Debate contribution: Restrictive Practices in Education Settings

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on 30 June 2025.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

30 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Restrictive Practices in Education Settings

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5043806

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank all the Members who have made contributions to the debate so far. While my party has taken a slightly more nuanced position on the issue, there is much that has been said across the Chamber that many of us share. The passions are clear, and I hope that we all recognise that we ultimately share the same goal: to strike a balance that protects children as a priority. None of us can have failed to be moved by what we heard from the Shakespeare family and others — some of them mentioned by Ms Hunter — who have experienced undeniably horrendous and utterly unacceptable treatment in the system. However, I believe that we also share a desire to ensure that, in striking that balance, we do not place education professionals, particularly those working in the most challenging environments in the Northern Ireland education system, at undue risk or even with the perception of increased legal jeopardy. All of us know that our special schools already face significant recruitment struggles. Even when staff are secured, schools regularly contend with illness and injury sustained by staff in the line of work. It is a sensitive and exceptionally complex issue. The pain that families have shared is real. They are motivated by the, no doubt, unimaginable trauma of seeing a vulnerable loved one being detained inappropriately and by the years thereafter spent struggling to make their voices heard. Their continued campaigning for Harry's law is strong and admirable. I say clearly that the campaign is courageous and deserves to be heard. I am utterly convinced that what happened to Harry in particular was wrong. The actions taken against him were unacceptable, particularly considering their sustained nature, and should absolutely be subject to sanction and correction. That said, my position and that of my party, which my colleague outlined, on the motion is one not of opposition but of caution. I hold sufficient concern about the unintended consequences that may flow from repealing article 4(1)(c) to believe that more thorough investigation and wider engagement is required than we have seen to date. Similar legislation exists in England and Wales, yet, as my colleague said, there has not been the same appetite or urgency there for repeal, even after consultations. That contrasting position leads me to pause and reflect. As I said, I am not opposed in principle, but I am hesitant to view increased legal jeopardy as the appropriate or optimal disincentive for such inappropriate actions, especially given that, in the context of a special school, such actions may have been undertaken without malice or intent, although that is not always the case, and I understand that. It may be that we ultimately land on repeal, and I remain open to it. Today, however, I am not convinced that it is the only approach that is available or the optimal approach. I wish to look beyond the ambition — a noble one — to bolster children's rights and consider the broader implications. I wish to see updated guidance first. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the steps that he intends to take. It is not an easy stance to adopt, but I believe that we would be doing a disservice to our responsibilities if we were to remain silent on valid concerns about even the most sensitive of issues. I still have unallayed fears that repeal could unintentionally disincentivise the professionals on whom we rely the most: our special education teachers and support staff. We have heard those concerns echoed by teaching unions. Guidance must come first. Once it is in place, we can make a more informed judgement about the future of article 4(1)(c). I know that the Minister is actively engaging on the issue, and I look forward to hearing his plans. Let us be absolutely clear that article 4(1)(c) does not make it lawful to use physical force as a form of corporal punishment. That is already outlawed. No one in our education settings is permitted to use physical contact to cause pain, injury or humiliation. Abuse of that kind is rightly prohibited. When it occurs, appropriate consequences must be faced. That having been said, we also have to engage on how repealing article 4(1)(c) would be perceived by those who are looking to enter our education system. We would risk deterring new entrants who might otherwise consider such a career. I commend all those who campaign on the issue, particularly those who speak from their lived experience of harm. If, at the end of the process, we proceed to repeal, it must be done sensitively and with safeguards in place. Otherwise, we will simply replace one risk — the use of force — with others that are just as harmful: staff leaving the profession, confusion in practice and educators feeling maligned or ignored. We must build a legal framework to boost trust not confusion.

819 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:06 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.

Challenge this classification