The number of people, including children, relying on charity for their food has risen sharply in this country. Matthew Partridge investigateswhy.
What's going on?
There is evidence that many people in Britain have trouble affording enough food. Trussell Trust, a charity running a national network of food banks (see below), estimates that more than 350,000 people are reliant on their food parcels (over a third of them children). Church Action on Poverty (CAP) and Oxfam think that this underestimates the problem, since a third of food banks operate outside the Trust's remit. They think the figure is closer to 500,000.
There is strong evidence that the use of food banks has increased dramatically recently. Trussell Trust claims that the number of users has doubled in the past year, while CAP and Oxfam think it has tripled. Last year, The Guardian estimated that food banks fed one out of 120 children in the southwest of England.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Why is this happening?
Both charities think welfare changes are driving the expansion in user numbers. Mark Goldring, head of Oxfam, argues that "cuts to social safety nets have gone too far, leading to destitution, hardship and hunger on a large scale". The statistics paint a more complex picture.
While the Trussell Trust estimates half of users have welfare-related problems, two-thirds of these were due to benefit delays, rather than the level of benefits. While the proportion of people driven to food banks by the suspension, or reduction, of benefits has risen, they still only accounted for 15% of users last year. This suggests the problem lies in the administration of benefits, rather than austerity cuts. The government also argues that increased use of food banks may simply be because there are more of them around.
So, benefit reforms aren't responsible for the rise?
The reforms themselves aren't the problem the issue is the implementation. The charities argue that the introduction of several reforms together, with changes to benefit levels and eligibility, has created chaos. Sometimes people are left in limbo while they are switched from one benefit to another. And with pressure to cut spending by denying more applications, Chris Price, director of Pecan Foodbank in Peckham, suggests job centres may be referring people to them as an excuse for not processing claims in time.
Charities also warn that things could get worse. For example, while supportive "in principle" of the universal benefit, which aims to simplify the system, CAP warns a switch to monthly payments is likely to worsen the budgeting problems of the many families who already have trouble making their benefits last for a full fortnight.
What about the working poor?
It's not just the unemployed who are using food banks. As Rowenna Davis notes in the New Statesman, "the old stereotype of who goes hungry is changing. Skilled blue-collar jobs with decent pay and reliable hours have been replaced by low pay, white-collar jobs on zero-hour contracts". At least 18% of Trussell Trust's users do so because of low earnings, as seen in similar schemes run in Canada. "Based on figures and experience", it thinks up to half of users may be in some sort of work.
It doesn't help that since 2005 the price of essentials such as food, rent and electricity, have shot up. According to the Office for National Statistics, prices are 25% higher than in 2005. However, the price of food and non-alcoholic drinks has gone up 43%, while housing, water and electricity have increased 49%. Barnardo's estimates people on lower incomes spend 60% on essentials, while the richest only spend 20%, so the poor have been hardest hit. Another problem is that the cost of living varies across Britain. Many on low incomes in the south, where prices are higher, are worse off than those in the north.
What can be done?
The proliferation of food banks has led to suggestions that it would be better to give benefit recipients food and essentials directly to help with budgeting. Last year, backbench MP Alec Shelbrooke introduced a bill to replace benefits with food stamps and other in-kind payments, with the aim of ensuring "taxpayer-funded benefits should be used to fund only essential purchases". Supporters point to a poll (sponsored by MasterCard) which suggested a majority of voters support controlling what benefits can be spent on.
In response, the government wound up the Social Fund system of emergency loans earlier this year, allowing councils to issue food vouchers instead. But critics argue that this would be degrading, especially to those who have paid into the system through taxes. It would also prevent claimants developing a sense of personal responsibility. And it would be more expensive, costing £72m to set up the new arrangement system, over a third of the annual Social Fund budget.
How do food banks work?
Food banks collect, sort and distribute food donations from businesses and the public to those requiring emergency food aid. To ensure donations are directed to those in genuine need, people are referred by a Job Centre, social worker or GP. To prevent dependence, they usually limit the number of parcels that people can receive to no more than three a year.
While the movement started in Salisbury in 2000, the Trussell Trust network alone runs 325 banks. Their "success" divides opinion. Isabel Hardman claims in The Spectator that "their emergence ought to be seen as a sign of how strong Britain's social fabric is". However, in February the United Nations claimed that their existence proved that the British government was not meeting its obligations to look after its citizens. Even Hardman admits that they are a "sticking plaster", not a long-term solution.
