Dr Rowan Williams: Food bank users are not scroungers and this isn't a hiccup - it’s a serious crisis

First topic message reminder :




Pitching in: Dr Williams helps at a food bank in Cambridge

For the last few years I have heard stories from people I am in touch with pastorally. They are almost always the same – stories of people who have hit an ­unexpected bump in the road.

It may be a missed pay cheque, a family illness or a form that has gone astray – things that might not make much of a difference in more secure circumstances. But in these hard times people do not have that safety net and they fall through the gaps.

People who are using food banks are not scroungers who are cynically trying to work the system. They are drawn from the six million working poor in this country, people who are struggling to make ends meet in low paid or bitty employment.

They cannot just turn up at a food bank. They have to be properly assessed and found to need emergency help. Despite that, the number of people using food banks is doubling annually. When you think about that, you start to realise how serious the situation is.

That is why I agreed to be patron of the food banks in Cambridge. You tend to think of hunger as a problem elsewhere, but it is happening right here in our own communities.

n many ways Cambridge is a prosperous town. If the problem is so big here, and it is, that shines a spotlight on how severe it must be in other parts of the country.

The one encouraging thing is that as the need has grown, so has the response.

There are some people in public life who talk as if the natural default setting for people in this country is to be suspicious of those less well off than themselves.

That is completely contradicted by the level of generosity people have shown, locally in the form of people who volunteer at food banks and churches who support this work, and nationally in the response to the Christmas appeal by the Daily Mirror.

I would love to see more people in public positions coming to see what is happening at first hand. It is easy for them to stand at a distance and say, “Oh well, these people are working the system,” or “this is just a temporary hiccup”.

But when you actually come face to face with the anxiety people face about feeding their children, you cannot ignore what is in front of your nose.

I would urge people in decision-making positions to come and spend a couple of hours watching what goes on and listening to some of our volunteers. We hear a lot said praising the volunteer culture in this country, but it does not run on thin air and at the moment it is stretched to breaking point.

The Russian author Leo Tolstoy once observed that “food for myself is a material issue, but food for my neighbour is a spiritual issue”.

It is an issue we should all be concerned with at a time like this.

Read Trussell Trust chairman Chris Mould's view of the prevalence of food banks here

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dr-rowan-williams-food-bank-3168067#ixzz2tyAREShQ
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

If you actually read the report that was published - finally after being suppressed for 7 months - the main reason is because benefits are stopped and then re-instated over and over again, or there is mess up with payments.

Sassy wrote:If you actually read the report that was published - finally after being suppressed for 7 months - the main reason is because benefits are stopped and then re-instated over and over again, or there is mess up with payments.

Its completely flawed, it takes no account that less people are now on income support and less Tax for example, what has happened is now more people have caps on the higher amount, so what is poverty to you now Sassy, because less people are on JSA and those on minimum wage are better off than under labour and wages have not increased since 2003?
Thus the problem has been there for years and if there were many under the last years of labour no doubt many would be using them, so who is using them, because the people on the lowest have changed for the better in that more now employed and higher tax relief, so explain why this would be due to benefits when they have not changed for those on the lower amounts?

The report isn't flawed, which is why the Government tried to suppress it.   In any case, the all party committee, including Frank Field , are now looking into it in more detail.   Should be interesting.

And I'm talking about the Defra report already put up on a different thread.

Maine coon lover wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Well on a personal level I would say sod the TV because I dont watch one and its definitely not a necessity but I accept that I am not usual in that respect - and I also understand legally you may be said to require one if you have a device that connects to the internet - so thats under £4 a week.

A car is definitely not a necessity for a single unemployed adult.A push bike is adequate enough to cover reasonable distances within reasonable times.  (and no I dont give a toss where they live - the whole thing with being being a single adult is you can move)

Home insurance?  Again that is not a necessity for a single unemployed adult.  I mean honestly are you suggesting that someone should go without food or heating so they can insure goods that can be replaced second hand for less than a years premium?

a lot of jobs require you to drive now so keeping a car on the road is necessary for interviews and the possibilty of getting a job, home insurance is required by mortgage companies .

Internet is going to be a requirement universal credits expect those on jsa to be searching the interenet for 35 hours a week .

Requiring an ability to drive does not require the person to have a car.
It is possible to walk, use a push bike or use public transport to get to interviews - in fact if a person is claiming JSA they can get public transport for interview costs refunded so it costs them nothing.
Internet can be accessed outside of the home - in the home it need only cost a couple of pound a week so we will add that to the TV licence
so £30 gas/electric/water
£15/20 food
£6 TV licence/internet
we have a total of £56 leaving £15 from £71.

Mortgages require income protection insurance so if a person looses their job they are still covered for such things.

We are talking about living on £71 a week for a single adult in a flat for which the costs are covered.

Sassy wrote:The report isn't flawed, which is why the Government tried to suppress it.   In any case, the all party committee, including Frank Field , are now looking into it in more detail.   Should be interesting.

And I'm talking about the Defra report already put up on a different thread.

It is flawed, as seen many factors are missed out, which shows it has used poor methodology, what it is trying poorly to do is place people who have sufficient money into the lower bracket, when again benefits have not changed for those on the lowest possible amounts to claim. Again less people unemployed and more tax relief with those wages, so who is needing the food banks for start, because not more people have been placed into the lowest bracket. The claim is based on poverty, though not real poverty, it is a factor based belief based upon numbers, which is a disgrace to call poverty really when that is not real poverty.
Again it is the highest amounts that have been capped, so are you saying people who were earning over 26K on benefits who now earn just 26K need food banks?

Yea, yea, yea, you can live on tuppence and save a penny, make shoes last 10 year even though you are walking 20 miles to work every day and never need to buy a hairbrush or a toothbrush and you keep a cuboard full of food by growing it.  :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: 

So you have no answer then, no problem

Sassy wrote:Yea, yea, yea, you can live on tuppence and save a penny, make shoes last 10 year even though you are walking 20 miles to work every day and never need to buy a hairbrush or a toothbrush and you keep a cuboard full of food by growing it.  :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: :-:bravo:-: 

We are talking about whether a single unemployed person can live on £71 a week Sassy seeing as some are claiming it is impossible to manage.

I have provided the basis for my figures and am asking people what is wrong with them not for people to claim I am saying completely different figures which they then ridicule.

OFGS, we've already done that on another thread. In any case, the Defra report says that the main reason is when benefits are stopped and the person is fighting that, or there is a hold up, etc etc etc.

Sassy wrote:OFGS, we've already done that on another thread.   In any case, the Defra report says that the main reason is when benefits are stopped and the person is fighting that, or there is a hold up, etc etc etc.

Right how many people are on benefits sassy?

How many people are now able to use food banks?

What has changed under Labour and now the coalition.

More people in jobs, more tax relief for those on lowest income , lowest benefits have not changed, so how are people worse off now to need food banks?

They are not, the case is there was always a need for food banks for those on the most lowest incomes, just now we have more access to them for people.

Your argument is on the benefit changes, so what groups does this affect that they now have so little money they need to go to food banks?

Sassy wrote:OFGS, we've already done that on another thread.   In any case, the Defra report says that the main reason is when benefits are stopped and the person is fighting that, or there is a hold up, etc etc etc.

No sassy it is on this thread that Catman has been declaring it is impossible to live on £71 a week because of food and cost of living.

I challenged that and he asked for figures - I have provided them. I am waiting for him to show me where they are wrong.

Read the bloody report instead of rabbiting on Didge, and then listen to what the all party committee says when it has finished.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:OFGS, we've already done that on another thread.   In any case, the Defra report says that the main reason is when benefits are stopped and the person is fighting that, or there is a hold up, etc etc etc.

No sassy it is on this thread that Catman has been declaring it is impossible to live on £71 a week because of food and cost of living.

I challenged that and he asked for figures - I have provided them. I am waiting for him to show me where they are wrong.

We did that on a previous thread. Perhaps you should go back to it instead of going round and round like a hamster in a wheel.

Sassy wrote:Read the bloody report instead of rabbiting on Didge, and then listen to what the all party committee says when it has finished.

I have read the report, why is it I have shown flaws here to provide you with questions to answer, which it seems you cannot answer, showing what I am saying is correct.

You can take stock in the report but what the report fails to do is show a similar amount of people have been in this position for years, hence why it is flawed 

So again

Right how many people are on benefits sassy?

How many people are now able to use food banks?

What has changed under Labour and now the coalition.

More people in jobs, more tax relief for those on lowest income , lowest benefits have not changed, so how are people worse off now to need food banks?

They are not, the case is there was always a need for food banks for those on the most lowest incomes, just now we have more access to them for people.

Your argument is on the benefit changes, so what groups does this affect that they now have so little money they need to go to food banks?

Blah blah blah blah blah, Read the report, the Defra report, which shows that it is because of mess ups in benefits etc etc etc etc etc etc etc ............ I haven't mentioned benefit changes.

Again I am questioning the report based on information, why is it you are running scared from answering?

Questions are above, let me know when you wish to tackle them, as I know Irn will and will enjoy a good discussion over this, he does not shy away from a debate

Families turn to food banks as last resort, not because they are free – report
Review for Defra was passed to ministers in June but not published, creating speculation findings had been 'suppressed'



Low incomes, unemployment and benefit delays have combined to trigger increased demand for food banks among the UK's poorest families, according to a report commissioned by the government (pdf).

The report directly contradicts the claim from a government minister that the rise in the use of food banks is linked to the fact that there are now more of them. It says people turn to charity food as a last resort following a crisis such as the loss of a job, or problems accessing social security benefits.

The report concludes that, while there is some evidence that welfare changes have contributed to increased demand, it is difficult to make a clear and robust link.

The review emerges as the government comes under pressure from church leaders and charities to address increasing prevalence of food poverty caused by welfare cuts. The End Hunger Fast campaign has called for a national day of fasting on 4 April to highlight the issue.

The review, written by a team of food policy experts from the University of Warwick, was passed to ministers in June but has remained under wraps until now, creating speculation that the government "suppressed" its findings.

Examining the effect of welfare changes on food bank use was not a specific part of its remit, says the report, which is understood to have undergone a number of revisions since early summer at the behest of the Department for Food and Agriculture and the Department for Work and Pensions.

The researchers found that a combination of rising food prices, shrinking incomes, low pay and increasing personal debt meant an increasing number of families could not afford to buy sufficient food.

Benefits payment problems – either administrative errors that can leave claimants without cash for weeks, or the temporary withdrawal of benefits as a result of sanctions –are a factor in the increase in demand for food aid, the report says.

Ministers have repeatedly said there is no robust link between welfare changes and food bank use, while the welfare minister Lord Freud claimed the rise in food bank use was because there were more food banks and because the food was free.

But the Warwick researchers explicitly reject Freud's claim in a statement accompanying the report: "We found no evidence to support the idea that increased food aid provision is driving demand. All available evidence both in the UK and international points in the opposite direction. Put simply, there is more need and informal food aid providers are trying to help."

The report says that, while food banks such as the Trussell Trust collect data on the numbers of people using its services, it is impossible give an accurate estimate of the numbers of people fed by food aid providers in the UK.

The review warns ministers that, while food banks and thousands of other voluntary food aid providers do an important job of coping with short-term hunger problems, government cannot rely on charity to tackle rising food insecurity.

"Increasing numbers of households are having to deal with changes in circumstances which are potentially having negative impact on their food security in the immediate – and possibly longer – term," says the report.

It adds: "Some see it as appropriate for local groups to meet short-term food needs through temporary, non-governmental provision, but the evidence from international food security research suggests this is likely to be of limited effectiveness.

"A broader approach to sustaining food access, which takes account of longer-term and underlying dimensions to household food insecurity is needed."

A government spokesperson said: "Charities such as food organisations have always provided a valued service to those in need in their communities, in addition to the safety net provided by governments, and we should welcome the help they provide."

"That is why this government has given Jobcentre Plus advisers the ability to say to people who need help that they can go to a food bank.

"The literature review published today was commissioned as part of Defra's general work on food in the UK to see what information was available on the issue."

Professor Elizabeth Dowler, who headed the Warwick research team, said: "We are delighted our report has been published. We urge the government to learn from it and from those living in harsh circumstances, and to find creative, fair ways to enable all in this rich country to have enough money to be able to eat healthily. This work is urgent."

Niall Cooper, of the charity Church Action on Poverty, said: "The publication of the Defra report, coinciding with the launch of the End Hunger Fast by over 40 church leaders today is a timely wake up call to government and society at large.

"The report confirms the growing demand for food banks is driven by people facing crises, and directly refutes the governments claims that it is caused by the growing number of food banks.

"The truth is that, since the 'snapshot' last March, the situation has dramatically worsened, with many food banks reporting a doubling or trembling in demand since April.

The Defra review follows the publication of a Scottish government report last month which explicitly connected the rise in food bank use with the impact of welfare reforms such as the bedroom tax. The nine week Defra review, called a Rapid Research Assessment, comprised of a study of peer-assessed research in the UK and overseas, plus a series of interviews with food aid volunteers, professionals and studies of food aid projects.

Separately, an all-party group of MPs launched an inquiry on Thursday into the causes of UK food poverty and food bank use. The inquiry will be headed by the Bishop of Truro, Tim Thornton, and inquiry members include Labour MP Frank Field and Tory backbencher Laura Sandys.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/20/food-bank-review-undermines-ministers-claim


Don't try condescending to me when you won't face facts.

Yes someone else not able to answer my points, great, now can you try or are you going to C&P many of the same views, which I again I am showing up its flawed methodology, that means I am challenging it which you are running scared of and now post another article

Copout try again  


Right how many people are on benefits sassy?

How many people are now able to use food banks?

What has changed under Labour and now the coalition.

More people in jobs, more tax relief for those on lowest income , lowest benefits have not changed, so how are people worse off now to need food banks?

They are not, the case is there was always a need for food banks for those on the most lowest incomes, just now we have more access to them for people.

Your argument is on the benefit changes, so what groups does this affect that they now have so little money they need to go to food banks?

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No sassy it is on this thread that Catman has been declaring it is impossible to live on £71 a week because of food and cost of living.

I challenged that and he asked for figures - I have provided them. I am waiting for him to show me where they are wrong.

We did that on a previous thread.   Perhaps you should go back to it instead of going round and round like a hamster in a wheel.

No we did something else that was similar on another thread.

As for going round and round are you going to say its impossible to live on £71 a week?

So the article says this

Low incomes, unemployment and benefit delays have combined to trigger increased demand for food banks among the UK's poorest families, according to a report commissioned by the government 


Wages not gone up since 2003, lowest benefits not changed, more people in work, those on lowest income less tax to pay  nd benefits delays happened under labour.


This on the 3 points they claim to be the fact of more food banks that would point to far more people needing food banks when Labour was in power not now

You're both round the bloody bend. Sphinx, it was exactly the same. Didge, you'll do anything to avoid the truth about what is happening.

Total waste of time and effort to debate this with either of you.

Sassy wrote:You're both round the bloody bend.   Sphinx, it was exactly the same.   Didge, you'll do anything to avoid the truth about what is happening.

Total waste of time and effort to debate this with either of you.

Read again your reasons from the article

So the article says this

Low incomes, unemployment and benefit delays have combined to trigger increased demand for food banks among the UK's poorest families, according to a report commissioned by the government 


Wages not gone up since 2003, lowest benefits not changed, more people in work, those on lowest income less tax to pay  nd benefits delays happened under labour.


So again more people were in the lowest incomes under labour as taxed more on their wages, more people out of work under labour in the last years, wages have not risen since 2003 under labour. Now we have far more food banks, thus more people have access to them, thus if the same amount had been around under Labour more people would have been using them, because what benefit changes for these 3 factors accounted for more people needing to use them today?


None, that means again the publication is flawed, being as it does not take into count any of what I stated

Sassy wrote:You're both round the bloody bend.   Sphinx, it was exactly the same.   Didge, you'll do anything to avoid the truth about what is happening.

Total waste of time and effort to debate this with either of you.

No it wasnt - it was whether a single person needed £40 a week just to spend on food.