‘There was a chance to stop him’: Parents react with fury to paedophile nursery worker revelations

The parents of the victims of paedophile nursery worker Vincent Chan have reacted with fury to the news that he was cleared to return to work after “significant concerns” were raised by the parent of a young girl.As first revealed in The Guardian, Chan was reported to his employer, the nursery chain Bright Horizons, by a concerned parent in 2021.After being investigated by Bright Horizons, with the knowledge of Camden council, Chan was cleared to return to work at the nursery on the Finchley Road in north-west London. A year later, in 2022, Chan filmed himself abusing three-year-old girls in his care.“I feel a level of anger that I can barely put into words,” said one mother. Images of her daughter were found on Chan’s personal devices after his arrest.She added: “In 2021, around the time serious concerns had been raised about Vincent Chan, he was made my daughter’s key worker. We trusted him with her most intimate care, believing she was safe.“Knowing there was a chance to stop him before he had such extensive access to her is unbearable. I am heartbroken, but above all furious at Bright Horizons for failing to protect our children.”The families have called for an immediate “independent examination” of how the 2021 complaint was handled.In a statement issued by the law firm Leigh Day, which is representing 50 families affected by Chan’s abuse, they called for a “full and independent account of what happened, who knew what, when they knew it and why these decisions were made”.The parents of Chan’s victims have been promised answers in the form of a repeatedly delayed safeguarding review, led by an independent reviewer appointed by Camden council. But many expressed fury that they only learned the review had been pushed back to 2027 in The Guardian article.“Expressions of regret are meaningless,” said the parents in a statement. “Families deserve the truth about what happened, accountability for the decisions that were made, and action to make sure this cannot happen again. We cannot wait until 2027 for answers.”The families also restated their calls for Camden council to consider prosecuting Bright Horizons under health and safety legislation. “The Guardian’s report also strengthens the case for a criminal investigation,” they said.The row over the decision to clear Chan to return to work has overshadowed the Labour MP Sagal Abdi-Wali’s first week as an MP after her byelection victory in Holborn and St Pancras last week. Before becoming an MP, Abdi-Wali was leader of Camden council, presiding over the delayed review.Earlier on Tuesday Tulip Siddiq, the Labour MP for Hampstead and Kilburn, wrote to Camden council, asking it to commit to publishing the documentation relating to the 2021 investigation.“These revelations are causing significant distress to parents in my constituency, particularly the families directly affected by Chan’s crimes,” Siddiq wrote.“Families should not have to wait any longer for these answers,” she added.Camden council said: “We know the parents of the children who attended the nursery, and the wider public, will be concerned that a complaint was made about Vincent Chan to Bright Horizons in 2021 – and will want to know how this was responded to.“In 2021, Camden council’s local authority designated officer (LADO) provided advice to Bright Horizons, after Bright Horizons informed them (the LADO) of a complaint.“We have shared all relevant documents and information with the independent review team. We want families to get the answers they deserve, in full, through the outcome of the independent review.”A Bright Horizons spokesperson said: “We remain appalled by Vincent Chan’s crimes, and our thoughts are first and foremost with the children and families affected.“We strongly encourage parents to share all their concerns with the child safeguarding practice review (CSPR), which is being led by an independent reviewer and will rightly examine this case in full.“As the review is ongoing, we are unable to comment without the express written authorisation of the committee.”