Justin Welby is supporting Frank Field MP's hunger report. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Archbishop of Canterbury demands state support for food banks

A new report into hunger, supported by Justin Welby, blames benefit payment delays for increased use of food banks.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, says the plight of people in England using food banks is "more shocking" than the refugee camp he visited in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In an article for the Mail on Sunday over the weekend, Welby staged his intervention off the back of a new hunger report by the Labour MP Frank Field and his All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Hunger and Food Poverty. Welby calls for state backing of food banks, as the report blames delayed benefit payments and excessive utility bills for the massive increased use of food banks in Britain.

The report calls for benefits to be paid faster, the extension of free school meals, and a living wage in order to reduce hunger and to stop people having to choose between eating and heating. According to the BBC, Downing Street has responded by saying it would "seriously consider" these recommendations.

Welby, in support of the report, wrote:

We need to build a society that helps people take responsibility for their own lives and for their families. A society where those who are in need at one time can get their lives back on track and give to others in the future.

This cross-party report is practical, clear and effective. Its recommendations should be put into action quickly.

That would be a wonderful Christmas present for everyone who cares about the future of our country.

The intervention of Field's APPG, backed by Welby and other Church figures, could be a big headache for the government. Its Autumn Statement last week led to the Office of Budget Responsibility reporting that the bulk of cuts would be yet to come, and welfare spending is one of the major budgets that will have to bear the brunt of future cuts. How can the government even begin to address the problem of hunger and huge rises in food bank use in the UK if it is relying on money saved from reducing financial help to those who need it most?

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

It's not WhatsApp that was at fault in the Westminster attacks. It's our prisons

Britain's criminal justice system neither deterred nor rehabilitated Khalid Masood, and may even have facilitated his radicalisation. 

The dust has settled, the evidence has been collected and the government has decided who is to blame for the attack on Westminster. That’s right, its WhatsApp and their end-to-end encryption of messages. Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, wants tech companies to install a backdoor into messages like these that the government can then access.

There are a couple of problems here, not least that Adrian Russell aka Khalid Masood was known to the security services but considered to be low-risk. Even if the government had had the ability to gain entry to his WhatsApp, they wouldn’t have used it. Then there’s the fact that end-to-end encryption doesn’t just protect criminals and terrorists – it protects users from criminals and terrorists. Any backdoor will be vulnerable to attack, not only from our own government and foreign powers, but by non-state actors including fraudsters, and other terrorists.

(I’m parking, also, the question of whether these are powers that should be handed to any government in perpetuity, particularly one in a country like Britain’s, where near-unchecked power is handed to the executive as long as it has a parliamentary majority.)

But the biggest problem is that there is an obvious area where government policy failed in the case of Masood: Britain’s prisons system.

Masood acted alone though it’s not yet clear if he was merely inspired by international jihadism – that is, he read news reports, watched their videos on social media and came up with the plan himself – or he was “enabled” – that is, he sought out and received help on how to plan his attack from the self-styled Islamic State.

But what we know for certain is that he was, as is a recurring feature of the “radicalisation journey”, in possession of a string of minor convictions from 1982 to 2002 and that he served jail time. As the point of having prisons is surely to deter both would-be offenders and rehabilitate its current occupants so they don’t offend again, Masood’s act of terror is an open-and-shut case of failure in the prison system. Not only he did prison fail to prevent him committing further crimes, he went on to commit one very major crime.  That he appears to have been radicalised in prison only compounds the failure.

The sad thing is that not so very long ago a Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice was thinking seriously about prison and re-offending. While there was room to critique some of Michael Gove’s solutions to that problem, they were all a hell of a lot better than “let’s ban WhatsApp”. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.