It's Christmas Eve, and I'm as much into Siôn Corn and the magic of Christmas as anyone else, so I hope everyone reading this gets what they want most for themselves and for those they love at this time of year.
I thought this ecard from S4C was particularly appropriate.
But Christmas is about celebrating the birth of Jesus. And, as Ian Anderson put it back in 1972, we'd do well to remember the things he later said.
Let's hope Siôn Corn brings each of us what we want most this Christmas.
And if he doesn't, that someone else will.
I'm pleased to see that Enviroparks have been granted planning permission for their proposed waste treatment and energy plant in Hirwaun.
£120m waste energy park for Rhondda approved
I wrote an article in March explaining why I thought this was a much better way of dealing with waste than any other process currently available. It's too long to repeat here, but this is a short extract which explains the basic technology:
The process is multifaceted, but involves recycling, the separation of food and non-food waste with food waste going to an anaerobic digester to produce gas to be used as fuel, the plasma gasification (as opposed to incineration) of other waste to again produce gas, and burning the gas from both sources to produce electricity. This animation shows how these processes work together:
The crucial difference between this and incineration is that burning the gas is clean, whereas burning waste directly gives rise to high emissions of dioxins, nitrous oxide, toxic metals and particulates. The plasma arc breaks these down into individual atomic elements.
The Wiki article is here, including a list of projects planned or already operational. Enviroparks own website is here.
Enviroparks ... a better way to deal with waste, 5 March 2010
There was quite a lively discussion in the comments section of the original post. But the way I see it, it is only by embracing this sort of technology that we can avoid the much more damaging effects of waste incineration to both the environment and public health.
A few weeks ago, ITV Cymru produced an edition of Y Byd ar Bedwar which focused on the crisis S4C is currently facing, and included figures from a poll they commissioned from YouGov. The programme is still available here for those who want to see it again.
Some of the poll figures which struck me were that:
• 19% of Welsh speakers don't watch S4C at all
• 30% watched less TV than 5 years ago, but 39% watched less S4C
• 35% of Welsh speakers wanted S4C to remain wholly Welsh, but 36% of them thought that it should show English programmes too
• Most people watched S4C for its sports coverage
It goes without saying that these were rather disappointing figures. So I asked YouGov for some additional information, particularly because one of the other polls they published based on the same data included a cross-break for fluency in Welsh. ITV have kindly given their permission for YouGov to publish this data and it is now available here.
YouGov in fact asked two separate questions on Welsh, in this order:
Can you understand, speak, read or write Welsh? Please tick all that apply.
• Understand spoken Welsh
• Speak Welsh
• Read Welsh
• Write Welsh
• None of the aboveHow well, if at all, would you say you can speak Welsh?
• Fluently
• Fairly well
• Not very well
• Not at all
The first question was chosen because it is identical to the question asked in the census, and this was used to weight the raw data, but the second question gives a rather fuller picture of people's ability.
In answer to the first question, 222 out of 1206 or 18.4% said they could speak Welsh, which was then weighted to 16.8%. (If this seems low, it is probably because YouGov asked adults, but the census figures are for all people over 3 years old, and the highest percentage of Welsh speakers is for those at school.) But in answer to the second, the raw percentages for ability to speak Welsh were:
Fluently ... 6.7%
Fairly well ... 7.3%
Not very well ... 33.1%
Not at all ... 52.9%
What this shows is that there is quite a flexible "middle ground" in which people's views can be characterized as falling into one of two responses, either:
"I am a Welsh speaker, but I don't speak Welsh very well."
or
"I don't speak Welsh very well, therefore I can't really call myself a Welsh speaker."
The purpose of giving this explanation is in order to help us understand the more detailed information within the survey. The programme itself only made mention of the breakdown between Welsh speakers and non Welsh speakers based on the first question. In fact it is almost certain that the programme makers did not know what the cross-break (to use the jargon) for fluency in Welsh was, since that information has only been put together in response to my request.
For that reason, I want to stress that I am not accusing ITV of presenting misleading information. The figures they quoted are accurate ... but just not as helpful as they could have been. So with this in mind I now want to look again at what the more detailed information shows us.
How many Welsh speakers watch S4C?
So the headline figure that 19% of the Cymry Cymraeg don't watch S4C gets reduced to only 7% of those who speak the language fluently. 93% of fluent Welsh speakers watch S4C at least sometimes, and 71% watch S4C at least once a week.
Do we watch S4C more or less that we did 5 years ago?
The way the figures were presented on Y Byd ar Bedwar was that the fall in S4C viewers was worse that the general fall in television viewing. So these more detailed figures are quite startling. Yes, it is true that people generally watch less TV than we did five years ago, but the percentage of fluent Welsh speakers who watch S4C has actually gone up ... 36% watch S4C more than before, only 23% less.
What do we watch on S4C?
It is of course true that most people who watch S4C watch it for sport, but for those who are fluent in Welsh, sport is not the main type of programme watched. Drama, News and Current Affairs, and Entertainment programming are each higher up the list than sport.
Do Welsh speakers want English language programmes on S4C?
One of the major points made on the programme was that even Welsh speakers, even though only by 36% to 35%, wanted S4C to remain wholly Welsh. But the more detailed figures show that this was certainly not the opinion of those who speak Welsh fluently or even fairly well.
-
I've highlighted these points because they go some way to explain the more surprising figures presented on the programme. S4C is a minority channel, primarily aimed at those who speak Welsh ... although of course open to anybody who wants to watch.
What these figures seem to show is that S4C is actually doing a very good job of providing a range of Welsh language programmes for those who want drama, entertainment, news, current affairs in Welsh rather than in English. The percentage of those fluent in Welsh who watch S4C is very high indeed, and these people watch more S4C now than we used to five years ago. Surely that is a mark of success.
After two excellent articles by Mabon ap Gwynfor and Welsh Ramblings it might seem a little superfluous for me to write something else on Plaid Cymru's proposal for a not-for profit-company to take over the train operating franchise currently held by Arriva Trains Cymru; but I will, because transport is a subject that particularly interests me.
-
The first thing to say is that I'm very pleased with this development, not least because it's something that I have argued for, as I said here a few months ago.
Arriva Trains Wales were awarded a 15 year operating franchise in December 2003. This was before the 2005 Railways Act and 2006 Transport (Wales) Act ... in other words before responsibility was devolved to the Assembly.
One of the problems with this is that the service criteria were set when the franchise was awarded, so it is quite difficult to negotiate new services or improvements to services. As things stand, the franchise will not expire until 2018. There is a performance review due in 2013, but unless ATW do something wrong I'm not sure it can be used as a pretext to cancel the contract. However, as soon as it can be done, I would like to see the franchise taken over either by the Welsh Government, or by a not for profit company (or one which reinvests them) which can be more flexible to service improvements as laid out by the WG.
Now of course I was just one of many who wanted to see this. The context in which I said it was in answer to a question about how we were landed with Arriva in the first place. So although there's plenty to be said about profit (which I'll come on to later) for me the main reason for being dissatisfied with the present model is because it severely limits our ability to improve the standard of rail services in Wales.
Ramblings has noted that the political consensus for privatization—something shared equally by both Labour and the Tories in Westminster—is what resulted in the current model by which railways operate in the UK. Like him, I don't think very highly of the model, but we have to accept that this is the way things are, so we need to work within those parameters in the immediate term.
In setting down 15 year franchises, the idea was to provide the TOCs with a term of contract that was long enough to enable them to make a long term investment, and each tender was bid for on the basis of providing a certain level of service. Now of course there would be nothing to stop a TOC improving the level of service if it could make more money by carrying more passengers; but that model was much more suited to lines that made a profit than to those that didn't. The rail service in Wales is not one of those that makes a profit (it receives about £150m of public money a year) so the franchise holder would certainly have no incentive to do anything more than maintain the service at the minimum agreed level.
The problem is that we in Wales want to improve our rail service rather than just keeping the same sort of service as we had in 2003. In order to do that, the Welsh Government has had to negotiate with Arriva to provide new services or levels of service, which we have had to pay for in the form of increased subsidies. As with any contract, the initial bid may well have been very competitive, but the price for additional services once the contract is in place is never going to be competitive.
For this reason we have been paying over the odds for the service improvements since 2003, and will continue to do so for any further improvements we want.
Others have mentioned that Arriva Trains makes £10m net profit after tax each year. The full figures for the last two years are here. They are very healthy figures, particularly in a time of economic crisis.
But a comparison with the figures for the Arriva Rail group as a whole is very illuminating, as this article from the Western Mail shows:
Arriva Trains Wales sees profits affected by recession
Arriva has said its Wales business was "significantly affected" by recession last year.
The company, which operates the Arriva Trains Wales service, said UK rail profits slumped 64% as expectations for passenger revenues growth on its CrossCountry franchise proved too optimistic.
The rail division made an operating profit of £12.1m, down from £33.7m a year earlier.
The first thing to notice is that Arriva's business in Wales was not negatively affected by the recession at all. Instead of falling, their operating profit in Wales increased by 15.4% ... or just under £2m. But in addition to the Welsh rail franchise, Arriva Trains holds the CrossCountry franchise, which made a loss. The Welsh operating profit of £13.8m more than accounts for their total operating profit of £12.1m.
Now why should this be? It seems clear to me that being able to name their own price for the service improvements in Wales must be a major factor in enabling Arriva to not only avoid the effects of the recession unscathed, but to actually increase their profits instead. The Welsh franchise has proved to be a nice little earner, because they know that the franchise system is set up so that the only way we can get service improvements is to pay through the nose for them.
And that is why it is so important to make sure that we do not fall into the same trap again. When this franchise was awarded in 2003, responsibility for rail transport was not devolved and we had no say whatsoever in the model that was imposed on us. The 15 year contract is subject to review every 5 years, so there might be an opportunity to do something in 2013. That is why it is an important issue for the Assembly elections next Spring, as it will be something for the next Welsh government we elect to deal with.
What we do then might well be limited, because Arriva are only doing what we would expect any other company to do ... they are providing as little as their contracts oblige them to provide in order to make as much profit as possible. But I believe it would be well worth buying them out of that contract in 2013 if we can, placing the franchise instead with a new not-for-profit company, because it is only when Arriva are out of the way that we can introduce new and better services at a competitive market price rather than at the extortionate price we now have to pay for service improvements.
But even without the service improvements we so badly need, Wales is losing out to the tune of nearly £14m a year. Dividends of £10m a year go straight to the state owned Deutsche Bahn in Germany, and £3.9m in tax goes to the Treasury in London.
It looks like Oriel y Parc in Sir Benfro was designed by an Everton supporter:
Only the best will do.
This short clip from last night's Question Time perfectly demonstrates the BBC's complete inability to grasp the realities of devolution:
Leaving David Attenborough's patronizing arrogance to one side, we need only ask ourselves one simple question to demonstrate the sheer hypocrisy of the situation: Are questions about Westminster's policies on things like the health service or education to be banned from all editions of Question Time on the basis that viewers in Wales, Scotland and the north of Ireland would not be interested in what was happening only in England?
Of course not.
It's another example of the usual double standards, so deeply ingrained that most people in the British establishment are blind to it. For them the UK and England are one and the same thing. The BBC expect people in Wales and Scotland to be interested in England (and of course we are) but they can't imagine that anyone in England will be interested in Wales or Scotland.
And listen to the clip again to hear Chris Bryant's contemptuous ridicule of the idea that anybody outside Scotland could be interested in the Scottish economy ... for if he says that about Scotland, we can be damn sure that he thinks exactly the same about Wales.
Much as Labour want us to believe otherwise, the contempt agenda is not limited to the Tories and LibDems.
At the beginning of this month, I wrote this article on the amount of power produced from renewable energy sources in Wales.
It was prompted by an article in the Western Mail which got a few things wrong, but those faults pale into insignificance compared with this story on the BBC website today, which is an almost incredible mixture of fact and misinformation:
Wales misses wind farm energy target
So let me try and unravel the two. Firstly, the TAN 8 target set in 2005 is quoted correctly:
The provision of electricity from renewable sources is an important component of the UK energy policy, which has an established target of producing 10% of electricity production from renewable energy sources by 2010. The Assembly Government has a target of 4 TWh of electricity per annum to be produced by renewable energy by 2010 and 7 TWh by 2020.
In order to meet these targets the Assembly Government has concluded that 800 MW of additional installed (nameplate) capacity is required from onshore wind sources and a further 200 MW of installed capacity is required from offshore wind and other renewable technologies.
So far, so good. But this is what the Welsh government is now claiming:
Five years on, the assembly government said Wales produced in excess of three terawatt hours of electricity from renewable sources.
A spokeswoman added: "Whilst we have not met the 2010 target, there is an additional five terawatt hours of electricity either in the planning system, consented or under construction, that would allow us to significantly exceed it.
"This means we are on course to significantly exceed our previous 2020 target of producing seven terawatt hours of renewable electricity annually by 2020."
This is completely wrong. In fact it is so completely wrong that it can only be called a barefaced lie.
Now I don't know what the electricity figures for 2010 are; as we are still in October, nobody can know that. But we do know what the figures for 2009 are, because they were published in DECC's Energy Trends for September in the section starting on page 25. This is the table:
As we can see, Wales generated just over 1.6 TWh of electricity in 2009. Of course the figure for 2010 is almost certain to be higher, mostly because of the Rhyl Flats windfarm. But adding 90 MW of capacity is only likely to deliver something like 275 GWh of electricity, and any other increase in capacity is going to be much smaller. So the 2010 figure will still be less than 2 TWh.
This cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called "in excess of three terawatt hours of electricity from renewable sources".
Jane Davidson is the Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing. By allowing this sort of rubbish to be published, she is making it obvious that she is not in control of her department ... well, unless she is in control, and therefore responsible for this outrageous piece of misinformation. We need to call her to account for this.
-
But let's look again at the second paragraph of the TAN 8 statement:
In order to meet these targets the Assembly Government has concluded that 800MW of additional installed (nameplate) capacity is required from onshore wind sources and a further 200MW of installed capacity is required from offshore wind and other renewable technologies.
To me this shows the total lack of realism in the document itself, which was put together when Carwyn Jones was in charge of the department. These are the actual figures for installed capacity, taken from this spreadsheet
2004 ... 230.9 MW of wind ... 429.5 MW total
2005 ... 329.8 MW of wind ... 528.8 MW total
2006 ... 359.0 MW of wind ... 558.8 MW total
2007 ... 363.2 MW of wind ... 558.8 MW total
2008 ... 375.4 MW of wind ... 574.4 MW total
2009 ... 532.6 MW of wind ... 753.3 MW total
Even if we are charitable and say that the increase promised in TAN 8 was based on the 2004 figures, we have only managed to increase our total installed capacity for wind generation by just over 300 MW. This is less than a third of the target set out by Carwyn Jones in 2005. If we take the 2005 figure as a baseline, the increase is only 200 MW or about a fifth.
That's enough to make a grown man cry. We have had a bunch of clowns in charge of our energy policy in Wales. Well meaning, perhaps, but still inept.
And yet, more by luck than judgement, there is a silver lining to this cloud. Although I am generally in favour of windfarms, I believe that the targets as set out by Carwyn Jones in the second paragraph were flawed. Offshore wind generation is much, much better than onshore wind generation. The load factors are higher, and building them offshore reduces at a stroke the vast majority of problems such as noise, flicker, transport and visual intrusion. If Carwyn Jones had shown any basic grasp of the issues involved, the figures would have been the other way round ... a 200 MW increase in onshore wind, and a 800 MW increase in offshore. So no marks for him, either.
But in spite of this ineptitude, we will proably meet the 2020 target ... though certainly not in the way he imagined. The next big windfarm to come on line will be Gwynt y Môr. It's capacity of 576 MW will produce maybe 2 GWh of electricity a year. After that we have the even bigger Round 3 windfarms in the Irish Sea and Bristol Channel, as I mentioned here. So the picture is not as grim as it might appear. Yet it has to be said that these windfarms have had nothing to do with the Welsh government. We have a government that likes to make out that it is really quite green, but that it is being held back by Westminster. That's why their statement says:
"Unfortunately, most of the elements that are key to us meeting the target are outside our direct control."
But where are the schemes that the Welsh government are proposing? I don't know of any big renewable energy schemes that we are putting pressure on the UK government to let us build. Our energy ministers seem happy to sit back and let Westminster make the running.
Of course I want decision making power for energy projects over 50 MW to be devolved to Wales. But devolving that power is only half of the story ... we also need to elect a government that is as ambitious for renewable energy in Wales as the SNP has shown itself to be in Scotland.
In my post yesterday, I focused on the proposed new funding model for S4C, saying that I thought the principle of S4C receiving the bulk of its funding from the television licence fee was acceptable, subject to details about the actual sums of money involved and the need to establish this funding base in the long term. However I think it's worth repeating that I am talking about S4C receiving this money from the TV licence fee directly as a designated, ring-fenced sum. The principle of "top slicing" the licence fee has now been established for some years, and the way I read the DCMS/BBC agreement, it seems clear that this will continue.
He who pays the piper does call the tune. That is why it is important that we establish beyond any doubt that the sums designated to S4C from the licence fee are not the BBC's money, and that the BBC should have no control over how this money is spent. The way to ensure this is to write it into the new legislation rather than rely on the discretion of the parties concerned, and to set out a mechanism for determining what share of the licence fee should be given to S4C in the future.
One of the main reasons I think it's important to deal with funding separately is simple and pragmatic. In any negotiation "principles" and "money" are two terms which are notoriously difficult to separate. So if we can nail down the aspect of funding, it then makes it much easier to talk about the management and commissioning structure through which we get Welsh language television. It also makes sense from the perspective of what is happening politically, for it would be naïve for anyone to think that what has happened in the past few months, or indeed the last few days, has not been almost exclusively motivated by the desire to cut public spending. It is this that the government in Westminster has been primarily concerned about, not the quality or nature of Welsh language television.
The problems with the DCMS/BBC agreement
Management and commissioning are matters that certainly do need to be addressed, but the most important thing to note on this subject is that the agreement reached last week is between the DCMS and the BBC, with S4C having no place in the discussions. So even though I don't think it should particularly matter to S4C whether the bulk of its budget comes from government subvention or the television licence fee, I do think that any change to the management and commissioning structure of S4C cannot be decided without reference to them.
For that reason I fully support S4C's decision to seek a judicial review.
But we must be under no illusions about what we expect a judicial review to achieve. In all probability the most that will happen is that the DCMS will be told that it acted precipitously and that it should now undertake a proper consultation. But there will be nothing to stop the DCMS doing that, but then coming to exactly the same decision that it has already taken. The judiciary deals with whether something is lawful or unlawful, and whether the proper procedures have been followed in reaching decisions. We cannot expect any judge to make political decisions.
As I have said a number of times, the Westminster government can do whatever it likes providing it can get a majority to pass the necessary legislation through parliament. It can abolish S4C completely if it can get a bill to that effect through parliament. Therefore the primary focus of our opposition to the Westminster government's proposal must be political. We must persuade MPs that the independence of S4C is of such importance to us that it would be politically unwise of them to push these plans through. That involves protest and demonstrations.
So what arguments should we use? Let's start by looking at the relevant clauses of the DCMS/BBC agreement:
• Having decided to reduce its own funding for S4C as part of the CSR, HMG holds that a new partnership model with the BBC is the best way of securing the long-term future of the service.
• There would be a BBC and S4C partnership along similar principles to BBC Alba to begin by 2013/14, with S4C coming under a BBC Trust Service Licence or other operating agreement which would be jointly agreed with the S4C Authority and which would set out the strategic goals and broad editorial requirements of the service.
• A combined Board of the Authority and Trust would oversee delivery of the Service Licence or operating agreement.
• The S4C service will be operated by a joint management board with a majority of independent directors, appointed by the BBC Trust and the Authority. The management board will operate its own commissioning structure.
• Further discussion will be required about the exact form of the partnership, and the Government will play its part in those discussions.
• The total content commissioning budget will be for independent producers (outside of the BBC's ongoing statutory commitments)
As I read it, this seems to indicate that the DCMS are going to retain the S4C Authority as the body which would receive funds, and that these would come from the television licence fee, a continued but reduced government subvention, and commercial activities. This is reassuring. The changes that are proposed seem not to affect the S4C Authority, but the management of the channel.
-
Now, although we do not know the precise reasons why Iona Jones left as chief executive of the channel, we do know that the S4C Authority made an announcement the very next day saying that it intended to get rid of the "arm's length" separation between the Authority and the channel's management team. This is what it said:
The S4C Authority has announced a change in S4C’s management structure that will lead to a closer working relationship between the Authority and the management team.
S4C Authority Chairman John Walter Jones said that the S4C Authority, the regulatory body that oversees S4C’s performance, would work closer with a leaner management team.
[He] said: “In order to ensure that the Channel’s future remains secure and that the organisation is run efficiently, the most fundamental change is that the concept of due separation between the S4C Authority and the management team will now cease. S4C is a unitary body and this unitary organisation should manage and safeguard the interests of S4C viewers and the Channel’s suppliers in the future.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that Iona Jones left because she was not prepared to see the erosion of this due separation. It is also hard to escape the conclusion that the DCMS was none too pleased with this ... although that view might be heavily influenced by the BBC who, unlike the DCMS, would have a more informed understanding of the way the industry works. This was an unsavoury episode, made worse by S4C's complete disregard for transparency and the need for a public body to give some sort of public explanation of what was going on behind closed doors.
I don't want to take sides in that dispute, not least because I don't know enough to know what side to take. But it is clear that the Authority felt the need to step in and do the job it had previously entrusted to an arm's length management team. Therefore, if management and commissioning is seen to be a problem, it should come as no big surprise that the DCMS/BBC agreement should address that issue and propose what they think is a better arrangement. Nor should it be surprising that their preferred solution should be one that gives the BBC more control. The BBC are hardly disinterested observers ... they want what suits them. Who wouldn't?
The BBC's track record
But we need to be under no illusions that the BBC can be particularly ruthless in pursuit of its own ends, especially when its own back is against the wall. The unilateral announcement that it would cut spending on the Welsh language programmes it provides to S4C from £23.5m to £19.5m is an example of this. It is all the more remarkable because it was made on 8 October ... nearly a fortnight before any decision on the BBC's own funding been reached. It would perhaps be understandable to make such an announcement in response to a decision on BBC funding, but to make such a decision at a time when the BBC's income from the TV licence fee had merely been frozen, not cut, is surely proof enough that Welsh language programming is quite low on the BBC's list of internal priorities.
But if anyone is still not convinced of that, another way of illustrating the same point is to look at what has happened to the BBC's Welsh language output over the last 25 years. As I said last month in this post, when S4C was first set up in 1982 there were only three other free-to-air channels available (BBC1, BBC2 and ITV) plus non-peak Channel 4 programming. In 1982, the BBC broadcast could not have broadcast more than about 36 hours; but now, on one typical day, the BBC broadcasts 139 hours of programming to Wales, i.e. about four times as much as it broadcast in 1982. Although when repeats are taken into account, it might be a little less.
But what has the BBC done to increase its Welsh language output to match its increase in English language output? Well, hardly anything. It has voluntarily increased the programming it provides from 10 to 12 hours a week ... a 20% increase in contrast to its 400% increase in English language programmes. So it is very clear that the BBC doesn't regard itself as being under any sense of moral obligation to treat Welsh and English in the same way.
The lesson to be learned from this is that we cannot entrust the future of Welsh language broadcasting to the BBC. I am sure that there are many individuals within the BBC (and particularly in BBC Wales/Cymru) who do care passionately about it, but this does not extend to the corporation as a whole ... or at least the ranks of its most senior decision makers. Though equally it must be said that the BBC still has major problems coming to terms with adequately reflecting the current political landscape in the UK after more than ten years of devolution.
Conclusion
So in conclusion, although there are undoubtedly changes that need to be made to the way that S4C manages the channel and commissions the programmes shown on it, a forced marriage between S4C and the BBC resulting in a joint management and commissioning team is not the right way to go about it.
The principle at stake is plurality. If the editorial choices for all Welsh language broadcasting are made by one "joint management board" operating under one "service licence or operating agreement" then we will only be presented with one view of the world. It won't matter if the joint management board is made up of representatives from S4C, the BBC and a good number of independents. Nor is it a matter of one view being intrinsically better or worse than another ... even the best, most informed view is still only one view.
The BBC makes its own programmes in Welsh. The executive decisions and editorial standpoint of those programmes are for the BBC to decide, subject to its own internal guidelines and procedures. Some will be programmes produced in-house, others will be commissioned from independent producers. This is a good thing. S4C is slightly different in that it commissions all its programmes from independent producers. This is good too. Taken together, we have a model that delivers plurality. So why get rid of it in favour of a new model that by definition cannot and will not be able to deliver plurality?
-
The basic point of principle we must fight for is that the executive decision making and commissioning of programmes in both S4C and the BBC are kept independent of each other, as is currently the case. Of course this does not mean that they can't work together, for the two organizations already have a strategic partnership agreement. Also, there is nothing to stop the two organizations working together in other ways if it is of mutual benefit to them both. If sharing back office functions saves money then of course they should look at ways of doing it. But this is completely different from being forced to work together because it is dictated by badly thought through legislation.
In my post yesterday, I focused on the proposed new funding model for S4C, saying that I thought the principle of S4C receiving the bulk of its funding from the television licence fee was acceptable, subject to details about the actual sums of money involved and the need to establish this funding base in the long term. However I think it's worth repeating that I am talking about S4C receiving this money from the TV licence fee directly as a designated, ring-fenced sum. The principle of "top slicing" the licence fee has now been established for some years, and the way I read the DCMS/BBC agreement, it seems clear that this will continue.
He who pays the piper does call the tune. That is why it is important that we establish beyond any doubt that the sums designated to S4C from the licence fee are not the BBC's money, and that the BBC should have no control over how this money is spent. The way to ensure this is to write it into the new legislation rather than rely on the discretion of the parties concerned, and to set out a mechanism for determining what share of the licence fee should be given to S4C in the future.
One of the main reasons I think it's important to deal with funding separately is simple and pragmatic. In any negotiation "principles" and "money" are two terms which are notoriously difficult to separate. So if we can nail down the aspect of funding, it then makes it much easier to talk about the management and commissioning structure through which we get Welsh language television. It also makes sense from the perspective of what is happening politically, for it would be naïve for anyone to think that what has happened in the past few months, or indeed the last few days, has not been almost exclusively motivated by the desire to cut public spending. It is this that the government in Westminster has been primarily concerned about, not the quality or nature of Welsh language television.
The problems with the DCMS/BBC agreement
Management and commissioning are matters that certainly do need to be addressed, but the most important thing to note on this subject is that the agreement reached last week is between the DCMS and the BBC, with S4C having no place in the discussions. So even though I don't think it should particularly matter to S4C whether the bulk of its budget comes from government subvention or the television licence fee (although the amount and the ability to budget for a number of years ahead does matter) I do think that any change to the management and commissioning structure of S4C does matter to S4C and cannot be decided without reference to them.
For that reason I fully support S4C's decision to seek a judicial review. But we must be under no illusions about what we expect a judicial review to achieve. In all probability all that will happen is that the DCMS will be told that it acted precipitously and that it should undertake a proper consultation ... but there will be nothing to stop the DCMS doing that, and then coming to exactly the same conclusion as it has already done. The judiciary deals with whether something is lawful or unlawful, and whether the proper procedures have been followed in reaching decisions. But we cannot expect any judge to make political decisions.
As I have said a number of times, the Westminster government can do whatever it likes providing it can get a majority to pass the necessary legislation through parliament. It can abolish S4C completely if it can get a bill to that effect through parliament. Therefore the primary focus of our opposition to the Westminster government's proposal must be political. We must persuade MPs that the independence of S4C is of such importance to us that it would be politically unwise of them to push these plans through.
So what arguments should we use? Let's start by looking at the relevant clauses of the DCMS/BBC agreement:
• Having decided to reduce its own funding for S4C as part of the CSR, HMG holds that a new partnership model with the BBC is the best way of securing the long-term future of the service.
• There would be a BBC and S4C partnership along similar principles to BBC Alba to begin by 2013/14, with S4C coming under a BBC Trust Service Licence or other operating agreement which would be jointly agreed with the S4C Authority and which would set out the strategic goals and broad editorial requirements of the service.
• A combined Board of the Authority and Trust would oversee delivery of the Service Licence or operating agreement.
• The S4C service will be operated by a joint management board with a majority of independent directors, appointed by the BBC Trust and the Authority. The management board will operate its own commissioning structure.
• Further discussion will be required about the exact form of the partnership, and the Government will play its part in those discussions.
• The total content commissioning budget will be for independent producers (outside of the BBC's ongoing statutory commitments)
As I read it, this seems to indicate that the DCMS are going to retain the S4C Authority as the body which would receive funds from the television licence fee, a continued but reduced government subvention and commercial activities. This is reassuring. The change that is proposed does not affect the S4C Authority, but the management of the channel. Now, although we do not know the precise reasons why Iona Jones left as chief executive of the channel, we do know that the S4C Authority made an announcement the very next day saying that it intended to get rid of the "arm's length" separation between the Authority and the channels management team:
The S4C Authority has announced a change in S4C’s management structure that will lead to a closer working relationship between the Authority and the management team.
S4C Authority Chairman John Walter Jones said that the S4C Authority, the regulatory body that oversees S4C’s performance, would work closer with a leaner management team.
[He] said: “In order to ensure that the Channel’s future remains secure and that the organisation is run efficiently, the most fundamental change is that the concept of due separation between the S4C Authority and the management team will now cease. S4C is a unitary body and this unitary organisation should manage and safeguard the interests of S4C viewers and the Channel’s suppliers in the future.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that Iona Jones left because she was not prepared to see the erosion of this due separation. It is also hard to escape the conclusion that the DCMS was none too pleased with this ... although that view might be heavily influenced by the BBC who, unlike the DCMS, would have a more informed understanding of the way the industry works. This was an unsavoury episode, made worse by S4C's complete disregard for transparency and the need for a public body to give some sort of public explanation of what was going on behind closed doors.
I don't want to take sides in that dispute, not least because I don't know enough to know what side to take. But it is clear that the Authority felt the need to step in and do the job it had previously entrusted to an arm's length management team. Therefore, if management and commissioning is seen to be a problem, it should come as no big surprise that the DCMS/BBC agreement should address that issue and propose what they think is a better arrangement. Nor should it be surprising that their preferred solution should be one that gives the BBC more control. The BBC are hardly disinterested observers ... they want what suits them. Who wouldn't?
The BBC's track record
We need to be under no illusions that the BBC can be particularly ruthless in pursuit of its own ends, especially when its own back is against the wall. The unilateral announcement that it would cut spending on the Welsh language programmes it provides to S4C from £23.5m to £19.5m is an example of this. It is all the more remarkable because it was made on 8 October ... nearly a fortnight before any decision on the BBC's own funding been reached. It would perhaps be understandable to make such an announcement in response to a decision on BBC funding, but to make such a decision at a time when the BBC's income from the TV licence fee had merely been frozen, not cut, is surely all the proof we need that Welsh language programming is quite low on the BBC's list of internal priorities.
But if anyone is still not convinced of that, another way of illustrating the same point is to look at what has happened to the BBC's Welsh language output over the last 25 years. As I said last month in this post, when S4C was first set up in 1982 there were only three other free-to-air channels available (BBC1, BBC2 and ITV) plus non-peak Channel 4 programming. In 1982, the BBC broadcast could not have broadcast more than about 36 hours; but now, on one typical day, the BBC broadcasts 139 hours of programming to Wales, i.e. about four times as much as it broadcast in 1982. Although when repeats are taken into account, it might be a little less.
But what has the BBC done about its Welsh language output? Well, hardly anything. It has voluntarily increased its output from 10 to 12 hours a week ... a 20% increase in contrast to its 400% increase in English language programmes. So it is very clear that the BBC doesn't regard itself as being under any sense of moral obligation to treat Welsh and English in the same way.
The lesson to be learned from this is that we cannot entrust the future of Welsh language broadcasting to the BBC. I am sure that there are many individuals within the BBC (and particularly in BBC Wales/Cymru) who do care passionately about it, but this does not extend to the corporation as a whole ... or at least the ranks of its most senior decision makers. Though equally it must be said that the BBC still has major problems coming to terms with adequately reflecting the current political landscape in the UK after more than ten years of devolution.
Conclusion
So in conclusion, although there are undoubtedly changes that need to be made to the way that S4C manages the channel and commissions the programmes shown on it, a forced marriage between S4C and the BBC resulting in a joint management and commissioning team is not the right way to go about it.
The principle at stake is plurality. If the editorial choices for all Welsh language broadcasting are made by one "joint management board" operating under one "service licence or operating agreement" then we will only be presented with one view of the world. It won't matter if the joint management board is made up of representatives from S4C, the BBC and a good number of independents. Nor is it a matter of one view being better or worse than another ... even the best, most informed view is still only one view.
The BBC makes its own programmes in Welsh. The executive decisions and editorial standpoint of those programmes are for the BBC to decide, subject to its own internal guidelines and procedures. Some will be programmes produced in-house, others will be commissioned from independent producers. This is a good thing. S4C is slightly different in that it commissions all its programmes from independent producers. This is good too. Taken together, we have a model that delivers plurality. So why get rid of it in favour of a new model that by definition cannot and will not be able to deliver plurality?
-
The basic point of principle we must fight for is that the executive decision making and commissioning of programmes in both S4C and the BBC are kept independent of each other, as is currently the case. Of course this does not mean that they can't work together, for the two organizations already have a strategic partnership agreement. Also, there is nothing to stop the two organizations working together in other ways if it is of mutual benefit to them both. If sharing back office functions saves money then of course they should look at ways of doing it. But this is completely different from being forced to work together because it is dictated by this proposed new legislation.
It's taken me a few days to consider all that has happened in the last week regarding S4C. We now have a proposal on the table which we know has been agreed between the DCMS and the BBC, and we know that the Westminster government is minded to impose this proposal on S4C irrespective of what S4C themselves or the Welsh government think of it. This is hardly a satisfactory situation for anyone. All the ingredients are there for a fight, and plenty of people in Wales are up for that fight.
In such a situation, we need to be able to strip away the inessential from the essential, and we need to know what we can reasonably expect and realistically hope to achieve. So I want to set out what I think is reasonable and realistic.
In this post I want to concentrate on the proposed funding model for S4C, and I will address other issues such as its management structure and independence later.
The Principle
Whatever the causes of the economic mess we are in, we have to accept that public spending cuts are the primary way in which the elected Westminster government has decided to deal with the UK's deficit; therefore it is pointless to argue that any public service should be immune from spending constraints, and that includes S4C. I think nearly everyone realizes that the funding model, and in particular the link between S4C's grant and inflation, needs to be revisited. The question is how to do it fairly.
My concern is that S4C is not singled out for unfair treatment. It is a public service broadcaster which receives the main bulk of its operating income from public funds, and I have therefore argued that the measure of how fairly it is treated should be to compare it with the BBC, which is in exactly the same position of receiving the main bulk of its income from the licence fee.
So in principle, I positively welcome the proposal to fund S4C from the television licence fee. It is a good idea, because in the long term it ensures parity of treatment between these two public service broadcasters. Provided that S4C's income is linked to the licence fee, it means that S4C cannot be unfairly treated in the money it receives relative to the BBC.
-
But a few things about the TV licence need to be clearly defined. The main thing to be clear about is that it is not the BBC's money. Although the BBC fought for complete control of the money raised from it, their fight against "top slicing" the licence fee was lost some years ago when a proportion of it was set aside for the digital switchover. I'm sure the BBC hoped this might prove to be only a temporary arrangement. But we just need to look in detail at some of the points in the agreement just reached between the BBC and the DCMS.
• The current ring-fence of approximately £133m per annum will be raised to, and capped at, £150m per annum from 2013/4 to 2016/17 but re-purposed for broadband, consistent with the BBC’s public purposes.
• The BBC will play an active role in supporting new local television services through a partnership fund providing capital costs of up to a total of £25m in 2013/14 for up to twenty local TV services, subject to any necessary regulatory approval. The BBC will also commit to ongoing funding of up to £5m per annum from 2014/15 to acquire content for use on its own services from these new services. Should capital costs be required earlier then this will be facilitated by access to the existing digital switchover underspend by mutual agreement.
So money from the licence fee is going to continue to be given directly to non-BBC organizations. In other words the principle of top slicing the TV licence fee is now firmly established.
-
When it comes to funding S4C, there are several sections of the agreement which provide an equal guarantee of this ring-fencing:
• In 2013/14 and 2014/15, the BBC will contribute £76.3m and £76m respectively in cash in addition to its statutory commitments [i.e. the 10 hours per week of original programming]
• In the event that a new partnership model does not prove viable for any reason, the Government will not take licence fee money itself for this purpose. But in this situation the Trust will propose a one-off reduction in the level of the licence fee which would be equivalent to the contribution that the BBC would otherwise have made to S4C.
Contrary to what some others have said, I think this last point is enlightening and reassuring. It sets out the principle that S4C's part of the licence fee does not belong to the BBC, and will not revert to the BBC if this proposed funding model breaks down. Elsewhere, the agreement says this:
• Under the partnership, funding for S4C in future will come from three sources: the licence fee, a continued but reduced subvention from the Government, and commercial income
So it seems quite clear that S4C will continue to exist as an entity in its own right; but that, after a transition period, it will receive the bulk of its income from the licence fee (note that the agreement does not say "from the BBC") and will continue to receive a much smaller sum from the government, as well as its commercial income. Therefore, so far as the principle of the proposal to revise S4C's sources of funding is concerned, I don't have a problem with it. There are other things to fight about, but in my opinion we should not fight about this.
The Detail
However there are two points of detail about funding that should cause us considerable concern.
The first is about the the actual sums of money involved. It is not reasonable to expect S4C to be treated in a worse fashion than the BBC. So we should fight to make sure that it is not, and fully expect to win that fight.
The situation is not helped by a certain lack of objectivity, optimism, or simple spin coming from some quarters. In the video of the Westminster hall debate on Wednesday, Alun Cairns had the audacity to call this proposed funding settlement "generous" to S4C. And in this post on his blog, Glyn Davies said that the only organization "with a genuine grouse that has real credibility" is the BBC. I'm sorry to say that neither of these assertions stands up to scrutiny.
As the BBC/DCMS agreement makes clear, the additional responsibilities that the BBC have agreed to take on are equivalent to a reduction in income of 16%. However the cuts proposed for S4C result in a loss of DCMS funding of 24%. I think we have a good case to fight for the reduction of funding form the DCMS to be 16% rather than 24%.
Now there are a number of ways of doing the maths, particularly when commercial activities are taken into account. But the difference is likely to be less than £10m. In terms of the DCMS budget of over £2bn and the BBC's budget of maybe £3.5bn this is peanuts, but £10m is a much more significant amount for S4C.
The second detail yet to be worked out is how to safeguard S4C's funding in future years, as this Comprehensive Spending Review only covers four years, and the TV licence fee is only set for six. In my view, the most equitable way of solving the problem is for S4C to receive a fixed proportion of the TV licence fee each time it is renegotiated. If it goes up, so will S4C's income from this source; if it goes down, so will S4C's income ... but it will mean that these two public service broadcasters are treated equally. The bottom line is that each round of licence fee negotiations in future must clearly define the sum that is to be paid to S4C. We must ensure that this is built into the new legislation now.
-
In discussing funding, my basic premise has been that it really doesn't matter to S4C whether it gets the bulk of its income by direct subvention from government or from the TV licence fee. Money is just money. We should accept that there needs to be a cut because everything else is being cut, but we should not expect S4C to suffer more of a cut than the BBC. A small adjustment of less than £10m per year should ensure this.
But the management of S4C is another matter entirely.
S4C needs to remain as an independent entity, and we must fight tooth and nail to make sure that its management structure and editorial independence is not subsumed into the BBC. This post is long enough, so I'll say more on that subject in the next.
Matthew Tree - Catalunya: The Future is Another County
68ac4310
Matthew Tree - Catalunya: The Future is Another County
Thanks to Col·lectiu Emma, I've just read an interesting article by Paddy Woodworth, comparing what is happening in Catalunya with what is happening in Euskadi, the Basque Country, a place with which he seems to be well acquainted.
Madrid's nightmare
It's worth reading alongside a contrasting article that appeared just over a week ago in Spiegel Online.
Zero Tolerance in the Fight against ETA
One of the great unanswerable questions of the last century is whether a country like Ireland would ever have won its independence from the United Kingdom if it had not fought a war for it; or whether the UK would ever have relinquished its strategic interest in the north if people hadn't been prepared to fight for it. We in Wales and Scotland can only consider ourselves fortunate that we can be independent whenever we vote for it.
But once a fight for independence has become violent—or indeed the fight to prevent it, for in any armed conflict both sides use violence—it requires no little effort and commitment to then fight by peaceful and democratic means.
-
To my mind, Der Spiegel's article reads too much like a vanity piece for Patxi Lopez. As I read the situation in Euskadi, the Basques will undoubtedly vote for independence whenever Spain allows them to do so ... that's why Spain refuses to let them exercise that choice. They have been able to portray far too many Basque leaders calling for independence as terrorist sympathizers, imprisoning them and banning their parties.
But Catalunya, like Wales and Scotland, has no real history of violence in the fight for independence, so the issue is not clouded in the same was as it has been in Ireland and Euskadi. If Catalunya can gain its independence by peaceful means (the onus being on the Spanish, because they're the ones who might use military force to prevent it) it will then be hard for them not to let Euskadi do the same.
And if Scotland wins its independence, it might in turn be the catalyst that triggers Irish reunification. For the unionist community has far stronger cultural and social links with Scotland than with the RUK. And their loyalty to the crown will be severely tested when a queen they respect and can look up to passes away to be replaced by a son who cannot be looked up to.
To celebrate what would be Gwynfor Evans' birthday, here is a recording of him speaking immediately after he was elected in the Carmarthen by election in July 1966. This was the first time Plaid Cymru had won a seat at Westminster.
There are versions in English and Welsh.
Stirring stuff. A reminder of how just how far behind as a nation we were before, and an inspiration to keep going until we take our own place as an independent nation in the UN and Europe ... a responsible member of the great community of nations in the world.
Thanks to Hedd Gwynfor for putting together the videos.
Several months ago Huw Lewis took exception to an article on the Cambria Politico site in which he was called Screwloose, and his staff wrote emails threatening the website with legal action. I picked up on that story in this post on 19 November and myself encountered a foul-mouthed temper tantrum from a person who identified himself as "Guffington Pist". This is what he wrote:
I must admit that I'm not such a great fan of the style of some posts that appear on the Syniadau blog, but in comparison to many blogs I have read it usually contains nothing of any interest to anybody. There are many blogs that I would take exception to, but this is certainly one of the worst.
At present, the blog has decided to throw its way behind the unproven and offensive crap about Huw Lewis on the Cambria Politico bog (correct). The crux of this support is:
Leaving the entirely simpering and pandering tone to one side, Syniadau is one of those also-ran blogs that is totally blinded by the belief that Labour are nothing but a bunch of insidious fascists all too ready to remove the few powers that Wales has, and probably chuck those uppity bastards into concentration camps into the bargain.
Syniadau is in no position to know what the original post said, but hey, why not comment ignorantly upon its supposed comment, without stopping for one moment to check a single damn fact and then return to the mirror to admire its own cleverness in quoting from the Lewis team letter? Bet those fascists never saw that coming.
-
I find this a very sad development. Politicians, by virtue of putting themselves in the public eye, are obvious targets to be lampooned for what they say and think, and that obviously includes labelling (and libelling) them mad, no matter whether it's true or not, and whether it stigmatises those with mental health issues. Next week - a round-up of Chubby Brown's best jokes.
In fact I would go so far as to say that the media has a moral duty to report lies - instead they perpetuate them every day ... about Labour. Thanks to ill-informed bedroom wank monkeys like Syniadau, that established part of our political tradition for centuries has returned.
Wales needs lively political debate. Lampooning our politicians has just as important a part to play in that as more serious stories, articles ... and even what we post on blogs. Tomorrow - why have they let women and blacks in the Assembly? A humourous sideways look.
I thought it was one of the better examples of the depths to which Labour Party activists will stoop—or at least evidence of what passes for humour in the circle that produced Annoyingly Dour—and of course left it on Syniadau for all to see. But I kept the details of the IP address from which it had been sent. Our friend has made a few other visits from the same address, but today it became more apparent who was responsible.
As regular readers will know, Adam Higgitt and I enjoy a healthy rivalry ... well I enjoy it, though I will leave it to others to decide which of us gets the better of the other in our exchanges. I left a comment today on the WalesHome blog, prompted by what Daran Hill had said in this post about those opposed to constitutional progress being prepared to:
... peddle any lie they can to scare people into resisting change.
John Tyler—a member of True Wales and one of their most active participants on the web—took exception to this, saying:
Mr Hill, your expression “Firstly, because those opposed to constitutional progress will peddle any lie they can to scare people into resisting change” is disingenuous at the very least.
I was appalled when I read the expression … “peddle any lie”, in three very small words you tell your readers that any opposition to your published position, the “Yes” vote, is unworthy of debate, it has no value, therefore any opposing view is a lie. This is patently untrue.
Actually I agree. Daran had made too sweeping a generalization. But I thought it would be a timely moment to remind people of two of the lies John Tyler has himself peddled. However, as people who've left comments on WalesHome will know, comments are moderated before they appear. The links to both of the examples I gave were visited by "Guffington Pist" immediately before my comment appeared. This means that "Guffington Pist" must be one of the moderators at WalesHome.
This was followed only minutes later by a comment by Adam Higgitt. In it he described what I had said as "unnecessary and unedifying" and "blowing raspberries". A rather misdirected attack, since Daran Hill been the one to talk about peddling any lie, and I was (though with some pleasure, I admit) providing two pieces of evidence to back up that claim in so far as it related to someone who was actively responsible for peddling such lies. But isn't it remarkable how duplicitous some people will be when they invent names like "Guffington Pist" in order to engage in foul-mouthed abuse, but present a supposedly more reasonable face when they post under their usual identity?
The recent announcement of details of the Welsh Government's £144.8m allocation of funds to be spent on new schools or improvements to schools was welcome, although not all of the bids were successful.
Among the Local Authorities that didn't win funding was Caerffili. It's bid included three projects, and details of them are here. The Council identified its top priority as improving Welsh-medium provision, based on the St Ilan/Plas-y-felin sites.
St Ilan's School was closed in 2007. It is the cluster of buildings in the top right of the picture, with the original block on the right and newer additions to the left and top. Plas-y-Felin Primary School is on the left of the picture, and Ysgol Gymraeg Caerffili is at the bottom right.
I don't particularly want to focus on the details of the bid—except to say that it does seem an obvious site to develop, as St Ilan's has been standing empty for almost three years—but to draw attention to the Appendix at the end of the report which, in the Council's words, "illustrates the growth in Welsh Medium education and the urgency for additional secondary places within the County Borough".
The first table shows the growth projection for Caerffili's existing WM Secondary:
| Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhymni - Pupil Projections | |||
| Date | No. on roll | Capacity | Surplus/Excess |
| September 2009 | 1341 | 1448 | - 107 |
| September 2010 | 1410 | 1448 | - 38 |
| September 2011 | 1441 | 1448 | - 7 |
| September 2012 | 1447 | 1448 | - 1 |
| September 2013 | 1503 | 1448 | + 55 |
| September 2014 | 1540 | 1448 | + 92 |
| September 2015 | 1663 | 1448 | + 215 |
| September 2016 | 1763 | 1448 | + 315 |
| September 2017 | 1906 | 1448 | + 458 |
| September 2018 | 1999 | 1448 | + 551 |
| September 2019 | 2113 | 1448 | + 665 |
It is relatively easy to project secondary numbers, because they reflect the growth in primary numbers. The next table shows how primary numbers are increasing, the jumps tending to reflect when new WM schools are opened.
