Badenoch to cut public servants to fund childcare for high earners
Kemi Badenoch has proposed removing the £100,000 income limit on funded childcare, so parents working at least 16 hours a week could receive 30 hours of free care. She says the current threshold can discourage parents from taking a pay rise or promotion, and may hold back women’s careers.
The Conservatives estimate the change would cost £700 million a year, funded by reducing civil service jobs in arm’s-length public bodies. They say those cuts could save £1.6 billion by the end of the decade, excluding NHS organisations. Labour says its government is already expanding childcare support and argues the Conservatives want to reverse a policy that helps higher earners.
- Badenoch proposes 30 funded childcare hours for working parents regardless of income.
- The Conservatives estimate the policy would cost £700 million a year.
- Labour says it is already expanding support for families.
New here? Start with this
Funded childcare in England gives eligible working parents help with the cost of nursery or other approved care. The number of funded hours depends on a child’s age and the family’s circumstances, and eligibility rules can include limits based on a parent’s income.
Kemi Badenoch leads the Conservative Party, which is proposing a change to those rules. Labour, the party in government, says it is already expanding childcare support and disputes the Conservatives’ approach. The proposal also links childcare spending to reducing jobs in some public bodies, so it raises questions about both family support and the size of the civil service.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Removing the £100,000 limit could reduce a sharp penalty on parents whose income rises slightly above the threshold, making promotions or additional work more worthwhile. Supporters argue that broadening access could help parents, particularly women, remain in work and progress in their careers; they say reducing civil service roles in arm’s-length bodies can fund the change while limiting pressure on other public services.
The case against
Critics can argue that directing scarce public funds towards childcare for higher earners is less urgent than supporting families on lower incomes or improving services used more widely. They may also question whether the proposed job cuts can reliably deliver the projected savings without weakening the bodies’ work, and argue that expanding support risks reversing a policy designed to target help more narrowly.