International Development Inquiry
Item 2 is the fifth evidence session in our inquiry into international development. The first panel of witnesses represent the philanthropic foundations that engage in development work. I welcome Ewan Hunter, from the Hunter Foundation, and Mary Craig, the chief executive of the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland. Each of them will make a short opening statement.
Ewan Hunter (The Hunter Foundation):
Thank you for inviting us here. By way of clarification, I should say that I am not related to Tom Hunter. He is the one with no hair and lots of money; I am the one with the hair—just in case there is any confusion.
And you have no money.
I have a little bit, but not much compared to him.
I just lost a bet.
Did you? Send the money to Malawi.
I am not quite sure what you want by way of a statement. Our introduction to international development in Africa came in 2005, when we had the most expensive lunch that I have ever attended with Richard Curtis, the screenwriter. He convinced us that, given that 30,000 children were dying daily of preventable diseases, we should pony up £1 million to fund the make poverty history campaign, which we duly did. We took an active role in that. Then Bob Geldof phoned us and asked whether we would mind underwriting Live 8, which we duly did. Thankfully, the sponsors arrived so we did not pay a penny for that.
Tom Hunter and I then took a view on how to develop our international investments. For us, the keys were sustainability, scalability and partnership. We analysed which countries we would work in. We wanted to work in particularly tough circumstances, in an effort to prove that a holistic model of development could and should be deliverable. As a consequence, we teamed up with former President Clinton and formed the Clinton Hunter development initiative, which will invest $100 million in development over 10 years. We signed a partnership agreement with the Governments of Rwanda and Malawi to assess how their vision of what they wanted for their countries could be delivered. Our belief is that it is not for us but for African countries themselves to decide what they need. Our role is to help them to fulfil that vision.
As well as working in both those countries, we are helping 250,000 people in northern Uganda who have been catastrophically impacted by the actions of the Lord's Resistance Army. In northern Mozambique, we are funding about 350 health clinics.
Our philosophy is about how we develop a sustainable impact through investment in health, education and economic development. We think that investment in all three of those areas is necessary if we are to deliver sustainable economic empowerment in Africa. We have engaged experts in each of those fields to advise us and to help us to deliver on behalf of the Governments of both countries. Nobel peace prize winner Mohammad Yunus advises us on economic development, as does former President Clinton, among others. The Harvard professors Jim Kim and Paul Farmer of Partners in Health advise us on health. On education, we are helped by former First Minister Jack McConnell and Vartan Gregorian, who is the president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
We believe that it is possible to deliver sustainable investment in health and education, and we are on the cusp of delivering sustainable investment in economic development. This week, we will sign a deal to build a food oil plant in Rwanda, which will engage 25,000 rural farmers to grow for it.
As regards advice on the Government's investment in international affairs, our view is that it should, as Carnegie said, put all its eggs in one basket and watch the basket. The money should be invested heavily in one country and there should be a focus on one or two issues. The scale of the budget is such that if it were spread across a range of territories, it would have only a very light impact. Fundamentally, that is our view. I will shut up now.
Mary Craig (Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland):
Thank you for the invitation to attend.
Many United Kingdom foundations have been in a bit of dilemma about whether to fund work in developing countries. On the one hand, the potential benefits and the needs are unquestionably great and modest grants can have a major impact. On the other hand, funding internationally can involve moving into unfamiliar territory, which can require the development of new infrastructures. Larger foundations that spend a large proportion of their money overseas can justify the necessary investment in that, but it is not usually an option for foundations such as mine, which fund on a much smaller scale.
As the committee probably knows, relatively few foundations have programmes for international development. The number of foundations in Scotland that have such programmes is extremely small.
Grant seekers recognise the advantages that funding from foundations brings. Foundations are considered to be flexible and able to respond quickly to changing needs; they will often fund unpopular issues; and they are amenable to trying out new ideas and new projects. In addition, non-governmental organisations regard the independence of foundations as being helpful.
Foundations contribute internationally for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it is about the founder's desires. All foundations are conscious that their money goes a lot further. In other words, small amounts of money have the potential to make a difference to people's lives.
In 2001, the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland decided to pilot an overseas programme. We did so with the aid of the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland, which itself was only newly established. The pilot involved the members of NIDOS. There were 19 members at the time, and 13 were funded. We had a budget of £400,000. Our reason for getting involved was our desire to do something and to respond to need. We felt that we had the ability to make a difference.
Choosing what to fund in the large and complex international arena was an issue but, with advice from NIDOS, we concentrated our support on capacity building. We decided to route our support through Scottish charities that were working in partnership with NGOs overseas, so that the charities had some kind of hand in the work and were not simply raising money to send overseas.
We questioned our ability to make a difference and we questioned whether our budget could be better spent here in Scotland. However, after we interviewed the majority of the organisations that we funded in the pilot, we realised how important our contribution was. We recommended £1.2 million over three years to our trustees. They agreed it and have since renewed a second three-year programme. We are in the final year of that second programme now.
Since 2001, we have made 123 awards. Of those, 38 per cent have been multiyear awards—that is, they have been for more than one year. We have spent and committed £2.6 million or thereabouts. In the main, our applicants are small to medium-sized organisations—Scottish charities that are working to improve people's lives in terms of education and health. We fund some volunteering, and capacity building is, of course, the overall theme of the programme. Funding has been given in support of organisations in Africa, India, Bangladesh, eastern Europe and South America. We are currently reviewing our programme and will make recommendations to our trustees in June as to what we do with the programme next.
In evidence to the committee, Jack McConnell said:
"I know that some reservations have been expressed about the range of education, health, economic development and governance issues that are covered in the co-operation agreement. However, I think that it would be hard to exclude any of those four areas."—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 15 April 2008; c 569.]
Should the Scottish Government's international development policy have a specific thematic priority, or should it cover all of the four areas or more?
If we were talking about Scotland and not Malawi, and if we had a budget of £4 million to cover all the issues, would we spread our work across the whole of Scotland? I do not think that we would. I think that we would say, "Let's focus on one area and prove that we can make this work." After building a sustainable model, we could then spread the work across the whole country.
In the grand scheme of things, we have a modest budget. The Governments of Rwanda and Malawi asked us to work in one particular district to see whether we could build a model that was scalable against their health and education budgets, although not in economic development terms. So we said, "Right, we will try to build a health system and an education system that—forgetting the millennium development goals—you can afford on your current budgets." We took on the challenge and we think that we are close to delivering an answer. If they had said to us, "Go and do whatever you want in Rwanda and Malawi," where would the focus have been? What would we have delivered and how? How would we have measured that? Our view has been that it is better to focus on one district of a country and to apply the budget against the four themes, trying to deliver something in partnership with the Government. All that we do is to build the Government's infrastructure in both countries—we are not building our own health clinics, hospitals or schools. Our view is that you need a focus.
Ewan Hunter talked about a strategic approach, which is necessary, but we approach the matter from a different perspective—from the grass roots. Both approaches can be effective. We tend to respond to what the sector comes and asks us for. The millennium development goals cover the spectrum of issues that you mentioned.
As you know, we have been taking evidence from a range of stakeholders for some weeks. One would need the wisdom of Solomon to decide how best to spend the relatively small sum of money that Scotland has to invest.
At the weekend, I read the rich list in The Sunday Times—I was hoping that I could pick up some tips—
You were on it, Ted.
I was not on it. I keep looking to see whether I am.
I was interested to note that Nicky Oppenheimer of the De Beers diamond firm was quoted as saying that the problem with Africa is that it is suffering from "donation fatigue". That is a fairly critical statement. I think that the point that he was trying to make—obviously, his business is in Africa—is that so many people are trying to work out so many different ways of putting funding into Africa that we are missing the targets and not spending the money as effectively and efficiently as we should be. Given that the sum of money that we have available is very small, will you comment on that view?
I have an example of aid that is badly done. We did an analysis of a Government agency—I will not say which, but it is not a UK one. The agency said that it was putting in $100 million to tackle HIV/AIDS in a particular country, but instead of being spent on treatment, some $70 million of that money stayed in the country of origin and paid for NGOs, charities and headquarters infrastructure. The net result was that only a third of the aid was spent on treating those with HIV/AIDS. That is ridiculous and appalling.
Oppenheimer's view is interesting. One of the issues that we have with the myriad of charities that try to do such work—it is great work; we are not going to criticise it—is that they create a drain on Governments. The Malawian Government is resource poor, but it has to fend off all the charities that knock on its door day in, day out, saying that they are going to do this and that. That is not constructive.
One thing that the Scottish Government and the Parliament could do is to provide a funnel that focuses Scottish effort from the charitable sector and other sectors in a way that maximises the impact of the effort and minimises the impact on the Malawian Government, which is struggling with the burden of people who want to help. That is a great burden to have, but it debilitates the country's ability to get on with its business.
There are two sides to the argument. One approach is that we should bundle up the money, hand it over and leave it to the people in developing countries to decide how to spend it. They will know best how to spend it. We have also heard a lot of evidence about the other approach, which is that our work with Malawi is a partnership or a twinning between Scotland and that country and we are involved in the nuts and bolts of what happens to our aid. Will you comment on those two approaches?
If you ask President Mutharika or indeed President Kagame of Rwanda what they want, it will be clear that they do not want handouts. They want to deliver on their vision of what their country needs. We have a partnership with both Governments and we meet them occasionally, but they set the framework under which they would like us to work. That is helpful because we know what they want us to do.
I have seen at first hand the sort of partnership that the Scottish Government has. A myriad of Government officials pop out to Malawi regularly, which drains the Malawian Government's resources. The Malawian people are probably the nicest people in the world—along with the Rwandans, just in case President Kagame is listening—and it is difficult for them to say no. We have too many people bouncing in and out of Malawi. Every single penny of our funding stays in Malawi; not one penny is spent in Scotland. I do not want to preach, but there is a lesson in that. The money that we are putting into Malawi should stay there and should not be funding people here. If you want to help to build and sustain Malawi, the money should stay there.
There are three strategic issues, two of which you have talked about. One is about the focus on two countries—and certain districts within those countries. The second is about the focus on health, education and economic development. The third issue, which is perhaps more an issue for Government than for private sector organisations, is how to strike a balance between development and relief. I am referring both to what you do and to what you think that we should do. Although we think that the budget from the Scottish Government is small, it is not insignificant for Malawi, whose GDP is less than the current budget of Scottish Enterprise. If we rolled up the Scottish Government budget over 10 years, it would be roughly double that of the Clinton Hunter development initiative. In that context, it is a significant amount of money, although it is perhaps not so significant in comparison with the UK or US contribution. What do your two organisations do in relation to development and relief? What do you think that the Scottish Government should do to strike the right balance between the two?
I will give you an example that best demonstrates our view on the balance between relief and development. The other key to our investment in both countries is partnership with the Department for International Development. We speak to DFID about what it is investing in and how we could work in partnership with it. We have partnership agreements with DFID, whose model we follow to a degree.
Last year, we planted 5 million cassava cuttings in order to provide a stable food supply for the district in Rwanda in which we are working. Had that cassava not grown, we would have gone back in with humanitarian aid. We are not going to start helping people to help themselves but leave them to it when the crop fails because of bad weather. You need to adopt a tactical strategy. President Mutharika put it really well. Tom Hunter said to him, "Let's give the man a fishing rod and teach him how to fish and he will be on the road to sustainability." Mutharika added that we must also feed the man while he is learning to fish, which is a good point. We need to take a tactical approach to getting people on the road to sustainability. If the weather fails—sometimes in Africa it simply does not rain—we plough in with humanitarian aid.
If your budget is small, ours is minuscule. However, we still think that it makes a difference. On the focus of funding in Malawi, it has come to our notice that organisations that would normally have worked in other places in the world are finding things to do in Malawi, because there is money there. That is skewing the picture slightly.
One of the points that you both made, which Jack McConnell also made, was about trying to relieve the pressure on the Government of Malawi, which is not well resourced—no doubt that applies to Rwanda, too—and doing our bit by trying to better co-ordinate the work that everybody from Scotland, or representing Scotland, is doing. Jack McConnell rightly suggested starting with a database of everybody who is involved. How would that best be done? Would it be done through the embassy in Lilongwe? I would not have thought that it would require a huge resource; there could be just one person in Lilongwe acting as a contact point for everybody from Scotland, no matter what sector they were in.
I guess that the future high commissioner might have a better answer to that question. What you suggest would be a straightforward co-ordination role, which would be a simple task that would require only one person. It is a question of how you maximise the bang for your buck in all the different things that are going on. We have to consider whether there is a better way to focus that effort to make more impact. You made the point about your budget being small. Our budget is tiny in the grand scheme of things. The question, then, is how we corral all the willing participants into a more effective support model for Malawi. The fact is that Scotland has the opportunity to lead the world in finding far more efficient ways of delivering charitable support to a particular country.
I am not sure that I can add very much to that, because we do not work at that sort of strategic level. As I said, the foundation's ethos is very much about working at grass-roots level in Scotland. Our reports and reviews of the various Scottish organisations that work overseas highlight very good examples of how the very small amount of money that we provide has been used to help people. In fact, last week, we took some soundings from Scottish organisations that work overseas and from NIDOS about whether we should still be involved in this activity and, indeed, whether our involvement actually makes a difference. The overwhelming response was that, although we provide only £400,000, that money still makes a difference.
In this inquiry, we have heard a lot about the importance of international development education. Indeed, Ewan Hunter mentioned underwriting events as part of the make poverty history campaign. What are you doing to develop international development education in the UK?
We usually provide support to some Scottish organisations in raising awareness in schools or to organisations that send volunteers overseas. Of course, the benefits of such support might be felt not necessarily by the organisation itself but by those who go overseas. Those people come back changed. Indeed, last year, I was fortunate enough to have an overseas visit, and I know the difference that it made to me.
We invest all our money directly in the country, so we do not really support anything over here. During the make poverty history campaign, we raised some money to build schools in the Dedza district, and we are now rolling that school building programme over into the Neno district.
The evidence that we have received suggests that, with a very small amount of money, the previous Executive was still able to reach out to the Scottish public on these matters. Have you had the same effect? Have people been rallying to the flag, offering financial or other assistance or promoting various schemes?
The foundation does not tend to take money from the public, although in 2005 the Executive put £1 million into our pot for distribution. However, the number of organisations seeking funding from us is growing year on year. Raising awareness has sparked people's interest in coming to us for support.
As I said, we have raised some money for education. We also partnered STV in its appeal for money to build the new Ethel Mutharika maternity hospital in Lilongwe. I have to say that the current situation is abhorrent; there are only two doctors to deal with 12,000 births. As part of the appeal, we matched every pound that the public gave, and one or two other people have co-invested with us to ensure that, right now, the new hospital is being built in Lilongwe.
The Scottish people are enormously generous, and are even more generous if a specific opportunity presents itself. Like the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland, we do not take money from external sources. However, we ring fence funding for particular projects. We have been inundated by people wanting to help, both financially and in practical ways.
Have such offers come from outwith Scotland?
People south of the border have certainly helped—although I am not sure that that is what you were asking. Sir Peter Burt might not like me saying this but, for example, HBOS is helping a bank in Malawi not by providing it with cash but by giving it advice on its infrastructure and ways of delivering a better, more efficient banking system. Countless other companies are also trying to help. We need to decide how we can corral that help in the most efficient way for Malawi, or any other country, for that matter.
Ewan Hunter answered my earlier question, but I do not think that Mary Craig did. One of the questions about the new moneys that the Scottish Government is putting into the pot is whether we should spend it in Malawi or consider reaching out to an adjacent country in the hope of replicating what we have achieved in Malawi. Could our efforts be repeated elsewhere in a way that would give us a big benefit for a small investment?
Ultimately, it depends on what you want to do. I am sure that you are getting a lot of conflicting evidence and I take my hat off to you for even attempting to deal with the issue.
Around 40 per cent of the world's population lives on less than $2 a day, which tells you that there is a lot of need everywhere. We feel that concentrating money on one place reduces the opportunities for other organisations to get support from the Government to work overseas.
The international reconstructive plastic surgery (Ghana) project was funded by ourselves and the Scottish Government. We provided it with a small amount of money—just £30,000—to bring a surgeon over here for some training. The guy was trained in the Canniesburn plastic surgery unit in Glasgow royal infirmary. The funding enabled the man to stay in Scotland for two years, learning a lot about new microplastic surgery techniques. The money that we gave paid for his salary and the money that the Scottish Government gave helped to build a centre in Accra. The doctor was supported to go through his training and pass his fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons exams. He has now gone back to his country and we are told that he is the best-qualified plastic surgeon in west Africa. That is an incredible achievement for such a small amount of money.
A further achievement was that our investment enabled money to be levered out of the Government of Ghana, which set up a separate building to house a plastic surgery teaching centre that specialises in burns and the effects of certain terrible tropical diseases. I do not think that that would have happened if there had been no input from ourselves and the Scottish Government.
If you want to look at economic evidence around the question of what you should or should not do, I should point you in the direction of Professor Paul Collier, who wrote "The Bottom Billion". He has been studying development in Africa for 30 or 40 years—I should declare an interest, in that he acts as an adviser to us. He would tell you that the evidence shows that, if you are going to invest in another country, you should invest in a country that is proximate to the country that you are already investing in, as that helps to build a corridor of development and will give you the biggest bang for your buck, from an economic development point of view. One would imagine that, given that investment is being made in Malawi, the next country to receive investment would be Mozambique.
I am not as well versed in the Malawian situation as some of my colleagues, but it strikes me that the burden that falls on the Malawian Government in dealing with all those different actors is like the problem that was faced by the eastern European accession states, which did not have the infrastructure to deal with regional development funding when they came into the EU. Given that the number of actors involved puts a burden on the Malawian Government, and given that lack of efficiency on this side results in agencies not always being able to transfer all the money to Malawi, is there a role—in addition to the point that Alex Neil made about the need for one person over there to co-ordinate matters—for our Government to do what Governments do by helping with the governance of the situation by acting as a sort of honest broker? Could our Government provide some kind of affirmation, such as a kitemark, that money has been spent in the best way possible and according to the priorities of the indigenous Government? If that was possible, would the different agencies and foundations go along with that?
It is incumbent on anyone who is trying to make a difference in Africa to adhere to the appropriate policies of the Government of the country being helped. Absolutely, I think that it would be a step forward if the Government here tried to manage the process in the most efficient way.
The Malawian Government would benefit from having people who were out in Malawi for the long term rather than—one of the many mistakes that we have also suffered from—just short-term volunteers. Frankly, short-term volunteers are a pain in the neck. They take up too much resource for a very short-term impact. That should be understood within reason, as certain caveats apply to that broad statement. However, having long-term volunteers who can help out would be a step forward; the benefits of short-term volunteering are questionable.
That would certainly be quite a task. Trusts and foundations that send funding overseas are mainly based in the UK. It must be said that trusts and foundations do not have a record of working in partnership, so I do not know how successful that proposal would be.
In practical terms, do you use non-governmental organisations, such as the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund and Oxfam, that have worked in the field for some time, or do you have sufficient infrastructure within your own organisations—for example, the Hunter Foundation's partnership with the Malawian Government—to bypass those and work directly with the people?
Secondly, Ewan Hunter mentioned that the Hunter Foundation works with DFID. We have previously discussed the DFID project that supports doctors' salaries in Malawi, but witnesses have had different viewpoints on that. Are such projects a good way forward? To go back to the analogy of training the fisherman to use a fishing rod, are such projects sustainable? I am interested in hearing about the experiences of both witnesses. I am concerned about what will happen if the funding for that project comes to an end at some point.
In both Rwanda and Malawi we have one ex-pat who acts as our country director, but the bulk of our staff are all either Rwandan or Malawian or from elsewhere in the continent. Basically, we build hospitals that we hand over to the Government. Similarly with education, we are talking to both Governments about initial teacher training to tackle the shortage of 20,000-plus teachers. Essentially, our philosophy is build, operate and transfer. We will build education and health infrastructure that we hand over to the Government and then go on to the next thing that the Government would like us to do.
In building the new maternity hospital we also face the issue of the lack of doctors and nurses. We could put an advert in the Malawian newspaper—I cannot remember what it is called—and rob nurses from another hospital. The fact is that Malawi and Rwanda do not have enough doctors and nurses. We need to intervene in a manner that is as sustainable as possible but, ultimately, we will not watch children die just because we are slightly on the cusp of being able to sustain a doctor's salary.
One of the big things that the Scottish Government could do is facilitate a programme where young doctors and nurses can go out there and work for two-year stints. We have tried to push the idea on a UK level because we think that most of the nurses trained in Malawi end up working either here or in Australia and Germany, which are the worst offenders. There are UK policy issues about recruiting people to run our health service but debilitating someone else's in doing so.
We work with small organisations that have small amounts of money and we prefer to deal directly with the projects. Our caveat is that they have to be Scotland-based organisations because that is where the accountability for the money is. As our history shows, Scots are inventive and get all over the world. For instance, we fund the Vine Trust, with which some members might be familiar. It is an excellent model of sustainability given the relatively small amounts of money needed to start a project.
The Vine Trust works with Scripture Union Peru. It does a lot of work with street boys and has built a number of residential accommodations. Every time that the trust opens one of those houses, it tries to set up a microbusiness around it—a social enterprise—that makes money. In Lima, they run a bakery whose profits are ploughed into the local centre. Not only does it provide sustainability for the centre, it provides job opportunities for some of the young boys.
If representatives of the Vine Trust were here, they would tell you that as a result of money coming from Scotland and of people going there—the trust encourages work parties to go and everybody pays their own expenses—the projects are catching the eye of local government. The trust has started to interact with local government and say to it, "We are providing a lot of stuff from Scotland, what are you guys doing?" The trust is also getting more involved with businesses. For example, more businesses are coming on stream to provide some training initiatives for the young boys coming through the system.
Members might be familiar with another of the trust's projects—it runs two ships called Amazon Hope that travel up and down the Amazon and go into the jungle communities to provide medical care. Trying to build a business around that project to make it sustainable is difficult, but the trust has managed to get some of the businesses in the area to contribute. Medicine as well as fuel is donated. The trust encourages work parties to come from Scotland and the United States. The project manages itself with that infrastructure and support.
Ewan Hunter mentioned in his introduction putting together an initiative to assist farmers. Will you give us more detail about that? Alternatively, I would be grateful for any information that you could send the committee.
I can certainly do that. We run that initiative in a variety of places. It is about enabling and supporting co-operatives in those countries. We do not give them anything; we are lending them seed and so on and they pay us back when the season is finished. The initiative has worked. I am happy to send you information about it.
In development terms, we are looking at import substitution and export enablement. In a couple of months we will launch our own coffee from Rwanda. Rwandan farmers will own the business—we will not have a stake in it at all. We will cut out something like 15 different margin takers in the process so that Rwandan farmers can sell their coffee directly to a supermarket near you. Those are the sorts of things that we are doing to enable people to help themselves out of poverty.
We do not work with farmers per se, but we have funded one or two projects; for instance, a project to train some of the women who live in conflict areas and whose husbands have been killed in the conflicts to work the land and make a living for their families. Another project that we fund is about milking goats, and that has helped some of those people to feed their families by selling on the products and making other things out of the milk.
Thank you both very much; this session has been extremely useful in giving us the benefit of your experience.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
For our second panel of witnesses, we are privileged and pleased to have two Malawian teachers from Thyolo secondary school, Allan Gawani and Sydreck Nachuma, who are visiting Penicuik high school. Thank you for coming along. I ask either or both of you to give a brief opening statement, if you would like, after which we will ask questions.
Sydreck Nachuma (Thyolo Secondary School, Malawi):
Thank you very much. There is a partnership between Thyolo secondary school of Malawi and Penicuik high school of Scotland. I believe that that is in line with the Scotland-Malawi partnership agreement that was signed in 2005. The partnership between the schools was facilitated by Mrs Hazel Manda, who is the education division manageress for the Shire Highlands region in Malawi. The partnership exists to extend friendship throughout the two school communities and beyond into the wider communities in Scotland and Malawi.
Among others, the partnership has the following aims: to promote cultural exchange through sharing cultural activities in the creative arts and other areas; to share curricular activities with a global dimension, such as those involved in the healthy schools programme and the John Muir Trust award in geography, with regular exchange on current progress to enrich students' knowledge in both countries; to share knowledge of life skills and HIV/AIDS through considering cultural activities in both countries; and to learn together by sharing knowledge through teacher-teacher and pupil-pupil interactions via e-mails and pen-pal letters. We also aim to initiate sustainable enterprise ventures—for example, making and selling Malawian items and holding dances and activities that say much of Malawian and Scottish societies—and to enhance sporting activities by sharing local games in each others' schools.
We intend to develop the partnership sustainably through reciprocal visits of staff and students, regular e-mail contacts and pen-pal letters and setting up student businesses in each school. The partnership recognises the importance of affirming the value of Malawian and Scottish people's skills and qualities; affirming that the people of Malawi and Scotland are their countries' best resource; helping our young people find their voice as citizens of Malawi and Scotland; and offering a long-term commitment. The partnership will be reviewed and evaluated annually by a steering team in each school and findings will be shared with both communities. We will assess what we have done and what impact it has had in the schools and decide what the next steps will be.
Do you want to say something, Allan?
Allan Gawani (Thyolo Secondary School, Malawi):
Not much—just that I am honoured to be here. When we were asked to be witnesses, we did not know what we were to be witnesses on, but we are here and maybe you will lead us through.
We will start with questions on school partnerships. A few people have told us about the school partnerships that have built up—we are considering that aspect of our international development strategy. What are the advantages of the partnerships and are there any problems? Can some partnerships be done badly? What makes a good partnership and what are some of the problems that might arise?
One problem is that we are trying to be equal partners, but one cannot run away from the inequalities that exist. For example, our school did not have any internet connections, so when our partner school was trying to communicate with us through e-mail or the internet, that was difficult. The partner school in Scotland did something to bring us up to the level whereby we have an internet connection, so that it was easier for us to participate in the partnership. That is the sort of problem that the partnership can face. We try to think about mutuality, but that is the sort of problem that I have seen.
I would like to ask about two things. First, how long have you been in Penicuik? Have your experiences been productive? What have you done since you have been here? What will happen when you go back to Malawi?
Secondly, you heard the evidence that was given this morning, from which it is clear that education is a high priority for Malawi. From your experience and perspective, how can Scotland best help to develop Malawi's education system?
We have been here for two weeks. We will remain here for a week and go on Tuesday next week, I think.
In the past two weeks, we have learned a lot that has been productive for our teaching profession and for me as an individual. The first thing that occurred to me at the school that we are visiting was the very good pupil to teacher ratio. There were perhaps 20 to 25 students in most of the classes that we observed. The situation in our school is very different; there, a person is lucky if they have 60 students. There are 70 to 75 students in most classes—classes are very big—which makes it difficult for us to teach effectively and give fast feedback to students. I learned a lot about pupil to teacher ratios.
I have also learned a lot about how teachers use information and communication technology in classes, how students participate in the use of that technology and about age ranges in classes. Most of the first years are around 14, but in our setting, students in form 1 can be aged from 14 to 20. If somebody starts standard 1 in the primary sector when he or she is six years old and does not pass the class, they have to repeat it; they can repeat the class for two or three years. If a person repeats a number of classes up to standard 8, they may be 15, 16 or 17 in form 1. I have seen the impact on students' discipline of having pupils of the same age in the same class. One reason for their discipline is that the age of the students is the same in each class, so it is easy for teachers to handle problems psychologically. Age differences result in problems. Our students are not as disciplined because of the age ranges in our classes. A 14-year-old can be dealt with in a way that is different from the way in which an 18-year-old can be dealt with. There is always teasing and bullying in our classes because of the age differences. I have seen many indiscipline cases involving our children because of the age range in our classes.
There are some things that we did not know and could not even imagine. We have never been out of Africa before—this is our first time. We have been surprised by many things in the curriculum here. I have been interested in learning support. If a student likes only one or two things, or if she or he is a slow learner, they are taken on by a learning support team. Yesterday, for example, we observed a lesson involving a teacher with only one student, who was failing to spell words. The teacher had a whole hour with that one student. To me, that was a surprise. For us, when somebody does not know how to read, there is nothing that we can do about it. In classes of 17 and 18-year-olds, there is no time to deal with that. We do not provide the sort of individual care that we saw in Penicuik. We have learned a lot.
We have indeed learned a lot during our two weeks at Penicuik high school. There has been interaction between subject teachers. I am a geography teacher and I was able to interact with several other geography teachers. We have shared our curricula and have discussed the geography topics that are offered in Malawi and here in Scotland—most of the topics are quite similar—and we have shared our experiences.
I had the chance to attend a workshop on conflict resolution at the Braid Hills hotel, where a project was being launched. We thought that, as a partner school, we could take that up as a joint project: whatever happens in Penicuik will also happen at Thyolo secondary school, which will be very good.
The other question was about what can be done in Malawi. We need more teaching and learning resources, both material and human. We have a problem with teachers. My colleague talked about a teacher pupil ratio of 1:70 or 1:80. That problem exists simply because of a lack of teachers. On infrastructure, the classes are overcrowded because we do not have enough classrooms in the school. If that could be addressed, it would be very helpful.
I would recommend visits such as the one that we have undertaken, as they provide support. When teachers and students travel, they interact and learn, as we have done.
I want to question you on the second point that Mr Nachuma was discussing, about how we in Scotland can help you with your teacher shortages and to reduce the number of pupils in each school class. I was in Malawi and I saw the huge number of pupils who were handled in each class. You mentioned the shortage of classrooms. When the rain came on, pupils simply had to go home, as they were taught outdoors for a large part of the time.
I want to get some idea of how we in Scotland could direct aid. Should young people from Scotland go out to assist with teaching? Should we concentrate teacher training funding in particular areas? Perhaps you have some ideas about what we in Scotland could do to improve the ratios and to improve the education of Malawian children.
I would recommend support for the training of more Malawian teachers. If possible, teachers could also come from Scotland to Malawi. However, the problem would still be there, as teachers might stay for only a year or two before going back. If more support could be given to teacher training in Malawi, that would improve the situation.
During our visit in Penicuik we have seen that the community around Penicuik is trying to be supportive of education in Malawi following the establishment of our partnership in 2006. A representative from Penicuik came to Malawi and saw the problems there. When she came back, she sensitised the school and then the community to those problems. As a result, a lot of clothes were sent to Malawi last year. The community is ready to help in one way or another, but the problem is transportation of the gifts to Malawi. The people in Penicuik asked us, "If we give you books, how will you carry them?"
Somebody wanted to give us a wind turbine because we have a problem with water pressure. We have a water tank, but it is not just for the school—it is for the whole community. The tank is very small and water never stays in it; so, the water pressure in the school's supply is low. The flush toilets are never used, so we dug some pit toilets. When the representative from Penicuik came, she saw that and asked what the problem was. We told her about the low pressure of the water supply and one individual in Penicuik wanted to give us a wind turbine so that we could have a borehole with a pump. Fortunately, somebody in Malawi has also offered to give us a 10,000-litre tank, which will be good. So, we will have the pump, the borehole and the power from the wind turbine.
The problem is that I do not know how we can carry the wind turbine to Malawi. It can perhaps be carried in a container, but that kind of transportation constitutes a hiccup. If the Government could provide free transportation from Scotland for gifts that will go directly to schools, that would be better.
It is useful for us to hear from you. You can have some influence. However, to what extent do you feel that the people of Malawi have any influence on the development of our policies towards Malawi? How could you have more influence? People realise that that would be the best way forward—you may have heard the previous witnesses say that.
People in Malawi—for example, in Thyolo district—know about what is happening in Scotland. I do not really know how to answer that question. I will pass it on to my friend.
Sorry—could you repeat the question, please?
We think that it would be a good idea if the people of Malawi had more influence on the development of our policy towards Malawi. Do you feel that you have any influence? If you do not, how could you influence our policy? It is useful that you have been able to come here to talk to us today. However, we want to be able to make recommendations on how the people of Malawi could be more involved in decisions, such as how the money is to be spent.
The people of Malawi can have an influence on the development of policy in several ways—for example, through our coming here to Scotland and through the partnership between Penicuik high school and Thyolo secondary school. The Scottish students of Penicuik high school have benefited in a lot of ways. For example, they are aware of Malawi as a country and of the life of its citizens. Through the partnership, the citizens of Scotland have learned how people out there live. When policies are formulated here, that could be taken on board. People could say, "This is happening out there, so if we do A, B and C, this will mean something else." There could be an influence, because people here know how life is out there and what our needs are.
So the more links, the better. Would you therefore say that the more schools have links with Malawi, the better?
Yes. I recommend more school partnerships, which would make Malawi known even more.
My area has a link with St Peter's school in Mzuzu, so I support what you say about the importance of school partnerships.
When Malawian children come to Scotland, I am struck by their good command of languages. Can we learn something about language teaching from you? When very young people from Malawi come here, they speak English fluently. Are languages taught at an early age in Malawi? Is instruction in Chichewa or English? How do you manage the development of young people's language skills?
English is a second language. The Government's policy these days is to start teaching in English from standard 4 in primary school for four years. That policy changed just a few years ago—at first, English teaching started from standard 1. In secondary school, the main language that is used throughout is English. The local language is used only when Chichewa language is taught as a subject. Some private primary schools are really good—they start teaching in English from standard 1, whereas most Government schools teach in English from standard 4 to standard 8, after which children go to secondary school.
Perhaps we have something to learn from that.
Do most children in Malawi have to travel long distances to school? I know that children at St Peter's often have to do that.
You spoke about the age range in classes. What is the gender balance? Are girls encouraged into the education system more nowadays?
Most Government schools are boarding schools, so students stay at school for three months for the first term, then have a holiday of two weeks, after which they return. Travelling a long distance is not a problem with boarding schools. However, community day secondary schools, which are also Government schools, are attended by students from very far away.
That is why the Government has been thinking of making all schools boarding schools, which would make attendance easy for students, particularly girls, who have problems walking very long distances. Schools knock off at about 4 o'clock in the evening and reaching home can take two hours—if not two and a half hours—of walking, which is difficult for a girl. We have seen that here, the sun can go down around 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock and it is still light, but that is not the case in our area: at around 5 o'clock it is already dark, therefore the Government is thinking of making all day secondary schools boarding schools, although that is tough.
On encouraging girls to go to school, there was some cultural bias—I do not know where it started—whereby boys were encouraged to go to school, but not girls. Most parents are not educated, so they say that they do not have to waste money on a girl because she will get married. They put all the effort into the boy, because when he marries he will be the breadwinner, so he has to find a job.
With that kind of attitude, we mostly have a bigger number of boys than girls in schools, but we have started encouraging girls, even if they have children at home. We are going into the villages and sensitising them to the idea that, if they are not married, they can leave their children and come up to school. As teachers and stakeholders, we have some bursaries to enable women who cannot pay school fees to come back to school—we fund their education. It looks as if, even though they may have children at home, most girls are coming back to school.
What are the teachers at Penicuik high school saying about the attitude of the Scottish children in their engagement with the children from Malawi?
From what we have seen and from our contacts with the teachers, there is not much difference in the way the students engage among themselves and with the teachers. There is a good relationship anyway: the students and teachers are able to interact and the students are able to assist other students, which also happens in Malawi.
There are differences in a few areas, some of which my colleague has highlighted. Here, there is much support for students with learning difficulties. Perhaps because of the large groups of students that we have in class, we are slightly behind in that area. We do not have enough time to provide individual help to all the 80 students in one class within a period of 40 minutes, but there is a good relationship.
Are the Scottish children benefiting from being directly in touch with children in Malawi through penpalling and the internet?
Yes, that is what we feel. The Scottish students get to know the Malawian culture and are able to relate whether there are any differences or similarities. They know how Malawian youths live and the Malawian youths are able to find out how their Scottish partners live, which brings a bit of an understanding of the two groups' cultures.
You raised a question about connecting with Penicuik on the internet. I take it that you can put the equipment to broader use in Malawi, rather than just engaging with Scotland.
Yes, that is true. The community also benefits from it.
Thank you very much.
Obviously, you have given the committee quite a lot of information on your school. You also spoke about boarding schools. Is your school a boarding school? What is the age range of your pupils?
Our school has an age range of, I think, 14 to 21. Secondary school lasts for four years. Students within that age range can be found in any class—a 21 year-old can be found in form 1, for example.
And is your school mainly a boarding school?
It is.
How many students are in the school?
This year, we have 571 students, and around 193 are girls.
How many teachers are there?
As of now, we have 31 teachers in the various departments. One department has more teachers than the others, which is a problem. I am a geography teacher; I cannot teach mathematics.
Earlier, we spoke about encouraging girls. We can encourage more girls to attend school, but our problem is how to accommodate them. We have two hostels for girls and three for boys. The lack of accommodation for girls is a limiting factor. We need to do something to balance the accommodation.
That sounds good.
As we have no further questions, I thank our witnesses for coming to the Scottish Parliament today. I hope that you enjoy the rest of your stay in Penicuik.
Thank you.
It was a pleasure.