Current Petitions

I have been involved in the issue through my work with the University of Glasgow and, like others, I have been visited by Jan Culík and Hugh McMahon, a former member of the European Parliament. As is evident from the papers before us, the minister has had letters and visits as well.The position that is outlined in our papers contradicts the evidence that has come from the university and the petitioners. We now have a sub judice issue, because the issue involving the senate and the court of the university has been taken to court. Obviously, we cannot do anything about that in the committee.We should write to the Government to ask whether it will consider giving lesser-taught languages and cultures controlled funding subject status, which would enable the funding to be targeted. That is what the petitioners say is required if we are to ensure that the study of central and eastern European culture and languages carries on, particularly with regard to Czech and Russian. I would like those issues to be clarified. Perhaps we could even invite the University of Glasgow’s principal to give evidence on the petition.

I support what Sandra White said. I am very sympathetic to the issue. That does not mean that we should necessarily continue the petition, but we should do so for further investigation, as other avenues for how the activities can be funded are being explored with the Government. Much of that comes down to money, unfortunately. We have such a valuable asset, and I would hate to see the whole thing fall by default.

I agree that we should continue the petition. Like other members, I have had meetings with the petitioners since the committee first considered the petition. Like all petitioners, they were keen to impress the fact that they wanted the petition to continue, but there are issues that need to be looked at.My ears pricked up with interest when Sandra White suggested having the university come to the Parliament to give evidence. I said to the petitioners that we might want to consider that but, if there is a potential sub judice issue, we might have to wait to call the university in for evidence, as we would not want to stray into such areas. We could write to the Government, and when a response comes back and the sub judice matter has ceased to be an issue, we could call before us to give oral evidence the university and possibly the Scottish funding council. We should keep that option open.

I put it on the record that I have not met the petitioners, although there have been several requests for a meeting.I remind members of the comments on a petition that was discussed earlier, when I was told that I was straying into areas that the petition did not cover. It is clear that the petitioner’s response concentrates on a particular institution. My colleague Sandra White asked whether we could invite the University of Glasgow’s principal to discuss the funding for minority languages, but the petition directly refers to the Scottish Government and its advice to the Scottish funding council on teaching lesser-taught languages.If we take on the petitioner’s latest submission, the same argument that was made earlier will apply—we will stray into an area that the petition does not cover. The committee can decide to do that, but it must be aware that it is doing so and that that will open up issues that were not originally covered in the petition.We tend to look at petitions in general terms so that they can have an impact on the wider community, but the petitioner clearly came back on funding in a specific institution, which he now wishes to be examined and further developed. If the committee wishes to do that, that is its decision, but I remind committee members that that will open up the floodgates for future petitioners to add issues that they may expect the committee to deal with.

Part of the background is the fact that we wrote a letter to Glasgow university and got a reply, albeit perhaps not from the principal. It is quite within the committee’s competence to call in evidence from Glasgow university about whether courses are taking place and from the Scottish funding council, which distributes the money. It is fair to say that the committee moves on and that that sometimes involves other people coming in, as with the previous petition on Mosquito devices.I suggest that we continue the petition, write to the minister and check the position on the subject’s being sub judice. We can wait until the evidence comes back, at which point the committee can facilitate a meeting with the Scottish funding council and with representatives from the Glasgow university language courses. That is the course of action that we should take.

On the point about the Scottish funding council, I have met the people concerned and studied the matter. In a previous life, I was very aware of languages and culture through travelling on business. I want to ask you, convener, and my colleagues whether it would be worth while when writing to the Scottish Government to contact the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, Fergus Ewing. One of the reasons that the petitioners give for the value of their school is the tremendous contribution that language and cultural awareness make to enterprise, tourism and international relations. We are talking money here, of course. If I could wave a magic wand, I would suggest getting money from that kind of source, rather than simply going down the academic route to the Scottish funding council. Does that make sense?

That is probably a decision for another day. We are taking the decision to write to the Scottish Government at this stage. Once we have ironed out the sub judice issue, we can decide whom it will be appropriate to call to give evidence, if that is what we decide to do. Once we have received a response from the Scottish Government, we might decide not to call for evidence. That is a decision for the future, however, and we should not get too hung up on it today.

Thank you.