Food Banks

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 9 May 2017.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-05314, in the name of Pauline McNeill, on food banks—Scotland’s hunger crisis. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament understands that the number of people in Scotland experiencing hunger is at crisis level, with figures from the Trussell Trust suggesting that more than 100,000 visited its food banks in the last year; believes that, as there are many charities and organisations providing such services, the number of families relying on these will be far higher; condemns what it sees as the benefit cuts and unfair sanctions that are being imposed by the UK Government, which it believes have been a significant factor in the dramatic increase in the use of foodbanks; notes the support for policies that aim to prevent hunger and ensure the provision of food through working with food banks until they are no longer required; further notes the view that there should be sustained and improved access to emergency financial support through the Scottish Welfare Fund; understands that existing schemes where social services work with voluntary organisations have been successful in helping people access the services and support to which they are entitled and that by providing this has reduced foodbank use, and notes the view that this approach of joint public and voluntary sector working provides the greatest chance of eradicating the need for food banks in Glasgow and across Scotland.

Photo of Pauline McNeill Pauline McNeill Labour

I thank all members who signed my motion on h unger. I am pleased to learn that the subject is of as much concern to other members as it is to me.

The number of people experiencing hunger in Scotland is at crisis levels. Last year, the largest food bank operator in Scotland, the Trussell Trust, provided more than 145,000 three-day emergency food supplies—a 9 per cent increase on the previous year. In 2011, there was one Trussell Trust food bank in Scotland; today, there are 52, including one that recently opened in Shetland, which is the least deprived local authority in Scotland. Those numbers are even more shocking when we consider that other charities, as well as churches, also operate food banks.

In 2017, food banks are almost a feature of the welfare landscape, except that they are run and funded not by the state but by the wonderful work of charities such as the Trussell Trust, Glasgow City Mission and the Simon Community Scotland—and too many others to mention. Nobody I know wants food banks to remain in permanent service, but for now, sadly, they are a necessity, and one that has saved lives.

The fact that food banks exist is a damning indictment of the times that we live in, where austerity comes with very real consequences for people. Food banks are part and parcel of the response of a civilised society to the increasing number of people who live in food poverty and who became poorer following the 2008 banking crash that caused a recession—a recession that provided the justification for a Government policy that penalised ordinary people who had nothing to do with those seismic global events.

People going hungry is not just an issue for the third world; it is a heartbreaking fact in today’s Scotland. Without food banks, people would certainly starve. I want to address at least three myths about food banks: that people use them because they are there and they want free food, rather than because they have no choice; that people can just walk in and get food—of course they cannot, as a referral is needed; and that only people characterised as skivers use food banks, which is not the case.

In 2013, Lord Freud, a Tory millionaire, told the House of Lords that there is “no evidence” that the growth of food banks is linked to growing poverty and hunger rather than merely people wishing to get free food. The facts do not support that ignorant view because, according to research carried out by the University of Oxford, the three top reasons for referrals to food banks are low income—meaning that people who are in work are being referred—benefit delays and benefit changes. Food banks that operate in areas where universal credit has been rolled out have seen a 17 per cent rise in the need for emergency food. That is because the transition to universal credit involves a six-week wait and the amount of money that people receive is often reduced. It is obvious that that system will harm people who have no funds and whose rent and fuel bills are mounting. The in-built six-week wait before people receive money through universal credit is excessive and must be reformed with immediate effect.

A newly elected Tory councillor in Glasgow’s east end said that he joined the party because he wanted to support a party that believed that, if people work hard and play by the rules, they will get on in life. However, the reality for many of his new constituents is that although they work hard and play by the rules, that is not enough to prevent them from needing to rely on a food bank to feed themselves and their family. Recently, we have heard about nurses and veterans having to visit food banks. When asked about that issue this week, Ruth Davidson repeated Theresa May’s response that the reasons for food bank use are “complex”. The reason for food banks is that people are hungry and cannot afford food—there is nothing complex about it.

It was at a reception in the Parliament that I learned about Vicki and Rodger. The couple, who have four children, had a modest, comfortable living before being hit by the recession. They worked hard, paid their taxes and played by the rules. After Rodger lost his job in the insurance industry, he took a job as a slater on a zero-hours contract, but work dried up—his hours dwindled to nothing. It was a very quick decline. They had never claimed benefits before in their lives, but soon it was difficult to feed their family every day. A concerned housing officer noticed that the couple had lost an alarming amount of weight and, knowing that something was wrong, told them about the food bank. They said that, when they were referred to the food bank, they were grateful not just for the food but—more than anything—for the kindness that was shown to them.

Food banks are about much more than just the food. That was my experience when I had the opportunity to attend a food bank in Cardonald in Glasgow. I had my eyes opened to a world that I did not fully appreciate existed. I saw that people in Scotland are starving and hungry because of benefit sanctions, low pay and debt that they cannot get out of. I saw that food banks are more than just a place where people receive food that they need, and that they give financial advice and teach people how to survive on a very low budget.

We have to plan a country without food banks. I cannot and will not accept that they should become a permanent feature on the high street. Food poverty is real, but it is unacceptable in the 21st century. To eradicate it, we need to work as a Parliament to tackle zero-hours contracts, deal with low pay and oppose the obviously failing Tory policy of austerity.

Photo of Stuart McMillan Stuart McMillan Scottish National Party

I commend Pauline McNeill for securing this members’ business debate.

Unfortunately, the need for food banks has not decreased; it is, in fact, on the increase in Scotland. The Parliament has debated food banks before—I held a members’ business debate on the issue on 6 February 2014, and there have been committee reports and other motions and questions on food banks. Unfortunately, no matter what policy actions have been taken, the number of people going to food banks has not decreased. Sadly, it has increased.

Some people would say that the policy decisions have not worked. I argue that trying to do a job with one hand tied behind our back will always leave the policy decisions that are made here at the mercy of the UK Government’s ideologically-driven agenda. I stress that my argument at this point is not a constitutional point; it is just a fact that some powers are reserved and they impact on our fellow citizens here in Scotland.

Furthermore, despite the narrative that says that more people are in work, and despite both Governments claiming to have played a part in the successful employment numbers, it is clear that other factors are at play when it is reported that more than 100,000 people are going to food banks.

Some people in society are of the opinion that people who attend food banks are workshy scroungers and chancers. I am sorry to say it, but that is the view of some of our fellow citizens here in Scotland. That view is not mine and I do not accept it. If people want to believe some of the absolute garbage that demonises our fellow citizens in some media publications, then we, as a society, have yet another problem to address. For a parent to go to a food bank to obtain food to feed either themselves or their family must be demoralising, depressing and difficult. For people to then mock those who seek assistance is nothing short of a disgrace, and shows a complete lack of compassion for others.

Plenty of people in Scotland are wealthy and comfortable; I do not begrudge them that, at all. I am sure that we all want every single citizen to live that way. Nonetheless, life is not fair and some people, through no fault of their own, find themselves going to food banks. What then? What does society do to assist? Thank goodness for food banks and the volunteers and other people who help, but what a sad state of affairs that food banks exist in growing numbers—now reaching 52 in Scotland—and that armed forces veterans are relying on food banks for their food. What kind of society allows people who have fought for their country to be forced to go to food banks in order that they can eat?

The updated figures for Inverclyde are startling. Ian Esson, the manager at Inverclyde food bank, said:

“It is deeply concerning that we are seeing an increase of 15% in the number of three-day emergency food supplies provided to local people in crisis in Inverclyde over the last year.”

During 2016-17, 3,574 three-day emergency food supplies were provided to local people in crisis, compared with 3,107 in 2015-16. Of those, 935 went to children in 2016-17, compared with 730 in 2015-16. Local people, churches, charities and businesses have generously donated more than 38 tonnes of food. That impressive amount highlights the generosity of the Inverclyde community, but it should not have to be that way.

I want to finish on two points. First, anybody could find themselves in need of a food bank; anyone’s life circumstances can change and the food bank may be the last resort.

Secondly, Oxfam stated in information that it provided in preparation for my members’ business debate in February 2014 that

“No one turns up at food banks because there is an opportunity for free food. They are driven there in sheer desperation.”

To people who think that food banks are a substitute for benefits, to those who think that people who attend food banks are scroungers, workshy and chancers, and to those who think that a food bank is a place to go to top up the food cupboard, I say, “Shame on you.” Shame on them for attempting to degrade and demean our fellow Scots, and for failing 935 children in Inverclyde, and thousands more across Scotland and the UK, through their narrow self-obsessed view of the world. Shame on those whose actions force people to go to food banks, and shame on those who perpetuate the lies about the people who need to go to them.

The battle against poverty and hunger is a domestic problem as well as a worldwide problem; £12 billion more of welfare reform cuts will not help, but will only exacerbate a depressing situation that is growing apace.

Photo of Adam Tomkins Adam Tomkins Conservative

I start by thanking the Trussell Trust and other providers of emergency food aid in Scotland, the volunteers who staff food banks, the donors who generously give to food banks and the churches and other organisations that make their facilities available to food banks. I also thank Ewan Gurr, who is in the gallery this evening, and his colleagues at the Trussell Trust for their time and their patience in helping me to understand the complexities of food bank usage, and for facilitating the visit, which Pauline McNeill mentioned, to the Glasgow south-west food bank in Cardonald a few weeks ago.

One of the things that we learned on that visit was that most people who use a food bank in Scotland do so because of an acute shortage of money. There is no food poverty in Scotland: that is to say, there is no shortage of food, but there is poverty in Scotland. Ewan Gurr and his colleagues at the Trussell Trust explained that most people who use food banks in Scotland do not rely on them for prolonged periods because of chronic or on-going inability to pay for food, but because of an acute short-term crisis or one-off crisis.

The most recent figures, which were published just last month, show that food bank use in Scotland is patchy rather than uniform. In some local authorities, usage has grown markedly, which is of concern to all of us, but in others it has diminished even more strikingly. For example, it is down 26 per cent in Aberdeen and East Ayrshire, down 29 per cent in North Lanarkshire and down 39 per cent in North Ayrshire. It seems to me that it is hard to discern what those figures reveal. For example, it is not immediately obvious why food bank usage should be in decline in North Lanarkshire but on the increase in South Lanarkshire. However, what these figures should warn us is that simplistic explanations as to why food banks are used in Scotland are unlikely to be either useful or accurate.

Photo of Adam Tomkins Adam Tomkins Conservative

Can I just make progress on this point?

Yes—of course people are using food banks because they are short of money and food, but the reasons why they are short of money and food are not straightforward, but complex.

Photo of Stuart McMillan Stuart McMillan Scottish National Party

Surely Mr Tomkins will agree that, irrespective of whether there is an increase or decrease in the use of food banks across areas of Scotland, the fact that we are having a debate about food banks is abhorrent, because they should not exist in this day and age, with the wealth that Scotland and the United Kingdom have.

Photo of Adam Tomkins Adam Tomkins Conservative

We all share that view. There is a very real and live argument—one that we need to have more of and not less of in this Parliament—about what we propose to do about the issue, because I think that there are different views about that.

I will offer a few remarks about what Conservative members think we should do to tackle poverty. I will start with two remarks from the important breakthrough report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that was published in September 2016. The first is:

“For those who can, work represents the best route out of poverty”.

The second is that increasing the value of social security benefits

“without addressing the root causes” of poverty

“has failed to address poverty.”

Those are not my words; they are the words of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. That is why Conservative Governments have sought to lift people out of poverty by reforming welfare so that work always pays, by raising the national living wage and by lifting our lowest-paid workers out of income tax altogether. However, I agree that more needs to be done. We need in Scotland an open and honest conversation about how we address the underlying causes of poverty.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Mr Tomkins is just coming to the end of his speech.

Photo of Adam Tomkins Adam Tomkins Conservative

We know what those causes include: addiction, family breakdown, unemployment and educational underattainment. So, my plea is this: only when we have a social justice policy that is focused on addressing those underlying causes, will we see food bank usage diminish across the whole of our country—not only in some local authorities in Scotland, as is already happening, but across the whole nation.

In the meantime, the closing words of Pauline McNeill’s motion are surely correct. Our social security system needs to work with voluntary organisations such as the Trussell Trust and not pull against them, and

“joint public and voluntary working” should be encouraged, not frowned upon.

A few years ago, we had a Prime Minister who talked passionately about the subject: he called it “the big society” and he was right.

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

I thank Pauline McNeill for bringing the debate to the chamber.

We are all used to talking about hunger being a developing world issue and, of course, it very much still is. However, in Scotland and across the UK and the developed world in 2017, hunger is on the increase. Malnutrition and the diseases that are associated with a lack of food or poor diet—diseases such as rickets—are on the increase.

It is a tragic irony that, at a time when food technology and food production are at their most sophisticated and advanced, more and more people are going hungry.

Conversely, at the same time obesity, which was historically a status symbol of wealth, is now a condition of poverty and inequality.

In almost every area of Scotland, food banks are providing emergency food to people in immediate need. Some of them are provided with so-called kettle packs of dried packet products, such as instant soups and noodles that are made up with boiling water, because the people cannot afford, or do not even have the means, to heat food. What a damning indictment of our society, our economy and our political system—a system that has created this situation.

I am sure that most of us in this Parliament have donated to or held collections for their local food bank and felt, “Well, I’ve done my little bit to help.” However, is that good enough? Is it enough to salve our conscience temporarily through a collection or donation but then to return to this place and pretend that there is little or nothing that we can do to address the root causes of why people are in such desperate need? Is it enough to say that the poverty and inequality that leave our neighbours hungry is a bad thing, yet in the past year, when the Parliament has effectively been a legislation-free zone, we have failed to introduce any legislation to address something as fundamental as the need to feed our people?

A country with rising levels of hunger does not suggest to me a country that is riding a wave of progressive policy choices. Of course, Mr Tomkins’s party and the policies that he supports are much to blame. I notice that he focused his what-to-do list on individual behaviours and not the structural issues of the economy and society. Some things never change.

I have said repeatedly that addressing poverty and inequality, including food insecurity and hunger, should be what drives this and any other Government. The First Minister—whoever he or she may be—should be judged against how successfully they address those issues. We need a cross-Government approach, in which the minister for fishing or culture or the environment has responsibility for dealing with poverty and inequality just as much as the minister for health or social security or the economy does.

Let me suggest some key policy areas for addressing the root causes of hunger, which are low pay, underemployment, unemployment and inadequate social security for those in need. We should make full employment—creating sustainable jobs for our people—the key objective of economic policy. We should implement a real and genuine living wage of £10 per hour, and end the insecurity of zero-hours contracts, bogus self-employment and precarious work.

We should use the powers of this Parliament to make public procurement deliver key economic objectives, including fair work and fair pay. It is one of the most glaring missed opportunities of my time in this Parliament that public procurement has failed.

We should develop a social security system that helps and supports people back to work, and we have the opportunity to do that with the Parliament’s new powers.

We should redemocratise and free up local government, which is the front line against poverty and inequality. We should redirect hard cash to the areas of most need, by extending free school meals provision and breakfast clubs and by investing in early years education, mental health support and targeted support for vulnerable families.

We should use every lever of government to increase trade union representation and membership, because an organised workforce is a healthier, wealthier and safer workforce.

We should develop seamless partnership working to signpost people who present at food banks to statutory and non-statutory agencies that can help them.

We should follow what is happening in France. My father-in-law lives there and works at a food bank twice a week. France has legislated to end the dumping of food waste, and we should look at doing that as well.

Most important of all, we need a redistributive tax policy that directs money into areas of most need.

Presiding Officer, I am just finishing. This topic deserves much more time than a members’ business debate. We have had 20 or so debates on every aspect of Brexit. I wish that we had had 20 debates on issues such as this.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I am aware that a number of members want to contribute, so I would be happy to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.

—[Pauline McNeill.]

Motion agreed to.

That is good. I ask the remaining speakers to try to keep to four minutes, please.

Photo of Mairi Evans Mairi Evans Scottish National Party

I thank Pauline McNeill for lodging her motion and securing the debate. I agree with Neil Findlay’s last point. The situation that has been outlined highlights the crisis that we face in this country. We need to talk about the issue—and we need to keep talking about it, so that people are aware exactly how big the issue is, what is causing it and what we can do about it.

The fact that food banks even exist in this country in this day and age is a scandal. I am sad to say that they have become a fixed and necessary feature in many of our communities. We have heard outlined the usage figures nationally—over the past few years, the rise in food bank use has been dramatic and, quite frankly, shocking. The figures for those who live in poverty have increased, with more than 260,000 children classed as living in poverty. That is one child in every four, and an increase of 40,000 from the previous year’s figures of 2014-15.

Those figures came from the Child Poverty Action Group. Adam Tomkins reeled off his list of the causes of poverty and why people use food banks. One of the main reasons that CPAG cites—and one that Adam Tomkins failed to mention—is the social security system and the inadequate benefits that people receive. What is responsible for the rise in food bank use? We have heard some of the factors already: low wages, underemployment and, as I have just mentioned, a social security system so utterly ravaged that it is no longer the safety net that it was designed to be and instead humiliates and demonises the people whom it is supposed to help.

Let us take a look at exactly what has happened over the past years of the Tory Government. We have had the seriously flawed universal credit system, which continues to ramble on shambolically; the bedroom tax; the introduction of sanctions; cuts to employment and support allowance; a freeze on working-age benefits; a complete cut to housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds; removal of the family element in child tax credits; cuts to bereavement benefits that have left families tens of thousands of pounds worse off, with 90 per cent of people who are dependent on the benefit affected by the cut; changes from the disability living allowance and the transfer to the personal independence payment—30 per cent of those transferring to the PIP receive no award at all, and only 42 per cent of new claimants get any award; changes to the state pension age, which have affected a whole generation of women; and the infamous two-child cap on tax credits with its insidious rape clause that will affect an estimated 600,000 families across the UK.

That is why we are in this situation; that is why so many of our people live in poverty; that is why we are such an unequal and divided society. However, we hear from

The Sunday Times rich list this week that we have more billionaires than ever living in the UK. That makes it blindingly obvious where the Tories’ loyalties lie.

I turn to what this all boils down to in my constituency. In one half of my constituency in Angus, figures that were published just this past week have shown that emergency food supplies had to be provided to 2,771 adults and 824 children across the region. That is an all-time high and an increase of 917 people on the previous year. The Trussell Trust has stated that the biggest increases have been seen where universal credit has been rolled out, as Pauline McNeill mentioned. As she also said, those are simply the Trussell Trust’s figures—they take no account of the other charities and organisations that are collecting and distributing food parcels, so the true picture is even worse.

In my home town of Brechin, a new initiative has started to try to tackle the situation. Brechin Community Pantry is much more than a newly established organisation that operates a food bank service delivering food parcels to those in crisis. I declare an interest as a trustee of the group. It will soon move into new city centre premises, but rather than just having a standard food bank service, it will offer a range of services to the people who come through the doors—a clothing bank, debt counselling and a free food fridge. Basic cooking skills will also be taught.

Scottish Government estimates suggest that as many as 500,000 individuals or families are not claiming the benefits to which they are entitled. People need support and information in order to access them. Rather than just dealing with the sharp end of the problem, a holistic view needs to be taken to tackle the wider issues, so that people can be given back their self-esteem and confidence.

Throughout this debate, we have heard statistic after statistic that shows how bleak the picture is. We have also heard how food banks are evolving to provide wider services, working in partnership with others, and about the positive effect that that can have.

It was great to meet the Scotland Malawi Partnership, downstairs in the Parliament building, to discuss the United Nations sustainable development goals in Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Please close, Ms Evans.

Photo of Mairi Evans Mairi Evans Scottish National Party

I will do, Presiding Officer.

The United Nations sustainable development goals include ending poverty and hunger. We need to do what we can to fight poverty and hunger, but that work is constantly undermined by the Tory Government. People in Scotland have a stark choice to make on 8 June; they need to bear that in mind, along with all the points that have been made in this debate.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

We seem to have very elastic four-minute slots this evening.

Photo of Annie Wells Annie Wells Conservative

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on tackling hunger in our society and supporting the people who are most in need. Pauline McNeill’s motion mentions the Trussell Trust, which turns 20 this year. I commend the people who volunteer week in, week out: we are in no doubt that they are doing a great job. Organisations such as the Trussell Trust provide a bridge between two important groups: people in crisis who need food and donors who are moved to provide it.

We know that poverty and hunger are caused by a variety of factors that are often outwith a person’s control: financial challenges, redundancy, debt, family breakdown, bereavement, addiction, homelessness, and mental and physical health problems. It is therefore important that we tackle the root causes of poverty, so that the need for food bank use is minimised. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said:

“Additional spending on benefits without addressing the root causes of high housing costs, poor education and low pay has failed to reduce poverty.”

As Adam Tomkins said, the reasons behind food bank use are complex; it is widely acknowledged that it cannot be attributed to a single cause. It is worth noting that food is becoming more expensive worldwide—with global food commodity costs having increased by an incredible 17 per cent on average since last year—and that food bank use has risen in many western countries, including Germany and Canada. Scotland’s food bank use must therefore be set in the context of wider global trends.

Much is made of food bank use and the UK welfare regime. I admit that no large governmental system will be perfect, but I welcome the delivery of £90 billion a year in working-age benefits and the successful work that has been done to reduce delays in payments, especially hardship payments. The Trussell Trust recently commented that it was

“heartened by Secretary of State Damian Green’s willingness to engage” with front-line charities, and by

“his department’s work to pilot improvements, and the recent changes to the Universal Credit taper rate which mean people moving into work will keep more of their earnings.”

Food banks provide other free services, as members have said. I welcome the Trussell Trust’s tremendous more than food initiative

. Services such as money advice and budget cookery courses can help to prevent people from needing to be referred to a food bank again, and they address the root causes of dependency on food banks. It is also right that food bank volunteers are trained to signpost people to other agencies and services that can help to resolve the underlying cause of the crisis.

I was encouraged to see Waitrose’s funding of the Trussell Trust’s eat well spend less programme, which provides advice on cookery, budgeting and nutrition. Such action is key if we are to heed the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s advice and focus on prevention strategies.

Scotland has a rich history of volunteering; I commend everyone who gives up their time to help others who are in need. Food banks are a comfort in a crisis and act as a hub for advice and support. It is up to us in this Parliament to address the underlying causes of food poverty in order to ensure that people in Scotland do not need to rely on food banks.

Photo of Monica Lennon Monica Lennon Labour

I would not go as far as to say that I welcome tonight’s debate; I find it heartbreaking that we are having the debate at all. However, I thank my colleague Pauline McNeill for lodging her motion and for providing us all with the opportunity to shine a light on important matters.

In a wealthy and prosperous country such as Scotland, there is no reason why anyone should have to go hungry in 2017. Even the existence of food banks—let alone the scale on which they are currently being used—is a national scandal. We do not need to go on fact-finding missions or hide behind the complexities that Adam Tomkins tried to describe, which are just cover for his United Kingdom Government’s policies. We know that the harmful policies and benefits sanctions that are being imposed by the Tories are hurting communities up and down the country. It is not rocket science.

Food bank volunteers and all the people who donate to food banks are a credit to our communities. It is a damning verdict on the harmful impact of austerity politics and the backward policies of the Tory party that stagnating wages, insecure work and cuts to welfare are forcing people into poverty. As is referenced in Pauline McNeill’s motion, the Trussell Trust estimates that almost 100,000 people have used its food banks in the past year—and that is before we take into account other charities and community-based food banks that are helping people who are in need. The situation is, quite simply, a disgrace.

During the debate, I have thought about food banks and community groups. A few months ago, I visited the Loaves and Fishes food bank in East Kilbride in South Lanarkshire, in the region that I represent. I sat with Denis Curran, who is known to many members and has appeared at committee. Denis is in his 70s and his wife, Cathy, is seriously ill, yet seven days a week they open a unit in a business park, where 400 people queued outside their door for food parcels at Christmas. That is no fun; that is not taking the easy road out. Many of those people had walked for miles, because they were embarrassed and did not want to go to their nearest food bank; some walked from Rutherglen. Others walked despite serious physical and mental health problems. Sometimes people come with a myriad of different issues, but it is not, as Adam Tomkins said, complex.

I am also a frequent visitor to Hillhouse community food co-op, which is along the road from where I live. It aims to tackle food poverty in Hillhouse and Hamilton and offers fresh produce at low prices. People do not want handouts or to walk away with a food parcel. If they can spend a few pounds, they feel that they are not taking from society. The humiliation that people go through to even go through the door of a food bank is heartbreaking.

It is no secret from members that I have been raising the issue of period poverty: women and girls having to go to food banks to ask for sanitary products to deal with a basic need such as menstruation. I encourage my colleagues on the Tory benches who have not seen it to watch “I, Daniel Blake”. People think that such things are lifestyle decisions that have been made up for sensationalism on the big screen. Ewan Gurr, who is in the gallery, has shared heartbreaking stories with me. I urge everyone to get behind the issue. People have told me that when they go to a food bank they might choose to take a bottle of washing-up liquid, for example, because they know that they can use it not just to wash dishes but for personal hygiene. What a disgrace for each and every one of us that our constituents are having to wash their bodies and hair with washing-up liquid.

We need to use every power available in Parliament and elsewhere to end this scandal.

Photo of Emma Harper Emma Harper Scottish National Party

I do not know whether I am pleased to contribute this evening, but I commend Pauline McNeill for securing the debate.

I agree with Monica Lennon that it is heartbreaking that such a debate is necessary in 21st century Scotland. I point out that Scotland’s only Tory MP does not seem too concerned. He told the assembled folk at a hustings last year, when I contested Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale against him, that food banks are in every European city, as if that was a justification for their existence. When he sat before our Welfare Reform Committee, he dismissed evidence from charity workers and academics that supported the view that the use of food banks is a direct result of his Government’s welfare reform policies.

Mr Mundell slated the evidence-based information that was provided by Mark Frankland, who is a volunteer in the First Base food bank in Dumfries, because—and I quote—“he voted Yes”. Mr Frankland’s hard work and commitment to keep open the doors of the First Base food bank has ensured that hundreds of Mr Mundell’s constituents are at least fed when the cruel benefit sanctions of his Tory Government are imposed on them.

For some time, the UK Government line has been that it is not poverty that makes people visit food banks, but the fact that they exist. David Cameron hailed food banks as merely a happy example of the big society in action. I spoke to Mark Frankland again today. He remains on the front line of austerity Britain. He cited the shocking rise in mental health problems that he sees in those who are referred to him. He says that folk with already diagnosed mental health problems are deteriorating really quickly. Increasingly, such people are assessed as fit to work when they are far from it.

Just two days ago, Mark delivered a food package to a 60-year-old lady. I will call her Mary, but that is not her real name. Mary is infirm and unable to carry anything, because she has arthritis. Mary’s general practitioner had sternly ordered her to contact Mark for emergency supplies. She was living on five packets of noodles a week and was ashamed to seek help from her doctor or even to go to the food bank. Malnutrition is now one of her diagnosed conditions.

As a social worker, that lady spent 20 years helping people in the same position that she now finds herself in. When she was in work, Mary earned about £500 a week. Before failing her employment and support allowance test and being sanctioned, she received £50 a week from the Department for Work and Pensions. Was that what David Cameron had in mind when he attempted to justify £12 billion of benefit cuts as essential to stopping the merry-go-round of benefits dependency? I agree with Mark Frankland’s sentiment that the system is crucifying people.

Prior to 2010, when the Conservatives began their assault, there were certainly cracks in the UK’s welfare system. Unfortunately, those cracks have now become chasms. The first priority should and always will be the mental and physical health of those who find themselves unfortunate enough to become reliant on our disintegrating welfare system, but given that the Tories are so desperate to justify such cruelty as a necessary evil in their supposed mission to cut the deficit, it is worth making the point that those who are wrongly assessed as fit to work simply fall upon the NHS and the justice system at huge expense. Austerity is actually costing the taxpayer a fortune.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Government spends £100 million a year in an attempt to mitigate Tory cuts. In February, a new investment of £1.9 million was made available to local groups such as food banks to ensure that those who work at local level can deliver direct support to their communities, and I urge local food banks to explore that funding stream. I hope that all of us across the chamber can agree that limiting the damage that has been knowingly inflicted by a Westminster Government on Scottish citizens is not the purpose of a devolved Administration.

Photo of Patrick Harvie Patrick Harvie Green

“Eat up your dinner; there’s weans in Africa who’d be glad of that.” Can I be the only member to whom those words were familiar week after week, evening after evening, as a child? My granny’s analysis of the causes of famine in African countries might have been a little simplistic, but the words were said out of empathy and out of her understanding of the impact of hunger throughout her youth before, during and after the second world war. By the time she died, she might have been forgiven for thinking that no one would ever need to say, “Eat up your dinner; there’s weans in your school who’d be glad of that.” Therefore, I thank Pauline McNeill very warmly for lodging her motion for debate.

In response to those who cast food bank provision as a shining example of the big society in action, I say that, even in a healthy, functional food system and a fair and just economy, there is absolutely a place for volunteerism. I have seen food projects in Glasgow that involve asylum seekers sharing their food skills—many of which have been lost to our society and in our age—with their new neighbours in their host communities. Everyone is better off as a result of that and there is nothing stigmatising about participating in it.

Community projects that share land bring people together—rich and poor—to experience growing food. It is healthy for them to do it and it is healthy for them to eat it, and there is nothing divisive or stigmatising about that kind of volunteerism. There are other cultures around the world in which the shared provision of food and the shared experience of rich and poor sitting down and eating together is a unifying experience. Anyone who has visited the Gurdwara in Glasgow will know what I am talking about and will remember the fantastic food that is shared there in a socially just and inclusive way.

There is a space for that kind of volunteerism in a healthy, functional food system that does not have to be dominated or owned by a handful of multinational food giants. However, that volunteerism does not need a simplistic brand name such as the “big society”, because it is a natural instinctive expression of the human need to share.

The Conservatives seem a little confused as to whether food poverty exists. Adam Tomkins said that it does not; Annie Wells said that it does. However, Adam Tomkins asked a sensible question. Looking at the differing impacts of food poverty—whether or not we use that term—and looking at the differing uptake of food bank provision, why is it different in one place from another? He did not offer any answers, but here is a sensible answer. The Trussell Trust said:

“65 per cent of foodbanks said the 6-week+ wait for the first universal Credit payment has led to more people needing help”.

In the areas where there has already been a full rollout of universal credit, there has been a

“16.85% average increase in referrals for emergency food”, which compares with a much lower national average. That national average is still an increase of more than 6 per cent, which shames our whole society, but the biggest increase has been in the areas where the failed UK Government welfare reforms have been rolled out to their fullest extent. How about analysing that answer?

Of course, there are things that we can do in this Parliament with our existing powers. We should be reducing the cost of the school day and of public transport, and we should be addressing—as Monica Lennon said—the issue of period poverty. There is a great deal that we can do and, with the new welfare powers, that we should do. Underlying it all is the failed austerity programme of the UK Government and an unnecessary austerity agenda that is—quite consciously—transferring wealth from the poorest third of our society to the richest third and making the problem worse. Adam Tomkins said that work is the best route out of poverty. Yes, sometimes it is. Well-paid, secure work that is healthy for people to undertake can be a route out of poverty, but the Conservatives’ fake living wage is still a poverty wage and not all workers will receive even that.

Adam Tomkins cited the causes of poverty, but actually he listed only the consequences. The causes are structural: a failure to distribute wealth fairly in our society and a failure to recognise that the wealth of our economy belongs to us all, instead of to a tiny number of people who are labelled as the “wealth creators”. Until we overturn that fundamental error, we will continue to put sticking plasters on this grievous wound.

Photo of Jeane Freeman Jeane Freeman Scottish National Party

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Scottish Government and, like members before me, I thank Pauline McNeill for bringing the matter to the chamber. I also thank other colleagues who made contributions.

I share the majority view in the chamber that it is shameful that in 21st century Scotland—a country that is rich in resources and human talent—there remains a pressing need for us to tackle food poverty and there are people who cannot afford to feed themselves or their families.

In the seven years since the Tories entered Downing Street, the number of people who need food banks has grown exponentially. We have heard that the factors behind that are complex. For me, the reasons are pretty straightforward and they lie at the Tories’ door: they are low wages, benefit cuts, benefit sanctions and benefit delays. The numbers who are referred to food banks because of low income have risen to 25 per cent; 42 per cent of all referrals are a result of benefit cuts and delays.

Let us be clear that food poverty is a visible sign of the wider poverty that we are seeing as a result of seven years of Tory austerity and welfare cuts. There is the freeze on working benefits, and the six-week universal credit delay, which others have referred to. The two-child policy, with its abhorrent rape clause, will cost families between £2,500 and £7,000 a year. The benefit cap affects at least 5,000 people in Scotland. The list is much longer, but all of it adds up to pushing more and more people into crisis.

That is a state of affairs that the majority of us in the chamber find shameful but, yet again, apologists in the Scottish Tories continue to ignore it, to dodge around it and to be silent on it. Their UK Government’s failed ideology heaps more and more misery on those who are least able to withstand it, those who are in work or seeking work, the vulnerable, the disabled, the elderly and children.

I am looking at a graph from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that tells me that, in the five years between May 2010 and May 2015, the poorest in our society lost 4 per cent of their income. It tells me what we know so far of what is to come. From May 2015, the long-run impact of tax and benefit reforms will mean that the poorest group loses 10 per cent. Let no one say that the underlying causes are not from the Conservative Government’s agenda—an ideology as fundamentally flawed in its conception as it is a failure in meeting its stated aim.

When we debated the two-child policy the week before last, we were told that it was part of the sound management of public finances. That will be the sound management that means that the national debt is now more than £1.7 trillion and rising by the minute. It is sound management of the national finances on the backs of the poor, the vulnerable, those in work, those least able to afford it and those least responsible for creating the debt in the first place. It is sound management that is fundamentally flawed at delivering what it sets out to deliver.

The Scottish Government will continue to oppose the Tory Government’s policies at UK level and we will continue to do all that we can, within our resources and our powers, to help to protect people from the worst excesses of Tory policies. As other members have done tonight, that includes exposing the human impact of the Tories’ policies and actions—now, in the run-up to 8 June, and for as long as they have power to damage the lives of people who live and work in Scotland.

I refer to the 50 concrete actions of the fairer Scotland action plan. Central to our commitment is the capacity to work with people to reduce and ultimately end poverty in all its forms—be that child poverty, food poverty, fuel poverty or period poverty. We are clear that, in delivering that, dignity will be at the heart of what we do.

On the specific matter of food poverty, the recommendations made to the Scottish Government by the independent short-life working group—a group of experts strongly influenced by people with lived experience of food poverty—are very clear that, collectively, we should focus on reducing and removing the need for food banks. We need to focus our efforts on models that increase income and develop community food initiatives, some of which Patrick Harvie referred to.

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

Will the minister address the need for the deliberate and concerted redistribution of money from those who can afford that redistribution into the pockets of those who need it?

Photo of Jeane Freeman Jeane Freeman Scottish National Party

I am about to agree with Mr Findlay, so I hope that he is sitting ready for that. It is important to have the country’s resources fairly distributed but, in doing that, we need to make sure that those who are on low and middle incomes are not penalised. Mr Findlay and I will continue to disagree on the Scottish Government’s income tax policies, and I am sure that we will have more debates on that in the years to come.

Photo of Jeane Freeman Jeane Freeman Scottish National Party

No—I need to get on.

The work that we are doing in investing in advice services and promoting the living wage, and with our £1 million a year fair food fund, all adopts the dignity principles that the independent group on food poverty recommended. We are determined to see a change, and we accept the independent group’s recommendations to focus on maximising income and shifting from charitable food bank models to supporting community-based food initiatives.

What matters is that everyone can access affordable and nutritious food in ways that are dignified and just. That is a basic human right, and that is what the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights meant when it specified “adequate food” as one of the factors that make up the right to an adequate standard of living. The UK ratified that covenant in 1976, but the Tory Government chooses to ignore it. We are looking at what enshrining the right to food in Scots law might look like and whether it could support us in tackling the real problem of hunger with a response that is based on human rights and dignity for all.

We are firm in our aim of eradicating from Scotland the need for emergency food provision, and there is no doubt that the Scottish Government is serious about eliminating food insecurity, just as we are serious about tackling the underlying causes of poverty within the powers that are at our disposal.

Neil Findlay is right to say that tackling poverty is a responsibility of every part of the Government. We are working to take that responsibility seriously across all the portfolios that the Government is responsible for. Patrick Harvie is also right that there are actions that we can take in the Parliament and in the Government with the powers that we have. However, the fundamental, underlying problems come from a Tory Government that, despite the warm words, the apologies and the attempt to divert our attentions elsewhere, cares little about the impact that it has on the majority of people in this country.

Mr Tomkins asked us to focus on what we should do. I ask him to start his focus by standing up to his Tory colleagues at the UK level.

Meeting closed at 18:32.