I don't buy food

CHC hold training events at our head office and there's often leftover food at lunchtime. We’re informed about this in an email… Come and get it! What happens next? Yes, there's an almighty scramble to the kitchen for the chance of a free lunch or a nibble of a piece of cake. But, hold on, how many people need this? Those who haven't prepared lunch, the majority, will say they need this food. Others will say it will only go to waste, the cheese sarnies always do. But is this real need? The numbers taking advantage of this meal are increasing. Would you turn down a free lunch? Or would it be any different if someone told you that they’d do your weekly shopping today for free and deliver it to the end of your street for free? I for one can be honest enough to say I would never give up the chance of free food.

Foodbanks and food parcels have become an established part of communities across the UK. Many communities need them to survive the deep cuts to welfare, and some communities who run them are 'doing their bit for the poor as part of the Big Society'. But what experiences have tenants had with them? Is it a free meal, as Lord Freud describes it, or is there a real need? A tenant living in Blaenau Gwent told me about the food parcels that arrive at their local Community Centre every other week. 'It’s chaos, like a scene from Africa. Everyone runs out and opens up the packages, trying to get the best things. You know, sweets and stuff.' There's no assessment of need and the whole thing lives up to the free meal stereotype. Another tenant tells me of having to pray before receiving a parcel, as most foodbanks are run by religious organisations. Finally, a tenant asks me, ‘What would you do with 12 bottles of tomato ketchup with a hint of balsamic vinegar?’ Ideas on a postcard? Contrary to Zoe Williams' belief, food parcels do contain luxuries. Champagne is the most expensive product I’ve been told about.

The reasons for increasing use of foodbanks have been cited as a change in benefit, a sanction or a delay, or use of payday loans. However, these have all been around for several years now, therefore the recent welfare reforms are not the reason. The problem lies with benefit take up, application and processing. Payday loans are another problem altogether. Welfare reform is exacerbating these reasons for use, and this is set to get worse with possible 7 week delays for Universal Credit payments which will see the desperate Friday become a desperate week. Weekly or fortnightly payments often leave households in desperate financial situations in the last days between payments, and stories of parents not eating on a day or weekend prior to payment is common. However, when monthly UC payments start these days will accumulate into the 4th week, and there is a real danger of parents trying to go several days without food. Food parcels will therefore become an essential need for many.

One of the reasons UC is being rolled out is to increase personal responsibility of finances and to combat the 'I don't pay rent' belief. However, the ever increasing use of food parcels is creating the same problem. Last month, I heard the phrase ‘I don’t buy food, I get one of those voucher things’ for the first time when asking someone about their expenditure on food. What Lord Freud doesn't understand is that changes to welfare benefits are not recognised by claimants in the same way that policy makers see them. Advice agencies used to assist people in desperate need to claim a crisis loan or community care grant, but now they pass on a food voucher. Has the social fund been replaced by foodbanks? Claimants are beginning to believe so and are therefore seeing food as another entitlement. 'I don't buy food'.


Paul Langley
Senior Money Adviser

The 'bedroom tax': no compassion, no choice

Lord Freud’s controversial comments on the bedroom tax this week should come as no surprise to anybody. For three years we’ve been part of the fight against this policy, highlighting the lack of equality, the lack of compassion, and the false economy of it. His two suggested solutions to the ‘bedroom tax’ were quite simply letting children sleep on a sofa bed when they stay, or finding a job. Not only do these solutions demonstrate that same disregard for compassion and equality that we have become used to, but they ignore an overwhelming body of evidence that say they will not work.

The first ‘solution’ makes the assumption that a tenant – a single mother or father – has managed to downsize from the house the policy judges them to be under-occupying. Evidence has shown that they are unable to do this. Figures unearthed by BBC Wales revealed that just 400 social rented single bed homes were available across Wales for people to downsize into. Lord Freud’s own department estimates 40,000 under-occupiers. 

There is, of course, the option of downsizing into the private rented sector. CHC members’ own evidence to the Welsh Affairs committee, supported by a Channel 4 investigation, has shown consistently that this is a more expensive option. You have to wonder how much consideration Lord Freud has given to this false economy when he talks about ‘very expensive things’ for the state to do.

And so, to the argument that those people under-occupying their homes should look for work. 20% of housing benefit claimants already work. Then there are those who can’t. People with disabilities have often been lost in the debates about the ‘bedroom tax’. We’re left with those who can work who, in Wales, find themselves amongst 119,000 unemployed people, with less than 20,000 vacancies up for grabs. Assuming that all applicants are equal, and of course they’re not, that’s a 1 in 6 chance of a job. Statistics show that in some of our most deprived communities such as Blaenau Gwent, that is more like 1 in 23. This is before we consider the circumstances of the applicants, who may well be unable to find any suitable jobs in their area.

Lord Freud made it very clear in his evidence that he believes tenants have a choice when it comes to the ‘bedroom tax’. However, six weeks into the life of the policy, the only choice many face is whether to pay their rent or feed their family.


Aaron Hill
Policy Assistant