I thought that that the sub judice rule was about to be raised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I had mentioned something that might be before the courts.

The problems for the family who made the complaints continue. Those who took their children out of the school, or had them excluded due to the events surrounding the allegations, are being pursued by the school for repayment of fees, despite the fact that the children were sometimes removed due to events that were well outwith the parents' control. One family was taken to court after they removed their child. They lost their case, the school was awarded costs and the family declared themselves bankrupt and lost their home.

Another family are being taken to court, and the discussions are that their child might be called on to give evidence about events that a child would not normally be expected to give in open court. Basically, it is evidence about an indecent assault, and it seems wholly inappropriate even to consider trying that in court as part of a debt recovery action. A third family are also in the early stages of having legal action taken against them, and a number of others have settled privately after their children were excluded.

It seems that this is a very unsatisfactory conclusion to a very poorly managed sequence of events. First, real questions must be asked about why Ofsted was so lax in finding the difficulties at the school, and why it needed so much persuasion to undertake the necessary investigation to put in place an action plan to resolve the problems. For example, how in 2000 did it find:

"The school has a brief but adequate policy on child protection"; and, in 2006, that there was

"due regard to the safety of pupils. Policies are comprehensive"; but then make, in 2008, a whole list of recommendations for the action that would be needed to bring safeguarding policies up to standard?

It also seems completely inexplicable that in 2000 Ofsted should find:

"There are sufficiently suitably qualified and experienced staff to teach most areas of the curriculum satisfactorily," but then that the school does not even have a process for properly CRB-checking staff to the right standard, and that it does not necessarily vet staff properly before it gives them jobs and allows them to teach at the school.

It is also wrong that events that take place in respect of a school cannot be prosecuted because they are out of school time or take place on a school trip. It is even worse if events take place on a school trip—when the school is acting in place of the parents. If they take place in the UK, at least the children can speak to their parents in the evening. It seems completely wrong also that such events should be immune from any other form of investigation or sanction.

One reads in the paper complaints of teachers having their careers ruined because of false allegations of assault, and they are extremely worrying, but, equally, it is important that there are procedures for dealing with allegations of behaviour that might fall far short of criminal conduct but breach rules for professional conduct. They might require not prosecution but some local sanction—for example, in the school, through training or improvement, or through measures to deal with the children's behaviour, if that is the problem. It is also wrong that the problems had to escalate to the point at which prosecution was even considered; I would have thought that behaviour in schools would be of a far higher standard. Such problems should certainly not be allowed to persist.

The parents should have been able to get their complaints dealt with quickly. If the school was not prepared to deal with them, they should have been able to get prompt local action. As it was, things had to be escalated so that they were dealt with by Ministers and Ofsted, which, obviously, has a vast array of other schools and issues other than safeguarding to deal with. In this instance, it was required to do things that properly should have been done at the first stage by the local authority.

Furthermore, it is wrong that national intervention was needed by not only Ofsted but the Charity Commission. Our local children's services director knew about the problem. He had extensive dealings with it and knew what type of resolution was needed. However, he was completely powerless to act, short of removing all the children from the school. That would have been completely counter-productive and probably open to legal challenge.

Since all this happened, the Government have commissioned a review by Roger Singleton to consider safeguarding arrangements in independent schools, non-maintained special schools and boarding schools. I have contributed to the review. Its recommendations have been largely accepted by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, which will consult further on proposals in September. I urge the Department and the Minister to plug the loophole in the legislation to ensure that local children's services directors have the power to intervene on safeguarding issues in independent non-maintained special schools and boarding schools, to protect the welfare of children and make sure that the powers given to children's services directors under the Children Act 2004 extend to independent schools as much as to state schools.

In respect of private schools, children's services directors need to be able to intervene on the basis of allegations, to investigate and to make recommendations that must be followed to put in place the required changes, just as they can in state schools. They also need to intervene on the governors or trustees of private schools, just as they can with state schools, to make sure that those people are held properly accountable for the safeguarding arrangements, welfare and well-being of the children.

It is completely wrong that one set of rules on child safety and protection should apply to state schools and another set to independent schools. The safeguarding of children is rightly seen as a matter for the local community. The local community, through the local authority and its children's services, should have the power to protect all children, whatever type of school they attend. They should also have the power to make the process transparent for the public, so that people in the wider local community can understand what is happening and see the safeguards that are put in place.

State schools have become accustomed to being named and shamed, and that can be a scarring experience for any school. However, it is now understood that the wider community is entitled to a certain level of information about what happens to children in a school, and it is important that there should be the same transparency to the wider community at independent schools as there is in state schools. The constituents who came to me do not get information about what has happened as a result of their children's complaints. They have been left on the sidelines, with significant and substantial problems to deal with as a result of what happened in that school.

I would not want any other group of parents, or indeed any other MP, to have to be in a position of knowing that things have gone wrong in a school and that nobody is prepared to step forward and say, "I have the power to sort this out." Instead, it is divided around a whole range of different agencies, and it takes, as in this case, many months to resolve problems which, if the local authority had the power to do so, could have been dealt with much more quickly, to the benefit of the children, the teachers and the parents in surrounding areas who might want to send their children to that school. I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that this loophole is closed and that all children, whatever type of school they attend, are given the same safeguards by law.