The next item is consideration of two petitions. First, we will take PE1395, by Jan Culík, on the provision of targeted funding for lesser-taught languages and cultures at Scottish universities. Do members have any comments to make on the issues raised by the petition?
Official Report · Committee
Petitions
Lesser-taught Languages and Cultures (University Teaching Funding) (PE1395)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Stewart Maxwell SNP 6
- Liam McArthur LD 3
- Neil Bibby Lab 2
- Neil Findlay Lab 2
- Mary Scanlon Con 1
- Clare Adamson SNP 1
- George Adam SNP 1
The record
16 contributions
link
The Public Petitions Committee has done a fairly thorough piece of work on the petition, and a number of the areas that I would have wanted this committee to cover have already been pursued. It could be argued that the petitioner has been successful in securing a change in the provision both at the University of Glasgow and across Scotland. It may fall short of what he seeks, but that is not something that the committee is in a position to pursue, so I am not sure that there is much more that we can do with the petition.
I think that the petitioner has achieved quite a degree of success. Paragraph 11 in the annex to the clerk’s paper states that the University of Glasgow has decided, as a result of the Public Petitions Committee’s involvement, to reinstate the full honours programme in Slavonic studies, which is a point of success. The fact that the European and External Relations Committee is looking quite thoroughly into language use and the availability of language teaching is another marker of success. I therefore favour option 3 in the annex to the paper.
link
I am a member of the European and External Relations Committee, which has been looking into the one-plus-two model of language teaching. Community languages have been a great theme of that process, so I am glad that the petitioner has been able to secure the commitment from the University of Glasgow. However, I would not like to close the petition. I would prefer to wait until the autumn to see how the term sets up with the new, reinstated programme in place.
link
I am familiar with the petition because I was a member of the Public Petitions Committee when it was first discussed. Eastern European and Slavonic studies are important educationally and economically to people in Scotland. Polish is one of the most commonly spoken languages in Scotland. We do a lot of trade with eastern Europe, and there is the potential to do more. The petition calls for targeted funding for small courses and rare areas of study, such as Slavonic languages. I know that similar targeted funding is available in England, so it is a reasonable request. Although there appears to be some movement at the University of Glasgow, the petition aims to ensure that such a reduction does not happen again and that a strategic view of those subjects is taken by the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. I favour keeping the petition open, and I think that we should contact the Scottish funding council, Universities Scotland and, if necessary, the Scottish Government to determine what the strategic view is for those subjects. If we believe that those subjects should be taught and protected at Scottish universities, we must ensure that that happens.
link
I agree with Clare Adamson that we should keep the petition open, because, as Neil Bibby mentioned, Polish is probably one of the most widely spoken languages in Scotland besides English. I know that in England it is the second most widely spoken language, but I do not yet know the results from the census in Scotland. We should keep the petition open. If we wanted to get further information, it would probably be best to get it from the SFC. That may be difficult because the Public Petitions Committee has already asked for information on numerous occasions. However, if we are going to ask for further information, I suggest that we ask for it from the SFC.
I support both Clare Adamson and Neil Bibby in saying that we should keep the petition open. There is a balance between the academic freedom and autonomy of the institutions and the need to provide courses that meet the needs of the economy and of society. I also ask the committee to pass on our congratulations to the petitioner, because he has been dogged in pursuing the matter and has achieved a level of success, which is to his great credit. We should keep the petition open. I note the funding council’s view that there is no reason to intervene, but perhaps the committee could write to the Scottish Government to seek its view on longer-term strategic provision of courses for such languages.
I reiterate the comments that other members have made about the petition’s success so far. I know that not all the petition’s aims have been achieved, but it has been very successful and congratulations are due to the petitioner on that basis. The reversal of the decision by the University of Glasgow is a particular success, which is to be welcomed.I note that, as paragraph 10 of the clerk’s paper points out, the SFC has made its view on the issue very clear. There is a difficult balance to be struck between allowing the academic freedom of institutions and our desire to ensure the maximum opportunity for such courses to be available for study in Scotland. There is a balance to be struck.I agree that it would be slightly premature to close the petition at this stage. Although the university has stated that it will reinstate the courses, it would be reasonable to keep the petition open at least until we see how that goes in the autumn. I have no problem with writing to the SFC, although I think that we will receive the same reply as the Public Petitions Committee received. I am not sure whether members wish to do that, but I see no particular problems with doing so.
link
I think that Clare Adamson is right that, given the timing, there is a strong case for keeping the petition open until the autumn. Perhaps rather than keeping the petition open indefinitely, it is worth putting down a marker with the Scottish funding council at this stage by noting the success of the petition and that we would have concerns if there were to be a rowing back on provision in this area. That might enable us to revisit the issue in future, if need be, without necessarily requiring the petition to remain open indefinitely.
That seems entirely reasonable.
link
The petition calls for targeted funding from the Scottish funding council to protect such courses. Although it appears that some of the courses will restart, no targeted funding is being provided by the Scottish funding council. I think that we need to note that.
As a number of members have said, we cannot guarantee the provision of certain courses and not of others. There is a real difficulty about how much we intervene or interfere in the rights of institutions to provide courses that are relevant and that are wanted by students. That is a difficult balancing act. I would be hesitant to intervene by saying that there should be ring fencing around particular courses that should not be touched and which would then have guarantees that are not available for other courses. That is not our role.I think that the petition has been successful, and I would be happy to keep it open. I would also be happy to write to the funding council along the lines that Liam McArthur suggested.
link
As a former member of the Public Petitions Committee, Neil Bibby will be more familiar with the issues, but I think that the petition raised serious concerns not just about the University of Glasgow’s original decision but the way in which that decision was taken. In any letter that we might write to the Scottish funding council, we should perhaps reinforce the point that lessons need to be learned and that we will not only keep an eye on the issue but expect that any process leading to a future review would need to be a good deal more transparent and open than was the case previously.
My other suggestion was that we should write to the Scottish Government to seek its longer-term strategic view on how we provide access to such courses.
There are three suggestions. First, we will keep the petition open until the autumn but not indefinitely, with a finite date assuming that the courses restart in the way that the university has stated. Secondly, we will write to the SFC along the lines that Liam McArthur has suggested. Thirdly, we will write to the Scottish Government minister responsible for languages to ask about the Government’s position on a strategic view of languages education in Scotland. Are members content with that?Members indicated agreement.
Okay, we will do all three of those things.
In this meeting
Everything on 4 Jun 2013 →- 10:00 Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 1
- 10:00 Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 1
- 10:00 Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 2
- 10:00 Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 14
- 10:00 Petitions Petitions · 16
- 10:00 Petitions Petitions · 5
- 10:00 Decision on Taking Business in Private Procedure · 2
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.