National Assembly for Wales

Yes, Chair. I'd like to declare that my son is a BBC apprentice. 

If you'd like to introduce yourselves. 

I'm Zoe Thomas. I'm the head of news and programmes at ITV Cymru Wales. 

And I'm Magnus Brooke. I'm group director of strategy, policy and regulation for ITV.

Well, you're very welcome. Thank you very much for being with us this morning. If I could ask, firstly, please, what your views are on how effectively you think the Media Act 2024 is being implemented.

Certainly, and thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you this morning as ITV. So, I think—. Look, in broad terms, the implementation so far has been pretty sensible by Ofcom. I think it's been as timely as it could be, given the number of things they've had to do. I think they've been reasonably pragmatic, they've been sensible in how they've approached it. I think the big test is on prominence and dispute resolution, and you'll probably have seen that they published a slew of documents yesterday, which we're still working our way through. And I think, on that, we're not holding up our hands in horror, but there's an awful lot of detail we need to understand about in practice how it's going to work. So, I think it's an interesting first proposal and it's for consultation, but it is the most important bit of it—it's so much the most important bit—because it relates to the way in which we interact with online platforms and the extent to which online platforms are able to, essentially, extract money out of the PSB system.

So, we have very good relationships with some platforms, real partnership relationships with platforms like Sky and Virgin and so on, but there are other global platforms where we have more difficult relationships, where there's a kind of one-size-fits-all approach globally, and, actually, a key thing that they're trying to do is extract money out of anybody who's on their platform. It's not specific to PSBs; it's actually—. This is a money-making operation—so, selling prominence, selling even just the ability to be on the platform. So, that is the most important bit of guidance, and we're in, obviously, the very early stages of talking to Ofcom about how that's going to be implemented, but so far so good.

I think the only other point I'd make is that we're a long way on from when the Act was originally conceived. It was probably a bit late, even when it came, and we're now talking to both Ofcom and Government about, potentially, similar sorts of principles in relation to YouTube. The Government's been, I think, really sensible in the way that it's thought about this and has taken on some of Ofcom's recommendations around prominence and dispute resolution, if you like, in relation to YouTube. So, that's the next frontier, I think, of all of this.

Thank you so much. On some of those points, I think Alun would like to come in.

Yes. I'm interested in your service to Wales and why you spend so little in this country.

Well, look, perhaps if we could just step back for a second, and I can give you a sense—

No, I'd prefer you to answer the question, actually.

Okay, but I think it's really important. We spend a lot of money in Wales, we spend over £6 million specifically on content for Wales, and we do that in the context of a tv market that is absolutely hypercompetitive.

There's nothing new about that, though, and you were spending that much—

Well, there is—

No, let me finish. You were spending that much back in 2018 as well, so we haven't seen an increase in real terms; we've seen a decrease in funding.

But there is something very different about the market today. It is infinitely more competitive. So, let me give you a couple of examples specific to Wales. If you look in Wales at the moment, all subscription video on demand viewing is double our live viewing. YouTube in Wales is now much higher than ITV in terms of viewing—all of our ITV services, live and on demand. YouTube is a bigger platform. And in fact, yesterday, you may have seen the latest numbers for October and November, which show that YouTube now has more reach than the BBC. That's all BBC services across the UK; that's not specific to Wales. This is a market that is revolutionising. Disney spent about $24 billion on content this year. Netflix will spend $3 billion just on technology alone. That's the equivalent of ITV's entire value on the market, more or less. This is a market that is transforming at pace. And actually, the big challenge for us is making content that can compete UK wide. We're trying to do two things. One is compete UK wide for audience and to make money to pay for the investment that we make in nations and in regions news. And maintaining that is a big priority, from our point of view. But we've got to do that in the context of a market where we have to make money against these global players.

Look, we understand that the environment is changing. And we've heard, sorry, your predecessor give this speech for the last 20 years, quite frankly. We understand that there's change taking place. And ITV have used this argument throughout the time that I've been a Member here, for the last 18 years, and I understand the nature of the changing world. We understand the growth in non-linear viewing and the rest of it. We understand all of that. My question was: why do you spend so little in Wales?

Because we—. In the end, the amount we spend in Wales—. We have to make money. We don't make money on the amount of money that we spend in Wales.

We understand the nature of public broadcasting as well.

So, we have to make money over here in order to be able to pay for nations and regions news, particularly the money that we spend on news in Wales. None of our competitors—none of our commercial competitors, literally not one—is spending £6 million in Wales on nations and regions news and on the other programmes that we make for Wales—not a single other competitor. The BBC is because it's funded by the licence fee. Our priority is to maintain our nations and regions news service, it's really important to ITV, but there is a limit to how much we can pay in circumstances where we have to make the money in order to be able to spend it on nations and regions—

You do what the channel 3 licence demands that you do, of course. 

We do, we do, and we—

But my issue is—and you still haven't answered my question, by the way—that you were spending around £6 million, I think it was, back in 2018; you're still spending £6 million today. We know that inflation in the sector is reasonably higher than inflation elsewhere. So, we know there's been a real-terms cut in the amount of money being invested by ITV. And my question to you is: why have you decided to take that decision?

Well, look, I think there are a couple of other things to say. The first is that, actually, we're also more efficient than we were in 2018. I'm not denying there's been inflation since 2018, fairly obviously. But, actually, one of the things we do do—and Zoe might want to talk to this—is we are more efficient in the way that we run our business, the way we run our operation. We have multiskilling of journalists. We use digital technology really smartly now to reduce the costs that we have. We don't send teams of four people, as you probably see, when we go and report. We're not sending a camera man, a sound man, a reporter; we're sending one person who can multiskill. So, there are actually ways in which we are doing more with the same amount of money. So, that's the first—

I don't want to interrupt you all the time, but, honestly, we know all of this.

Yes.

I know it.

Okay.

You know, I'm 62 years old. When I was organising student protests in Aberystwyth, there'd be a whole tribe of you turning up and we'd have to bike it back to Cardiff at lunchtime before evening broadcast. We know the world has changed. I know that somebody can turn up. I can broadcast on my iPhone. I know all of this. I don't need to be told it. I'm asking about your corporate decision making. I'm not talking about changes, technological changes in the world. You can assume that Members here understand those things. So, why has ITV taken the decision to cut, effectively, in real terms, spend in Wales?

Look, in the end, the answer is that we don't have a choice.

You do have a choice.

We don't.

You do have a choice.

Okay. Let the witness answer.

But he needs to answer the question.

Well, because—. Look, if you look at—. Let's take our—. If you look at our profit, it's a third of what it was in 2015, and we're right at the level now of making a profit on our media and entertainment business, which is equivalent to our cost of capital. So, it's not that this money is being somehow given to somebody else, or paid out in whatever, it's actually—. We took a decision in 2018-19 to effectively ramp up our investment in ITVX, because we thought we had no alternative, given the competition that we faced. The result of that was that our share price fell by 25 per cent, and it's not come back. We halved our margin, effectively, by making that decision. And we took that decision because we had to compete, and, if we hadn't done that, we wouldn't be in the position we're in now with ITVX in terms of the money we're making. But the truth is—and Ofcom's numbers show this in the PSB review—that linear television advertising has fallen by £1 billion since 2019. That's an enormous sum of money. What we're trying to do is balance the need to make money in a hypercompetitive market together with our commitment to the PSB licence, which is absolute. We've got a licence to 2034. We're absolutely going to continue to do what we do in Wales. We have to do it smartly. We have to do it efficiently. But, in the end, we are constrained here. We don't have a pot of money that we can simply say, 'Well, let's just increase the budget for Wales.'

Okay, I'm going to bring Lee in.

Just on this, because we do understand the intense commercial pressures you face, but, within the spend that you have and are committed to, you make choices. So, you gave the example there of ITVX. There's very little prominence to programmes about Wales or from Wales on ITVX. That's a choice you make. Why is that?

Well, I think—. What I'd say is that, actually, if you look at the news rail on ITVX, we made a decision to put regional news very prominently. I don't know, Zoe, do you want to talk a bit about the prominence of ITV Wales news on ITVX? That was a very deliberate decision to plumb in from the beginning regional news into ITVX. And, actually, I have to say, if you look at other online services, the news will not be as prominent as it is on ITV, so I think we've actually given quite a lot of prominence to—. I don't know whether you want to talk about ITV Wales.

That's something that had been called for for a long time, was us having that sort of prominence on those pages. I think that is borne out by the amount of hours that are watched. So, nations and regions content, the specific news rails are watched—. I think that 27,000 hours a week of specifically nations and regions news content are watched on ITVX a week. So, people are turning to it, people are watching it, and that's a platform that we didn't have three and a half years ago. So—

If I go on the BBC iPlayer, for example, it personalises it to me, it knows where I'm watching from and it offers me content from Wales. ITVX doesn't do that.

I think it is iterating. Relatively, it's still a young platform in comparison with something like BBC iPlayer—

It really isn't; it's been going for some years and it's a conscious decision that's been made not to do that. That's a choice, isn't it? So, I'm asking you: why have you made that choice?

Well, I think—. We have nations and regions news on the homepage of ITVX. That was a choice. So, there was a discussion in ITV, and I was—

Forgive me, you've said that, and I understand that. I'm not just asking about news. I'm asking about the whole range of programmes about Wales, serving audiences in Wales.

But most of those programmes ought to be on—they will be on—ITVX.

They are on our rail, yes.

Well, if you look very hard, you might find them. But they're not—. I'm drawing the parallel with iPlayer, where there's a personalised service offered that directs and promotes content from where you're from. In terms of serving audiences in Wales, you've taken the decision not to do that, and I'm asking you why.

Well, look, we're not funded with £3 billion of public money every year is one answer.

It doesn't cost £3 billion to do that—

It doesn't cost it at all. Come on.

Well, no, but you're asking about—

It's a choice here, isn't it?

We asked the witness to answer.

You're asking about choices. So, a choice we made was to make sure that we had the news content of importance to Wales prominently on everybody's home screen when they turn on to ITVX—

What about non-news?

—that was a choice. Well, look, the non-news is on the platform.

It's not prominent.

It's on the rail. Some of those programmes are something like Vanished Wales. That is on the main page of ITVX, and several other shows that we make are as well. There is a difficulty in uploading some of the other programmes in the space that ITVX has and the storage space that it has to upload every single programme we've ever made. But we still have that on a—. If you Google Sharp End, you can see the entire back catalogue of that on the ITV Wales programme page. That still exists, that's easily findable. It's not like we're hiding our programmes anywhere from Welsh audiences.

I suppose one thing that would be useful to know is would there be any plans, or would it be something that ITV would consider, to look at how navigable that is, rather than having to go through as many stages to find it—if it's something that you'd consider.

That is something we can look at. One of the challenges that we have on ITVX is the sheer scale of engineering resource to do all the things that we need to do to make it a competitive service. Because it's a nationwide service competing with Netflix and Amazon and all the rest of them, and that's hard enough. Because we're doing this—by the way—we're doing this in a single territory. We're providing X just for the UK, and our tech spend is just for the UK. Netflix's £3 billion tech spend is amortised effectively across the whole world. That's the competitive landscape we're in. And look, cards on the table, we have to make decisions.

So—forgive me—you've always made an argument that the fact that you represent the whole of the UK and its diversity is part of your unique selling point.

Yes.

So, you're now saying it's more of a regulatory burden than it is a unique offering that you have to viewers.

It's incredibly important to us that we serve the whole UK, and we serve the whole UK and including the nations and regions of the UK, and that's why we spend about over £70 million a year on that content, which is a lot of money for ITV. It's really important to us, but we can't do everything.

Well, no-one's asking you to do everything; we're just asking you to serve your audiences. Just in terms of the point about the network spend within the UK, so that's not about spending more than you currently spend, it's how and where you spend it, and you do have a target for, I think, 35 per cent of content outside of the M25, but it's not specified which part of—.

Yes.

And the spending in Wales for the last eight years has been flat. Now, we hear Bad Wolf, for example, saying in recent weeks that the crews in Wales and the storytelling in Wales are among the best in the world and that's why they're here. So, if it's the case that there is such creativity and such talent in Wales, why are you not producing more of your programmes in Wales?

Well, the short answer is: we are. So, the numbers over the last—

Well, it's been static for—

Okay, if we could give the witness time to answer the questions.

The numbers over the last three years—and actually, I can tell you that the 2025 numbers confirm this trend—there's been a clear and actually material upward trend in the number and amount of money that we've been spending on network programmes in Wales. So, the 2025 numbers are not confirmed yet, but I have looked at them, and they confirm a very substantial increase in the amount spent on network programmes in Wales, which was—

What type of increase, because it was 0.7 per cent? What sort of increase?

Well, we were at 0.8, I think, in 2024. I think, and these aren't confirmed by Ofcom numbers—

Yes, sure.

—so interim numbers, but our calculations suggest about 1.3 per cent. So, quite a significant increase.

Low, isn't it?

Well, but 2024 was a significant increase on 2023, and I think I came to this committee about three years ago and conceded that the 2023 number was not good enough. And what we've done since then is substantially increase the amount of network production. I have to say, one of the things I would give credit to is Creative Wales, who were really good. We approached them and said, 'Look, we want to work with you on this', and they were great. We arranged in, I think, November 2024, we took a group of people from ITV Studios and a group of commissioners to Wales with Creative Wales, and they did a fantastic journey around, doing exactly what you say, which is looking at all the great facilities you have in Wales. So, the studios team went round there and we were really impressed and said, 'Actually, we can put production here', and I can give you a list of the things that have subsequently happened where we've made use of those facilities. Similarly, the commissioners held a day with programme makers in Wales to say, 'This is what we're looking for, this is what we want.' And again, that was successful. I think you can see in the numbers that, subsequently, we've started commissioning more network programmes in Wales, and that's on an upward trajectory.

Well, it's a low base, and it's going slightly higher. Less than 1 per cent consistently; now, it's just above 1 per cent, and we have a population share of 5 per cent. So, to avoid this just being a blip, what are you doing more systematically to try and be more ambitious again for that target?

But I think the point—. I mean, I go back to the same point, which is coming down with the key decision makers in both our studios business and our commissioning business absolutely points to the systematic. We haven't done that in other regions.

That's one day trip. That's not a systematic—

Well, I know, but then the relationships and so on that are built up on those trips then get sustained over time. So, look, I mean, maybe we'll do another of those journeys, but I don't think we need to do it again quite so soon.

You're satisfied with 1.3 per cent.

Well, no, no. Look, in a sense, what I'm saying to you is that we're on the right path here. And look, I mean, these decisions take time, these productions take time to actually make. I mean, it takes—

Well, you've had eight years of flat spend, so that's a reasonably long time frame to show progress, isn't it?

There is another Member who will want to come in in a moment.

What I think I'm saying is: we can show material progress now.

Slow.

Well—

Okay, I really think we need to give witnesses time to answer questions.

They're long, repetitive answers. I'm challenging legitimately, so I'd be grateful if you'd give me the space to do that.

Right, we have another Member who wants to ask a question on this same point.

I just was curious in terms of your last point, because, obviously, in response to my colleagues, you were mentioning the success of that visit and you said perhaps it's something you may do again. I just wonder where that strategy is in terms of engagement with Wales, because I think it is a fair challenge in terms of population share and spend and so on. And I'm just curious to see how that was part of a strategy, rather than something you can point to us. Also, given that it was something that you found useful, to be successful, how is that being built on and what is the strategy for Wales? 

Well, the strategy very simply is to get the best ideas from wherever they come. But we know that we have to work harder to get out of London and the south-east in order to make sure that we're getting the best ideas from all around the UK, because we are a pan-UK broadcaster, and that includes Wales. And so, the work we did with Creative Wales was absolutely part of a systematic strategy to make sure that we're getting the best ideas, from wherever they are in the UK. I talk, and the team talk, often to other people around the UK in the nations and the regions just to make sure that we're covering all the bases. We know where all the talent is, we know where the greatest facilities are, and so, what we did in Wales was absolutely part of that systematic strategy to make sure.

Look, in terms of out of London, looking at the numbers for 2025—again, these aren't the final numbers, but just looking at our internal numbers—they suggest that, on spend, we're well ahead of the quota, and on hours, we're well ahead of the quota. We're nearly, I think, 50 per cent outside of London and the south-east. So, I think that's testimony to our commitment to do what we do, which is getting the best ideas from everywhere in the UK. So, in the end we are both a nations and regions broadcaster, but we're also a pan-UK broadcaster, and we're trying to balance those two things: the need to compete against pan-UK services that are not doing any of the things that we're doing in Wales, in terms of our commitment to Welsh content—we're trying to balance that together with our obligation, of course, and our commitment as a PSB to deliver for everybody in the UK to make sure they're well informed about the place they live in.

So, in terms of how you engage in other nations and regions, is that every few years as well? I'm just curious because you mentioned that you may do something similar, again, in Wales. New facilities, new investments, new ideas are generated, people enter the industry. I just wondered what that engagement looks like in terms of ensuring that there's a consistency of engagement, rather than that you found it really useful through Creative Wales to do that. I just wondered, annually, biannually; is there any kind of strategy, or is it just a matter of you may consider doing it at some point in the future?

The strategy at a high level is absolutely to engage with both the regional screen agencies and regional producers systematically all the time. So, that's what we're doing. And from time to time, we will do things like we did in Wales, where we will take groups of people and go and talk in a more systematic way. And honestly, I mean, Creative Wales is doing a really good job, it seems to me, and we have huge admiration, I have to say, for the work it's doing—the work you're doing in terms of facilities in Cardiff, the creative talent. The Bad Wolf arrangement I think is really clever. I think it's a successful model, and it's a model that, frankly, other regions of the UK are looking at slightly enviously. So, I think there's a lot that's going well and I think we would do what we could to support it. And, look, we can give you a list of programmes that we've commissioned, both factual and drama, off the back of some of the engagement that we've had. And that's why the numbers are going up.

And I think, without wishing to pre-empt it either, hopefully, those numbers will continue. There are, on our list, several where they've filmed a production in the last year, 18 months, on the back of that meeting and are currently applying for funding or thinking about what their next one is going to be. So, hopefully, it will have a cumulative effect.

My question is: you're saying 'hopefully', and this shouldn't be left to chance, should it? You see, it's not Creative Wales's job, with respect, to make sure that you fulfil your licence obligations to represent all parts of the UK and to serve your audiences. Other than just, 'We hope people will come forward with nice ideas and we'll go occasionally on a day trip, and with a bit of luck, our target goes up.' You know, that's not good enough, is it? What are you, as a broadcaster, systematically doing to go out and make sure that your representation of Wales increases and reflects the population share? That's not an unreasonable request.

Well, I mean, I think, hopefully, I've outlined what, from our commissioner's point of view, they're trying to do.

With respect, what you've said is what you've always said, that is, 'We'll respond to the best ideas', as if they organically come from nowhere. There's a role you have to have to stimulate that.

But I think, look, there's a mix of two things, isn't there? We absolutely are looking for the best ideas. And, look, if you talk to producers, they understand that they're trying to sell things. They are competing with each other to come up with the best ideas, and that's quite a good system, because competition tends to drive innovation, it tends to drive more interesting work, it tends to drive people to go a bit further, and so it's really important that we preserve that competition for ideas and for talent, and so on. So, that's really important. But we also have a responsibility to make sure that, actually, there aren't people who don't have the same access, particularly outside London and the south-east, and that we are going to them to say, 'If you've got great ideas, here are our details', and so on. That's what we're doing. That's the two-pronged strategy.

Do you not have the role, as a creative curator, to make sure that you have a licence from Wales, that the audience from Wales is served, rather than just hoping that the market will come up with ideas that allow you to produce more?

But hopefully what I've described is—. There's a mixture here, isn't there, of an obligation to serve Wales and to provide certain forms of content to Wales, which is the money we spend on Wales-specific content. That's a licence obligation; we'll carry on doing that. As it happens, we go beyond our licence obligation. That's the first thing. The second thing is that we do want competition for quality, but we also recognise that we need to go outside London and the south-east to make sure that we're reaching and giving opportunities to everybody, and that includes people in Wales, hence the trip we did to Wales to make sure that we had a really good understanding and that people had the opportunity to talk directly to commissioners and to establish a relationship without having to come on the train to London. That was why we did it. 

With respect, you're not engaging my point at all, you're simply saying, 'We had a trip and that brought us some ideas.' My question is: should you not be more proactively curating a different level of content for Wales? And your answer is 'no'.

Alun. 

Can I come in on this as well, because I'm listening to the exchange, and it's a fascinating exchange in lots of different ways, but you seem so London-centric in your outlook? Other broadcasters, other public broadcasters, of course, have moved commissioners out of London to be based in different places over time, and it's had a big impact, hasn't it, in terms of their output. It seems to me that ITV just seems rooted in the past, in some ways, with, 'We'll visit the provinces every so often. We'll put up with their impertinence, and then we will give them what we have to in order to maintain our licence.' It doesn't feel to me this morning that you're a broadcaster that's actually rooted in the United Kingdom in its diversity. It feels like you're a broadcaster rooted in London doing what it needs to do, and that's a very different approach, isn't it? So, it's not a matter of a day trip once every few years; it's a matter of having senior commissioning staff based in different parts of the UK who are actively seeking to promote drama or other programming that reflects the diversity of the United Kingdom. We are having this conversation in Wales, but I get the sense that we could have a similar conversation elsewhere as well. 

Look, ITV is genuinely distinct from any other commercial player in the UK—

Look, I like ITV. I watch ITV. I'm not trying to—

We are rooted across the UK. We have about 40 offices outside of London and the south-east of England. We have significant teams in each nation, in Wales and the other nations that we're in, and in the English regions. We have very substantial production operations outside London and the south-east of England. We're massively over-delivering on our out-of-London content obligation. We provide—

Not in Wales you're not, are you?

But in Wales—. We've discussed—. Look, three years ago, we looked at the numbers and said, 'Actually, we can do better.' And what I'm trying to say is that we are trying to do better and we have done better on the basis of these numbers. Now—

But if I wanted to do better I would plan to do better, and I would plan to have objectives and targets and indicators that would enable me to know if I'm on target to achieve something. And I recognise what you're saying, you wouldn't go from, say, 1 per cent to 5 per cent in a year; I accept that. But you don't seem to have any target to get to, for argument's sake, 5 per cent at any point in the future. And that's what worries me. I think that's what Lee's point was about: you've had a day trip, which I'm sure was very good, but you don't seem to have a plan in place. 

Well, I think the plan is evidenced in the increase in commissions from Wales. The plan is to absolutely make sure that we are representing the whole of the UK, both in terms of—

So, what's your objective then?

The objective?

Yes.

In what respect? 

Where would you wish to be?

Well, look, do we have a target for any individual nation? No, we don't, if that's your question. We don't have a target for any individual nation. 

So, what's your plan for going forward, then, to ensure that this momentum is maintained?

The plan will be to continue to commission the best content that we can find from anywhere in the UK, and we're going to make sure that we can access all the best ideas from wherever they are, and indeed that we can nurture smaller independent producers. One of the things we have done is start to seed fund small independent producers, outside of London and the south-east, to come up to develop ideas. Because one of the challenges producers have is developing new ideas, because it's expensive and you need to invest money upfront and you've got no guarantee you're going to get a commission. One of the things we've done is have a systematic programme of providing relatively small amounts of money to those producers, in the thousands of pounds, to help them develop ideas, and then give them the ability to pitch those to the network. That's another example of the systematic way in which we're trying to get out around the whole of this country and make sure we're getting the best ideas, and Wales is part of that plan.

Just before we move on, because I have two other Members who want to come in as well, I think the point that is being made is that Wales is a separate country rather than being part of one country. Evidently, there's some frustration that is being voiced in committee. Do you understand why it is that we would wish to see that there would be a vision from ITV for 5 per cent, or a reflection of the proportion of the population, to be reflected, and for that to be something that is a goal to be achieved, rather than something that might be achieved by accident?

I completely understand that instinct. In a sense, wearing my citizen hat, I'm not unsympathetic to the point you make. I think the challenge for us as a business is how do we make sure we can run our business in a way that enables us to compete, to raise enough money to pay for all the things that none of our competitors are doing. Sitting where we are, that's the massive challenge that we have—

Forgive me, please, for interrupting you. We do appreciate that, but the vision that we would like to see reflected is something that you at least sympathise with and that's something that you would consider taking on. 

I sympathise with it from a citizen point of view. I think, sitting here as a business, as a public service broadcaster that is trying to balance competing on the one hand and making sure that we more than fulfil the obligations that we've taken on as a public service broadcaster, it's really tough for us to go beyond those obligations. That's the challenge we have, and it's why I think the BBC is a really important part—an increasingly important part, actually—of the ecology in terms of serving this kind of citizen interest, as it were, because there's a limit to how far we can go.

The question I asked was not about going beyond your licence commitment of a 35 per cent outside-of-London spend, but to spend more of that within Wales. It's a different point.

I understand it's a different point, and I think what I'm saying is that we already have an obligation in relation to out of London. What I hope I've shown you is our commitment to do more in Wales.

I don't think you have.

If you had that commitment, you'd plan to meet that ambition, you see, and that's where I think you're lacking.

I understand the point.

Because we have two other Members who want to come in, I'm just going to bring them in. Mick had his indication first, and then I'll come to Heledd.

Just on this, so I've got some clarity, is what you're saying that as far as broadcasting in Wales is concerned, there is no specific strategic Welsh plan?

The Welsh plan is a lot of what Zoe and her team do in Wales, making programmes by people in Wales for people in Wales. Zoe, I don't know whether you want to talk a bit about that, because we are slightly overlooking that very significant contribution that none of our commercial competitors make to programming in Wales.

I understand that, but all I'm asking is a simple question, that there is not a specific Welsh strategic plan with regard to broadcasting in Wales. It is basically an appendage to a UK plan.

There is a strategic plan in relation to what Zoe does, because essentially she's delivering that plan day after day, and will deliver it after the Senedd elections with four or five hours of live coverage in the afternoon, opting out of network programmes, for example. So actually, in terms of the scale of what we're doing—. Zoe, I don't know whether you want to talk a bit about this.

I understand all the arguments that have gone on, but for the team I represent, who are making nearly 400 hours of content in Wales and for Wales every year, obviously we're very proud of that, and we think that's a vital part of ITV and Wales's ecology and everything else. So, from our point of view, that is what we're here to do, that is what we do, and we think we deliver as well as we can, and we hope that the audiences of Wales appreciate that, whether that's 35 hours of Sharp End every year, or the political coverage we're about to do, or all the varied programmes that we provide—you get an English language arts programme, which I don't think many other broadcasters are doing. I think all of that needs to be recognised in what we do do for Wales every day.

So, is there a plan that you—? For example, is there something where you'd say, 'Here is our plan, this is what our targets are, our objectives are, what we want to achieve', and something that we could actually look at and review?

Our obligations are our licence, aren't they, which is for four hours of news content every week, which we provide. They are for 78 hours of English language programming every year in factual and current affairs, which we provide. And there are the things that we do over and above—our Welsh-language team, who make brilliant content for S4C, like Y Byd yn ei Le, Y Byd ar Bedwar, award-winning, long-standing programmes that are really well regarded—that aren't part of our licence commitment, but that we deliver every year, and also our network unit, who, again, contribute to those network figures that we've been talking about so far this morning. That didn't exist six or seven years ago.

Through Jon Hill and his team, and what we've tried to do, and the relationships that we've built, both within ITV, and, to be honest, with the BBC—. It would have been inconceivable 10 years ago that we would have been making programmes as ITV Wales for BBC Wales. And we are doing that now. We've made two series of Rookie Cops. We've made the two really popular programmes that went out last year with Ruth Jones and Steve Speirs, looking at Porthcawl and Merthyr. All of those are above and beyond our licence, and things that we are trying to bring into the Welsh existence, I suppose, in order to fulfil the satisfaction of audiences and to make ITV integral to life in Wales. 

Thank you. Heledd wanted to come in. 

I just wanted to, perhaps, just go back. You mentioned in terms of the seed funding, Magnus, and I just wondered if you know the figures in terms of how many people have been supported here in Wales, or a breakdown by nation. I think that would be useful to understand. And also, I'd be interested just to know how that then interacts with ITV Cymru Wales. And I'm sure, Zoe, in terms of some of our arguments, it would help you if we had more spend and resources here, because, I presume, in terms of head count for ITV Cymru Wales, I'm aware, in terms of numbers—. It would be interesting just to see how that's panning out, and that strategy in terms of having adequate resourcing, because that can be a huge challenge as well, with the geographical diversity of Wales. So, in terms of some of our arguments, I think it would hopefully help the team here, who are—. I think we've all mentioned—and if we haven't—the calibre of some of the programming here, and the important role it plays in terms of our democracy and so on. So, I was just curious to understand the interplay between some of the schemes that are happening, to ensure that the best ideas from Wales are commissioned, and how it interacts with your team, perhaps, here in Wales.

From our point of view, certainly, I think the work—. Tribute to Jon Hill—a lot of the work that he has done in the last six to 10 years means that we have got an excellent relationship with the ITV commissioners. They're at the end of the phone, and we know what they want, and we're definitely part of that ecology. But we have to compete—those ideas are done on a meritocracy. So, that has really improved. In terms of what that means for our workforce, although the figures, as was rightly pointed out earlier, have remained flat for a few years, we haven't, thankfully—. Changes in technology, changes in the way we've been able to do things, has meant that our staffing levels haven't gone down in Wales. We employ about 105 people directly in ITV Cymru Wales. There's obviously another 300 or so who work for Boom studios, which is also part of ITV, across the water. So, ITV are a significant employer in the media landscape in Wales. 

And, if I may, just in terms, then, of that partnership working, and that strategic direction, obviously, some of the things you've mentioned, in terms of Welsh language programming, that transfers to digital as well. So, I'd just be interested to see, in terms of that strategy for Wales, and engagement, and multiple platforms, and where the Welsh language features, if you could perhaps provide some further information there. 

The Welsh language team are constantly trying to—. All of that is done on a commissioning basis as well. We don't have a sort of—. We aren't obligated. There's no licence that says that we have to provide a certain amount of programming. So, everything, again, for our Welsh language team is done on a meritocracy basis. They bid for programmes, and are either successful or not. We have had a lot of success in the last few years around the digital side of content.

One thing we have done in partnership with S4C, which I think has been really important for the growth of the industry and the growth of young journalists in Wales, is that for the last seven years, I think, we've had a trainee programme where we employ two young journalists every year who primarily make content for platforms like TikTok and Instagram, and they do that in that social media news style for young people about young people and the things that they care about. That platform has enabled us to employ a lot of those people when they've come off that traineeship or they've gone on to other areas in the industry, but to keep that ecology moving.

We've also won specific YouTube-first series like Tanwen ac Ollie. That was something that ITV pitched and won and was recommissioned, and, actually, was so popular that it went from digital and from the YouTube space onto the main channel. We've just launched a three-part series, the first of which went out last week, on drugs in Wales and the consumption of drugs, particularly in young people in Wales. That was a digital-first commission that we pitched. So, as I say, it's very much a meritocracy, but it's something where the Welsh team particularly have an absolute plan of how they're going to do that, and S4C are constantly putting out tenders for those, for that material, and we're constantly trying to win those tenders and to do as best we can to provide that content. 

Thank you.

Thank you. We have less than 20 minutes left of the session, so we'll need to try to be agile, but I have confidence in everyone that we'll be able to do that. Lee wanted to come in on another issue, and then I'll be coming back to Mick.

I'll just go back to your initial point about the stress your business model is under, and always has been under, and your relationship with the large platforms. I understand you have a partnership arrangement with YouTube. One thing we haven't reflected on this morning is the huge change of consumption patterns. More and more people are watching television, as we used to call it, on YouTube. You make your programmes available on YouTube, and YouTube pay you some money for them, but a modest amount compared to its costs or what you'd commercially like to get for it. That obviously creates a huge medium-term problem for your business model. That is not sustainable. I wonder if you could just say a little bit about your concerns about that. And specifically, as well as denuding you from the revenue as a commercial broadcaster that you need, it's also, I presume, not giving you the full data that you would get if it was on your own platform, which is obviously just as problematic for you. So, I just wonder if you could tell me how much of a concern that is and what problems you envisage that causing you beyond the short term.

It's a good question. We've put quite a lot of content onto YouTube, but we've been quite tactical about what we've put on. We've generally tried to put on content so far that gives us incremental reach, so effectively reaching people that we're not necessarily reaching with other services. So, there's incremental revenue, but you're right, one of the challenges of the YouTube model is that we have to give away a very substantial portion of the revenue that we make. We give away nothing on ITVX, as long as we have a sensible arrangement with any platform that's aggregating it, which again takes us back to the Media Act. With YouTube, we don't, and it's one of the reasons why we were really pleased that Ofcom recommended in the public service media review that the Government ought to look at the relationship with YouTube, because YouTube is becoming the aggregator of everything. There's a moment coming potentially where we'll all only be watching YouTube because effectively it becomes the shop window for literally every piece of content in the world, maybe. But that's a possible outcome, and therefore the Government has taken up Ofcom's suggestion and is looking very carefully, and we've been talking to Government about the relationship with YouTube. YouTube is a fantastic thing, in many ways. I don't think this should be perceived as criticism of YouTube—

This is about the business model.

Their model is to take a percentage of everything they show, which, if you're putting a cat video up, is great, because it's a win-win. You didn't expect to get any money for a cat video, and suddenly you've got some money, and yes, they've got some money too. But if you're making professional content that's a key part of the creative industries, which is also—. I'm sorry to labour the point, but back to cross-subsidising other things we do, content in Wales and so on, this is a real problem, because in the end that's our margin and more gone. In the medium term, it can't go on like that, and that's why we're talking to Government about how this works. It's the same point as the online aggregator platforms. That's why the Media Act and the guidance that was issued yesterday is so absolutely critically important. Because if we have to give away percentage shares of our advertising, then this whole system comes to an end, from a commercial PSB point of view.

Are you putting any nations and regions content on YouTube?

Yes, we put our news on there every night; we started doing that in about July last year, and I think it's interesting. Last week is a good example: so with the build-up to storm Goretti, we had, I think, 126,000 viewers or something, according to the Barb panel, on the Thursday night, as we prepared for it. We put the programme on YouTube and, within about four hours, had another 10,000 viewers online. Some nights it's not that big, and some nights you'll do something, and you're not really quite sure what all the time, which will make it absolutely fly, and there'll be thousands and thousands of viewers. So, yes, nations and regions content is available now.

And, of course, the other thing about YouTube is it's an increasingly serious competitor for advertising revenue, in its own right. As a platform, it aggregates together lots and lots of viewing and competes and is a bigger—

And analytics.

And analytics, and so, if you go—. I mean, YouTube now—. One of the biggest competitive challenges, actually, that we have as a tv broadcaster is outcome-based advertising. Because if you go to YouTube now as an advertiser, big or small, it will simply ask you, 'What do you want to do? Do you want to drive sales? Do you want to drive brands? What outcomes do you want?' And you plug it all in, and it will then spread all the advertising out over the Google properties, including YouTube. That's a formidable advertising platform. And if it combines with the sort of scale that YouTube's beginning to develop, from our point of view, that's a key competitor. We've got lots and lots of other competitors, but suddenly, there's a big, new analytically driven, data-driven advertising competitor seeking to eat television for lunch.

And that's a massive challenge to your business model.

Look, I mean, it's something we're dealing with. We had the subscription video on demand coming in to the advertising market—the Netflixes and the Amazons and the Disneys—so we're having to deal with that. And we're also dealing with YouTube. But this is a competitive market.

It's a massive challenge to public service broadcasting.

We're not here saying we want special favours, but what we are saying is we want to have a PSB system that enables us, effectively, to cross-subsidise things that no-one else is doing. If someone else is going to take the revenue away that enables us to do that, we won't be able to do it, and I think Government and Ofcom absolutely recognise that point, and they are in the process of updating the regime to ensure that that doesn't happen.

Okay, thank you. Mick, did you have another?

I will be succinct—it's really just to do with network news generally. Obviously, you have the Welsh news broadcasting focusing on issues within Wales, but, of course, you have the UK-wide broadcasting. One of the concerns that we have is actually how accurately news is actually reflecting the fact that there is divergence and considerable differences in areas. The example I always give is—there are many of them—when a news broadcast comes out and says that the UK Government has a policy now to introduce pre-school breakfast, without even mentioning the fact that, of course, within Wales, you already have that. That's just one, but there are many other quite significant areas. How are you tackling that? How are you actually monitoring that and ensuring the accuracy of particularly that pan-UK broadcasting actually reflecting the events, the way those sorts of decisions are being made? 

That's an important question. Zoe, do you want to—?

Yes. There's constant dialogue between us and the network newsroom. We have a very good relationship with them. So, they pick up the phone and we do likewise, if we think that something hasn't worked quite well or if they want to ask a question. But I think, in general, the awareness and the accuracy is very good. They appointed Rhys as a Wales correspondent in 2022, and I think that has played a huge part into it, and he's delivered some excellent award-winning journalism around Wales-specific issues. I don't think, necessarily, 10 years ago we would've seen the new chief executive of NHS Wales being interviewed on the ITV network, which we did a couple of months ago, because he is there and has that presence. We're also actively trying to help our colleagues outside of Wales understand what's going on in the next few months, for example. So, we've got colleagues from—. Go on. Sorry.

On that, I was just wondering, presumably Ofcom will be giving you guidance on impartiality with reporting because of the Senedd election, in order to help you or to guide you with that?

Yes. But we're organising for colleagues from ITN, from the network newsroom, and from Good Morning Britain to come down in the next few weeks to speak to people in the Senedd, politicians of different parties, in order to try and raise that awareness yet again of the changes that are coming and what we are looking at in the next few months. So, we are actively trying to do stuff as well as just expecting that. But, obviously, that's very important to people. If things do fall through the net sometimes, which they very rarely do, but which they do sometimes, then that is fed back as well. 

I suppose it's also an issue, isn't it, of educating from outside Wales those who are involved in production, in actually understanding—. It doesn't just apply to journalists, it applies to politicians as well, but—

Actually, I would say that what we have got in Wales is a really proud track record of journalists of really high calibre, who have gone on to the newsroom. So, Paul Brand is from Cowbridge. You have a number of them—I'd forget all of them now if I tried to go through them, but there are a really good handful of people who are both behind the scenes and in front of the screen who have been through Wales. They either are Welsh or they've been through our newsroom, and they really do understand devolution, the importance of it and the nuances of it too.

So, it's something you're alert to and that you are effectively, I suppose, monitoring in a way. Perhaps you could just say a little bit about how you might do that, but also extending it into, obviously, the social media engagement that you have as well, which is obviously quite significant. And I suppose the point I make about it is that it's not something that you can be complacent about. It is something that is almost needing to be continually proactive about because the environment's continually changing, isn't it?

Yes, it is. The good thing, as I say, is that that relationship exists. So, for example, there is in London a social media team who make content on behalf of the ITV nations and some regions as well. And one of those people who work on that team is a journalist who is based in Wales. So, automatically she understands, she knows what those factors are. The same principles of accuracy, fairness and impartiality obviously belong to our social media as they do to on air. To us, that's no different.

Okay, thank you. 

Okay, thank you. I'm very aware that one of our Members hasn't had time yet to ask a question. So, I'm going to go to Gareth next, because we are running out of time vastly. Gareth.

Thank you, Chair. It's been a very interesting discussion. It's been a pleasure to listen to it so far. My questions are going to be in relation to sports, essentially, broadly within the context of the discussions that have already taken place. And I want to ask, just as a first question, whether sports that do have a national importance, such as the six nations men's rugby championship, which we're going to be embarking on within the next few weeks, require greater protection to encourage their broadcasts on free-to-air platforms? And have you had any conversations with the UK Government over this matter?

Well, we've talked from time to time with the UK Government about the listing rules. I think it's fair to say that successive Governments have ruled out any change in the list at all, and I think that's true with the current Government too. So, I'm not sure that those conversations have really got very far. But, look, to reassure you on the six nations in particular, the BBC and ITV have the rights from 2026 to 2029, so there is no imminent risk of those games disappearing off free-to-air television. At this point, at least, I don't think there's any particular need to have an urgent conversation in relation to the live coverage of the six nations, if that helps put your mind at rest a bit. 

But it's not—. With respect, it's not an immediate threat within the context of the current deal being in place until 2029, but issues that are more global in terms of sports content coming away from your traditional likes of terrestrial tv may dictate a threat in the future of that happening. So, in terms of horizon scanning, are there any more proactive measures that can take place to ensure—? Because if there are discussions with the UK Government to be had, those discussions should be taking place now so that you're in a position in 2029 to overcome some of those potential barriers that might be in place in the future so that we can create, or preserve even, a free-to-air offering for people to watch the six nations.

Look, you wouldn't be surprised to hear we're enormous supporters of the listed events rules, and the list being robust. And you're also right that, clearly, we've seen some football start to disappear in particular off free-to-air tv, and not all of the nations qualifying games necessarily on free tv. Quite a lot of the FA Cup matches have disappeared off free tv, so the Wrexham-Nottingham Forest game wasn't on a free channel and so on. So, yes, there are real threats there, but as I say, the conversations we've had with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport haven't really got anywhere, so there comes a point where you don't have the conversation because you know it's not going to get you very far.

And, look, I also recognise there are conflicting interests in some sports between getting money, which helps grass-roots sport, and maximising the audience for the sport in the interests of participation. And that, I suspect, is what DCMS might say if they were here, which is: ‘We have to balance those things carefully, and we're also the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and so we're having to try and balance these things up.’ And I don't think they have a great willingness to reopen the list, and I think because—

Yes, and that's—. Sorry for coming in, but that's the point I'm generally making—that you're right in saying that a lot of the FA Cup coverage has moved on to pay-per-view television, TNT Sports. I made the point over the weekend on my own social media channels as a football fan—the third round of the FA Cup is very exciting, where David meets Goliath in that sense, and we saw that on Saturday with Macclesfield beating Crystal Palace, the holders of the FA Cup. So, it shows that it's drifting away from that.

ITV, up until last season, as far as I can remember, had FA Cup coverage for a significant amount of years. Then, we've touched on advertising revenue, and in 2024 advertising revenue from ITV was £1.82 billion, and that uplift was largely related to the coverage of the men's Euro 2024 tournament. So, there is a link there to suggest that, yes, it does cost to have the rights and to broadcast live football coverage, but then it equally shows that it creates an increase in revenue. So, in that sense, does it bring that discussion that there needs to be more exploration from terrestrial tv providers such as yourself to look at the opportunities of what they can give, rather than that just being seen as a cost?

Well, I can assure you live sport is top of our list in terms of things we want to buy, and we're very, very active in trying to buy it because it delivers lots of what we think is best about ITV. Actually, by the way, on the FA Cup, I love the FA Cup. It's the Britain's Got Talent, actually, of sport, because it's the closest thing you've got to a talent contest, almost, and look, we'd love the FA Cup, but we can't buy everything. To give you an example, this year we'll have, I think, 125 live football and rugby games. Obviously, we've got the World Cup, but we've also got the six nations, and actually it's going to be a fantastic year of sport on ITV in terms of live sport, and obviously the expansion of the World Cup is a big deal, and obviously we're very hopeful that Wales will manage to get through, as I'm sure you are. 

Very much so.

Thank you very much.

Diolch, Gareth. Very briefly, then, because we have less than two minutes left, I'm just going to go to Alun, who had a final—. 

Yes, I'm grateful to you for your time this morning. In terms of the charter review that's coming up, you referenced the BBC in an earlier response, and I'm interested in the view that you are developing in terms of your approach to the charter review process, and the way in which you will participate in that debate. Do you have a view on how services are funded from the licence fee? There have been discussions every time the licence fee is discussed about how it should be used, whether it should be used to fund public service broadcasting more widely or whether limited to BBC and S4C, and whether you believe there should be changes to the BBC's public service remit. 

Okay. So, let me try and be quick on this—

Yes, we will write to you to give you more time, because I realise this is a large topic. But if you want to give us—

Fine. It's an enormous topic. So, look, I think that the UK has benefited enormously from having an ecology with different sources of funding. So, having public funding, advertising and subscription separately—it's the source of our superpower in many ways as a tv and film ecology. So, we would be very supportive of continuing with that mixed ecology. We don't think that mixing funding sources is a very good idea, so we're not pitching for the licence fee, but equally we don't think it's a good idea for the BBC to be funded by advertising or subscription. So, we're in favour of a well-funded BBC from public sources. I think, as to what the public sources are, that's a matter for politicians. We're not going to come and say, 'It should be this', or, 'It should be that', but we do think it should be well funded.

And on the remit, I think it's a question of you needing to be clear what you want the BBC to deliver and then work out what money is required to do that. Look, market failure is an important thing in the BBC. It's not the only thing the BBC should be doing, but if there are things the market can't do, then the BBC ought to do it. That ought to be the thing that the licence fee pays for. But also, the mainstream content that it does ought to be distinctive and innovative. They ought to take risks. The licence fee ought to give you the ability to take some of the risks. ITV might say, 'We can't do all of the risk-taking content, we'll do some', but, actually, the BBC should consistently be innovating. It should be what they've termed 'risk capital' for the UK's creative industries, and that includes going out around the UK and taking gambles, because, in the end, what's the worst thing that can happen? You won't lose your business. You'll just have spent some licence fee on a calculated risk, and not all calculated risks are successful.

I think the other thing I'd say is the BBC probably shouldn't acquire programmes. There's quite a lot of money spent on US acquisitions. The market can do all of that, and the market will make those available on multiple platforms. The BBC doesn't need to do that. And that's quite a lot of money. It's tens and tens of millions of pounds. If it didn't spend that on acquisition, it could put more money into originated content.

Okay. We'll leave it at that. Thank you.

As I said, we will write to you with that in case there was more, because we appreciate that's a very large topic to have brought up in the final two minutes of the session. 

Can I thank you very much for the time this morning? A transcript of what's been said will be sent to you so you can check that it's fair, for accuracy, and, again, there will be those questions where we will write to you. And if there was anything further that you wanted to send to us, as well, we'd be very grateful to receive that. 

Thank you very much for your time this morning. We really appreciate it. 

Thank you.

Thank you ever so much. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Professor Lewis, if you'd like to introduce yourself.

Yes. I'm Justin Lewis. I'm the director of Media Cymru and I'm based at Cardiff University.

Thank you so much. Professor Cushion.

I'm also based at Cardiff University. I'm a professor at the journalism, media and culture school. I guess my expertise today is around questions around the news element of the agenda.

Thank you so much.

Could I ask how you think the volume of media content for Wales could be increased?

Funding is the obvious answer, of course, isn't it? But, when we talk about increasing the volume of media content for Wales, I think we risk starting from the wrong end of the problem. For me, the priority isn't simply about producing more content, it's about producing content that is genuinely reflective of Wales, that reaches people, and that stands up to scrutiny in terms of quality, representation, breadth and accessibility. Volume without those qualities doesn't strengthen our media ecosystem, it merely fills space.

None of those qualities is achievable without the workforce that underpins the industry. If we want a sustainable, confident media sector in Wales, we have to take care of the people who make it. That means more stable employment, fair commissioning practices, opportunity for all and a culture that values creativity rather than exhausts it. A resilient workforce is what allows us to deliver high-quality story-telling, authentic representation and content that genuinely serves audiences in Wales.

If we focus only on output targets, we miss the structural issues that determine whether the sector can thrive. But, if we invest in the workforce—in its well-being, its security and its future—we can create the conditions for better content, more diverse voices and a media landscape that reflects the full richness of Welsh life. That's how we grow not just volume, but value. Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. To our professors online, did either one of you want to come in on this? Professor Lewis.

Yes, just very briefly, I would agree with much of that, maybe with a slight nuance. I agree that it's important that we have content that represents the full diversity of Wales in ways that are meaningful to people here, but also, I think, that connect with people globally and across the UK. But I think there's always going to be a mix. There are going to be productions that will take place here that will be not necessarily about or from Wales, but will be part of a production mix. I think that's healthy as well because, as our colleague from BECTU said, we need to have a strong production base with the skills, talent and workforce. I think we've got that here at the moment—that's absolutely essential—but I think having that does mean, yes, strong representation and content that represents Wales, but also a mix of things where Wales is just seen as a production hub more generally for making global productions on a global scale.

Thank you ever so much. I think, Professor Cushion, you might have indicated as well there that you wanted to come in.

Yes, just even more briefly than that, I agree with Carwyn in the sense that it isn't just a kind of box-ticking exercise; it has got to be about the quality of content. I'm sure we'll get into this as we get into the agenda, but it's more about making sure that Wales is properly represented in terms of coverage of politics, that I'm sure we'll get into, and making sure that that is properly reflective of the powers that exist at the Senedd, but also reserved powers too.

Thank you ever so much. 

I'm grateful to you for this. In taking this forward, what we've got on the horizon, of course, is the BBC charter review. And I'm interested, Carwyn, if perhaps you could outline how you would see charter review as a process helping to contribute towards the sort of ambitions that you've already outlined, and whether our academic witnesses could perhaps outline how they would see the charter review process and the opportunities it provides to actually debate and discuss how public service broadcasting and the role of the BBC can actually be improved in Wales. 

Carwyn. 

Diolch yn fawr. Diolch, Alun. Well, the question is particularly important to Wales in the context of S4C's funding through the licence fee, which is part of that charter renewal debate. But, more broadly, the BBC's current mission remains as relevant today as it was when it was established. Its commitment to informing, to educating and to entertaining the public ensures that audiences across the UK, not just Wales, have access to high-quality content that commercial broadcasters simply cannot consistently provide. Its universality remains a defining feature, with cross-platform weekly reach in Wales in 2024 and 2025 being 90 per cent—the highest of the four nations in the UK.

Radio continues to play a fundamental role not only in our lives in Wales or the UK, but in geopolitics. During the first days of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, among the first of the targets of Putin's forces were the local television transmitters and masts. The BBC's World Service short-wave radio transmissions provided Ukrainian citizens with an essential source of accurate information about the Russian hostility and attacks. So, I feel sure that this is a very important conversation and one that I look forward to contributing to through the following questions as well. Thank you.

Diolch. And to our colleagues online. Professor Lewis.

I think that the next charter review is going to be incredibly important, perhaps the most important that we've had. The licence fee, I think, is no longer fit for purpose. Every other serious public service broadcaster across Europe has now ditched the licence fee as a form of funding. It no longer brings in the kind of revenue required for the BBC. So, we will have to come up with other kinds of funding formulas. We've produced a piece of work—I and a colleague at the British Academy—that draws upon expertise from around the world to offer some various policy options that the Government might consider in thinking about how to replace it. But I think that it's absolutely crucial that we come up with a funding formula that allows the BBC the bandwidth to play the incredibly important role that it currently plays in producing content from across the UK and in the incredibly pivotal role that it plays in supporting the creative industries across the UK. That needs to continue.

But I also think there's a strong argument for saying that we should think about actually increasing our role of public service media. We've looked at what's happened in a world where we've let all sorts of areas of media writ large, like social media or platforms, be in the hands of large global monopolies, and, frankly, you'd have to say that hasn't necessarily worked out that well all of the time. There are no public service options in any of those spaces and I think we, as a population, are impoverished for that. And it would be really useful, I think, for the BBC to be given the latitude not only to do what it does well, but to think about how it might innovate, if you like, in those spaces, to create options, so that people have public service spaces that they can use for things like social media or the development of platforms. So, I do think this is a very, very important charter renewal process.

The other key thing about this is that what we will really need to see, and this is absolutely crucial, is a set of structures created that puts the decision making about both funding and governance of the BBC at much more of an arm's length from the Westminster Government than it currently is. Other countries across Europe do that. I think we should learn from those and follow suit, because it seems to me ridiculous that every 10 years, the BBC's existential existence is up for grabs, and Government can say, 'Okay, we're not going to have the BBC anymore'. After 100 years of developing an incredible reputation around the globe, I think we should be beyond that.

We should basically decide as a country that public service broadcasting is a good thing and we look at the best ways to nurture that for what is, frankly, the cost of a cup of coffee per week per household; it's not a huge amount of money, currently. And I think the benefits hugely outweigh the costs. So, that would be my broad overview of where we are in licence renewal. I hope the Government will be bold in thinking about how it can take this forward and really make some substantive changes to how the BBC is funded and how it's governed.

I think Professor Cushion wants to come in, as well. 

To relay the question back more specifically to Wales, the BBC, I think, to be fair to them, have acknowledged that there is an issue in terms of not just Wales, actually, but Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the fact that they need to improve how they reflect the nations and reflect the UK. They did some pretty comprehensive audience research back in October, which looked at what audiences felt were important and what people thought about the performance of the BBC, and there were two areas where they needed to take action.

One was around the independence, their perception of being independent from the Government, which I think talks to Justin's point, particularly about renewal. The second point was about the fact that a lot of people, including in Wales, didn't really think that the BBC reflects the whole of the UK. That isn't specific to a particular genre; I think it cuts across that. So, I think it's on the agenda of the BBC, and I think that they are trying to respond to that, and hopefully that will inform BBC renewal.

It was interesting, as well—there's one point that has not really been discussed that much, around the Green Paper that was released. There's one specific point around how the Government wants to make accuracy as important as impartiality. I think that's something that could actually be really important to the nations generally and Wales specifically.

I think that's a very important point. Sorry, you wanted to come in. 

Could I just come back there on the funding? It's BECTU's position that stable funding is what's critical to the BBC. We are in favour of retaining the licence fee, adjusted for inflation at the very minimum. Because, of course, aside from simply having to run the channels, BBC and S4C through the licence fee also have to futureproof themselves in a very quickly changing media landscape.

Thank you to my colleague for reminding me about the Green Paper. BECTU welcomes the recommendations from the Green Paper that S4C should continue to receive stable sufficient funding and long-term funding. However, I think many of us would argue that such stability has never truly been achieved. We are concerned by the lack of detail in that Green Paper about S4C's funding. I'll go into that in a bit more detail when we come on to S4C. But in terms of the framework, we want decisions to be free from political interference. We think the BBC's funding decisions should not be at the whim of the political environment, and we also strongly believe that appointments to the BBC board should be free and not politically set.

The reason it's so important, of course, is that within Wales the BBC continues to play a fundamental and integral role in the health of the industry, as does S4C. Programmes produced directly by the BBC or commissioned by it through the support it offers partners and production companies are essential in underpinning the wider industry, as is the substantial training that it undertakes of staff. We have good relations and very good engagement from both the BBC and S4C in terms of employee engagement through their trade union. We recognise the significant role that both of them play, particularly S4C, in the ecosystem, particularly in north Wales, where its commission of Rownd a Rownd, produced by Rondo, provides a much-needed source of work for our members up in the north of Wales. Thank you.

In terms of where we're going, and this is far too big a subject to cover in the next few minutes, the licence fee is becoming an anachronism in many ways, and not a long-term, sustainable means of funding the BBC. I agree with the objectives that Carwyn has set out and that others have set out as well for the BBC. I also recognise that, certainly, for the last two charter renewals, there's been serious debate around the licence fee, and I think it's been the lack of a realistic alternative to get reasonably high collection numbers that has meant that we just carried on with the licence fee. But there comes a point where that licence fee is simply not a credible means of delivering public service broadcasting. So, without going too much into the detail, Carwyn, you seem to be saying that we haven't reached that point yet. Do our academic witnesses agree with that? It would seem to me that at least one of you believes that we have reached that point and that we need to look for an alternative to the licence fee.

I'm going to go to Professor Lewis first.

I've always been a huge supporter of the licence fee, but I think you're absolutely right. It's no longer a stable source of income. The number of people paying the licence fee is now in decline and will continue to be in decline, which essentially means, as a source of income, it's not a source of income that will increase, it will decrease. We are now the only country with a serious public service broadcasting system that has a licence fee. Everybody else has abandoned it. So, I think the word 'anachronism' is correct.

But when you look at replacements, one of the things that I was very disappointed to see in the consultation that came out with the Green Paper was that the only alternatives offered to people in the questionnaire were subscription and advertising. I think both of those are complete non-starters and are not used in other European countries that have good public service broadcasting systems.

The other options pursued seriously are something like a household levy, which they have in Germany and in other German-speaking countries, which has a principle of universality but also allows households less able to pay a household levy to be exempt. But it's much more stable and it's a universal source of income. That's one option.The other option, and this is a slightly riskier one, is out of taxation. But if the taxation route is viable, it has to be a ring-fenced form of taxation that doesn't make it part of annual decision making. So, that's a trickier option, but one where I think, again, we can learn from countries like Finland about what they're doing to safeguard the long-term independence of the BBC.

I do think those are options we're really going to have to consider carefully. I'm talking to DCMS tomorrow about some of those options. But I do think it's time to grasp the nettle and really move towards futureproofing the BBC, and I don't think the licence fee does that.

Professor Cushion, was there anything that you wanted to add?

I would just echo what Justin said. The key thing for me is about stability, certainty and independence. I mentioned the research that was done by the BBC themselves that said there's a perception that there's a lack of independence from Government, and I think that's partly tied to the funding model that's there and this existential crisis that exists every time it needs to be renewed. It happens all the time and it just needs settling, doesn't it? We just need continuity and to futureproof public service broadcasting if that's the direction we want to go in.

I agree with you on the point of independence. I think many of us have been concerned over the years about the way that different Ministers have sought to potentially bully public service broadcasters in different ways, and I can't see that changing, quite frankly. So, I think there certainly needs to be a form of governance that protects the independence of public service broadcasters. But in terms of their remit—and we won't go much further this morning on this—our previous witnesses from ITV seem to be saying that the BBC should be providing excellence, as you'd expect, and delivering for audiences where there is market failure. I think they made the point that acquisition of programmes isn't something that the BBC needs to do and the rest of it; it can be far more of a risk taker. So, where would the three of you be on that in terms of the role of the BBC in our national life? We know that it provides the entertainment and news and reflects the country back to itself, but how do we reinvent that in such a fast-changing world?

I think I've already mentioned our contribution on it. I'm not sure whether we need to reinvent it. I think in a world of rapidly expanding disinformation and misinformation, the BBC remains one of the most trusted sources of news, and I think it continues to have a unique remit in providing something for everybody, rather than things of interest to certain particular types of people. That would be my feeling. Thank you.

I guess I would be worried about a market failure model. That's what they did in the United States when they created public service broadcasting there, and look what's happened to that. So, I think, yes, it should be able to take risks and to innovate. I think that's absolutely essential. But it also needs to be universal. We should acknowledge that public service broadcasting is a public good, but if it's a public good, then I think it needs to touch as many citizens as possible.

I think a universality approach combined with the ability to innovate and take risks is very important. I think if all you're doing is assuming that the commercial broadcasters will deal with the popular stuff, and all the BBC does is the less popular stuff, that is a recipe for the end of public service broadcasting in the long run. I think that the combination of risk taking and innovation with universality is essential. It's what the BBC has tried to do for a long time, and I think should continue to do so.

So, you wouldn't want to see any real fundamental change to its remit.

Not a fundamental change. I think its remit is, broadly speaking, pretty good. I think you could tinker with it. There are areas of potential improvement, but the broad remit about what it does, I think, is strong. Last Christmas—well, a couple of Christmases ago, maybe; I'm not sure I've seen the figures for the last Christmas—the top 10 shows watched across the nation were all BBC programmes. It still has an incredibly important role of bringing people together. I think that that is a good thing, and it's something that we would give up at our cost. If the most popular shows came from Netflix and Disney and those kinds of places, then I think we've lost something.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Professor Cushion.

As the question was being asked—Justin has already said it, so I won't repeat what he said—I just wrote down 'market failure' as well, because that's often been a debate around public service broadcasting, that the BBC or public service broadcasting—[Inaudible.]—broader market failure, and I don't think it's worth going down that road, for the reasons that Justin mentioned, and particularly in the context of the US.

But I would also mention how young people in particular and their relationship with public service media. If we're producing lots of dull and worthy kind of shows that ticks boxes because it addresses market failure, then we're not going to really engage young people in it.

And Justin mentioned the popularity of shows. The Traitors is a really good example where it brought families together, and I think the BBC will piggyback off that, and it might well be that younger audiences then start to turn to other programmes as well, perhaps trust the news that's there too. I don't think going down just covering things that aren't reflected in commercial broadcasters is the best way to go. 

So, you wouldn't want to see any fundamental change to its remit either.

I think there are lots of areas where we can get into the detail of where it could change. 'Fundamental' is probably a bit strong, but there are certainly areas. I mentioned one a moment ago about the importance of accuracy in terms of the BBC's public purposes. There are other aspects too where I think it could certainly enhance some of its coverage, certainly in news and current affairs. So, I wouldn't suggest that there are no problems to address, but I just don't think it's a real radical, fundamental rethink of the BBC—I don't think that's necessary.

Okay, I'll leave it at that.

Just a few questions, moving on a little bit, particularly with regard to Wales and with regard to public service obligations in respect of Welsh-specific broadcasting as well. Obviously, the Media Act has created a focus on some of those obligations. Just really your general view, I suppose, to each of you, on how the Media Act is being implemented, what impact it is having and any issues around that.

We'll mix things up. I'll go to the witnesses online first and give Carwyn a breather for a moment. Which of our witnesses—? I'll mix things up. I'll go to Professor Lewis first, then to Professor Cushion and then to Carwyn thirdly. I'll go to Professor Lewis first.

It's a complex question and I don't want to give too long an answer on it. I think there's a very nice analysis of the Media Act and what's happened since the passing of the Media Act by the Voice of the Listener and Viewer, which gives, I think, a very reasoned account of the merits and limitations of the Media Act and how it's been interpreted.

Broadly speaking, the summary would be that the Media Act's recommendations are somewhat vague and it gives Ofcom a very unclear remit about what constitutes things like prominence, what constitutes things like impartiality. And I don't think we've seen Ofcom follow a rigorous approach to following that up and regulating that, partly because I don't think the Act gives them necessarily the specificity to do that.

So, there are some good things in the Media Act around prominence and the role of public service broadcasting. I think they could be strengthened and they could be strengthened by being a bit more specific about what is actually meant by those things. They're important and they're important areas, but that would be the kind of broad flavour of my summary. But as I say, I think the VLV's analysis of this is very measured, but thoughtful and helpful in this area.

Diolch, thank you. And Professor Cushion.

I would just echo what Justin said too. I mean, I'm not on top of the detail of all of that, but I have read the VLV's version, interpretation, of that Act as it's going through at the moment. There are some good elements to it. I think, just another point that Justin didn't address is that there are certain reductions in some public service obligations for commercial broadcasters that are perhaps slightly worrying. I think there's a caveat that actually the Secretary of State can intervene if certain areas aren't being addressed.

But one area that I'm looking at closely is the impartiality of broadcasters. And there is a vagueness, I think, to a lot of legislation. There are debates that we've been researching around politicians presenting programming and what's news and what's current affairs. And I speak to experts around this—broadcasters, editors—and they don't really understand it; audiences don't understand it. And we often see on social media, what's news? Nigel Farage being recognised as the news presenter of the year, but yet Ofcom wouldn't consider him to be a presenter of news. He presents current affairs, which allows him to bypass certain laws. So, for me, I think it's about getting better clarity on some of this regulation, because otherwise it's just left to Ofcom to decide these things, which isn't right, really.

Speaking about Ofcom, just before we turn to Carwyn, I was just wondering whether either of you have any views on Ofcom's prominence consultation. Professor Lewis has just unmuted himself, so, I think he wanted to come in.

No, I didn't actually. It just happened.

I think someone in the tech team could sense that you wanted to say something.

Not especially. I think, in this, as in many areas—and it comes back to some of the things that Stephen was saying—Ofcom feels slightly hamstrung by the vagueness of the direction, which means that, basically, people can—. I think it gives you a licence for getting away with a minimal interpretation of the Act, if you like. So, that, I think, is the worry. And Ofcom, thus far—. So, for example, the fact that—let's take an example—GB News, which I think the evidence would suggest has been significantly in breach of impartiality regulations for a while now, and yet we've seen very little action taken by Ofcom, partly because, I think, of the vagueness of those terms, following up on the point that Stephen made. So, I do worry a bit that Ofcom's ability to act on this is limited a bit by the vagueness of some of the terms of the Act. 

Okay. That's useful. Professor Cushion, was there anything that you wanted to add on that before we—? 

No.

No. Okay. Thank you for that. Carwyn. 

BECTU welcomes that recent publishing of the draft of the new prominence code by Ofcom and very much hopes it will be firm in enforcing it on global platforms when they're operating in Wales in the future. One can't overstate the importance of enforcing the prominence framework for smart tv platforms. Smaller but no less important broadcasters, public service broadcasters, like S4C, have a vested interest in that sort of protection, so that when you turn on your smart tv, S4C or local news or local content is immediately visible to you. Without that legislation, it's highly unlikely that a broadcaster of the size of S4C would be able to negotiate such availability and such prominence on purely a commercial basis. It simply doesn't have the resources to do so. So, we see the prominence code as a very important factor as we step towards the evolving landscape. Thank you.

Diolch. Mick.

Just to come back a bit on the Media Act, in terms of specifics with regard to the obligations with regard to national and regional broadcasting, of course, one of the recommendations from this committee some time back was really in respect of the Act, that it should increase the clarity of those obligations to significance rather than, for example, appropriateness. Appropriateness is a very subjective, vague comment. In your view, do those, what you've identified, I suppose, as inadequacies or weaknesses in the legislation, impact on the public service obligations, particularly with regard to, for example, Wales, which is what we're specifically concerned about, but obviously it has broader implications?

You're both deep in thought there.

It's a really interesting question. Yes, maybe it does do that. I'm just thinking about how the prominence issue currently works. So, if you look at a provider like Disney, and if you go to Disney's platform, actually you don't have to scroll down too far to get to public service broadcasters, although finding S4C would be more challenging in terms of the way that they display prominence. But, is it really prominent? You could argue it either way, but I think that the vagueness of how it's currently defined allows Disney to do that. I guess I would like to see a bit more of a tightening up. But, particularly with S4C, I think S4C is more likely to get lost, and I think that S4C should definitely be clearly up there alongside all of our public service broadcasters in that area. But I do worry a little bit about global platforms being a little bit cute about the way that they interpret prominence. 

And Professor Cushion.

In terms of the question, which was around quotas, in the area that I study around news and current affairs it's hard to see how a quota system can really operate in that way, because you can't really set an agenda for editors to follow, in that sense. I think that there needs to be a more nuanced appreciation of that, in some way. So, it probably works in other areas, in drama and other genres, but not quite within news and current affairs. 

Do you want to add—?

Yes, just to very quickly note yesterday's announcement from the BBC and S4C, and I believe that it was the Media Act that allowed the BBC to flex in its obligations in terms of its obligation to provide so many hours of content, using iPlayer to ensure that S4C's content has prominence going forward. So, I think that's something to note. Thank you.

If I could just take us on just a little bit forward—and this area is a very deep area and we could spend a lot of time on it, and we don't have that—just generally in terms of how the BBC performs for Wales, and specifically for Welsh audiences. The financial figures are fairly stark in that the amount received by licence fee is significantly exceeded in terms of what is actually spent in Wales, and that seems to reflect a specific policy by the BBC in terms of those particular obligations, although we note that in Scotland as opposed to Wales, certainly in English language tv, the BBC spends a lot more on programming there. I don't know what the specific reasons for that are. But just your general views, because I don't think we can go into this in great depth, on the extent to which the BBC is fulfilling those obligations and is actually delivering in respect of Welsh broadcasting.

I—

Oh, forgive me. You started, so I will let you finish. So, we'll go to Professor Lewis first.

Thanks. I do think things have changed over the last 10 years, and certainly over the last five years. I think the situation 10 years ago was not positive. I think that the BBC was much too London centric. But over the last 10 years, and especially the more recent period, we've seen quite meaningful devolution to Central Square in Cardiff and BBC Wales. We've seen national teams moving to Wales. And we've seen a lot more drama production being based in Wales, with significant titles now coming out of Wales, and that really didn't happen before on the same kind of scale. So, I do think the BBC has moved in positive directions. I think it could move further—there's no doubt about that—but I think the direction of travel is a good one, and I think that it's one of the reasons why this part of Wales, the Cardiff capital region, has been a huge success story in terms of film and tv production. We do a lot of data analysis at the Centre for the Creative Economy on how our region does compared with other parts of the UK, and in terms of growth over the last five or six years, it has been significant and sustained here, and that's partly because, I think, the BBC has begun to shift things towards production here. There could always be more. I think we would always welcome more. But I think that direction of travel has been quite significant and meaningful.

Thank you for that. Professor Cushion, on this.

I haven't really got much further to add to that. I think Justin, as part of this huge project that he's running, is really on top of the detail of this, so I would defer to Justin's expertise here.

That's very polite. That's lovely.

I absolutely agree with Professor Lewis there. I think we're focusing on the content spend there, when perhaps we should be considering the network spend by the BBC in Wales. For 2024-25, that was £90 million compared to £81 million in Scotland. And furthermore, we welcome the announcement in December that the BBC intends to double the BBC's spend on portrayal across the devolved nations. And through co-commissions, it will bring a guaranteed minimum level of productions that portray Wales every year. It's increasing its investment in Wales portrayal content, including changing Casualty to a production that portrays a Welsh hospital rather than an English hospital. Network production in Wales continues to exceed Ofcom's quota. It's making 8.8 per cent whereas the quota is 5.5 per cent, and that's up from 7.9 per cent in 2023.

From an employee perspective, I think it's interesting and significant to note that 7 per cent of all BBC staff are based in Wales. Putting that in comparison to our population share of 5 per cent, that really outlines what a significant player it is in the ecosystem of broadcasting and the economy of Wales. So, we're not too concerned by that figure. Thank you. 

Thank you. That completes my questions. 

Just to turn to ITV then, we were discussing with their executives earlier the challenge posed by YouTube in particular to their business model, and the fact that, now, so much of the audience is migrating to YouTube to watch what we used to think of as television. That's particularly difficult for them in terms of that they don't get a revenue-sharing agreement that reflects their commercial aspirations, nor do they have access to the full set of analytics that YouTube harvests from their viewing. And given the way that viewing patterns are changing, with not just younger people, but, increasingly, older people now seeing YouTube as the primary, first point of call for watching programmes, this does seem to me pretty game changing for their ability to sustain public service broadcasting within their model. So, I wonder what view you have about the significance of that, and what Governments should be trying to do, if anything.

Who would like to go first on this? Professor Lewis. 

I'm happy to kick off on that. I think that analysis is absolutely correct. The fall in advertising revenue for ITV has made life very, very difficult in terms of producing high-quality content across the nations and regions. I do think there are things that Government could do. At the moment, ITV and Channel 4, and others, operate at a competitive disadvantage with other commercial players that are not seen to have public service obligations in terms of advertising revenue and the amount of advertising that they can show. There's very much not a level playing field there. I think Government could level that playing field, not, I should say, in a race to the bottom, so that that maximises the amount of advertising that we get, but in a way that perhaps just makes it more equal across the board, and creates obligations in a way that doesn't make it more attractive to advertise on commercial players without public service broadcasting obligations. 

I'd be reluctant to see all public service obligations removed from ITV, because I think part of that makes it healthy and a sort of competitor to the BBC as well, on the same terms. But I do think there are things Government can do to help ITV in terms of its commercial income, because I think you're quite right in saying that, right now, it's in trouble, and we need to think about how we could help in that regard. 

And just one little point to add—the solution, I think, is not to impoverish the BBC. Research across the world shows that commercial broadcasters actually do better in countries with strong public service broadcasting, not the other way around. 

Yes, fascinating. Before we move to Carwyn, Professor Cushion. 

I'd just make one extra point with that, just to go back to the questions around the Media Act and prominence. I do think that—and this has long been the case—if public service broadcasters like ITV are delivering these obligations, then that prominence is really critical to sustain in the future, so that it doesn't become difficult for audiences to try and find that content.

Can I just test you on that? Because that works in a time when you're getting a signal from the transmitter. I don't have a signal coming into my house; I watch through a box of some description and I pick tiles. So, how do you get prominence of public service broadcasting when I have a menu of tiles in front of me?

When you say 'a menu of tiles', do you mean in terms of the programme, the particular subscriber that you go with?

Yes, the platform. I don't look at a schedule, so I don't scroll through channels. And where, previously, you could make sure that S4C was fourth on the electronic programmes list, that doesn't exist anymore. 

I'd have to look at the research on this, but I think it's the case that most audiences still have that option, I think, and are still exercising that. 

Sure, but the world's rapidly moving away from that, isn't it?

Yes. 

I'll bring Professor Lewis in. 

It's an interesting point, and I think, perhaps, we need to think in a less linear way and appreciate the graphic form in which we now receive those options. I'll take you back to the example of Disney. So, if you go to the Disney screen, across the top you will get Disney options, and, actually, you have to scroll down to now see the public service options, because they aren't immediately visible on that screen. So, I think prominence needs to take into account the very visual form in which we're presented with the options. So, that's something that we need to deal with, and you don't—. It's not just about a list anymore.

Yes, very quickly. That is the challenge, isn't it? It's how do broadcasters not only continue, with their budgets, to make the high-quality content, such as ITV—. Look at the importance of our members' work. I always come back to it. Look at Mr Bates vs The Post Office and the effect that that had on Britain and the ability that it had to achieve a fairer solution there. But that is the problem. The broadcasters not only have to continue to fund the content that continues to attract and to entertain the public, but it has to also use that money to somehow develop strategies and access on platforms, and that is a huge struggle against global companies like Amazon and YouTube et cetera.

Well, the producer of Mr Bates vs The Post Office has made very clear that he simply wouldn't be able to get that commission now. The cost of that simply wouldn't be justifiable, and, in an era of co-productions, it's a hugely different environment from just a few years ago.

In terms of ITV's existing obligations and how they discharge them, we heard evidence from them earlier, which is a familiar tale from ITV, that PSB is a burden to their business model and it's not sustainable, and, insofar as they do PSB, beyond news and current affairs, then they will take an agnostic view of portrayal and simply commission what they regard as the best ideas and not take into account the needs of audiences in Wales specifically, and that's reflected in their spend of network programmes, where Wales's spend has been flat. They told us this morning it's gone up in the last year, but it's still—. I think they said 1.3 per cent, which is way below population share. So, how effective do you think ITV are being within their own terms, within their existing licence obligations, at providing for Welsh audiences, particularly in non-news?

I'll go to Carwyn first on this.

Well, in terms of non-news, the bulk of our members are not too far from this building. They do create the news and the current affairs. But, in terms of non-news, well, if that is their statement, I think that's a real shame, and I think that Wales deserves much better of it than that. I have approached ITV about those figures of 0.7 per cent, and they have assured me that they have taken drastic measures to try to increase that spend. I am still awaiting the 2025 figures to assess the impact of those measures, but I do look forward to it, and I share your concern.

Well, their drastic measures, in terms of their evidence to us, were bringing commissioners on a day trip to Wales. Would you consider that a drastic measure?

It was more thorough than that. I think there was quite a few meetings arranged and things like that.

You think that's sufficient, do you?

Well, I think it clearly needs to improve. I'm not here to defend ITV.

No, but, from the point of view of your union, you're content with the efforts they're making, are you?

Well, I don't have anything to quantify how effective they've been at the moment, so—

You have the network spend figures, which have been flat for eight years.

Well, yes, but I don't have last year's figures. So, I'll reserve—. Until I get those figures, I'll have to—. And given my engagement with—

So, last year aside, you're broadly content with the efforts they're making, are you?

No.

Okay. Thank you.

Professor Lewis, you wanted to come in, I think.

Yes. I think we would all like to see much greater spend from ITV in Wales. Hopefully, Stephen will have time to talk about news and the nature of news from ITV as well, and how Wales is represented as part of that. I think that's definitely the case. But, equally, we have to be aware that, to do that, we have to do what we can to make ITV more stable—make its revenue sources more stable. And that's where I think levelling the playing field with commercial providers that it competes with that don't have those obligations in terms of advertising revenue will be important here, because at least it will give ITV a greater source of income and will make it easier, I think, for us to make public service obligations stick, like, for example, making sure the nations and regions are properly represented. So, I think it needs to be a combination of both; simply asking ITV to do more with less I think will be a difficult ask. So, I think we need to think of ways to bolster ITV's revenue and then I think we can be much tougher in terms of the public service request that we would make and its representation of Wales, which, clearly, could be much stronger than it is.

Thank you. Before I bring Professor Cushion in, I'm very aware that, of our scheduled time, we only have 10 minutes left and, evidently, there's a lot more—. There's a section on news coverage in particular that we need to get to, as well as S4C. Are all witnesses—? Please forgive us for this, but would you be able to be with us for an extra 10 minutes to stay until 11:50? Would that be all right for all of you? Because we don't want to rush things, but, obviously, we're very aware of the importance of your time. Is that all right?

That's fine.

Is that okay for you, Carwyn? Right. Lovely. Okay. I will bring Professor Cushion in.

Sorry, can I just ask Professor Lewis something with his last answer—

Yes, of course. Yes, and then we'll—

—this idea that, unless they have more money, we can't ask them to do more? Given that one of their existing licence commitments is amount of spend outside of the M25, which is 35 per cent of their output, and, clearly, the amount of that in Wales has been less than 1 per cent—. So, that's not about any extra money to provide public service broadcasting, it's holding them to their existing commitment, which is broad—it has to be just outside of the M25; it doesn't define Wales. But do you think that's satisfactory? And if not, what tactics do you think might be successful in getting them to increase that?

I guess that's where—. I'm trying to take, I suppose, a realpolitik approach to this. I don't disagree with the need to make sure that they do realise their public service obligations here. I would absolutely agree, obviously, with those aspirations. I want to see them do far more work and commission far more in Wales to strengthen the ecosystem here still further—absolutely. But I do think, in order to do that—. Right now, they are completely preoccupied by the falls—steep falls—in advertising revenue. Getting their attention will be made much easier, I think, if Government were able to say, 'Actually, okay, we understand the position you're in, so we will do something in order to make your position stronger in terms of revenue. But if we do that, we really do want to see you meet your public service obligations.' It might be an extra lever with which to do that. That doesn't negate your point that they should be doing what they said they'd be doing. But I think it would be easier to really push that if there is at least something that helps them alleviate the drop in revenue that they've been experiencing over the last couple of years—steep drops.

That's been their negotiating tactic for 20 years. All that achieves is people saying, 'Poor dabs; fair play to them, they're trying their best. Let's not give them too much regulation.' But they now have a watered-down commitment for their new licence, which they have, and that is not serving Wales well. So, you seem to have, under the guise of realpolitik, kind of given up on that one.

After this answer, we will—

No, I wouldn't say that. I've absolutely not given up on that. I think those are absolutely aspirations that we should push on that. Maybe this is wrong, but I think it will be easier to get compliance with that if—. Right now, they're in a position where they are competing unfairly with other commercial providers, and, if that's no longer the case, it becomes a little easier to do that. Yes, maybe that's too soft an approach. I think that's absolutely up for debate, and I'd very much share the desire for them to do that. But I'm just also cognisant of the fact that all of the noise coming out of ITV at the moment is very much about, 'Look, we are in real trouble here. We need to do things to increase our forms of revenue.' So, it's just trying to make that more likely. But, you know, I hear what you're saying.

Right. Thank you for that. We'll have to move on, and I'm very aware of the time that we have left. I'm going to come to Heledd, on S4C, but I promise, Professor Cushion, we are going to have a substantial section on news coverage. But I'll come to Heledd—

Diolch yn fawr. Sorry, I did want to—. Yes, well, I think it's delivering well and it's reflected in its popularity. Viewing hours across the digital platforms are at an all-time high, meaning that the further investment it sought from Department for Culture, Media and Sport under the last licence fee settlement was well made. It's got a 7 per cent increase across Clic, and 14 per cent of its viewing is now taking place across digital platforms. I think it's been ahead of the curve amongst the public service broadcasters in finding those new platforms, like Facebook and TikTok, making it very popular amongst the younger audiences. And they've received a 75 per cent increase in engagement. I think the BBC are still trying to catch up with that, really. But it's done these things whilst maintaining those traditional audiences who enjoy the soaps like Rownd a Rownd, the news and current affairs. But we do have concerns about the funding arrangements for S4C. I think the changes to the way it's been funded through the licence fee in the last 15 years could leave Welsh language broadcasting exposed to political and institutional manoeuvring, when it should be treated as a strategic priority. So, we'd like to see something better on that.

The Government's Green Paper on charter renewal signals a commitment to independence and to a funding model that supports that independence. But it stops short of acknowledging the shortcomings that I've just mentioned. It recognises that any future mechanism must sustain a modern, digital-first Welsh language service, but it offers worryingly little detail on how this will be achieved. And with less than two years remaining, which is well within the horizon of typical drama commissioning cycles, like the BBC, S4C still has no clarity on the scale or source of its funding. So, the priority must now be for swift, decisive action to bring about that certainty. Diolch.

Diolch, Carwyn. As Heledd had indicated earlier, because of time, we will write to all witnesses to ask if there are comments they would like to make on that. Diolch, Heledd.

I'm now going to move to Gareth to lead us through our final section on news coverage. And we are eagerly anticipating in particular Professor Cushion's remarks on this because of your expertise.

Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning, everyone, and in particular, Professor Cushion, who I'll be directing the questions on news coverage towards. To start, how sufficient is news coverage within Wales, in your view, and how could it be improved?

Well, within Wales, and news produced within Wales, I think there's been a long-standing concern that there's been the democratic deficit that's often been debated within Wales, and there needs to be more to supplement that. We can talk about the detail of that and debates about that that have been going on for many decades. I think the one area that we've been focusing on for many decades, too, is around UK network news, and how that's been covering Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, too.

The study that we've been doing since last October has raised a few concerns. In the past, we've been looking at primarily broadcast media, tv in particular, but, obviously, audience habits are changing. More people are turning to online news, social media. We've been looking in particular at social media and online content, and found a lot of content across all broadcasters, and the BBC as well, not really conveying that kind of accuracy in terms of explaining the relevance of the story to England, or England and Wales. In the past—we've been studying this since the King report; some of you may remember that, in 2010, and the BBC changing their guidelines—we've seen broadcasters be quite sensitive to reflecting devolution and getting into compare-and-contrast policies in health and education. But, in the last few months when we've been looking at this, we found that quite lacking, and I think perhaps committee members have had access to the interim review that we've done.

Sorry to cut in, Professor Cushion. Is there a specific example of that that you can provide to the committee—just an example of where that might have happened in broadcast that would be relatable?

Sure. The evidence I submitted to the review has, I think, about 40 or 50 examples of that, but let's take one example that's come up recently, which is around the junior doctors strike, which clearly is in England, but if you look at the coverage across—and I'm talking broadly here, because sometimes it is reflected and sometimes it's not—often you will find that it's just a junior doctors strike that's reported without giving the caveat that it is actually only in England and it's not relevant to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Sometimes England is mentioned, perhaps in the introduction, or sometimes it's mentioned right at the end of an online story. But we see that across other instances too, in terms of tuition fees and how they're allocated across different Governments, and decisions around law and order as well—crime commissioners. There are lots of different areas and lots of examples that we've provided here that demonstrate that, at times, they're just not being sensitive to devolution, despite it happening 26, 27 years after the fact.

Yes, and in response to that—you touched on it there—how accurately do UK broadcasters report the news in Wales, to flip that around slightly? I look at ITV, for example. They used to have a half-hour slot in the evening, which has been extended to an hour in recent years. Whenever I watch it, it seems to be padded out with lots of weather content, and not less serious stories but ones that wouldn't have necessarily been on the news before. So, in terms of those available slots that are there, and the increased airtime that appears to be on platforms such as ITV, what we've heard this morning is that they don't have much of a plan at the moment for increasing Welsh content in that sense. But the, in a UK context, they've increased vast amounts of airtime for news. But I've not seen much anecdotal evidence—and you might be able to expand more on that—as to why there seems to be increased airtime within a UK context, but then that doesn't seem to reflect on the news and operations within Wales, Scotland and, indeed, Northern Ireland as well. 

Certainly in the UK context, where we've been studying network news on ITV, I think there is a fair commitment to reflecting Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland, and, as I said in the past, we've looked at coverage and found fairly detailed analysis, particularly during COVID, when we tracked coverage from the lockdown in March 2020 and we saw broadcasters, including ITV, really go into detail and, talk about not the nation but the nations, talking about the different caveats of lockdown decisions in terms of schools closing down. So, there was a real heightened, I think, expertise, and we did a study that was commissioned by Ofcom in 2021, and we found a lot of coverage really got into the detail of that, and I think that continued. Anecdotally, as I observe this, having studied it for many years, you get trained into watching it and seeing how accurate network broadcasters are, but I think, over recent years, standards have slipped a little bit, and it's perhaps a time to reset and to rethink again, particularly as we approach an election campaign in Wales and Scotland coming up, to reset and to actually think through again how network news are presenting politics across the UK.

Yes. I think that's a very valid point, and I agree that COVID did show what can be achieved, I think, in that sense, despite it being a very challenging and difficult time for millions of people across the UK. Given that it was such a negative situation we were in, I think there are certainly positives and good examples that can be drawn from the quality of the content in terms of highlighting what's devolved and what isn't, and then relate that to the different nations. UK broadcasters, are they trying to improve the accuracy of how they reflect devolution? You see—again, anecdotal, because I'm not, obviously, an expert in this field—from an anecdotal perspective, that there seem to be nuggets of it in certain areas, where there might be a piece where a particular matter is devolved, be that health, transport or whatever it may be. There are little nuggets sometimes where there'll be a reporter from Scotland, there'll be one from Northern Ireland, there'll be one from Wales, for example, and they'll go around the four of them to get the perspective from each of the nations. I think that's a good example of how it can work because—

Forgive me interrupting you, Gareth, but we're very short on time, I'm afraid.

I apologise, Chair. Do you believe that there are any opportunities within that to expand that sort of operation and look for other opportunities to enhance that more effectively and more strategically, and which people can see on a daily basis? 

Diolch, Gareth. Just to add to Gareth's question, particularly leading up to the Senedd election, is there any opportunity here for greater clarity in Ofcom guidance on how things are reported on particularly, and looking at a fair reflection of that?

Firstly, to take the point that you're making that certain stories do substantively feature across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, you do see really detailed reports on occasion, but what we've done differently to past studies is actually look at social media posts, because, obviously, more people are turning to social media platforms, whether it be X, TikTok or Instagram, and we've been looking at headlines particularly, because more people are just scrolling rather than just clicking through. And there is an awful lot—far more than we've ever found before—of headlines that simply make devolution invisible, in a sense. There's just no clarity, no allocation of the responsibility to a particular Government in a lot of those posts. So, if you talk about opportunities to improve, that's certainly an area where they can look through and actually make things more accurate.

In terms of what Ofcom can do, it is quite difficult because, obviously, Ofcom don't police social media accounts in that sense. But the clear guidance is about accuracy. And, at times, if you look at coverage, if you don't state that a junior doctors strike is only happening in England, it is kind of an accuracy issue in many ways, isn't it? So, that's something where they could perhaps intervene and perhaps remind broadcasters of the responsibility to reflect the nations accurately.

Thank you so much. Heledd has one final very brief question.

Thank you, Chair. Obviously, it's a fascinating interim review. I just note that it's received support from the Welsh Government. So, I just wondered who this will be reported to and what the engagement with broadcasters is to ensure that it does have a bearing on the reporting of the Senedd election, especially the use, as you have here, of platforms like X and TikTok.

It's funded by Creative Wales. We're going to finish the project around March. We are engaging with all broadcasters. We've already started that engagement off. We're speaking to them. We've only just started this, but we've already got really good, positive engagement. So, I'm hoping that it actually does lead to the research being used in a really positive way.

Great. Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. I just wanted to check whether, Professor Lewis, there is anything that you wanted to add to anything that's been said. I know that we're very short on time, but I know that we haven't come to you or to Carwyn. I'll come to Carwyn finally.

Very briefly, if somebody gave me £10 every time I listened, watched or read a story that is only about England, in which we are not told that it's only about England, I would be a very rich person.

Diolch. And then, finally, Carwyn.

Nothing more to add.

Okay. Can I thank you all very much for being flexible there as well? There are some final questions that we will write to you with, if that's all right. In your answers, if there's anything more that you would have liked to have said had we had more time, then we would really appreciate it, but we just really appreciate learning from your expertise and from your experiences—diolch yn fawr iawn. A transcript of what has been said will be sent, as well as those questions, for you to check. We've been talking about the importance of accuracy, so you can check the accuracy of the transcript as well.

We are moving on, but we thank our witnesses again—we really appreciate your time this morning.