Then I can only reiterate that if the advice that I have been given is incorrect, I will be more than happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.

St Peter's school is no different from any other in the sense that neither the Secretary of State, the local authority, the police nor social services has the power to force a school to suspend a teacher pending investigations of abuse. The power to make that decision rests with the management of the school alone, and any change to the status quo would require a change in the law. However, as I have already said, there is a statutory obligation on every school, regardless of whether it is maintained or independent, to ensure the safety and well-being of its pupils. Inspections of independent schools follow exactly the same processes as those of any other school, to ensure that those obligations are met. It goes without saying that any school that fails to meet the required standards can be deregistered.

I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns about the trustees of St Peter's, but their actions are a matter for the Charity Commission to consider. Our concern has to be first and foremost to ensure that children learn in a safe environment. We rely on local authorities and Ofsted to judge whether arrangements are in place to allow that to happen. Councils have the lead in deciding what safeguarding arrangements need to be made locally, so in the case of St Peter's school it is up to Northamptonshire county council to decide what should apply.

It is critical to note that there should never be any question of a child's safety being threatened. Local authorities will always have the power to remove any child from a situation in which they might be threatened, regardless of whether that is in an independent or maintained school. Of course, any parent whose child is at an independent school and who is worried about their safety will always be given the option of taking up a place at a maintained school. I shall come later to further measures that we are taking to improve safeguarding arrangements.

My hon. Friend mentioned Ofsted. I am aware, of course, of the concerns that the agency raised in its inspection of St Peter's last year, to which she referred. She also mentioned previous Ofsted inspections. Inspections are valid only at a particular point in time, and in our experience things can change rapidly. Last year, inspectors highlighted a number of key areas that had to be improved for the school to remain registered and, as she told us, they described safeguarding procedures as "inadequate". They found, for example, that the child protection policy was out of date, that proper Criminal Records Bureau checks had not been carried out and that not all staff had been properly vetted. Clearly, that was totally unacceptable. However, it is important to note that Ofsted found that on a day-to-day basis pupils were generally well cared for, and that children described behaviour in the school as good.

I am pleased to say that the school appears to have taken the report seriously. Following statutory notice to improve, action has now been taken. As my hon. Friend is aware, inspectors returned to the school at the end of April this year and their report confirms that the school has now addressed those earlier safeguarding failings. A copy of their report has been sent to the school, which will no doubt examine it and further address the inspectors' findings. It is worth mentioning that like maintained schools, many independent schools are inspected by Ofsted every three years, and we will always respond to any complaints about the school in question.

I hope that I have been able to provide some reassurance that safety nets are in place to help protect children in independent schools, but this is not in any way, shape or form a matter on which this Government are remotely complacent. We are more determined than ever to make this the safest country in the world for all children to study in, regardless of their background. That is why we are introducing, through the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, the toughest possible vetting and barring system for all those working, or seeking to work, with children and vulnerable adults. It is why we have made CRB checks mandatory for all new appointments to the school work force, and why we commissioned Sir Roger Singleton to review safeguarding arrangements in independent schools.

Sir Roger's report was published in March, and the Secretary of State immediately accepted every one of his 32 recommendations, which included ensuring that all boarding schools are properly regulated; providing greater support for independent schools to help them improve safeguarding practice; improving information sharing and schools' self-evaluation of safeguarding performance; and strengthening the relationship between schools and their local safeguarding children boards. In addition, Sir Roger has made it clear that he wants to see school proprietors make arrangements for annual, independent scrutiny that would challenge their schools' safeguarding policies and practice.

A report of that scrutiny will then be made available to the Department, as a further means of strengthening those checks and balances. I know that officials are already working on amending the appropriate guidance and legislation in the light of those recommendations. It is encouraging that Sir Roger's report seems to have been received so well by independent schools as well as local authorities and Ofsted.

It is worth mentioning the role of the Charity Commission, to which I referred earlier. As a registered charity, St. Peter's—and many other independent schools like it—is answerable to the commission. The organisation launched its investigation into the school in February, and expressed several serious concerns about leadership and the trustees' stewardship of the school. Consequently, it issued a direction to the school to undertake a comprehensive governance review of the charity, including the development of a risk management strategy relating to child protection. As I understand it, that was to include staff training as appropriate. I know that the commission has since been very positive about the way in which the trustees of St Peter's have accepted the challenge. I believe that the school has taken on board all the commission's regulatory advice, guidance and recommendations.

I know that some concerns remain about the progress that St Peter's needs to make, with Ofsted highlighting key areas that need to be addressed, including careers guidance and pupil assessment. However, the school now appears to have turned a corner following the visit that Ofsted inspectors made last year. A new leadership is in place, safeguarding procedures have been strengthened and efforts have been made to improve school buildings and clean them. Perhaps most important, all staff in the school have now been subject to an enhanced CRB check to confirm their suitability to work with children.

I am sure that much of that is down to my hon. Friend's hard work and persistence. Like her, the Government set the bar at nothing less than absolutely parity of safety and well-being for every child in this country. That applies not only to those from disadvantaged backgrounds or from poorer areas. It applies to all children, from all walks of life, at all schools.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.