Social Security Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, October 25, 2018

Official Report 732KB pdf

---

Public Petition

---

Food Banks (Funding) (PE1571)

Welcome back, everyone, after that short suspension. Agenda item 3 is consideration of petition PE1571, by John Beattie, which calls on the Scottish Government to provide direct funding to food banks. I refer to the note that has been provided by the clerk, which is paper 3. The petitioner was notified that the petition would be on the agenda today, but no acknowledgment or response has been received and there has been no contact with the petitioner since the petition was referred to us in 2016.

The petition has been about for some time. I will read out the recommendations. Then, given the session that we have just had, it would be reasonable to discuss the recommendations before we decide whether to close the petition. The committee is ready to close the petition on the basis that

“1. it agrees with the Scottish Government that providing direct funding for food banks would effectively bring food banks into the welfare state, something that is not supported;

2. a longer-term approach has been taken to tackling food insecurity across a range of policies.”

In closing the petition—if that is what we decide to do—the committee nevertheless wishes to acknowledge the work of food banks and the growing pressures on them, which is undeniable, given what we heard under agenda item 2. Before I ask whether members are content to close the petition, we should have a discussion. Would members like to comment?

I agree that that is a sensible approach, given what we have heard today. We have heard a lot about the great work that is being done by food banks and about the consensus, which you mentioned, that food banks should not be—I think that they would not want to see themselves in this way—part of the welfare state. What you are suggesting seems to be a sensible way to bring the petition to a close.

One of the important things, which was mentioned during the previous debate, is that people feel able to go to food banks partly because they are not a state provision. As they do with many other support organisations in the third sector, people come in and talk and share their problems, and they get support because the food bank is not a state provision. I certainly support food banks staying in the voluntary sector and staying free of the bureaucracy of the state in what they deliver. I support the suggestion to close the petition.

Some of the issues that were raised around the table in the previous evidence session coincide with some of the issues around the petition and can probably better be picked up as part of our inquiry and reflections. No doubt there are issues that we can take forward by picking them up in the report that will eventually be produced from our inquiry. That would be appropriate, so I agree that the petition should be closed.

I, too, am content that the petition be closed. We have obviously learned a great deal this morning and from ongoing work with the “menu for change” project, for example, which is a partnership between the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, Nourish Scotland, Oxfam Scotland and the Poverty Alliance—to encourage a shift away from emergency food aid as the solution, and towards preventative and rights-based measures that increase the income of people who face crises.

We have heard from several most excellent commentators this morning that when people with the right expertise and advice knowledge work with food banks, that has a really positive impact. I would like the committee to keep an eye on what is going on, because food banks are clearly finding themselves in an increasingly difficult position when it comes to supplying people with emergency food aid.

I also think that we have to look at the extent to which food banks are masking a problem. Are they a symptom? Are they showing that people are not getting the help that they need from other agencies? I would like us at least to keep a watching brief on that.

That was helpful.

I am also happy with the recommendations. We should put on record what we have heard today—that it is not just about the third sector, but about civic society in general. That very good point was made by a couple of individuals. The third sector delivers the food banks, but the food comes from the whole of civic society in different ways. It is important to note that.

A related issue that the committee needs to keep an eye on, but which is probably not for today, is third sector funding. I agree that we do not want food banks to be getting direct money, for reasons that have been outlined, but we have to make sure that the third sector is getting appropriate financial support from the Scottish Government and local authorities. We need, as a committee, to keep an eye on that over the next number of years.

I agree and I am content to close the petition. However, I have a few points to address. It is a dilemma for any Government that sees the proliferation of food banks and so on that they are struggling for help with the good work that they do. The fundamental principle is that if we fund them we will be going down the wrong route—acceptance that it is okay that they exist.

However, every time we discuss the issue, I learn more and more about the work that is being done, the range of services and their impacts. I do not, for the reasons that members have mentioned, support the idea that the Government should wholly fund food banks, but there is a need for a more precise picture of provision and of what food banks are doing. I believe that we need at some point to address the question where we begin to start turning things around. I fully appreciate that that is a much bigger debate.

We have all rehearsed the arguments in the chamber. I believe the start of the process is the scrapping of the current universal credit scheme, but I realise that that debate is for another day. However, it is worth considering whether we think that the Government should put some resource into ensuring that it has all the facts and a full picture of what food banks are doing.

I will make a few comments myself before I ask members what their position is. In the previous evidence session Mandy Nutt mentioned the conflict between funding food banks and the independence of the food bank network. We should be slightly cautious in relation to that.

I note that supporting food banks and funding them from time to time will not be ruled out by our closing the petition. However, I think that there is consensus around the table that offering a direct structural relationship between the Government social security system and food banks, which would in effect bring food banks into the welfare state, is not desirable. That is not to say that we did not hear in the last evidence session some pretty good ideas for things that we, as a committee, could explore further and which would not need the petition to be continued. They include mapping of where food banks are, and what support has been provided in the past and might be provided in the future.

Given that a significant number, if not the vast majority, of referrals to food banks are the result of UK welfare reforms, I do not think that we should look only at the Scottish Government in respect of who supports the sector. I do not think that the situation is as simple as that. We should also, to be quite frank, also look at the UK Government, local authorities and more widely. We should find out what support has been given in the past and what could be provided in the future; I think that it is important to put that on the record now. Given that the Scottish Government has said that it is keen to see a longer-term approach being taken that goes beyond food banks, it is also important that the committee pledge to take responsibility for following some of that through, as well.

The wider point that I am seeking to make is that it should not take a petition, well-intentioned though it is, to ensure that, as core business for the committee, we look at the Scottish social security system, how it interacts with the UK social security system, the winners and losers within the systems, those who are in absolute need and hardship and how they have become increasingly reliant on the third sector and others in society for food and other needs. We should be doing that as the core business of the committee, anyway. Recommending that we close the petition is not a recommendation not to follow through on many of the issues that were raised in the previous evidence session. There were some pretty good suggestions from Mark Frankland about ways in which we could follow through.

I am sorry that those comments were so long-winded, but it is important that we treat the matter pretty seriously, given the evidence this morning. Is the committee content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you for your forbearance.

10:44 Meeting continued in private until 11:09.