I am grateful to have secured this Adjournment debate on an important subject. It is perhaps appropriate that it should take place on a day when there are local government elections, as a tier of local government deals with education. It is precisely that that I want to talk about.

The subject of the debate is a general one—the safeguarding of children in private schools—but I will draw on a specific example in my constituency, which is the case of St. Peter's independent school. The aim of this debate is to call on the Government to give children in private schools the same level and type of protection as children in state schools; to ask the Government to close a loophole that leaves directors of children's services unable to intervene in independent schools to protect the welfare and safeguarding of children in the same way as they can intervene in state schools. Children should have the same safeguards whatever type of school they are in and those powers should be exercised locally by the local authority, which has overall responsibility for protecting the safety of children in that local authority area.

I am not going to go into all the events surrounding St. Peter's, despite the protections that this Chamber provides. There are children studying at that school and their interests have to be regarded. There are also children in my constituency who were former students at the school and their private interests must be regarded, too. I also want to stress that this is not a matter of private schools versus state schools. Many independent schools have very good practice in child safety and well-being, as they have in education. There are also associations for independent schools that provide support and advice in these important areas. Those factors were all well documented in Roger Singleton's excellent review of safeguarding arrangements in independent schools.

The problem that I want to identify and focus on is what more is needed to ensure that there are proper safeguards in place for the small minority of independent schools that fall through the net, and where standards are not acceptable to ensure that any problems can be dealt with quickly and locally. Although I am drawing from an example in my constituency, that issue is also of wider concern to directors of children's services in other parts of the country.

In the case of St. Peter's, the lack of proper safeguarding arrangements and the lack of powers to allow the local authority to intervene have had serious and continuing consequences for some of the children and, indeed, for their parents. I would argue that much of the delay in dealing with the problems, because of the lack of adequate powers to be operated at a local level, has made the situation more acute for everyone concerned.

Back in 2000, an Ofsted inspection of St. Peter's found:

"The school has many strengths and few weaknesses; it provides a good education."

Significantly, it found:

"The school has a brief but adequate policy on child protection."

It also found:

"There are sufficient suitably qualified and experienced staff to teach most areas of the curriculum satisfactorily".

In 2006, there was a further inspection, which again found that St. Peter's

"is a good school and is successful in its aim of providing a good all-round education for pupils with a wide range of abilities. There is outstanding provision for the personal development of" children. It found:

"The overall welfare, health and safety of pupils are satisfactory. The school maintains a high level of care for pupils", and

"The school has due regard to the safety of the pupils. Policies are comprehensive and include procedures for child protection, anti-bullying strategies, First Aid, health and safety issues and fire safety."

It also found that the school met most of the requirements for registration. That was in November 2006.

Just 18 months later, some constituents came to see me expressing concern about events at the school—first one parent, then two, then a group. Their concerns were about educational issues, about some issues relating to school resources and facilities, such as problems with cleaning and furniture in the school, and about some specific allegations of unacceptable or inappropriate behaviour. Those were the matters of real concern to me. Whatever the educational issues—parents are entitled to make choices about the type of education that they want for their children—the allegations about behaviour seem to me to be absolutely straightforward. They should have led to the relevant people being suspended, be they students or staff, so that investigations could be carried out according to a proper, established, recognised procedure so that remedial action could be taken and things could be put back on course. That is the kind of thing that many of us have, unfortunately, seen happen in our local authority education or children's services. It is not a sign of great success, but it is a sign that there are safeguards in place to deal with problems when they arise.

Let me indicate the nature of the allegations made. I do not want to go into all the details, but they were of children being hit; of children having their personal information disclosed in front of their class; of children being left in classrooms with a video camera on them in the absence of a teacher; of a girl being made to change in one of those classrooms with the video camera on; and of the arbitrary and inappropriate punishment of children. There are more, quite substantial, allegations of that type.

On taking up my constituents' complaints, I found that a police-led inquiry into the allegations had already been set up, involving local agencies including the local education authority and a representative from the school. As it turned out, that representative was a trustee who was involved with a local firm that had acted on behalf of one of the members of staff about whom allegations had been made. The firm is also now involved in legal action against some of the parents.

I spent a considerable amount of time in the summer of 2008 trying to find a way forward for my constituents, and that included a lot of discussions with colleagues at the Department for Children, Schools and Families here in Westminster. Eventually—and it was eventually—Ofsted agreed to conduct a further inspection. In addition, the Charity Commission set up an inquiry into the trust that owns the school. I also spoke a number of times to Ministers in the DCSF and, of course, extensively to the director of children's services in Northamptonshire, as well as to the police and other agencies. I have to say that getting action on this matter was one of the most difficult, frustrating experiences that I have ever had. Despite the obvious concerns of my constituents, at every turn the argument was that no one had the power to do anything. In particular, and probably most importantly, the local director of children's services did not have the powers to act that he would have had if St. Peter's had been a local authority school.

So what was the result of all the complaints? When the Ofsted inspection report came out in September 2008, it found that

"St Peter's Independent School does not meet all the regulations for independent schools, and in particular the overall provision for pupils' welfare, health and safety is inadequate. This is primarily because safeguarding procedures are inadequate. The failure to properly safeguard pupils means that the overall effectiveness of the Early Years Foundation Stage is inadequate."

It listed 30 recommendations that the school had to follow to meet the standards required for independent schools. Among the shortcomings found by Ofsted was the fact that although all the staff, with two exceptions, had been subject to Criminal Records Bureau checks, a number had not been vetted at the required enhanced level. The chair of governors had not carried out all the necessary checks on board members, and there was not robust enough checking of staff, including those who had lived outside the UK, before they were appointed. The child protection policy was not up to date, comprehensive or implemented effectively. There were other criticisms, too.

A notice was served on the school requiring it to produce an action plan. That is now being progressed, and there has been a further report from Ofsted, which was quite supportive. The Charity Commission's report on its investigation into the school found shortcomings in the workings of the trust that runs the school. Those shortcomings included the fact that the trustees

"did not manage the risks arising from the allegations and complaints" made by parents, had failed to comply with the commission's first directive, and had provided the commission with misleading information, although they later co-operated and had been working to put things right.

The police finished their report and passed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service, which decided not to prosecute. However, the CPS, in a letter to me, concluded:

"The allegations of assault amounted to incidents which would be categorised as common assault for the purpose of charge. This is significant as charges of common assault have to be brought within six months of the date of the alleged offence. All of the allegations which, in my judgement, amount to allegations of assault fell outside that six month limit. Furthermore, one allegation of assault was said to have been committed on a school trip in France, taking it outside the jurisdiction of the English Courts."

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Ian Lucas.)