This is how Andy Burnham’s government could end the need for food banks 

To build a future in which food banks are no longer needed is to build a future in which everyone can afford the essentials. And to build that future, we arguably need to build a future in which almost everyone can afford not just the essentials but a decent standard of living, almost all of the time. 

This is a very long way from where we currently are. More than seven million low-income households in the UK have gone without basic everyday essentials, such as food, heating, and suitable clothing because of cost of living pressures, according to Joseph Rowntree Foundation research. 

So why this wildly ambitious goal? A few reasons. First, because humans are relational beings as well as physical ones. Keeping one another alive just isn’t enough; we need to be able to connect with others and participate in society. We all lose out when people are excluded from this, and we will become a more deeply – and dangerously – divided society if we don’t do something about it. 

Read more:

• Do food banks need to exist until we end hunger? We’d rather live in a Food Bank Free Britain
• What would happen if the UK’s volunteers stopped volunteering?
• People could face an ‘impossible winter’ with energy bills forecast to rise by 25% in January

Second, because a decent standard of living is needed to maintain health and the ability to engage in productive work or other activity (such as education, training or caring roles).  

If people have only the essentials, their health and well- being is likely to deteriorate and they will be less able to participate in society and more reliant on the state than they would be otherwise.  

And third, because anyone living at a level where they can only afford the essentials will quickly fall below this level, and into destitution, as soon as a significant unexpected and unavoidable expense or a crisis of some sort comes along, which it almost undoubtedly will. 

Does this mean that the state needs to directly supply everyone with the finances to support a decent standard of living? No. That would be extraordinarily expensive and (at least for the foreseeable future) largely unnecessary. Does it mean that everyone should be guaranteed a decent standard of living no matter how they behave or what efforts they do or don’t make themselves? I would suggest not. The state isn’t magical. Its functioning requires the cooperation of its citizens.

Personal and parental responsibility have to have their place alongside the structures and institutions of the state and wider society, for both fairness’ and feasibility’s sake. But at the same time, our approach needs to be fully human, making room for the incredible potential we have for creativity, care and enterprise, the strength and the vulnerability of our bodies and minds, and the extent to which our lives are shaped not just by our own actions, but by how others treat us too. 

Bringing a future like this into being in a sustainable way would require some major changes. Delving into what’s behind high levels of food bank use and the broader problem of which it is symptomatic – people being unable to afford the essentials – has provided insights that offer some direction as to the kinds of change that need to happen. 

If it wants to end the need for food banks, the government must strengthen social security:ensuring that our social security system works in a more human- centred way, protecting people from being unable to afford the essentials when they are seeking work and enabling them to sustain the physical and mental health to do so effectively. 

It should afford dignity to disabled people, so that everyone who is unable to work because of a disability or health condition (and any dependents they have) can afford not just the essentials, but a decent standard of living, including when any extra costs associated with their condition are taken into account. 

Where there is ambiguity about whether someone can work, or the potential that they could re-enter work, this needs to approached in a human way – treating people more like a good employer would treat valued members of staff, supporting them to recover at a pace that maximises their chances of a sustainable return to work, providing financial security and tailored support as this is attempted, and anticipating and accommodating setbacks, within the context of appropriate boundaries and accountability. 

Housing affordability has to be near the top of the government’s agenda, significantly increasing the availability of social housing, and reducing the need for it by improving housing affordability in the wider market, including through policy making that pushes us towards treating flats and houses as homes, first and foremost. 

It has to support parent and unpaid care, publicly affirming the value of unpaid care and parenting, alongside that of paid work, and following this through with policies and practices that mean people on low and middle incomes, especially single adults, don’t have to go without essentials to make time for this, including by improving the availability and accessibility of childcare.  

We also need to see improvements in employment  quality for lower-paid workers. The requires employers and government alike to create new norms around employment conditions for people in low-paid work and for this to be backed up with legislation, where needed, to support greater sufficiency and consistency of income from work.  

We need to effect a reduction in the prevalence and impact of mental ill health through more timely access to appropriate treatment, increasing support for children affected by parental mental ill health, and addressing important social determinants of mental health, such as access to safe and secure housing, income sufficiency, access to green and blue spaces, and opportunities for social interaction.

And finally, we need to strengthen the relational fabric of communities by investing in social infrastructure in areas that lack it by ensuring there are free or very low-cost places for people to meet, resourcing community leadership to support the use of these places and providing friendly, inclusive, relational ways of finding out about available support and opportunities. 

These are big challenges. But they are also ones we can’t afford to duck – the human, social and economic costs of doing so are too high.

This is an edited extract from A Taste for Change.

Heather Buckingham is social change advisor at Trussell. Her new book, A Taste for Change, can be purchased here.

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. 

Change a vendor’s life.

Buy from your local Big Issue vendor every week – and always take the magazine. It’s how vendors earn with dignity and move forward.

You can also support online:
Subscribe to the magazine or support our work with a monthly gift. Your support helps vendors earn, learn and thrive while strengthening our frontline services.

Thank you for standing with Big Issue vendors.