Question to the Department for Education:

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what recent assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of trends in the level of the use of (i) physical restraint and (ii) isolation practices in schools; what steps her Department is taking to reduce the use of these practices; and when updated guidance for schools and parents will be published on this matter.

Answered by Olivia Bailey - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Education) (Equalities)

The government recognises that the use of restrictive interventions, such as physical restraint and seclusion, can have a significant and long-lasting effect on the pupils, staff members and parents involved, as well as other class members.

For this reason, we have recently updated the restrictive interventions, and the use of reasonable force in schools guidance. This aims to support schools to proactively minimise the need to use such interventions through early support, prevention and de-escalation strategies.

​The ‘Behaviour in schools’ guidance outlines expectations around the use of removal from the classroom which some schools refer to as isolation. Schools should ensure that removal for any pupil is for the minimum amount of time necessary, and that removal is used consistently, proportionately, and in a way that supports the pupil’s reintegration into the classroom.

The guidance makes clear to schools that they should collect, review and analyse data internally to assess the use of restrictive interventions and removal, so that improvements to these practices can be identified.

As outlined in the Schools White Paper, we will spread best practice through refreshed resources to support schools to deliver calm, caring and inclusive environments.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what avenues of redress are available to family members who believe there has been maladministration in the handling of a deputyship case.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

Family members who believe there has been maladministration in the handling of a deputyship case have several avenues of redress.

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) is responsible for supervising deputies and will investigate concerns raised about a deputy’s conduct or the way they are carrying out their duties. These investigations are undertaken to ensure that the deputy is acting in the best interests of the person lacking capacity and fulfilling their responsibilities in line with the authority set out in their court order.

Separately, the OPG’s internal complaints process allows individuals to challenge the OPG’s own administrative handling of a case. Once internal processes are complete, if a customer remains unhappy, concerns may be referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman via a Member of Parliament.

Where an issue relates to a judicial decision, such as the making or discharging of a deputyship order, this must be addressed through the Court of Protection. Complaints about the professional standards of a deputy may also be taken to the relevant regulatory body.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps the he is taking to help ensure transparency in Court of Protection proceedings while safeguarding the privacy of vulnerable individuals.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

We do not hold data on the average costs incurred by individuals subject to professional deputy orders.

The Court of Protection sets strict rules about what deputies can charge, which are governed by specific practice directions and rules. Practice Direction 19B (PRACTICE DIRECTION 19B – FIXED COSTS AND DEPUTY REMUNERATION IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION) sets out the responsibilities of deputies in ensuring costs are justified, reasonable, and in P’s best interests. The Practice Direction provides a schedule of fees (fixed costs) that deputies, either solicitors or public authority officeholders, can charge when they have been authorised to act for P.

If professional deputies choose not to take fixed costs, they can have their costs assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO). The Office of the Public Guardian and the Senior Courts Costs Office have produced guidance to ensure costs charged to vulnerable individuals’ estates are reasonable, proportionate, and fully justified as well as maintaining public confidence through transparency, accountability, and consistent standards: Professional Deputy Costs - GOV.UK

Court of Protection proceedings involve personal, sensitive matters and enable decisions made in the best interests of the person who lacks the mental capacity to make those decisions themselves. A transparency order in the Court of Protection restricts the publication and communication of information from proceedings. They support the principle of open justice by allowing court of protection hearings to be heard in public whilst protecting the privacy of vulnerable individuals.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate has been made of the average costs incurred by individuals subject to professional deputyship orders in the last five years.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

We do not hold data on the average costs incurred by individuals subject to professional deputy orders.

The Court of Protection sets strict rules about what deputies can charge, which are governed by specific practice directions and rules. Practice Direction 19B (PRACTICE DIRECTION 19B – FIXED COSTS AND DEPUTY REMUNERATION IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION) sets out the responsibilities of deputies in ensuring costs are justified, reasonable, and in P’s best interests. The Practice Direction provides a schedule of fees (fixed costs) that deputies, either solicitors or public authority officeholders, can charge when they have been authorised to act for P.

If professional deputies choose not to take fixed costs, they can have their costs assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO). The Office of the Public Guardian and the Senior Courts Costs Office have produced guidance to ensure costs charged to vulnerable individuals’ estates are reasonable, proportionate, and fully justified as well as maintaining public confidence through transparency, accountability, and consistent standards: Professional Deputy Costs - GOV.UK

Court of Protection proceedings involve personal, sensitive matters and enable decisions made in the best interests of the person who lacks the mental capacity to make those decisions themselves. A transparency order in the Court of Protection restricts the publication and communication of information from proceedings. They support the principle of open justice by allowing court of protection hearings to be heard in public whilst protecting the privacy of vulnerable individuals.

Motor neurone disease

Found: North Hykeham) Darren Paffey (Labour; Southampton Itchen) Rebecca Paul (Conservative; Reigate) Manuela Perteghella

Found: ) 43 of 53 (81.1%) Sojan Joseph (Labour, Ashford) (added 5 Jan 2026) 5 of 6 (83.3%) Manuela Perteghella