Dozens of parents and campaigners gathered outside Parliament on Wednesday to draw attention to the fact that at least 20,000 migrant families in England are still excluded from childcare support – weeks after the Government extended support for parents.

Members of The No Recourse to Public Funds Action Group are calling on childcare for all, no matter their parents’ immigration status. 

A person subject to immigration control cannot claim benefits or assistance unless an exception applies.

Those with No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF), are not the only group to miss out on childcare support, so do mature students, parents working less than 16 hours per week, and those earning less than £8,670 or more than £100,000 per year.

Last year, the Government announced an expansion of extra funded hours of childcare for working parents, promising up to 30 funded hours per week over 38 weeks of the year to children aged nine months and over. Three and four-year-olds had already been entitled to up to 30 hours of childcare each week. In April, two-year-olds became eligible for 15 hours per week, and by September, children as young as nine months will be eligible for 15 hours of free childcare. 

But thousands of NRPF parents – those who might be here to work, study, or join family members in the UK – are struggling to access any of that support even if they meet the 16 hours of work per week requirement, due to their immigration status. The Centre for Analysis for Social Exclusion estimates that 20,000 NRPF parents are missing out. The figure does not include asylum seekers or refugees. 

One member of the group at the protest told Byline Times parents like her are “wanting to work” to pursue their dreams, but are “held back by the crushing weight of childcare costs”.

“Access to childcare isn't just about parents – it's about the future of our children,” the mother, who did not want to be named, said. “Without proper support from an early age, children fall behind in their education, which can have bad, long-term consequences. Sometimes they will never catch up.

"We want our children to be free – free to be equal, free to access education. This discrimination has to stop – let us be equal. Let’s have childcare for all.”

Migrant charity Praxis supported Wednesday's action, which it described as a last resort in response to the Government not acknowledging their concerns.

“Childcare should be available to all families regardless of the colour of their skin, where they were born or the fine print in their passports,” Josephine Whitaker-Yilmaz, policy and public affairs manager of Praxis, told Byline Times. She said the charity had been trying to "draw attention" to the issue but the Government has been "too busy to talk to us about our concerns. That’s why we’re taking our message right to their door”.

Joy (not her real name) came to the UK from Ghana in 2019 to join her partner – a Dutchman who had settled status – and was approved for pre-settled status in August 2022. When her partner became abusive, she fled to ensure her safety and that of her new-born daughter and was placed in shared accommodation by the local authority.

It was a "messy situation", she told Byline Times. “My daughter was with me all the time. The health visitor came around and said her speech was delayed – that she needed to mix with friends.”

Without access to public funds, living on section 17 of the Children Act 1989 financial assistance, paying for transport to take her daughter places wasn’t even possible.

Joy got a warehouse job in February 2023, working 24 hours a week, and hoped that once her daughter turned two in July of that year, she would qualify for 15 hours of free childcare. Until then, she paid £187 a week for childcare.

“My daughter was becoming sociable and stabilising – everything was good,” Joy said of that time, even though,  she only had £150 left each month to pay for all their other needs.

When Joy's daughter turned two, she was told that she didn't qualify for free childcare because of her pre-settled status. Already in debt to the childcare provider, Joy had to stop working. 

“I just had to stay home,” she said. “My daughter didn’t cope with it. I was the same. At work, I see people and move on from my situation. But my hands were tied – I couldn’t access childcare.”

Without work, still living in shared accommodation, Joy felt hopeless and wanted to "end my life". "It was too much for me," she told Byline Times.  She had considered returning to Ghana, but cannot afford two plane tickets. 

After nearly eight months of not working, Joy decided the best option was to return to work – despite the childcare costs – until her daughter, a British citizen, could go back to school.

“It’s not fair,” Joy said, adding: “I don’t see why I should be denied childcare when I am working and contributing. Every child is supposed to be treated equally, regardless of their immigration status.”

Preventing parents from accessing free childcare is making it impossible for parents, particularly mothers, to work, Whitaker-Yilmaz told Byline Times: “As women are more likely to be second income earners, this often leaves women unable to afford to work, because the cost of childcare is more than what they would earn at work.

“This leaves a large group of parents who are keen to work simply unable to – something that particularly affects single parents, who are also predominantly women.”

Whitaker-Yilmaz is concerned this issue doesn’t just affect NRPF parents, but their children and the UK’s future economy. 

“Children in migrant families – regardless of where they were born or their own nationality – may only receive half the hours of early education that their peers do, or less,” she said. “This can mean that they start school at a disadvantage, and some may never catch up. Given that this affects children who are, or who may soon become, British citizens themselves, this not only affects children’s life outcomes but also the future economy.”

While parents across the country are struggling to access and afford childcare, Whitaker-Yilmaz said denying all support to some, based on their background, isn’t going to result in better access for others. 

“What’s needed is fundamental reform of the entire system, so that it works better for all families, not a privileged minority,” she said.

“The early education and childcare system is an essential part of our national infrastructure, which not only helps prepare children for school and later life but also enables parents to participate in paid work. What we’d like to see is a system capable of providing universal childcare to all families, no matter their background.”

With a general election looming, it once again appears to be open season on benefits claimants and disabled people. 

During a weekend welfare policy blitz, the Prime Minister pledged a new slew of curbs on benefits for disabled and chronically ill people if the Conservatives win power again. He also doubled-down on retaining the controversial two-child benefit cap, a key driver of child poverty.

The opening salvo came courtesy of a speech on Friday when Rishi Sunak decried what he called the country’s “sick note culture”, declaring that he was on a “moral mission” to reform the benefits system and tackle the “spiralling” £69 billion disability welfare costs.

Something had to be done, he said, about the growing numbers of economically inactive people who are long-term sick – in particular those deemed to have mental health problems and especially young people, too many of whom were “parked on welfare”.

If the specific language around disability and welfare sounds familiar, that’s because it is.

With terms like "sick note culture" and "parked on welfare", Sunak was operating straight from the benefits-bashing playbook wielded with great effect by consecutive Conservative administrations to demonise benefits claimants.

Since the onset of austerity 14 years ago, variations on the same toxic rhetoric have been deployed to justify years of savage cuts to social security and public services. The same rhetoric has been repeatedly leveraged to pit so-called 'hard-working’ people against anyone in need of state assistance.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation described Sunak's speech as “an irresponsible war of words on people who already aren’t getting enough support”.

As he faces record low polling numbers, the Prime Minister appears intent on giving the ‘skivers versus strivers’ trope one last whirl. In one section of his speech referring to mental health, he warned against "over-medicalising the everyday challenges and worries of life".

Among the proposals put forward – which were immediately slammed by disability charities and labelled by one as “a full-on assault on disabled people” – was a possible withdrawal of major ongoing benefits.

Sunak announced a review of Personal Independence Payments (PIP), whereby some payments might be changed to one-off rather than ongoing. As a non-means-tested benefit to help people with extra living costs due to disability or ill health, the possibility of the removal of regular essential payments sparked an understandable outcry from disabled people’s organisations.

Other proposed measures included closing benefits claims for individuals still out of work after 12 months who fail to comply with conditions for accepting available work. Another would make it harder to obtain a sick note. Sunak also asserted that the Government would look at shifting responsibility for classifying individuals as not fit for work away from GPs to other "work and health professionals".

According to the Prime Minister, too many GPs have been signing people off work by default. Yet, as many have pointed out, such an assessment belies reality.

James Taylor, director of strategy at disability charity Scope, noted for example that “much of the current levels of [economic] inactivity are because our public services are crumbling, the quality of jobs is poor, and the rate of poverty among disabled households is growing”.

However, not only did Sunak's speech represent another assault on an already ungenerous and punitive benefits system, it was also nuclear-level gaslighting.

After a decade-and-a-half of the Conservatives in power, actively shredding the social safety net, it was with profound cognitive dissonance that Sunak declared that “the values of our welfare state are timeless. They’re part of our national character” and that “we’re proud to ensure a safety net that is generous for those who genuinely need it – and fair to the taxpayers who fund it".

As concerning as the speech was, it was soon followed by an article in The Sun on Sunday, penned by Sunak, in which he reiterated some of its key tenets while also aiming fire at families in poverty. Despite calls for it to be abolished, he vowed to keep the controversial two-child benefit cap.

The two-child limit, introduced in 2017, restricts means-tested benefits to families with fewer than three children. According to the Resolution Foundation think tank, the policy leaves larger families £3,200 a year worse off, per additional child, making it a factor in rising child poverty. In 2013-2014, 34% of children in larger families were in poverty. By 2028-29 the foundation estimates that this will soar to a staggering 51%.

Abolishing the two-child limit would cost the Government in the area of £3.6 billion for 2024-25 (if at full coverage). If the policy was abandoned, it could mean as many as half a million fewer children in poverty. It should be a no-brainer politically to lift that many kids out of poverty, yet Sunak seems determined not to act.

A protestor in a wheelchair and police during a demonstration in which a group chained themselves together across Regent Street, London, in protest against the Government's welfare reforms. Photo: John Stillwell/PA

Responding to The Sun on Sunday article, Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, observed: “With child poverty at a record high, the Prime Minister has now clearly decided that making kids poor is his political priority. The two-child limit makes it harder for kids, punishing them for having brothers and sisters. It’s time to scrap this nasty policy.”

The kind of demonising, divisive rhetoric used by Sunak and others in his party to justify budget cuts and welfare reforms has tended in the past to find fertile ground with a significant portion of the electorate. This latest attempt at scapegoating, however, stinks of desperation.

The Prime Minister is clearly grasping at straws. What’s less clear is whether Labour will finally commit to abolishing cruel and unnecessary policies like the two-child limit if the party forms the next government. If nothing else, Rishi Sunak has thrown down a gauntlet.

Mary O’Hara is the author of 'The Shame Game: Overturning the Toxic Poverty Narrative’. The 10th anniversary edition of her book, 'Austerity Bites: A Journey to the Sharp End of Cuts’ in the UK will be published in September by Policy Press

Voters across England have been sent mock newspapers with a bright red masthead – which on closer inspection look like Labour Party leaflets.

On further closer inspection, they turn out to be Conservative Party leaflets. 

A Surrey voter was sent a red mock newspaper titled 'Godalming and Ash Future’, using the name of the constituency. On a second look, he realised it was pushing the local Conservative candidates.

Godalming resident Chris Everett told Byline Times: “There are only two mentions I could find of the word 'Conservative’ and nowhere in large print.” He could not immediately spot a legally-required imprint. 

There are some positive mentions of the Government and “many of Jeremy Hunt” – the prospective Conservative candidate for the new Godalming and Ash constituency (Hunt's team has previously downplayed rumours he might step down).

Mr Everett also hit out at the leaflet's claim that, in 2019, the Government promised to recruit 20,000 extra police officers, and that this has happened.

“It is entirely dishonest: under Conservative rule, police numbers fell from a peak of 172, 600 in 2010 to just over 150,000 in 2017, a 14% fall," he said. "In fact, under Labour, police numbers rose from 198,000 in 2003 to 244,000 in 2010 – a 23% increase.

“The 'extra' Tory recruitment since 2019 has nearly made up the difference, but, contrary to the claim that police levels now are higher than in 2010, they are in fact still 0.5% below the Labour peak,” added Mr Everett, drawing on House of Commons research. 

Residents in Eltham and Chislehurst in London – where voters will decide whether to back or sack Labour's London Mayor Sadiq Khan on 2 May – have also received a leaflet with a red newspaper-like masthead, dubbed ‘Eltham and Chislehurst Future’. 

The 'Eltham and Chislehurst Future' mock newspaper from the Conservatives

But it appears to make no mention of London Conservative mayoral candidate Susan Hall AM, except for a tiny legally-required imprint on one page, which reads that it is “on behalf of Charlie Davis and Susan Hall”. The imprint fails to mention the Conservative Party. 

Charlie Davis is the parliamentary candidate for the general election, which is expected to be some months away – meaning the leaflet is attacking Sadiq Khan but seemingly failing to promote the Conservatives’ own candidate, Susan Hall, as the electable alternative. 

The leaflet almost suggests that Charlie Davis is the mayoral candidate or that Khan is the parliamentary candidate. 

The leaflet contains a pseudo comment piece from a local activist

One Londoner who received the bright red leaflet, Greenwich resident John, told Byline Times: “The Conservatives are pushing party political leaflets pretending to be local newspapers. At first glance, the red header suggested to me that it was a Labour leaflet or a new local paper. Obviously not reading it, but if I didn't follow local politics I'm not sure how I'd interpret it.”

He added: “I just get frustrated with the tactics being used in politics. Most of this leaflet is spin using selective stats to push a narrative and if I'm honest I find it insulting. As a point of principle, most people in their day to day lives don't use underhand tactics to get by because they are decent individuals.

"Why a political party would believe that basing their campaigning on exactly these tactics is a good foundation for a successful time in office is beyond me.”

Another Conservative leaflet sent out in Gloucester boosts both the Police and Crime Commissioner candidate – elected on 2 May – and parliamentary candidate, the latter of which will not be elected for months. Again, it uses a red masthead design, which is likely to be distributed by Conservative Party headquarters. 

One voter, Sophie of Gloucester, received it and said: “[At] first glance you’d think it was Labour, but actually [it’s] promoting the Conservatives. Why don’t they want to use their usual blue I wonder?”

Derek, of Cheltenham, replied on NextDoor: “Probably because most people would bin it immediately.” 

Another local voter, Marie, added: “We thought it was Labour canvassing.”

Sophie, who received the leaflet, said: “The Conservative brand has become so toxic that individual MPs who want to cling onto their seats will do anything.”

Stephen, of Cheltenham, noted that Conservative MPs are now putting out leaflets with “no mention of [the] Conservatives”. “They are more worried about losing their seats than supporting the party they are supposed to,” he said. 

Voters who spoke to Byline Times are questioning whether the Conservative Party brand is now so toxic that they have ditched their own colours, logo and name.

Conservative Party HQ was contacted for comment. 

Spotted something strange ahead of the local elections? If you have a political story or tip-off, email josiah@bylinetimes.com

Not a single fine has been levied by the UK against Russia-linked individuals or firms for breaching sanctions, following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, correspondence from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has revealed.

Minister of State at the FCDO, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, has told MPs she expects the first Government investigations into potential breaches of the UK’s financial sanctions imposed on Russian individuals and organisations since the war to "come to fruition in 2024", possibly resulting in further monetary penalties. It is nearly 800 days since Russia invaded Ukraine.

The letter published on Friday suggests that none of the ten fines imposed to date by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) since 2017 for non-compliance with the UK’s sanctions regime relate to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The fines before 2022, total £22 million, but the vast majority – more than £20 million – appears to relate to a penalty against a single bank in 2020.

Trevelyan told the Commons' Foreign Affairs committee that since Russia launched its attack on 24 February 2022, OFSI has recorded £22.7 billion in frozen assets - as of October 2023 - relating to that country, and that there have been hundreds of suspected breaches of sanctions. 

Appearing to defend the lack of fines or enforcement action, the minister claimed that some breaches are found to be “relatively minor”. “In these cases, OFSI will not necessarily impose a penalty, as it may be more appropriate to deal with the case in a different way such as a warning letter or referring the matter to a regulator,” she said. 

But the scale of the suspected violations – 473 suspected breaches of financial sanctions (excluding oil price cap and counter-terrorism breaches) in 2022-2023 is a major increase on the 147 cases recorded in 2021-2022. “This increase was expected given the scale of increased Russia  sanctions, and OFSI has increased its enforcement capacity in response,” Trevelyan added. 

Dame Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Corruption & Responsible Tax, told Byline Times: “We already know that our sanctions regime is not as tough as that used by the USA and the EU. Our regime lacks ambition and has too many loopholes. 

“So it is all the more shocking that we are not enforcing the sanctions already in place. The Government must properly enforce existing measures, and close any remaining loopholes immediately. Only then can we be confident that we are doing all we can to support Ukraine in its barbaric conflict with Putin’s Russia.”

Tom Keatinge​​​​, Director of the Centre for Finance and Security at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, explained that fines and relations actions are "key tools" for Governments to set their expectations and the fact "we’ve yet to see material enforcement action means that the UK is not doing all it could do to ensure sanctions are implemented as effectively as they must be".

"2024 must be the year of enforcement if the UK is to be taken seriously. Other countries in Europe such as the Netherlands are leading the way. The UK must catch up," he added to Byline Times.

The minister’s letter also discusses allowances for sanctioned individuals from their frozen funds, saying that OFSI believes the net UK median wage of £28,000 – before tax – should normally fulfil individuals’ “basic needs”.

Licences for sanctioned individuals to receive these allowances don't usually enable a designated person to continue the lifestyle or business activities they had before they were designated.

It's unclear from the Government’s letter how many licences OFSI has granted to sanctioned Russian oligarchs that provide them with allowances far exceeding UK average wages.

Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Alicia Kearns MP, said: “For too long the UK has been complacent, allowing wealthy Russians to wash their dirty money in the laundromat of London. Russia’s renewed invasion of Ukraine must be a wake-up call for the West. Clamping down on the illicit funds of high-net-worth Russians is an opportunity to deal a heavy blow to those who support Putin’s war machine.”

She added that while the number of asset freezes under UK sanctions has grown significantly, “if this is not soon reflected in the number of enforcement actions, we will have to ask difficult questions about the efficacy of OFSI’s enforcement capacity".

"Investigations into non-compliance are complex but must be prioritised and undertaken at pace; we need to send a clear message that illicit finance has no home in the UK,” the Conservative MP added. 

While the sanctions regulator usually says the ‘basic needs’ of sanction-hit individuals in the UK can be met by the median wage of £28,000 per annum, it has been reported that some wealthy Russians under investigation had access to more than double that as recently as 2022. 

“It isn’t enough to say that privacy concerns prevent the FCDO and Treasury from providing this information when these figures could be anonymised,” Kearns added. 

This correspondence follows an evidence session held on 12 March on the UK’s sanctions regime against Russia and the abduction of Ukrainian children. The Committee published a report in 2022, 'The Cost of Complacency: illicit finance and the war in Ukraine', calling on the Government to tackle illicit finance flowing through the UK. 

The Treasury did not wish to comment further.

Got a political story or tip? Email josiah@bylinetimes.com