CCTV in Nurseries: When Trust Isn't Enough to Keep Children Safe

As solicitors representing survivors of abuse, we know that abuse can happen at any age and the consequences of safeguarding failures can last a lifetime. For parents, when they leave their baby or young child at nursery, they are placing something priceless into somebody else's hands. They trust that the people caring for their child are properly trained, appropriately supervised and, above all, safe. But what happens when that trust is betrayed? Recent cases have forced us to confront an uncomfortable question. Should we be doing more to monitor what happens to children when their parents are not there?

Case of Vincent Chan

This year, the example of Vincent Chan, who was recently sentenced to 18 years in prison for abusing children at a nursery in West Hampstead, has understandably intensified worries and expectations that CCTV should be mandatory in nurseries. More than 200 parents affected by the case are campaigning for major changes to be implemented to the regulation of safeguarding in the nursery industry, including a requirement for the installation of CCTV where this is not already implemented. There are also demands for Ofsted to review footage during inspections to ensure protocol is being followed and children are being properly cared for and protected.

Trust is not enough

The argument being made is not that every nursery worker should be treated with suspicion. Most people working in childcare are dedicated professionals who care deeply about the children entrusted to them. However, the very reason safeguarding systems are put in place is precisely because trust alone is not enough. Nor is CCTV a magic solution to safeguarding. There are very real issues regarding privacy and data protection that must be properly scrutinised and weighed up before any decisive new changes to the industry are brought about. 

Nevertheless, there is an obvious and immediate potential benefit of introducing such a rule. The knowledge that their actions are being recorded may deter someone who is considering abusing a child from doing so in the first place. For a potential abuser, the existence of cameras can remove some of the secrecy and opportunity on which abuse can depend. CCTV therefore has the potential not only to help establish what happened after an incident, but to prevent it in the first place, acting as double layer of protection.

What concerns me is the position of parents whose children may have already been harmed but where there is insufficient evidence to establish what happened. In the West Hampstead case, some parents have been left with the awful uncertainty of questioning “was my child one of the victims?”  For a parent, that question may never simply be a question of evidence. It can become a question that follows them for years, potentially without answer.

Evidence

When allegations of abuse are made, evidence can determine whether action is taken. It can help establish what happened, who was present and whether concerns were ignored. It can also provide an important safeguard against allegations being dismissed simply because a child's account cannot, on its own, answer every question. What I find particularly difficult is the idea that a child can be too young to tell us what happened, while the adults responsible for protecting them may later be unable to provide the evidence needed to establish it.

Babies cannot speak for themselves. They cannot report abuse. They cannot explain something that happened behind a closed door. Even where a child is too young to understand what has happened, or may not remember it in later life, that makes our responsibility to protect them no less important. Adults have to speak for them. 

Children deserve to be safe

CCTV could not prevent every incident nor is it a replacement for proper recruitment practices and screening. There are also legitimate questions about privacy, data protection and how footage should be stored and accessed and those questions need careful answers. However, this alone may not be a reason for inaction. Children deserve to be safe, even when nobody is watching, so if there are sensible, proportionate measures that can help make that possible, we should be willing to consider them.