Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

"Food stamps" arrive in Britain next month. Good idea or not?

201 replies

vivizone · 27/03/2013 01:18

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/26/payment-cards-emergency-assistance-food-stamps

Article:

Food vouchers to provide emergency help but prevent spending on alcohol
Campaigners raise alarm as English councils replace cash loans with payment cards for people facing short-term financial crises

"Food stamps" arrive in Britain next month, when tens of thousands of vulnerable people will be issued with food vouchers in lieu of money to tide them over short-term financial crises.

Rather than, as now, offering a cash loan, most councils will from April offer new applicants who qualify for emergency assistance a one-off voucher redeemable for goods such as food and nappies.

Many of the 150 local authorities in England running welfare schemes have confirmed that they will issue the vouchers in the form of payment cards, which will be blocked or monitored to prevent the holder using them for alcohol, cigarettes or gambling.

Several plan to issue charity food parcels to people applying for crisis help, and are preparing to give cash grants to food banks to enable them to take on full-time staff and increase opening hours.

Each authority has drawn up eligibility rules, setting out who will qualify for crisis help and the conditions under which it will be given. One plans to make emergency help conditional on good behaviour.

The shift to in-kind and voluntary assistance follows the decision last year to abolish the government-run social fund and to replace it with more than 150 welfare assistance schemes, operated by English local authorities and the Welsh and Scottish governments.

The social fund ? known as the "backstop" of the welfare system ? typically offered small loans of about £50, repayable against future benefits, to help vulnerable individuals who faced short-term crises as a result of having cash stolen or benefits delayed.

A separate set of cash grants, typically worth about £1,000, was made to people with a disability, ex-prisoners and victims of domestic violence, to enable them to buy or replace items that would help them live independently, such as beds, clothing and kitchen utensils.

Although social fund spending represents a relatively tiny chunk of the social security bill, there is concern that the new arrangements will for the first time build into mainstream welfare provision the distribution of food voluntarily donated by the public, schools and businesses.

Lady Lister, a Labour peer and poverty expert, said the shift from cash loans to in-kind help would leave the most vulnerable people "high and dry".

"The social fund was a safety net under the safety net," Lister said. "I do not call putting money into food banks a safety net."

Some fear the use of in-kind vouchers will repeat the shortcomings of cashless payment cards, issued to asylum seekers. Critics said these cards left users unable to buy essential non-food items, and made them more likely to turn to risky or criminal ways of obtaining cash.

One welfare charity worker said: "There's a lot of naivety. The social fund is big, and meets a whole range of needs. There's going to be an awful lot of people that will need to tap into its successor."

But councils say huge reductions, in some cases cuts of up to a third, in the amount allocated to support people in hardship have left them with no option but to offer vouchers, refer applicants to food banks and secondhand furniture projects, and to drastically tighten eligibility. The government spent £230m on the social fund in 2009-10 but has allocated £178m to local authorities for 2013-14.

Inquiries by the Guardian found that:

? Conservative-run Hampshire council plans to invest a big chunk of its welfare fund allocation in charities and food banks. Over time, it hopes to stop offering food vouchers as part of a shift towards "reducing the entitlement culture".

? Labour-run Manchester city council will offer successful applicants low-interest loans of up to £200 a year, with a credit union, rather than food vouchers. It says in future years grants for furniture and cooking utensils will be offered on condition that recipients sign up to "expected behaviours and actions".

? Bristol city council's crisis fund restricts emergency payments to food, heating, nappies and toiletries. It says the cards "should not be used for cigarettes, alcohol or entertainment", and if misuse occurs it will seek repayment.

? Labour-controlled Darlington council plans to invest £58,000 in a church food bank, including £30,000 to enable the charity to take on a full-time worker.

From April, thousands of applicants who now have access to crisis help will be turned down under the schemes. Many councils plan to refer the expected rising numbers of unsuccessful applicants to soup kitchens and other charities.

Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, said: "Local authorities have been given a difficult task, to deliver support on a reduced budget at a time of rising need.

"But we are seriously concerned that some authorities will not be providing any access to cash to families to meet their essential needs, and may be offering support in a way that serves to stigmatise those who need it."

Others have warned that people who are turned down for crisis help will turn to crime, begging or loan sharks. Almost all authorities are bracing themselves for an expected rise in demand for crisis support from April, when the bulk of the benefit reforms, aimed at saving £18bn, are introduced. Among these is the so-called bedroom tax.

There is also nervousness that any glitches in universal credit, from October, will see an increase in poorer households seeking help from welfare schemes.

The government, and some charities, have argued that the existing system of crisis loans was abused by people ? often young men ? who did not use the loans for genuine emergencies. They argue the new system will discourage dependency, more efficiently directing scarce resources at the people who most need them.

The Guardian also found that:

? The cost of administering each of the 150-plus new welfare assistance schemes is typically equivalent to around 20% of the value of the entire local fund. Several authorities, including the Welsh government, have outsourced the running of the voucher schemes to private contractors.

? Local authorities are worried that the new patchwork of welfare assistance systems will lead to a postcode lottery, with vulnerable people moving to apply for crisis help in more "generous" boroughs.

? There are concerns that some welfare systems will not be ready by 1 April. The Furniture Re-use Network said a survey showed two-thirds of its members believed the new system would not be in place in time. There are concerns that, despite huge growth in the numbers of food banks in the past two years, many parts of the country will have little charity food assistance capacity.

OP posts:
Xenia · 27/03/2013 12:26

Yes, as ZZZ said children in mines and inside or in factories did not get sun either. Rickets is not coming back because of low benefits. Benefits are enough to feed children. Children are not fed when adults manage their benefits badly. Giving in addition food vouchers is a good plan.
www.naturalnews.com/031479_rickets_sunlight_exposure.html

Kick them outside for the morning even if it is a 2 mile walk there and back to the super market to buy you a load of carrots and potatoes and turn off the play station. Make sure girls aren't covered up for modesty reasons. You can solve rickets that way. Turn off the play station. Sell the play station to buy food.

Sadly the last labour Government spent us into this crisis. if you want to blame anyone the blame lies with the spend spend spenders who have consigned a generation into poverty.

AThingInYourLife · 27/03/2013 12:29

"Because I don't feel the need to curtail a vital safety net for everyone just to stop individuals being twats occasionally."

Me too, Parsing.

Any move to limit the power of the people facing the sharp end of these crises, the families involved and the officials dealing with them, is a retrograde step.

It's just pointless "red tape" that serves no useful function.

Well, other than convincing your spiteful (and stupid) supporters that you are tough on things.

Nancy66 · 27/03/2013 12:36

the vouchers are to help people in a crisis - they're not a permanent way of handing out benefits.

I don't see the issue in insisting that the money is not pissed up the wall.

samithesausage · 27/03/2013 13:39

Also who decides on what is deemed an essential and what isn't? A blanket ban on cigs, alcohol and gambling... Ok that's easy to enforce. But there are also little things which may be up to the checkout operator to decide which are or are not essential. You may end up getting into an argument about whether a box of tampons/plasters is "allowed" or not. You may be told that the newspaper that you are buying so you can look for jobs is classed as entertainment.

I've had this with healthy start vouchers. I was told I wasn't allowed spinach because it was neither a fruit or vegetable, it was a leaf! [Hmm]

noddyholder · 27/03/2013 14:12

This is a trial run wait and see I can just hear Cameron and co bleating about how well it has worked and how they will now roll it out across the board as it has been such a success.

ParsingFancy · 27/03/2013 14:20

Yep, I've paid for someone else's shopping in the supermarket because the staff were giving them voucher hassle. That was when vouchers were being used for refugees - the checkout woman was using the traditional method of shouting louder and louder at the poor bloke with little English. I reckoned by the time the supermarket had kept the change (about half the voucher) and admin was accounted for, it was better value for me the taxpayer to pay straight from my pocket.

I actually wrote to my MP about it - and was told vouchers were being phased out because they were so hopeless.

Darkesteyes · 27/03/2013 14:24

I really dont think we can have much hope in Labour reversing anything.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/workfare-why-did-so-many-labour-mps-accept-this-brutal-unforgivable-attack-on-vulnerable-people-8542193.html

TheBigJessie · 27/03/2013 14:27

My husband got told that healthy start vouchers were only for frozen vegetables. He was trying to buy apples at the time.

Darkesteyes · 27/03/2013 14:32

Lindt bunny i did 13 weeks of workfare under New Deal in 2000. I worked in a charity shop for 4 weeks and local council for 8
After that i was told i would have to do ANOTHER 13 weeks in a soup factory for my JSA.
I mamaged to secure a job in a sex chatline office and signed off. It was night shifts but one day the workfare provider turned up at the office asking my boss all sorts of questions making a nuisance of themselves ttrying to lose me the job (because they got a tidy sum for everyone they sent on a "work placement") my boss saw through it. Told him to piss off.
So believe me workfare WAS going on under New Labour. It just wasnt as publicised.
No social media back then either and no journalists were interested back then.

MurderOfGoths · 27/03/2013 14:33

We had to get an emergency loan to pay rent once because our HB had fucked up, wonder if these vouchers would pay that? Doubt it somehow

CloudsAndTrees · 27/03/2013 14:49

But I admit I've used mine in the past to pay for Christmas presents.

Thank you for admitting that, it's nice to see some honesty about benefits for a change.

As long as we have a system where it is possible for people to obtain crisis loans to pay for Christmas presents, then there is something very very wrong with it. That cannot be allowed to happen with taxpayer money. It just can't. It is so fundamentally wrong I can't understand why anyone can't see how ridiculous the current system is.

If vouchers go some way to stopping people being able to spend crisis loans on Christmas presents, then they have to be a good thing.

Don't blame the likes of me who just don't want to see taxes wasted, blame people who have taken the piss out of the system and abused it to pay for things they can't afford and don't need.

CraftyBec · 27/03/2013 14:50

I saw this article and it confirms what I heard 2 days ago - that our local food bank has been given a large grant in anticipation of the impact of welfare reform.

I know that people in crisis don't just need food and it makes me angry that the safety net of welfare is now being removed. The state is expecting charities to pick up the pieces. Angry

I'm in a bit of a dilemma because I got my church involved in the local food bank (wanted us to do our bit alongside other churches), but I don't think people's charitable donations should replace the role of the state. We try our best but the quality and range of food in a parcel is limited. We can offer substitutions for vegetarian or halal diets but that's it. Sad

CloudsAndTrees · 27/03/2013 14:56

Charitable donations already replace the state in numerous situations unfortunately. There are plenty of things people need that are only available because of charities, I could think of loads. Off the top of my head - the charities such as whizz kids that have to provide wheelchairs for disabled children. Charities like them shouldn't need to exist, but they do. Food banks are just another in very long list.

noddyholder · 27/03/2013 14:56

I would think it would be a crisis if on top of everything else you couldn't give your children some sort of xmas. People are so harsh I always think there but for the grace of god and some of you should stop and bloody think.

CloudsAndTrees · 27/03/2013 14:58

We have different ideas of what the word crisis means then noddy.

Dawndonna · 27/03/2013 15:00

Clouds you sound more pleasant and tolerant as the days go by. Hmm.
A broken fridge could be a crisis, if for example there were a diabetic in the house. A broken cooker, whatever, as has been pointed out, it's not all about food.
As for the Christmas presents, kids on welfare not entitled?
Angry

wannabeEostregoddess · 27/03/2013 15:01

The poor kids dont deserve a christmas, what with being poor and all that. They should be grateful the foodbank is there.

Hmm
CloudsAndTrees · 27/03/2013 15:09

No one is 'entitled' to Christmas presents. They are a luxury.

I appreciate that there are situations where money might be needed in a crisis and that vouchers for food and toiletries won't help, but it is not right that people can get crisis loans or grants for things that aren't a crisis.

A child not getting Christmas presents isn't a crisis. A cooker breaking down isn't a crisis. A cooker or a fridge are essentials, yes, but there are ways that society can provide the truly needy with things like that without handing over cash that can be used on anything.

If someone needs a cooker, give them a cooker! Just don't allow people to turn up and get given money by saying they need a cooker when what they really need is to go shopping for luxury presents.

TheRealFellatio · 27/03/2013 15:21

You need vitamin D in order to be able to absorb the calcium in your your diet, so loads of calcium but no Vitamin D = rickets. Hence the prevalence of it among young covered Muslim girls in the UK now. And children who do not go out in the open air enough, or whose parents are a little too OTT with the sunblock.

But I would guess therefore that in Victorian times the children did not lack sunlight, they were just malnourished and lacked enough calcium for healthy bone formation in the first place.

Anyway, food vouchers for those members of society who live in a permanent state of vulnerability, chaos or dysfunction can only be a good thing. Especially for their children. Although I imagine some people will still try to sell them for a cash amount that's less than the face value of the voucher.

They are not for everyone on benefits or low incomes - they are for people who cannot be trusted to feed themselves or their children otherwise.

noddyholder · 27/03/2013 15:28

Clouds and trees you just sound nasty nothing more or less. You really think no cooker isn't a crisis for a family. Mind you going on your past form I am not surprised. I do think it is a crisis when poor people or those who have hit an unexpected bad patch have to exclude their children from what other children are doing. So yes I would consider xmas as an inclusive family time and would hate to think whole sections of society could be excluded from that

ParsingFancy · 27/03/2013 15:33

"They are not for everyone on benefits or low incomes - they are for people who cannot be trusted to feed themselves or their children otherwise."

Where on earth did you get that, Fellatio?

They are in place of crisis loans. And poster after poster here has listed the purposes for the loans: emergency plumber, new cooker, rent after HB or JobCentre has messed up. Even a loan for Christmas presents which was repaid like, you know, loans are.

How is that "people who cannot be trusted"?

mathanxiety · 27/03/2013 15:34

CloudsandTrees, what part of the word LOAN do you not understand?

How different is this loan from 'buying' Christmas presents with a credit card?

mathanxiety · 27/03/2013 15:39

The theory behind the loan system was that responsibility was encouraged.

CloudsAndTrees · 27/03/2013 15:44

I don't think that not having a cooker is a crisis that can only be solved by giving money. I could be solved by giving a cooker instead. That way, problem of no cooker is solved, and the problem of people asking for loans for things they don't actually need would also be solved.

Everyone's a winner.

JakeBullet · 27/03/2013 15:45

No cooker/fridge WOULD be a crisis for me tbh. I couldn't afford to buy a new one that's for sure. I bought my last one via my sister's catalogue after a request on Freecycle didn't produce anything. The only difference is I didn't borrow the money from the taxpayer.....I repay it from DS's maintenance...or from IS or from tax credit. ....whatever...so perhaps I AM using the taxpayer but know what? I couldn't give two hoots about the taxpayer....I WAS a taxpayer for 30 years and it didn't bother me that people who were down on their luck needed support. Likewise I have the same attitude now that I need the support. This is what the welfare system is there for.