The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-16978, in the name of Neil Bibby, on BBC Scotland’s decision to end “River City” and close its Dumbarton studios. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with regret the reported decision by BBC Scotland to end the programme, River City, which it understands is Scotland’s only homegrown soap; believes that this will have a disproportionately negative impact on performers in Scotland, many of whom, it understands, get their first TV job on River City, as well as on the wider Scottish production landscape; considers that the reported £9 million annual budget for the show is excellent value for money, given the hours of programming produced throughout the year for what it sees as a successful show, which, it understands, attracts a regular audience of 500,000 per episode, outperforming other TV series by more than two and a half times; believes that the Glasgow-based show is well loved by Scottish audiences and enjoys strong ratings, with it winning Best Drama at the Royal Television Society Scotland 2023 awards for its 20th anniversary episode; notes what it sees as BBC Scotland’s failure to inform the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee of its reported plans to close the BBC studios in Dumbarton and end River City in its annual report to the Parliament in January 2025; further notes the calls for BBC Scotland to recognise its public broadcasting duty and explain how its current proposals to replace River City will provide the same good jobs, training and apprenticeships currently available at the BBC’s Dumbarton studios to performers and crew in Scotland, and ensure that the reported £9 million budget will be spent on Scottish drama; considers the BBC’s Dumbarton studios to be an important asset, which has been used for a number of other productions, including Vigil and Shetland; understands that the owner of the studios site is open to renewing the lease, and notes the calls, in light of this, for BBC Scotland to revisit its reported decision to end River City and close its Dumbarton studios.
12:47
I thank the many members, across all the political parties, who supported the motion for debate. That cross-party support shows that “River City” is an important part of Scotland’s culture that is held in affection by many of our constituents.
I will address directly why my colleague Jackie Baillie and I lodged the motion and why it is important. Last month, BBC Scotland announced its regrettable decision to cancel “River City”, after more than 20 years on our screens, and to close its Dumbarton studios. That decision has many implications for the viewing public, for jobs and for training opportunities in Scotland’s television industry.
“River City” is Scotland’s only home-grown soap. From when Bob proposed to Zara in a cherry picker to Scarlett giving birth to Madonna in a taxi, to Raymond blowing up the Tall Ship pub and to this week’s jaw-dropping episode—I will not give away any spoilers—it has provided fans with laughs, tears and memorable moments since 2002.
“River City” has been a long-running and successful show that has received a number of nominations and awards over the past 20 years. Most recently, in 2023, it won best drama at the Royal Television Society Scotland awards for its 20th anniversary episode. That is one of the many reasons why great concern has been expressed since the decision to cancel the show was announced.
Members should not take only my word for it. Within four days of the announcement, more than 10,000 of our constituents had signed a petition, which was organised by Equity, the trade union, calling for “River City” to be saved. An extensive list of hundreds of esteemed members of the cultural sectors in Scotland and the United Kingdom also oppose the ending of the show and have called on the BBC to think again. Ewan McGregor, Blythe Duff, David Morrissey, Richard E Grant, Robert Carlyle, Frankie Boyle, Lorraine McIntosh, Irvine Welsh and many more have co-signed a letter to the cabinet secretary that calls for his support to stop “River City” being axed. It is an understatement to say that those creatives know a thing or two about the creative sector and should be listened to. I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary on what steps the Scottish Government can take to support its calls and challenge the BBC.
The entertainment provided and the awards won by the show have been achieved on a budget of only £9 million, which, in the grand scheme of things, represents significant value for money. Previously, around 500,000 people regularly watched the show. Even considering the declining trend for long-running UK television productions, recent figures show that “River City” still attracts about 200,000 to 285,000 viewers. That is in the context of greater competition from streaming platforms and the show being moved around its BBC One slot more than any other production.
The BBC has a great product and it should be proud of it. If it gave the show the consistent slot and the right marketing that it deserves—for example, by updating the out-of-date information on its website—the viewing figures would be even higher. However, the current figures still represent a sizeable proportion of the Scottish public and the importance of linear television. For context, on the weekend of 12 and 13 April, attendance at all Scottish professional football league fixtures was just under 140,000.
BBC Scotland has stated its intent to protect and increase the budget for drama, and we all want to see that happen. However, concerns have been raised that the planned replacement will result in 13 fewer hours of production than currently takes place. That has implications for writers, cast and crew. There are concerns about ensuring that the budget is fully spent in Scotland, and there are proposals to award replacement drama programmes to London-based production companies. It is, of course, not the place of politicians to make editorial decisions on what is or is not aired on public service broadcast television, but we should highlight the serious concerns on behalf of viewers and of those working in the industry when necessary.
As I mentioned, this is about more than the loss of a soap opera. The decision to close BBC Dumbarton studios is also deeply regrettable. I visited the studios recently, and it is clear that they are a valuable asset. It was wrongly suggested that the owner of the site did not wish to renew the lease, but, as was revealed by Jackie Baillie, that was not the case, and the owner is still keen for the studios to remain.
I was impressed by the set and, given that it provides good value for money and that it would be hard and expensive to replicate, it makes little sense to close the studios. It has multi-uses, too, having been the site for other productions, including “Vigil”, “Shetland” and “Two Doors Down”.
We also heard at first hand the importance of the training opportunities that it provides. In all, 72 trainees have come through the production in the past two and a half years alone, with the vast majority of writers and directors being women. Even when “River City” is not shooting, students from the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland come into the studio and get the chance to film. That gives them invaluable experience to allow them to develop in the industry. That clearly shows that it is not just an entertainment show but a pathway and platform for young Scottish talent, with talent such as Sam Heughan going on to star in “Outlander”.
The actor Stuart Martin, who has appeared in the show, made a powerful statement. He said:
“Losing River City is devastating to an industry that is increasingly brutal to those trying to break into it. In an industry that is increasingly favouring those who can afford to do it and closing its doors to those who don’t have the means. It is a necessity that the River City’s of this industry remain”.
Equity has also described the move as
“a blow to working class performers”.
It is important to acknowledge that “River City” has tangible social value. There has been significant discussion, here and elsewhere, about the recent Netflix documentary show “Adolescence”. Television is a unique forum to explore sensitive subject matters. Throughout its run, “River City” has confronted difficult topics, including mental health, domestic violence and self-harm. The social value in exploring those topics cannot be overstated. The writers, producers, crew and cast of “River City”—many of whom are in the gallery—have done a phenomenal job in doing that, and we should thank them for it. It is difficult to imagine another show filling the void that “River City” will leave. The BBC should think again.
Often, we do not fully appreciate what we have lost until it is gone, but we have not lost “River City” and Dumbarton studios just yet. I hope that we will see a twist in the plot that means that both survive into the future. [Applause.]
I say to our visitors in the gallery that you are all very welcome to observe our proceedings. However, as you are observers and not participants, I ask you to refrain from clapping and from any other form of involvement. Thank you very much in advance for your co-operation.
12:55
I thank Neil Bibby for securing the debate and for bringing this important issue to the chamber. We are talking not only about the cancellation of a television programme but about the silencing of a cultural voice—one that has spoken to and for Scotland for more than two decades, and which has spoken to those of us on the west coast and in the central belt in a way that rings true to our own ears and our lived experience.
I cannot overstate how vital it is for people to see themselves reflected in the media that they consume. I learned that when studying journalism and communications at university in Montreal in the 1990s. In that French-speaking part of Canada, we were taught that hearing authentic voices in our own language, and situated in the familiar, is key to cohesion and self-worth. It is definitely not a nice-to-have option; it is institutionally critical. The BBC’s decision to cancel “River City” is more than just a scheduling choice; it is a cultural and economic setback that Scotland cannot afford.
I remember well the show’s debut in 2002. Having managed to get my three-year-old down for the night in time, I sat down with a big cuppa and a cake of chocolate. I must say that, by the end of the show, I just loved it. My ex-husband not so much, but then he hated it whenever I watched “EastEnders”, “Neighbours” or any of the other “stories”, as my granny used to call them.
Since then, “River City” has been a vital platform for Scottish storytelling. It has brought the lives, the struggles, the humour and the heart of everyday Scots into our homes, week after week. Unlike shows set in London or Manchester, “River City” is not filtered through a distant lens; it is authentically Scottish. It showcases our accents, idioms, social issues and humour, all within the familiar setting of fictional Shieldinch. It reflects Scotland as we see it, and not as others imagine us to be. Cancelling “River City” sends worrying messages that regional voices do not matter, that Scottish stories do not sell and that, unless we are based in the media hubs of London, our voices are disposable.
“River City” is not just a cultural icon; it is a crucial pillar of Scotland’s creative economy, and offers a pathway and a scaffolding for talent and creativity. The show employs a huge range of professionals—not just actors and writers, but camera crews, set designers, costume departments, make-up artists and countless others who are often invisible to the audience. It offers consistent employment in an industry where work is often unpredictable. Its filming, which is based in Dumbarton, helps to support local businesses, fosters creative talent and provides a pipeline for young Scots entering the media industry. Cancelling the show risks creating a cultural vacuum and an economic one, too.
We talk about levelling up and decentralising opportunity, but how can we do that if we are cutting off the very platforms that nurture regional talent? What happens when aspiring Scottish writers see fewer avenues to tell their stories? What happens when actors must leave Scotland to find work? What happens when Scottish children grow up seeing fewer characters who sound like them, in streets that look like theirs? This is not just about nostalgia; it is about representation, employment and respect. The BBC’s decision also smacks of snobbery and classism, which we must call out. It says, “Let us support London’s east end but not Glasgow’s Shieldinch.”
I urge the BBC and its decision makers to reconsider that choice. If “River City” is struggling, they should support it, revamp it and reinvest in it, not erase it. When we cut off the stories of a nation, we cut off its voice. In doing so, we risk dimming the light of Scottish culture at its source. Let us not allow that to happen. The BBC must think again.
12:58
I thank Neil Bibby for bringing this important issue to the chamber.
For more than two decades, the BBC’s “River City” has been entertaining households in Scotland, with each episode reaching an estimated audience of 500,000 people and outperforming other series by more than two and a half times. It is Scotland’s only home-grown soap opera; its creator, Stephen Greenhorn, wished to create a series that would do for Scotland what legendary TV series such as “Coronation Street” and “EastEnders” have done for England.
“River City” enjoys high ratings and has won multiple awards, including, most recently, best drama at the Royal Television Society Scotland 2023 awards for its 20th anniversary episode. Its annual budget is reported as £9 million, which, as Neil Bibby’s motion states, is excellent value for money.
Although we as audience members will be sad to miss such a great television programme, the consequences will be even more devastating for those who work on the production. They will be especially important in the west of Scotland, as “River City” is, and has been, a great job creator in Dumbarton in my region. Each episode employs many people, not just actors, writers, producers, camera and sound crew, but costume designers, wardrobe assistants, make-up artists, set builders and many more.
Before the Easter recess, I was proud to sign up to Equity’s save “River City” campaign in order to save the show and the associated jobs. In 2023, I was privileged to visit the set of the series during filming and meet some of the cast members, including lead actor Stephen Purdon. On that visit, I was told that 250 people worked on the site in various roles, including 70 trainees and three apprentices, who had the opportunity for long-term training, and I was pleased to see how many local people were in those jobs, which varied from low and medium skilled to higher-skilled.
Like others, I was disappointed that BBC Scotland failed to inform the Scottish Parliament’s Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee of its plans to end “River City” and to close its Dumbarton studios in its annual report, which was presented to the committee earlier this year. It should therefore explain how its current proposals will ensure that the skills and jobs, including apprenticeships, are not lost, and whether more productions are on the line.
In closing, I hope that łÉČËżěĘÖ can come together this afternoon and call on BBC Scotland to reconsider its decision and save “River City”.
13:02
I, too, thank Neil Bibby for bringing this important debate to Parliament and for his support for “River City”, and I welcome many members of the cast to the public gallery this afternoon.
When “River City” was launched in 2002, no one took its success for granted. I was very proud, though, that Shieldinch was being filmed in Dumbarton. However, 23 years later, more than 11,000 people have signed a petition to save the programme. That is testament to the work of countless writers, actors and producers, who have turned it into an iconic part of Scotland’s television landscape—Scottish content for Scottish audiences, made right here in Scotland.
From the start, everyone involved in “River City” was clear that it was more than just a show. Indeed, Ken MacQuarrie, BBC Scotland’s head of programming, said at the time:
“What we are effectively doing here is developing a star factory, a long-running project that gives a boost to the wealth of talent that we've got here in Scotland, whether it is writing, directing, acting—and which we want to see develop and grow.”
How right he was. Eric Barlow, who played Tommy Donachie, went on to star in “Taggart”, “Monarch of the Glen”, “Casualty” and “Doctors”. Gary Lamont, who played Robbie Fraser, recently featured in the hit series “Boiling Point” and “Rivals”. Sam Heughan, now the internationally recognised star of “Outlander”, described his time on the show as “incredible”. Renton’s own Gayle Telfer-Stevens made waves in comedy, as well as playing Caitlin McLean, and there from the beginning was Shellsuit Bob, who is listening in the gallery alongside many other members of the cast. I have to say that Bob O’Hara is so much part of Scottish culture that we almost made a request for a gallery ticket in his TV name.
However, it is not just about the actors. “River City” has also created opportunities for screenwriters, set designers, producers, film crew and others in the Scottish TV and film industry, not to mention the jobs that come with cleaning, maintaining and catering for a busy film studio. In the past two years, 23 screenwriters received their first screen credit on “River City” and, over a similar period, five out of six trainee directors were women. That would not have happened without “River City”: it offers a training pipeline for the creative industry that is unlike anything anywhere else in the BBC. There has been a lot of talk from the BBC about training in the future, but there has been nothing on the scale of “River City”, and it is not proposing anything to match it.
Let us be honest: we are talking not just about the closure of “River City” or the gap in the TV schedule, important though that will be to the hundreds of thousands of Scots who tune in each week. We are also talking about a blow to Scotland’s TV and film infrastructure, and about freelancers who might decide to move to Manchester or London.
The BBC says that it will replace the soap with network drama, but flying in crews to occasionally film in a Scottish castle is no substitute for a home-grown industry. Closing the Dumbarton studios, where programmes such as “Vigil” and “Shetland” have been filmed, is also short-sighted. What are the BBC’s network plans for drama production in Scotland for the next few years? Will the share of Scottish-produced content fall, or will the approach simply be to lift and shift drama from another part of the UK? I have to say that I fear the worst.
Staff were led to believe that “River City” was closing because the site owners were selling up, but that is simply untrue. No one denies that there are challenges but, time and again, “River City” has adapted, despite the BBC changing its programme slot and despite also switching it to the BBC Scotland channel.
The BBC has a choice. I hope that it will not be short-sighted and that it will reverse its decision to leave the Dumbarton studios. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture and all members in the chamber will encourage the BBC to make the same decision that it made in 2002: invest in Scotland’s talent and in “River City”.
13:07
As a Dumbarton expat, I obviously agree with Jackie Baillie about the value of having creative industries in the town.
I thank Neil Bibby for securing the motion for debate in the chamber, and it should be of importance to everyone, regardless of whether they are a fan of the programme. I freely confess, with deep apologies to our guests in the public gallery, that my TV habits—for which I make no apologies—involve rather more spaceships and aliens than we normally see in episodes of “River City”.
I want the screen sector to thrive in Scotland, because of, as we have heard, the critical importance of telling distinctively Scottish stories, which the big streamers are not necessarily going to fund. We will have a thriving sector only if we have the ecosystem that makes it possible and which provides the opportunities for people to get started in their careers.
I express my sincere thanks to the cast and crew of “River City” for welcoming me and my colleague Gillian Mackay on a recent visit. I would say that we saw two things there. First, we saw the incredible pride that the whole team takes in their work—and rightly so. We have heard a lot about the work on training, which, I have to say, has happened not always because the BBC told the team to do it, but sometimes despite the BBC’s expectations, with the team only getting the credit afterwards. There is a huge number of roles, ranging from electricians to make-up, costume and props professionals, camera trainees and script editors—I will not list them all. We all know about their incredible work in taking an inclusive approach to training.
In many ways, soaps such as “River City” and a number of other on-going productions do for television and the screen sector what weekly repertory theatre might well have done for the stage in previous generations. They create opportunities for people to get their first break. Many of those whom I met work not only on “River City”; they spend part of the year working on other productions.
I endorse the comments from the hundreds of industry professionals who have added their names to a petition to save “River City”. One writer wrote:
“My concern is for those coming along behind me. What about their opportunities, their careers, their finances, their futures, that of their families? What will happen to their break, their lifeline, their support, their welcome to the world of TV drama, which I received?”
That sort of thing is not going to be replaced by a few individual, one-off, six-part dramas that fit better with the streaming model and the way in which television is changing, even if significant investment goes into them. I am sure that positive value will come out of that and that there will be opportunities for some people to get jobs, but it will not provide the ecosystem and that basic level of first, second and third job opportunities that “River City” has such a strong track record of providing, and which the entire industry depends on.
The folk whom I met at “River City” know that they are not working on the highest-end, highest-value production. They are proud of what they do, because of the role that the programme plays in supporting the entire rest of the industry. High-end productions depend on that throughput of talent coming through, generation after generation, and it is one of the things that “River City” provides.
The second thing that I saw on our visit was that the people whom I met recognise that the industry is changing. They are not suggesting that everything be preserved in aspic. They recognise that the industry is experiencing a move away from linear television, due to the role of the streamers and the costs of production, but they want to be able to continue to ensure that those training opportunities and those first, second and third job opportunities are there for the future of the industry, even if that does not happen exactly as it happens now. However, that is what I do not see in the BBC’s proposals for what is to come after this.
I do not believe that the BBC has offered either an appropriate off-ramp for a model, if it wants to change the current one, or opportunities for people in the current team who are working on “River City” and for the next generations of people who need to get a foothold in the industry. However, that is what we need if the Scottish screen sector, more generally, is to thrive.
13:11
I thank Neil Bibby for bringing this debate to Parliament. Initially, I was not going to speak in it, but, after speaking to Mr Bibby at the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee today, I managed to get into a bit of a rage about what is happening—I have managed that down to a wee bit of a rammy at the moment.
There is a snobbery when it comes to soap operas in general in our cultural landscape, but particularly with regard to “River City”, because it speaks in my voice. That same snobbery can be seen in this place, because I have been criticised by members of the public for the way that I speak in Parliament. However, this is my voice—this is the way that I speak and the way that my community speaks. That is what is important about a show such as “River City”. Let us not forget that that is Scotland’s voice, and the voice of the many different communities that we have.
I am not speaking about “River City” in the past tense, because it is still filming and telling its stories, and it is still giving a platform to Scottish voices and talent. However, we are told that, in 2026, all of that will come to an end. My question is, why? “River City” has been a constant on our screens for more than two decades. It is a Scottish production, made in Scotland by Scottish crews and with Scottish actors, and it is rooted in the rhythms of our lives, our culture and our humour. It mirrors the people of Scotland as well, although that might be quite concerning when you look at some of the stories, right enough. However, it does not get the credit that it deserves for the important part that it plays in our cultural landscape.
Now, the BBC says that it is time to wind up “River City”. It says that viewing habits have changed, and maybe they have: people are streaming, they are binge-watching and skipping adverts, although, of course, there are currently no adverts on the BBC. I get that, but the question that I am asking is, if “River City” is to go, what are we replacing it with? Where are our stories going to be told? Where are our actors, writers and crews going to go?
This debate is about jobs—skilled jobs and on-going employment for production staff, set designers, costume departments and, of course, the actors and writers who have built careers on the show. It is about opportunity. It is about keeping our creative talent here, in Scotland, instead of forcing those people to head south or abroad for work. Paul W Fleming, the general secretary of Equity, said:
“Axing River City would have a devastating effect on acting and production roles for Scottish talent.”
That is a worry.
The BBC says that it wants to invest in shorter series of new drama across Scotland. That would be welcome, but shorter-running series do not offer the same continuity of employment, the same training ground or the same cultural resonance as a long-running show such as “River City”. This is not a simple matter of a change in format; it is a fundamental shift away from rooted, community-based storytelling.
“River City” is still here, which means that there is still time for the BBC to reconsider and for us to speak up and to stand by a production that has done more for Scotland’s culture and creative economy than we give it credit for. When “River City” goes, it will not be only a drama that disappears—another Scottish voice will be lost from the national conversation.
I absolutely agree with everything that Mr Adam has said about snobbery. I once attended a talk by Sergio Casci, a British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards and Palme d’Or nominee. His favourite of the lines that he wrote for “River City” was one that was delivered by Scarlett: “This place smells like a bus full of wet students.”
Sergio started his career on “River City”. It should be absolutely clear to everyone that the talent of the people who produce and work on “River City” is world class; we should not judge their contribution to Scotland’s film and TV industry as being anything other than first class.
I agree whole-heartedly. A long-running drama such as “River City” creates the opportunity to develop that talent further and to give people second chances, because we all know that not everyone will be successful with their first chance in the creative industries. We have to give people the ability to develop their talent further and to move on.
It is also important to have that conversation and that Scottish voice so that we can see our lives on television. That is something that I keep going on about, and this Parliament should go on about it.
I am asking myself what BBC Scotland’s long-term plan is and what its end game is. Is this just another cut of Scottish talent and TV programming, or is there any real commitment to Scottish storytelling? Let us not allow “River City” to be quietly written out of our cultural future. Let us fight for the stories, voices and people that make Scotland’s creative life vibrant and visible.
Pam Duncan-Glancy will be the final speaker before I ask the cabinet secretary to respond to the debate.
13:17
I begin my contribution, as others have, by thanking my colleague Neil Bibby for bringing this important debate to the chamber and for his tireless work in standing up for Scotland’s cultural sector. I also thank Equity, the union, for working closely with us to highlight the impact of the decision and for working day in, day out for its members and for workers’ rights.
The decision to end “River City” is a blow for fans of the show and has wide-ranging consequences for many who worked on it: the actors, crew, producers, educators and, most of all, the young people and early-career professionals who stood to benefit from the opportunities that it could have provided in the future.
Make no mistake: this is not about just one television programme and one studio; it is about opportunity and the very infrastructure that will be relied on to train and support the next generation of talent in Scotland’s creative industries. “River City” is one of the only year-round, high-volume production environments in the country. It offers stable work and training, with on-the-job opportunities, and that work is a crucial part of the college and university offer in the creative industries across Scotland.
Crucially, it offers access, especially for people who cannot easily access the creative industries, including those who do not have the networks or resources to break into them on their own—women, disabled creatives and early-career creatives to name but a few.
Since the decision was announced, I have heard from educational institutions across Scotland about how crucial the programme is to learning and teaching in their creative courses. Glasgow Caledonian University’s master of arts course in television fiction writing—the only course of its kind in the UK—has for years relied on its relationship with “River City” to give students their first professional credits. Dozens of graduates have gone directly into jobs on the show.
At the University of St Andrews, its master’s degree in playwriting and screenwriting was on the brink of forming a partnership with the production team, with the aim of giving students experience in a working story room—something that would not exist anywhere else in Scotland at that scale. The Theatre School of Scotland has provided testimony—which speaks for so many—that “River City” offers a rare chance for young actors to see themselves on screen and take their first steps into the industry.
What do all those things have in common? They all speak to the same thing: that “River City” is more than a programme—it is a platform. It is, as the head of programming at the BBC called it—as Jackie Baillie referred to—“a star factory”, and its closure would leave a vacuum that we are not yet currently prepared to fill.
The BBC has suggested that it will make space for new projects and build on the work of the “River City” training academy. However, it is hard to see how that can be replicated without the presence, scale or permanence that “River City” provides. It is crucial that a strategy for ensuring that the training, skills and access-to-work pipeline that it provides is protected. It is also crucial that decisions are taken in consultation with the Parliament, the sector, creatives themselves, the trade unions and the institutions that now find themselves scrambling to adjust to the potential consequences if the decision goes ahead.
It is simply not good enough. The screen industry is a sector of national importance—it is a driver of jobs, creativity, education and opportunity, and of our national identity, and that future cannot be delivered without investment in “River City”, the skills that it offers and the proper infrastructure that comes with it. Without that, there will be a vacuum, and without paying due regard to the people or places in the institutions that are affected, we cannot fully appreciate the impact of the decision.
Today, like other members, I ask the BBC to change its mind and to do what it has so far refused to do: to reconsider the decision; to provide clarity on its decision making; to engage with the Parliament and with stakeholders; and to bring forward a renewed decision or a credible plan.
I ask the Scottish Government to take the matter seriously; to support our educators; to work with the industry; and to use the powers and influence that it has to prevent “River City” from ending. The decision has not yet fully taken effect. We can save the show, and I urge the Government to take every step that it can to ensure that that happens. The decision is not irreversible. I believe that we can act, and we have to do so with urgency, purpose and a clear commitment to the future of Scotland’s creative economy.
13:22
I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Scottish Government to this important debate, and I thank Neil Bibby for lodging the motion. I pay tribute to the “River City” cast and crew, many of whom are with us in the public gallery, as well as to Equity, the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Communications and Theatre Union and the Writers Guild of Great Britain, which have, in recent weeks, provided such strong representations on the subject.
It is more than regrettable that the BBC has taken the decision that it has regarding the only production of this kind in Scotland, and I am deeply disappointed that we continue to see a worrying trend in decision making that runs counter to the BBC’s commitment to invest in the nations and to improve representation. The Scottish Government could not be clearer that we expect the BBC to be doing more for our audiences and creative industries by developing skills and training opportunities, supporting quality jobs, creating high-quality programmes in Scotland and serving Scotland’s diverse audiences equitably.
As the many strong contributions that we have heard from members have emphasised, the discussion is critical, and we must take the time to acknowledge the vital role that a production such as “River City” has for our creative economy and for the many talented individuals who work on it. Although editorial decision making, of course, sits with the BBC, it is right that we speak out and urge against decisions that will impact services, skills, development and jobs in Scotland.
The BBC is accountable to Scottish audiences, and it should be delivering a service that meets the needs in Scotland. When I recently met the BBC Scotland director, I was clear that investment, skills and job opportunities must remain in Scotland and that we expect to see those increase. That is particularly important given the historical imbalance that has existed in relation to the proportion of licence fee income that is raised in Scotland being spent here.
I also recently met Ofcom to discuss wider production in Scotland, and I urged the regulator to ensure that the BBC is meeting its obligations in delivering for viewers and for Scotland’s creative professionals. As many members have highlighted, people working in Scotland’s screen sector must continue to be able to access meaningful career and skills development opportunities as they have been able to do through the “River City” training academy.
“River City” has been an important kick-starter for many careers, and it is vital that the BBC considers how it will continue to ensure that people can develop successful careers in Scotland. I will continue to press the BBC to deliver increasing opportunities for people in Scotland and to continue the positive diversity and inclusion work that “River City” has supported.
On the matter of talent development and Scotland-originated production growth, Screen Scotland is also closely engaging with the BBC, including through its memorandum of understanding with the BBC, to enable more new original content to be made and Scotland-based talent to be developed.
I take the opportunity to highlight the BBC charter and the upcoming review. The charter is essential in delivering the BBC’s public service remit, of which supporting the creative economies in the nations is a key purpose. The Scottish Government’s powers to bring about change in broadcasting policy are limited. However, we will do everything that we can to press the BBC to strengthen its investment and to ensure that decision making does not adversely impact that crucial public purpose.
The cabinet secretary is right to put some of this in the context of the charter renewal, because one of the things that have changed, and which will not go back to the way that it was, is that, at the beginning of the era of the BBC, licence fee-funded public service broadcasting dominated production. Now, production is dominated by commercial models, including those of the big streaming services, which are not funding infrastructure and the ecosystem in the way that the BBC used to. Therefore, does the Scottish Government support the idea of a levy on the streaming services so that we have revenue funds to invest in productions—whether those are made by the BBC or anyone else—that create that ecosystem and which can sustain what the BBC does not want to sustain at the moment?
I am open to considering all avenues, including Patrick Harvie’s proposal, that would support the growth and retention of the screen sector in Scotland. It is also important to put on the record that the rules in relation to screen production in Scotland have clearly been breached, most certainly when it comes to the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules in relation to production in Scotland. Frankly, the BBC is being watched very closely with regard to what it does, and that will form part of our approach to charter renewal.
I point out that normal countries decide broadcasting policy, but we do not do that in Scotland. Broadcasting policy is reserved to Westminster. Would we be having this debate if the Scottish Parliament had the power to exert direct influence on broadcasting? I think not. We should reflect on that, because that does not need to be so. I believe that this Parliament should be in charge of Scotland’s broadcasting policy.
As I touched on earlier, the Scottish Government has been critical of the level of BBC spend in Scotland. Although we have seen improvement, we remain seized of that issue, which we expect to be covered in the charter review. We also expect continued and more effective efforts from the BBC to move commissioning power to Scotland to ensure that more Scotland-originated productions can showcase the incredible talent that we have in Scotland. Improved equity, diversity and inclusion, as well as authentic representation, are best delivered by commissioning content from within Scotland, and the Scottish Government will continue to make those views clear in our engagement with the BBC, Ofcom and the UK Government, including with regard to the forthcoming charter review, in order to strengthen the delivery of services for audiences and the support for the creative sector in Scotland.
Having sustainable jobs and production businesses that are based in Scotland is essential to maintaining and developing a strong, sustainable and growing Scottish screen sector, which the Scottish Government is committed to growing to reach ÂŁ1 billion in gross value added by 2030.
I will return to the motion. I reiterate my regret that the BBC has taken this decision and that we continue to see a number of challenges to the rebalancing of public service broadcasting for Scotland. The Scottish Government does not believe that audiences and our creative sector are currently being adequately served, and it is our view that it is unsustainable that broadcasting policy remains reserved to Westminster. We have long argued that it should be devolved to ensure that we can take the right decisions for our creative economy and for Scottish viewers and listeners. The cumulative effect of decisions that have been taken on broadcasting services in Scotland, which have weakened perceptions of and trust in the BBC and the benefits that we expect for audiences and the creative industries, only strengthens my view that the future of broadcasting would be safer in our hands.
I thank members and everyone who has shared their views with me and engaged with the Scottish Government on this important matter. There is clearly an abundance of passion and support for “River City” and the opportunities that that kind of production brings to our creative sector. I have been clear with the BBC that it must protect and increase its investment in Scotland and enhance the network of professionals who contribute to productions such as “River City”. I expect the BBC to fully and fairly represent all communities in Scotland, and I will continue to advocate on behalf of licence fee payers to ensure that the Scottish industry and audiences are properly represented.
That concludes the debate.
13:30 Meeting suspended.Previous
First Minister’s Question Time