 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 5314, in the name of Pauline McNeill, on food banks, Scotland's hunger crisis. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons as soon as possible. I call on Pauline McNeill to open the debate. Around seven minutes please, Ms McNeill. Thank you to all those who signed my motion on hunger, and I'm pleased to learn that the subject is of as much concern to other members as it is to me. The number of people experiencing hunger in Scotland is reaching crisis levels. Last year the largest operator of food banks in Scotland, the Trussell Trust, provided over 145,000 three-day emergency food supplies to people. That was a 9 per cent increase on the previous year. In 2011 there was one Trussell Trust food bank in Scotland. Today there are 52, including one recently opened in Shetland, the least deprived local authority in Scotland. Those numbers are even more shocking when you consider that there are other charities and churches who are also operating food banks. In 2017 there is almost a feature of the welfare landscape, except that they are run and funded not by the state but by the wonderful work of charities such as the Trussell Trust, Glasgow City Mission, the Simon community and too many to mention. Nobody I know wants food banks to remain in permanent service, but for now sadly they are a necessity and one that has saved lives. The fact that they exist is a damning indictment on the times we live, where austerity comes with very real consequences for people. Food banks are part and parcel of a response of a civilised society to the increasing number of people who live in food poverty and who have become poorer because the 2008 banking crash caused a recession that provided justification for government policy, which penalised ordinary people who had nothing to do with those seismic global events. People going hungry is not just an issue for the third world, but it is a heartbreaking fact in today's Scotland. Without food banks people would certainly starve. I want to address at least three myths about food banks. People use them because they are there and they want free food, rather than because they have no other choice. That you can just walk in and get food? Of course you can't, a referral is needed. There is only people characterised as skivers who use food banks. It is not. Lord Freud, a Tory millionaire, told the House of Lords in 2013 that there is no evidence that the growth in food banks is linked to growing poverty and hunger and merely that people wish to get free food. The facts do not support this ignorant view because the three top reasons for referrals to food banks, according to research carried out by Oxford University, are low income. That is people in work, benefit delays and benefit changes. Food banks, which operate in areas where universal credit has rolled out, have seen a 17 per cent rise in the need for emergency food. That is because the transition to universal credit involves a six-week wait for people and often it reduces the amount of money a person receives. With no funds and rent and fuel builds mounting up, it is obvious that that is a system that is going to harm people. The in-built six-week wait before people receive any money through universal credit is excessive and must be reformed with immediate effect. A newly elected Tory councillor in Glasgow's East End said that he joined the party because he wanted to support a party that believed that if you worked hard and played by the rules that you would get on in life, the reality for many of his new constituents is that they do work hard and play by the rules, but that is not enough to stop them needing to rely on a food bank to feed themselves. We have recently heard about nurses and veterans who are having to visit food banks. When asked about this this week, Ruth Davidson repeated to Reza May's response that the reason for food bank use were complex. The reason for food banks are because people are hungry and they cannot afford food. There is nothing complex about it. It was here in this Parliament at a reception that I learned about Vickie and Roger. The couple who have four children had a modest comfortable living before being hit by the recession. They worked hard, paid their taxes, played by the rules. After losing his job in the insurance industry, Roger took a job on a zero-hours contract. He worked at the Slater, worked dried up. His dwindling hours went to nothing. It was a very quick decline. They had never claimed benefits before in their lives and soon it was difficult to feed all of their family every day. If it was not for the concern of a housing officer who noticed the couple had lost an alarming amount of weight knowing there was something wrong, told Vickie and Roger about the food bank. When Vickie and Roger referred to the food bank, they said that more than anything, they were grateful for the kindness that was shown to them and not just the food. Food banks are much more than that. That was my experience when I had the opportunity to attend a food bank in Cardona in Glasgow. I had my eyes opened to a world that I did not fully appreciate existed. There were people in Scotland starving, hungry because of benefit sanctions, of low pay and of debt that they couldn't get out of. I saw that food banks are more than just a place to receive needed food. They give out financial advice. They teach people how to survive on a very low budget. We have to plan a country without food banks. I cannot accept and will not accept that they should become a permanent feature on the high street. Food poverty is real, but it is unacceptable in the 21st century. To eradicate it, we need to work as a Parliament to tackle zero-hours contracts, deal with low pay and oppose the obvious and failing Tory policy of austerity. I want to commend Pauline McNeill for securing the member's debate. Unfortunately, the need for food banks has not decreased, but it is, in fact, on the increase in Scotland. The Parliament has debated food banks before, and I held a member's debate on 6 February 2014. There have been committee reports and other motions and questions surrounding food banks. Unfortunately, no matter the policy actions that have taken place, the numbers of people who are going to food banks have not decreased, they certainly have increased. Some would say that the policy decisions have not worked. I would argue that trying to do a job with one hand tied behind its back is always going to make policy decisions here at the mercy of the UK Government's ideological driven agenda. A stress that my argument at this point is not a constitutional point, it is just a fact of the matter that some powers are reserved and they have an impact upon our fellow citizens here in Scotland. Furthermore, despite the narrative that more people are in work and both Governments claiming to have played a part in successful employment numbers, clearly other factors are at play when we still have reported over 100,000 people going to food banks. There are some in society who have an opinion that those who attend food banks are workshine, scroungers and chancellors. I am sorry to say, Presiding Officer, but these sometimes are the views of some of our fellow citizens here in Scotland. Those views are not mine and I do not recognise them and if people want to believe some of the absolute garbage that is written in some of the media publications demonising our fellow citizens, then we as a society have yet another problem to address. For a parent to go to a food bank to obtain food to either feed themselves or their family, it must be demoralising, depressing and difficult. For others to mock those seeking assistance is nothing short of a disgrace and a total complete lack of compassion for others. There are plenty of people in Scotland who are wealthy and comfortable and I do not begrudgeon that at all. In fact, I am sure that we would all want every single citizen to live that way, but nonetheless, Presiding Officer, life is not fair and some people, through no fault of their own, may find themselves going to a food bank. What then? What does society do to assist? Thank goodness for food banks and the volunteers and people who help. But what a sad state of affairs that food banks exist in growing numbers now reaching 52 in Scotland? What a sad state of affairs that armed forces veterans are relying upon food banks for their food? What kind of society allows people who have fought for their country to be forced to go to food banks to eat? The updated figures for Inverclyde were startling. E&S and the food bank manager from Inverclyde's food bank said that it is deeply concerning that we are seeing an increase of 15 per cent in the number of three-day emergency food supplies provided to local people in crisis in Inverclyde over the last year. That is 3,574 three-day emergency food supplies to local people in crisis during 2016-17, in comparison to 3,107 in 2015-16. Of that number, 935 went to children in 2016-17, as compared to 730 in 2015-16. Over 38 tonnes of food has been generously donated by local people, churches, charities and businesses. That is an impressive amount that highlights the generosity of the Inverclyde community, however it should not have to be that way. There are two points that I want to finish upon. First, anybody who could find themselves in need of the food bank. Everyone's life circumstances can change and the food bank may be the last resort. Secondly, this was provided by Oxfam in preparation for my member's debate in February 2014. This is what the food bank and the civil oxfam stated. No one turns up at food banks because there is an opportunity for free food. They are driven there in sheer desperation. For those who think that a food bank is a substitute for benefits, for those who think that people who attend a food bank are scroungers, workshires and chancellors and for those who think that a food bank is a place to go to top up the food cupboard, shame on you. Shame on you for attempting to degrade and demean our fellow Scots. Shame on you for failing the 935 children in Inverclyde and 1,000 more across Scotland and the UK by your narrow, self-obsessed view of the world. Shame on those whose actions force people to go to food banks and shame on those who perpetuate the lies about those who need to go to a food bank. The battle against poverty and hunger is not just a domestic problem but also a worldwide problem. The further £12 billion of welfare reform cuts will not help but will only exacerbate a depressing situation that is gathering a pace. Adam Tomkins is followed by Neil Findlay. I would like to start by thanking the Trussell Trust and other providers of emergency food aid in Scotland, the volunteers who staff food banks, the donors who generously give to food banks and the churches and other organisations that make their facilities available to food banks. I would also like personally to thank Ewan Gurr, who is in the gallery this evening and colleagues of his at the Trussell Trust for their time and their patience in helping me to understand the complexities of food bank usage. For facilitating the visit that Pauline McNeill referred to in her remarks to the South West Glasgow Food Bank in Cardonauld a few weeks ago, one of the things that we learnt on that visit was that most people who use a food bank in Scotland do so because of an acute shortage of food. There is no food poverty in Scotland, that is to say that there is no shortage of food but there is poverty in Scotland. Ewan Gurr and his colleagues at the Trussell Trust have explained that most people who use food banks in Scotland do not rely on them for prolonged periods of time because of chronic or on-going inability to pay for food but because of an acute short-term or even one-off crisis. The most recent figures published just last month show that food bank use in Scotland is patchy rather than uniform. In some local authorities, food bank usage has grown markedly and that is of concern to all of us but in others it has diminished even more strikingly. It is down 26 per cent in Aberdeen and East Ayrshire. It is down 29 per cent in North Lanarkshire and food bank usage is down 39 per cent in North Ayrshire. What those figures reveal is hard to discern. Why food bank usage should be in decline in North Lanarkshire but on the increase in South Lanarkshire is not immediately obvious, for example. What those figures should warn us of is that simplistic explanations as to why food banks are used in Scotland are unlikely to be either useful or accurate. Yes, of course, people are using food banks because they are short of money. Can I make progress on this point? Of course, people are using food banks because they are short of money and short of food but the reasons why people are short of money and short of food are not straightforward and are complex. Stuart McMillan I thank Adam Tomkins for taking the intervention. Surely Mr Tomkins will agree with me that it is irrespective of whether there is an increase or decrease going on across aspects and areas of Scotland. The fact that we are having the discussion about food banks is the abhorrence that should not exist in this day and age and with the wealth that Scotland and the UK actually have. Adam Tomkins We all share that view. The argument is a very real and live argument and one that we need to have more of and not less of in this Parliament about what we propose to do about it. I think that there are different views about that. Can I offer a few remarks on what we think we should do to tackle poverty? Let me start with two remarks from the Joseph Frantry Foundation published in their important report, Breakthrough Report, in September 2016. First, for those who can, work represents the best route out of poverty. Secondly, increasing the value of social security benefits without addressing the underlying causes of poverty has failed to address poverty, not my words, but those of the Joseph Frantry Foundation. That is why Conservative Governments have sought to lift people out of poverty by reforming welfare so that work always pays, by raising the national living wage and by lifting our lowest paid workers out of income tax altogether. I agree that more needs to be done. We do need in Scotland an open, honest conversation about how we address the underlying causes of poverty. We know what those include. They include addiction, family breakdown, unemployment, educational under-attainment. My plea would be this. Only when we have a social justice policy that is focused on addressing those underlying causes will we see food bank usage diminish across the whole of our country, and not only in some local authorities in Scotland, as is already happening, but across the whole nation. In the meantime—I close on this point—the closing words of Pauline McNeill's motion are surely correct. Our social security system needs to work with voluntary organisations such as the trust and not pull against them. Joint public and voluntary working should be encouraged, not frowned upon. A few years ago, we had a Prime Minister who talked passionately about this. He called it the big society, and he was right. I thank Pauline McNeill for bringing this debate forward. We are all used to talking about hunger being a developing world issue. Of course, it very much still is, but in Scotland, across the UK and the developed world, in 2017, we see hunger on the increase. The malnutrition and diseases associated with the lack of food or poor diet, diseases such as rickets, are on the increase. It is a tragic irony that, at a time in food technology and food production, it is most sophisticated and advanced, more and more people are going hungry. Conversely, at the same time, obesity, historically, a status symbol of wealth is now a condition of poverty and inequality. In almost every area of Scotland, food banks are providing emergency food to people in immediate need. Some provide with so-called kettle packs of dried or packet products, such as instant soups and noodles, made up by adding boiling water, because the people cannot afford or do not even have the means to heat food. What a damning indictment on our society, on our economy and our political system, the system that has created this situation. I am sure that most of us in this Parliament have donated to or held collections for their local food bank and felt well that I have done my little bit to help. Is that good enough? Is it enough to salvage our conscience temporarily through a collection or donation, but then return to this place and pretend that there is little or nothing that we can do to address the root causes of why people are in such desperate need? Is it enough to say that poverty and inequality, the poverty and inequality that leaves our neighbours hungry, is a bad thing? Yet in the last year, when this place has effectively been a legislation-free zone, we have failed to take that opportunity to introduce any legislation to address something as fundamental as the need to feed our people. A country with rising levels of hunger does not, to me, suggest a country riding on a wave of progressive policy choices. Of course, Mr Tomkins' party and the policies that he supports have much to blame. I notice that he focused his what-to-do list on individual behaviours, not the structural issues within the economy and society. Some things never change, but I have said repeatedly that addressing poverty and inequality, including food insecurity and hunger, should be what drives this and any other Government. The First Minister, whoever he or she may be, should be judged against how successfully or not they address these issues. We need a cross-Government approach, where the Minister for Fishing, Culture and Environment has responsibility for dealing with poverty and inequality just as much as the Minister for Health or Social Security or the economy does. Let me suggest some key policy areas to address the root causes of hunger, which are low-pay, underemployment, unemployment and inadequate social security for those in need. I think that we should make full employment the key objective of economic policy, creating sustainable jobs for our people. We should implement a real and genuine living wage of £10 an hour and end the insecurity of zero-hours contracts, bog its self-employment and precarious work. Use the powers of this Parliament to make public procurement, deliver key economic objectives, including fair work and fair pay. It is one of the most glaring missed opportunities of my time in this Parliament that public procurement has failed. We should develop a social security system that helps and supports people back to work, and we have the opportunity with those new powers. We should re-democratise and free up local government. Local government is the front line against poverty and inequality, and we should be redirecting hard cash to areas of most need, extending free school meal provision and breakfast clubs and investing in early education, mental health support and targeted support for vulnerable families. Every lever of government to increase trade union representation and membership because unorganised workforce is a healthier, wealthier and safer one. We should develop seamless partnership working to signpost people who present at food banks to statutory and non-statutory agencies who can help. We should follow what is happening in France. My father-in-law lives in France and he works at a food bank twice a week. He has legislated to end the dumping of food waste and we should look at that as well. Most importantly, of all of this, we need a redistributive tax policy that directs money into areas of most need. The topic deserves much, much more time than a member's debate. We have had 20 or so debates on every aspect of Brexit. I wish that we had 20 debates to discuss issues like that. Before I move on to Ms Evans, there are a number of members who do wish to contribute, so I am very happy to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3 that we extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I move that under this rule the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Is everyone agreed? That is good. I ask other speakers to please try and keep to the four minutes. I call Mary Evans to be followed by Annie Wells. I really just want to start by thanking Pauline McNeill for bringing this motion forward to be debated in the chamber, because I would absolutely agree with Neil Findlay's last point there. The situation that was outlined highlights the crisis that we face in this country and it is something that we need to talk about and something that we need to keep talking about so that people are aware of exactly how big this issue is and what is causing it and what we can do about it. The fact that food banks even exist in this country and in this day and age is a scandal and sadly they have become a fixed and necessary feature in many of our communities. We have already heard and outlined the usage figures nationally and the dramatic and quite frankly shocking rise in food bank use over the course of the past few years. We see the figures of those living in poverty increase. More than 260,000 children are classed as living in poverty. That is one child in every four and an increase of 40,000 from the previous years figures from 2014 and 2015. Those figures were from the child poverty action group and when Adam Tomkins was reeling off his list of causes of poverty and the reasons why people use food banks, one of the main reasons that they cited and one that he failed to mention was the social security system and the inadequate benefits that people receive. What is responsible for that? We heard some of it already, low wages, underemployment and as I just said, a social security system which has been so utterly ravaged that it is no longer the safety net that it was designed to be and instead humiliates and demonises the people that it is supposed to help. Let's take a look at exactly what's happened over the past years of the Tory Government. We'll have the seriously flawed universal credit system that continues to shambolically roll rambalon, the bedroom tax, the introduction of sanctions, cuts to employment support allowance, a freeze on working age benefits, a complete cut to housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds, the removal of the family element and child tax credits, cuts to bereavement benefits, leaving families tens of thousands of pounds worth off, 90 per cent of people dependent on that benefit will be affected by the cut. The changes from disability living allowance and the transfer over to the personal independence payment are PIP, where 30 per cent of those transferring to it receive no award at all and only 42 per cent of new claimants get any sort of award. The changes to the state pension that have affected a whole generation of women and the now infamous two-child cap on tax credits with its insidious rape clause estimated to affect 600,000 families across the UK. That's why we're in this situation. That's why so many people of our people live in poverty and why we are such an unequal and divided society. We hear from the Sunday Times-rich list this week that we have more billionaires than ever living in the UK. That's what makes it blindingly obvious where the Tories' loyalties lie. In terms of what all of this boils down to in my constituency, in one half of my constituency in Angus and figures published just this past week, emergency food supplies had to be provided to 2,771 adults and 824 children across the region. That is an all-time high and an increase of 917 people on the previous year. The Trussell Trust have stated that the biggest increases have been seen where universal credit has been rolled out, as Pauline McNeill mentioned. Again, as she stated earlier, all of those are just Trussell trust figures. It takes no account of the other charities and organisations who are also collecting and distributing food parcels, so the true picture is even worse. In my hometown of Brechen, a new initiative has started to try and tackle this. Brechen Community Pantry is a newly established organisation that currently operates a food bank, delivering food parcels to those in crisis. However, it is also much more. I should also declare an interest at this point as a trustee of the group. They will soon be moving into new premises in the centre of the city, but rather than just having a standard food bank service, they will offer a whole range of services to the people that come in through the door. A clothing bank, debt counselling, a free food fridge, teaching basic cooking skills. Estimates from the Scottish Government suggest that as many as 500,000 individuals or families are not claiming the benefits that they are entitled to. People need the support and information to access them. Rather than just dealing with the sharp end of the problem, it is about taking a holistic view to tackle the wider issues, giving people back their self-esteem and their confidence. Just to conclude, throughout this debate today, we have heard statistic after statistic about how bleak the picture actually is, but also how food banks are evolving to provide wider services, working in partnerships with others and the positive effect that this can have. It was great to actually meet the Scotland and Malawi partnership downstairs to discuss the UN sustainable development goals in Scotland. Ending poverty, ending hunger are some of those goals. We need to do what we can to fight against them, but that work is constantly undermined by the Tory Government. People in Scotland have a very stark choice to make on 8 June. That is what they need to bear in mind and all the points raised in this debate today. We seem to have very elastic four-minute slots this evening. Will you have any wells to be followed by Monica Lennon, please? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on tackling hunger in our society and supporting those who are most in need. Paul McNeill's motion specifically mentions the Trussell Trust, which this year turns 20, and I must commend those who volunteer week in, week out, and bear in no doubt that they are doing a great job. Organisations like the Trussell Trust provide a bridge between two very important groups, those in crisis who need food and donors who are moved to provide it. We know that poverty and hunger are caused by a variety of factors, often outwith a person's control, including financial challenges, redundancy, debt, family breakdown, bereavement, addiction, homelessness and mental and physical health problems. It is therefore important that we tackle the causes of poverty at their root so that the need for food bank use is minimised. In the words of Joseph Rowntree Foundation, additional spending on benefits without addressing the root causes of high housing costs, poor education and low pay has failed to reduce poverty. The reasons, as Adam Tomkins has said, behind food bank use are complex, and it is widely acknowledged that food bank use cannot be attributed to one single cause. It is worth noting that food is becoming more expensive worldwide, with global food commodities costs increasing by an incredible 17 per cent on average over last year's figures, and that food bank use has risen in many Western countries, including Germany and Canada. Scotland's food bank use must therefore be set in the context of wider global trends. Much is made of food bank use and the UK welfare regime, and I will admit that any large governmental system will never be perfect. However, I welcome the delivery of £90 billion a year of working-age benefits and successful work to reduce delays in payments, especially hardship payments. The Trussell Trust recently commented that it was heartened by the Secretary of State, Damian Greene's willingness to engage with front-line charities, his department's work to pilot improvements and recent changes to universal credit taper rate, meaning that people will keep more of their earnings. Food banks provide other free additional services, as has already been stated, and I welcome the Trussell Trust's tremendous more-than-food initiative. Services such as money advice and budget cookery courses can help to prevent people needing referral to food bank again and work to address the root causes of dependency on food banks. It is also right that food bank volunteers are trained to signpost people to other agencies' services available to help to resolve the underlying causes of the crisis. I was also encouraged to see Waitrose's funding of the Trussell Trust's Eat Well Spendless programme, providing advice on cookery, budgeting and nutrition. That action is key if we are to heed the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's advice on focus on prevention strategies. Scotland has a rich history of volunteering and I commend all who give up their time to help others in need. Food banks are at a comfort in a crisis, albeit acting as a hub for advice and support. It is up to us in this Parliament to address the underlying causes of food poverty to ensure that people of Scotland do not need to rely on food banks. I wouldn't go as far to say that I welcome tonight's debate. In fact, I find it heartbreaking that we are having this debate at all. I would like to thank my colleague Pauline McNeill for her motion this evening and for providing the opportunity for all of us to shine a light on these important matters. In a wealthy and prosperous country like Scotland, there is no reason that anyone should have to go hungry in 2017. Even the existence of food banks, let alone the scale at which they are currently being used in Scotland, is a national scandal. We do not need to go on fact-finding missions or perhaps hide behind the complexities that Adam Tomkins is trying to describe, which I think is just cover for his Government's policies. We know that the handful policies and benefit sanctions imposed by the Tories in the UK Government is hurting communities up and down the country. It is not rocket science. However, food bank volunteers and all those who donate to food banks are a credit to our communities. It is a damning verdict on the harmful impact of austerity politics and the backwards policies of the Tory party that stagnating wages, insecure work and cuts to welfare are forcing people into poverty. As a reference in Pauline McNeill's motion, the Trussell Trust estimates that almost 100,000 people used its food banks in the last year, 100,000 people. That is before we even take into account other charities and community-based food banks that are helping those in need. The situation is quite simply a disgrace. Sitting here through the debate, I have been thinking about the food banks and the community groups in the region that I represent in Central Scotland. A few months ago, I went to visit Loaves and Fisheries Food Bank in East Kilbride in South Lanarkshire, where I sat down with Dennis Curran, who will be known to me in the chamber, and he has appeared at committee here. Dennis is a man in his 70s. His wife, Kathy, is a seriously ill lady. Yet, seven days a week, they have been opened at a unit in a business park in East Kilbride, where people come and queue. 400 people in East Kilbride queued outside their door for food parcels at Christmas time. That is no fun. That is not taking the easy road out. Many of those people had to walk for miles because they are embarrassed. I go to the nearest food bank. Some walked from Rutherglen, some walked despite serious physical health problems and mental health problems. Sometimes people are coming with a myriad of different issues, but it is not complex. Adam Tomkins, a frequent visitor to Hill House community food crop, which is along the road from where I live, aims at tackling food poverty across Hill House and Hamilton. They offer fresh produce at low prices because people do not want handouts. People do not want to walk away with a food parcel. Even if they can spend a few pounds, they feel like they are not taken from society. However, the humiliation that people go through to even just go in the door is heartbreaking. It is no secret to people in the chamber that I have been raising the issue of period poverty. Women and girls having to go to food banks and ask for sanitary products to deal with a basic need like menstruation. I Daniel Blake film and I encourage my colleagues on the Tory benches that have not seen it to go and watch it because people think that these are lifestyle decisions and people make it up to sensationalise it for the big screen. Iain Gareth in the gallery has shared some heartbreaking stories with me and I urge everyone to get behind it. People who I speak to who say that they are going to a food bank are making choices like taking a bottle of washing up liquids because they know that they can use that not only to wash their dishes but for personal hygiene reasons as well. What a disgrace for each and every one of us that our constituents are having to wash their bodies and their hair with washing up liquids. I know that time is up and I have had my say. We do need to use every power available in this Parliament and elsewhere to really end this scandal. Emma Harper is followed by Patrick Harvie, who will be the last speaker in the debate. I don't know if I'm pleased to be contributing this evening but I would like to commend Pauline McNeill for securing this debate titled Food Banks in Scotland's Hunger Crisis. I do agree with Monica Lennon that it is heartbreaking that such a debate is necessary in the 21st century Scotland. I would like to point out that Scotland's only Tory MP doesn't seem too concerned. He told the assembled folk at a hustings last year when I contested the Dumfrieshire Clydesdale and Tweeddale against him that food banks are in every European city as if that was a justification for other existence for food banks. In sitting before our own welfare reform committee he dismissed evidence from charity workers and academics supporting the view that the use of food banks is a direct result of his Government's welfare reform policies. He slated the evidence-based information that Mark Franklin was given. He's a volunteer in a food bank first base in Dumfries and he slated Mark's information because, and I quote, he voted yes. Mr Franklin's hard work and commitment to keep the doors of a first base food bank open has ensured that hundreds of Mr Mundell's own constituents are at least fed when the cruel benefit sanctions of his Tory Government are imposed on them. The UK Government line has for some time been that it is not poverty that makes people visit food banks but the fact that food banks exist. David Cameron hailed food banks as merely a happy example of the big society in action. I spoke again with Mark Franklin today and he remains on the front line of austerity Britain. He cited the shocking rise of mental health problems that he sees in those that are referred to him. He says that folk with already diagnosed mental health problems are deteriorating really quickly. Those people with already prior diagnosed mental health issues, they're assessed as being fit to work when they're far from it. Just two days ago, Mark delivered a food package to a 60-year-old lady. I'll call her Mary, but it's not her real name. Mary is infirm and unable to carry anything because she has arthritis. Mary's GP had effectively, sternly ordered her to contact Mark for emergency supplies. She was living on five packets of noodles a week and ashamed to seek help from her doctor or even go at the food bank. Malnutrition is one of her diagnosed conditions now. This lady, who has been a social worker for 20 years, is helping people in the very same position that she now finds herself. When in work, Mary earned about £500 a week. Before failing her employment support allowance test, now that she's been sanctioned, she receives £50 a week from the DWP. Was this what David Cameron had in mind when he attempted to justify £12 billion of benefit cuts as essential to stopping the merry-go-round of benefits dependency? I agree with Mark's sentiment that this system is crucifying people. Prior to 2010, when the Conservatives began their assault, there were certainly cracks in the UK's welfare system. Unfortunately, those cracks have now become chasms. The first priority should and always will be the mental and physical health of those who find themselves unfortunate enough to become reliant on our disintegrating welfare system. However, since the Tories are so desperate to justify this cruelty as a necessary evil in their supposed mission to cut the deficit, it is worth making the point that those who are wrongly assessed as fit to work simply fall upon the NHS and the justice system. That is a huge expense. Asterity is costing the taxpayer a fortune. Meanwhile, the Scottish Government spends £100 million a year in an attempt to mitigate Tory cuts. In February, a new investment of £1.9 million was made available to local groups such as food banks to ensure that those working at the local level can deliver direct support to their communities. I urge local food banks to explore the funding stream. I hope that we can agree across the chamber today that limiting the damage that is knowingly inflicted by a Westminster Government on Scottish citizens is not the purpose of a devolved administration. Up your dinner, there are wanes in Africa that would be glad of that. Can I be the only member to whom those words were familiar week after week, evening after evening, as a child? My granny's analysis of the causes of famine in African countries might have been a little simplistic, but the words were said out of empathy and out of her own understanding of the impact of hunger throughout her youth before, during and after the Second World War. By the time she died, she might have been forgiven for thinking that no one would ever need to say, eat up your dinner, there are wanes in your school that would be glad of that. I thank Pauline McNeill very warmly for bringing this motion. I want to say in response to those who cast food bank provision as a shining example of the big society in action. I want to say that even in a healthy, functional food system and a fair and just economy there is a place for voluntarism. Absolutely. I've seen food projects in Glasgow working with asylum seekers sharing their skills, their food skills, many of which have been lost in our society in our age, sharing their food skills with their new neighbours in their host communities. Everyone's better off as a result of that and nothing is stigmatising about anyone participating in it. Sharing community projects that share land bring people together rich and poor to experience growing food together, healthy for them to do it, healthy for them to eat it and again nothing divisive or stigmatising about that kind of voluntarism. There are other cultures around the world in which the shared provision of food, the shared experience of eating together, rich and poor sitting down together to share the experience of eating together is a unifying experience. Anyone who has visited the Gurdwara in Glasgow will remember what I am talking about with the fantastic food that they share in a socially just and inclusive way. There is absolutely a space for that kind of voluntarism in a healthy, functional food system that doesn't have to be dominated and owned by a handful of multinational food giants but it wouldn't need a simplistic brand name like the big society because it's just a natural instinctive expression of the human need to share. Adam Tomkins, the Conservatives seem a little confused as to whether food poverty exists. Adam Tomkins says it doesn't and he well says it does. Adam asked a sensible question. Let's look at the differing impacts of food poverty if we use that name or not. Let's look at the differing uptake of food bank provision and ask ourselves why is it different in one place from another but he didn't offer any answers, he asked a sensible question. Here's one sensible answer. The Trussell Trust says that 65 per cent of food banks say that the six-week-plus wait for first access to universal credit has led to more people needing help and in the areas where we've seen full universal credit roll out already, 16.5 per cent average increase in referrals for emergency food compared to a much lower national average. That national average is still more than 6 per cent increase, it still shames all of our society but it's in the areas where we've seen failed UK government welfare reforms rolled out to their fullest extent that we see the biggest increase. How about analysing that answer? Of course there are things that we can do with our existing powers in this Parliament. We should be reducing the cost of the school day, we should be reducing the cost of public transport and we could. We should be addressing, as we heard earlier from Monica Lennon, the issue of period poverty. There's a great deal that we can do and with the new welfare powers that we should. Underlying it all is a failed austerity programme from a UK government, a needless and unnecessary austerity agenda, which is quite consciously transferring wealth from the poorest third of our society to the richest third of our society and making this problem worse. Adam Tomkin says that work is the best route out of poverty. Sometimes, yes, well-paid, secure work, which is healthy for people to undertake, can be a route out of poverty but even their fake living wage is still a poverty wage and not all workers will even receive that. He cites the causes of poverty but he lists only their consequences. The causes are structural, a failure to distribute wealth fairly in our society, a failure to recognise that the wealth of our economy belongs to all of us instead of a tiny number of people labelled wealth creators. Until we overturn that fundamental error, we will continue to be putting sticking glasses on this grievous wound. I now call Jane Freeman to respond to this debate around seven minutes, please minister. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Scottish Government and, like members before me, I want to thank Pauline McNeill for bringing this matter to the chamber and I also want to thank other colleagues who have made their contributions. I share the majority view in this chamber that in 21st century Scotland, a country rich in both resources and human talent, it is shameful that there remains a pressing need for us to tackle food poverty with people who can't afford to feed themselves or their families. In the seven years since the Tories entered Downing Street, the number of people needing food banks has grown exponentially. We've heard that the factors behind that are complex. For me, the reasons are pretty straightforward and they lie at the Tories door. Low wages, benefit cuts, benefit sanctions and benefits delays. The number is referred because of low income rising to 25 per cent and 42 per cent of all referrals as a result of benefit cuts and delays. Let's be clear that food poverty is a visible sign of the wider poverty that we are seeing as a result of seven years of Tory austerity and welfare cuts. The freeze on working benefits, six weeks universal credit delay, which others have referred to, the two-trial policy introduced with its abhorrent rape clause, which will cost families between £2,500 and £7,000 a year, the benefit cap affecting at least 5,000 people in Scotland. The list is much longer, but all of it adds up to pushing more and more people into crisis. A state of affairs that the majority of us in this chamber find shameful, but yet again one that apologists in the Scottish Tories continue to ignore, to dodge around and to be silent on. It is because of their UK Government's failed ideology that heaps more and more misery on those least able to withstand it, those in work and those seeking work, the vulnerable, the disabled, the elderly and children. I am looking at a graph from the Institute of Fiscal Studies that tells me that in the five years between May 2010 and May 25 2015, the poorest in our society lost 4 per cent of their income in those five years. It tells me that what is to come that we know of so far since May 2015, the long-run impact of tax and benefit reforms will see that poorest group lose 10 per cent. So let no one say that the underlying causes here are not the agenda of this Conservative Government. An ideology has fundamentally flawed in its conception as it is a failure in meeting its stated aim. Last week or the week before in this chamber when we debated the two-child policy, we were told that it was part of the sound management of public finances. That will be the sound management that sees the national debt now over £1.7 trillion and rising by the minute. Sound management of the national finances on the backs of the poor, the vulnerable, those in work and those least able and those least responsible for creating that debt in the first place and sound management which is fundamentally flawed in delivering what it says it's out to do. That Government will continue to oppose the policies of the Tory Government at UK level and we will continue to do all that we can within our resources and our powers to help to protect people from the worst excesses of Tory policies. That includes exposing the human impact, as other members have done tonight, of their policies in their actions now in the run-up to June 8 and for as long as they have power to damage the lives of people who live and work in Scotland. The 50 concrete actions of the Fairer Scotland action plan have essential to our commitment, the capacity to work with people to reduce and ultimately end poverty in all its forms, be that child poverty, food poverty, fuel poverty or indeed period poverty. We are clear that in delivering that, dignity has to be at the heart of what we do. On the specific matter of food poverty, the recommendations made to the Scottish Government by the independent short-life working group, a group of experts strongly influenced by people with lived experience of food poverty, was very clear that collectively we should focus on reducing and removing the need for food banks so we need to focus our efforts on modernisation. That is the role of the increased income and developed community food initiatives, some of which Patrick Harvie has referred to. That is exactly what we are doing in our promotion of the living wage. Neil Findlay I want to attribute the address issues of deliberate and concerted redistribution of money from those who can afford it into the pockets of those who need it. Jeane Freeman I thank Mr Findlay for his intervention. I am about to agree with him later on, so I hope that he is sitting ready for that. I do think that it is important that our resources of a country are fairly distributed, but I also think that in doing that we need to make sure that those on low and middle incomes are not penalised. Mr Findlay and I, at this point, will continue to disagree on this Government's income tax policies, and I am sure that we will have more debates on that in the years to come. However, the work that we are doing in investing in advice services and promoting the living wage in our £1 million a year fair food fund all adopt the dignity principles that are recommended by that independent group. We are determined to see a change, and we accept the independence group's recommendations to focus on maximising income and shifting from charitable food bank models to supporting community-based food initiatives. What matters is that everyone can access affordable, nutritious food in ways that are dignified and just. It is a basic human right. It is what the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights meant when it specified adequate food as one of the factors that make up the right to an adequate standard of living. A covenant that the UK ratified in 1976, but one that the Tory Government chooses to ignore. We are looking at what enshrining the right to food in Scots law might look like and whether it could support us to tackle the very real problem of hunger with a response based on human rights and dignity for all. We are firm in our aim to eradicate the need for emergency food provision from Scotland, and we are in no doubt that this Government is serious about eliminating food insecurity, as we are serious about tackling the underlying causes of poverty within the powers at our disposal. Neil Findlay is right when he says that tackling poverty is a responsibility of every part of this Government, and it is one that we are working to take seriously across all the portfolios that this Government is responsible for. Patrick Harvie is also right that there are actions that we can take in this Parliament, in this Government with the powers that we have, but the fundamental underlying problems are problems that come from a Tory Government with an agenda that cares little, despite the warm words, despite the apologies, despite the attempt to divert our attentions elsewhere. A Tory Government that cares little about the impact that it has on the majority of people in this country. Mr Tomkins asked us to focus on what we should do. I would ask him to start his focus by standing up to his Tory colleagues at UK level.