Migrants and refugee families in the UK denied childcare funding, report finds
Having 'no recourse to public funds' (NRPF) means parents are not entitled to 30 hours of free childcare and are having to stay home to look after their young children instead of working. This is pushing families into poverty and denying their children the benefits of the early years education available to their peers, the report finds.
About 4 million people in the UK are affected by NRPF restrictions, according to the report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) in conjunction with the human rights organisation Praxis, which works with migrants and refugees.
They include about 71,000 families who would otherwise qualify for 30 hours of free childcare a week – provided they met the income threshold – were it not for NRPF restrictions, which ban access to the social security system.
The report argues that the system of childcare entitlements excludes families facing greatest disadvantage, despite the government's manifesto commitment to break down barriers to opportunity for every child.
Families affected by NRPF are entitled to a halved offer of 15 funded hours of care for their three- and four-year-olds, and some low-income families may be entitled to care for their two-year-olds, but they cannot access any other support with childcare costs, including the extended entitlement for working parents, and universal credit support with childcare costs and tax-free childcare.
Shams Sarker came to London three years ago from Bangladesh under a skilled migrant work visa, but his two-year-old daughter – who was born in the UK – is not entitled to the same government-funded childcare as other children.
As a result, he and his wife take it in turns to stay at home to look after her, reducing working hours and income. His daughter, meanwhile, loses out on the opportunity to mix and learn with other children in an early years setting.
'We don't get access to certain things and have to pay extra for healthcare, fine,' said Sarker. 'But at least let children have equal rights. I expected the rules to be the same for all children. My baby is growing up and she's not getting the same benefit that any other baby born here will have.'
IPPR and Praxis surveyed 159 parents who had at least one child below school age and were affected by NRPF restrictions. They found 55% used some sort of childcare, compared with 72% of the general population. More than a third (36%) of those that used childcare relied on unofficial childcare from relatives and friends, and 41% of those who did not use childcare said the lack of a free entitlement had stopped them or their partner from getting a job.
Dr Lucy Mort, a senior research fellow at IPPR, said: 'Restricting access to childcare forces parents out of work, pushes families deeper into poverty, and holds children back from vital early education. Lifting these unfair barriers would not only support working parents but also give every child the best start in life.'
Josephine Whitaker-Yilmaz, a policy and public affairs manager at Praxis and co-author of the report, added: 'If this government is serious about ensuring that more children are ready for school, lifting these restrictions on support with childcare costs is a commonsense solution that will benefit some of the most disadvantaged children in our communities.'
A separate report by the IPPR found almost half of children in families with non-UK born parents lived in poverty, compared with 25% of other children. It predicted that the child poverty strategy, expected to be published in spring, would fail unless it addressed growing hardship among children with parents born outside the UK.
Hafsa, a mother of two who is on a skilled worker visa, told researchers: 'I can't even buy clothes for my children. I can't buy them shoes; I can't buy them a single toy. In the last 10 days of the month, I struggle to buy food for the children.'
A Department for Education spokesperson said: 'Giving every child the best start in life is central to our mission to break the unfair link between background and success and, through our Plan for Change, we'll get tens of thousands more children – a record proportion – school-ready by age five.
'That's why, despite having to take tough decisions to fix the foundations of the economy, we have prioritised investing £15m to kickstart our rollout of thousands of places in school-based nurseries to meet local need.
'Parents with no recourse to public funds can access 15 hours of funded childcare per week from when their child turns two, subject to wider eligibility, and we will continue to work to make sure government-funded hours are fair and accessible to parents.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
a day ago
- The National
Gordon Brown had a good idea. But it won't fix the problem he created
Good evening! This week's edition of the In Common newsletter comes from Kaitlin Dryburgh, Common Weal's policy communications co-ordinator. GORDON Brown has given Rachel Reeves a sensible suggestion: increase taxes on the mighty gambling industry. Brown supports the proposal from the Institute for Public Policy Research, which would help to plug the two-child benefit cap and alleviate the appalling levels of child poverty we face. The former Labour leader thinks they should stand up to this industry, really show them who's boss, all in the name of doing some good for society. In a sense, he isn't wrong. The gambling industry isn't taxed enough. It also isn't fined as much as it should be – and it's woefully under-regulated. If we were being truly radical, we could follow the lead of some Scandinavian countries and nationalise all gambling, which would allow us to plough profits directly into doing good. That would also create benefits beyond monetary gain, such as a system capable of tracking and intervening in cases of gambling addiction. READ MORE: Is Gordon Brown right that Scottish child poverty 'worse every day'? However, such a move would require being unfazed by the gambling lobby – something Brown would know little about. While he comments on the meagre taxation the gambling industry faces and the good that revenue could achieve, Brown fails to mention the deregulation his government oversaw, the harm it caused, and the fact that in many cases it will have contributed to child poverty. He ignores the stark inequality between children growing up in deprivation and the gambling companies and executives who have grown their fortunes exponentially since he gave them a mighty boost. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, Brown presided over a shake-up of the gambling industry like never before. Tony Blair claimed there was 'no evidence' the changes would lead to gambling addiction (another example of Blair getting his evidence wrong) and even used Blackpool as an example of a place that could benefit from regeneration. Because nothing says 'revitalisation' quite like more gambling. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown pictured together during the New Labour yearsWhat followed was an explosion of betting shops and casinos across the country, alongside aggressive television advertising pumped directly into people's living rooms. But perhaps the most significant escalation came with the arrival of smartphones in our pockets: the online gambling boom. Since the liberalisation of gambling laws, the UK gambling market has become one of the largest in the world relative to its population. Thank you, Tony and Gordon. Almost half the UK population places at least one bet a month. Despite Blair's flippant assurance that this relaxation of gambling laws wouldn't cause addiction, he was dead wrong. I saw a betting advert the other month. I don't know if you're like me, but when it comes to this kind of thing on TV, I usually switch off, make a cup of tea, and ignore it. But my god, this one caught my attention, for all the wrong reasons. It showed people in different situations doing mundane tasks: one waiting for a bus, another building flat-pack furniture. The entire message was: in those moments, why not place a bet? Does that not feed directly into addiction? They were effectively saying: 'This isn't really about enjoyment – just do it out of boredom or habit.' READ MORE: Labour took more than £1m in donations and gifts from gambling firms Apparently that was fine, because our gambling regulations are not fit for purpose. One of the most recent large-scale studies estimates that 2.5% of the UK population has some form of gambling problem, and the NHS has seen a rise in those seeking help. Gambling ruins lives; people lose their homes, their jobs, their families, and in some cases their lives. Betting companies are sometimes called out on this. Either they get a slap on the wrist or endure a short bout of bad publicity – but they don't care. Paddy Power, a company worth tens of billions, was fined a mere £280,000 for failing to carry out sufficient checks on problem gamblers. They even actively encouraged one addicted customer to stay longer and spend more on their premises. A decision that cost the individual their jobs, access to their children, and their home. There are countless horror stories of gambling companies employing the most exploitative strategies imaginable to extract as much money as possible from vulnerable gamblers. This is the direct result of commercial lobbyists shaping government policy, rather than the other way around. They feebly present 'investment' as an excuse, when in reality industries like these extract wealth, they don't create it. That's why there are four entries on the top 100 UK Rich List linked to gambling, with a combined fortune of £23.1 billion. Brown certainly has a point when it comes to taxing gambling more heavily, but the monster that is the UK gambling industry is partly his creation. The harm it has caused for decades lies at the door of his former government, and the betting companies are still reaping the rewards of the legislation he helped to pass.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Telegraph
Rumoured tax raid spooks another industry
A new tax has appeared on the horizon, its advocates claiming it could raise £3.2bn for the Treasury. On Wednesday, Gordon Brown took to the airwaves, championing a tax rise on the 'undertaxed' gambling industry. The former Prime Minister is backing calls from the think tank Institute for Public Policy Research, which is claiming raising various gambling taxes could earn the Treasury enough money to cover the cost of scrapping the two-child benefit cap. The policy – perhaps unsurprisingly – is relatively popular. A YouGov survey found 42 per cent of respondents polled to be strongly in support of higher taxes on online gambling, while 28 per cent would somewhat support the increase. Dr Christopher Snowdon of the Institute of Economic Affairs warns against the seduction of supporting a so-called sin tax to fund a noble cause, or the hypothecation of a particular tax stream. If the tax works and reduces consumption, it reduces the Treasury's tax intake, leaving less money for the cause it was meant to fund. 'HMRC have made it clear that hypothecation is the antithesis to everything they believe in', he tells me. But also, is the industry about to be decimated before Rachel Reeves manages to collect her golden eggs? Such is the jitter across businesses as the Chancellor hunts around for tax revenue to plug a black hole worth as much as £50bn in the economy that by Friday the country's biggest gambling companies had lost over £4bn in value, ' amid fears of a tax raid on the sector in the next Budget '. One of these companies, Flutter, which lost over £4.2bn in value, paid nearly £750m in taxes in 2024. Never mind raising more money, is the Treasury about to lose a chunk of its tax take as some of these companies fold or move their operations off-shore to escape a tax raid? Back in November, when the rumours of a so-called Gambling Tax had first surfaced, the Betting and Gaming Council had set out the case for its members: '[t]he proposed levy rate for independent bookmakers is a hammer blow to the 500 small independent betting shops and the 2,500 people who work in them, which risks job losses and venue closures, while contributing a small amount to the overall levy total.' Dr Snowdon shares these concerns. Rachel Reeves has a habit of pursuing policies 'without looking at third-order effects', he tells me. If the anticipated tax rise pushes up the cost of gambling online on UK websites, punters could very easily make use of a Virtual Private Network or VPN to access gambling sites in other countries. There may be public support for taxing the gambling industry into oblivion. But who does the Chancellor then turn to in order to fill the resulting hole in her tax intake? Rachel Reeves cannot afford a repeat of the non-dom debacle, nor can ordinary taxpayers.
The Independent
07-08-2025
- The Independent
Reeves leaves door open to gambling tax rise in autumn budget
Rachel Reeves left the door open to a rise in gambling taxes after Gordon Brown urged her to raise levies to cover the cost of lifting the two-child benefit cap. The Chancellor said she was 'deeply concerned' about child poverty as she faced questions about the former prime minister's proposal to increase duties for online casinos and slot machines to fund welfare reform. Asked whether she was considering Mr Brown's suggestion, Ms Reeves said she had spoken to him last week and would set out Government policy in the autumn budget. 'So I talk to Gordon regularly, and saw him last week when I was in Scotland,' she said. 'Like Gordon, I am deeply concerned around the levels of child poverty in Britain. No child should grow up hungry or parents not be able to afford the basics for their family. 'We're a Labour Government. Of course, we care about child poverty. That's why one of the first things we did as a government was to set up a child poverty task force that will be reporting in the autumn and (will) respond to it then.' She added: 'On gambling taxes, we've already launched a review into gambling taxes. We're taking evidence on that at the moment, and again, we'll set out our policies in the normal way, in our budget later this year.' Reforms to gambling levies could generate the £3.2 billion needed to scrap the two-child limit and benefit cap, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said. The think tank's latest research said axing the policies could lift half a million children out of poverty and 'reverse years of rising hardship for low-income families'. Giving his backing to the report, Mr Brown, a photo of whom Ms Reeves reportedly kept in her bedroom as a student, said it would be the 'first crucial step in the war we must wage against child poverty'. The Government is expected to publish a child poverty strategy in the autumn, and campaign groups have said it must contain a commitment to abandon the two-child limit. Economists have warned tax rises in the autumn are likely needed to plug a hole in the public finances left by poor economic figures and U-turns on welfare, prompting speculation about which areas Ms Reeves might target. The IPPR suggested increasing taxes on online casinos from 21% to 50% and raising those on slots and gaming machines, from 20% to 50%. Mr Brown added: 'Thanks to IPPR's report, we now know that taxing gambling more fairly would fully fund the first crucial step in the war we must wage against child poverty – ending the two-child limit and lifting the benefit cap.' Labour Mayor for the Liverpool City Region Steve Rotheram heaped further pressure on the Chancellor later on Thursday, saying that lifting 500,000 children out of poverty should be 'a national mission'. 'Gordon is spot on,' he said. 'The Government has a real opportunity to act now and transform young lives across the country.' But a spokesperson for the Betting and Gaming Council rejected the 'economically reckless, factually misleading' proposals which 'risk driving huge numbers to the growing, unsafe, unregulated gambling black market, which doesn't protect consumers and contributes zero tax'. They added: 'Further tax rises, fresh off the back of Government reforms which cost the sector over a billion in lost revenue, would do more harm than good, for punters, jobs, growth and public finances.'
