside of the home. One in five learns Welsh at home, according the old pattern. Those children learn their Welsh in our schools. It is a fantastic reflection of the work undertaken by Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin and primary schools.
Chair (Translation): Sorry, Meri, but I am a little bit concerned about time.
Meri Huws (Translation): Can I just complete that point? If you consider that they don’t hear the Welsh language in their family, hearing Welsh on television is extremely important. Anyone who is bringing up children in Wales today will appreciate the importance of Cyw and broadcasting on television.
Q2 Chair (Translation): You have talked about minority languages around the world. Have you any good examples in Europe of broadcasting in a minority language?
Meri Huws (Translation): The situation is different in all countries, of course, but I will turn to Ania.
Ania Rolewska (Translation): This is quite an interesting question because, of course, all contexts are different and we have to be aware of that in terms of funding arrangements and the political regimes in different countries. If we look, for example, at Catalunya, it is difficult to draw comparisons because they have 10 times the number of speakers that we have in Wales. The Basque Country perhaps is a better example because it is a similar size in terms of its audience. If we look at the Basque Country, the first thing we see is that there is so much more plurality and so much more choice for speakers. They have more than one television channel; they have a radio station that is specifically for young people. So plurality is a strength. Even though it is difficult to differentiate one from the other, it is true that the Basque language is going from strength to strength and that the number of speakers is growing and has done over recent years.
Q3 Chair (Translation): I have to ask this because you come from Poland, I think. Are there any minority languages in Poland at all?
Ania Rolewska (Translation): Poland is an interesting example because we have minority languages, but the narrative of moving from a dialect to a language is only just developing. There is the Silesian language in Upper Silesia and there is Kashubian in Kashubia, but the narrative stems to some extent from our history as a state. It also comes from the fact that we are quite a uniform society in terms of language, religion, culture and so on. So a lot of our national attitude to minority languages comes from our history.
Chair (Translation): Thank you very much.
Q4 Byron Davies: I wanted to continue, Meri, with the point that you opened up on the Green Paper and the fact there is only one mention. Why is that, do you think? Is somebody to blame for this?
Meri Huws (Translation): No, I don’t think that there is anyone to blame. I think it is the lack of understanding of the importance of broadcasting through the medium of Welsh in Wales, considering that the Green Paper was put together here in London where, I would imagine, broadcasting is thought of as multichannel. There is only one Welsh medium channel and I think that the situation is so different. It is not about blame here, but a misunderstanding of the needs of Wales. That is why I am so pleased that you, as a Committee, are looking at this matter so you can convey the complexity of the situation in Wales and the importance of seeing broadcasting as being something more than simply making sure that there are programmes on television. Broadcasting is such a part of our social life and identity and, as I said, I think that it is so vital as we consider the growth of the Welsh language among young people. We cannot disregard the importance of that.
Q5 Byron Davies: I would just ask one more question, if I may please, to both of you perhaps. I read today that there are several local authorities in Wales that don’t see the Welsh language playing a part in their policy in the years ahead. Are you troubled by that or do you have a view on it?
Meri Huws (Translation): If you were to look at the data and where there has been an increase in the use of the Welsh language, the Welsh Language Use Review last week showed that the demographic patterns in Wales are changing. There has been a huge increase in areas such as Cardiff, and in Rhondda Cynon Taf. Wales is changing, the linguistic landscape is changing, and I think that perhaps the councils don’t realise what is happening under their noses.
Q6 Antoinette Sandbach: How many were in the sample of the piece of work that you did?
Meri Huws (Translation): To be fair, it is very big. It is a 10-year survey, so it is a very big sample across the whole of Wales, but I will make sure you receive a copy of that work to look at the sample.
Chair (Translation): We have to be a little bit quicker, if possible, please.
Q7 Christina Rees: My daughter learnt to speak Welsh in school because we didn’t speak it at home. I am still learning after all these years. The UK Government have voiced some concern about the higher cost of producing programmes for indigenous languages such as Welsh in comparison with those in English. Do you think this concern is justified?
Meri Huws (Translation): I will start and I am sure Ania will want to come in on the more quantitative points. Naturally when a channel is trying to prepare and provide for several different audiences and trying to maintain a standard similar to what people expect to see everywhere, there is a need for sound and continuous investment. I don’t think that you can draw an easy comparison between major multichannel providers like the BBC, and S4C. S4C is trying to provide for the needs of several parts of society, from three-year-olds to people who choose to watch older people’s programmes, so naturally there are costs. We have to recognise the value of that investment—not simply the economic value but the worth of that investment in the culture and identity of Wales. Do you want to come in with the figures?
Ania Rolewska: Yes, of course. This matter of cost and value for money, and a cost per hour and so forth, has come up clearly in the Green Paper. I think it is fair to say that it is a little bit misleading in how it deals with the figures and compares across services. The figure referred to is the cost per hour of use. Of course, that indicator is important as something that shows some kind of trend over time. But if we compare the BBC’s major services, such as BBC Radio 1, with Radio Cymru, it is inevitable that the cost of Radio Cymru is higher because the size of the audience is smaller. It is totally based on the size of the audience, how many individuals receive the service, so it is inevitable that this cost is going to be higher. That does not mean that the service is not cost effective, it just means that we use an indicator that is not quite fit for purpose.
In preparing for this session, I have looked at other contexts, for example Ireland where this discussion was had last year in the context of TG4 Raidió na Gaeltachta, and there is a recognition in that context that it is totally inevitable that the costs will be higher because of the size of the audience. Of course we all hope that the audience will grow but the audience is more limited compared with the English language audience. Producing a good quality programme in any language costs more or less the same money.
Meri Huws (Translation): The word “standard” is very important. When we talk about services, the expectation is that the service through the medium of Welsh will be just as good as the service in any other language. In order to remain contemporary, which is what S4C and the BBC broadcasting in Welsh seek to do, there is need for investment in other platforms, in other formats. We know that the increase in the number of viewers on iPad from S4C is unbelievable. The figures are unbelievable. You have received them from S4C. There is a need for investment to remain contemporary and maintain the standard as well.
Q8 Liz Saville Roberts (Translation): If I can take the opportunity, please, to answer Antoinette Sandbach’s question on the Welsh language user survey. It was part of the national survey in Wales and there were 29,000 interviews undertaken that contributed to that, which is quite significant.
You have referred to how Welsh language programmes tie into Welsh society, the integral role that they play, and that they are therefore vital if the language is to prosper into the future. To what extent, therefore, should we be concerned that the number of listeners and viewers seems to be reducing? More importantly, what can we do to stop this, and to increase the numbers, specifically in terms of plurality, which you have already touched on, and also in terms of the key age group, three to 15 years of age, who possibly associate the language more with education than with living their lives? Finally, something that we have not succeeded to crack, how do we reach people outside Wales and provide services for them?
Meri Huws (Translation): Thank you, Liz. The viewing and listening patterns for S4C are very similar to the listening and viewing patterns we see in BBC One, Radio 1 and so forth. There are changes happening in the way that people decide to view and listen to broadcasting so we need to make sure that we consider the online viewing figures, to be aware of and tie that into any analysis. How are people viewing and listening? How do we make sure that important cohort, the three to 15-year-olds, who then become the 16 to 25 group, continue to view? We have to do that by making sure that there is investment in online provision, contemporary provision of the highest standard possible. We have to make sure that the provision for the three to 15-year-olds remains consistent and robust, but we also need to make sure that, as those young people possibly turn their backs on education and on traditional provision, S4C and the BBC broadcasting through the medium of Welsh meet their needs. Those needs are very sophisticated and we need to invest.
There is a need to think in a totally different way about funding S4C to make sure that there are no cuts, and, moreover, that we see it as an investment in the future. We must also ensure that there is an investment over a period of time. In the past five years, we have seen a cut of around 30% in the budget, as you know. That does not create status and confidence for broadcasting through the medium of Welsh in Wales, and that is what is needed.
Q9 Mr Mark Williams: Welcome. In your evidence to us, you described the cuts imposed on S4C as disproportionate. You have just mentioned a figure of 30% and S4C’s figures suggest their budget has been cut by 36% over the last four years against a BBC cut of 20% to 26%. That was prior to the announcement in the comprehensive spending review of a possible further 25% cut. Maybe it is predictable, but what is your reaction to the further cuts that are envisaged by DCMS?
Meri Huws (Translation): What we understand from S4C is that they have made the cuts, and they have been tried maintain the standard of their provision, but inevitably in facing further cuts, what is going to be cut is content and also the format, the way in which broadcasting happens. We are starting to see that already with repeats of programmes, but we cannot face that. Why should we accept a service that is not as good as the best in world? That is what we are talking about.
As I have already said, this is the only Welsh language channel in the world and we should be making sure that it is of the highest possible standard, and, to go back to what Liz said, making sure that people around the world can watch and view the only Welsh channel. We are making cuts on top of cuts, and that is not acceptable for a service that is so vital to us.
Q10 Mr Mark Williams: Consistently, time after time, S4C has proved that it is competing on a world perspective in terms of quality and when 79% of their budget is dedicated to output, it will have that dire effect particularly, as you said. I endorse what Christina just said about the importance of education and young people, particularly those of us who might not be blessed with the language, but our children are. That is fundamental.
I want to ask you about how you see the role of the Secretary of State in all this. You will recall the formula that guaranteed and protected funding was there but it was removed in the Public Bodies Bill and what was put in in its place was a form of words that said that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport would guarantee or ensure adequate funding for S4C. In the light of those cuts, what is your verdict on successive Secretaries of State, perhaps more particularly the current one, fulfilling his statutory duty to the language and to S4C?
Meri Huws (Translation): If we look at the bare facts of cuts on top of cuts on top of cuts, it is very difficult to argue that that responsibility is being realised. There is now a need to ask fundamental questions about how to safeguard the future of S4C. I don’t think we can doubt the importance of broadcasting through the medium of Welsh. Whether it is on a tablet, television, multi-platform media that we currently have, there is a need for us to make sure that responsibility is in place and acted upon. It is not being fully implemented at the moment.
Q11 Mr Mark Williams: Not wanting to reopen the somewhat protracted debate we had at the time of the Public Bodies Bill, do you feel that the approach, through the form of words of vesting in the Secretary of State the capacity to determine what he or she deems to be adequate funding, works or do you think we should be looking for the return to a more robust formula that protects rather than potentially destroys?
Meri Huws (Translation): It would be good to see the evidence base for those decisions and others. There is a danger in decisions based on an opinion rather than sound evidence, and we do have sound evidence in Wales over recent years of the importance of broadcasting through the medium of Welsh for the language, but also for our culture and for the people of Wales in general.
Q12 Antoinette Sandbach: I wanted to go back to the viewing figures. There has been a substantial drop in the viewing figures from 2008; 19.5% of the population watched Welsh language programming and that has now dropped to 14.1%. There are similar drops in the figures for Radio Cymru. What do you identify as the cause of that drop in viewing figures?
Meri Huws (Translation): As I said earlier, the patterns that you have just mentioned can be seen in other media and on other channels. That is not unique. People view and listen in different ways now and we have to recognise that. There is a major dependency on this figure for S4C. That is not fair without putting it in the context of everybody else and the other figures. I will turn to Ania now for the viewing figures online—and I think we have to remind ourselves of those—and also the viewing figures of Cyw.
Ania Rolewska (Translation): Certainly the bare figures do look stark. You have to put them in context, of course. You have to realise that audiences are tending to turn more towards digital platforms. We see that in Wales and what is happening online is very striking. Since S4C became a full channel on iPlayer, the use of Welsh medium content online has been absolutely astounding. We look at the figures that show clearly where the future lies for Welsh language content. This is also important because young people between the ages of 16 and 25 are the most likely to use online content, and they perhaps also have more problems of using Welsh from day to day, so this is very important.
Q13 Antoinette Sandbach: Given the changes and the change in the method of viewing and putting also the financial aspects in the context of the overall economic situation, DCMS has said the cut is in line with savings being made elsewhere and is a modest reduction in S4C’s overall funding. Would you say that that is a fair assessment, given the economic challenges that are facing the country?
Meri Huws (Translation): Let’s go back to where we began. Considering the contribution of S4C in a way that compares it with other channels misleads us. There is more of a contribution. There is a greater importance than simply the contribution of bare broadcasting. We are talking here about a significant contribution and I do not think that that is reflected in the figures.
Q14 Antoinette Sandbach: I understand there is a cultural contribution, which is effectively your argument: that it is a contribution towards maintaining and supporting the language. I accept that, but I am asking you why you say the statutory duty has not been fulfilled for S4C. In other words, you are arguing for special treatment for S4C that does not apply or where there are similar cuts elsewhere that there should be—
Meri Huws (Translation): Not special treatment, but a recognition of the channel’s contribution. That is what we are asking for, based on evidence rather than a bare comparison with other channels in Britain.
Q15 Liz Saville Roberts (Translation): There is something a bit dangerous about some of the statistics we use. The ones that Antoinette mentioned referred to the reduction in the percentage viewing and listening, but, if I understand it correctly, that refers to the population in its entirety. The moment you set aside the monoglot English population, the percentage who view and listen changes. The figure we have is 373,000 viewers. If you compare that in stark terms—and assuming that there will be people who view who are not Welsh speakers—with the number of Welsh speakers, which is 562,000, then you get to 66%. The reach is very striking. We are using statistics that are irrelevant here to judge something that has quite a broad reach, which is also vital.
Ania Rolewska (Translation): I think that it is important also to realise what kind of statistics we are using, and not simply look at Wales. For example, the use of S4C content has been growing across the whole of Britain, not just in Wales. Welsh speakers do not live only in Wales. That said, Welsh speakers are not the only people who use this service either. We should not be so narrow in the way in which we consider content. It is important that this content is accessible and available to everybody and I think the recent trends show that S4C manages to do that. It would be a shame if there were to be further cuts that jeopardised the channel’s ability to continue with its work.
Q16 Chair (Translation): A very easy question: there is no representation from Wales among the charter review advisers. Is the Minister doing enough to understand the perspective of Welsh speakers during the process?
Meri Huws (Translation): If you were to look at the Green Paper in the first instance, I would argue no. We are aware that other Committees here in Westminster and in Wales are asking questions specifically about Wales and I welcome that. I welcome what you are doing. It is very sad that there is no valid representation from Wales on the charter review.
Q17 Chair (Translation): At the moment, BBC is going through its charter review process. Should we do the same kind of process with S4C as well, some kind of charter review process or consider the way that we manage S4C?
Meri Huws (Translation): What you are doing here is a precedent. You are gathering evidence and listening to others. What we would not want, of course, is that being the basis to undermine further, but if it is a way of ensuring a better understanding of the particular contribution of broadcasting through the medium of Welsh in the BBC and S4C, I would appreciate and welcome it.
Q18 Liz Saville Roberts (Translation): How satisfied are you with the BBC’s current governance structure. Does it reflect or represent the requirements of Wales?
Meri Huws (Translation): I cannot claim that we are experts in that particular arena. I would not wish to contribute to any arguments, with no firm evidence from our side. I think what we have seen from the outset in the process of charter review and looking at the contribution of S4C is a real lack of understanding—and I am repeating myself—of the importance, status and contribution of Welsh medium broadcasting, whether at a cultural or an economic level. If it is possible for us to meet that need, that would be a significant step forward, or what will happen is that every two or three years or so, there will be this kind of event because there has been a further cut, with the same arguments being rehearsed time and again. We need to make sure that there is stability and robustness to the funding of broadcasting in Wales
Liz Saville Roberts (Translation): And the voice of viewers and listeners in Wales should be heard through the governance structures, whatever they may be.
Q19 Chair (Translation) Finally, can I ask if you think that we have enough scrutiny of broadcasting in Wales by, for example, the Assembly or any other body?
Meri Huws (Translation): I am aware that the Welsh Government are looking at the future of broadcasting at present. The danger with body-on-body scrutinising is that attention is not paid to what is genuinely important, which is ensuring a firm, long-term future for broadcasting in Wales. Not further scrutiny, but more stability in funding is needed. If scrutiny leads to that, I would welcome it, but it does not always do so.
Q20 Chair (Translation): I do not think there are any further questions, so may I thank both of you for your contributions? I am sure we will hear more on this subject. Thank you both very much indeed.
Meri Huws (Translation): Can I thank you for undertaking these sessions? I think it is very important that you do. Thank you.
Ania Rolewska (Translation): Thank you very much.
Antoinette Sandbach: Just to make sure that the record accurately reflects that the number of people in the survey was 7,175, as identified in the survey itself.
Liz Saville Roberts: But it was part of a wider survey of 29,000.
Antoinette Sandbach: In the survey itself, in the report.
Chair: We can look at the record and you can question that.
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Greg Bevan, Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, and Colin Nosworthy, Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, gave evidence.
Q21 Chair (Translation): Thank you very much, Mr Nosworthy and Mr Bevan, for coming here today. We have met before, of course.
Byron Davies: The first question to you, gentlemen—I will do it in English if I may—is: what role do you believe broadcasters play in relation to the Welsh language currently and what role would you perhaps see them playing?
Greg Bevan (Translation): Thank you very much for the opportunity to come to speak to you today. Just to be clear before I answer your question directly—it is just an update—we gave evidence to you as a Committee before the spending review where it was announced there would be a further cut to S4C and of course, as you expect, we condemn that entirely. It breaks the promise of the Conservative manifesto.
Chair (Translation): There are questions on that point, so you will have an opportunities to speak about it later.
Greg Bevan (Translation): I just wanted to update you. Okay. Well, clearly, the broadcasters play several important roles in terms of the language. First, we feel that everyone in Wales, not just Welsh speakers, learners, children, but people who live in Wales who perhaps have been deprived of the right to speak Welsh, have a moral right to hear, see and experience the Welsh language every day, and the media are clearly quite central to that. It promotes using the Welsh language regularly, every day. It is a very important resource for learners and also for language transfer from parents to their children. It is important for the status of the language that there should be a presence in the media, that we see it on the television, on the radio and on the web as much as possible. There is also the economic impact of creating jobs and stopping emigration from Wales, keeping people in their areas.
Q22 Byron Davies: Do you think it plays a great role in keeping people in Wales? Is there evidence to back that up?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): There was a review of the impact of creative industries on the economy of Wales. We are talking about tens of thousands of jobs created through those industries and, of course, S4C supports tens of independent production companies and their jobs. Creating that work clearly has an economic impact, and also an important economic impact in the western parts of Wales that are suffering from a weak economic situation. That’s why we supported the move to Carmarthen because that is an investment in those communities. The investment therefore has a very significant economic impact. I think that S4C also says that for every £1 it spends, £2 is made in economic impact. The overheads of S4C are very low, around 4%, so an awful lot of expenditure goes directly into the economy and the independent sector as well.
Q23 Chair (Translation): According to the RAJAR figures, the number of people viewing S4C and listening to Radio Cymru has decreased. Why is that? How can we encourage more people who speak Welsh to use the services that we have?
Greg Bevan (Translation): I was sitting here, so I know that you have discussed this. We have to be very careful about how we interpret the figures. Figures have dropped perhaps in Wales, but overall over the UK they have gone up. People viewing television, not necessarily using Welsh language services but watching television—so we can interpret that as being live television watching—do not just watch live television in the traditional manner. You can watch live television now through lots of different platforms that perhaps were not available a couple of years ago. Perhaps the numbers have dropped in Wales—if there are cuts, that has an impact on standards, on diversity; perhaps that is the explanation—but in general, in terms of broadening the service, making it available to more people, that clearly has had an impact at the UK level.
Q24 Chair (Translation): A controversial question perhaps: should we, for example, encourage Radio Cymru to play English music all day? Around the world, English music is very popular and perhaps we should allow some of that—music at the top of the charts played with people speaking Welsh on the radio?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): We look at the media, as Greg said, as enabling people to use their right to hear Welsh. Though not English media, of course Radio Cymru does play some English music.
To go back to the main question, if I may, just to echo and add to Greg’s comments, I think that we are seeing a change in the patterns in the way in which people receive broadcasting, news and entertainment. What we have in Welsh has not changed since 1982: one television channel and one radio station. You heard this earlier—we have published a paper on this—the Basque Country has far more media. What we are doing at the moment is putting the burden on two sources to provide for the whole audience. In similar countries, such as the Basque Country, there are more channels, more stations, more varied provision. As I say, it is not a zero sum game. If you extend the number of media that broadcast through a language, you broaden the audience as well.
I think that there is certainly some truth in the fact that Radio Cymru and S4C are suffering because they are the only providers. We have talked in our paper—and I am sure we will come on to this—of the establishment of a new entity; a new multimedia provider to deal with extending the market. I think that in turn will help S4C and Radio Cymru by adding a new player or a new broadcaster.
Q25 Antoinette Sandbach: You have referred to the Basque Country and the greater choice there. Is that a mixture of commercial and state provision?
Greg Bevan (Translation): As we understand it, they are public broadcasters. There are four television channels. Two are entirely in Basque language and the other two are partially in Basque language. There are three radio stations, one of which is entirely in Basque and two partially so. What is very interesting about that is that the second channel and the second station after the main one is specifically for young people.
Q26 Antoinette Sandbach: But how is it funded?
Greg Bevan (Translation): It is public broadcasting so it is not commercial.
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): We can provide more notes on that. We have a paper that talks about this in more detail. They are valid questions. I know that part of the money comes from the devolved Government in the Basque Country. I do not know what percentage of that is vis-à-vis central Government, but we could provide a further note on that perhaps.
Q27 Liz Saville Roberts (Translation): Considering that over the past four years S4C has faced a cut of 36% in its budget, what impact do you think further cuts would have on broadcasting in Welsh?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): Well, it jeopardises the future of the channel. As Greg said earlier, it breaks the clear promise that was made by this Government to safeguard funding for S4C and safeguard S4C’s independence. That is unforgiveable because it jeopardises the future of the channel and is a direct blow to the Welsh language. It is very difficult to interpret it as being anything other than a spiteful attack on the Welsh language. The budget for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I think is going down by some 5%, but you have a very big investment in English sport and tourism, while there is a cut of 26% to the grant for S4C. It is not possible to justify that. What has been done is undemocratic because it breaks the clear promise in the Conservative manifesto that they would safeguard money for S4C. They are doing the opposite in making cuts, which are not only more than the overall cuts to the Department, but ultimately jeopardise the future of S4C. It was said in 2010 that any further cuts above the 36% net—of course, it is far more in terms of the public purse. The Government have saved £95 million or whatever it is a year, so it is a very serious situation.
Q28 Mr Mark Williams: In your written submission, you accuse the Government of being inconsistent in their approach in the Green Paper, the charter review document. I would like you to say a bit more about how you perceive that inconsistency and also more generally how content you are with the provisions made for Welsh language broadcasting through that process as well as the document.
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): Yes, it is an important question. What we said in the evidence was that in one sense the Green Paper says that BBC, by providing more content, is squeezing out the private players but, on the other hand, in terms of minority languages they are saying, “The viewer figures are low so how can we justify this?” You cannot have it both ways. Either you have public broadcasting because the market does not provide that content or—you cannot have it both ways because in terms of the Welsh language, you are not squeezing out other players. It is something that is not being provided for by the market otherwise. So that is the tension at the heart of the document: how can you say that public broadcasting is going too far and on the other hand say, when it provides the things that the market is not going to provide, that the viewing figures are too low? You cannot justify those standpoints. Does that answer your question?
Q29 Chair (Translation): Can I come back very quickly? You were very critical of the Government, so I feel that I have to come back a little bit on that, even though I sympathise with the point. At the end of the day, Ofcom thinks that S4C gets more funding than any other nation for what comes out, and only 2% of S4C’s funding comes through advertising. There is a lot of public money going into S4C and Radio Cymru; isn’t that true?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): The promise was made in the Conservative manifesto for a reason, because significant cuts were made in 2010. We are talking about 95% of the money that came from the Government coffers going. That is not a saving. Of course, there is a licence fee as well, but if you consider the grant that came out of the Government for S4C, you are talking about going from around £100 million to what they are talking about now, £5 million. That is why I think the Conservatives made a very clear manifesto pledge to safeguard S4C: because of the huge cuts made to S4C.
Chair (Translation): There are cuts across Government Departments, across broadcasting, across Britain because of the financial position.
Q30 Antoinette Sandbach: Ofcom has identified that S4C gets the largest amount of funding for its content for any nation. Why do you think that is fair, given that there are funding restrictions on other minority languages? Why are you arguing that S4C should be treated differently?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): We expect the Government to keep to their promise of safeguarding the future of S4C—that is our stance—and they have not done that.
Q31 Antoinette Sandbach: Can I clarify something in your evidence? You have claimed that the funding has dropped from £100 million to £5 million. Is it your evidence to this Committee that the only funding that the Government are giving to S4C is £5 million?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): No, that is not what we are saying. The only money that comes from the British Government—the grant that comes directly from the British Government—is, we said £6.7 million in the evidence, because that was the figure at the time before the further cut. We are saying is that S4C is very important for the Welsh language. A clear promise was made in the Conservative manifesto to safeguard that money. That promise was broken and—
Q32 Antoinette Sandbach: Sorry, I am trying to get to the bottom of how much money S4C actually gets other than the £5 million that you have identified.
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): The situation before the spending review was 8%—
Antoinette Sandbach: No, I want to talk about now.
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): The spending review will come in in a few months, so the situation is £6.7 million came from the Government, from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport before that review. That is going down to £5 million in 2019-20, I think. Around £75 million comes from licence fee funding and then you have the £2 million that David referred to in terms of commercial money. That is all in our evidence paper, I think.
Q33 Mr Mark Williams: On this issue of funding again—it is a question I posed to Meri Huws when they gave evidence—wasn’t this situation perfectly predictable when you reflect on the debate that we had in 2005, or whenever it was, about the Public Bodies Bill? When you take away a funding formula and vest a judgment to be made by a politician, who can be of any political party, to guarantee adequate funding, doesn’t this again point to a much more fundamental concept, a formula or the whim of one Government Minister?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): We totally agree. This Committee suggested that there was a need for a statutory funding formula some four or five years ago. The Department has disregarded that, but of course, the broadcaster needs stability. I think that is vital, because we have seen huge cuts. Look at the confusion in the Government, and the letter from Osborne and Whittingdale to the BBC back in July, when they gave permission in a way for the BBC to make further cuts to S4C, saying that the Government were going to make up the shortfall. It says that they will “decide how to make up the shortfall”. We have written three times to the Government asking what that sentence means. We have not had a response to that. That is the kind of situation that we are in. We cannot get answers and it is not clear on what basis these decisions are being made.
Q34 Mr Mark Williams: Other than the fact that what is very clear is the difference between 36% to 20% to 26%, you would very much agree with what the language commissioner said just now about them being quite clearly disproportionate? That is very clear, isn’t it?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation):Yes, I agree totally with that and we have a situation where money from the BBC is going to go down, according to the letter, and money from the Government is going to go down, but the letter from Osborne and Whittingdale to the BBC talks about deciding how to make up the shortfall. I am not clear on what basis the decision will be made. The funding formula needs to be made statutory to make sure that there is stability for S4C.
Q35 Christina Rees: Welcome. The BBC and S4C have commended the operating agreement between the two corporations. However, in your evidence to us you suggest that responsibility for the licence fee should be transferred to the S4C authority to ensure that the BBC does not interfere with S4C’s independence. Do you believe it is fair to describe the BBC’s involvement with S4C as interference?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): What concerns us is, as the saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune. We are concerned that the situation at the moment means that S4C does not have sufficient independence to operate as an independent broadcaster. In our evidence, we talk about a proposal and a suggestion by the Government that a certain proportion of the licence fee go directly to S4C. We were against the licence fee going to S4C. We wanted to maintain the direct Government grant, and we want the grant to increase to the previous level. We are now in a situation where money comes from the licence fee, and we do not think that having one broadcaster funding another is the way to safeguard the independence of S4C. That is not sustainable in terms of S4C’s independence. That is what we referred to. It is not an ideal situation. We did not support the cuts that led to the licence fee funding S4C, but in the situation we are in, it would be better for S4C’s independence to have a proportion of the licence fee direct because of the danger to S4C’s independence.
Q36 Chair (Translation): Although some people were concerned at the time, I think that S4C are quite happy with the situation at the moment. They are happy to receive funding directly from the BBC. Would you accept that and would you also accept that we have not read any criticism anywhere and I, at least, have not seen any suggestion that the BBC has tried to have any unfair influence over S4C, therefore no interference at all?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): I think there are indications of what one would be concerned about in terms of S4C’s independence. We can see the administrative and technical departments being jointly located at the BBC offices in Cardiff. That is not the kind of situation that you would expect an independent broadcaster to be in, so there are concerns about some developments. Perhaps Greg might want to come in on this.
Q37 Chair (Translation): The money has to come from somewhere so whoever provides money for S4C it is possible that you or somebody else would say, “You have unfair influence over S4C”.
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): Can I take the opportunity to talk about a document that we have published on other methods of funding S4C? We have talked about a levy as an alternative way of providing funding for S4C. We have published quite substantial documentation on how other sources of income could be brought in.
Q38 Chair (Translation): Have you suggested some kind of Welsh broadcasting authority? How could you do that? Would we have to hand broadcasting over to the Assembly? Even if we did that, you know that S4C are not keen on the prospect of the Assembly having broadcasting, as far as I understand it.
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): Broadcasters generally refuse to give a view because they do not make comments on political matters. What I would say about devolution of broadcasting is that we see big problems with the current position. There are a couple of examples I would like to give. One is commercial radio and the situation of the Welsh language. For example, there was a significant cut made to the Welsh output on Radio Ceredigion. I was involved in the campaign. What we saw was a lack of regulation by Ofcom on ensuring the Welsh language content on Radio Ceredigion and other radio stations. That draws out a problem in the regulatory system.
There is also the experience of S4C. A decision was made about the funding of S4C within a 24-hour window in 2010 with no consultation with anybody from Wales. We saw a similar situation with the letter in July, where a fait accompli was presented to S4C on how its funding was happening. That is not how decisions should be made for broadcasting in Wales. It is not possible to defend that situation. The case for devolving broadcasting is stronger than ever in our view because we see problems developing from the current system.
I will give you another example. We raised the point with Jeremy Hunt, at the time, about the conditions for broadcasting in Welsh on local television. There are no conditions for Welsh broadcasting on local television. That concerns us as well. A pattern of problems is developing—and I think the commissioner said this—about the lack of attention being given to Welsh matters in broadcasting.
Q39 Christina Rees: A very quick question: how would transferring the licence fee work in practice?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): The Assembly has asked for more detail on this. You could look at raising the fee in Wales and keeping it in a body here. We are going to produce a further paper for the Assembly, and we can provide an extra note for you on this point, because we are currently doing some work on how it would work in practice. We can provide further information to the Committee if that would be useful.
Q40 Chris Davies: First, apologies for coming late to this meeting; I was stuck elsewhere. I may have missed some very key points earlier, but since I have been sitting here all I have heard, with the greatest respect, is complete negativity in all directions: unhappy with the Government for cutting; unhappy with the BBC for regulating; don’t seem to be happy with the Assembly and what would happen if governance was transferred to the Assembly. I am not really sure where we are going with S4C. As you say, those who pay have a say, but who would you want to have a say? You evidently want to be independent. I picked up a figure of £2 million is what you bring in from the commercial market from advertising at the moment; is that correct? If so, can that be increased? What is the likelihood of S4C standing on its own two feet in the commercial market?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): Broadcasting in Welsh requires public investment because Welsh is a fragile language, and the United Nations recognises that promotion and investment is needed to safeguard a minority language, so public funding is needed for that. The positive offer we have made—and we can provide a full paper on this for you—is the idea of raising a levy that provides more money for the channel. While we have seen—
Q41 Antoinette Sandbach: A levy on whom and how much?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): In our paper, we talk about a levy on private broadcasters. This happens in other countries. I think that Sky, for example, makes £1.3 billion a year in profit, and a combination of a levy on private broadcasters and advertising—
Q42 Chair (Translation): How could we force them to pay if they did not even have a base in Wales?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): What we are talking about in the paper—and we have a full paper with details that I can provide for you—is that it could be a levy at a British level for public broadcasters more generally, and a proportion of that would come to Wales. I think in France there are levies in order to fund—
Q43 Chair (Translation): To be clear: you want a levy across the UK to pay for Welsh services?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): No. We have outlined a model, and I can send you the full paper, which talks about raising £200 million at a British level, and a proportion of that would go to public broadcasting in Welsh. I can send you further details. What we have talked about, just to go back to the point about Sky, is that Sky has got rid of Welsh football commentaries. They do not provide Welsh content, but they make an awful lot of profit out of Wales, so there is a reason for raising a levy in order to fund public broadcasting in Welsh because there is a shortcoming in the market there that justifies it.
Q44 Liz Saville Roberts (Translation): The Westminster Government brag about how they tick their manifesto pledges off one by one, but we see the manifesto promise to fund S4C being broken. Do you not perhaps feel that attitudes towards broadcasting and devolution of broadcasting are about to change from what we saw with Silk?
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): I think the opinion poll commissioned by Silk showed that most people were in favour of devolving broadcasting at the time, so perhaps feelings might strengthen in favour of it. What we are seeing is a very strange situation where decisions are made contrary to the wishes not just of ourselves; the Conservatives in the Assembly have voiced their views against this, and a number of MPs from Wales of all parties have expressed views against. Clearly, there is a problem with the way decisions are made. They are being made in an undemocratic way, so I agree that opinion will strengthen in favour of devolving broadcasting.
Q45 Liz Saville Roberts (Translation): Perhaps that is an argument for further public consultation on the Wales Bill as well.
Colin Nosworthy (Translation): Possibly so, yes, and we have responded to your consultation. Yes, it is possible.
Chair (Translation): We have reached the end of our questioning and I think that you have a train to catch back this evening. I thank you both. I am sure we will speak further about this matter in due course. Thank you.
Oral evidence: Broadcasting in Wales, HC 450 15