What they really said at the #foodbankdebate: Spot the difference between MPs speeches.

What they said at the food bank debate, excerpts from Hansard:

Maria Eagle (Lab): Britain can do better than this. We need a long-term plan to tackle the cost of living crisis and reduce dependency on food banks, including a freeze on energy prices while we reset the market, a water affordability scheme and tough new powers for Ofwat to cut bills, measures to end the abuses of zero-hours contracts, Make Work Pay contracts that reduce company’s tax bills to incentivise

Natascha Engel (Lab): The food bank in Chesterfield that opened six months ago has reported that 50% of people presenting to the food bank are there because of benefit changes and benefit sanctions and because the DWP has really messed up. In what way is that not the responsibility of the DWP and the Government, who are actively forcing people into food banks?

Sir Gerald Kaufman (Lab): “It is disgraceful that the junior Minister, having made one of the nastiest Front-Bench speeches I have heard in my 43 years in this House, has now sloped off and not bothered to listen to the views of the House. Last Sunday I attended a carol service at New Covenant church in my constituency, where a leaflet of activities distributed to the congregation read,
“Food bank to alleviate poverty among the unemployed and low income earners.”
In my constituency we have widespread poverty and deprivation. Today’s unemployment figures show that we are No. 42 for unemployment out of 650 constituencies. This has not come about by accident. It is the direct result of this Government’s policies: the deliberate creation of unemployment, the bedroom tax, which is causing so many people to suffer, the benefits cuts, and the housing shortage. My city has been hit hardest of all the major cities by the Government’s cuts. We are having redistribution from the poor to the affluent.”

Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Lab): “Last week I visited Kids Company in Southwark and saw the industrial-scale packing of food bags that were then piled into vans and delivered to vulnerable families across London. When I asked Camila what had changed in the past few years, she said that she is still seeing the same number of abused kids but is now getting hungry kids coming to her directly because they are starving.”

Jessica Morden (Lab): I was e-mailed last Friday by a woman in my constituency who asked me to attend this debate. She said: “I would ask if you could attend to represent the poverty and daily struggle that can be found in our area. I am writing as a former user myself of the food bank which at the time was a life-saver for me. At the beginning of this year, the DWP sanctioned me for six months due to an administrative error, which I did not ever receive a written apology for. I had to live on £27 a week for six months until my support worker found out and helped to get me back on my feet. I am not a waster or a shirker but having to receive food parcels because you have nothing in your cupboards is embarrassing for anyone. I also know people who work as hard as they can but because of low wages can’t manage.”

Mark Lazarowicz (Lab/Co-op): “The figures for food banks are only the tip of the iceberg, of course, as there are many other locations to which people go to get free food, such as soup kitchens. They have also seen a big increase in attendance over the last few years, and that is part of the picture as well.”

Frank Field (Lab): “These are the questions I would like to ask the Government. First, why are they so frit of having a serious inquiry into the causes of what is going on? Are food banks a passing fancy, or are they the outward visible sign of something very serious happening in our economy? We ought to get an answer to that. Secondly, if we listen to the food banks and the other bodies that are handsomely filling the ranks of those giving help in our society, they say the two things that are increasingly important in driving people to food banks are the sanctions regime and the sheer incompetence of the DWP in relaying benefits. Could the Minister—whoever it is and wherever they are—tell us how many of the exceptional payments the DWP is making are the result of benefit delays?”

Ian Lavery (Lab): “A gentleman in my constituency…was sanctioned when he was in hospital for a heart condition. He lived for a further three days on field mushrooms and borrowed eggs. Is that what we want to see in the UK in 2013-14?”

Madeleine Moon, (Lab): The working poor are finding it difficult to get basic products as well. My food bank has told me that people sometimes talk to staff quietly to ask whether they have toilet paper or sanitary products. It is not just food that people cannot get, but other expensive products.”

Hywel Williams (PC): “Thirty-three food banks operate in Wales and there are two in my constituency: one in Caernarfon and one in Bangor. In 2011, 11,000 Welsh people were dependent on food banks for limited help. The figure is now 60,000. People often go to food banks because their benefits have not been paid. There are mistakes, benefits are paid late and people are sanctioned, sometimes wrongly. A man came to see me on Monday who had been sanctioned and had no money. He had been called for an interview, but was not able to go because he had to take his seriously ill wife to hospital for cancer treatment. He could not be 30 miles away at the same time.”

Mr Andy Slaughter (Lab): ” I have an excellent charity, the Irish Youth Foundation, in my constituency. It is using its capital money to set up emergency food banks, and to provide emergency aid and relief for desperate young people who are going without food. That has happened as a consequence of this Government’s policies.”

Mr Jamie Reed (Lab): “I regret to say that the laughter from some of those on the Government Benches during this debate says more than words ever could… The final verdict on any Government is based on how they treat the poorest in society during the hardest of times. The rise in the need for food banks is a horrifying indictment of this Government’s record, and it demands urgent action.”

Luciana Berger (Lab/Co-op): “Figures released this week show an increase in diseases such as scurvy and rickets, and an increase in malnourishment. The Government should acknowledge that in the context of today’s debate. Frankly, it is disgraceful that we have not had a Minister from either of the main Departments sitting on the Front Bench for the whole of the debate.”

Mrs Madeleine Moon (Lab): “Some people have to go to food banks because of the problems they have with their benefits. On one occasion, a constituent came to see me, having been assessed for their personal independence payment by Capita six months previously, yet had still not had that assessment passed on to the Department for Work and Pensions because of Capita’s failures. Other constituents have waited more than four months. There are serious failures in the benefit system.”

Jonathan Ashworth, Lab: “Of course, it is not just the food banks. I am proud to represent a tremendously diverse constituency, where all the gurdwaras report an increase in uptake by non-Sikh people who go to them daily for the food that they hand out. Our Muslim organisations and mosques are collecting food to be handed out in our food banks. For Government Members to say that that is all just a continuation of a statistical trend that has been going on for the past few years suggests that they are all completely in denial.”

Stephen Twigg (Lab/Co-op): “There is no desire among the Opposition to make political capital out of those who have set up food banks or use them; we are representing our constituents. In my constituency, there has been an exponential growth in the use of food banks since 2010, and I and other Opposition Members are giving voice to those constituents.”

Diane Abbott, Lab: “If Government Members were genuinely appreciative of the work that food banks did, they would not have turned down £2.5 billion of EU funding to subsidise food banks.”

Julie Hilling (Lab): “It is an absolute disgrace that we have to have food banks in the sixth richest country in the world.”

Stephen Twigg, Lab: “Those among my constituents who do not have to use the food banks look in disbelief when they learn about the scale of the increase in their use over recent years. I appeal to the Government to publish the DEFRA report and… to have a proper inquiry into the causes of the growth of food banks, so that in future we see not further exponential growth, as we have seen over the last three and a half years, but a decline in the use of food banks, which is surely something that we could all support.”

Alison McGovern (Lab): “According to volunteers at the food bank in my constituency, they have been told that the need for food banks has been caused by the move from benefits to work. People’s weekly benefits stop and their pay cheques come at the end of the month, which is too far away. I fear that the recovery will not reach all parts of the economy unless we make it do so.”

Dame Anne Begg (Lab): “At the moment, Aberdeen is doing well. Despite the recession, the economy there is booming. There is so much activity in the North sea oil and gas sector that we are presently experiencing a labour shortage, and today’s unemployment figure in my constituency is down to 1.5 %, which comes pretty close to full employment. In spite of all that, something else is booming: it is the use of food banks.”

Debbie Abrahams, Lab: “It is a real worry that the demand for food banks seems to be related to the targets relating to social security sanctions? That is certainly the experience in my food bank in Oldham. One of my constituents has been waiting for an appeal against a sanction for four months without any money. For him, the food bank has been a lifeline.”

Dame Anne Begg, Lab: “My hon. Friend, like me, has been lobbied by a number of organisations saying that failures in the benefit system are causing much of the increase in food bank use. If the use of food banks were just a passing phase born out of the global banking crisis and the recent years of austerity, we would not be seeing their growth in places such as Aberdeen. If their use is temporary, why is it still growing when the Government say that the economy is picking up? If their use is nothing new, why are more families depending on food parcels than at any time in history?”

And the responses from the other side of the room…

Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con): “…the best way out of poverty is through work. Is it not also the case that the perverse incentives of the dog’s dinner of a benefits system that we inherited mean that someone who gains part-time work could end up worse off than if they stayed on benefits?”

Stephen Mosley (Con): “I think that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions knows what the problem is. That is why he is pushing so hard for universal credit, which will transform welfare, solving many of the issues that still haunt our welfare system and that we have heard about today.”

Roger Williams (Con): “Food banks have come rather late to my constituency, but I really welcome them.”

Esther McVey (Con): “In the UK, it is right to say that more people are visiting food banks, as we would expect. Times are tough and we all have to pay back the £1.5 trillion of personal debt, which spiralled under Labour. We are all trying to live within our means, change the gear…”

People can never again say that ‘all politicians are the same’. If ever you need a clearer picture of where parties priorities lie, I only saw one half of the House paying any attention to the needs of the constituents that they are there to represent.

Never forget.

Jack Monroe. Twitter: @MsJackMonroe

Categories: Blog


  1. I’ve just read Hansard and I’d like to add another comment from Jamie Reed: “The complacency of those on the Government Front Bench and of Ministers in the other place is as distateful and unedifying as anything I have ever witnessed in Parliament”

    When McVey said, “….we have harship payment and support payments”, I half expected her to add, “we have prisons, we have workhouses”, but that was the 19th century.

    I don’t usually read Hansard, but this is one of the most depressing things I’ve ever read.

  2. I don’t expect to see this comment posted – it’s the Daily Mail here as far as censorship goes. And NO this is not trolling, it’s a genuine observation. Those ignorant Tories that sneered and jeered were out of order, but this whole debate was torpedoed from the start by tacking on extra items to the debate. It’s a shame that story isn’t being told here in favour of whipping up an angry mob. And it’s too bad that when somebody points it out those comments are being censored. Personal ego and a personal allegiance to the Labour Party is being put above the 150,000 signatures and the 400,000 people using food banks who don’t care as much about politics as they do about having enough to eat, so I’m done here.

    • I’m sorry you feel that way Richard. I’ve published ALL comments on this debate so far one by one, with over 600 from the spam folder deleted in one fell swoop because I don’t have time to go through the filter and fish out the odd genuine one. You know I publish ‘disagreeing’ comments from your nastiness over me using meat in my recipes – which I published. There are plenty here who disagree with what I write, but plenty more who agree. Considering the Daily Mail’s treatment of me I am astounded that you would compare us. You’re welcome back any time you like, but grow up and realise how much work I put in here and when you run a blog with several million readers then please feel free to come back and tell me how best to do it.

    • Richard – Jack is trying to help! Without the debate and all the subsequent coverage, the public (those who aren’t personally affected) would be far less aware of the terrible injustice and misery around the whole foodbank issue.
      The girl done good!!

  3. Thing is, we knew this about the Tories – why should they care about working or poor people, they share nothing with them. But that the Lib Dems allowed themselves to be whipped into voting ‘No’ is quite mindblowing.

  4. For me, we’re focussing on foodbanks as a sole issue but it is illustrative of the broken politics in this country. Any MP who laughs at someone they represent, someone who voted for them, deserves no respect at all.

  5. I think this country needs a new political party, one with a figurehead such as yourself Jack, one that does not put greed before the lives of it’s people, one that looks after those unable to look after themselves, a party that is made up of members who do not have second jobs and there own agendas. Who do not belong to the old boys network, instead we would have those who do it because they care, and because they have experiences and skills that can help everyone, not just a few.
    I am sure if you were in charge Jack then many of us would gladly sign up and follow.

    • We in the Green Party are doing our best to behave better than the parliamentary panto, as well as filling the gap left by new Labour moving so far right that they laid all the ground-work for the privatisation and inequality that has grown much worse over the past 3 years.

  6. This is really helpful, thank you Jack. So many people say all politicians are the same, Labour won’t be any better than the Tories etc. etc., but I think this is disproved if people actually bother to get out of their entrenched view and read what’s actually being said. We run a real risk of getting another cruel Tory government if people don’t bother to actually vote them out. Though I’m the first to agree that Rachel Reeves’ infamous statement about being tougher blah, blah, was a grave mistake and totally undermined her overall meaning.

    So could I add to your list above the following from Reeves, Hansard column 851, which seems a pretty firm statement of belief in a properly funded and fair social security system:

    “While we all applaud and thank the food banks, the volunteers and the people who donate food, that is not how our basic needs should be met. The basic need for food should be met through wages and a social safety net when it is needed. The basic need for housing should be met by our wages or by a social safety net when it is needed. The basic need to be able to heat one’s home and turn on the lights should be met by having a decent wage or a social safety net when it is needed.”

    • Indeed. But such a system has an inherent problem. If all your basic needs are met, then why should you work to support yourself? I am playing devil’s advocate here. I can see that *some* people would work, chasing more wealth, or a famous name, or simply to express their creativity. But would the majority? Before we can sensibly implement such a system, it really would be useful to conduct some sort of controlled trial, to see if it is sustainable.

      Cheers, Rob.

      • I just wanted to expand on this, a little. So we are discussing whether a welfare system that meets all the people’s basic needs is viable. If no one works, no system is sustainable. No tax income = no government spending. The politicians tend to answer this question according to ideology; the right wing think more welfare results in more unemployment, and that people should rely their own efforts, rather than the system, to meet essential outgoings. The left wing think that the rich should subsidise the poor, irrespective of incentives to work, or not work.

        Surely, to resolve this ideological question, we need empirical data. We need randomised, controlled trials to evaluate the effects of different levels of benefit on the employment levels of the population. We need, in short, to get intelligent about this. We need to discover whether our welfare system is properly supporting, or eroding the interests of, the poor.

        No one, tory or socialist, wants the poor to starve. The question is, what ls the optimum level of support for the poor, the level at which they can maintain themselves and their families, without robbing them of the incentive to provide that level of income for themselves? This is an empirical matter, and it’s answer can only be discovered by experiment. The ideology, ignorance and inertia that surrounds this central question is neither useful nor enlightening. We need to run the trials, folks!

        Best wishes, Rob.

  7. Esther Mcviles comments are permanently etched in my mind!
    I know there are plans for ‘training camps’ for long term unemployed and disabled people, in Victorian times these were called workhouses, this is from people who run our country unelected greedy selfish supposed humans, the sooner they can be got rid of the better :'(

  8. I wasn’t surprised to see my (con) MP in the list of those who voted against. In my discussion with him about the mother driven to our food bank since her only child died and consequent benefit reductions have left her in poverty, he could only say “of course the bedroom tax isn’t really a tax, you know” He had no suggestions regarding the lack of social housing stock which is keeping her and her partner in a home they would gladly leave.
    His responses to my emails repeatedly told me what a supporter he is of food banks and repeatedly refused to address the issue of their causes.
    A party man, through and through.
    Keep up the good work, Jack. You have so many people behind you.
    And well done Rachel Reeves and Maria Eagle, who put up such good, well informed arguments.

  9. Jack please join us in the campaign to change the welfare system permanently. You can achieve in one day what it has taken us months to do. If we succeed in replacing the welfare system with a basic income no politician would reduce it because its is granted to everyone. It’s a system that has been advocated by Thomas Paine. Milton Friedman and Freidrich Hayek among others. We are running out of time to get the Eu Initiative passed. http://basicincome.org.uk/reasons-support-basic-income/

  10. I watched the debate from beginning to end and was disappointed that so many MPs seemed to have missed the point at issue. It was not whether Foodbanks do a good job. Everyone agrees they do. It was whether they should be needed in such large numbers, and why they exist. Are they making the best of a very bad job, or propping up a very good job?
    I agree, Jack, with those asking you not to let the matter rest.

  11. The sad thing is I’ve seen all this many times before. The main reason you have all the Labour MPs giving speeches about how bad food banks are, and the platitudes the Cons give is because Labour is in opposition and the Cons are in power.
    If their roles were switched you’d see the complete opposite I’m sure.
    Sadly there no longer is any party to vote for, they are all pretty much as bad as each other once they get in to power. I *was* a Lib Deb voter, always have been, for over 25 years now, but I can’t bring myself to vote for them again. I really don’t know who I would vote for this time. 🙁

    • I agree. Who can I vote for? I’m sick of the ‘blame’ culture. They are equally bad. Is the answer to get shot of career politicians and properly scrutinise the machinations of the Civil Service? Would a hugely appealing salary attract the best and brightest from successful organisations into a brief period of “serving the best interests of their Country”. Do we really need so many low grade MPS? With the demise and disgrace of the press thank goodness for blogs like this.

  12. I find the heartlessness of some MP’s so symbolic of our society. The big society was always talked about but it should never have meant the scandal of food banks. It is the same on the US. The gap between the wealthy and the genuine poor is growing wider days by day.. You are doing a brilliant job to inform people of what really goes on.

  13. ‘We are having redistribution from the poor to the affluent.’ You could have just posted that one line, because that says it all in a nutshell. The system is now geared towards the tax dodging of the very wealthy, the complicit silence of those with affluent careers, and enforced poverty on the majority of people at the bottom of the socioeconomic pile, which translates as poverty if you are unemployed and poverty if you have a ‘job’. So we return to the values of the 19th century again, courtesy of Dave and mates.

  14. I think that the thing that boggles my mind the most is that the government turned down £2.5 billion of funding for foodbanks from the EU (as per Diane Abbot). What on earth were they thinking of for heavens sake!
    What is it going to take to get the Tory MPs to acknowledge the problem. Do they have to be taken by the ear, like a naughty child, and be dragged screaming and kicking to a foodbank and forced to witness for themselves what good honest people are having to endure today? Keep campaigning Jack.

    • It seems foolish to reject free money, until you realise the political capital the opposition would have made out of an acceptance. What is needed, I suggest, is 1) an empirically justified EU definition of an ”absolute poverty’ level (that level of income below which you cannot survive) and 2) an EU funded determination to fund the difference between actual income and the absolute poverty level.

      Just my tu’penny ha’penny worth.

      Best wishes, Rob.

  15. There is an easy solution. Do not be young. Do not be old. Do not be sick. Do not be disabled. Do not be unemployed. Do not be underpaid. We should simply all be eton- oxbridge educated millionaire cabinet ministers, and then we would all see things in their correct perspective.

    Best wishes, everyone. Rob.

Leave a Reply