Debate contribution: Restrictive Practices in Education Settings

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 30 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

30 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Restrictive Practices in Education Settings

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5043824

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion, which, rightly, brings the issue of the use of restrictive practices in educational settings into sharp focus. The motion asks us to address a deeply sensitive but complex matter, which touches on the rights, dignity and welfare of our children and young people while acknowledging the challenging environments in which our dedicated educators operate. They often go above and beyond in the face of those challenges in order to support our children and young people to thrive, learn and succeed. At the heart of our education system is the fundamental aim of enabling every child and young person to realise their full potential, develop knowledge and prepare for life beyond the classroom. Ensuring that our schools are safe, nurturing spaces is essential to achieving that goal. I acknowledge the efforts of parents who shared their lived experiences of children and families being negatively affected by the misuse of restrictive practices. I also acknowledge the ongoing efforts of the educationalists who have generously shared their time and expertise with my officials to inform the development of the guidance and the efforts of the Department of Health and our wider stakeholders, who contribute positively and constructively to the process of establishing meaningful and consistent guidance in that area. To that end, I confirm that it remains my intention to publish statutory guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion in education settings. I have asked my officials to work closely with a broad range of stakeholders to ensure that that guidance is clear, robust, rights-based, fit for purpose and deliverable in our schools. The principle of acting in the best interests of the child has underpinned the work to develop that guidance. The guidance will support staff in keeping children safe while enabling them to access the curriculum and benefit fully from their educational experience. It is intended that it will outline when restrictive practices may and may not be used, what must be reported and what should be reported to parents and carers. Above all, the guidance will be grounded in the principles of safety, dignity and respect for the rights of all those who are in our education settings. I recognise the long-standing calls for clear, consistent guidance in this area. The guidance that we are developing is intended to address the current gap and to provide clarity and assurance to all who are involved. I also recognise the emotional and psychological impact that restrictive practices can have on the child and the staff who are involved. They are not neutral interventions; they can leave lasting trauma and must never be used thoughtlessly or carelessly or as routine behaviour management. Instead, our approach must be trauma-informed, person-centred and rooted in compassion and understanding. Physical interventions should be the least restrictive intervention necessary. Staff must be empowered to use their professional skills and expertise to recognise distress and de-escalate situations before they reach the point where physical intervention becomes necessary. I am acutely aware of the calls to repeal article 4(1)(c) of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which provides that a member of staff:

"may use ... such force as is reasonable in the circumstances"

to maintain "good order and discipline". I want to be clear, however, that that provision does not permit corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is illegal. It was abolished in 1987, and that was fully extended to all schools in 2003. That will not change. Ms Hunter referred to that provision as:

"corporal punishment by the back door".

Wrong.

Absolutely wrong. I am happy to give way.

The Member articulated parents' views, and everybody gave those views. However, I think that the Member was the only one who did not mention teachers and classroom assistants. This is, as I said, a hugely difficult situation to deal with. Does the Member really suggest, given that I have listened to principals talk to me about teaching staff who have broken arms because they had to deal with very difficult situations, that there should not be provision to have a physical intervention that would prevent further harm being caused to the child involved, other children and teaching staff? It cannot be presented solely in the way in which the Member presented it without making reference to the wider issues. The Member did not make reference to the wider complexities of the issue. Article 4(1)(c) allows for the use of reasonable force to maintain discipline and good order in schools, which I referenced. I felt that Mr Carroll represented it in the wrong way. An intervention has to be relevant to the particular context. It must be the exception. It must be the least restrictive means of intervention at the appropriate time to protect people from and prevent harm. The way that some have presented it almost suggests that it is a regular occurrence. It is not a regular occurrence. Those are exceptions. It is not the norm.

Our schools are safe schools. I accept, though, that there are issues and that there have been misuses of the provision. However, the provision in article 4(1)(c) aligns with the legal position in England and Wales, where schools operate under section 93 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which provides staff with similar powers to use reasonable force for:

"the maintenance of good order and discipline".

I do not have them here, but I know that it is the exception. It is not the norm.

I will give way. I want to make progress, because I agreed to provide information on the SEN placement issues as well.

I agree with the Member about the recording and reporting of those issues. That is why we need to address the gaps that exist. I am trying to articulate the issue of having to have some form of intervention that may be necessary. I do not think that anybody here has articulated the view that, if a child or young person is engaging in physical harm to themselves or to others or to a staff member, we should stand back and allow that to happen. I do not think that anybody has articulated that. Therefore, there needs to be provision so that there is clear guidance and legislative protection in place for the teaching staff. It cannot be presented solely through one perspective when I, as Minister, hear from teaching unions and other representative people whom I have met when I have been in schools and they articulate to me a real concern about these issues. Let me be clear: any education staff who are raising concerns or urging caution about the repeal of article 4(1)(c) are not doing so because they want to retain the ability to use reasonable force against children and young people in order to cause them hurt and distress; rather, their concerns stem from the fact that repealing the provision in isolation could unintentionally remove the legal foundation on which school staff operate when dealing with situations where, according to their professional judgement, they feel that there is a necessity to use reasonable force. I do not have the power to repeal article 4(1)(c). That will be a matter for the Assembly. In considering whether to bring any such proposals to the Executive, I will have to balance the calls for repeal with the fact that repealing the provision could create a reluctance among our dedicated education workforce to intervene physically when necessary. That would not serve our children, our staff or the wider school community. My focus now is on ensuring that my Department provides operational guidance to schools that any physical intervention is the least restrictive necessary in the circumstances and that physical interventions are recorded and reported where it is appropriate and proportionate. That is why statutory guidance that we are developing will define how and when reasonable force can be used, emphasising de-escalation, trauma-informed practice and human rights protections. It will place the child's best interests at its core. It is my firm view that guidance must come first and be developed in consultation with those who will implement it and underpinned by the best interests of children and young people. Once that has been agreed, I can make an informed judgement about the future of article 4(1)(c), ensuring that any changes to legislation are responsible, legally sound and rooted in the realities of school life and ensure that our practitioners feel empowered and trusted to carry out their important work. We owe it to our educators to provide legal clarity and to our children to uphold their dignity, rights and safety. Those aims are not in conflict; they are mutually reinforcing. My Department is working to deliver guidance that reflects both. I am committed to having an education system that protects, values and supports every child; one in which no child is made to feel unsafe or is hurt by the misuse of restrictive practices and in which staff have their professional judgement respected and reinforced by appropriate and practical guidance from my Department that empowers them to act with confidence and compassion in the best interests of all those in their care. I look forward to continued engagement with all stakeholders as we continue to create an education system in which every child is safe, respected and given the opportunity to flourish. By your leave, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will take the opportunity to address the issue of school placements for children with a statement of —

I have three minutes to give an update on the issue, and I am not going to give way.

I am not going to give way.

Mr Baker, if you could contain yourself so that I can give you the update —

Thank you. I will give the update. Ensuring that all children with a statement of special educational needs have a school placement that is appropriate to meet their needs is and will continue to be a primary focus for my Department and the EA. Since 2021, 595 specialist provision classes in 229 schools have been established, but the system has still struggled to keep pace with the rising demand. In recent years the EA has created over 5,000 additional places, including 1,450 additional places for September 2024. In preparation for this September, the EA has already created more than 150 additional classes for approximately 1,350 pupils across 123 schools. However, that is not enough to meet the pressures that we face, and the growing demand and complexity of need means that there remains a critical shortage of specialist provision places for September 2025. Earlier this month, I took the unprecedented step of personally writing to 58 schools in high-pressure areas, asking for their help to secure the right support in the right place for children with statements of SEN who still do not have a place for September 2025. Last week, the EA further wrote to 34 of those schools, again requesting that they consider offering specialist provision. I know the challenges, but I personally ask each of those schools to engage with the EA to look at the practicality of supporting our children who need a placement for September. I can tell the House that the latest information that I have is that there is now a pressure of 103 places for September, which is down from 164 just a week ago. I thank the EA and the school principals who have stepped forward and established specialist provision in their schools. The Education Authority continues to engage with schools and to fully and systematically explore all viable options for providing placements. My Department will continue to work closely with the EA and provide support in managing the situation. I have asked to be kept updated, and I will continue to update the House. I appeal to Members to help me to encourage schools. Some schools are not even returning a call. It is not necessarily a case of reluctant principals not wanting to take a child because there is lack of support; some do not even respond. In your constituencies and on your boards of governors, encourage schools to engage so that we can give them the support that they need. There has to be a system-wide approach. We need our schools, the Education Authority, the Department and political representatives —

— from across the Chamber to play a part in helping to address the issues.

2,078 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