Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (England) Regulations 2025

Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Motion to Regret

18:29

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

That this House regrets that the Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (England) Regulations 2025 are accompanied by an impact assessment that underestimates the cost of implementation; and that they do not enable the best use of the information which will be recorded by schools.

Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing my attention to these regulations. The committee is the punishment battalion of the House of Lords committee system. I have served my time on it and know that you get a huge pile of papers every week and you absolutely have to read and understand them all—there is no escape. It is a huge amount of hard work, and I am very grateful to it. The committee picked up on the impact assessment, but that focused on private schools only. My concerns run wider.

I do not disagree with the directions that the regulations are taking to make schools safer and involve parents more, particularly when we have the prospect of more SEND children in mainstream education. Incidents that require seclusion are unplanned, cathartic happenings. Suddenly, a child is banging his head on his desk uncontrollably, and the teacher, whoever they are, has to know what to do. There has to be an effective system of support for that teacher and the child, and proper records have to be made. Schools ought to be self-critical and self-improving places, and parents ought to be involved.

However, good things absorb time, especially what should be teacher downtime and senior management team time. Good things cost money and good things, if not thought through, displace other good things. It is important to think through carefully the objectives, methods and impact when we are creating things such as these regulations. In the case of these regulations, that was clearly not done.

The fact that the impact assessment covers only independent schools is ridiculous. Most of the impact of these regulations is on state schools. That is where the cost for the system and for the Government lies. We are told that the training requirement is two staff in the school. Who have the Government talked to? It is clear that they have talked to nobody. My local secondary school has every staff member trained—of course they have to be trained, as they are the ones in front of whom these incidents occur. They have to be masters of de-escalation and understand how to call in the support system. Every single one of them needs to be trained to a standard.

As for the response, in an average-sized secondary school with about 1,000 pupils, there are 20 fully trained staff members who are capable of dealing with the details of an incident. To say two staff are needed shows that the Government are living in a different world. On the time to record, the impact assessment says 30 to 120 seconds. Having talked to schools, lawyers and others, I know that a simple incident would take an hour and a complicated one a day. There is so much to be done and there are lots of people who have to be brought into the discussion. Time has to be taken to help the teacher wind down, quite apart from looking after the child. There needs to be care taken to record fully and accurately exactly what has happened and time taken to learn from it.

On frequency, the impact assessment uses the rate of internal exclusions, but that process is not in any way connected to isolation or restraint. In a secondary school, there are maybe 50 internal exclusions a week, varying in severity from 10 minutes to a day. There may be two seclusions a week. There is just no connection between the two. There is no way that internal exclusions should have been used, let alone suggested, as a measure for how frequent isolation is.

We are looking, all in all, in the state system, at a cost in the order of £100 million per annum—that is the steady state; I am not talking about the initial cost for getting everyone up to speed. In alternative provision or special schools, we have a totally different environment, where the sort of outbursts that are rare in mainstream education may be anticipated, part of the makeup of a child and something the school has to adapt to over the long term. They require a different approach and a different set of regulations. That does not seem to be provided for in the regulations or discussed in the impact assessment.

When it comes to the detail of which incidents are and are not seclusion, it is hard to tell from what is in the regulations whether what you have in front of you is or is not covered by them. It is acknowledged that we have very little data on what is happening on seclusion, but the Government’s proposals for gathering further data are limited. Altogether, the regulations and impact assessment are lackadaisical, unserious and uncaring, and they are unconnected to reality. It is important that the Department for Education does much better.

It is not hard. All it takes is to do what I have done and talk to some heads, some lawyers and the school unions, and sense check what has been produced. That takes only a few hours. I would like the Department for Education to review the processes, especially the supervision, that generated the regulations and the impact statement we have in front of us. Understanding reality, having the courage to trust professionals, working out which strategies will yield the best results and getting the wording right are important to make sure that the impact of these things on schools is kept within bounds. As I said, a sense check is needed. Have a set of friends that you can turn to and ask for advice. What is really going on in schools? How will these proposals work in practice?

The impact statement says, and I agree, that there is a lack of good data. The department and schools should be collecting all the data they need to understand what is going on with seclusion and restraint, how it varies through the system and how best to improve practice. The Government should be asking all schools for a simple record of everything, including incidents resolved without the need to employ seclusion or restraint. This data is there in the electronic systems of schools—it is quick and easy to produce. With a total picture of what is going on, it would be much easier for the department to formulate policy.

When the department wants to look at things in detail and gauge what is required, by way of detailed research, having the overall picture will make it much easier to select the right examples and the right coverage and for the department to gain a real understanding of best and worst practice in the system. Having the overall data will enable individual schools to benchmark themselves and look at how they compare with other schools in the system, and that will help their improvement.

I very much hope that the Government will also improve their proposals for data collection. The Government have a commitment to high quality in schools. They should have a commitment to high quality in their regulations. I beg to move.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I have spent many years working with young people, particularly the most vulnerable. We on these Benches support the main aims of this statutory instrument. The safety, dignity, and well-being of our children must always come first. When a young person is secluded, it means they are kept alone or physically restrained and their movement limited. It is a serious step. These sensitive situations must be handled with great care, and it is therefore right that we improve transparency. It is also right that parents receive a written record of what has happened, as soon as possible. The department is correct in recognising that seclusion can be just as harmful as the use of force. However, although the principle behind these regulations is sound, there are concerns about how the Government have gone about introducing them.

First, we should acknowledge the confusion that occurred during the rollout. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out, the original measure had to be withdrawn and replaced because the Minister accidentally signed the wrong draft. We ask our students to check their work carefully before handing it in. It is reasonable to expect the same standards here. As the committee rightly said, this kind of mistake should not have happened.

However, the bigger concern is the Government’s impact assessment. The Government estimate that the cost of recording these incidents will be between £1.6 million and £6.3 million a year, equivalent to the time of about 137 full-time teachers. Yet this estimate only includes 2,443 independent schools in England. Why? Because the Department for Education decided that state schools are not businesses and therefore left them out of the calculations. This is a serious oversight. There are more than 21,000 state schools in England—almost nine times the number of independent schools. By leaving them out, the Government have avoided confronting the true cost of this policy. In reality, the amount of teaching time required will be far greater than the figures suggest.

We should also look at the assumptions behind these figures. The department estimates that it will take two teachers between 30 and 120 seconds to record an incident and report it to a parent. Has anyone making these calculations worked in a busy school recently? The idea that two teachers can promptly and sensitively record an incident involving restraint and seclusion in one or two minutes does not reflect reality. As the committee noted, the estimated time is unrealistically low. In practice, this will mean that already overworked, overstretched teachers will have to work longer hours or spend less time on the other important tasks such as teaching and supporting their pupils.

Let me be clear: we fully support the aims of protecting students and ensuring that parents are properly informed. However, how the Government introduced these measures raises legitimate concerns. There have been unavoidable procedural mistakes and very optimistic estimates of the time involved. The impact assessment leaves out 21,000 state schools, where most of this work will take place. What practical support will be provided to teachers in state schools to help them meet these new responsibilities without the unreasonable burden on staff—who are already working extremely hard?

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this statutory instrument. We understand His Majesty’s Government’s intention. It has been some years since the last update on reasonable force policy, and there has never been a consistent and standardised measure across our schools on how seclusion and restraint are recorded and reported. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the principle of introducing such a regime, as does the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley.

However, much like my noble friend Lord Lucas, we would like to probe the Government on the impact assessment and the updated statutory guidance that will come into force in April. We understand the rationale behind the need for new guidance after many years, and we appreciate that the grounds on which teachers will be legally permitted to use reasonable force will be the same. However, there are several issues on which we seek clarification.

The new guidance makes it clear that teachers must be

“adequately trained in its safe and lawful use, and in preventative strategies”.

While it stops short of implementing a national training standard, the impact assessment assumes that each school will be responsible for ensuring that training is completed in accordance with the principles of the guidance. The impact assessment attempts to outline how this will work in practice. However, our concerns resound with those of my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed.

As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted so well, the department has not accounted for schools in the state sector in its budgeting and suggests a cost of just over £350,000 to independent schools. Are the Government suggesting that there will be no cost to the state sector in implementing this change? If that is the case, can we please have clarification on how they get to their zero-cost calculation?

18:45

Equally importantly, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned his local school and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, highlighted eloquently his numbers. This will have an impact on the efficacy of seclusions and the ability to restrain the most disruptive pupils. Is it realistic to assume that only two teachers from each school need to be trained for just two hours? Is the real number to ensure appropriate understanding and governance not a significant multiple of that? Children’s behaviour is irregular and unpredictable. Every teacher in the classroom must be confident that they have the legal right to use reasonable force and seclusions where necessary. It is of great concern to the Opposition that this measure may negatively impact teachers who have not received the official training to take the necessary steps of using reasonable force. Let me be clear: no teacher, pupil or parent desires any use of force, but sometimes, regrettably, it is the only option left.

Similarly, in assuming that only two teachers in each school receive two hours of training, it is likely that the assessment has materially underestimated the administrative time and cost of the new training, which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, put a figure on and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, also referred to. It takes more than 30 seconds to two minutes to report these incidents. We should never be in a situation where serious disruption goes unchecked because a teacher is worried about repercussions; nor do we wish for an unexpected and overly burdensome cost on schools because the Government have unintentionally not costed the policy correctly. We would be most grateful if the Minister could provide detail on these key shortfalls in the impact assessment, highlighted so well by noble Lords.

Beyond the administrative costs that these regulations and guidance will impose on schools and teachers, there is also the question of their impact on behaviour. We welcome a standardised reporting measure in principle, but such a measure presupposes that restraint and, more importantly, seclusions will be part of school life. No teacher enjoys having to give seclusions and we accept that there are often negative consequences for the well-being of children as a result, but they are necessary because, unfortunately, there are children whose behaviour disrupts and threatens other pupils in the class and teachers. Therefore, the fact that one of the stated intentions of the guidance is to

“minimise the need to use restrictive interventions”

raises alarm bells on our side of your Lordships’ House.

In theory, intervening early, introducing intervention strategies or undertaking other preventive measures intuitively are vastly preferable to seclusion. Early interventions and strategies work, but they must not be mistaken for a replacement for more serious measures. As many noble Lords will know, disruption is unfortunately a natural part of school life, but it is clear from the evidence that cutting down on seclusions, exclusions and general punitive measures will not fix this. I simply refer to the Scottish Government’s research. Low-level disruptive behaviour has increased since 2006, with serious disruptive behaviour, including verbal abuse, physical aggression and violence towards staff and pupils, on the increase since 2016. That worsening behavioural trend is directly correlated with the loosening of tough behavioural sanctions. Temporary exclusions have decreased consistently by around 70% since 2006.

There were zero permanent exclusions in the last academic year, which I believe makes it crystal clear that replacing serious measures with lesser sanctions does not work. This is obviously not what the instrument intends to do, nor what the Government want. But will the Minister consider that by narrowing the scope of the use of strict punishments, including seclusions and exclusions in school, we can inadvertently fall into the trap of worsening behaviour trends, as just highlighted?

New early intervention strategies are of course an excellent idea, but when done in conjunction with upholding the sometimes necessary use of seclusions and exclusions. We simply ask that the Minister and the department commit to revisit the incoming recording and reporting process that many people, not just noble Lords here, feel is poorly costed and has inadequate oversight. Can she then reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government accept that seclusions and exclusions are, regrettably, sometimes a necessary part of school life?

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity today to respond to concerns raised by noble Lords and to clarify areas of misunderstanding, including in some of the analysis during this debate. The question of how schools use restrictive interventions, including physical restraint and seclusion, goes to the heart of how we keep children safe, support staff and uphold the trust of families. These interventions can have real and lasting effects, which is why this Government have taken such care in revising the Use of Reasonable Force guidance for schools and strengthening the framework around its use. Yet it is equally true that there will be moments, rare but critical, when the use of reasonable force or another restrictive intervention is both lawful and necessary to keep a child or those around them safe, and we cannot shy away from that reality.

In such circumstances, staff must be confident in what the law allows, clear on how to act safely and supported by leadership that builds strong partnerships with families, and provides parents with a clear and timely picture of their child’s experience. This sits at the heart of our wider approach of calm, caring and predictable environments supported by early, support-first intervention, as set out in our recently published schools White Paper. In doing so we ensure that every school and every classroom provides a safe, supportive place where every child, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, feels that they belong and can thrive.

It was with these principles in mind that we introduced new regulations requiring schools to record and report all incidents of seclusion and non-force-related restraint to parents, strengthening consistency and ensuring that parents are informed about significant events affecting their child. The consultation that we undertook early last year provided invaluable insight. While I understand the frustrations of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, some of the words that he used about the department’s approach to engaging with schools, professionals and trade unions—that is widespread in the work that we do—were not fair and were significantly overstated.

During the course of that consultation, we heard clear concerns from parents, Ofsted and the Equality and Human Rights Commission about inconsistency in the monitoring of seclusion compared with physical force. There was real concern that this could lead schools to view seclusion as somehow easier or safer. That is not a message that any of us would wish schools to take, and the updated guidance directly addresses that risk. The revised guidance and new legislation equip schools to develop clear and inclusive policies, ensuring that safeguarding sits at the centre of decisions about restrictive interventions. It places strong emphasis on early help, understanding what sits behind behaviour, and using prevention and de-escalation strategies wherever possible. But it also recognises that when an intervention is necessary, staff must feel supported and able to act appropriately, lawfully and safely.

Importantly, every decision must take account of the welfare and needs of all children, including those with SEND, ensuring that responses are proportionate and rooted in an understanding of children’s needs and experiences. From April 2026, schools will be legally required, under these regulations, to record and report each significant incident of force, seclusion or non-force-related restraint to parents as soon as possible.

On the point about seclusion raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, it is worth reminding ourselves of the definition of seclusion in this guidance. In these circumstances, we are talking about non-disciplinary interventions. I understand his concerns, which I share, about the need to ensure that teachers have the wherewithal and ability, through either suspension or other disciplinary measures, to maintain the calm classrooms that every child deserves. However, the seclusion covered in these regulations does not relate to those disciplinary areas.

On disciplinary provisions, the Government, in the most recent schools White Paper, came forward with proposals for how we can better handle, for example, internal suspensions. Those are not covered here. For clarity, seclusion here applies only where a pupil is prevented from leaving a space and is detained alone, other than as a disciplinary measure. That reflects the Equality and Human Rights Commission definition, which describes seclusion as the withdrawal of a pupil against their will and their confinement alone in a space they are not free to leave. In response to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in some of his communication, to be clear, seclusion does not include brief voluntary timeout, agreed calming arrangements or the planned non disciplinary use of separation or sensory spaces to support a pupil to regulate their emotions.

Schools must record all incidents of seclusion and non-force-related restraint. They may choose to record additional information, but such measures should not be described as “seclusion”. On the extent to which this process can be used for school improvement, we expect schools to use the data they collect to review their approaches and reduce the need for restrictive interventions through early, support-first approaches. Greater transparency will of course build trust with families and reassure the wider public about how such interventions are used.

I recognise the concerns raised about the evidence base underpinning the impact assessment. There is currently no national dataset on seclusion or non-force restraint. Therefore, internal exclusions were used as a cautious proxy because no better evidence exists. This is an imperfect measure, and the frequency of these incidents will vary significantly between settings—for example, in many secondary schools they are rare. However, in the absence of more robust data, it was the only viable approach. It may also be helpful to clarify that the monetised analysis of the impact assessment focuses on independent schools. Under Better Regulation requirements, as a department we must quantify the impact of new duties on businesses, and independent schools fall within that definition. State-funded schools do not do so, and so are not included in that element of the assessment. That is not to say there will not be an impact on state-funded schools—I will come to what that might be in a moment —it is simply to say that the approach taken in the impact assessment was in line with the Government’s Better Regulation requirements for how impact assessments are put together.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others also raised concerns about the department’s estimate of the time it will take school staff to record incidents. Although the evidence base is limited, I reassure noble Lords that this estimate assumes that schools already have or will put in place efficient and streamlined record-keeping systems. Our contacts with schools suggest that is the case in very many cases, and many do so already as part of wider safeguarding responsibilities. Our guidance is designed to support schools rather than add unnecessary burden. It is worth emphasising that many schools, as I already suggested, rarely use force or restrictive interventions. This has been fully reflected in our assessment of burden.

19:00

These regulations introduce no new training requirements. The only new cost is the time for staff to familiarise themselves with the reporting and recording requirements, and then the reporting itself. For many schools, this will simply involve logging an event using existing systems.

On the points noble Lords made about the level of training, it appeared to me, certainly in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that he was talking about the level of training necessary to understand the nature of the different interventions, how they might be used and what should be put in place in advance of them. Of course it is right that training is necessary for that area of work.

As part of the public consultation, we heard a strong call from the sector for mandatory training standards—not for the recording and reporting, but for the understanding of when and how these interventions should be used. Respondents from schools, parents and specialist organisations told us unequivocally that strong evidence-informed training is essential if staff are to de-escalate situations confidently and use restrictive interventions safely and appropriately when they are necessary. We have listened carefully to that feedback and work is now under way on the next phase of this work programme, in which the department will explore the case for such standards and develop detailed recommendations on what robust, proportionate and deliverable training requirements could look like across different types of schools.

As I have suggested, the impact assessment therefore reflects only familiarisation time and the time required for recording. It does not relate to any wider workforce training that schools already undertake as part of their safeguarding responsibilities. On that basis, the assumption of two members of staff—not necessarily teachers, by the way—completing the familiarisation task is considered proportionate. Decisions about any broader training will remain with school leaders, shaped by the needs of their pupils and their setting.

On the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, it would obviously have helped to answer some of these questions if there was a mandated national data collection. I doubt, not only having taught in schools for 11 years but having previously been an Education Minister, whether schools would welcome the idea of an additional burden—and it would be a burden—of expecting a national data collection. As with all these things, we need to bear in mind the need and the wish for greater analysis and evidence alongside the requirements that we place on schools. I do not think the case is made for a national data collection in this particular circumstance.

In closing, I thank noble Lords for raising the points they have today, for prompting discussion and, I hope, for enabling me to clarify some of the points that have been made and to respond on the broader intention of the regulations. The Government will continue to work closely with schools, parents and the wider sector to ensure that restrictive interventions are used only when absolutely necessary, always safely, always lawfully and always in the best interests of children.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive reply, much of which I completely agreed with. I take issue with only two points.

The first is the restriction of the impact assessment to independent schools. In understanding how regulations work and the effect they will have on the system, and sharing that information with Parliament, surely the policy should be that the coverage should be extended to include state schools, which will bear the great majority of the consequences of these regulations. Not to share that with Parliament, as the committee observed, is surely not the right way of going about things.

Secondly, when it comes to data collection, most schools will have this data. Data collection is just a matter of turning a switch or two in the central system so that that data then flows into the governance system, with no extra recording and no extra actions needed beyond adding a few fields to the data already going to government. I really do not understand that that is difficult. However, I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion withdrawn.