Meeting of the Parliament 19 March 2026 [Draft]
Amendment 1 will provide a regulation-making power to amend the definitions of restraint and seclusion in section 1 at a future date, where ministers consider it necessary to do so. I understand that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills is keen on such an amendment and I think that it makes a lot of sense. The regulation-making power will be able to be exercised where necessary to prevent the current definitions capturing actions that do not carry a significant risk of harm and, on the other hand, it will allow the definitions to capture additional actions that do carry a significant risk of harm. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will provide Parliament with an opportunity for scrutiny.
I will set out why I consider that amendment 1 matters, and how the bill now offers a clearer and more practical approach to restraint and seclusion in schools. At stage 1, we in the Education, Children and Young People Committee had reasonable concerns that the bill might accidentally pull in routine and harmless interactions, such as guiding a child by the hand across the road or offering physical support as part of a child’s everyday care. The committee wanted to ensure that the system would be workable for staff, without unnecessary paperwork or confusion.
A number of changes that directly addressed those points were introduced into the bill at stage 2. The bill now includes clear definitions of restraint and seclusion. Statutory guidance will provide clarity about the difference between action that significantly restricts a child’s movement and something that is simply day-to-day support. That should mean that we can clearly say that holding a child’s hand or other ordinary interactions are not restraint and are not covered by the bill. Restriction of movement, such as with equipment that is used as part of a child’s agreed support plan, might still fall within the definition of restraint in section 1, but regulations made under section 4(4A), which was added at stage 2, will be able to specify that such actions are types of restraint that do not need to be recorded or reported.
Amendment 1 will ensure that the definitions in the bill remain appropriate and workable. If, in future, activity that is genuinely routine is still being mistakenly treated as restraint or seclusion, an adjustment can be made to the definition in section 1. That should ensure that the framework always remains practical and proportionate. Together, those provisions respond directly to the committee’s concerns and should create a balanced, workable system that protects children, while supporting the professionals who care for them.
I move amendment 1.