Member's statement: Restrictive Practices in Schools: Deirdre Shakespeare
Member's statement by Mrs Michelle Guy on .
- MLA
- Mrs Michelle Guy
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 22 October 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Restrictive Practices in Schools: Deirdre Shakespeare
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4607986
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Since joining the Education Committee, I have been trying to meet as many stakeholders as possible, including the parents of children with special educational needs (SEN). I express my admiration for those parents. Many mothers in particular are dismissed as being hysterical, which is an infuriating stereotype, but the women whom I have met have been calm, articulate and expert at advocating for their children. I will focus my statement on the crusade of one such mother: Deirdre Shakespeare, mother of Harry. Deirdre has spearheaded an inspiring and effective campaign for what has become known as "Harry's law" to highlight the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. I acknowledge that colleagues in my party and across the Chamber have been advocating on the issue for years, as have, most importantly, parents, carers and young people with lived experience. When I spoke to Deirdre recently, she told me about Harry's experience of being repeatedly restrained in school without her knowledge and about the heartbreaking, even harrowing, impact that it had on her son. The impact of restraint and seclusion can be devastating on young people, many of whom are non-verbal and unable to explain what has happened. I acknowledge the work that the Department has done: the 2022 review and the subsequent draft guidance that has been published for consultation. However, we still await further updates on when the statutory guidance will be in place and on the changes that have been made since the Department received substantial feedback from those with lived experience and from organisations such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. It is essential that schools and teaching professionals are knowledgeable about and trained in statutory guidance that is crystal clear. That is why I have serious concerns that the draft guidance repeatedly uses "should":
"Educational settings should review their policies and practice ... should develop a policy on the reduction and elimination of the use of restrictive practices".
Those are "musts", and I hope that that is reflected in the updated version. The Department's review of restraint and seclusion recommends the repeal of article 4(1)(c) of the Education (NI) Order 1998, but we are yet to have the Minister's unambiguous commitment that that will happen. I hope that he will do that and do it soon for the sake of those kids.
387 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.88).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.88 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.12 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.95 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:26 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.