Nurseries and Early Years Providers: CCTV

Connor Rand Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq]

I absolutely agree. As elected officials, we must ensure that we protect our constituents and that when they trust a nursery or childminder with their children, they know they are doing the right thing.

I have some examples in which CCTV has helped to secure convictions, but I warn everyone that the details are quite distressing. The first is the very sad case of Genevieve from Tiny Toes nursery in Greater Manchester, which some people will have read about. While being placed down to sleep in the nursery, Genevieve was tightly swaddled in a blanket. She was strapped face down on to a bean bag without being checked by nursery staff. The nursery worker responsible was convicted of manslaughter using the CCTV footage obtained from the nursery. The footage also disproved the nursery worker’s claim that she had checked on Genevieve every few minutes, and later led to the conviction of one of the perpetrator’s colleagues for the deplorable neglect of four other babies. Tiny Toes nursery, where Genevieve was killed, was rated “Good” by Ofsted five years earlier, but the trial heard evidence suggesting it was run shockingly. On the day Genevieve died, only two members of staff were looking after 11 babies. The previous weekday, there were 16 babies—far in excess of the 1:3 ratio for under-2s in England. If Ofsted had watched the CCTV footage, it would have picked that up.

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. As a Greater Manchester Member of Parliament, I know that the important issue of mandatory CCTV in nursery settings is a critical part of the campaign for Gigi. There is also the issue of allowing parents to access CCTV footage. I have raised before in Westminster Hall the case of my constituent Frances, who found it extremely difficult to access the CCTV footage of an incident in which her daughter was seriously mistreated at her nursery, in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that such cases show that, as well as having mandatory CCTV in nurseries, parents need greater rights to hold providers to account and access the footage they need?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I am very sorry to hear about that case. I fully agree that if we are to have CCTV as a safeguarding tool, we must be able to access it in incidents like the one my hon. Friend described.

Another case I want to mention is that of Riverside nursery in Twickenham, where the local MP has been doing a huge amount of work. Roksana Lecka was convicted of abusing 21 babies at that nursery after footage showed the worker pinching and scratching children, and kicking one boy in the face. As in the case of Genevieve, which I just mentioned, CCTV was essential to the prosecution in the case. The Metropolitan police went through CCTV from the nursery, which showed Lecka pinching and scratching children, all aged 18 months to two years, under their clothes and on their arms, legs and stomachs. The Crown Prosecution Service put forward compelling evidence that clearly showed her targeting children when colleagues were either out of the room or had their backs turned. It also called on experts to prove that the injuries the victims sustained were consistent with pinch marks.

Another horrific case happened in Bristol, where a nursery worker sexually abused five toddlers in his care. The prosecutor told the jury that some of the evidence against the perpetrator came from CCTV from inside the nursery, and she used CCTV showing the nursery worker’s predatory behaviour towards young children. That nursery worker was initially caught because the nursery manager witnessed him on CCTV putting his hands down the trousers of a child. She immediately sent him home and got in touch with human resources, but he would not have been sacked, and then ultimately convicted, had the CCTV not been there.

The final example is from Australia. Some hon. Members will be aware that last August Australian federal and state education leaders signed off on plans to begin a trial of CCTV for childcare centres, in which 300 childcare centres across the country will install purpose-built daycare CCTV systems. The trial is part of a larger $189 million Government-funded initiative to enhance safety, security and reporting in the childcare sector. Funds will be released over four years to help small and medium-sized operators purchase and install CCTV cameras for childcare centres.

The Australian childcare CCTV trial is taking place as part of federal reforms to enhance safety in the childcare sector, particularly in response to a high-profile allegation of misconduct in which a childcare worker was charged with more than 70 child sex offences, including rape, after working for eight years at several nurseries, many of which did not have CCTV. During the announcement, the Australian Education Minister stressed the importance of CCTV as a safeguarding measure, referring to daytime security cameras as

“an essential component in what we need to do if we want to keep our children safe”.

He went on to say that police suggest that CCTV cameras

“can be an important aspect in deterring bad behaviour”

as well as in helping police with their investigations.

Some nursery chains in our country do use CCTV, but there is no consistent national standard. That raises questions about whether current safeguarding arrangements are sufficient. If we consider implementing this proposal, we need to consider a number of issues. One is the security of CCTV systems: whether footage is monitored, whether it is stored locally, how secure the footage is and whether there are controls around remote access. We also need to think about whether and in what circumstances we can view the footage in the case of an incident, and how that access is recorded. We could consider role-based auditable access, and also whether there is a case for authorised access for Ofsted inspectors as part of routine inspections.

Another area is data retention. How long should footage be kept? When should it be deleted? How should it be preserved automatically if a safeguarding concern is raised? Clear guidance would need to ensure compliance with data protection law and prevent inappropriate access. We need to look carefully at wider digital safeguards in early years settings and the potential benefits of introducing technical controls, such as restricting devices in early years settings to approved apps and systems, or even limiting camera or gallery functions where they are not required. Routine audits, spot checks and clear escalation processes would need to form part of that picture, alongside appropriate staff training on digital governance and responsible use.

We should also be open to emerging technologies that could help to strengthen safeguarding processes further. That might include harnessing specialist tools designed to detect illegal content quickly and automatically —for example, Project Arachnid, developed by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, which is used to identify known sexual abuse material online.

I do not claim to have answers to all the questions, but if we work collectively with the Government, we could implement this measure to safeguard the future of children in nurseries.

Early Years Providers: Government Support

Connor Rand Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Pritchard, to serve under your chairmanship, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this hugely important debate.

When finding affordable childcare is harder for people than getting their hands on Oasis tickets, it is clear that the system is fundamentally broken. That is the reality for so many parents, and the reality that Labour inherited. A fragmented, underfunded and understaffed childcare system was one of the many messes left behind by the previous Government. And families across Altrincham and Sale West have suffered with the cost of that failure, not just in eye-watering fees but in the loss of earnings that comes from one partner—usually the woman—not being able to return to work after children are born.

This Government are turning that situation around, and in doing so they are supporting family finances and giving children the best possible start in life. Nowhere is that clearer than in my constituency, where Government funding for a new nursery at Altrincham C of E primary school has been secured. This development, alongside 30 hours of free childcare from September, marks a sea change in the support available to local parents.

In the past, we have heard big talk on early years, but it was so often a pledge without a plan; so often, promises have been made without the funding needed to make them a reality. In contrast, this Government are delivering £2 billion of extra investment in early years entitlement, taking our spend to over £8 billion—a 30% increase compared with previous years.

The Early Education and Childcare Coalition states:

“After years of political neglect, it finally feels that someone has taken control of the wheel, and the direction of travel for early education and childcare is hopeful.”

It welcomes the Government’s “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy, published earlier this week.

[Cameron Thomas]

The Liberal Democrats welcome investment in early years. One way in which I hope the Government will ensure that children with SEND and neurodiversity requirements are not left behind is by implementing systems in early years provision that enable SEND and neurodiversity to be identified and addressed sooner rather than later. Will the hon. Member join me in asking the Government to do that?

[Mr Rand]

Yes, absolutely. The sentiment across the House with regard to our SEND system and the need for additional, earlier intervention and support is well founded. I think that is the direction that the Government intend to travel in with their reforms, and I am sure that the Minister will outline that.

Putting trained early years teachers into nurseries generates the best outcomes and the best value for money, but just one in 10 has this at the moment. We need incentives to recruit and retain teachers, and the Government’s efforts in this area so far are welcome. This is about supporting providers to drive up quality. I welcome Ofsted inspections as part of that effort, but I ask the Minister to consider worrying reports that some providers have brought in extra staff on the day of inspections only.

That issue was brought to my attention by my constituent Frances, whose daughter was seriously mistreated at nursery. After the incident, Frances was deeply upset at the lack of safeguarding at what is a well-regarded nursery, and she found it extremely difficult to gain access to the CCTV footage and to hold the provider to account. There must be a balance between supporting providers and supporting parents in ensuring that providers are accountable. I hope that the rights of parents—which the Minister knows is an issue of great importance to me—are an important part of the ongoing reforms to the sector.

We have already made great progress in making it easier and cheaper for parents to access childcare. We delivered the 15 hours of funded childcare last September, and we are delivering 30 hours this September, which will save parents in my constituency up to £7,500 per child per year. It is fantastic to hear that we are building on this with the delivery of new family hubs across the country.

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

Our early years providers in South East Cornwall are essential for local families, and they are a cornerstone of healthy development. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need clearer national guidance on term dates, notice periods and transitions between settings? Local authorities need to offer consistent, joined-up support, which would provide families with the clarity and stability that they urgently need.

[Mr Rand]

I know that many local authorities and providers do try to give that assurance in advance, but I am sure that there is more work that they can do to give stability and certainty to parents and families in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country.

The family hubs that we are delivering across the country, including in my local authority of Trafford, will drive up quality in our early years system, support providers and strengthen support for children as they enter primary school, which is especially important for the 3,000 children in my constituency who are growing up in poverty. Lots has been achieved, and there is lots more still to do, but as the Early Education and Childcare Coalition said this week, we are heading in the right direction.

Hongkongers in the UK: Visas, Security and Services

Connor Rand Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered visas, security and access to services for Hong Kongers living in the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. As a new Member of Parliament, I am happy to say that this is my first Westminster Hall debate, and I am delighted to have secured it on such an important set of issues.

Support for Hongkongers is a priority of mine for two main reasons. First, my constituency is home to a large diaspora of Hongkongers. We take great pride that so many have chosen our community as the place to rebuild their lives, having fled from tyranny and oppression. Secondly, the Labour party has a proud history and record of standing up for human rights, from Northern Ireland to Kosovo, and of supporting those who have come to our country having fled authoritarian rule. I am confident that our new Government will uphold that fine heritage. If they are to do so, however, support for Hongkongers is essential, as I am sure the Minister will agree.

There has never been a more important moment to stand with Hongkongers than now. We all know about the tragic erosion of democracy and human rights that has occurred in Hong Kong since the imposition of the national security law in 2020 with more than 10,000 arrests of those protesting for freedom, 900 journalists losing their livelihoods simply for speaking the truth and a rapid growth in the number of political prisoners, matched only by the rapid decline in due process as authoritarianism continues to spread. With the article 23 legislation now set to make the situation even worse, these are worrying times for Hongkongers wherever they are in the world. Given the increasing need for Hongkongers to leave Hong Kong and come to the UK, it is important to take this moment to consider the future of the British national overseas visa scheme.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I genuinely congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this early opportunity to ventilate the issue. He talks about those who flee persecution, and he is right, but the truth of the matter is that even when Hongkongers are in this country, they are not beyond the reach of the Chinese Communist party. We have seen instances of illegal police stations operated by the Chinese and of persecution on campuses around the country. Does he agree that our responsibility to Hongkongers coming to this country does not end when they arrive at Heathrow? That is simply when it starts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rand]

Yes, absolutely. I thank the right hon. Member for making that important point, which I will come on to later in my remarks.

On the BNO visa scheme, for the sake of fairness, I should start my remarks by giving credit where it is due: the scheme is one of the best things that the Conservative party did in its 14 years of government. Even though it is top of what I might consider a vanishingly small list of achievements, that should not distract from what a resounding success it has been. About 150,000 Hongkongers have been able to flee tyranny because of the scheme. Our country should be deeply proud of that. I will be grateful if, when the Minister responds, she could spell out that this Government’s commitment to the scheme matches that of the previous Government.

I also want the Government to consider the loopholes within the BNO visa scheme. We know that the scheme was initially designed for Hongkongers who, as adults, had applied for BNO status prior to the handover of Hong Kong in 1997. In 2022, the scheme was expanded to allow younger Hongkongers born after the 1997 handover, who never had the chance to apply for that status themselves, to come to the UK as part of the visa. However, there is a group in the middle.

Thousands of Hongkongers born between 1979 and 1997 are caught by a loophole as they are not old enough to have applied for BNO status before the handover, but not young enough to qualify under the 2022 expansion. I encourage the Minister to engage on this issue with Hong Kong Watch, which has proposed practical ways to close the loophole and open up the path to escaping oppression for thousands of Hongkongers, allowing family reunions that would mean so much to those living in the United Kingdom.

On the subject of design flaws with the visa scheme, I also encourage the Minister to look at visa and asylum applications that have been refused on the grounds of the applicant having a criminal record. Although that may be perfectly reasonable in other circumstances, we know that some pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong are getting criminal records, and that in and of itself should not be a reason to deny them safe passage to the United Kingdom, as I am sure all colleagues would agree.

Although the visa scheme is important, it is also vital, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, that we ensure Hongkongers living in the United Kingdom can live happy, safe and prosperous lives. The point on safety is particularly crucial. Members will be aware of the long arm of the Chinese state, which is a daily source of fear and anxiety for many Hongkongers, including those in my constituency—both for themselves and for the fate of loved ones they have left behind.

Each act of Chinese aggression—political interference in this place, sanctions against parliamentarians, or outright acts of espionage, as we have seen—heightens the fear of Hongkongers that they might be next. In July and December, under the Hong Kong national security policy, arrest warrants with £100,000 bounties were issued for six exiled Hong Kong activists living in the United Kingdom. Closer to home, we had the incident at the Chinese consulate in Manchester. I hope that the Minister will reassure Hongkongers in my constituency today by setting out the measures the Home Office has in place to ensure their safety, given the unique threats they face.

As well as guaranteeing the safety of Hongkongers in the United Kingdom, we must work to ensure that their lives can be as happy and prosperous as possible. I will briefly touch on two related points before wrapping up. The first is the issue of accessing retirement savings. The Mandatory Provident Fund is a compulsory retirement scheme for the people of Hong Kong, which, for most Hongkongers, is their main pension pot. In theory, they should be able to withdraw it in full even if they choose to leave Hong Kong; in practice, vindictive policies stop them doing so, and have made it almost impossible for Hongkongers who have fled their homeland to access vital money for rebuilding their new lives. It is estimated by Hong Kong Watch that Hongkongers who have fled to the UK are being denied access to £3 billion in savings. Would the Minister be willing to have a conversation with colleagues in the Treasury about what more can be done to tackle this grave injustice?

I also encourage the Minister to have conversations with colleagues in the Department for Education on the issue of tuition fees. For many Hongkongers in England and Wales, higher education is rendered unaffordable by the requirement to pay the international rate of tuition fees, which stands in contrast with students who have come to the UK on other humanitarian pathways, such as those from Ukraine and Afghanistan, who have home fee status. This feels like an unfair discrepancy, and if we want Hongkongers to thrive in the UK, it is something that we should seriously look at.

I know that I have several asks of the Minister today, and that many of my colleagues will no doubt have done the same about various other important causes, at a time when, I know, asks of the Home Office are extremely significant, but we must not lose sight of Hong Kong. It cannot be forgotten about or pushed to the margins. That is not just because of what supporting Hongkongers says about our country’s commitment to the fundamental value of freedom, but because I know, from my own constituency, that if those who arrive from Hong Kong are given the support that they need, they can make an immense contribution to the communities that they now call home.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. To allow Mr Rand two minutes at the end to wind up, I will be calling the Front Benchers from 2.28 pm. If Members could limit their contribution to five minutes, I will have no need to impose a time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rand]

I thank everyone for their contributions today. It is really encouraging to see the level of cross-party support on this vital issue. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for his kind words about me, and for his contribution. I thank the Minister very much for her strong words in support of Hong Kong and her constructive engagement with the points raised in the debate.

We had some immensely powerful contributions from Members today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for being the first to raise the case of Jimmy Lai and I thank others who have spoken about that case. It was really encouraging to hear the Prime Minister’s strong words on that case earlier in the week and to hear the Minister reaffirm those today.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) for speaking so powerfully, as always, about the plight of those in Hong Kong. He brings an immense amount of experience to this debate and the discussion. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, for talking so powerfully about our fundamental values of freedom, the right to protest and the right to self-expression.

What unites us all is a belief in the importance of standing with Hongkongers, both at home and abroad, and that this country continues to offer Hongkongers a route out of oppression, to ensure that Hongkongers living in the UK feel secure and have an opportunity to build a better life here. I know that the Minister is personally committed to those aims, as are the Government. I am sure that those in the Hong Kong community following today’s debate, including constituents of mine in Altrincham and Sale West, will be really encouraged by the contributions and the positive response of the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered visas, security and access to services for Hong Kongers living in the UK.