 Felly, me乜 gweithio y cwmwylo ddechrau'r Llywodraeth Cymru yn ddif ymddiolol i gydwyd yn yr OASol iawn i Llywodraeth Cymru, ac mae'r ystod gweitho'r Llywodraeth Cymru allan yn nifer 1, felly mae'n ddegwyd drws fydd. A dyna oedd yn cyfle o'r llyfr ydyn nhw'n oedd o'r Llywodraeth Cymryd ymddyl ac yn gwirioneddol i unedlaethau dylunio ac yn y Llywodraeth Cymryd ymddiol. Mae oeddwn i'r ystod ar ystod, bobl y gallwn gweithio'r llunio bobl yn gweithio'r gweithio lleol ac mae'r llwyntweithiau gyda'r bydd fel oeddennig yma, agylched â'r glaiiau i gyfarwydd ymlaen, y brifётau a'r hyn sy'n meddwl mewn fawr ac mae'r dweud a'r gweithio'r llyfrheid fe oedd yr ysgol iaith yn fawr. Rwy'n credu'r glaith'r cyfrwyng i gwneud i hynny, ychydig i'r holl i'r holl oeddaf threatenig o hyn? Oherwydd, mae anewa yn ei ffordd cyflantau i yn rai bod pan yn cyfrannu ty sisau a'r archifau. Mae'n fighio iawn i gael mwzeumau. Roedd yna bod yn cwil i'u derbyg o ran gael oeddau o'i clywed i'r cyfrannu cael gyda gylirio, oedd hyn byw, o bob yr amser o fawr mewn. Mae'r clywedau ysgolion yn gweithio o'r berthynas o'r hyn oedau o'r llunydd o'r erbyn. Mae'r clywedau o fe wnaeth i'r unrhyw fideo ac ydyn nhw. Most are owned by the institution, but some are on deposit indefinite loan. They come with complex issues, particularly in terms of archives, in terms of copyright and data protection, but they come with a whole range of complex issues, some of the ones we heard about in the keynote this morning. They come with expensive demands on physical preservation and conservation, and these are increasingly being now duplicated by expensive demands in case of digital preservation and conservation and supervised access. In terms of audiences, in theory, they're everyone, undergraduates, post-graduates, academic researchers, within our own, our own UK universities, but globally. Local and regional schools, lifelong learners, leisure visitors and tourists. And for many universities within the UK network, and this was mentioned I think earlier, that a lot of our users are outside our own organisations. It was interesting in the British Library survey just this morning that a lot of our users are actually, they don't belong to our own organisations. Most members within the special collections network or their teams undertake at least some outreach activity. Many have schools and education programmes, as I said, either integrated within their teams or closely associated with them. Many have exhibition spaces and temporary or permanent galleries. And I think this is one area where the breadth of scale of institutions that are members of our own UK makes perhaps the biggest difference between the very small institutions or the small set-ups in terms of special collections and the huge ones. And our membership encompasses that range. So we work in an environment where we're aiming to meet the objectives and the expectations of our stakeholders for our collections and our services, but also for the audiences that those collections and services bring. And again, particularly within a university context, but right across our UK, those stakeholders are looking to us for research support, either to undertake research itself, obviously, but also to help with engagement and impact and dissemination of that research, curriculum development and support in terms of teaching and widening participation, which might take the form of community engagement, admissions profile or direct elements within the OFS access statements. Particularly, again, thinking of universities, but more generally, the environment we work in tends to be one where we have very strong internal champions, particularly when we was talked about this morning in arts and humanities, but other subject areas and close internal partners who work very closely with us and advocate for us internally. We have some users who are almost honorary parts of the library team because they come in so often. We have others who use us on a case-by-case basis and they have high expectations of a kind of a bespoke service. So that characterises, I think, the challenge that's very nicely encapsulated in those two sentences of almost limitless opportunity, which gives us a huge number of choices that we have to make in how we allocate our resources and how we develop our skills and our teams. I think that's something else that characterises all three networks, is the combination of our professional knowledge and expertise and experience and subject specialist or area specialist expertise combined with a strategic outlook. I think that's something else that the three networks have in common. So just to review details, the networks are very similar. There's a few differences. We were established in 2017. We have terms of reference, which I'll talk about just in a minute. We have one RLEUK member representative from each institution and, as with the others, two conveners who have a two-year term. I think the others are the same as the ones that Beth mentioned. We don't, as yet, have particular tasks and finished all working groups, although that might happen in the future. At this point, we're just starting our kind of second two-year convenership. I just wanted to thank, convey thanks to Rachel and Joe, who is up there, the two previous conveners who were the founder conveners of the network for the last two years. So our terms of reference, when we were formed in 2017, at that stage under the previous RLEUK strategy, there was much more of an emphasis on it being a support network, a peer network, a forum for discussion, and the sharing of experience. And I think very rapidly the network has become well-established in that area. And our activity over the past two years has reflected those terms of reference. So we've worked, I think, over the last two years to establish common ground and shared challenges. We started off in our first meeting by looking at the issues that were of most concern to members. And then of those, defining the ones where the network could most make an impact and most help. So it's very similar to the approach that the DSN is now taking. And we identified various shared challenges, which our meetings over the last two years have explored. And our approach to those challenges so far has been very kind of open and honest discussion. So, yes, it's sort of Chatham House rules. We can say anything we like within that network, and if necessary, it's confidential. We've presented case studies and just learnt from each other in our network. So we've taken a theme for each meeting. We've had three meetings each year and really explored the challenges and how we've approached those challenges. And we've learnt a lot from each other. And I think in two years, very quickly, it's been developed and has a very strong sense of identity. And we know each other very well. And we've got to know each other's institutions and strengths and weaknesses quite well. Alongside the network, there is a special collections programme, which has been led by Sue Crossley and thereby Christina Campasiori. And that's really undertaken work sort of in parallel to the network and very often in collaboration with it under three main themes. So leadership and involvement and some sort of tangible things that have come out of that. One of which is the fellowship scheme between RLUK and TNA, which is part of the strategic partnership between those two organisations. And TNA is the sector lead for archives. And there are, I think, four fellowships going on at the moment. And it's a growing scheme, so it seems very positive. The second theme is significance and recognition. And there was a report published last year and was presented at DCDC with impact case studies demonstrating how special collections demonstrate their impact. And then, thirdly, on discoverability. I think both in terms of data and content and funding for that. There's a continuing active funders network, which is information exchange and advocacy. And we're participating in the digitalisation project, which I think has been mentioned a couple of times already today. So to an extent, we're now kind of starting phase two for the network, partly because two new conveners, but also partly in response to RLUK's strategy that it delivers its objectives through its membership. So we've had one meeting so far this year, which has been a reflection point, I think. And we've been looking at how we can respond to that change of emphasis, if you like, for the networks. So in advance of the meeting, we did a survey of the members, which is partly actually to develop more detailed knowledge about ourselves collectively. So looking at our relative team size, shape, positioning, strengths and weaknesses. And then again, getting views on the particular areas that members have interest in. And that's been informed by our activity over the last two years. So from that survey, we identified four key areas that we wanted to look at in more detail over the next two years of the network's activity. Not surprisingly, digital processing and preservation, discovery, teaching and curriculum support and uncatalogued legacy collections. We've had one meeting so far this year in February and really that we felt was aimed at being the first step in developing an action plan, which will be continually iterative over the next year or two. Thinking about what outcomes people would like to see from network activity and what the network, how the network might achieve that. So it's what can your network do for you and what might you do within your network. So for each of those four areas, we were asking fairly precise questions. What outcomes would you like to see? And being very realistic and pragmatic given challenges on workload, what might the network do towards these, to achieving outcomes in these four areas? And this has formed the beginning of our sort of plan of action for the next, or plan of activity for the next two years. We did actually come up with some tangible next steps for the first theme, digital processing and preservation. And I think the methods by which we will tackle these four themes will be different from each other. So I think particularly for the digital area, we felt that enabling progress and removing barriers to progress might best be done by enabling a more granular and specific kind of information exchange and knowledge exchange between members. And this is perhaps similar to some of the approach that the DSN is taking. So we are just going at risk of duplicating. Some of the DSN survey will come in very useful for us as well. And we're just mappings of the systems that members use and the degree of maturity in those systems so that if we've got others about to develop them or about to explore them, they can do quite kind of specific peer-to-peer support. And then the other three themes we remain to explore, so our next meetings will tackle those and again will be focusing on trying to define next steps for those themes. And I think over the next couple of years I can also see that the network will work more closely with the other networks and more closely with the Special Collections Program. We've already sort of started not quite merging, but there's much strong links between them. So I think probably our activities will be much more closely integrated. And we clearly share with the DSN our interest in the preservation and use and reuse of content and data. And with the ADN I think we share in particular our sort of interest in skills development and leadership skills. I quite often think of Special Collections as being a mini version of a library. It does almost everything a library does quite often in a kind of smaller scale. So we have very much the same issues in terms of team-developed skills development and leadership. And we will be working very closely together I think with them, which leads neatly on to Rachel and Chris.