04/09/2012 Newsnight

The crucial reshuffle of David Cameron's administration was never

going to change the direction of Government, so what has it done?

Can a former banker, a former miner, and a man who boasts of his own

plane, and fabulous mansion, make the British people clasp this

Government to its bossom. Is this to be harder edge, more populist

coalition, one of those to receive preferment today is here. We will

be chewing over the fat with the reshuffle significance with a panel

of politicians. Also tonight, how is it that in a welfare state,

maybe 200,000 of us only eat if we go to a food bank. It took things

to get that bad, for me to pick up the phone in the first place, and

meet someone like Gavin and say, I'm not coping.

I'm trying, but I'm not coping. food banks The Big Idea society in

action, or a terrible indictment of Government policy. We will discuss

with David Cameron's former speechwriter a food bank charity

leader and a Labour MP. The Health Secretary who spent eight years

learning his way around the NHS, will be leader of the House of

Commons. And the man who knows all about opera and the Olympics, gets

to learn about other things. Other unwanted individuals get jobs

created for them in the best traditions of the worst run parts

of the public sector. David Cameron's reshuffle of his

Government isn't especially easy to make sense of. But we're going to

try. Give us the headlines, first off. It is a bit of a list, first

of all, no major changes at the top. But lower down there were

significant changes. The first is Justine Greening. She's now become

the International Development Secretary, but she was Transport

Secretary, and she opposed the third runway at Heathrow, we do

expect some changes on that policy in the next few months. Her being

moved confirms that. She's replaced by Patrick McLoughlin. We will

explain later in our package fully what that means. It is not as

obvious as people think. The other one is Andrew Lansley. He, as you

said in the piece he is now leader of the House and Jeremy Hunt

becomes Health Secretary. He has not had a brilliant year in the

last 12 months. Baroness Warsi, who has appeared on the programme a lot,

she's no longer chairman, she is the Foreign Office minister, it is

a demotion she's not happy with it. She is replaced by Grant Shapps,

the new Conservative chairman. Keneth Clarke, familiar to many

people, he will no longer have a portfolio, but he will rove,

because he has the gift of the gab. He will explain their policies

across Government, critically he won't explain prisons, which was a

policy he engineered, and didn't go down well with many people, except

the Liberal Democrats. Chris Grayling replaced him and the as

Justice Secretary, with some nuance he has a harder position on these

things. Iain Duncan Smith, he doesn't go anywhere, that is why

he's one of the biggest stories. The Prime Minister asked him to

move and he said, no. It sounds like minor changes, but

could have major impact. It is never normally like this, the walk

of shame or fame, required when a Prime Minister reshuffles, was

today unusually festooned by the bunting of the Olympics. Little

triangles of jolity, would have made Harold Macmillan's Night of

the Long Knives seem like a children's party. Today unlucky

number were contemplating Westminster's career catwalk.

Inside this building in Downing Street they talk about the

Government's priority as a triangle, as a triangle the bunting will do.

At the pointy end up deficit reduction, beneath that the two

priorities of welfare reform and education. Today's reshuffle was

about putting better communicators in place to explain, talk and go on

about that triangle. This man was David Cameron's most senior special

adviser on public sector reform until three months ago. If you

actually look at the posts and the kinds of people put in place, it is

a very, very strategic thing. Jeremy Hunt at health is an obvious

big one, Andrew Lansley will go down in history as great reformer.

There are questions about how that reform was communicated, and Jeremy

Hunt has been put there to deal with that specific question. You

have two-and-a-half years until the next general election, a lot of

reforms that have been put in place need to carry on. Except the

trouble is, the first move attempted by the Prime Minister,

would tinker with one corner of that triangle. A sense of what was

going on last night was suggested on Newsnight by one of our own.

talk about Iain Duncan Smith, he has reached the point where he has

introduced the reforms, it might be a different person you want to

implement the reforms. So you would change welfare secretary at this

point. Danny Finkelstein was on our programme telling us that Duncan

Smith was telling the Prime Minister that actually he wouldn't

be moved. We know one of the men in charge of the corners of the

triangle, is someone the Government would rather not be in post. The

reshuffle had perhaps misfired in its earliest hours last night. But

as Tuesday wore on, the Government's shop got more steady.

By teatime, you could almost see the target they were aiming for. On

the one hand, a defeat for the Chancellor for not removing Iain

Duncan Smith, that will become a problem in years to come as they

try to get cuts from welfare. But seven ministers of state were

listed as owing their promotion to George Osborne, on aviation, the

environment, on planning and even childcare. It is clear now that the

Chancellor will push through his will. A new job for the man who

made sure the Olympic bunting was deserved. Paul Dayton, who has been

ennobled, he delivered the Olympics, and the Government think he can

deliver for them on the economy. Liz Truss, changing childcare, Greg

Clarke to change City policy, Michael Fallon keeping an eye on

Vince Cable in business, Owen Paterson sceptical on the

environment, Patrick McLoughlin clears the way for more airport

capacity in the south-east. Mark Holborn will help the Treasury get

that �10 million out of the coffers. They turn around the fortunes of

both coalition parties into the 2015 elections. It is promotion now

that really matters, not promotion to the Government in future

reshuffles. The promotions today include Chris Grayling, Keneth

Clarke's liberal prison policy of rose garden days is no more. Though

Grayling won't junk it all. He has no truck for European rulings or an

overzealous culture of human rights. Keneth Clarke's demise is possibly

the biggest Lib Dem news in this reshuffle. This sees the rise of

blue collar Conservatism., Chris Grayling has the job because it is

thought he can talk better to Tory Party voters about crime. Liz Truss

has the job, because the party thinks she has the ideas to bring

down the cost of childcare. Patrick McLoughlin's appointment is partly

about clearing the way for the third runway at Heathrow. But it is

also because he's a straight talking northerner, who can talk

convincingly to voters about rail fares and the cost of fuel. This is

a cost of living reshuffle. appointment of Patrick McLoughlin

is the most interesting to me, because, obviously, an ex-miner

from the northern area, he has been brought out of the shadows into

transport. Which may not be a kind of top-teir Government department,

in terms of spending and reputation and so on, but actually, if you

look at ordinary working people, transport is a massive issue for

them. Today Cameron attempted to make good his pledge to have a

third of his Government women by the end of the parliament.

Newsnight was in Downing Street when two of them found out. But it

wasn't enough to mask the reduction of the number of women as full

cabinet ministers, down from five. On this going, he will struggle to

meet his target. Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, lost no time in

denouncing the removal of one woman, Justine Greening, because of her

opposition to Heathrow. Johnson accused the Government of ditching

its promises, he pledged to tight this. -- fight this. The bunting

goes away with the Paralympics, this reshuffle has to pay off for

both coalition parties to have cause to get it out again in 2015.

Good day for the Prime Minister, do you think? It is a reminder of how

many back seat drivers he has on all the issues he has. We heard

from three Tory leaders today. Iain Duncan Smith saying you can't move

him, and Boris Johnson saying you can't do that. He doesn't operate

with masses of free space, but I do think it is more impressive than

many feel. The personnel brought in may not be very well known to

people, but they are people who do have ideas. They have the

capability, if they can persuade the Civil Service of their ideas,

and if they have the time, to do some things that might make a

difference. Whether it will be -- they will pull it off, I don't know.

It is more interesting than some people think.

We live in an ever-changing world, but there are some enduring things

you can count upon, come Shane or shine, winter or summer, elections

or reshuffle, one of them is Michael Fallon making a trip into

the Newsnight studio. Thank you for coming. Can we expect any changes

of direction or anything as a result of this reshuffle? No, it is

a big reshuffle, it is a very important reshuffle, what it

demonstrates is the Government really means business now there is

a new team that is going to fight for our future. And they didn't

mean it before? We are at a different stage. We have a

deteriorating outlook in Europe and the world economy, we have really

got to step up the pace and get the growth this country needs. That is

what the new team is there for. When Boris Johnson says there is

only one reason for sacking Justine Greening, to build a new runway at

Heathrow, he's wrong? She hasn't been sacked, but moved to an

important department, international development, we have a big job to

do, to persuade the British people, at a difficult time in our economy,

that we have a moral duty to help the rest of the world, the poorer

parts of the world with overseas aid. From which she was moved on in

less than a year. Boris Johnson says the only reason for doing that,

is because you want to change your policy on Heathrow s that true?

That is completely wrong. The policy on Heathrow stays exactly as

it is. This Government won't build a new runway at Heathrow under this

Government. But, you know, there is a juggling around every time with

the cabinet. Suddenly the Chief Whip became available, former

transport minister, very experienced person in Whitehall,

was available to be Transport Secretary. There is a big job to be

done, as I said, in international development, in persuading people

of the importance of overseas aid. There was a natural fit there.

own job, you are going to Vince Cable's department to be Number Ten,

tell us, a voice for business. Isn't there a voice there already

in the business department? There is, but there is a big job to be

done in ensuring we really do get the growth this economy needs now.

And to drive the business agenda. You will hear later this week new

proposals to develop our infrastructure, to support more

affordable housing, for example, to speed up planning, to deregulate,

this is work that is never done. We have to step up the pace now to

make sure this economy starts to keep growing and growing faster.

hasn't been doing that, has it? has, the private sector has already

created nearly a million new jobs in two years. As you know very well.

The eurozone economies have deteriorated. The world economic

outlook is worse than anybody predicted two years ago. We have

simply got to work harder and harder at getting the growth we

want. You are like the seventh cavalry riding to the rescue at the

be Knighted department are you? department doesn't need rescuing,

we have to focus relentlessly on growth, and every couple of years

the team needs to be refreshed. Aleg gra put her finger on it, she

says you are going there to keep an eye on Vince Cable? I'm looking out

for business. Do you have absolute confidence of Vince Cable's

management of the economy? Absolutely, I'm there to help his

agenda of helping British business create jobs. Can you tell us why it

is that Keneth Clarke has joined the cabinet, as yet another voice

on economic affairs, apparently when you have already got three

within cabinet? Keneth Clarke has already served in six big

departments, you think it is only fair, at his age, to let somebody

else have a go. We are not losing hisser experience, he will be there

at the cabinet table, and serve on the National Security Council, of

course, he will contribute his economic expertise, a former

Chancellor, to the various economic committees of the cabinet. That

expertise will be very welcome to the Chancellor. How many people can

sit at the cabinet table? I'm not sure the exact number. I don't

think it is any more than Tony Blair had at his cabinet table or

Gordon Brown. It is over 30, it is more? Can you all sit down? There

are many who can't attend. There are chairs for all of them. It is

very important not to lose the experience of people like Kenneth

Clarke, he has been a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and industry

secretary before, and has a huge amount to contribute. That is good

news. Anybody you will miss? It is sad to see some go. When you

refresh a team, there are people who served in Government who have

to be let down. One of the things David Cameron has done in this

reshuffle, which wasn't fully brought out. He's a Conservative

Prime Minister that brought into Government the largest number of

women, ever. A huge raft of new women ministers. Who were appointed

today. Helen Grant, Esther McVeigh. There is not a cat in hell's chance

you will get a third of the Government to be women? It is still

the promise, this is the largest number of women appointed in a

single day by a Conservative Prime Minister. That's extremely good

news. There is a new generation now of Conservatives. People who

haven't always been there. Five out of 31 at the cabinet table, by my

calculations, doesn't amount to one third? It is not a third yet, but

you have to start by getting them into parliament. David Cameron

changed the Conservative Party to do that. Now you see them coming

through as junior ministers, and soon in the fullness of time you

will see them coming through to the cabinet. You saw two coming through

today. Maria Miller and Theresa Villiers were appointed to the

Government. We also saw some going? You can't exempt women from the

inevitable reshuffle when people change departments. I would suggest

you have to in order to increase the proportion? The proportion of

ministers is being increased and he's working towards that total.

What about poor old Andrew Lansley, he spends years and years trying to

understand the National Health Service, he starts bringing in some

reforms and then he gets the chop? He has spent eight years dealing

with that portfolio all together. It is a very long time, and very

unusual for somebody running a single portfolio. Very unusual for

that length of time. He has got the reforms through parliament. We are

in a new phase where we need to deliver the reform, he was offered

a promotion today to leader of the House, it is one of the most

important jobs in parliament. He has taken that, and succeeded by a

really good communicator in Jeremy Hunt. What does he know about the

health service? He's obviously got to bone up on the health service,

all ministers have been involved in all these policy areas. Andrew

Lansley wasn't involved in the health service before he became the

shadow secretary. He spent eight years learning about it. He wasn't

involved before that. It is inevitable you have ministers

coming new to the briefs. That is a good thing. They bring fresh

experience he is a proven manager and proven communicator, Jeremy

Hunt, by the way, he has just delivered the most successful

Olympics this country has ever seen. What has that got to do with it?

shows he can deliver, we want him to deliver the health service

reforms. Two in cabinet before Methusela was in the land, my

guests are here, with Mary McLoed here two years. First of all,

Justine Greening, Boris Johnson says the only reason she was sacked

was so your party could change its policy on Heathrow, and build more

air capacity there. What would happen if your party did that?

priority is not going to change -- the party will not change its view,

and the coalition won't change its view on the third runway. We will

hold firm to the agreement we had with the coalition and ls to each

of our manifestos. Could you stay as MP if the policy changed?

would stay and fight, absolutely. You would have to resign, wouldn't

you? The policy is not going to change in this Government. We have

had all senior members of this Government saying the policy won't

change, and it will not change. Boris Johnson is just talking

rubbish again, is he? I agree with Boris's view on the third third

runway, as -- the third runway, as no third runway. Why he is living

in fantasy and seeing a change of policy in the offing? I'm not Boris.

But the important thing is there is no change in policy in this

Government on the third runway. We have stated that categorically.

Senior membership of the Government, including the Prime Minister,

Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, have all reiterated

there will be no change in policy on the third runway. Do you see

this reshuffle, for what many people see it to be, a move to the

right in Government? There is one particular position, and that's the

Justice Secretary, occupied by Chris Grayling. That is something

which Liberal Democrat MPs in the House will be watching very

carefully indeed. He's replaced Keneth Clarke, who often spoke

about those issues concerned as if he was a Liberal Democrat. So the

Liberal Democrats will want, maybe that's why he has been moved. We

will be looking very, very carefully, because we take a Keneth

Clarke view about justice. And Chris Grayling will have to justify

anything he says or does, which sur plants from that. You are happy

with the rest of the appointments, Owen Paterson at environment?

appointment of people who have in the past expressed more right-wing

views that than are contained in the coalition agreement. The

coalition agreement is for this parliament. As rightly said, during

the course of this parliament, the policy on the third runway will not

change. But, here I depart slightly from what has been said already,

the appointment of Patrick McLoughlin is clearly a signal that

in the manifesto of the Conservative Party, at the next

general election, there will be a different policy than the one that

was in the last manifesto. Or, indeed, in the coalition agreement.

It hasn't been written yet, you don't know. Michael Fallon was very

specific, he said this Government. That's completely hypothesising

about something happening in two- and-a-half years time. You're oddly

mute? I haven't been asked a question yet. I will ask you one

now. Aren't you thrilled to see the Department of Justice in the hand,

at last, of someone who is not a lawyer? Oim' not. We never said it

-- I'm not, we never said it had to be a lawyer, but someone standing a

bit to the side of Daily politics. When Kenneth Clarke was appointed

there, he was brilliant, he might be a Lib Dem for all I know, but

he's a man of independent judgment. But Chris Grayling is in touch with

public opinion? I don't know if he is or not, I wonder to the extent

to which he will gain the trust of people in the system, they will

look to him for protection from, for example, politicians like

Theresa May, who think there are votes in attacking the judges, for

example. Will Chris Grayling defend them? I don't know. One of the

things I think is a characteristic of this reshuffle, is the fact that

the Prime Minister's effort to avoid controversy, you move Jeremy

Hunt from culture, where you would have to deal with the outcome of

the Leveson Inquiry, you move Andrew Lansley away from health,

because he would have had to implement issues which were very,

very controversial. And of course, you move Justine Greening away from

transport, as a potentially controversial thing. That's what,

behind a lot of this, is an effort it try to dampen down things that

would be difficult within the Conservative Party. You were

Parliamentary Private Secretary in that department? I was, yes, for

the last two years. You recognise this picture of it? I think

certainly I enjoyed working with Keneth Clarke, and Nick Herbert,

the minister I was PPS to. It is important to keep Keneth Clarke,

because of his experience, and he's still incredibly sharp, it is very

important to have him around the cabinet table. I like in this

reshuffle that it has brought in new faces and more women. More

women, it hasn't brought in more women? In the ministerial levels.

But fewer in cabinet? Slightly fewer, but down by one in cabinet.

But, what the Prime Minister always promised. Do you believe this stuff

about being a third of women in this parliament? The Prime Minister

aimed for 30% of women in the ministerial, across ministerial

appointments. That is still something, I think, he can deliver,

over time. We still haven't heard all the appointments yet. In two-

and-a-half years? Definitely possible. It is a reshuffle that

will reduce trust in politic. Although Michael Fallon is much to

be admired for coming to Newsnight on a regular basis. The particular

line he was running about Justine Greening, who was there for ten

months, and everybody thought she did a good job. The idea she hasn't

been moved because of Heathrow, and everybody denying it, is very bad

for politics. Jeremy Hunt is by and large a man who everybody regarded

as having messed up the most important job he had, which was the

Sky TV bid, whether you think he should have resigned or not, he

certainly didn't do that well, what has happened to him? He has been

promoted, to apparently try to make the doctors love him. When an

article today said he was without doubt the most loathed Secretary of

State for Culture, Media and Sport. This is not like a reshuffle

deserving merit. He was subject to the vote of censure in parliament?

The Liberal Democrats took the view they couldn't support him. You are

happy to see him in charge of the health service? These choices are

made by the Prime Minister. And remember, that the central purpose

of this coalition Government is to seek to restore the economic

stability of this country. That is right at the heart of what we do.

It is also why, if I may say so, there are things in the coalition

agreement that I wouldn't be happy about, which you have to accept to

achieve the central trust. brings us to the matter of David

Laws. He was a man suspended from parliament parliament for how he

behaved, is he fit to be in Government? If you have read the

report which the commissioner wrote in relation to that. You will have

seen that he went to great lengths to point out that what David Laws

had done, was in an effort to conceal his sexuality, he could

have, if he had chosen to use his own house in the constituency, as

the basis for his claims, he could have claimed very much more. The

point is, that David Laws has a very substantial contribution to

make. He is universally regarded in the House of Commons. He is a fit

man to be in Government? He's universally regarded on all sites

of the House. He's a fit man to be in Government? Yes, otherwise the

Prime Minister wouldn't have appointed him, and Nick Clegg would

not have endorsed that appointment. If you are talking about merit. You

need to look at Chris Grayling's appointment, it was because he did

such a great job of Work and Pensions, he's now promoted. We

have Maria Miller and also Theresa Villiers, were moated into cabinet.

-- promoted into cabinet. She has to decide in the next few weeks on

the Leveson Inquiry, will she stand up to David Cameron on that?

think she's very capable. Theresa Villiers has gone to Northern

Ireland this afternoon and it is rioting this afternoon. That is

hardly anything to do with her? What on earth is the Prime Minister

doing giving these responsible jobs to people at this particular time.

You mean she's incompetent, because there is riots going on in Northern

Ireland, a woman can't go, is that what you are saying, you wouldn't

say it about a man? I would say it about anyone that inexperienced to

do a job, irrespective of their sex. You didn't say that about mow moul

lamb. She -- Mo Mowlam. She spent years making relationships.

didn't know it at the start. Maybe the Prime Minister is not thinking

about the quality of Government, instead what he's thinking about is

the management of my group within parliament. Good Government is

suffering as a result. We will leave it there. No-one goes hungry

in the 21st century in Britain. We live in a welfare state, don't we.

Ever since the great reforming Government of 1945 promised to slay

the five great giants of idleness, ignorance, disease, squalor and

want, that has been the working assumption. In the last five years

there has been an explosion in the number of people being fed, not

from earnings or benefits, but from using food banks. In 2007, the

Trussle Trust fed nearly 40,000 people. By the year of the election

they were feeding 60,000, a figure that doubled. This year and next

they are expecting to feed 200,000. We set out to find out why, in a

land of plenty so many are going hungry. They say you can tell a

poor area by how many chicken joints it has. By that definition,

Coventryry has its fair share of poverty. This is a typical Midlands

industrial city, with 306,000, and by the City Council's own

statistics, 69,000 of them living on the breadline. As Britain has

dipped, again, into recession, professionals dealing with poverty

have noticed the rise of something new. I have watched people sitting

down cooking oven-baked chips and mayonaise, and that is their main

evening meal, with children and with health problems. In some ways

this recession has been kinder than expected, unemployment never topped

three million, house repossessions never became catastrophic. It is

all the more strange that across Britain we are now seeing something

we haven't really seen since the 1930s. That is hunger.

This is what it looks like when somebody else gets to pick the food

your family is going to eat. It is a food bank in Coventry. The

Trussell Trust, the charity that runs these places, is opening two

or three new ones every week. All the food is donated, and it is of

high quality, but demand is high too. And growing, and I have come

here to find out why. This family, including a four-week-old baby,

have been referred here for an emergency food donation. What has

brought you here? Benefit changes. I had my daughter move in with me,

move back from her father's, and I had a new baby. So because they had

to be added on to my claim, it caused it to fail. Too many

children living in my house, and it's not working out on the

computer. So no benefits are coming into the house? I'm getting my

child benefit. Child Tax Credit for the rest of the children, but not

two. What does that mean in terms of food? It means that I am not

having the money to go shopping, I can just cover my bills. If we went

back to your house right now, what food would be in the cupboard?

bit of rice and some bread. I haven't anything else in, at all.

This, it turns out, is not unusual. On top of people whose claims fail

accidentally, there has been massive spike in the number of

people getting their jobseeker's allowance stopped temporarily, or

sanctioned, as it is called. 167,000 people, in the first three

months of this year. Go to DWP and asking for crisis loans is landing

myself in more debt. I think I'm hitting the �900 mark of being in

debt, because my benefits keep being stopped and started, and just

not knowing where I am with benefits at all. What you get here

is food to feed a family for three days, and since it opened, the

Coventry centre has fed 10,000 people that way. For just under

half of them, it is this problem of benefit disruption that has left

them hungry. We do some generic statistical analysis, we know 43%

of people who present at food bank, it is down to a benefit delay, a

benefit change or crisis loan refused. It is reasonable to expect

people to apply for a certain number of jobs per week, yes. But

if you fail that particular test, and you have a sanction, the

sanction can be there for weeks. Now the logic flaw in that is

exactly where do you expect people to go and find money during that

period, if job seekers is supposed to be the point of last resort in

terms of income. Often people's circumstances change, sometimes

they just don't obey the rules of the benefit system? All of that

happens as well. And you then find them walking through the door

hungry. We become the backstop of the benefit system. Foodbanks don't

feed everyone, they aim to address the root cause of the crisis.

But if hatch the people at foodbanks have fall -- half the

people at foodbanks have fallen through the benefits system, what

about the other half. Why are there thousands of people with jobs in

this one city who can't feed themselves? We have seen the queue

out the front increase in the last year, 18 months. We have about 15

people queuing from 8.00am in the morning, by the time we open at

9.15, there are are 30 people waiting to be seen. That happens on

a day-by-day basis. The Citizens Advice Bureau is one of the

agencies in Coventry that can refer people to the foodbank. They have

identified the other big cause of food poverty, debt. Unfortunately,

and horrifically, it is often the food is the thing that is having to

give when people are trying to pay creditors. They are using high-

interest lenders, pay-day loans, to try to get through their week.

Sometimes it is the food, sometimes it is the heating. There is a

saying, we have people either heat or eat.

Expensive credit, for poor people, is the new boom industry in Britain,

as well as the pawnbrokers and pay day loan shops, there are also

doorstep lender. The interest rates are massive, many people struggle

to pay them, but the question is, why do they end up prioritising

debt over food. I'm going to advise the one of our clients, who because

of health problems...Mary Shine is a case worker at the Citizens

Advice Bureau, she and her colleagues are referring about ten

people a week to the foodbank. And where debt is involved, there is

often a doorstep lender who has first call on the money. Doorstep

lending is always about preying on people who are unable to access

high street banks, get a loan, a cheap loan, or an overdraft, or a

credit card. They also have this thing where they befriend them. So

it is not the man from the credit company, it is, my friend Tom, who

has been coming for years. So if you are faced with having to say to

Tom, I can't pay my debts this week, it feels bad? It feels bad, they

feel they are letting Tom down. He will say he will lose his comiing,

and you are letting me down -- commission, and you are letting me

down, and they are guilt tripped into making the payments. What is

the result for families? They are paying �20 a week to the doorstep

lender out of their food bill. is this priority given to debt

repayment, not just doorstep debt, but council tax and rent arrears,

that explains why even people in work end up at the foodbank. Even

now there is not a lot of people know I use foodbank. To have to

admit to myself I'm not cope, I'm in debt management, and I need help

with food to feed my family. It is not nice. Christina Thomas has a

job, but came to the foodbank after an acute family crisis forced her

on to Statutory Sick Pay, and her debts went out of control. I was

trying to help my oldest son while he was in financial difficulty, and

obviously taking care of my teenage boy as well. Even though I was

working part-time, it was like after rent, council tax, all the

household bills, there was never enough for the rest. It became more

of about debt all the time, rather than having any surplus from my

wages. What would happen if this place didn't exist, in some places

they don't exist. What would happen? Things become really hard

for me. Really, really hard for me. It is something I don't

particularly want to think about, because things are hard already. It

took things to get that bad for me to pick up the phone in the first

place, and meet someone like Gavin. And say, you know, I'm not coping.

I'm trying, but I'm not coping. These are two stories from one

foodbank. There are 250 foodbanks across the UK. And last year they

fed 130,000 people. The welfare system is supposed to be a safety

net, but on the evidence we found, about half of all the hunger being

officially dealt with, is caused by people, not falling through it, but

being forced through it by the system itself. The real safety net

is now churches, and charity. As benefits are cut, and rules

tightened. The foodbanks expect to be seeing a lot more people soon.

Chris Mould is director of the Trussell Trust, which runs more

than 250 foodbanks, like the one you saw in that film. The Labour

front bencher, Stella Creasy, has campaigned for tougher regulation

of consumer credit, and the speechwriter for David Cameron when

leader of the opposition, now running a crime reduction charity.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, we are not talking here about soup

kitchens and other facilities for homeless people? We are talking

about feeding people, 85% of whom have got somewhere to live and are

not homeless. We say they are on the brink of homelessness sometimes,

and the foodbank is the reason why they are not rendered homelessness.

We agree it is a mark of failure, in some way, that people have to

resort to a foodbank. The question is, what is the failure? To me this

is a story of responsibility. The failure of responsibility, and the

fulfilment of responsibility. There has been over the best part of a

generation, building up a public sector debt by the Government. And

at the same time huge failure of responsibility from banks, lenders

and households building up unsustainable levels of private

debt. That is a failure of responsibility. There is some

public policy failures about the administration of benefits. What we

see here, and a tremendous stories, communities, churches, and

charities, communities spontaneously responding to this

terrible need, and rising up to meet the need in their own

communities. In many ways this is a positive thing. I -- I don't want

to misrepresent you, it is a terrible thing and a tragedy, but

it is a positive response to a horrible situation? It is that

communities are responding so well. I don't know what planet you are

living on, one of the reasons I started campaigning on pay-day

lenders is because I could see the damage they were doing to my local

community. These are people not borrowing for luxuries, but basic

essentials, food. You are saying households are rung up debts they

shouldn't. When I see people in Waltham stow who have too much

month at the end of their money, it is for transport costs and getting

to work and rent. It is inexcusable that people are failing to act on

the cost of consumer credit in this country, because you can see the

damage it is doing. There is an equal issue that people on low

incomes have been suffering a flatlining for years. People who

have to depend on tax credits and benefits, have not had those raised

anything like sufficient to deal with food price rises. Oxfam have

done their own research and tell us in the last five years food prices

have gone up 30.5%. This isn't about people becoming more

irresponsible than they used to be. This is about a larger proportion

of society finding it harder than they ever have done before, to make

ends meet. That's what I think is wrong. We, as a charity, are

committed to launching food banks in every community, because we

think communities should be present, active and involved in supporting

those in crisis. It is a failure of the welfare state that there are so

many people in cry he is, we have to be realist, there will be people

with their pensions stolen, people with probbleplts with a fire in a

house -- problems with a fire in a house, people with a problem on

losing their jobs, company going bust, and a hiatus while we sort

out whether or not they can get jobseeker's allowance and so on.

There is those things. But this is a volume increase that is not

acceptable. We spend �150 billion a year in this country on welfare.

You are saying it is not enough? I'm not saying that the amount that

is spent is not enough. What I'm saying is that we face reality.

There are a large number and growing number of people in the

country who do not have enough money to get to the end of the week

and being supported by foodbanks. The question is, if you take a

broader look at tax-payers' money and how it is spent, if they are

not fed and lose their house, and a family broken up, the costs to the

taxpayer, consequential is much higher. Net numbers did a survey of

people struggling to feed -- net mums did a survey about people

struggling to feed their children, a third of those revealed they were

receiving mental health treatment in the anxiety of being poor. That

costs a lot more of putting the situation right in the first place,

with the proper policy on welfare. What do you say to someone who says

there is a problem with the benefits system, bureaucracies are

inefficient at times, and there have to be penalties for people who

don't seek work, and there comes a time when people are crucially

short of funds. There is no alternative to this sort of

operation, is there? No, and I don't think we should object to the

fact that it has sprung up. It is the consequence of policy?

problem with policy is we have a vastly centralised welfare state,

whereby we attempt to implement universal rules, with no respect or

recognition of the very difficult particular circumstances that

families find themselves in. I think it is not surprising we get

into these terrible bureaucratic tangles at the centre of Government

W a department responsible for administering millions of people's

personal incomes from a single office in the centre of London. We

need to localise welfare, so local communities are more responsible

for the way welfare is handed out. I think there does need to be a

greater role for independent organisations like Chris's, who

actually have proper relationships with the people they are working

with, they know the people they are handing out food to. They can

decide when that is needed and when it isn't. They can begin to treat

benefit claimants as human beings rather than statistics. But to

employ sanctions upon people, to say, you will not get your benefit,

if you don't do X or Y, that is not to treat people as human beings?

is, it is to treat them as responsible human beings who have

to make choices for themselves like everybody else. There is ultimately

a limit to the amount of money the taxpayer has to spend on people. It

is good and right that the community, society as a whole,

takes responsibility for the distuet and the poor. I'm sorry, I

represent one of the communities you are talking about. The people I

represent saying they are not responsible is hog wash. You are

talking about treating the symptoms not the cause. You believe in

sanctions too? I run jobs fairs in my local community and hundreds of

people turn up. They want good, decent well paid jobs, and a

Government creative in helping them. Why isn't the Government doing

something about the cost of energy, it is going up, we could do

something about the cartels running the industries, it could cut one

bill coming in this winter. Not something about the cost of credit

and transport. It is not just about the welfare state, Danny, good

Government is creative, intelligent and works with local communities to

tackle the problems. Could you help us on the policies, where do you

get your money from? From the public and grant-makers. No money

from Government at all. Can people come to you indefinitely? No they

can't. We offer at least three days of nutritionally balanced food, and

we will help people for up to two weeks and there about. There is a

straight forward reason for that. We are in support of health

visitors, social workers and others, we want to collaberate, and make

sure that the Government services actually pick up the long-term

responsibility. That is a good thing? Absolutely, the things I do

in my local community are about partnership. People in Waltham stow

don't just need us to work together to get rid of the worst choices of

the Government. If people are out of work they are not paying taxes,

the amount of money to invest is going down too. It is false economy.

When we know what works in tackling the illegal loan sharks. We all

want more jobs and the growth that will create that jobs. We all want

clever Government that reduces the cost of living. Tell them to get on

with it. They are trying hard. There is a huge problem with the

welfare culture, you talk about your community, the community I

work with is people involved in crime or at risk of getting

involved in crime. They are the products of generations of

welfareism, it is a culture, they are not expected to work for a

living, they should be waiting on Government to sort out all their

problems, it is enovated the spir the of too many inner city families.

There is huge Welfare Bills. There has to be an end. The Government

has to reduce the spending for economic reasons, but more

important is the moral responsibility and has to bring

back spirit. I'm as tough as anyone with the people who don't take

chances offered, why does the Government cancel the Future Jobs

Fund. You are making a broader political point. The reality has to

be more than half the people, half of 200,000 people that we help this

coming year will be in work. In households that are working. We

have a serious problem in the country with inequality, with lowk

in its and rising prices. -- low incomes, with rising prices, rents

going up. We heard on the film all the pressures people have to face.

The one bit that gives is the food that they put on the table. Often

it is the food that parents put on the table for themselves. They

prioritise the children, but even then, we end up feeding 45,000

children last year. Tomorrow save the children will launch a

fundraising campaign for British youngsters for the -- Save The

Children will launch a fundraising campaign for British youngsters for

the first time ever. We will hear from children affected by the

recession tomorrow. We are struggling to pay the bills. My dad

works two jobs, but I don't really get to see him much. When he's off