���˿���

Suzi, you said that you welcome the ASL action plan but that there is frustration about the lack of progress. I want to tease out that issue with you. If others on the panel have a perspective on it, it would be useful also to hear from them. Is the issue that the plan is good but it is not being implemented quickly enough or well enough, or is it that, even if we implement everything in the plan, we will not make the progress that is required? The solutions to those two things will be different. If the plan is the problem, we can revise it, but if the plan is good and the issue is its implementation, the committee will need to understand what the barriers to that are.

I will be brief. Dr Ottley, I am interested to know how, in any of the examples that you came across, the legislation, ordinance or whatever it was engaged with the right to private property. One of the hypotheticals that we are looking at concerns what would happen if private residences fell within a zone. Hypothetically, if somebody had a house with a garden and a flagpole in the zone, they could put up a flag. Under the legislation, there would be questions about intent, the messaging on the flag and so on. Are there any examples of legislation that has had a clear interaction with private property rights and of that issue being resolved?

I am talking about the impact on behaviour, such as in the example that you gave. A church can put a sign outside, just as somebody could put a sign in their window—at election time, it is not uncommon for people to put a sign in their window to say which party they are voting for. If someone’s house was in a safe access zone, there would be an interesting interaction between the intent of the legislation and rights under article 1 of protocol 1 to the European convention on human rights.

On that final point about how recently most of those measures have been implemented and the lack of evidence about impact, is there even any anecdotal indication of the reaction of those who were for or against the measures? There is a difference between actual impact and perceived impact. In your research, were you able to even just pick up the reaction of those on either side of the debate once the schemes had been implemented in their areas? Did they feel that there was an impact?

The opponents of the bill—those who engage in or support the protests—will come and give evidence to the Parliament using arguments that you will be familiar with. One such argument is that, in part, they do not see their action as protest, but as an opportunity to offer advice and an alternative perspective to those who are seeking abortion or reproductive healthcare. It is important that you have the opportunity to answer that claim, so I am interested in your thoughts on the claim that they are offering advice and options that would not otherwise be provided. Lily, you addressed that somewhat in your opening remarks, when you said that they provided misinformation—which is of no surprise whatsoever. I am interested in the panel’s thoughts on that, and in hearing your responses to that claim.

Thank you.

I am interested in Rachael Clarke’s perspective from being a service provider down south. In a later session, we will take evidence from providers up here in order to get the perspective of staff. Obviously, one of the elements that we need to consider for the bill is the impact of protests on other people who are accessing healthcare services in the same setting and on staff in those settings. As we have you here now, and given that you are a provider elsewhere, I would be interested in hearing not only BPAS’s perspective on but your experience of the impact on your staff of equivalent protests and vigils down south.

Would anybody else like to come in on the question of the impact on other people in the facilities, such as hospital patients who access them for reasons other than reproductive healthcare?

If I may pick up on that—

Yes. If I may, I will pick up on a specific aspect of the points that Susan Quinn has made, and we can then bring in Mike Corbett. Peter Bain is looking to come in, too.

You can correct me if I am wrong, Susan, but, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that, as well as the level of resource, it is a question of having the correct resource. A member of staff in a school may specialise in a particular kind of support but, because of the nature of school, the children with that particular need will move on. A child in another school might have a similar need, but the local authority might not be flexible enough to ensure that the staff are in the right place.

While you were talking about that, I recalled that one of the very first meetings that I had after I was elected was with a 15-year-old with a hearing impairment. On her first day at high school, a member of staff was introduced to her and she was told, “This will be your one-on-one member of staff.” That person said to her, “Hi there. It’s lovely to meet you. I usually work with kids with autism, but I’m sure we’ll figure this out between us.”

I am interested in witnesses’ views on the relationship between the level of need, the complexity of need and the resources that are allocated, particularly in mainstream settings. For the purposes of this question, I distinguish between mainstream and special schools. I would be interested in Matthew Cavanagh’s experience on the latter issue, but my question is mainly for the other witnesses.

Is it typical in a mainstream setting for there to be an acknowledgement that more complex needs require and therefore get additional resources, or is there a tendency towards a more blanket approach that says that all kids with additional needs in a mainstream setting should get some kind of additional support, with no recognition that some needs are more complex than others? Is there a follow-through between the complexity of need and the resource that is allocated?