Debate contribution: Restrictive Practices in Education Settings
Debate contribution by Mrs Michelle Guy on .
- MLA
- Mrs Michelle Guy
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 30 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- Restrictive Practices in Education Settings
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5043808
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Restrictive practices in education settings is an issue that, all of us on the Education Committee agree, needs to be resolved. Our motion acknowledges the campaigning of parents and the efforts of officials from the Department of Education and the Department of Health to deliver. We are concerned, however, that progress and momentum — progress and momentum driven by the campaign for Harry's law, which my party and I endorse — from the previous mandate have stalled in this mandate. I have spoken to Deirdre Shakespeare about the suffering of her son Harry, which resulted from deeply damaging restrictive practices. Harry's case and the experiences of other children like him must be at the front of our minds during the debate. Our responsibility as a Committee is to be their voice. A key reason for tabling the motion was to hear directly from the Minister of Education. We urgently need clarity from him on whether he will, at the earliest opportunity, repeal article 4(1)(c), which, to use the words of the independent autism reviewer, is not only overdue but essential.
We need assurance that the new education framework will be compatible with the 'Three Steps to Positive Practice' framework document that has been adopted by health professionals, who frequently work in our schools and deal with the same children. The Minister needs to restore confidence in the process, given that one key stakeholder, the RCN, opted to leave the task and finish group rather than be associated with the emerging guidance. The RCN painted a picture, corroborated by others, of tension between Health and Education officials, with the attitude among Education officials of not wanting to be told what to do by Health officials actively impeding progress. We have a comprehensive and persuasive body of evidence from trusted sources, including the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, the Children's Law Centre and special school leaders as well as powerful testimony from parents, which all points in the same direction. Minister, why are you not decisive on the issue? Since the restoration of the Executive after two years in which there was no devolved government, you appear to have been disregarding the clear direction of travel that was set by the previous DUP Education Minister, Michelle McIlveen, who wrote to schools, committing to the repeal of article 4(1)(c) and the delivery of statutory guidance on restrictive practices. I hope that we get clarity on the direction of travel of your Department. Making children and young people the focus of the debate does not mean that we seek to diminish the necessity of protecting our teachers and support staff. Let me be clear: no one is advocating an approach that would put teachers at risk; quite the opposite. It is about giving them clarity, through statutory guidance, and appropriate training. From speaking to special school leaders, I know that they want that clarity. A letter submitted to the Committee by the special schools' strategic leadership group expressly welcomes the repeal of article 4(1)(c) and looks forward to the publication of new guidance. It goes on to commit to collaborate with the Department and others to provide a safe school environment in which the human rights of everyone in the school community are respected and avoidable harm liability is not a concern. There is no suggestion that a teacher cannot use appropriate restrictive practices when a child or staff member is at risk. Rachel Hogan from the Children's Law Centre, a trained barrister and expert in the area, could not have been clearer in her evidence to the Education Committee, saying:
"Some restrictive practices are regularly needed. That's OK as long you are doing it in a proportionate manner, reviewing it and seeing, 'Can I do something less restrictive?'".
As I wrap up, I want to bring this back to Harry and his mum, Deirdre, who has provided me with closing remarks:
"Please acknowledge the deep trauma and harm that Harry endured. His suffering is one no child should ever face. His experience must never be forgotten. It is a human rights scandal, and it should compel the Department of Education and everyone to do better to protect every child's dignity and rights. Harry's silent suffering behind closed doors remains a haunting reminder for us of what happens when restraint replaces care and why it must never happen again."
734 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: 0.05 (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 (0.97).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.97 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 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.