Lesser-taught Languages and Cultures (University Teaching Funding) (PE1395)
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?
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.
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.
I am familiar with the petition because I was a member of the Public Petitions Committee when it was first discussed.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
Okay, we will do all three of those things.
Proposed Children and Young People Bill (PE1440)
PE1440, by Sharon McCluskie, on behalf of Play Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to include a statutory duty for play in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. Do members have any comments?
It struck me that this petition is pretty much bread and butter for the evidence that we will be taking on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. I assume, therefore, that we can simply fold it into our evidence taking, which will start on 25 June with the bill team.
That suggestion makes sense; as Liam McArthur has said, the issue in the petition is part and parcel of what the bill is about. I am quite happy for the petitioners to submit written evidence for our scrutiny of the bill.
Obviously we want to encourage children to play, given the importance of play to their education, health and wellbeing. There are a number of good initiatives across the country such as the street stuff project in Renfrewshire, but cost will be a major issue for local authorities, and any legislative basis—which the petition is calling for—would require appropriate funding. I understand that the Scottish Government is developing a play strategy, which is certainly a step forward, but I agree with the suggestion that we consider the petition as part of our approach to the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill.
That makes perfect sense. We have already issued a call for evidence on the bill—I am sure that the petitioner will be aware of that—but I suggest that we write to the petitioner, saying that we would very much welcome written evidence on this issue so that we can include it in our consideration of the bill after the summer recess. Given that we will take it forward as part of our scrutiny of the bill, I suggest that it is perfectly reasonable to close the petition at this point.