21/01/25. Pat Caplan

The Right to Food – what does this mean?

The north London Borough of Barnet is usually thought of as relatively affluent – ‘leafy’ is a common description – yet it has 22 food banks and a significant proportion of its population which is food insecure.

At a recent Food Emergency Summit organised by the Barnet Food Partnership, one proposed solution for food insecurity in the London Borough of Barnet was to encourage Barnet to become a Right to Food Borough. This sounds like a good idea, as if the Council would be seen to be prioritising the issue of food insecurity. But let’s unpack this a bit.

The UK signed up to the UN Convention on Human Rights in 1948 which includes the following:

Article 25 1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

The later International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 reiterates and expands on this right, particularly in Article 11.

However, the UK has not incorporated any of this international law into its own legal system  which means that the rights mentioned in these covenants cannot be brought to court, as they are not justiciable.

This is a situation which contrasts sharply with other nation states where the courts can seek to enforce the right to food. India is a good example and has its own laws in the form of The National Food Security Act (NFSA) of 2013, also known as the Right to Food Act, which aims to provide affordable food to the people of India. The state fulfils this law through a public food distribution system (PDS) which provides 5 kg per month of subsidized food grains to eligible households, embracing 75% of rural and 50% of urban populations. Further, the Supreme Court of India has enforced such rights, observing in 2004:

‘The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter’.

Nonetheless, UK citizens are not without legal means to challenge the lack of right under the Equality Act 2010, as the Independent Food Aid Network (IFAN) points out frequently e.g. in a blog on its ‘cash first’ approach to food insecurity.

The bearer of rights is the citizen, and rights are conferred by the state, whether at local or national level. So can a Local Authority confer the right to food on its residents? In legal terms, this is largely a symbolic gesture, as cases cannot go to court. But it is indicative of aims and targets, so it may be worth having.

Demands for the Right to Food are part of a political struggle which is local in many areas e.g. London and national and international, such as the World Food Programme and the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation).

Some London boroughs have already declared themselves as supporting the right to food e.g. Barnet’s neighbour Brent and Hackney.

Major cities in the UK have similarly declared themselves as having the Right to Food, the first being Liverpool and others have followed e.g. Coventry while Birmingham signed the Milan Global Cities pledge on food justice.

Some areas of the UK have proclaimed that they are’ Marmot cities or boroughs.  These include Leeds, Luton, Coventry, Greater Manchester and Liverpool. The Marmot approach is based on the 2010 Report Fair Society, Healthy Lives published by the Review Team led by Michael Marmot, Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health at University College London and Director of the UCL Institute of Health Equity .

The most important principles identified by Michael Marmot are early years development, employment, living standards, communities, ill-health prevention, discrimination, and environmental sustainability. These situate food as foundational to many other aspects of society’s wellbeing.

In their comprehensiveness, the Marmot principles bear comparison with the Welsh 2015 Wellbeing of Future Generations Act which seeks to ensure that future generations are at least as well off as their parents. This means that all aspects of government, national and local, have to take the Act into account in their policies and planning.

There is no point in using this as a token gesture. On the contrary, there needs to be regular monitoring that the ramifications and consequences of the right to food are being observed. For example, Hackney, which passed the Right to Food in January 2023 , has recently asked two councillors to report to the full Council on what has been achieved, while the Council itself has invested money in the ‘food in education’ programme.

In short, then, there are various ways in which local authorities can seek to find ways not only of prioritising food security but of signalling their intent to take this matter seriously and embed it in all of their planning.

One of the aims of the Barnet Food Plan is to create a Food Partnership which would bring together both organisations and individuals with an interest in food, including food aid charities, food businesses such as retail and hospitality, growers (including allotment holders) and, in addition to the third sector, the Borough Council  represented by Departments such as Public Health.

Barnet’s Vision as set out in its Current Food Plan

Our vision is for Barnet to have a sustainable and good quality system of food production, provision and consumption that will improve everyone’s health and wellbeing. Barnet residents will be able to afford and have both the opportunity and knowledge required to eat food that is good for them and good for the planet. We will take action to address the drivers of food insecurity, resilience is built at individual and household level, and emergency food aid is available for those in crisis. A strong partnership between all actors in the food system, including local residents, will build on the work already delivered by the voluntary and community sector to drive our vision forward.

The first meeting of the Barnet Food Partnership (henceforth BFP) in March 2023 attracted a dozen people, mostly from the food aid and food growing sectors, and was chaired by the then head of public health. It was decided to have a Food Charter for the Borough, and to hold a food Summit to raise awareness of food issues and to try and recruit members from a wider section of food organisations, including business. A Committee of seven members was set  up and this has met almost weekly, while the Food Partnership as a whole meets less frequently. Since 2023, the membership has expanded to over 60 individuals and organizations. A web site is in the process of development.

The aims adopted are as follows:

We believe access to good food in Barnet is an essential right. Our vision is to have a food system that promotes health and is sustainable, equitable and resilient. All residents should have access to affordable food that is: good for their health and well-being, good for the environment, good for the local economy, and that can bring communities together.

In short then, there are two categories of players in this context: the local state (the Borough) and voluntary or charitable organisations in the Third Sector, which range widely in size and purpose. In this situation, Council policy is decided primarily by Councillors and officers, although often the implementation of its policies is carried out by the Third Sector organisations which are not usually represented on Council Committees or Boards.

Like most local authorities, Barnet has serious financial problems which have necessitated extensive cuts in services. This  is largely because the grant to local authorities from central government has been steadily eroded for a number of years, while leaving councils to manage their finances from the income derived from council tax and business rates. Councils retain a large number of statutory duties which cannot be cut, including children’s safeguarding, social care and adult social care; planning and housing services; waste collection, road maintenance and library services. Needless to say, costs are rising in all of these areas, as it demand for them.

There is thus inevitably a wide gap between what the Council would like to do and what is possible, given the financial constraints. Currently the Council is conducting a consultation exercise with residents about which services might be cut back further.

What of Third Sector organisations? Some of these are long-established and may be supported by faith organisations, particularly those which use religious premises such as church halls. Although some receive membership fees, many continuously need to seek outside grant funding, large and small, and attain varying degrees of success. All are dependent to a large extent on volunteers although a few, such as a minority of food banks, employ some staff.

The Barnet Food Partnership consists largely of members from Third Sector organisations, with a single Council officer attending and chairing meetings. Although in an early meeting it was agreed that it was ‘important to liaise with the Council’, in practice this has not always proved easy. Barnet residents do have the right to attend many of the Council’s Boards and Committee, and in some cases to pose questions in advance, but they do not sit on such bodies. An early suggestion of the BFU was have a named Councillor with whom to liaise, preferably one who sat in the Cabinet, but in spite of requests this has still not happened.

How then do Third Sector organizations like the BFP communicate with the Council?

• They may ask the Food Officer to convey messages and information from the BFP to a relevant food officer. Conversely the BFP might invite a particular food officer to attend one of its meetings
• A Third Sector organization might send questions to a relevant Council Board or Committee, if its agenda is relevant to the query
• They may utilize the services of their local Ward Councillors
• They might write to the relevant officers or Councillors

Under these circumstances, the BFP may thus request information or suggest a course of action, but it cannot make demands. Further, policies may well have already been decided before they are conveyed to the BFP members.

A good example of this is the closure of the Barnet Food Hub which was set up with government covid funding to distribute food to most of the borough’s many food banks. When this funding ceased, the Council decided it could not to find the necessary funds itself,  but did not convey this information either to the food banks or the BFP until the last minute. A meeting of food bank managers was called a month before the closure when the Head of Public Health told her audience that the Hub would be closing, but there were hopes of continuing a scaled-down version of deliveries for a few months while further funding was sought. The managers were devastated and angry. They turned to the BFU to help them find solutions and the latter produced a list of possible sources of food for which they could apply

This development was widely reported both locally and nationally : but it does leave the  BFP, including the food banks, wondering what exactly is the meaning of a ‘partnership’.

My first food poverty blog series existed from 2016-2020 (i.e. mostly pre-Covid) and there were 21 blogs, several of them written by guests but mostly by me. They were written between 2014 and 2019 during the period when I was conducting research on food poverty in the London Borough of Barnet and the County of Sir Benfro (Pembrokeshire) in West Wales. The final report was published online in 2020 (https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/31672/) although several articles and other blogs had appeared by that time.
In 2023, I offered my services to the London Borough of Barnet which was then formulating a new Food Plan; I sent in written comments on early drafts. Subsequently I was invited to join Barnet’s Steering Group for the implementation of the Food Plan.
One of the aims of the Plan was to invigorate voluntary local bodies concerned with food and in 2023, the Barnet Food Partnership was born. This in turn generated a number of Working Groups, including a Food Security Action Group of which I became a member, but there was also activity around growing food and food education.
While not carrying out formal research as previously, I began to think of myself as more of an activist, involved in seeking to find ways to improve the food situation in the Borough, along with like-minded other activists. The Food Partnership formed a Committee which I joined and we met most weeks, aiming to move the Partnership, particularly in terms of food security, into new territory, away from food banks to different models of food aid. These stress the agency of people with ‘lived experience’, who are members of and have some say in how such organisations are run, as well as allowing for choice of food and low-price purchases.
In this new blog series, I’ll be talking about some of these developments, the aims of such organisatjons, why and how they succeed and what are some of the obstacles in their way. I’ll also be looking at the large terrain of voluntary organisations which exist from national to local level and are concerned with some aspect of food.
All of these developments are taking place against a backdrop of increases in both poverty and social inequality, lack of financial resources at the national and local authority levels which mean that benefits remain very low, and much work is often poorly paid and precarious. Meanwhile the demand for food banks has accelerated while the indices of well being such as nutritional scores, morbidity and longevity have worsened.
I’ll be looking at the army of volunteers who work in food banks and other forms of food aid and asking about the role of charity. Equally important is the food industry and the way in which surplus food is channeled into the charity sector, contributing to the companies’ claims of corporate social responsibility.
In short, then I hope that this blog will be of interest to both activists and to academics, as well as the wider public which often does not understand why so many people in this country and this borough fall into food insecurity.

It has long been the case that the families of children in the UK who get free school meals struggle to feed them during the school holidays when there are no free lunches. That is why in a number of places there are lunch and activity clubs, such as one I observed in north London, run by charities and volunteers. But these can only meet a fraction of the need.

With the onset of the pandemic, even more people than before have found themselves in a situation of food insecurity. Food banks and other charities have experienced a huge increase in demand which initially they found difficult to meet. During the first lockdown beginning in March the government did provide vouchers to families of children normally in receipt of free school meals during the Easter holidays but once children returned to school, Westminster refused to continue doing this.

Enter Marcus Rashford, a footballer who plays for Manchester United and England, and who found this situation unacceptable. In March, he joined forces with the food redistribution charity FareShare and became its ambassador.

FareShare started primarily as a charity seeking to deal with food waste and prevent it going to landfill by redistributing it from the food industry to the charitable sector. It has a partnership with Tesco through its FareShare Food Cloud project. It does not, however, campaign around the reasons for food poverty. On its current website it states as follows:

by collecting food that would otherwise go to waste and redistributing it to charity and community groups, FareShare creates approximately £50.9 million of social-economic impact each year. This is made up of £6.9 million in social value to the beneficiaries themselves and £44 million in savings to the State (i.e. to the NHS, the criminal justice system, to schools and social care). – FareShare impact statement

Rashford received  both food and monetary donations from many businesses, especially those based in the north, and also support from some local councils which, although hard-pressed financially, vowed that they would support holiday meals schemes.

Rashford spoke publicly and eloquently about his own childhood spent in poverty when his family relied on food banks to tide them over. Because he is a celebrity, his arguments resonated with the public and the petition he set up soon gained many signatures.

On June 15^th, he wrote a letter to all MPs, urging them to ‘find their humanity’; the following day he was phoned by PM Johnson. The government did a U-turn and agreed that the meals voucher scheme should continue over the summer holidays. For his campaigning work, Rashford was awarded an MBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List 2020. He also received a number of other awards, including a special one from ‘Sportsperson of the Year’ and another from the city of Manchester. No wonder so many companies have sought to partner with Rashford, including the high-end chain Burberry.

In October, Labour put forward a motion in the House of Commons urging the government to continue the free school meals holiday scheme until Easter 2021. The debate was lengthy and impassioned. Most government speakers argued that this motion should not be supported, with one MP talking of the risk of ‘nationalising children’ and others of encouraging a ‘culture of dependency’. The motion was defeated by 322 to 261. Rashford tweeted ’A significant number of children are going to bed tonight not only hungry but feeling like they do not matter because of comments that have been made today.’ (The Guardian)

By November Rashford’s petition had well over a million signatures and the coverage of his campaign was extensive, ranging from national broadcast, print and social media to local newspapers and sports papers. He had become a national hero, including to schoolchildren.

The PM spoke again to Rashford on Sat. 7^th November and told him that the government had pledged an extra £170m to help struggling families, in effect another u-turn.

Rashford was diplomatic in his response, welcoming the government aid but several charities pointed out that the sum allocated actually represented a relatively small amount given the size of the need. Furthermore, it was apparent by the end of November that many families on Universal Credit were to have their benefits capped in December after a 9-month ‘grace‘ period following job losses in March. It was also noted that those on Universal Credit were due to lose the temporary increase of £20 per week announced at the start of the pandemic in the spring of 2021. Thus while the government appeared to be giving with one hand, it was taking away with the other.

So what to make of the contention that a 23-year old footballer was in effect ‘running an alternative government’? An exaggeration perhaps but it demonstrates several points.

The first is that Rashford’s power as a celebrity allowed considerable amplification of voices supporting this cause. He acted as a catalyst for a campaign to provide free school meals during school holidays.

The second is that Rashford was quite clear that although charities like FareShare and food banks could help in this situation, it was ultimately the responsibility of the government. Yet while successfully shaming the latter into finding more money for much-needed items such as children’s holiday lunches is highly laudable, the government needs to be pushed much further into making some real changes which would allow people to buy their own food rather than relying on food banks or even government hand-outs.

Thirdly, Rashford’s intervention has played into an already changing public view of entitlement. For the past two decades, polls had shown that there was less support for social welfare than there used to be. Recently, However, this has changed, with the most recent British Social Attitudes Survey revealing that there is 20-year high in increased support for benefits, perhaps fed not only by campaigns but now also by an increasing awareness of the ever-greater problems of unemployment and poverty following the onset of the pandemic. Most people now know someone who has lost their job and has had to turn to social welfare, only to find how meagre it is and how difficult to access.

While some charities still argue that their contribution to food poverty and poverty more generally is through their provision of food and meals, mainly sourced from the food industry, others are becoming more critical of the wider situation and the way in which food charities effectively let the government off the hook. There has been a change of tone on the part of some charities which address poverty and food poverty, with a marked increase in advocacy and activism.

IFAN (independent Food Aid Network) has long advocated for ‘the changes that would reduce the need for charitable food aid’. In a recent blog, IFAN’s Coordinator, Sabine Goodwin has argued that, given the increased public awareness of and greater sympathy for the plight of those in food poverty (partly as a result of the Marcus Rashford campaigns), now is the time to take things further and address the real reasons why people suffer from food poverty.

The Trussell Trust, the UK’s largest food bank franchise, began to change its messaging a couple of years ago, and has been pushing hard since then for a change in the 5-week wait for Universal Credit. Recently it has gone further with its campaign ‘Hunger Free Future’, demonstrating that it is now willing to address some of the real reasons for food poverty and fight to change them.

Basically, the food-insecure are suffering from poverty, that is, inadequate income. This is due not only to unemployment but also low social welfare benefits, caps and cuts in benefits, delays in receiving same, low wages, zero-hours contracts, unemployment. It is the state which needs to act in each of these areas to make sure that every individual and family receives an income sufficient to buy good and sufficient food. This is their right as citizens.

Note: The authors of this blog are members of the research team for the project ‘Going hungry in the land of plenty: an anthropological approach to food aid in Switzerland’ and I have had the pleasure of working with them on several occasions. They offered this piece which reflects their recent focus on the effects of Covid-19 on food aid. PC.

 FOOD AID IN GENEVA IN THE TIME OF COVID-19

 Ossipow, L., Y. Cerf, A. Martenot and A.-L. Counilh, HETS, HES-SO Geneva (22.04.2020)

This text is a Swiss “echo” to Pat Caplan’s blog entry (https://sites.gold.ac.uk/food-poverty/) on food aid during the Covid-19 crisis in the United Kingdom. It is based on a number of sources. One is our current knowledge of the food aid network[1] in Switzerland and on our monitoring of the emergency aid mechanisms seen on Geneva websites that indicate the places that are functioning during the present health crisis (http://geaide.ch). Finally, we have gathered information from a number of articles in the local press (Le Temps, Le Courrier, la Tribune de Genève, 20 Minutes and 24 Heures.) Among those consulted (approx. 150), about fifteen concern the most destitute people in Switzerland as a whole and in Geneva in particular. The dates on which these appeared give us an idea of the relative lack of concern for the poorest in the country, who had to wait nearly a month (from March to April[2]) for their situation be recognised in the print media. However, one striking development, and a welcome one, is that these articles do focus on about precariousness and poverty, and not, as is often the case, on the recycling of surplus food for environmental reasons, which tends to make the poor invisible.

 Hunger in Geneva during the crisis?

While hunger threatens the most precarious groups of people in the world, even in Europe, the poor in Switzerland are still receiving food aid, although not everyone can eat three full meals a day. However, during the present crisis, the poor are deprived of the “more than food” aspect of these redistribution systems, i.e. of all the services and meeting places that sometimes accompany food aid (listening, advice, leisure), with the exception of showers and health care.

Emergency housing has always been managed by the City of Geneva and by various associations (mainly financed by the City). However, in the context of the health crisis, the logistics of the operations related to the pandemic have been centralised by the communal and cantonal authorities. Measures have also been taken by the Aspasie association to provide temporary accommodation for sex workers made homeless following the closure of their workplace, in hotels across the city. Just like the distribution of vouchers by the Colis du Coeur, which have offered a welcome choice and anonymity, these medium-term shelters have been well received by the beneficiaries. Although their comfort and security have been welcome, they remain exceptional. While some hygienic services continue to be open (such as the showers at Le Caré), others have closed, but are being replaced by the opening of showers at a sports centre provided by the City. The emergency measures that have been put into place by the canton and more specifically by the City, do not signal a sudden return to state intervention. Even though the state delegates many tasks to the private sector (Crettaz 2015, https://www.capas-ge.ch/new/sites/default/files/Rapport%20HETS%20statistiques%20CAPAS%202015.pdf), it remains relatively present, at least in the City, through the indirect financing of these associations, whether it be by offering free premises, by employing workers who are no longer eligible for unemployment benefits and by hiring professional social workers.

Continuity and reorganization of food aid organisations

Caritas grocery stores

As of mid-March, food aid redistribution was reorganized in Geneva. Some of the organisations did not change their functioning and were on the front line at of the outbreak of the virus crisis and have continued throughout the lockdown. The Caritas grocery stores are open almost as usual with people queuing up there just as they do in front of other food stores. Some employees wear masks, like the check-out staff, others don’t, but everyone tries to respect the famous ‘social distancing’ of two metres. In the line of people waiting to enter the store, several customers also wear protection. As usual, the food aid system maintains the difference between conditional aid (that of Caritas or Colis du Coeur, see below) which requires the presentation of a voucher, and unconditional aid, which serves everyone and asks for nothing except maybe a ticket in order to obtain a meal in certain places. During lockdown, however, the difference between conditional aid (voucher based) and unconditional aid seems to have blurred more than usual. The focus now is on ensuring that people do not apply twice for assistance but emergency benefits are still provided. Most vouchers handed out are based on mutual trust between applicants and those who deliver the goods. A majority of associations, and in particular Carrefour-rue, have noted an increase in requests for food aid. In addition, other associations have entered the scene and are also organizing temporary distributions.

Unconditional aid: in kind and free of charge

Already known as emergency aid in pre-Covid times, all the distribution systems  that offer free breakfast or meals (Le Bateau Genève, le Phare, Club Social Rive Gauche, le Caré and Café Cornavin as well as Carrefour-Rue) have rapidly transformed themselves from a sit-down system to a takeaway distribution. In some restaurants, transitional measures have been implemented (reduction in the number of tables and distribution of hand-sanitiser before entering in the restaurant). Meals, either hot or cold, are now served on a tray. The Open Church association of the Temple des Pâquis and Swiss Gambia Solidarity are carrying out an itinerant distribution within their neighborhood. Joining forces with the latter, anti-fascists groups have created the ‘Popular Solidarity Brigades’, modelled on experiences in Milan (https://lecourrier.ch/2020/04/24/limpossible-confinement-dans-la-rue).

The Colis du Coeur (‘Parcels from the heart’)

The Colis du Coeur (https://www.colisducoeur.ch/portrait/) distributes food parcels upon presentation of a voucher issued by approved institutions (https://www.colisducoeur.ch/services-sociaux/). Before the coronavirus, these vouchers were also issued by more marginal associations mainly serving migrants and so-called undocumented migrants (see p. 18 of the 2019 activity report, https://www.colisducoeur.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Rapport_activite_CDC_2019.pdf).

Even before the pandemic, the number of beneficiaries picking up parcels every Tuesday was constantly increasing (about 3,457 beneficiaries every Tuesday; see p. 16 of the aforementioned report).  When the first coronavirus preventive health measures came into place on the third of April, the Colis du Coeur rearranged its distribution by bringing the beneficiaries into the premises, one by one, after they had waited outside. The volunteers (80 people registered) received them as usual, having been asked previously to put on gloves to handle the supplies (something people sometimes do in normal times).

However, by March 28, 2020, some volunteers were hesitating to come to work. This was the result of changes in the management of the association and the fact that volunteers, most of whom are well over 65 years old, were deemed to be at risk and had to remain sheltered. On 28th of March, food distributions took place in four different locations and also supplied hygiene products and nappies. This did not happen in the following weeks. With the support of MSF (Médecin sans Frontières), the Cities of Geneva and Carouge and the food bank Partage, these distributions were carried out in conjunction with local enforcement authorities[3] who ensured the protection of the volunteers and beneficiaries (https://www.tdg.ch/geneve/actu-genevoise/frappee-epidemie-laide-alimentaire-ressuscite-samedi/story/22403088). On the same day, the beneficiaries were asked to give their addresses and phone numbers, so that they could be reached and advised of the next distribution. Finally, a system of distribution of vouchers or “gift cards” which could be exchanged in three different supermarkets was set up.

Shortly afterwards, a questionnaire was sent out by Aude Martenot (member of the research team and also a worker at the food bank Partage) to the people who had been able to benefit from these vouchers. The processing and analysis of the survey (see Martenot 2020) shows that most of the beneficiaries were satisfied with the voucher system[4], even if some had not received them immediately. Paradoxically, while distributions are often unpopular, because they force the beneficiaries to travel across the city and deprive them of a choice, the use of vouchers allowed the beneficiaries  to again ‘have a choice’ (except for alcohol and cigarettes) and offered them the advantage of going almost unnoticed to collect their food aid.

At the present time, then, hunger does not threaten the poorest in Switzerland because help is still available. Rather, as Pat Caplan explains, it is the volunteers who appear to be in short supply. Younger volunteers have taken up the cause and the associations expect a rejuvenation of voluntary work (Le Courrier, 24.4.2020, p. 12). In Switzerland, as in other European countries, the problem for clients is not hunger, but the possibility of receiving financial aid (https://www.artias.ch/?mailpoet_routerndpoint=view_in_browserction=viewata=WzQzLCI4Mzk4OGVmMjVhNTQiLDM3OTMsIjM2OGM2NiIsMzMsMF0). Solutions have been found for the self-employed who will receive “loss of earnings benefits”, while others are technically unemployed. Students who have lost their part-time work can also apply for emergency aid from specific funds offered by their institutions (https://lecourrier.ch/2020/04/23/une-aide-durgence-pour-les-etudiants/).

Those who remain stranded are the so-called “undocumented” or clandestine population who normally could have found work on construction sites, in bars, in childcare or home help (https://lecourrier.ch/2020/04/16/une-nounou-en-enfer/). They could try to apply for exceptional social aid despite the lack of a residence permit. However, this could jeopardize a possible subsequent application for regularization of their situation (https://www.letemps.ch/suisse/fragilite-sanspapiers-accentuee-crise-sanitaire).

Conclusion

 In 2012, Janet Poppendieck, an American sociologist who studied the implementation of food aid structures after the “Great Depression” in the USA, compared food banks to a Pandora’s box[5]. Their inevitable if desirable institutionalisation in times of crisis poses a risk, in the long run, of serving as a fallback for public policies that are difficult to put into place. Ultimately, the worst is yet to come, as many small and independent businesses will no longer be able to pay their bills and will be forced to close down and apply for social aid. In addition to these people, there remain illegal workers who may find work again once the lockdown has ended, but whose income will have been severely reduced for almost two months. It is therefore on the side of social protection that things will be played out.

References cited:

Crettaz, E. (2015). ‘Final report of the research project: Profile, target audience and efficiency of private social action associations belonging to CAPAS’. Geneva: HETS.

Martenot, A. (2020). Monitoring the distribution of food vouchers under the COVID-19 scheme. Review of the survey conducted from 9 to 19 April 2020. Geneva: Fondation Partage.

Poppendieck, J. (1999). Sweet charity? Emergency food and the end of entitlement. New York: Penguin.

[1] The global research,

Going hungry in the land of plenty: an anthropological approach to food aid in Switzerland (2019-2022) is being conducted by L. Ossipow, A.-L. Counilh and Yann Cerf in collaboration with A. Martenot with the support of a grant from the SNSF (Swiss National Science Foundation; http://p3.snf.ch/project-185449).

[2]Semi-confinement was introduced by the Federal Government on 16 March 2020. (https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/11166687-la-suisse-en-etat-de-situation-extraordinaire-jusqu-au-19-avril.html)

[3]The distribution must indeed be done following certain guidelines at the risk of being banned, as an association learned at its own expense. They attempted one without asking for authorization on Saturday 25 April and were stopped (Tribune de Genève, Friday 24 April). They then restarted under the control of the City.

[4] The vouchers are 50 CHF for a single person, 80 CHF for 2 persons, 100 CHF for 3 persons, 120 CHF for 4 persons and 150 CHF for 5 or more persons per household (Martenot 2020: 1).

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/aug/21/food-banks-lambeth-council.

Before the Covid-19 crisis

Earlier blogs (14 and 15) refer to the report on extreme poverty in the UK by the UN Special Rapporteur; this, as well as a similar report by Human Rights Watch, appeared in early 2019. Both were excoriating, finding large numbers of people in the UK living in poverty, even destitution, while ten years of austerity had wreaked havoc with the social welfare system. These reports were dismissed, even attacked, by the UK government, but it is important to note that the situation highlighted in them forms the backdrop to the present crisis. Further, the issue of Brexit has not gone away, and, as noted in blog 16, is likely to lead to further difficulties in UK food production: regular migrant workers are unable to get visas hence a lack of labour to pick fruit and vegetable crops, as well as of a potential slow-down in imports if Brexit is finalised at the end of 2020 and customs checks have to be introduced (https://foodresearch.org.uk/food-brexit-briefings/).

Covid-19 and lockdown

The decision by the UK government to enforce a lockdown had a number of significant effects which included:

• Closure of businesses and lays-off of staff, resulting in immediate reductions in income
• An explosion of applications for Universal Credit, with nearly one million people applying by the end of March. Given that under ‘normal’ conditions the wait for any money to come through is 5 weeks, and often longer, it is clear that many of this million will struggle to get on to the system. The CEO of the Trussell Trust, Emma Revie, wrote a heartfelt plea for the waiting time for Universal Credit to be cut (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/13/food-banks-coronavirus-universal-credit
• The closure of schools has meant that children who normally receive free school lunches, even free breakfasts in some cases, no longer get them.
• There was a lot of panic buying in shops, resulting in empty shelves and some rise in prices. Online shopping became increasingly difficult, with few delivery slots available.

What has been done by various sectors to alleviate this situation?

1. The government

Has announced a variety of financial schemes to help businesses, the self-employed and others, and the provision of grants of £800 per person. In addition, all families with children on free school meals will receive vouchers of £15 per week in lieu. However, all of these measures will take time to come into effect and meanwhile many people are being ‘furloughed’ at best or losing their jobs entirely.

The government has also set up a scheme of food delivery for those deemed to be particularly vulnerable in health terms, although there has been some criticism of the contents of the parcels which consist largely of ambient foods (https://www.sustainweb.org/news/mar20_food_parcels_delivered_to_clinically_extremely_vulnerable_people/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/doubts-over-take-up-of-government-coronavirus-emergency-food-parcels).2. The food industry

2. The food industry

This sector has obviously been having a bonanza in sales and has, in some cases, given money or food to the food charity sector: Morrisons £10 million in cash, the Co-op £1.5 million of food to the redistribution charity Fareshare, while Lidl has said it will provide bags of fresh fruit and veg to NHS staff (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/morrisons-gives-food-banks-10m-during-coronavirus-outbreak). The supermarkets have also made some attempt to ensure that older shoppers have a dedicated shopping time and have paid much lip service to prioritising deliveries to older customers; even so, as I fall into that category myself, I  am well aware from personal experience and that of my peers that finding a slot is still often difficult. Most supermarkets now practice some form of rationing for their customers with caps on numbers of items and frequency of on-line deliveries.

3. The food poverty charities.

This sector, particularly food banks, has been hard hit. On the one hand there is greatly increased demand from old and new clients, on the other, many organisations have lost a large proportion of their volunteers, because they are over-70 and/or have ‘underlying conditions.’ Many food banks also do not have enough food because they are getting fewer donations (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/food-banks-coronavirus-uk-latest-a4383936.html) . They have also had to revise their procedures for safety reasons to do with the virus.

Some examples of the effect of the covid-19 crisis on food aid charities

Over the last five years, I have worked intensively with a half dozen food aid organisations in both north London and West Wales. Four of these are food banks, three belonging to the Trussell franchise and one being independent. The remaining two organisations are a Community Centre on a council estate in north London and a CAB (Citizens’ Advice Bureau) in Wales. They are all the subject of a detailed report which is currently in press. Let’s look at how each has coped with the new situation:

The Community Centre has sought to remain open, although many of its activities have been suspended. In the last two years, it signed up with the Felix Project (https://thefelixproject.org), a food redistribution charity, which supplies the Centre regularly and which is currently offering food parcels to local residents who need food help. However, the Centre has not been able to run its regular Holiday Lunch scheme for local children in receipt of free school meals or operate its café offering nutritious but cheap meals.

The north London food bank reports a big loss of volunteers, many of whom were over 70, and is currently seeking additional volunteers for ’warehouse’ jobs (sorting food by date, making up food parcels) as well as drivers for its new delivery scheme. Paradoxically, it has received some large monetary donations but been unable to spend these as it wished, partly because of panic buying by the public and partly because of restrictions on buying in bulk. Nonetheless, it is continuing to operate as a food bank, albeit with revised procedures to ensure social distancing. These include making up (somewhat smaller) food parcels in advance, so there is not even the minimal choice previously offered, while no tea, coffee or biscuits are served.

A Trussell Trust food bank in West Wales which has a number of branches and also ran cafes has suspended the latter and closed one of its branches, but otherwise continues to operate using its usual source of donations (supermarket collections and Tesco/Fareshare Food Cloud with which Trussell has a ‘partnership’). It has produced a leaflet for users explaining why procedures had to change.

Another Trussell Trust franchisee in a poor town in West Wales was struggling last week when I looked at its Facebook page. However, in the interim, I got a report from the manager:

The community has rallied around and we have had a large amount of food donations already this week Our stock is a lot improved and we wait to see what the need will look like over the next week or two as everyone settles into a new way of life. We too have seen a huge number of financial donations come in over the last week or so. Many people who can’t get out have given money instead. Have had a couple of large financial donations from individuals too, four figure sums!!! Quite amazing and humbling too for a little town like ours. We are looking to go to deliveries only shortly for the protection of everyone.

The final food bank, a much larger, independent operation with several branches, has closed two of them and, like the Trussell food banks, makes up parcels in advance with a slightly reduced amount. The manager told me a week ago that they were ‘running dangerously low on supplies’ and noted that, like the London food bank above, it was handicapped by not being able to buy in bulk.

Conclusion

If we thought that the situation with regard to food poverty in the UK was bad before, it is likely to become considerably worse now. As Martin Caraher has recently noted, there is no way for the state to identify people who are suffering from food poverty and goes on to point out:

Our welfare system (Universal Credit) is not set up to deal with food insecurity and the policy has been to refer clients to food banks as opposed to giving them money for food..[while] the amount of money people currently receive for welfare is not sufficient for them to buy a healthy diet even if they could access it (quoted in an email from Food Inequalities Rebellion, 31/03/20).

Some of the more activist food poverty charities have called for greater action. The Church Action on Poverty (www.church-poverty.org.uk) has lent its support to a statement coordinated by Sustain (https://www.church-poverty.org.uk/coronavirusaction/) calling on the government to release more funds to eradicate household food insecurity and ease welfare constraints such as the 5-week wait for Universal Credit, at least for the duration of the crisis. This statement has been signed by 31 representatives of organisations and academics working in the field. The Food Inequalities Rebellion has focused on the food needs of children (https://foodinequalitiesrebellion.wordpress.com).

In the longer term, much needs to change in our welfare and food systems to seek to eliminate food poverty, as many have pointed out, most recently and notably Tim Lang in his book: Our Food Problems and How to Fix them (Penguin 2020). As he notes ‘charity can be good at highlighting need, can meet some of it, but is unable to provide lasting or adequate safety nets’ (p. 328).

Beneath the anxiety and upheaval that the prospect of Brexit has brought to Wales, threatening as it does to cut off export markets for farmers, change the face of support for rural development and weaken our sovereignty if power passes back to London, runs a current of hope. As long-term assumptions about food, farming and the environment are shaken, so opportunities arise for fresh thinking.

One thing we need to face is food poverty, which is as much a problem in Wales as anywhere else in the UK, as Pat Caplan has pointed out in a recent blog for the Wales Food Manifesto. Even in Pembrokeshire, home to one of the strongest food cultures in Wales, rural poverty bites hard and many are reliant on food banks and community fridges. Malnutrition, diabetes and obesity are rife in other less well off communities in Wales, too. So how could this change?

In our recent paper for the Food Research Collaboration at City University, Corinne Castle and I argue that the disruption of Brexit is also an opportunity for a new view of the Welsh food system, one which draws all aspects of food together – farming, food culture, social justice, environment, public health and the economy – and puts human and environmental well-being at the centre of food policy. We can see several reasons for optimism, and we think that now is the time for a step change.

One important factor is the forward-thinking legislation that we have in Wales. The Well-being of Future Generations Act, in particular, requires public bodies to consider the long-term consequences of their decisions, and to draw up local well-being plans. These are administered by Public Services Boards located in each local authority, and although they are still finding their feet, they have an obvious role in developing local food policy. Ensuring that everyone has enough to eat is a foundation of well-being that nobody can ignore for long.

The Act also requires government to collaborate with businesses and community groups, one of five ‘new ways of working’ that are intended to bring about a new ethos of government, one which recognizes that we are all in this together. Combined with the Environment Act, which requires Natural Resources Wales to consult locally on the environmental matters, it suggests new possibilities for place-based working that could release fresh energy and ideas, unlocking the latent energies of grassroots action.

Another reason for optimism is the vigour and diversity of new initiatives that are springing up on farms and in communities around the country. Many imaginative projects are drawing on a combination of Welsh tradition and international examples to come up with new models of food production and supply. These range from agroforestry and a grain revival to Community Supported Agriculture, horticulture, micro-dairies and community gardens. There are also place-based projects, notably Food Cardiff.

Some of these initiatives have a bearing on food poverty, such as the Food and Fun project which provides free meals and other activities during the school holidays in areas of social deprivation, pioneered by Food Cardiff. There are also several projects redistributing supermarket surplus food to charities, or making it available through community fridges. Other groups such as Aber Food Surplus in Aberystwyth are using surplus food to run Pay as You Feel community meals for the public. These allow people to eat for free if they need to, while collecting donations to support local projects. Community gardens similarly provide free food to their volunteers.

The hope now is that by joining the energy of rural agroecology initiatives with urban social justice projects, using food as a link between the two, we can start a movement to push our food system in a new direction. We all need to respond to the climate change emergency and put the economy in service to human happiness, not the other way around. With the Wales Food Manifesto we are calling for a national civil society network for food, one that will draw people together on the basis of shared values and develop a vision for radical change.

There is plenty that government could do to support this: make more use of public procurement to support farmers to grow more food for local markets, use farming support payments to invest in food culture and environmentally-friendly farming, support regional self-direction, and broaden its food and drink policy to include social considerations, not just export markets.

It’s time for a new conversation about food.

Jane Powell is a freelance education consultant and writer based near Aberystwyth. She worked at Organic Centre Wales from 2000 to 2015 and has been the Wales coordinator for LEAF Education (formerly FACE) since 2006. She volunteers with the Food Manifesto and with community food projects in Aberystwyth.

Please download our briefing, Brexit and Wales: A fresh approach to food and farming?

We’ve known for years that more and more people are going hungry in the UK. But we’ve had to rely on the Trussell Trust network to understand how many people have needed to access a food bank because they can’t afford to buy food. Thanks to Scotland’s A Menu for Change I’ve been able to find out more.

From April 2017 to September 2018 the Trussell Trust gave out 258,606 emergency food parcels from 118 food banks across Scotland, but what of the emergency support given out by 94 independent food banks I’d also found to be operating? How many 3-day food packages had these organisations supplied under the radar?

Back in November my colleague Dr Mary Anne MacLeod and I met with independent food bank teams in Glasgow and Edinburgh to launch our joint project to establish the scale of independent food parcel distribution in Scotland. Representatives travelling from far and wide knew they had much in common, in particular that the extent of their work went unreported.

The majority of independent food banks have kept records of how many parcels they’ve distributed, the number of people of they’ve supported and/or the number referrals or visits that have come through their doors. It was our job to work out a common measurement that we could adapt to a variety of systems and to create a database for the many independent food banks able to contribute.

We have now established the number of food parcels that 84 of those 94 independent food banks gave out during that same 18-month period – April 2017 to September 2018. The results are shocking. Independent food banks, operating in 18 local authorities, distributed no less than 221,977 emergency food parcels. Added to the Trussell Trust’s distribution of 258,606 parcels, that makes a total of nearly half a million at 480,583.

In Wigtownshire, Machars Churches’ Basics Food Bank has been operating for seven years and has witnessed a growing demand for emergency food supplies. Its manager Marlane Cash said:

“Today’s figures reveal the herculean efforts being quietly made by independent food banks in their local communities to pick up the pieces of a failing social security system. Clearly, these efforts have been unnoticed and under-reported for far too long. These statistics help to paint a more comprehensive picture of just how many people across the Scotland are facing hunger.”

And this disaster on our doorstep is certainly greater than our figures reveal. We know that our statistics don’t include the emergency meals and other forms of food aid provided by countless independent organisations across Scotland, nor the people who don’t access food aid at all and would rather suffer in silence.

How is it that in the 5th richest economy in the world children across Scotland and the rest of the UK are living in households with no food in the cupboard?

Marlane adds: “It’s an utter disgrace that anyone in our wealthy country is struggling to find money for basic essentials like food. Hopefully these statistics spur our political leaders into getting serious about tackling food poverty, by ensuring that everyone has the money they need to put food on the table.”

Without a welfare state that is fit for purpose and without wages and job security to match the cost of living,how can this shocking rise in hunger ever be addressed?

We hope that the Scottish and UK Governments will sit up and take notice of this data, which almost doubles earlier assessments of food poverty in Scotland. It doesn’t take much analysis to understand that with at least 709 more independent food banks operating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the contribution of independent food banks represents a large missing piece of the UK charitable food aid picture.

Sabine Goodwin is the Coordinator of the Independent Food Aid Network and led the research in Scotland with A Menu for Change. She would like to express her gratitude to the many independent food banks contributing data and time to this project. Further details of IFAN’s research can be found here.

Here we are just a month before Brexit and we still don’t know exactly what is going to happen, or what its effects will be. But here are a few thoughts around food and food security.

What’s the current situation?

• We have a food supply system dependent on ‘just in time’ methods of distribution largely controlled through chains of supermarkets. This works if there is a free flow of goods across borders but could not work if inspections and tariffs are imposed. Food ingredients cross and re-cross borders in the process of preparation of many items such as cheese and baked goods.
• Even so there are many parts of the country, including both rural and some urban areas, which are ‘food deserts’. Here there are few food shops and these rarely supply fresh food; in addition prices are high.
• While much of the UK’s food is imported, particularly from the EU, food grown in the UK is dependent on foreign workers coming from Europe for picking and packaging fruit and vegetables, while abattoirs also rely on similar sources for much of their labour.
• There are large numbers of people living in poverty in the UK according to the ONS (Office for National Statistics) (see www.theguardian.com/inequality/2019/feb/26/uk-income-inequality-benefits-income-ons). Most of those living in poverty are also food insecure and may be forced to buy and eat cheaper foods which tend to be high in fat and sugar.
• It is because of the increase in food poverty that we have seen the rise of food banks, deriving their food from public donations via supermarkets and more recently from the use of ‘surplus’ food donated by food suppliers.

It is scarcely surprising that parts of the national press have been warning of the effects of Brexit on both imports and exports, including food. In May 2017, Dan Roberts wrote that leaving the EU without a trade deal could put the majority of British food exports at risk ().

A more recent article by Zoe Wood on 23rd Feb. 2019 points out that nearly one third of British food comes from the EU bloc. She mentions as an example Cheddar cheese (the nation’s favourite), most of which comes from Eire and which could see a dramatic rise in costs with the imposition of tariffs under a no-deal scenario.

These warnings are echoed elsewhere, such as in the Huffington Post which has carried a series of articles about the likely impact of Brexit, especially one without a deal, including empty shelves in the supermarkets and fresh fruit and vegetables rotting at ports:

Given that the poorest people spend the highest proportion of their income on food, they are likely to be the hardest hit in the event of price rises.

A number of organisations have produced reports.

As early as July 2016, just after the referendum, the Rowntree Foundation produced a Brexit briefing urging the UK government to produce a plan to boost the poorest regions of the UK following Brexit. It showed the 12 regions scheduled to receive the most EU funding to tackle poverty and boost growth up to 2020. One of these is Wales, which was set to receive £1.9bn, representing £627 per head of population.

In September 2018 Rowntree produced another report ‘How could Brexit affect poverty in the UK?’. It predicted increases in prices of food which, coupled with possible falls in real wages and lower employment could be a perfect storm for the 14 million people in the UK who live in poverty. Child poverty is set to increase further after Brexit, affecting poorer areas most. And, as mentioned above, there will be an end of EU funding related to poverty reduction.

Last year the Soil Association also produced a number of policy briefings, noting that food needed to be put at the top of the political agenda, particularly given the extent to which the rules of food trade affect public health. In an article in The Guardian Julian Baggini made use of one of these reports ), plus another by the Harvard School of Public Health, to point out that trade liberalisation tends to lead to an increase in so-called ‘junk’ food and thus to obesity and other health problems, citing the example of NAFTA, which has changed the obesity rates for the worse in both Mexico and Canada.

What about government?

During 2018 DEFRA held a consultation about its command paper ‘Health and Harmony’, a revised version of which was published in September. The Food Ethics Council made a submission in May, noting that ‘Household food security is an area not adequately covered in the command paper. We urge the government to take stronger measures to tackle the root causes of household food insecurity…’ The FEC also argued strongly for public health to be supported by future food and farming policy, an argument also put forward by Sustain in its own response to the command paper.

Academic studies have also been plentiful.

An early report on the likely effects of Brexit on food security was written in 2017 by academics Tim Lang, Erik Millstone and Terry Marsden: ‘A Food Brexit: time to get real’.

Subsequently, these authors and a number of others from a range of universities have supplied useful and detailed information on food and Brexit in a raft of reports written under the auspices of the organisation Food Research Collaboration.

In terms of discussing food poverty, the most pertinent of these are ‘Feeding Britain: food security after Brexit’ (Tim Lang, Tony Lewis, Terry Marsden and Erik Millstone) and ‘Why Local Authorities should prepare Food Brexit Plans’ (Tim Lang, Erik Millstone and Gary Macfarlane). Both of these studies emphasise the importance of openness with the public and the need for public engagement.

In the first paper, written in 2017, the authors recommend a focus on the potential adverse effects of Brexit on food security and the avoidance of a hard Brexit ‘at all costs’. They also propose the creation of a new Sustainable Food Security Strategy.

More than a year later, in the second paper, the authors argue that Local Authorities (LAs) have a crucial role to play and propose the creation of LA Food Resilience Teams, which can mitigate the impact on SMEs (small and medium businesses) and also feed information to central government so that it is aware of local conditions.

And food aid?
If there is a food shortage, will the food industry continue to provide and will food banks continue to be able to help sustain their current number of clients? The Trussell Trust, for example, has warned that food banks are already fully stretched and is preparing “crisis responses” for Britain crashing out of the EU without a deal.

At present, it doesn’t look like food poverty is going to decrease any time soon.

The preliminary report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, Professor Philip Alston, appeared on November 16th. It has been the subject of my three previous blogs (numbers 13-15) and in this present one, I consider some of the responses.

a) The press conference – who was there?
On the day he presented his report (16th Nov. 2018), Philip Alston gave a press conference which has now been put up on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AlstonUNSR/videos/207369616828528/?__tn__=-R)
During the first half, he spoke about his findings, in the second half there were questions from, inter alia, the Independent, Guardian, New Statesman, Sky news and Financial Times.

Running alongside this podcast are many comments from those watching. People said that they had only known about the SR’s report through social media, not through the usual TV channels or newspapers, and asked why the BBC appeared not to be present at the press conference. All were very supportive of the UN report, thanked Alston, and one even proposed him for PM! It was widely recognised that the government would either deny or ignore the report. There were a number of commentators who focused on particular issues, especially around the cuts in benefits for disabled people. Others were women in their fifties who have recently had their pension age raised at short notice and now find themselves in poverty. One said that she had been recommended to take an apprenticeship!

The publication of the report raised a Twitter storm:
• The first of these says: ‘This government has blood on their hands…thank you for your thorough and honest appraisal. Unfortunately this will not be shown on TV, it may get a passing mention but then it will be swept under the carpet.’
• Another adds ‘Let’s face it – this government are treating the furore around Mays Brexit ‘deal’ as a good day to bury bad news’ while a third asks why the BBC is not covering this report.

Here is a small sample of the remaining hundreds of tweets:
• Philip Alston, thank you for your honesty in reporting the terrible levels of poverty and the lack of concern and political will shown by the British Government. I am so thankful that there is an independent and non-biased organisation that can report the truth.
• This important investigation should be splashed over the media, sadly it won’t! Many believe what this Government and media feed them, they should read this.
• Thank you @Alston_UNSR for making your findings clear, transparent, unequivocal and hard hitting. It’s excruciating to read. Even though what’s happening is plain to see, we’ve carried on relatively regardless. Now it is up to us UK citizens to tackle our #willfulblindness
• I have chronic illness aggravated by medical errors that I can’t afford to take to court. I’m a lone parent and last week signed a no resuscitation order because when Universal Credit comes to my city, I would be better dead than fighting even for food for my son.
• Dear Professor Alston. Thank you so much for your careful report. I am a GP in Plymouth &see the misery the Tory cuts cause my patients every day. Sadly our new DWP minister, Amber Rudd, &all other Tory MPs have denied everything & belittled your qualifications.
• Now this is a subject that deserves to shut down the bridges of London and be shouted daily behind outdoor newscasters, Brexit is used as a smokescreen to hide the immense suffering of our fellow citizens

The government reaction: shoot the messenger
• The newly appointed Minister for Work and Pensions, Amber Rudd, described the language of the report as ‘extraordinarily political’ and its tone as ‘highly inappropriate’. An article in the New Statesman by Anoosh Chakelian points out that ‘when you only care about the messaging, you’ve lost the argument’.
• A DWP spokesperson was quoted in a number of reports as saying that it completely disagreed with Professor Alston’s analysis: “With this government’s changes, household incomes have never been higher, income inequality has fallen, the number of children living in workless households is at a record low and there are now 1million fewer people living in absolute poverty compared with 2010”.
• On the BBC’s Andrew Marr show there was a discussion of the UN report by a panel which included the junior Brexit Minister Kwasi Kwarteng who entirely dismissed the report, said he ‘didn’t know who this man is (Alston)’. When confronted on the programme with the case of a brain-damaged teenager about to lose her home because of Universal Credit he merely said ‘it was a sad story’ while maintaining that the economy was in fine shape.
• The junior Work and Pensions minister Justin Tomlinson told a committee of MPs that families suffering from poverty might take in lodgers to alleviate their problems.

The mass media coverage
The BBC news channels did of course cover the report but they also made it the subject of the BBC Radio 4 programme ‘The Moral Maze’, broadcast on 18th November, with a panel comprising Melanie Philips (columnist on The Times), Michael Portillo (former Tory cabinet minister), Matthew Taylor (Chief Executive of the Royal Society of Arts – RSA), Giles Fraser (described as ‘priest and polemicist’). Their initial comments on the UN report were unsurprising:
• Melanie Philips: I don’t recognise this picture of UK. Exaggerates in a disgraceful way in order to make a political attack on this country which the UN has no business doing. Another reason why UN is a moral disgrace
• Giles Fraser: I have bags in the back of my study for those who come knocking at my door, increasing numbers in last 5-6 years. It is a picture I entirely recognise
• Michael Portillo. Britain does not have extreme poverty nor are the rights of poor people being violated. In a democracy with a raucous free press, we hardly need intervention from the UN
• Matthew Tennant: one of the indicators of the high levels of poverty comes from asking people what they consider to be essential. We do have a big issue of poverty and also lack of awareness so the UN has done us a service
In short, then, a ‘balanced’ set of views, with the report (and the UN) being stoutly defended by some of the witnesses called such as Helen Barnard, Deputy director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and Natalie Samarasinghe, the UNA-UK’s Executive Director.

Alston’s report was also covered by most of the TV news channels, although some gave it more time than others. Channel Four had been following Alston during the 12 days he toured the UK, and it interviewed Alston on his preliminary report, as well as carrying a piece from its social affairs editor Jackie Long.

Most of the broadsheets (e.g. Times, Independent, Financial Times) also carried the story as did the Evening Standard, while the Guardian produced numerous reports before, during and after Alston’s visit and the publication of the report. The Telegraph highlighted the SR’s contention that the UK’s welfare system has a deep gender divide: “If you got a group of misogynists together in a room and said ‘how can we make a system that works for men but not women?’ they wouldn’t have come up with too many other ideas than what’s in place.” Alston noted the single household payments meant that women were not often able to control the family income, putting them at greater risk of domestic violence.

The Continental Telegraph on the other hand headlined its article with ‘The lie in the UN Rapporteur’s UK Poverty Report’ and dismissed it entirely.

The UN report was also covered by foreign-based news media. On November 21st, the New Yorker published a long article, while the Huffington Post focused on the Kwasi Kwarteng story. Al-Jazeera also carried the story in some detail and concluded by quoting Kartik Raj, a researcher for Human Rights Watch: “The government needs to sit up and pay attention to what he (Alston) has said at this crucial time, not hope that his recommendations get buried in the nonstop rolling news coverage of Brexit.” Raj was right of course, since coverage of Brexit is wall to wall but this is not the only reason.

Alas, there has been little follow-up, although coincidentally, a report which came out at almost the same time written by academics for the UK Equalities Commission (an all-party group) (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/is-britain-fairer-2018-pre-lay.pdf) makes many of the same points. As of course have many previous reports by third sector organisations and academics, as I’ve pointed out before in earlier blogs. A number of newspapers noted that this was the fifth visit by a UN special rapporteur since the Tories came to power in 2010, and all of their reports had been ‘buried’.