Chamber and committees

I just want to pick up on something that you guys were talking about. In the evidence that we have taken, we have heard quite a lot about the fact that, where there has been a transition lead, say, or someone working with families the whole way through the process who has been able to build long-term relationships and trust, that has made all the difference, because they have been able to reach out to all the other organisations and pull everything together. You are welcome to comment on that view, but do you think that the bill takes us any further forward in that respect or provides the potential to resolve that issue?

Can I just check a point, so that I am clear? Is the issue that what matters to the individual needs to be central to the plan but it is missing?

That is perfect.

This touches on what you just said. You spoke earlier about the need for a co-ordinator if the young person is not in school. You also spoke about families having a choice of who leads and you mentioned churches and other supports. I want to be clear about that. Should the lead or co-ordinator for families come in with a light touch, just to make sure that everything is going okay? Should that person get more involved if the family needs further support? I would like clarity on that, because I am a wee bit worried about family choice. I do not think that you were saying that families do not need support.

Cabinet secretary, you already touched on this point in your response to Ruth Maguire. I am going to roll what I want to ask into one question because I am mindful of the time. We are all clear that narrowing the poverty-related attainment gap is a key education priority. Will you outline the role that teachers play in narrowing that gap? Are we seeing results from investing in teacher numbers? Finally, what impact will cutting teacher numbers have?

Thank you, minister.

I will pick up on what Sue Webber was talking about and will probably go back to other stuff as well. We are talking about consistency, but it can be difficult to look at consistency when you are looking at people who have really different needs. We are great at measuring positive outcomes and really good at collating a lot of different data, but what are we doing about measuring the things that actually matter to the individual, and doing that every single time? Is there a focus on that just now? What I mean is measuring how that individual feels they are progressing towards their aspirations and whatever their life goals are. I suppose that that brings us back closer, to a degree, to them having someone they have a good relationship with and can rely on. It is not a single transition, but something that develops over time. How can we include young people’s feelings about how they are moving towards their aspirations? At the end of the day, surely what really matters is the individual’s experience.

Sorry, could I just come back in for a second? I am really interested in measuring every single time how an individual views their own progress and outcomes.

I wish to ask about the independent living fund. We have heard from quite a few people that they were not aware of the fund. Some of them found out about it by accident. Other organisations were very well up on the independent living fund—they had quite a lot of people applying and were getting quite good funding from that route.

I have a couple of questions. Is that the fairest way to do it? Will that approach possibly be reviewed? Should there be smaller grants that go out to a wider range of people? I can imagine that, as awareness around the fund increases, the demand will increase, too, and that will create funding pressures.

Thank you to everybody for being here today. It is hugely appreciated and very important.

My question is for Irene Oldfather and it is based on what she has just been saying. We have already heard from everyone today about how people are not listened to and need answers to their questions. We need to ensure that investigations are thorough. It is all about saving lives and saving people from experiencing trauma.

The commissioner would largely define their own role. Irene Oldfather talked about that role having as wide a scope as possible and said that it should include equalities and human rights. Some people could look at such a remit and think that it is overwhelming. There is also the idea that it could perhaps pull together everything that is already happening. Do you have any recommendations? Is anything missing from the bill? Do you have any comment on the idea of pulling everything together?