Member's statement: Seclusion and Restraint in Schools: Royal College of Nursing
Member's statement by Mrs Michelle Guy on .
- MLA
- Mrs Michelle Guy
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 24 March 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Seclusion and Restraint in Schools: Royal College of Nursing
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4864520
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have a question for folks here: does anyone here remember Harry? Harry is an autistic boy who is non-verbal. He was found to have been unnecessarily restrained at school when he was just five years old. Harry is non-verbal so he could not tell his mum. She did not know what was happening, and the school had no duty to inform her. I am sure that Members can imagine what it would be like, as a parent, to find out that that had happened to your child without your knowledge. Harry's mum, Deirdre Shakespeare, launched a campaign to deliver Harry's law, which was endorsed by political parties across the spectrum, by advocacy groups and even by celebrity Paris Hilton. When draft statutory guidance was finally issued in 2023, a number of groups, including the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), expressed concern about the draft. It, along with others, was invited to join a task and finish group to collaborate with the Department of Education on the final policy. The RCN joined the group in good faith to work with the Department to get the statutory guidance right and to align it with existing practices in health settings. It was concerning to hear, as reported in the media last week, that the RCN has reluctantly come to the conclusion that it must resign from the task group before it became associated with new statutory guidance that it believes that, at the group's conclusion, may not be human rights-compliant and therefore not, in its words:
"in the best interests of children and young people and staff alike".
Since the news was reported in the media, I have heard from Deirdre, Harry's mum. She is massively frustrated at the Department's lack of engagement with families who have campaigned for years for changes in the law on restrictive practices in schools. The RCN's move has left them feeling deeply concerned. On Friday, I met representatives of a special school, and, indeed, the bulk of our conversation also focused on that issue and the urgent need for clarity from the Department. We must see the repeal of article 4 of the Education Order 1998 and a rights-compliant, child-focused policy to end the use of seclusion in schools and to ensure that there is appropriate recording and monitoring of the use of restraint, in line with its place as an intervention of last resort and with support and training for staff. The Education Minister must urgently outline what is happening with the statutory guidance following the 2023 consultation and restore confidence following the RCN's withdrawal from the working group.
434 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.06 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:10 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.