Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.]

To ask the Scottish Government what proportion of three-year-old children receive free early learning and childcare in the week after their third birthday. (S6O-04571)

Renfrewshire Council used to offer access to free early learning and childcare hours as soon as a child turned three. Due to funding pressures and cutbacks, children must now wait until the start of the school term following their third birthday. That will result in many working parents having to pay for childcare—including Vahri Gemmell, who is my and the minister’s constituent, who must pay around £4,000 in childcare for the four months that her son Adam is otherwise set to miss out on.

Given that the Scottish Government has stated that it encourages local councils to offer free childcare hours as soon as a child turns three, will the minister join me in encouraging her colleagues in Renfrewshire Council to reverse their childcare cuts? Will she also encourage the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to ensure that local councils are properly funded, so that the postcode lottery can be ended?

On the Scottish Government’s international development work, following the previous portfolio questions with the cabinet secretary, he stated in a letter to me that

“none of the grants awarded under the climate justice fund have gone to for-profit entities.”

However, the 2024 annual report for one of the three organisations that received money from the climate justice fund appears to show net profits and proposed dividends. Will the cabinet secretary look into that again? In the meantime, will he tell the chamber what his definition of “non-profit” is?

I do not agree with that last point, but I will come on to some further thoughts on our relationship with the US.

Strong diplomacy is based on common goals and also on trust, and that trust will be tested when there is uncertainty about where countries with which we have had a long relationship are heading and the extent to which we have common goals. In times such as this, we need to ask ourselves some fundamental questions. Where do we stand? What do we want to achieve? What are we prepared to do to achieve those things?

A positive and special relationship with the United States has been vital to Scotland and the United Kingdom, and it continues to be so. It has spanned countless Presidents, Prime Ministers and generations of our citizens and Americans. Its importance cannot be overstated. Scottish Labour understands that. That is why Anas Sarwar was in New York and Washington recently, and I am sure that that is why the First Minister was also recently in the United States. That relationship has been helped enormously by the presence of the US consulate in Edinburgh since 1798, and I hope that the US State Department will ensure that it remains, as its closure would be a retrograde step.

In just a few weeks, we will commemorate the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe day, when British and American forces stood shoulder to shoulder, many sacrificing their lives for the liberation of Europe from the Nazis. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was born thereafter, along with the Ottawa agreement, to protect and defend our shared values of freedom and democracy. That founding role, as well as article 5 of the NATO treaty—an attack on one is an attack on all—is as important today as it was then.

Of course, also standing with us in those dark days were our friends and allies in the Commonwealth—India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, to name just a few. Our relationship with them remains critical, and we should support them as they have supported us. I wish our friends in Canada and Australia the best as they exercise their democratic rights in the next few weeks.

Our relationship with our closest neighbours in Europe is also critical. It is right that the Prime Minister is seeking to reset our relationship with the European Union, as well as ensuring that we work together to strengthen security on the continent and support Ukraine against Putin’s aggression.

Turning to the economic situation, the news that President Trump has suspended the proposed increased tariffs for 90 days is, of course, welcome. The liberation day tariff announcement caused an immense amount of uncertainty for businesses and markets around the world. Unnecessary barriers to trade and a trade war are not in Scotland’s national interest or in the interests of working people, and any prospective trade deals must be in the interests of businesses, consumers and workers. Isolationism might seem attractive to some, but it has costs. It is not for us to tell other countries what to do, but we must send a signal to the world that we are open for business.

There are opportunities from taking that outward-looking approach. I believe that, by utilising the UK’s soft power and brand Scotland, we can, for example, bring more tourists to visit and students to study here.

Protecting the safety of our citizens is the Government’s first duty. Security takes many forms—economic security, food security, energy security and defence security—and the UK Government is significantly increasing spending on security. That is welcome, and, like Daniel Johnson, I hope that we can have the opportunity to discuss that further.

British Steel is vital to our economic and national security and to sectors such as rail, construction and shipbuilding. The UK Government was therefore right to take decisive action to save British Steel and to pass emergency legislation to prevent the last of the UK’s blast furnaces in Scunthorpe from being shut down. If they were allowed to close, the UK would be the only country in the G20 without the ability to make primary steel.

Considering the uncertainty of the international situation, we must support our industries to ensure that we are well equipped to deal with all eventualities. That is why it was right that the UK Government announced an additional £200 million for the future of Grangemouth. The investment in Scotland’s industrial future will allow for a transition plan for the site.

Cementing our energy security is incredibly important, and establishing a public energy company is a key way to do that. That is something the Scottish Government promised and failed to do, but the new UK Labour Government is now taking forward the creation of Great British Energy, a Government-owned renewable energy investment body that will be headquartered in Aberdeen, which will make us less susceptible to the volatility of energy imports.

That leads me on to the issue of nuclear energy. We can see the energy security and cheaper bills that nuclear has provided in France. Meanwhile, here in Scotland, the Scottish Government’s continued opposition to new nuclear power and small modular reactors is costing Scotland jobs and investment, and I do not believe that that is in Scotland’s national interest. Given the current situation, we need to look differently at our policy positions. Scottish Labour has said that we would lift the ban on new nuclear, which is holding Scotland back.

As I stated at the outset, these are uncertain times. Amid the insecurity around the globe, we must not retreat from the world but co-operate with other countries on our common goals, and we must strengthen our industries and security for the benefit of our citizens, businesses and industries.

In opening the debate for Scottish Labour, I join other members in marking the sad passing of His Holiness Pope Francis. He was a much-loved, compassionate and humble man who cared deeply about the poor and welcomed the marginalised. He will be missed, and my thoughts are with all those who are mourning his loss.

We meet today to debate global events and their implications for people here and across the world. There is much to discuss, from the new US Administration’s intentions to the war in Ukraine and the humanitarian crises in Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar and many other places. Like other members, I cannot possibly begin to address all those issues and more in the time that I have, so I refer members to my previous comments on the need for peace and for international law to be upheld in the middle east and in Ukraine.

I will focus my remarks on Scotland’s and the UK’s place in the world—what we must do, what we must not do and the opportunities in relation to our diplomatic, economic and defence policies. A lot of those policy areas are reserved, but, as Daniel Johnson said, some are devolved.

It is important to note that there is no motion for today’s debate. That might well reflect the uncertain times that we are living in. My initial thought when I discovered that there would be no motion was that that was perhaps an admission from the Scottish Government that a single motion cannot simply provide the answers to the countless complex challenges that we currently face. That is, on some level, welcome, because anyone here who pretends to have all the answers is, I fear, mistaken, so I welcome the fact that the debate is being facilitated in that way.

The international situation is unpredictable and is evolving rapidly. As the Prime Minister said recently,

“The world as we knew it has gone.”

The world is changing, trade-offs will be required and we also need to adapt and move with the times. However, we should do so with caution, because misinformation, which we see so readily on social media, can lead to miscalculations. Reliable intelligence from reliable sources and cool heads are required to navigate the difficult terrain that we are in.

That is why I am pleased that the new UK Labour Government and the Prime Minister are providing serious leadership for serious times, with an approach that seeks to bring countries together in co-operation with our global allies and partners, particularly when it comes to our support for Ukraine, for example, but also one that seeks to protect our national security at the same time. Strengthening relations with others while also focusing on our own self-reliance is a difficult but important balance to be struck. Countries always have acted in their own national interest—they always will—and we should be no different.

We should also seek to work with international partners on the basis of common goals.

I lodged the question on behalf of Breast Cancer Now, before the sad passing of our colleague Christina McKelvie. I pay tribute to Christina McKelvie, who was a strong advocate for breast cancer awareness. My thoughts are with her friends and family at this difficult time.

The 62-day target for starting treatment following urgent referral has, sadly, not been met for breast cancer for four years. Breast Cancer Now estimates that, had the target been met during that time, over 1,000 more people would have had a timely diagnosis and access to potentially life-saving treatments. The 62-day standard states that 95 per cent of eligible patients should wait no longer than 62 days from urgent suspicion of cancer referral to first cancer treatment. However, the 62-day standard is currently being met by only one of the 14 NHS boards. Does the Scottish Government agree that waiting time targets for cancer need to be reviewed so that health boards and the Scottish Government can first identify and then address the causes of the delay?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of action 42 in the cancer action plan 2023 to 2026 to carry out a clinically led review on cancer waiting times. (S6O-04521)

To ask the Scottish Government how much it has allocated in its budget for revenue and capital funding for Strathclyde Partnership for Transport for 2025-26. (S6O-04493)

The SPT concessionary travel scheme has provided discounted rail travel to older people in Strathclyde for many decades. However, due to the scheme’s underfunding, those people are facing huge hikes in their rail fares from the start of April. For example, a return from Paisley Gilmore Street station to Glasgow Central station will rise from £1.50 to £3.75, which is a staggering 150 per cent increase. I am sure that we would all agree that that level of increase is too high. Given that budgetary pressures have been stated as the reason for the increase, will the cabinet secretary consider what support the Scottish Government can give to the SPT and local councils to reduce the eye-watering hikes?