International Development Inquiry
We kick off today's international development work by considering Alasdair Morgan's report, after which we will hear from two panels of witnesses. Does Alasdair Morgan want to comment on his helpful and detailed report?
I did not draw broad conclusions—it is difficult to draw broad conclusions about Government policy from a visit that, by its nature, enabled me only to consider specific issues.
A person who visits Malawi for the first time can easily be overwhelmed by the scale of the challenges that are presented by population growth and problems to do with the economy, health issues such as AIDS, malaria and cholera, transport infrastructure, education and so on. However, one cannot but come away with the impression that the country has much potential. The people are unfailingly cheerful, despite the circumstances in which they live.
An impression that I got from the projects that I visited was that small amounts of money can make a difference, which is relevant to the Scottish Government's contribution. It is not necessary to be a big donor and it is not necessary for small donors to spend all their money on one project. Little projects can make big differences to people's lives. We met people who are very grateful for small amounts of money being allocated to assist them in overcoming their problems. The local economy can also be stimulated through purchase of local products and use of local labour.
The other issue that we considered was governance, which is a subject on which we feel we can give our expertise, if people want it. At the moment, there are problems in Malawi with its Parliament having been prorogued after the budget. I presume that it is not going to be brought back until it is time to pass the next budget. There is obvious tension between the president and the members of Parliament, and the situation raises interesting questions about to whom we should try to pass on our expertise. There is a huge turnover of MPs in Malawi—at least a third of them, if not more, lost their seats at the last election, and it is quite likely that that will happen again. If we want to strengthen the institutions in Malawi, we might concentrate a bit more on the clerical infrastructure that backs up MPs. Nevertheless, as MSPs, we would obviously like to talk to other elected members, so that is a difficulty.
If we wanted to be controversial, we might raise the question of how much of the democratic structure is a luxury in a country at Malawi's stage of development. That would begin to tread on toes, because we might have to say whether the president or the Opposition is right, and I would not like us to go down that route. However, that is the kind of discussion that has been prompted by visits to Malawi.
That is helpful. Thank you. Do members have any questions?
I declare an interest through my involvement in a group that meets regularly to discuss adoption. On page 3 of your report, under "Open Arms", you mention an orphanage. Is it involved in assisting children who have AIDS or whose parents have AIDS, or was it set up to find adoptive parents for the children? If so, are we in Scotland engaged with it in any way? You might not know the answers to any of those questions.
Karen Gillon has been much more involved with that orphanage than I have. It was set up to deal specifically with very young children who have been orphaned as a result of HIV/AIDS, and its main focus is on placing the children back with their extended family or with other people in the village from which they came. As time has passed, however, it has found that there are youngsters for whom it is unable to do that, so it has gradually expanded the age range of the children it accepts. It now looks after slightly older children in different facilities, but always with the continuing hope that it can somehow get those children back into their communities. I do not think that the orphanage seeks adoptions abroad to any significant extent.
I thank Alasdair Morgan for an informative and interesting report. On page 9 of the report, you talk about the barriers that women still face in Malawian society. Did you find any cause for optimism among the young people? The consulate of Malawi is based in my constituency, and when we receive visitors from Malawi there is a difference in the perceived role of women in any delegation, even among school children. Is there cause for optimism that that will change in the future?
I should state that I owe a debt of gratitude to Margaret Neal, the external liaison officer who was instrumental in drawing together much of the report.
One could not but be impressed by the energy of many of the women we met, whether they were politicians or women who were active in self-help projects in the villages. It was interesting to see that, for certain formal aspects of proceedings, it is the men—who did not otherwise seem to do much—who come to the forefront to get in the photographs or whatever. I suspect that women are much more active behind the scenes than their position in society would lead one to think.
Obviously, there is hope for the future, but the society is still very patriarchal and men retain their position at the top of the tree, even though some of the other things that they are doing might not justify their having that position.
That seems a good point at which to close this agenda item. However, we will pick up some similar points in the next two sessions.
We will suspend for a few minutes before calling our next set of witnesses.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Agenda item 5 is also on our international development inquiry. I thank Karen Gillon, Patricia Ferguson and Des McNulty for coming to the meeting. We have had a round-table discussion on international development, but this is the first panel to give evidence in our inquiry. Another panel will give evidence later this morning.
This is a particularly good time to start taking evidence from panels. We had a debate on Malawi in the Parliament two weeks ago, and we are in the middle of Fairtrade fortnight. We will certainly do a lot of work on international development in the next few weeks.
Karen Gillon is representing the Scottish branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the cross-party group on Malawi; Patricia Ferguson and Des McNulty are representing the cross-party group on international development.
We will consider two things: international development issues in general and the role of the groups that the members represent. I will start with a question on the latter. What international development role exists for the Scottish Parliament, parliamentarians and the groups that you represent?
Good morning, convener. I thank the committee for asking us to this meeting. It is always a pleasure to discuss international development issues.
It is worth bearing it in mind that the cross-party group on international development, which was largely an initiative of George Reid and Des McNulty, was formed very early—back in June 1999. Since then, it has grown to become probably the biggest cross-party group in the Parliament. The existence of such a large, interesting, interested and vocal group probably influenced the then Scottish Executive's decision that it wanted to be involved in international development issues. I suppose that the group gave us the confidence of knowing that we would have parliamentary backing in progressing such issues.
The group has been and will continue to be influential. It has given members opportunities on a monthly basis to hear about and discuss—with people from around the world who have something to offer—issues that are directly related to international development and issues with other connotations. That has helped us all to form views and progress issues.
The Scottish Parliament has a strong role to play in respect of international issues in general. The work that has been done to date has been interesting and worth while, and perhaps it has allowed other countries to consider the example that the Parliament has set and how they interact with other countries. I hope that the Parliament will continue to have a role. It should take every opportunity to be involved in such work. Individual parliamentarians who have been involved in such work have found it worth while and interesting.
Des McNulty has been involved with the group for a long time. Do you want to add to what has been said, Des?
Yes. It is worth pointing out to those who have been involved with cross-party groups, the meetings of which tend to have sporadic attendances, that over the past four or five years, the average attendance at meetings of the cross-party group on international development has been in excess of 50 people. A large number of people regularly attend its meetings.
The group's meetings are quite topic centred, so different people tend to go to them—a person's attendance will depend on whether the topic fits in with their interests. In setting up the group, one of our aims was to provide people—particularly international figures who might not otherwise come to Scotland or get a platform in Scotland—with a useful forum in which they could speak about what they do in the international development environment. The group has been effective. The list of speakers at its meetings includes people from the United Nations and senior people from the Commonwealth. We have had a range of high-profile international speakers as well as speakers from the UK.
A lot of practitioners have come along to give us direct information about what is going on in a number of parts of the world. The group has been a forum for discussing what the role of the Scottish Parliament should be in international development. Patricia Ferguson is right to say that the group was fairly influential, directly and indirectly, in the Scottish Executive's decision to move towards providing a fund and having an international development strategy. We had a forum for members of the group to express their consistent view that the Parliament should be considering such a strategy.
International speakers have addressed the group. We brought Hilary Benn to speak to the group in about 2003. I think that he was the first external person to speak in the new chamber. He indicated at that meeting that he was relaxed about the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament playing a role in international development. He made the point that there is so much to do in the world of international development that there is room for everybody to contribute. That was the trigger, which gave everyone comfort that we could and should engage usefully in international development.
People in the cross-party group on international development were involved in the move towards work on Malawi in particular. However, I remember saying to Karen Gillon and Michael Matheson at the start that we wanted to have a group to focus on Malawi separately, rather than as part of the international development group.
Our activity has been coherent. To some extent, we have been opportunistic. We are there to make the most of the opportunities that arise to get voices heard in Scotland. It is fair to say that we have strong support from the various development groups in Scotland. The group has covered a wide range of topics, from environmental issues to development education, issues of debt and poverty, which were perhaps central at the start, education and other specialist topics. We have discussed a wide range of topics and have heard from a wide range of speakers.
The cross-party group on Malawi's role is specifically to look at the Parliament's and the country's relationship with Malawi and to provide a parliamentary focus for that. The group developed after various Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visits to Malawi—a number of members around the table are aware of and have been involved in those visits. The cross-party group is made up of MSPs and a growing number of people in wider civic society with an interest in Malawi. We focus specifically on the relationship with Malawi, whether we are considering European Union treaties, agriculture or child poverty. We felt that it was important that that relationship had a parliamentary focus as well as a Government focus, hence the reason for the cross-party group. I am happy to answer questions.
I want to pick up on some of the points that Karen Gillon made. You are wearing two hats as you are on the CPA executive group and the cross-party group on Malawi. We heard earlier today from Alasdair Morgan, who has just been to Malawi for the first time. It was interesting to hear the views of a first-timer who was seeing everything fresh and to hear about the impact of the place. In a sense, you are more fortunate because you have been there two or three times. Is anything improving? I went as part of the first delegation and I remember that we were pretty much overwhelmed by the scale of the task and the fact that fairly limited funds were available from the then Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. Can you see improvements on the ground as a direct result of Scotland becoming involved?
There are improvements—I will give you a couple of examples. We visited Mulanje mission hospital, to which the Scottish Executive gave money to assist primary health care in the area. A range of measures are now in place there to encourage women to attend antenatal appointments, to support families to develop gardens so that they have a more balanced diet, and to encourage people to get HIV and AIDS tests and to be involved in primary health care. On our recent visit we heard that 2007 was the first year in which the maternal mortality rate in that area had fallen—primary health care is part of the reason. Another reason is that there is now access to free maternity delivery care at the hospital, but primary health care is very much seen as part of the solution.
The other example—which I think that Alasdair Morgan saw for himself—is in Chikwawa, where there were no cholera deaths last year as a direct result of some of the environmental measures that are being taken through a project funded by the Scottish Government. The project provides education and information for people on water sterilisation, which allows them to move or treat their water supply. There are, therefore, real and tangible benefits on the ground.
Maternal mortality remains one of the biggest challenges. A number of midwives from Scotland are involved in providing training and information exchange. We did not see that directly, but I know from speaking to folk here and to Malawians who have benefited that that has had a cascade effect with regard to training for dealing with difficult births, so that mum and baby survive at that stage.
I will ask a slightly more difficult question. Given that money cannot solve everything, have you formed a view on what percentage of our international development money should be directed towards Malawi, whether that should be our main focus, and whether we should learn things from working with Malawi that we want to take to other countries? We know by how much the funding will increase during the current session of Parliament. What is your assessment of how that money should be directed?
My assessment is that the majority of the money should, as far as possible, be spent on an individual country. Whatever we put in is limited—we do not have the kind of budget that the Department for International Development has. Our contribution is about much more than an amount of money; it is about the relationships that have been built and the skills transfer that has taken place. We cannot do that in a concerted way across the globe. If we are going to change the current model, we should see our work in Malawi through for another couple of years at the very least, in order to learn the long-term lessons from that model and to take it to another country. It would not serve us well, or the countries with which we are working, to take a scatter-gun approach across the globe.
The other factor concerns trust and confidence. There is now a relationship between our two countries—if we walk away, what does that say about Scotland and the wider world? What does it say about who we are and about our belief in support for the developing world and for the countries with which we have a relationship? It is not about holding a gun to anyone's head and saying that the relationship must last for ever. It is about seeing the work through and ensuring that we bring what we have started to a logical conclusion, rather than saying, "Oh well, we have had a change of government, so we will have a change of country." I was heartened that the Minister for Europe and External Affairs commented when she was in Malawi that she wanted things to continue and set aside a minimum of £3 million from the fund to continue that work. I do not know if that answers your question.
I still have an interest in Malawi, and I am a member of the cross-party group on Malawi and the Scotland Malawi Partnership. The reports that I have read certainly indicate that a tangible benefit is beginning to come through in all four target areas on which the previous Executive and this Government have been involved with the Malawi Government. That was always intended to be the way—it was meant to be a partnership focusing on the areas that the Malawi Government had identified.
With regard to the statistics on maternal mortality, a big dilemma that was discussed quite widely in the Parliament at the time concerned whether it is better to bring Malawian nurses here to train to be midwives and hope that they will go back to Malawi, or to facilitate trainers going to Malawi, where they will be able to train more people and also help to build the infrastructure that will encourage more Malawians with skills to stay in their own country. It is good to see that work coming through the system, because all of us with an interest in Malawi debated those issues at the time. We were all finding our feet, to an extent.
On the broader question of where our focus should be, Scotland and the Scottish Parliament are committed to Malawi for the moment. That focus is probably right, as it enables us to have the kind of relationship that we have with Malawi for the reasons that Karen Gillon outlined. It is important not to lose sight of the bigger picture, however. It is important that we also look at other countries, as that will enable us to see whether the work that we are doing in specific areas is effective. Further, we must recognise that there are many Scottish non-governmental organisations that are doing a good job around the globe. We must not lose that wider international focus and should have an awareness of and an interest in it as well, but that does not have to be at the expense of our relationship with Malawi.
I agree with what Karen Gillon said about continuing to focus mainly on Malawi. However, if we are going to spread our wings to some extent, would it not make sense to spread our wings in the adjacent countries, rather than moving to Latin America, central America or parts of Asia? One of the good reasons for doing so is that Malawi's borders are very open, which means that, if we have a successful project near those borders, there will be an influx of people from adjacent countries anyway.
Obviously, in global terms, £3 million—or even £9 million, if we treble it—is petty cash, although we should not underestimate the impact that it could have in a country like Malawi, particularly if it were concentrated in a certain area, given that Malawi's gross domestic product is about £500 million a year. However, it strikes me that more effort should be made to mobilise non-governmental money. Malawi is full of business opportunities. For example, fruit falls off the trees and is left to rot rather than being harvested, tinned and exported. I know that the business group is working on some of those issues, but I think that more energy in that area, which would not require any great degree of public money, would go a long way towards helping the wealth creation sector, which, in turn, would allow the Malawians to help themselves more.
Would anyone like to comment on those suggestions?
I think that Alex Neil is absolutely right about where the focus should be. I am aware that I am not speaking as a minister with responsibility for this matter; I am merely someone with an interest.
You can come and join us, Patricia.
Oh gosh, no. It would take more than an international development policy for me to do that.
The previous Administration's policy focused on sub-Saharan Africa. We widened that focus to include countries affected by the tsunami, and Pakistan, following the earthquake there. In both those cases, Scottish NGOs brought specific needs to us and asked for our help.
Alex Neil's first point is right. Because Malawi is landlocked, it can be argued that work that is done on the periphery of the country has an impact. As he said, the borders are fairly fluid and Malawi tends to absorb and help people from surrounding countries when those countries are in times of crisis. However, our advantage in Malawi was that a lot of Scottish NGOs that understand and know the country were already working there so we were not starting entirely from scratch. There was also a good attitude in Malawi towards Scotland, which is a country that the people know and understand. For example, the second most popular girl's name in Malawi is Margaret, because of the missionary impact of 150 years ago. The relationship between the countries already existed. When you are starting from scratch in another country, you should not underestimate what has to be done to build up capacity. However, Alex Neil is right in principle.
It is fair to say that the business sector has been involved for a long time. When I was in Malawi, I was struck by the number of Scottish business people whom I met. There are now more opportunities for fruit growers—you can go into the Co-op and find Malawi peanuts, or groundnuts, as they call them, being sold. I would like most of those products to be produced in a fair trade way, although I recognise that there can be difficulties in that regard, particularly with some of the tea that comes from Malawi.
It is often said, and it is undoubtedly the case, that Malawi would be a great tourist destination because it is a beautiful country. However, I would not want investors to go there if their sole purpose was to make money and take it back to their own country. Such investment has to be about building the capacity of Malawians to be able to exploit opportunities in their country. Fruit is a good example; avocadoes grow wild, but the Malawian population do not particularly like avocadoes. So there is an export opportunity there, if they get it right, and that is just one opportunity.
We always have to be careful about opening up a country for business. Much of what the country does has to be about building up the infrastructure that supports its own people and it is to be hoped that tourism and other opportunities will come along with that. Malawi is very open to such opportunities, as well as aware of the pitfalls, which is reassuring.
As regards moving and expanding into other countries, Zambia and Tanzania are obvious candidates that fit into that model. Scottish connections in those countries could be developed and built on.
In recent months there have been a couple of good examples of how to deal with not all but some of the business issues mentioned—the establishment of the Malawi Youth Business Trust, which is based on the Prince's Scottish Youth Business Trust model, and the new microfinance scheme for women in the south. Alex Neil is right that opportunities are waiting to be developed and I hope that, through schemes such as those that I mentioned, such opportunities can be realised by Scottish business people sharing their knowledge and expertise, particularly through the mentoring side of the youth business trust—which has been so successful here in Scotland—and in encouraging and supporting young Malawians to take a stand for themselves, be entrepreneurial and take risks. I see mangoes as offering the best business opportunity—they are the best, tastiest mangoes that I have ever had.
Alex Neil is right about moving into Zambia. When the cross-party group began, we debated whether we should focus specifically on Malawi or whether we should move slightly wider, into the surrounding region. At the time, we thought that the focus should be on Malawi and that we would keep it that way, but there is a natural empathy in Scotland for sub-Saharan Africa and work can be done there.
The decision to focus on Malawi was probably not taken systematically; I think that it was based on historical reasons, rather than on an absolute analysis of where might be the best place to go. There are some issues about the fit between Scotland and Malawi because historical issues, or cultural empathy, do not necessarily drive the link.
Karen Gillon is right to say that the relationship between Scotland and Malawi is a unique model. We need to be more systematic now and say, "Right, how do we get the best out of that model?" The way to do that is to recognise that Scottish Government investment should be a lever to try to get other Scottish organisations, whether private companies, non-governmental organisations or development agencies, to get involved and use their own resources to take these issues forward. My response to Alex Neil's question is that we need to focus on the advantages of the Government-to-Government relationship and on how we get the multiplier effect.
Another dimension that is worth bearing in mind is that particular groups in Scotland have close links with Malawi. In 2000 or 2001, I talked to both Peter West from the University of Strathclyde, and the then moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, specifically about what they were doing in Malawi. For historical reasons, a wide range of Scottish aid and development-linked organisations have evolved links with different places in sub-Saharan Africa, including Malawi. We do not want to create a situation in which some development agencies feel excluded, or feel that the mechanism is not one with which they can involve themselves. In taking the issue forward, we must be sensitive to whether we are maximising the contribution that non-governmental agencies in Scotland, particularly development agencies, can make.
To that extent, I do not think that it should all be about Malawi. We must be able to react to and focus on what is happening in surrounding areas, such as Darfur and northern Uganda, in which the circumstances in which people live require to be addressed and where Scottish agencies do valuable work. We should not close our eyes to the possibility or necessity of doing something in such places.
I want to ask about the review of school-to-school and community-to-community links. Ted Brocklebank said that one of the issues with which the committee is grappling is how to maximise the impact of limited funds and resources. It seems to me that good partnerships can be created by small amounts of pump-priming money. In my area, St Matthew's academy and St Michael's academy have a good partnership with St Peter's school in Mzuzu, which is not just about raising awareness, but about delivering practical improvements, such as improving the water supply and sponsoring educational equipment and materials. However, the NGOs' view is that money should be focused entirely on AIDS and eradicating poverty. In the light of the panel's experience, are those two views contradictory? If not, how can they be set beside each other?
It depends on what you want Scotland's relationship with Malawi to be about. If it is just about aid, the money should be focused on AIDS and poverty reduction. However, if the relationship is genuinely about a partnership, there must also be benefit on the Scottish side, which is about bringing up a generation of global citizens who understand much better the world in which they live and whose choices are more informed. That means, for example, that they buy fair-trade products when they go to the supermarket and that they understand that the impact of climate change in countries in sub-Saharan Africa is far more severe and catastrophic than it is for Scotland.
For me, the school and community links are vital. It is not about taking away from anything else; it is about saying that this is about far more than the traditional developmental aid that countries around the globe have been providing for generations. It is something new and different, which other countries have seen and are beginning to use as a model for themselves. It is about our children and communities learning from the relationship.
The village of Stonehouse in my area is twinned with a village in Mulanje. Stonehouse businesses pay in £100 a month, schools link by e-mail with schools in Mulanje, and health care professionals share expertise with health care professionals. It is a whole-community approach. That initiative has had no money from the Scottish Executive. It came about because of what the Scottish Executive and Scottish Government were doing. The community said, "That's a good idea. How can we get involved?" It got proactive—it linked up with another community by itself, and started to work on a sustainable development model, not just by throwing money in but by asking how the approach could develop and become self-sufficient.
I understand where the NGOs are coming from and why they want the money to go to the areas in which they are working; that is only natural. However, we are talking about something different and schools and communities are also involved.
To add to that, but not apropos of Malawi, one of the international development group's most interesting meetings brought together small organisations—some very small—and individuals who had been working for 20 years with victims of the Chernobyl disaster. It was humbling to see the amount of support that had been given to individual families and schools, and by giving people opportunities or bringing them over here for respite from their environment. None of that was organised by the Government in an obvious way.
Social citizenship in Scotland needs to be directed towards the contribution that can be made here and elsewhere. Mechanisms exist that we can use to go forward through volunteering, as well as using the international development fund. We should identify and celebrate the contributions that people make off their own bats to tackle problems. We should also identify opportunities or mechanisms through which people can take up such work. It is amazing to see the amount of time, expertise, knowledge and commitment that individuals are willing to contribute—moving further in that direction would enrich Scotland.
Some of the people at our round-table discussion said that although some of the schools links are good and have been done well, others are harmful. That will probably come up in future evidence sessions. Is there anything in that point of view? You must have quite a lot of experience of schools—is there a right and wrong way of making the links? Should we consider the things that we need to be aware of in how those links are made, or were some people just being overly critical?
There are examples of people exporting materials that are not relevant to those who receive them, and of there being no appropriate engagement between both parties about real needs. We can advise people and provide information. We do not have to make that advice up because it can be taken out of the expertise that exists in the NGO sector.
The approach is crucial. When we engage with Malawi, or in any international development activity, we have to think that we are benefiting from it, and we have to learn from other people's experience as well as contributing to their development. It has to be seen as a two-way flow—otherwise it is a form of colonialism, if you like. We are not talking about a gift relationship, but about engagement. Provided that we can accept the laws of that engagement and give due attention to what both sides want, it can be effective.
Organisations such as the International Development Education Association of Scotland can provide us with lots of information about what we can get out of such engagement. Perhaps we need a better spread of such information and to create better understanding of it by the people who become involved.
Are there any more comments? You do not all need to comment on every question.
Sustainability is important. If we provide help and assistance but suddenly pull the plug on it for whatever reason, that can be hard for the people who had been receiving it. Des McNulty is right to say that there must be engagement and that we must understand what people need and want: we must understand what the partnership is about. If the partnership can be established in that way, it will be beneficial to both sides.
However, I have seen computers being sent to a school that does not have electricity. That is no good and it is a waste of money because the computers had to be shipped. I have also heard stories about volunteers. I met, on one occasion, volunteers who went not to Malawi but to another country, where the situation is more critical, without having been well briefed about the country. They did not have a proper idea of what they were going to face when they got there, and they found it emotionally difficult to deal with. The main issues are support, encouragement and the exchange of ideas, but there must be partnership, as well.
As in anything, there will be good examples and not-so-good examples. In Malawi, people are also critical of the role that NGOs play and the work that they do. Sometimes, the NGOs come in and do things without consulting people, which means that they do not do things as effectively as they could. For example, they might install a water supply that is 10 minutes away from an existing water supply because they did not consult anybody. Nobody has got it absolutely right. There is a need for dialogue between the partners.
Several schools in my constituency are involved in partnerships with named schools in Malawi, but they are also involved with all the other schools in the cluster through the teacher development centre, so that all 14 schools benefit from whatever resources go there. If the schools buy sports equipment or new textbooks, those are shared among the schools in the cluster in the same way as our active schools partnership works. One school gets one thing and another school gets another—the resources are shared. They have learned that overloading one particular school with lots of resources is not the way in which to produce a balanced education system in a developing country. It has, however, made sense for us to establish relationships between particular named schools.
Obviously, there are bad examples that we need to learn from, but we will not learn through not investing in the schools programme: we must invest more in it to ensure that people get the right information before they embark on anything. More schools in Scotland want to participate than we can cope with at the moment. We must, therefore, beef up the programme rather than say that it does not work and just forget about the good things because there have been a couple of bad examples.
My question is on the same topic. I know from experience that children—especially children of primary school age—learn from a change in the attitudes of adults and from increased awareness of issues such as the situation in Malawi. That will have an impact later on, in the development of a generation of citizens who have a wider global understanding, but it is changing attitudes now in houses across the country. It is a key area of work. In the dialogue that we have had—particularly the round-table discussion—the view has emerged that awareness raising needs to be supported more. It might be time to analyse some of that activity in Scotland to see exactly what it is achieving. Do we need to analyse where we are and get evidence to support the allocation of extra resources? Is there a rationale for ensuring that wider international development issues—particularly what we are doing in Malawi—are included in the national curriculum? Has the cross-party group considered that?
It has not, but the answer to your two other questions is yes. I do not think that there is anything wrong with trying to get the information base and the evidence base on which to take forward a programme.
On the point about children, who are our future citizens, not buying fair-trade products is not an option for my household any more, not because of what I am involved in but because of what my two sons are taught at school. It is part of their life now. They look for the Fairtrade symbol and they buy those products.
However, the issue is also much bigger than that. How can someone go into a shop and buy a t-shirt that costs £1? What does that mean? Who produced it? How could it possibly be produced in a country 5,000 or 10,000 miles away and cost only £1? How is that sustainable, fair or just? If we are trying to build a better Scotland and a better world, then of course international development issues should be part of the national curriculum and part of what our children learn.
Two points arise from John Park's questions that are germane to development education and apply more broadly to what we are trying to do with the international development fund.
First, we are not clear enough about what we expect for the money we put in. When the international development strategy and fund began, there was a steering group that assessed organisations' bids and recommended how the money should be spent. I am not clear about the current mechanism through which resources are allocated to projects. I have spoken to people in the development organisations—they, too, are unclear about how decisions are made. We need to sort out that basic issue of transparency.
Secondly, it is all very well to say that we want to support Malawi, or international development in general, but we have to be hard nosed about exactly what we want to achieve both there and here, and we need to link that with other things that we do. How does our international development work fit in with our education policies? In what ways does our work add to those policies? Are we clear about who is responsible for ensuring that things are joined up? At present, I do not think that we are. There is a lot of good will and a lot of good practice, but it has not been brought together in a clear framework.
We are three years into the international development strategy and we need a tighter focus on how the money is spent and what we expect to get for it. As in any other area of government, we need to ensure that we are spending money effectively. The fact that the work is a good thing to do should not mean that we suspend the normal practices for managing money and getting the best out of it.
On Karen Gillon's point about moving on, to some extent, after a while, there is clearly a philosophical argument that we could have about whether or not we should move on. I want to explore that a wee bit more because, even when we have addressed the problems that Malawi and some of the other poorest countries in the world face, and even when their economies have begun to grow, the problems will not stop—there will just be different problems. Countries such as Brazil have huge economies but also huge areas of deprivation, such as shanty towns and so on.
We can see that the issue will arise in Malawi in the future. The country is already densely populated, and it will continue to be so, particularly if we address maternal and child mortality. The birth rate will take a considerable time to fall. There is already a tendency for urban populations to increase.
Given that Malawi will have different problems to solve in 10 or 15 years' time, the question is how long we should stick in. Other issues might arise during that time because, once the country's Government structures are better developed, the relationship that its Government might wish to have with outside agencies will become different. For example, if the problems are seen more as the Government's fault, there will be a need for us to be much more sensitive. What are people's thoughts about that?
My personal preference is that we stay there for the long haul. I do not know whether that view is generally held, but I would prefer our involvement not to be for only the short term, although we might want to review the situation in three years. As Alasdair Morgan said, the number of street children will grow and increased urbanisation will put greater pressure on rural areas and on those who live in the shanty towns. We have begun something in Malawi and we should stick with it. However, I appreciate that others may not share that view.
As far as I can see, a significant amount of partnership working still needs to be done between the two countries. I do not see that ending in the foreseeable future, unless we were just to withdraw, but we would need to be confident about doing that at a particular point in time. My preference is for the relationship to continue but with constant monitoring by both Governments. I am sure that there will come a point when both Governments agree that the time is right to change the relationship and bring its current format to an end. However, like Karen Gillon, I cannot see that happening very soon. It might cause more harm than good if we moved away in the next three to five years. The problems are so immense that they will take longer than that to solve. The relationship might change over time, but it needs to continue for a little while.
Before moving on to other countries, we would need to be conscious of the work that is carried out by the DFID, which has not been discussed so far. The DFID is active in many other places. One reason why it made sense for us to be involved in Malawi was that our involvement could supplement—complement is probably a better word—the work of the DFID. We would want to work with the DFID before deciding where else to get involved: such discussions would be required. I agree with Karen Gillon that the relationship needs to continue for some time.
An interesting issue in our involvement with Malawi is the idea that we have an engaged relationship not only between Governments but below that level, between non-governmental organisations. I hope that those relationships are developing. In other African countries, development has been characterised by replication of the same model with limited variations. By and large, UK, American and Swedish development organisations do not have an example that provides a close parallel with what Scotland is trying to do in Malawi. We should follow through on Malawi to see what the advantages of that model are and whether our engagement secures added value, above what would be obtained simply by giving a development organisation £3 million to spend just as it would spend any other amount of money. The hard questions that we need to ask ourselves are whether we can make the model work and whether we can prove that it delivers more than would be the case if we invested the money in a different way. If we come up with positive answers to those questions, that will be great because other people might want to pursue the same model. We need to allow time for that.
I want to get a measurement of whether we are doing it right. If we decided today that there would be no more contributions and no more engagement, would anything be left that would be sustainable and which would work as a result of what we have already done?
Yes. There are examples of things that would continue. Scots will continue to be involved in Malawi: they were there before we went and they will be there after we leave. However, it would destroy trust in Scotland and its Government if we said, "Thanks very much, but cheerio. We've done our bit and we're going to move on to our next pet project." That would send completely the wrong message.
I am not suggesting for a minute that we should do that; I am just trying to gauge whether what we are doing is effective. The long-term aim is to enable people to get on and do the job themselves, so I was looking for a measurement of our success in that regard. You said that something would be left on the ground. That suggests to me that effective work is being done. It might not be as good as we want or as much as we want, but at least we are on the right track.
There are projects that are coming to the end of their three-year life. Not all of them will continue to be funded by the Scottish Government, but my experience tells me that communities will continue to run a number of them. Perhaps they will not be as well resourced as they are at the moment but, given the experience that has been gained, they will continue and the principles will remain. In the cholera project, people were given goods at a subsidised rate but not for nothing, so they began to understand that they had to pay for some of what they were getting. It is not about our just coming in and giving people something for nothing, but about developing a sustainable model, whereby if we all pay a small amount, we will be able to do similar things again next year and the year after. That is a good model.
Do either Patricia Ferguson or Des McNulty want to have a last word?
I have always believed that the work that we are doing should be monitored and evaluated not just by us but by the Malawians. Signs that I have seen suggest that that is the case. Where it was not, we did something about it, which is the right thing to do. What has been really interesting in recent times is that a couple of Scandinavian countries have been looking at the model and are considering adopting a similar one. The National Assembly for Wales is also considering whether it might take on board a similar model for another country. In five or 10 years, it will be interesting to see an evaluation of whether the model has worked from our point of view and from the Malawian point of view, and whether other spin-offs have been successful.
In the development community, there is always a tension between what might loosely be called disaster relief support and development support. Both are essential in certain circumstances. Most organisations will argue that, wherever possible, we should be moving towards development support, because we want to help people create conditions that they can recreate for themselves, whether by improving sanitation, removing the causes of disease, giving people the basis on which they can build an economically sustainable way of life, or providing something of which they are short, and which would allow them to market their products more effectively.
When I was in Ghana, which can grow fantastic amounts of rice and vegetables, I found that the Ghanaians could not sell some of the rice that they produced because of unfair competition from American rice producers. A particular problem for them was not having the machinery to polish and package the rice as their American competitors do. If they are provided with equipment and packaging materials so that they can be competitive, they will be competitive.
Our getting rid of the pressure that is caused by disease through poor sanitation would give people the opportunity to move into more economically productive activity. It is all about freeing people up from constraints that prevent them from reaching their full potential. I would like such sustainability to be in the forefront of our minds when we consider what support we seek to provide.
I am afraid that we will have to move on now, since it is after 12 o'clock. I thank you all for coming along. You have made extremely useful comments and have given us the benefit of your experience. I suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes while we change over to the next set of witnesses.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
It is five past 12, so we need to carry on with our second panel of witnesses, all of whom have a specific focus on Malawi. I welcome Colin Cameron, the honorary consul for Malawi; Ken Ross, who represents the Scotland Malawi Partnership; Magnus MacFarlane-Barrow, who represents Scottish International Relief; and Mhairi Owens, who represents Concern Worldwide Scotland. We will go straight into questioning, and I will begin with a general but fundamental question. What does the panel think should be the aims and objectives of the Scottish Government's international development policy? I do not know who wants to start with that.
Ken Ross (Scotland Malawi Partnership):
I am happy to start by giving the perspective of the Scotland Malawi Partnership. We represent a segment of civil society in Scotland that has very much welcomed the Malawi focus of the international development policy. That is not to say that the focus has to be permanently and exclusively on Malawi. However, we thought that that was a good place to start under the previous Government, and we welcome the current Government's commitment not to reduce the level of commitment to Malawi during the exploration of a possible widening of that commitment to other places. If the commitment is widened, we see a rationale for keeping it within the same region as Malawi, rather than ending up with a policy that is dotted around the world, which might overstretch our capacity.
The Scotland Malawi Partnership is conscious of the strength of community enthusiasm for the Malawi connection. I had a small experience of that on Sunday. Like a few of us, I suppose, I was being a good son and visiting my mother on mother's day. My two young nieces, who are 12 and 14, came in and said, "Guess what's happened to us, granny. Our school's going to have a visit from a group from Malawi and we're going to have pen pals from Malawi." We may have international development on a big scale and DFID, which has probably given excellent grants for splendid projects, but I wonder whether we would find 12 and 14-year-olds bouncing with enthusiasm as a result of that alone. We have such enthusiasm in Scotland for our Malawi connection.
The Scotland Malawi Partnership has asked—and we are grateful for the Government's support in this—"How can we harness the enthusiasm and affection that exist at community level in Scotland in order to make an impact?" I believe that the important aspect is that we are doing something different in Scotland with our vision for international development. It is not just a miniature version of what is done through the British Government; it has a different basis and a different way of working because it mobilises resources that we have in our communities. What the Government has invested has been multiplied many times by what people and organisations throughout Scotland have given freely, particularly for the Malawi connection.
Mhairi Owens (Concern Worldwide Scotland):
From our perspective, the strategy should focus firmly on eradicating poverty. There is a great history and tradition of links between Scotland and Malawi, and the funding from the Scottish Government has enabled fantastic work to be done in Malawi. Concern Worldwide Scotland has received funding from the Scottish Government that has helped to roll out a nutrition programme in 28 of Malawi's 32 districts—it is a new way of dealing with malnutrition that has been piloted only in the past six years, in three different countries. Concern Worldwide Scotland is helping to implement the programme through an advisory service, so that it is leaving the skills with the Malawian Government, which can then take over. The programme has had a great success rate in reducing mortality by about 13 or 14 per cent in comparison with traditional feeding programmes.
Such real impact can, with concentrated and strategic application in the areas in which there are gaps, have an effect on a country that is as resource strapped as Malawi. From what I have seen in the country, there is great intelligence, will and capacity for implementing development work, but resources are restricted. A real focus on where the gaps are and on getting the money where it is needed on the ground can, with the amount of money that is available through the international development policy, make a big difference.
Colin Cameron (Honorary Consul for Malawi):
I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words. I declare an interest on behalf of Malawi.
Ken Ross and I have been involved with Malawi for a long time, and I have set out in my submission my views on how the policy should move forward, in principle and in a little bit of detail. I believe that what is happening in the relationship between Malawi and Scotland is unique. It is very important that the relationship is sustained and carried through as it is now, because it will be a blueprint for other countries, whether they are ex-colonial partners or not, and offer a way to lift people in sub-Saharan Africa out of poverty.
The input from Scotland in monetary terms is relatively small, in comparison with the input from the World Bank, DFID, Germany and so on, but the impact on the people in Malawi—and on Scots, too—is out of all proportion to that. A relationship is developing, and the two countries are working well together. That is possible only because the Scottish contribution complements the very substantial monetary contributions from DFID, the World Bank, Japan and various agencies. It is what we are doing with the resources that we are able to galvanise from Scotland that makes the partnership unique. Without others' contributions, it would not be the same, but with the Scottish dimension, something is happening in the relationship between Scotland and Malawi that has not been experienced before. As I have moved around Malawi—I have done so quite a lot, at times—and Scotland, visiting schools and so on that are setting up partnerships, I can see that this is unique. I sincerely hope that the new Scottish Government will allow the concept to be sustained and developed, and perhaps we can create something that is unique. There have been unique people and projects throughout Scotland's history; the relationship between Scotland and Malawi is a 21st century project in which Scotland will show the rest of the world what can be done. I firmly and genuinely believe that that will be achieved with all our help together.
Magnus MacFarlane-Barrow (Scottish International Relief):
I agree with Mhairi Owens that the fundamental point underlying any strategy should be the eradication of extreme poverty, and it should be aimed at people living in the most extreme poverty. I would also like the focus to remain on Malawi. Although I am happy for the fund to develop and help in some of the world's other poorest countries, we have a special link with Malawi where effective work has been done over the past two or three years. I would very much like that to continue.
The fund should be able to respond to the immediate needs of the poorest people, whether in emergency situations or not. Sometimes schemes can do both at once if they are well thought through. I will give as an example our work in Malawi, which takes the form of Mary's meals—a simple school feeding project. The whole point of the project is to meet the immediate need of the hungry child by providing them with daily meals in school. It also tackles the underlying causes of poverty by getting children into school and enabling them to gain an education, which will allow for sustainable development in Malawi in the long term.
The funding that we have received from the Scottish Government has played a huge role in the growth and success of that project in Malawi. When we first received the grant just over two years ago, we were feeding about 40,000 children every day. The programme has grown to the point at which we are now feeding more than 300,000 children a day in primary schools. Our vision for Mary's meals is that no child in Malawi should have to attend primary school without anything to eat all day. Our goal is to reach every child and we think that that can happen.
The project is a good demonstration of the partnership between Scots and Malawians. The vast majority of our work relies on our 8,000 volunteers in Malawi, who give up their time to do the daily work of cooking the meals and so on. However, they would not be able to do that work without the help of thousands of volunteers and donors here in Scotland. That is a good example of the partnership working at a level at which it meets immediate needs and tackles the underlying causes of poverty. Eradicating poverty, with the focus remaining on Malawi, should be the development fund's strategy.
I am aware of Mary's meals and what you do throughout Malawi—it is an excellent example of what we should be doing. We all share your ambition that the primary motivation—although not the only motivation—should be the eradication of poverty in Malawi, which is on a completely different scale from even the most extreme poverty in our country.
How do we get the balance right between the remedial measures that can help people with their immediate issues, such as getting a decent meal every day, and the more medium to long-term issues, such as developing the capacity of people in Malawi to become self-sustaining as regards the provision of school meals, a health service or education? Do we have the balance right at the moment in supporting programmes that deal with immediate relief and those that are engaged in medium to long-term development, or should we put more emphasis on one over the other?
It is difficult to assess that at the moment, because there has been no evaluation of overall international funding. It should be a priority of the policy to put review mechanisms in place. In working towards eliminating poverty, the policy should work with the Government of Malawi—or the Government of the country concerned—to identify the gaps in its national strategies. There are set millennium goals—you will be aware that quite a lot of people agreed on working towards them—and there are national strategies in place for different aspects of development. Scotland's international development policy must link into those, and proper assessment and evaluation should help with the balance.
As the involvement of Scotland and other countries in Malawi develops, the balance is coming through. There are projects that Scotland obviously could not contemplate but DFID or another agency can, perhaps with more emphasis on the longer term.
However, it is important that, at some point, we examine where our moneys—even those from Scotland—go. I feel strongly that, when a group wishes to apply for assistance from the Scottish Government, part of the criteria should be that a certain and substantial proportion of the money will be spent in Malawi. It is easy to spend it in Scotland and I accept that it is necessary to spend some of it here but, if money is allocated to a small group in Scotland that is set up to undertake development in Malawi, a proportion of that money should be allocated to the counterpart in Malawi.
If many of the development groups in Scotland need Government assistance—and they do—how much more need is there to ensure that there is a counterpart group in Malawi to receive the money and work with the Scots in implementing their projects? That is fundamental. I could draw an analogy with the Government giving aid by way of a capital sum to build a hospital but not giving the recipient country any support for the recurrent costs that will follow on from that, which should be built in. The point that I am trying to get across is that, when we Scots are involved here and in Malawi, we should build into the money provided by the Scottish Government an element to enable the Malawians to respond as they can—if we need support here, they certainly need it a bit more there, and they do not have the same resources as we have.
It is worth while making the point that £1 spent in Malawi will go much further than £1 spent in Scotland.
I accept that. It will go much, much further, but I am trying to get at principles so that other things follow. The principle is that we should build into Scottish projects in Malawi an element of money to enable implementation of the Malawian side. A good organisation in Scotland could fall on its face in Malawi because, although the people are there and can do the project, the resources to implement it are not made available. It would not be reasonable to expect that the Malawian Government will automatically equal what Scotland is doing.
We will be living for a long time with the question of how to strike the balance. From what we see in the Scotland Malawi Partnership and in the work that our members do, it must be a both/and situation.
There is a need for immediate relief work in Malawi—would any of us want to rest while children come to school who have had nothing to eat? At the same time, we would be disappointed if some of the strands in the co-operation agreement that have been difficult to deliver on concretely, such as the governance strand and the sustainable development strand, were to fall. Those strands are building for the long term. The aim is that Malawi should be a well-governed country and that there should be increasing sustainability in its economy. That ambition in the current policy must be sustained and must receive its share of resources.
I want to follow up on Mr Cameron's point about money being spent in Malawi. You state in your submission that 80 per cent of the funds should be allocated to Malawi. Have you discussed that figure with others? Is there a lot of support for spending 80 per cent of the funds in Malawi and for ensuring that costs are met for Malawians who participate in projects?
Yes, there is—certainly in Malawi, obviously.
I meant in Scotland.
Let us not forget that in Scotland, the ordinary person—the taxpayer who enables such work to go on—expects that to be the case. As I say in my submission, they are unhappy if they feel that a lot of money that is earmarked as aid for Malawi is spent on expensive air fares for people going out to visit Malawi. Scotland is devolved, and there are responsibilities that do not belong to it, but there are times when we must enter into the arena on behalf of Malawi and on behalf of Scotland.
For example, Malawians must now have visas to come to Britain—that is new. The visas are very expensive by Malawi standards, and the application forms, which are complicated, are checked pedantically by the British high commission. Applications are refused on the slightest grounds. I have been dealing with that issue for some time. In a case last week, a teacher who was funded by the Scottish Government was to come to Falkirk high school—everything was supported—but when a phone call was made from Africa to Falkirk high school to establish whether there was sponsorship for the teacher, for some reason or another the person who was involved was not available and a suitable reply was not provided. The call was not followed up, and the teacher's application was rejected. If Scottish Government money is not good enough to sponsor somebody to get a visa, I ask why not?
We should make representations to London about the fact that, believe it or not, Pretoria deals with all Malawi visas and investigations. It beggars belief that a man in Pretoria is expected to understand the difference between Nsanje and Chitipa. In the case of the teacher that I mentioned, I had to make phone calls to Pretoria and the British high commission. I had to push the British high commission to intervene and say, "Look, Scottish Government money is sponsoring the man. How can you refuse the application?" The decision was overturned, so that was okay.
I have laboured the point, but it is important that we recognise the difficulties that our counterparts in Malawi face. The teacher was coming here in response to a teacher who had gone out there. He had to travel from Bandawe to Lilongwe, and each time he did so the case was referred to Pretoria. Surely we could approach whoever is responsible in London and ask them to adjust the system in the interests of the individuals involved and Malawi's special relationship with Scotland.
You suggest in your submission that the Scottish Government should appoint a Scot to Lilongwe to represent, assist and support the multitude of Scottish interests. Have you received much support for that suggestion?
As you probably know, I have advocated the idea for a long time, and to me it is fundamental. The British high commission in Lilongwe can deal with DFID, Germany and the World Bank, but it is not geared up to deal with the multitude of small but important issues that arise in Malawi. The high commission has said that it cannot even scrape the top of the problems.
If we want to avoid people having to traipse to and from Lilongwe to sort out relatively small problems, the answer is to have a Scot there who is prepared to go around sorting out the problems. They could liaise with the British high commission, the Malawi Government and others, including villagers. It need not be an expensive exercise. Indeed, the amount of time, effort and money that such a person would save would make them worth their weight in gold.
As far as I understand it, such a person would not cause a problem between the British high commission, which represents the Government in London, and the Scottish Government. The person would be responsible to Edinburgh but would liaise with the British high commission. Together, they would provide a tremendous service and input to what we are trying to achieve, including the Mary's meals programme and the Scotland Malawi Partnership. We are dealing with numerous small issues, which no high commission can deal with, or exists to deal with.
I will not go into my views on the British high commission in Sierra Leone, but there was a similar issue regarding visas for people who were fully funded to come to a project in the UK. The issues are not unique to Malawi.
I want to ask about a point that is raised in the Concern Worldwide Scotland submission, although it has been made by other organisations as well. We all agree in principle that the most effective way to raise awareness of the needs of developing countries is to allow those who need development most to speak for themselves whenever possible. My concern is how we ensure that we hear from those who need most rather than from those who shout loudest. Does the panel have any thoughts about how we ensure that we hear from those whose needs are greatest when we develop our strategy?
One way to do that is by using examples or raising the standard of best practice in development NGOs. It is about assessing the design of programmes. Organisations should not go to communities without an introduction or knowledge. They should employ local staff, and there should be proper assessment procedures and community participation in the design, implementation and evaluation of programmes. There are ways of doing that. Development organisations in Scotland can share best practice, and the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland is currently doing some work on helping to develop best practice in the sector. The way to hear from those who are most in need is to ensure that there are proper procedures and community participation.
Magnus MacFarlane-Barrow I agree whole-heartedly. The projects that work best are those that are instigated and owned by local communities. Through them, we hear the voices of those who carry out the projects.
Committee members who were involved in the conference that was hosted in the Parliament a couple of years ago will remember how eloquently Malawians who came here represented their views, perspectives and aspirations. What I will say echoes in some ways what Colin Cameron has said. In the Scotland Malawi Partnership, we have become aware of an imbalance. We have benefited greatly from having an office and staff here in Scotland, through the support that we have had from the Scottish Government. We cannot overestimate the value of the co-ordination and promotion of best practice that has been achieved through the Scotland Malawi Partnership office. However, the office has no equivalent in Malawi. We have identified that as a key challenge for the future.
There is a civil society in Malawi, but it is often underresourced and there is little co-ordination. Rather than having a Scottish Government representative in Malawi, perhaps another route to explore is giving the Malawi end of the Scotland Malawi Partnership the function of ensuring that we have effective come-and-go between the two countries and the critical ability to listen to each other with understanding.
I will finish what Ken Ross was saying. It is important that we understand, appreciate and listen to what Malawians feel about what we are trying to do. I know only that when I go to Malawi, I always stay with Malawians, whether in villages, towns or elsewhere. Hotels are not part of the exercise. All that I am saying is that we can get a feel from people. If we sit with a family in their home at night and we just talk away, we understand their views—some are critical and some are supportive. We are trying to put across to the Scottish Government how Malawians feel, so that both sides can be listened to and decisions can be made.
I will focus on two other features of Concern Worldwide's submission. We are interested in what is happening in schools in this country. The submission states:
"uninformed awareness raising can be counterproductive and perpetuate false and negative stereotypes of North v South."
What would be good practice and bad practice in schools?
I have not seen before the suggestion in the submission that
"the Scottish Government's current Health Action Plan for Malawi focuses much on treatment with very little on prevention".
There is general discussion about whether the focus in Malawi should change slightly—the minister has said that that will happen. Do you have comments on shifting the focus onto health or other areas that would help in Malawi?
I did not hear what the minister said about shifting the focus.
The remark was just general, but I connected it with your comment on the health plan.
The comment in our submission came directly from our field workers. Most people in Malawi live in poverty; to be comfortably off is not the norm there. The statistics show that most deaths in children under five are caused by malaria, which can be prevented quite easily. If we examine such statistics and ask how we can make a big impact with reasonably small amounts of money, we see that we can do quite a lot on prevention, not just in relation to malaria, but in relation to malnutrition, livelihood security and food security.
What is your view on the point that was made about schools?
We are not experts in development education, but we understand that it works best when it is embedded in the school curriculum. There is scope for development education to be included in the Scottish Government's international policy, but a lot of work on formal development education in schools has already been done. The Scottish Government could do more work on informal development education by putting out stories of good development practice—perhaps initiatives that are unique to Scotland—through the media and other forums outwith schools.
The media are another interesting dimension. Would other members of the panel like to address the two issues that were raised previously or to offer thoughts on how the media can be engaged in a positive way around this agenda and the extent to which that is already happening?
Given Scotland's special relationship with Malawi, it should not be frightened—that is the wrong word, but it conveys what I mean—to enter into an area in which there is real need but which is fraught with problems. At the moment, local democracy in Malawi is weak, because the arrangements for new local elections and all that goes with them have fallen way behind schedule. I do not know whether those arrangements will be in place in time for the next presidential election. There is an opportunity for Scotland to provide assistance in that area, after the matter has been discussed with the Malawian Minister of Local Government and Rural Development, who is well known here, and he has agreed that such assistance is needed. I propose that Scotland's main towns assist and work with—without dictating to—Malawi to set up a structure that will enable local government to develop. Everyone in Malawi accepts that adjustment in local government is needed, but someone must take the initiative on providing assistance. Scotland should not back off from the issue—it is fraught with problems, but the achievement would be well worth the effort.
We must acknowledge that media coverage of the first phase of the initiative has been mixed. There have been excellent examples of fair and balanced coverage, but there have also been less inspiring media episodes. Our membership strongly affirms the policy. It is widely felt that the co-operation agreement is well constructed and offers a good programme, but there is not the same confidence that it has been well communicated in Scotland. Perhaps some of the 20 per cent of funding that would be left in Scotland under Colin Cameron's proposal should be used to meet the challenge of improving communication in the future. If we do not carry the community with us and foster confidence in the policy and its delivery, we will pay a price for that in the long term.
That ties in with a point that was made at the tail-end of the discussion with the previous witnesses. When we have asked our members what they think about the delivery of Government policy, they have wanted stronger monitoring and evaluation—not because there is suspicion that there is a lot of poor work, but because they believe that the policy should have its own robust monitoring and evaluation so that, when we face the media, put material on a website or communicate through the partnership, people can have confidence in the high quality of the work that is being delivered with the funding that has been made available.
Magnus MacFarlane-Barrow:
The question about the media starts with some of the issues that we have already talked about. If a strategy is in place, if we are clear about what we are trying to do in Malawi and if we have ways of measuring progress and the outcomes of funded projects, there will be lots of good news stories in which the media will be interested. In that regard, Colin Cameron made an important point about the percentage of funds that is spent in Scotland as opposed to Malawi. The media will always be interested in that, so it would be good to have a clear policy on that. I agree with Colin Cameron that a low percentage of the funds should be spent in Scotland. However, it is most important that we can clearly evaluate the projects, show what their outcomes have been and communicate that to the media.
There is a strong implication in Concern Worldwide Scotland's written submission that the current Government health action plan for Malawi is focused too much on treatment and not enough on prevention. How should that be changed? What needs to be done to change the focus and how can that be done without unnecessary damage being caused to existing projects on the ground?
That comment came directly from people in the field, who probably were not aware of the whole Scotland international development policy. They saw the health action plan. I cannot tell you how you could change the focus to prevention without causing damage to existing projects that have been funded from Scotland. I am not sure what those projects are or when they will come to an end. The sentiment behind that is that we can spend quite a lot of money on dealing with problems when the same amount of money could be spent on preventing those problems from arising in the first place. How the Scottish Government would choose to implement that and cut off the money for other projects, I do not know. I am sorry, but I cannot answer that.
We have had a good range round lots of the important issues. I thank you all very much for coming to give us the benefit of your wide experience in the area.
Meeting closed at 12:49.