Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024

Official Report 1009KB pdf

---

Languages at the University of Aberdeen

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-11589, in the name of Kevin Stewart, on languages at the University of Aberdeen. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

I advise members that one member, Alasdair Allan, will make a section of his contribution in Gaelic. I intend to call him in due course, and I advise members that headphones are available at the back of the chamber for those who wish to listen to simultaneous interpretation of contributions in Gaelic. Members can listen by inserting the headphones into the socket on the right-hand side towards the front of the console. Any member who is unable to hear the interpretation should press the audio button on the console and select channel 1 for English. I am explaining that now in order to avoid a last-minute rush, which I think has happened before.

I see that there is a helpful point of order from Alasdair Allan.

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is only a couple of sentences, and members will be able to work it out from the context, but I would be very grateful if anyone wishes to tune in. [Laughter.]

I thank you for that, having just spent that time explaining what members can do to listen to a simultaneous interpretation of your words. I think that it is fair that an explanation is given at this stage.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes concern expressed at proposals by the University of Aberdeen to reduce its language provision; understands the challenges that the languages department faces, including running a projected deficit of £1.6 million in 2023-24, and that the student intake has reportedly fallen dramatically following the UK’s exit from the EU; believes that languages offer significant value to individuals, to communities across Scotland, and to building relationships across the globe; recognises what it sees as the widespread support for retaining language teaching at the University of Aberdeen, including, it understands, from students, staff, alumni, Gaelic organisations and the consulates of several nations, and notes the calls for the University of Aberdeen to explore every possible option to retain language learning, including an expanded language offering for all interested students and degree courses.

18:00  

I thank everyone who signed the motion in order for it to be debated, and I welcome folks from the University of Aberdeen who are in the public gallery tonight.

I am proud of the University of Aberdeen. It is an institution that has enhanced my home city since 1495 and has brought people from around the globe to study, live and work in the granite city. I am proud that, nearly 30 years ago, I was the election agent for Allan Macartney MEP in his successful bid to become the rector of the University of Aberdeen. Since the announcement by the university about the downgrading of modern languages, I have thought about Allan a lot. Members may ask why.

Allan was a polyglot: he spoke at least six languages fluently, and he had an understanding of many others. He was born in Ghana, he studied at the universities of Marburg and Tübingen and at Scottish universities, and he lectured at the then University of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland before he came back to Scotland to work for the Open University. Like me, he was proud of the University of Aberdeen, but I do not think that the current situation would stand well with him, as it does not with me.

To be clear, there is significant financial pressure on the University of Aberdeen and on all our universities. Years of Westminster austerity have taken their toll, and I am sure that the financial pressures have also taken a toll on the Minister for Higher and Further Education; and Minister for Veterans, who will respond to the debate. However, we must begin by acknowledging that language teaching is not a burden or a luxury to be sacrificed amid austerity, but an investment. It is an investment in Scotland’s prosperity through building our connections to the wider world.

We need to accept that we have come to this point largely as a result of Brexit and the so-called hostile environment immigration policies. With Britain turning its back on the world, it is no surprise that students, including foreign language students, are turning their backs on Britain. The fall in the number of overseas students is stark, the financial impact is real, and the United Kingdom Government does not seem to give a fig.

In a similar vein, given that our young people have lost free and easy access to the European Union, it is, of course, no surprise that a career in foreign languages is less attractive to them.

The first steps that we need to take should be about making languages more attractive to our young people. That should involve outreach in schools and engagement with students to highlight the opportunities that language degrees offer.

Will the member take an intervention?

Very briefly.

I thank Kevin Stewart for taking my intervention and for bringing the debate to the chamber.

On the basis of what Kevin Stewart has just said, is he concerned, as I am, about the reduction in the number of students who are taking modern languages for national 5 and higher qualifications?

I am, and that is one of the reasons why I talked about outreach in the way that I did. We need to get over to young people the importance of languages.

Just recently, a study showed that those who speak more than one language are less likely to get dementia and Alzheimer’s. That is a public health issue, which could be tackled by increasing educational capacity.

We must not simply accept the hammer blow of Brexit—that is important. We need to give folk hope that, despite more challenging times, there are still excellent future career prospects in languages, both at home and abroad. Part of that is about a vibrant research culture, which should attract the best and brightest academics to Aberdeen and provide the best grounding for teaching. A vibrant research programme is an attractive draw for many.

It is not about taking the easy path of simply accepting where things are and sacking teaching staff. It is about taking a difficult path that involves staff, management, students and unions working together to build a brighter future for modern languages at Aberdeen. That will be challenging for management, who will need to look beyond today’s low student numbers—and, therefore, income—towards a more vibrant future of increasing student numbers. It will also be a challenge for staff, who will need to pivot to outreach and engagement to sell the future of modern languages to prospective students, and to enthuse, enhance and revitalise.

Politicians, university management, academics and students must come together to fight the hostile environment immigration policies of the United Kingdom Government in order to open up our academic institutions to the world once more. Scotland has thrived because of the talent that we have attracted to come to study, work and live here. Of course, the families of those people should be welcomed too. I hope that the minister and the Scottish Government will rise to that challenge and join me and others in taking that fight to the UK Government.

I have listened to management, academics and students on all matters. There have been disagreements about data, the shortness of the consultation period and a lack of transparency in what has gone on. However, it is clear to me that no one wants to see modern language courses disappearing from the university prospectus.

It is absolutely imperative that all parties, including the Government, come together to communicate, debate and reach agreement, and find a way to adapt in order to ensure that any student coming to Aberdeen who wants to learn a language can do so, as they have been able to do over the centuries of the university’s existence.

18:07  

I thank my friend and colleague Kevin Stewart for bringing to the chamber this debate on languages at the University of Aberdeen.

As Kevin Stewart said, the University of Aberdeen’s academic roots date back to 1495, and the work of that institution has, in so many ways over more than 500 years, helped to connect our city to the world. The university’s modern languages courses have been particularly helpful in building bridges and making those connections. Learning other languages can allow us to share knowledge, understand different cultures and build friendships.

Kevin Stewart mentioned the role of Brexit. Leaving the European Union broke some of the bonds that connected us to Europe. It is sad that the impact that Brexit has had on modern language courses may undermine our connections with the world even further.

Although it is welcome that joint honours degree programmes in modern languages will continue to be available, the potential loss of single honours language degrees is greatly disappointing. I expect that some of my Gaelic-speaking colleagues will be keen to talk about the Gaelic course in particular. I have to admit that that loss would make our scrutiny of the Scottish Languages Bill somewhat bittersweet.

That disappointment at the loss of single honours language degrees seems to be shared by a great many people, including students, staff and even foreign dignitaries. A number of those folks have contacted me, as their local MSP, and have shared a range of insights into the university’s proposals. One comment that I received this morning stood out, as it explained the importance of language degrees eloquently and succinctly. It said:

“A language degree is not just language tuition but involves the study of languages in their context, including study of their culture, society and region, which is a key requirement for students’ critical understanding in the face of local and global societal issues.”

Earlier today, I met Kirsty Miller, Charlotte Gorrie, Kirsten Koss, Tomos Dargie and Linzi Ryan from the university, who are in the public gallery this evening. They expressed to me their concerns regarding the future of modern languages. They told me that, currently, no offer of a place has been made to students for next year; the ones who have already applied are being told that no single honours degree course is available.

How will that impact the situation of languages in the future? Where will the language teachers come from if we do not give genuine consideration to the future of modern languages?

I sympathise greatly with the situation in which the university finds itself, and I do not envy the decisions that it will need to take in the months ahead. Among everything that has been said and everything that has been fed into the university’s consultation, I know that there have been offers of support and helpful suggestions. I hope that that constructive approach will continue, and I sincerely hope that it proves to be worth while.

Whatever decision the university ultimately makes on the future of modern languages provision, it will have wide-ranging impacts on folks’ jobs, on students’ academic prospects, and on Scotland’s place in the world. When a final decision is made, I call on the university court to ensure that everything that has been said is fully taken into account, so that it makes the right decision that balances the challenges of today with the demands of tomorrow.

18:11  

I am very glad that Kevin Stewart has brought the debate to the chamber, as the situation is deeply regrettable on a number of levels. The key point, which was raised by many, and in particular by the University and College Union, is that reducing the university’s offer in modern languages is potentially damaging not only to the university but also to our current students and future students, and ultimately to the global-facing nature of our country.

We all hope that all alternatives will be properly explored. While it is clear that universities must be completely independent of Parliament, I reiterate the hope, which I do not doubt that we all share, that the university will follow all applicable legislation in relation to any redundancy consultations, as well as engaging in constructive dialogue with the likes of the UCU and the student body.

In the short time that I have been allocated, it is important that I flag up two aspects of the context and the drivers that underlie the situation, particularly given that the motion specifically highlights the financial challenges, although Kevin Stewart is utterly misguided in the target of his ire.

The higher education sector is staggeringly underfunded. A recent report from the Scottish Funding Council on the “Financial Sustainability of Universities in Scotland 2020-21 to 2024-25” suggested that, within two years, the sector’s aggregate financial position will fall to a deficit of £3.3 million; the sector’s total cash flow from operating activities as a proportion of all income will fall to just 4 per cent in 2023-24; and the sector’s net liquidity is forecast to fall to 125 days in 2024-25.

Then there is the draft Scottish budget for 2024-25, which proposes cash cuts of almost 6 per cent to university resource budgets. Alastair Sim, the director of Universities Scotland, said that the budget would impose a £28.5 million cut to teaching grants. What is even worse is that, buried deep in a supplementary spreadsheet to the budget, is the news that there are now

“additional savings are to be made in the HE sector, including from reducing first year university places”.

Just this morning, at the Finance and Public Administration Committee, we learned that that translates to potentially at least 1,200 fewer university places being available to Scottish students.

Will the member give way?

Will I have time back at the end, Presiding Officer?

Yes.

I hear members on the Conservative side of the chamber crying crocodile tears. Does Liam Kerr recognise the impact of the Conservative Government’s budgetary decisions on the Scottish Government budget? [Interruption.]

I hear the chirping from behind the member, but it is a straightforward question. Does he recognise the impact, and will he acknowledge—as Kevin Stewart pointed out—the damaging impact of Brexit, and of his Government’s immigration policies, on the university sector in Scotland?

This Scottish Government is sitting on the biggest block grant in devolution history, and the member comes to the chamber and poses that question. The Scottish Government has leveraged Scottish universities in such a way that it is dependent on international students, and it is reaping the rewards of its appalling decisions.

There is a wider issue here. Rhiannon Ledwell of the Aberdeen University Students’ Association, in a helpful submission, told us that having a second language makes graduates more employable. That is backed up by a report from the University of Cambridge in 2022, which said that widening access to languages education could be worth billions to the UK economy.

A generation ago—a real generation, not a Scottish National Party generation—in 2004, the then Government removed languages from the list of compulsory subjects. The result, according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency data, is that the numbers of languages students in higher education have plummeted: the numbers have been declining in their hundreds, year on year, for several years now. That is not surprising—and I refer members to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s intervention, which was well made—when we see that the number of students taking highers in languages has plummeted by nearly 1,000 since 2017, and at national 5 level by around 1,500 over the same period. That generation is coming through a system without compulsory languages, and the results are clear to see. It stands to reason that if languages were devalued at school in 2004, 20 years later the harvest of that will be reaped at university.

The situation that the students, the staff and the University of Aberdeen find themselves in is deeply regrettable, but we must be clear about the factors underlying it, and demand, as a Parliament, that the SNP Government rethinks its draft budget, rethinks its swingeing cuts to the sector and drastically reconsiders its position on the importance of languages in schools.

18:17  

I congratulate Kevin Stewart on bringing the motion to the chamber. On a personal note, I warmly echo his praise of the late Allan Macartney MEP.

I have doubtless told members before about how, in heady pre-Brexit days, I was once on a train between Luxembourg and Brussels. A man selling sandwiches was making friendly conversation as he made his way up the train. Although I could not follow a lot of what was being said, I could hear that he was speaking to his customers, as required, in fluent French, German, Dutch, English and Luxembourgish. My point is that around the world, multilingualism is normal whereas by contrast, monolingualism is unusual. Yet, in the UK, we still look at things the other way around.

Therefore, it is deeply disappointing to see my alma mater, the University of Aberdeen, taking an apparent step backwards in its commitment to language degrees. Following the widespread backlash against initial proposals, the university made a welcome commitment to developing new language courses, as well as continuing to provide additional and evening language classes, and joint honours language degrees. However, I am not sure how any of that mitigates against the loss of single honours courses.

Tha ionmhas an oilthigh 1.6 millean nòt a dhìth, ach, mar a bha oileanaich agus luchd-obrach ag ràdh, cha bhi molaidhean an oilthigh a’ dèanamh dad ach a’ Ghàidhlig a lagachadh air a’ champus. Cuideachd, cha bhi cothrom sam bith ann a-nis cànan sam bith aig ìre single honours a dhèanamh àite sam bith gu tuath air meadhan na h-Alba.

Following is the simultaneous interpretation:

The budget for the university is short of £1.6 million. Students and staff are saying that the recommendations from the university will do nothing for Gaelic except weaken its presence on the campus. There will also no longer be the opportunity for students to take a single honours language degree there.

The member continued in English.

The proposals run counter to the very idea of a university as a place where students come to realise, inter alia, that the world does not operate solely in English. As has been alluded to, since the founding of King’s college Aberdeen in 1495, when its working language was Latin, French has also been taught. Gaelic has been studied in some form since those very early days and, since the 19th century, the university has offered a wide variety of degree courses in classical and modern languages.

German language professors in Aberdeen were among the voices calling for peace on the brink of the first world war. Since then—o tempora, o mores—Latin and Greek have already retreated, as have single honours degree courses in Italian and Spanish.

Meanwhile, the one-plus-two model has ensured the much wider roll-out of languages in Scotland’s primary schools, although I acknowledge the point that the university makes about the falling numbers of pupils taking language qualifications in secondary schools. That certainly raises questions about what we do to encourage students to choose languages in the upper end of secondary and when moving on to university. However, it is unclear to me how abolishing single honours language degrees is likely to strengthen language courses in schools, given their popularity with those looking to become language teachers.

I realise that this is a pet subject for me. I try to encourage the wider use of languages in the Parliament, not least in my office. I hope that I am not about to overlook the skills of anyone in my staff but, between all of us in the office, we manage Gaelic, Scots, English, Irish, Norwegian, Danish, French, Spanish and Italian.

Universities are, of course, independent of Government, but I urge the University of Aberdeen to think again about what kind of university it wants to be and to listen to the concerns that are now being raised by its students, staff and graduates.

18:21  

Kevin Stewart has my appreciation for securing this important debate. As a member for North East Scotland, I share the widely held concerns about the future provision of language teaching at the University of Aberdeen. I have received many representations from constituents across the region, including from people who have been students at the university and current members of staff. They all know that the university plays a vital role in the city and across the north-east, both as an educator and as an employer. The support expressed by students, alumni and the wider community is testament to the excellent work of the modern languages department at Aberdeen.

There are 30 members of staff who still do not know whether their jobs are safe, and UCU members are currently being balloted for strike action as well as actions short of a strike. I thank the union for the representations that it has made to me and other members in that regard. I urge the university and the unions to continue to engage constructively to deliver the best outcome for staff and students.

Modern languages are absolutely vital to this country—for our economy and our culture, as members have said. There are huge benefits to be found in learning another language, at personal and professional level. Giving our young people the chance to study modern languages is one of the best investments that we can make in Scotland’s future workforce.

Although I thank Kevin Stewart for securing the debate, I think that we diverge in part on the diagnosis of what has gone wrong. His points regarding Brexit are well made and certainly pertain to the problem with international recruitment. However, unfortunately, we are not talking about an isolated incident; the problem is not one that can be swiftly resolved and is never to be repeated.

Further, the issue is not exclusively the university’s responsibility. It is the result of what Dame Sally Mapstone, when she was the convener of Universities Scotland, called the “managed decline” of the sector under the SNP Government. Kevin Stewart was rightly keen to talk about the significant financial pressures that have come to bear on universities. However, we have to recognise that the funding model for our universities in Scotland is broken and is creating a wide array of perverse outcomes for our institutions and students and for our future and our economy.

The SNP’s singular failure, over 14 years, to increase the unit of teaching resource paid to universities for Scottish students means that institutions have become increasingly reliant on fees from international students, which means that there is a distinct lack of resilience. When external shocks arrive—such as those set out by Mr Stewart relating to Brexit or other market shocks such as the current one in the west African market, which has led to a significant decrease in the number of students coming to Scotland in the current academic year—our universities are uniquely exposed, because it is the international students who help to pay for Scottish students to learn here.

As Alasdair Allan pointed out, the removal of Gaelic from one of only four institutions in Scotland to offer degrees in the subject is extremely worrying. We have to set that in the context of the concerns from the Gaelic community about the existential threat to their language and the ancient culture of our country. Members have talked in the chamber on numerous occasions about how much more has to be done to secure Gaelic, particularly in the Gaelic-speaking areas on the west coast, which is the homeland of the language, to ensure that we support the economy.

There is also limited recognition by the Scottish Funding Council of the resource-intensive nature of teaching languages—a point that University of Aberdeen staff have made to me in recent days. Perhaps the minister might reflect on the way in which languages and modern language teaching are treated.

The university has cited low recruitment to undergraduate modern languages, but members have already pointed out that there is a particular challenge in the low uptake of modern languages in schools and a continuing and accelerating decline in that uptake. Across the country, particularly in the north-east, we face an acute teacher shortage, with many posts being advertised repeatedly and remaining unfilled. The number of modern language teachers is falling, recruitment to initial teacher education is also well down and targets are not being met.

The Government has done precisely nothing to arrest those trends of decline. The teacher education bursary is not available to modern language trainees, and funding for the one-plus-two languages programme, which was to be the Government’s key to addressing the problem, has been wound down and absolutely nothing has been put in its place. It is a downward spiral, and very little has been done to correct it.

The Government must recognise that, in the complex picture that members have set out of interacting international, cultural and funding issues, it has a key responsibility to take action to support not only the students, the staff and the University of Aberdeen, but all our modern language institutions and students across Scotland.

18:26  

I thank Kevin Stewart for securing this debate. As a former rector of the University of Aberdeen, I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to it. I begin by paying tribute to the staff and students in the school of language, literature, music and visual culture, especially those who are directly affected, and to Aberdeen University Students Association, UCU and the other campus unions for pulling together, organising rallies, contacting us and generally making a noise. I acknowledge their solidarity and determination in the face of frustrating circumstances. I was pleased to speak at the rally on campus in December and to some folk outside Parliament at lunchtime today—I welcome them to the public gallery. I also thank those who have been in touch with us prior to tonight’s debate. I am just sorry that all of this has been necessary.

The north-east of Scotland deserves and needs a comprehensive university that provides a full range of degree programmes, including single honours language degrees; in which university management treats staff and students with respect and kindness, professionalism and care; and in which different parts of the university support others as part of a larger, stronger whole.

Cutting modern languages and closing single honours programmes is a very bad move for reputation. Without modern languages and single honours programmes, Aberdeen university will no longer be a comprehensive university. That sends exactly the wrong message to communities across the north-east and northern Scotland generally. I believe that the integrity of the institution is at stake. It has a civic duty to Aberdeen and the wider region to be that comprehensive institution—a duty that it will fail to fulfil. There is also the impact on staff and student morale, never mind the job losses that the university is contemplating. What is so easy to shatter will take a very long time to rebuild, and, while morale is low, there will be knock-on consequences for recruiting and retaining staff and students. The whole process leaves a lot to be desired, as we have heard. It has been described as inaccessible and disempowering.

All of this affects the region more generally. Promoting language education across the north-east and training the next generation of language teachers for our schools are very much needed. Language programmes and teaching should support the education of linguists and others whom we want and need to make their lives in the north-east. I fear that it will be very hard to sustain the teaching of languages at all if they are studied not through degree programmes but just as joint honours subjects or nice-to-have extras to other studies. The University of Aberdeen has been the only place north of the central belt where people have been able take language courses across such a range of languages. If we lose that, it will be very hard to recover.

In relation to the financial strategy, as we agreed when, as rector, I chaired the university court a few years ago, we cannot cut our way to growth. The cuts are short sighted and we know that, once such things are gone, they are gone. Considering individual budget lines is not an appropriate way to account for value across the whole institution. It is right that some parts of the university should subsidise others. If teaching single honours language degree programmes is seen as a financial problem, I suggest that there are broader issues for the institution to consider.

I must highlight the value of modern languages in all aspects of life, for our social and cultural understanding and enrichment. Languages are about so much more than just words in a different language. If we are to deal with the global crises that we face, we need more understanding of different cultures and societies, not less. We know that language teaching is vital to decolonising the curriculum. We should be doing everything that we can to not reinforce English as the hegemonic language.

We must continue to fight for modern languages at the University of Aberdeen—for modern languages themselves, for the university as a whole, for the region and for our country.

18:31  

As a graduate of the University of Aberdeen, I thank Kevin Stewart for bringing forward for debate the issue of the future of modern languages provision at the university. It is a timeous debate, given that we will celebrate languages week Scotland later this month.

Like Kevin Stewart and other colleagues, I have engaged with individuals and organisations that are concerned about the proposal. I particularly thank Rhiannon Ledwell of the Aberdeen University Students Association for her tenacity, and the university principal, Professor George Boyne, for his openness and engagement on the matter. I also commend the work of the steering group, which is led by Professor Leydecker. I welcome the university court’s decision to continue to offer joint honours degree programmes in languages for now, but it is disappointing that single honours degrees will not be offered.

I echo many of the concerns that members have raised about the implications relating to equal access to language education in the north of Scotland, the recruitment and training of language teachers in the north-east and the reputational impact on the university and wider Scottish higher education.

I note the university’s analysis in its consultation paper that the provision of modern languages is not viable in its current form, but why is that the case? I was dismayed to note in the consultation document that steeply falling enrolment is a long-term UK-wide trend, despite national initiatives over many years to increase uptake of language learning in schools and, by extension, universities.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will proceed, but I will come back to the member if I have time.

In recent years, there has been a 57 per cent drop in the number of higher and A-level entries in German and a 44 per cent drop in the number of entries in French, and there has been a 34 per cent drop in the number of higher education entrants nationally since just 2015.

While preparing for today’s debate, I noted with interest a comment in the foreword of the “Modern Languages Excellence Report”, which was published by Scotland’s National Centre for Languages:

“Unless the decline in modern language learning is reversed, Anglophone Britons will become one of the most monolingual peoples in the world, with severe consequences for our economy, for business competitiveness, for international reputation and mobility and for community cohesion at home.”

All of those issues have been raised by members.

We know the benefits of promoting additional languages and their importance in equipping the next generation of workers in Scotland and beyond with the necessary skills to contribute and compete in an increasingly globalised society. Scotland benefits from having a workforce that is fluent in multiple languages, be that through bringing in investment opportunities or addressing the job market demand for multilingual speakers.

As a north-east MSP, I specifically note the importance of having an energy workforce comprised of bilingual and multilingual speakers in helping to realise the Scottish Government’s ambition of Scotland becoming a global energy hub. There are many other examples to which we could refer.

How do we encourage more school-age children and young people to learn modern languages and to continue to higher education learning? The Scottish Government’s one-plus-two approach aims to ensure that every child can learn one modern language. Additionally, each child is entitled to learn a second language from primary 5 onwards. The opportunities for early learning seem to be there; for me, the question is why uptake is so challenging and what can be done to reverse the trend of diminishing interest in languages beyond curriculum for excellence. As Kevin Stewart asked, how do we make learning languages more attractive?

I note the huge range of work across Scotland to promote languages, including the work of Scotland’s national centre for languages, which supports parental participation in learning, languages in the workplace, study and work abroad and a range of other activities. More broadly, there seems to be a need for a more co-ordinated approach involving Government, local authorities, education institutions, industry and business. In that regard, I would be interested to hear from the minister about what action the Scottish Government is taking to turn around what is a worrying trend.

I have enjoyed listening to the insightful contributions made in the chamber today on this subject, and I agree with colleagues that it is crucial to make every effort to secure the continuity of modern languages provision at the University of Aberdeen, but that significant challenges exist around that. As Kevin Stewart highlighted, teaching languages is an investment.

I will continue to lend my support to the University of Aberdeen, its teaching staff and its students to ensure that the north-east still has access to modern languages course provision in a way that is not detrimental the university, its staff or its students.

Again, I thank Kevin Stewart for securing the debate.

18:36  

I extend my gratitude to Kevin Stewart for securing the debate, and I thank members for their insights. In a broad sense, the debate is a timely one, coming ahead of languages week Scotland, which will take place from 29 January to 2 February and will celebrate how languages, spoken and signed, equip us as individuals and as a society to contribute to a sustainable world.

Members have highlighted a range of perfectly valid concerns about the proposals that the University of Aberdeen has put forward to change its languages provision. I have listened carefully to what has been said about the range of educational, societal and economic benefits of language education and the particular importance of language learning and teaching in the north-east, which has been highlighted.

We must be clear that all universities are autonomous institutions and, as such, they are responsible for their own course provision. It is for them to decide how to distribute their allocation of funded places between faculties and courses. That said, I have encouraged the university to consider its proposals carefully, and I have stressed my expectation that the university will adhere to fair work principles, to which Liam Kerr alluded.

Will the minister give way?

Just give me a moment.

That includes the need for meaningful consultation and constructive dialogue with staff affected by the proposals. My expectation is that compulsory redundancies should be considered only as a last resort, after all other cost-saving measures have been fully explored.

I will return to that point.

I am very pleased to hear the minister talk about fair work and say that there should be no compulsory redundancies unless there are no other options. I recognise the point about the autonomy of the university and the fact that the minister has no say or sway over the institution. However, he has some good offices and a listening lug, as we would say in the north-east, and I know that he has met many folk already. Will he agree to continue to do that and to try to find compromise and common ground that makes sense for all in the north-east?

As I said, I want to return to the point that I was making, if Kevin Stewart will indulge me.

No one, least of all the university itself, wants to be in a position in which they have to consider measures such as those that have been proposed. However, I do not think that any reasonable person could look at the cold, hard facts and fail to recognise that the University of Aberdeen has a problem here. Just five new students enrolled across five single honours courses for the 2023-24 academic year. That maintained a downward trend over a number of years. The number of students on modern languages courses at the institution has fallen from 62 to 46 to 27 since 2021.

The university has further outlined the financial challenges that it is seeking to address through the proposals, although I recognise that some of the underlying numbers that have been quoted are disputed by the staff. Although it is for the University of Aberdeen to develop its own mitigating strategies to minimise any negative impacts on short-term, medium-term and long-term financial sustainability, where individuals and institutions face particular pressures, the Scottish Funding Council always engages and, where possible, offers support.

I remind members that, despite an exceptionally difficult fiscal environment—we can go back and forth on the cause of that—in the latest budget, the Scottish Government has committed to supporting a high-quality post-school education, research and skills system with over £2.4 billion of investment. We will work in partnership with our universities to develop the offer. However, as Kevin Stewart said, ultimately, it is for individual institutions to determine where and how they deploy the resources that are at their disposal.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I want to make progress on this.

That said, this afternoon I met Rhiannon Ledwell, who is the Aberdeen University Students Association vice-president for education, and I was concerned to learn that the steering group that is leading on the matter contains no student representation. Further, I understand that staff representation from the impacted faculty is only marginally better. I will therefore ask the University of Aberdeen to reconsider that stance, because it is important that all views are heard and that maximum transparency is at play around decisions that are as impactful as the ones that we are talking about. I will also ask the university to reflect on whether all credible alternative options to the one that is now being pursued have been fully explored.

I reiterate that these are matters for the institution rather than for ministers. It may be that, however regrettable it is, the live proposal is the only viable one to address the financial issue that is at play, but it is important to demonstrate clearly why and how that might ultimately be the case, even if that takes a little bit more time.

One institution that works for ministers is the Scottish Funding Council, which disburses the money. Part of the issue that was laid out to me by staff at the University of Aberdeen is that language programmes are not deemed to be as resource intensive as some other courses. The minister might recommend a change in that regard. At least, he could investigate with the Scottish Funding Council whether language courses, given their intensive nature, could be treated in a way that is more akin to the approach for lab-based education rather than lecture-based education. Will the minister take an interest in that area?

With respect to Michael Marra, he can call for that, but he also has to recognise that, if it were to be pursued, the money would have to be found from somewhere else in the higher education budget. He is perfectly entitled to call for that, but he will surely recognise that it would have a price for the budget somewhere else and for other aspects of higher education.

As the motion recognises, we cannot ignore the damaging impact that Brexit and the UK Government’s hostile approach to immigration have had on Scotland’s ambitions for an inclusive and outward-looking society. International students bring diversity to our communities, enrich the learning experience of our institutions, and enhance our economy. Our message should be clear: you are welcome in Scotland.

Although we will continue to work with the UK Government to address the shortfalls of the Turing scheme, the Scottish Government remains committed to mitigating the loss of access to Erasmus+, including the on-going work to develop our Scottish education exchange programme, the pilot schemes for which are being launched as we speak. We have also engaged closely with key stakeholders, including our universities, to prepare an international education strategy, which I expect to launch in the next few weeks. It will promote Scotland’s education offer globally and attract a diversity of students to our institutions. However, it is, to say the least, deeply unfortunate that we are having to mitigate the folly of Brexit and a hostile immigration policy. However much the Conservatives want to deflect, both are having a massive impact on our HE sector.

The minister will be aware that, in the time that we have taken to get a pilot scheme set up in Scotland, Wales has undertaken several exchanges. Does the minister have an understanding or analysis of the lost time in creating that scheme and the impact that that is having on modern languages in Scotland?

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for that typically positive contribution. We are where we are, and we are developing our scheme. I say to the member that Wales is facing some challenges with the continuation of its scheme in its current form.

I reiterate that, if the Conservatives and Labour are minded to suggest increased funding to HE, which they are perfectly entitled to do, they have to set out where that funding should come from, either within the Scottish Government’s education budget or the wider budget. Ditto for Michael Marra, if he wants specific additional resource for language education.

I am clear that I expect the University of Aberdeen, in taking forward any proposals, to adhere to fair work principles, to ensure that consultation with staff and students is meaningful, and to make every effort to protect jobs, recognising, of course, that ultimately it may not be entirely possible to protect jobs in the way that people would like. I also expect the university to be open to exploring viable and constructive alternative proposals, if those exist and are preferred, albeit, of course, it should work to a timetable that reflects the need to conclude the process rather than have an open-ended one.

Meanwhile, in line with our reform agenda for the post-school education and skills system, the Government will continue to work with the University of Aberdeen and the wider university sector to ensure longer-term sustainability and deliver the best outcomes and impacts for learners, the economy and society.

That concludes the debate.

Meeting closed at 18:45.