The headline announcement in the government's plan is the pledge to lift the two-child benefit cap, announced in Rachel Reeves's budget last week.

It also includes:

• Providing upfront childcare support for parents on universal credit returning to work
• An £8m fund to end the placement of families in bed and breakfasts beyond a six-week limit
• Reforms to cut the cost of baby formula
• A new legal duty on councils to notify schools, health visitors, and GPs when a child is placed in temporary accommodation

Many of the measures have previously been announced.

The government also pointed to its plan in the budget to cut energy bills by £150 a year, and its previously promised £950m boost to a local authority housing fund, which it says will deliver 5,000 high-quality homes for better temporary accommodation.

Downing Street said the strategy would lift 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030, saying that would be the biggest reduction in a single parliament since records began.

But charities had been hoping for a 10-year strategy and argue the plan lacks ambition.

A record 4.5 million children (about 31%) are living in poverty in the UK - 900,000 more since 2010/11, according to government figures.

Phillip Anderson, the Strategic Director for External Affairs at the National Children's Bureau (NCB), told Sky News: "Abolishing the two-child limit is a hell of a centre piece, but beyond that it's mainly a summary of previously announced policies and commitments.

"The really big thing for me is it misses the opportunity to talk about the longer term. It was supposed to be a 10-year strategy, we wanted to see real ambition and ideally legally binding targets for reducing poverty.

"The government itself says there will still be around four million children living in poverty after these measures and the strategy has very little to say to them."

'Budget for benefits street' row

The biggest measure in the strategy is the plan to lift the two-child benefit cap from April. This is estimated to lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030, at a cost of £3bn.

The government has long been under pressure from backbench Labour MPs to scrap the cap, with most experts arguing that it is the quickest, most cost-effective way to drive-down poverty this parliament.

The cap, introduced by Conservative chancellor George Osborne in 2017, means parents can only claim universal credit or tax credits for their first two children. It meant the average affected household losing £4,300 per year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated in 2024.

The government argues that a failure to tackle child poverty holds back the economy, and young people at school, cutting their employment and earning prospects in later life.

However, the Conservatives argue parents on benefits should have to make the same financial choices about children as everyone else.

Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: "Work is the best way out poverty but since this government took office, unemployment has risen every single month and this budget for Benefits Street will only make the situation worse. "

'Bring back Sure Start'

Lord Bird, a crossbench peer who founded the Big Issue and grew up in poverty, said while he supported the lifting of the cap there needed to be "more joined up thinking" across government for a longer-term strategy.

He has been pushing for the creation of a government ministry of "poverty prevention and cure", and for legally binding targets on child poverty.

"You have to be able to measure yourself, you can't have the government marking its own homework," he told Sky News.

Lord Bird also said he was a "great believer" in resurrecting Sure Start centres and expanding them beyond early years.

The New Labour programme offered support services for pre-school children and their parents and is widely seen to have improved health and educational outcomes. By its peak in 2009-2010 there were 3,600 centres - the majority of which closed following cuts by the subsequent Conservative government.

PM to meet families

Sir Keir Starmer's government have since announced 1,000 Best Start Family Hubs - but many Labour MPs feel this announcement went under the radar and ministers missed a trick in not calling them "Sure Starts" as it is a name people are familiar with.

The prime minister is expected to meet families and children in Wales on Friday, alongside the Welsh First Minister, to make the case for his strategy and meet those he hopes will benefit from it.

Several other charities have urged ministers to go further. Both Crisis and Shelter called for the government to unfreeze housing benefit and build more social rent homes, while the Children's Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, said that "if we are to end child poverty - not just reduce it" measures like free bus travel for school-age children would be needed.

The strategy comes after the government set up a child poverty taskforce in July 2024, which was initially due to report back in May. The taskforce's findings have not yet been published - only the government's response.

Sir Keir said: "Too many children are growing up in poverty, held back from getting on in life, and too many families are struggling without the basics: a secure home, warm meals and the support they need to make ends meet.

"I will not stand by and watch that happen, because the cost of doing nothing is too high for children, for families and for Britain."

Targeted action against workers in the so-called gig economy led to 171 arrests nationwide last month, the Home Office said.

Those arrested included Chinese nationals working in a restaurant in Solihull, Bangladeshi and Indian riders in east London, and Indian delivery riders in Norwich.

The drive comes as ministers try to crack down on illegal working in the UK, as part of efforts to deter those coming to the country illegally.

Home Office figures show there were 8,232 arrests of illegal workers in the year to September, up 63% compared with the previous 12 months.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood set out reforms to the asylum system last month, aimed at making the UK less attractive for illegal migration and making it easier to deport people.

Border security minister Alex Norris said the government was rooting out the criminality of illegal working in the delivery sector from communities.

He went on to say: "These results should send a clear message, if you are working illegally in this country, you will be arrested and removed.

"This action is part of the most sweeping changes to illegal migration in modern times to reduce the incentives that draw illegal migrations here and scale up removals."

Read more:
France will soon be able to intercept suspected migrant taxi boats
How is Britain's immigration system actually changing?

Ministers have also been working with firms Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats to address concerns of abuse in the sector and ramping up identity checks to tackle account-sharing.

The Home Office also agreed in July to share asylum hotel locations with food delivery companies, to tackle suspected hot spots of illegal working.

The action also comes as the government's new Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act became law on Tuesday, which includes measures to close a "loophole" for casual, temporary or subcontracted workers to also have to prove their status.

Employers who fail to carry out checks could face up to five years in prison, fines of £60,000 for each illegal worker they have employed, and having their business closed.

Technology giant Meta has already started locking children under the age of 16 out of Instagram and Facebook, as it runs age checks on its users.

Other platforms have started contacting underage users - advising them to download their photos and contacts, and offering the choice of deleting their accounts or freezing them until they turn 16.

The age-restricted ban also includes TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, Kick, Threads and X.

Impact on influencers

In the town of Umina on the New South Wales central coast, 14-year-old skateboarders Vespa Eding and Indy Conwell post photos and videos of their latest tricks in the skate bowl. Their accounts are managed by their mums.

The girls also coach young skaters and have corporate sponsors.

"I see both sides to it," Indy explains. "It's sad because I'm probably going to lose my account that I use to contact my sponsors and do my business."

"But I think it's a good idea [to ban it] for people getting bullied or if they're getting addicted to it."

Read more:
Teens launch legal challenge over ban on social media for children
How will ban work and could the UK bring in a similar law?

Mental health crises

Lawyer and mother Emma Mason knows how damaging social media can be.

Her daughter Matilda Rosewarne, who was called "Tilly", suffered from years of online abuse as a teenager in the regional city of Bathurst.

Tilly took her own life on 16 February 2022. She was 15 years old.

"When Tilly was about 14, a fake nude was sent around by a friend of hers at school in Bathurst," Ms Mason said.

"It spread to about 300 children, then it went to about 1,000 kids and by 6pm she had attempted suicide."

Ms Mason has campaigned for Australia's social media ban since she lost her daughter, and spoke at an event on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York this year.

Psychologist Danielle Einstein, co-author of the book Raising Anxiety, says there is clearly a link between anxiety, uncertainty and social media.

"Now is the time to get contact numbers and to see who your good friends are," Dr Einstein said. "Who are the people you have fun with and who are the people you talk to when things aren't going well."

Under the ban, children will still be able to use messaging services.

Life off the apps

At Brigidine College in Sydney, students are preparing to get off the apps.

Teenager Sophia Benson says: "I'm on the fence about it. I think it's good for kids' mental health. But I also think it encourages the younger generation to find ways around it because obviously if you're told you can't do something, you want to do it more."

Elsie Ord is 15 years old and will spend the next seven months without social media access.

"I signed up at such a young age I was already using fake ages," Elsie says. "I'm on social media around eight hours a day. I don't know how I'm going to cope. I'm one of the people thinking how am I going to escape this, but it's inevitable."

Some 96% of Australia's teenagers under 16 have social media accounts, according to Australia's internet regulator.

The Australian government says the new social media laws are necessary to protect children from addiction and cyberbullying.

However, there is opposition as well.

Social media 'whack a mole'

John Riddick is a member of the NSW Parliament and the Libertarian Party.

He's also president of the Digital Freedom Project, which is backing a High Court challenge against the ban.

Mr Riddick says it should be up to parents to decide what is good for their children, not the government.

"Kids are tech savvy. You say 'you can't do this, and you can't do that' and you're going to play whack-a-mole, the kids are going to get around it," he argues.

The government has warned it may expand its list of banned apps.

Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK.

Alternatively, you can call Mind's support line on 0300 102 1234, or NHS on 111.

Our investigation into waste crime in Wigan heard from residents who repeatedly complained to the Environment Agency that 20 to 30 lorries a day drove down their street last winter and dumped industrial amounts of waste.

The rubbish now sits at a staggering 25,000 tonnes. It burnt for nine days in July, and has seen local homes infested with rats and flies.

Since then, a similarly sized site in Kidlington near the River Cherwell in Oxfordshire sparked national outrage. One man has been arrested in connection with the dumping.

Despite the scale of these two locations - which were well known to the Environment Agency - it neglected to name them when asked by the Lord's Environment Committee's inquiry into waste crime how many "significant" sites there were around the country.

Phil Davies and Steve Molyneux of the Environment Agency gave evidence on 17 September.

Just six sites were cited, but three more have been exposed in the past few weeks alone. These are Wigan, Kidlington and a mound of dumped waste in Wadborough.

Now, the Lords are worried there are more environmentally destructive locations the public aren't aware of.

Read more:
A community plagued by 25,000 tonnes of illegal waste
Urgent action needed to stop fly-tipping by gangs, peers say

In a letter to the EA's chair Alan Lovell and chief executive Philip Duffy, Baroness Sheehan, chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, said: "We are increasingly concerned that there may be other sites of a similarly large and environmentally damaging scale."

She asked how much progress has been made to remove waste from the various sites, why restriction notices in places like Wigan weren't served sooner - and for a full list of other sites of a similar size.

Baroness Sheehan also expressed her "disappointment" that these three new locations "were not deemed necessary to bring to the committee's attention", though she thanked journalists for "bringing these sites to the public attention".

Her original report saw the Lords call for an independent "root and branch" inquiry into how waste crime is tackled. She said the crime, which costs the UK £1bn every year, has been "critically under-prioritised".

Sky News has been investigating the scourge of waste crime all year, exposing how criminal gangs involved in drugs, weapons and people trafficking can make "millions" from illegally dumping waste.

In the summer, we tracked down a group of suspected organised fly-tippers who waved wads of cash on TikTok after dumping waste in the countryside.

It's so lucrative, it was dubbed the "new narcotics" by a former head of the Environment Agency.

What was once a promotional loss leader for supermarkets desperate for drivers to fill their car boots with groceries, unleaded and diesel costs have been unusually high for years.

Fuel retailers say there is a simple explanation: rising costs being passed on to motorists.

But critics argue there is a reason why the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has consistently found that we're paying more than we should be - and that the disparity between wholesale costs and pump prices has got worse in recent months.

So: who's right?

What the oil data tells us

Oil prices are well down on levels seen in January (between $75 and $82 a barrel) but fuel prices are clearly not.

In recent weeks, Brent crude has traded in the range of $62 to $64 per barrel and yet drivers are currently, on average, paying £1.37 a litre for petrol and £1.46 for diesel.

The average pumps costs in January stood at £1.39 and £1.45 - despite the significantly higher oil costs seen at the time.

Prices can be affected by all sorts of factors including the value of the pound versus the oil-priced dollar, but that disparity is notable.

There is another, emerging, factor to consider

It might surprise you to learn that the UK now has only four operational refineries to produce petrol and diesel after two major sites shut this year.

The decline has sparked an industry warning of a crisis due to high UK carbon charges, imposed by the government, that have made domestic fuel producers uncompetitive versus imports.

The loss of the refinery at Grangemouth this spring has been particularly acute as it left Scotland without domestic production and at the mercy of a more complicated and expensive delivery structure.

Fuel retailers say the impact has been minimal so far, mainly due to remaining UK refineries raising production.

The case for the prosecution

Quite simply, fuel price campaigners and motoring groups have long accused the industry of raising its profit margins.

Supermarkets focused price investment elsewhere as the cost of living crisis took hold but the days of Asda (before it was bought by the fuel-focused Issa brothers and private equity) leading a sector-wide fuel price war are long gone.

Reports by both the AA and RAC this week highlight price spikes despite a 5p slump in wholesale costs a fortnight ago.

The AA said: "At the height of the spike, it matched what had been seen in mid June. Then, the petrol pump average reached a maximum of 135.8p by late July.

It said that government data had since shown pump prices at levels not seen since March.

The body questioned the reasons behind that disparity and also pointed towards, what it called, a postcode lottery for pump costs with gaps of up to 9p a litre between towns only 10 miles apart.

The RAC declared on Thursday that pump prices rose at their fastest pace in 18 months during November, with diesel at a 15-month high.

The critics have also included regulators as monitoring of fuel retailers by the CMA since its original market study has consistently found that drivers have been excessively charged.

What's the fuel industry's position?

It pleads "not guilty".

The bodies representing retailers make the point that the CMA and its wider critics fail to take into account huge rises in costs they have faced over the past four years - costs which are being/have been passed on across the economy.

These include those for energy, business rates, minimum wage, employer national insurance costs and record sums arising from forecourt crime.

The Petrol Retailers' Association (PRA), which represents the majority of forecourts, told Sky News that average margins across the sector are the same today as they were a year ago at between 3% to 4% after costs.

It suggests no fuel for the fire surrounding those profiteering allegations but that rising costs have been passed on in full.

What has the regulator done?

The CMA's road fuel market study committed to monitor the market and recommended a compulsory fuel finder scheme to help bolster competition. That was two-and-a-half years ago.

Limited data has been widely available via motoring apps ahead of the start of the official scheme, expected in spring next year, which will bring real-time pricing into a driver's view for the first time.

The CMA hopes that by forcing each retailer to divulge their prices in real time, customers will vote with their feet.

In the regulator's defence

The CMA could argue that government has dragged its heels in implementing its fuel finder recommendation.

While the Conservatives accepted it, Labour is now pushing it through parliament.

The regulator can only act within the powers it has been given. It would say that it can't threaten or hand out fines until its recommendations are in play and they have been clearly flouted.

So who's right?

This is a debate all about transparency but we clearly don't have a full view on the complicated, and shifting, supply chain which can influence pump prices.

The CMA hopes that postcode lotteries for pump costs will ease once more drivers are aware of the ability to compare and shop around.

But the main reason why this issue remains unresolved is that the CMA's findings have been incomplete to date.

Its determinations that pump costs have been excessive have all been made without taking retailers' operating costs into full account.

Why we are closer to an answer

The CMA's next market update is expected within weeks and will, for the first time, take more extensive cost data into account.

A spokesperson told Sky News: "We recommended the Fuel Finder scheme to help drivers avoid paying more than they should at the pump, and the government intends to launch it by spring 2026.

"The scheme will give drivers real-time price information, helping them find the cheapest fuel and putting pressure on retailers to compete.

"We looked closely at operating costs during our review of the market, and they formed a key part of our final report in 2023.

"As we confirmed in June, we've been examining claims that these costs have risen and will set out our assessment in our annual report later this month."

The hope must be that both sides involved can accept the report's findings for the first time, to bring this bitter debate to an end once and for all."