Councillors have clashed over the best way to help people in crisis and whether that should be with cash rather than food banks.
Green councillors Bruno De Oliviera and Raphael Hill urged fellow members of Brighton and Hove City Council to support the goal of a “food bank-free” city and a cash-first approach.
But they were criticised by Labour councillors who said that the focus should be on preventative and long-term support for people in food poverty and continued support for food banks.
The Greens said that food parcels were not a “permanent substitute for social security”, citing organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group and Trussell Trust preferring “cash first” support to food banks.
At a meeting of the full council last Thursday (26 March), Concillor De Oliviera said that while he respected those holding the safety net, he rejected the system that made their work necessary.
He said: “Food banks were never meant to become a normal feature of city life. They were presented as a temporary solution to support during a crisis … Instead, they’ve become a shadow welfare state.”
Councillor Hill read out a statement from Jerome Cox-Strong, from the Pankhurst Pantry, who said that people should not have to choose between heating their homes and feeding their children.
He said: “At a fundamental level, food banks simply should not need to exist. That they do is the story of ongoing austerity, of government after government relying on volunteers like me to paper over the cracks of their failure to act.
“The story of food projects in this city is of organisations that often find themselves on the brink, always needing more funding, supplies, resources, volunteer hours because we’re a crisis response that has been forced into something permanent.”
Labour councillor Mitchie Alexander, the council’s cabinet member for communities, equalities, public health and adult social care, said that the council was working to reduce poverty through its “cost of living strategy” and a poverty reduction steering group.
Councillor Alexander said: “We all want to see the end of the need for food banks. But currently, this isn’t a reality.
“Food banks are still needed as residents are still in food crisis. As a city we must work together.”
Fellow Labour councillor David McGregor said that he did not doubt the heartfelt compassion behind the Greens’ position but that it showed a lack of knowledge of living in poverty.
The Whitehawk and Marina ward councillor said that few people from his background became councillors and that he was spoken down to when speaking about poverty.
Councillor McGregor said: “Of course we want to see a city where no one needs a food bank. Of course we do. Nobody should need to have emergency food support in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
“But it is a shining example of failure of a Tory government in the last 14 years.”
Conservative councillor Emma Hogan said that alternatives to food banks should be considered but studies from elsewhere in the world showed support for both money and food aid.
Councillor Hogan said: “To my mind, there was no clear evidence of either being better and certainly I could not find evidence to support this in the UK.
“We are therefore neither in agreement or opposed to this.”
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Bridget Fishleigh, who has run a food bank from her home for the past six years, said that she did not want to “morph into a community support hub”.
Councillor Fishleigh said: “None of the food groups I know say that the Green group has engaged with them (about this).
“If they had, we would point them to the ‘beyond food banks’ initiative and a ton of other things that are already happening outside.”
https://bhfood.org.uk/burnout-amongst-food-support-volunteers/
https://lewesdistrictfoodpartnership.org/new-report-examines-reality-of-moral-injury-and-distress-behind-the-scenes-of-community-food-support-sector/
Thank you for this, very interesting report on a systemically overlooked issue.
Cash first might seem well enough, but it’s not the answer. Whilst the Green principle might suggest it will pay for food, the reality will differ. We’ve a massive homelessness problem in Brighton, along with drug related deaths. For this demographic cash handouts are likely to be misused, leading to greater substance misuse and further exploitation of vulnerable people. This will in turn put greater stress on already overstretched statutory services supporting these people.
There a lot of snob assumptions based on misunderstood stereotypes that you are making and totally ignoring the report/research on it.
Agreed, cash first doesn’t work in reality. Food banks are a symptom, not the underlying disease. For me, that is the affordability of living, and the key driver of that is house prices, and rent, arguably the most expensive aspect to living.
If the market rate reached LHA, for my area, that’s £12,000 extra in people’s pockets. It’s a pipe dream, but one to aspire to, I think.
I wonder what are your views on Universal basic income. You must be very well to do to not feel food scarcity. Well done you, very privileged Ben boy. The evidence on cash first is there. I feel your politics are a bit 90s dear, a bit Thatchery!
Ignoring the ad hominem, I would gently suggest that it is changing the goalposts.
Firstly, my opinion is that one should focus on addressing the systemic issue of why food banks exist. CF does nothing to improve that situation, and there’s always the underlying risk of abuse with CF, which we see evidenced in many social benefits. There’s a reason why drug overdoses happen more frequently around benefit paydays, as one example.
UBI is an interesting one. I don’t think they are comparable here because one is addressing a specific issue, whilst the other is a broader package, but it’s something I think needs to be back in the public conversation, mainly because of AI and jobs being replaced. UBI, in theory, would make CF redundant. I’m in favour of Universal Basic Income.
More broadly, I don’t think throwing more money at a situation is a particularly effective way of addressing social issues, Boris’ grand gesture of 50,000 nurses is an example of that.
Going back to my previous comment, focusing on making things more affordable, making costs more fairly distributed, like changing regressive taxes to fairer models.
As I said, housing is typically the most expensive aspect of living, and is felt very explicitly in Brighton. Moving towards resolving that problem naturally aligns with what we both want to achieve: removing food poverty.
You are ignoring the two reports above. Don’t be silly Ben Billy. I agree with Greens on this.
Respectfully, I don’t disagree with the reports at all.
However, I believe Cllr. De Oliviera and Hill are arguing for symptomatic relief, when the affordability of living, particularly housing costs, is of a more fundamental and strategic importance, especially when the stated aim is to remove the need for food banks.
I agree with the goal of removing the need for food banks. I’ve certainly been championing that one for a while. The method, in my opinion, is where there is room for debate. The method of delivery of food support, regardless of choice, still means food poverty exists. The real impact, in my opinion, will be making a sustainable change in living.
Benjamin, I think you’re right about one key thing: food banks are a symptom, not the root cause. Housing costs, low incomes, and the overall affordability crisis are absolutely central to why food poverty exists.
Where I think your argument falls short is in treating “cash first” as merely *symptomatic relief*, when in reality it can be both immediate support **and** part of a structural solution.
First, food banks are also a form of symptomatic relief—just a more restrictive one. The difference is that cash gives people **choice, dignity, and flexibility**. People in crisis don’t just need food—they may need to pay for energy, transport, or essentials that food parcels can’t cover. So even in the short term, cash is often more effective at stabilising someone’s situation.
Second, the concern about misuse (e.g. spending on drugs or alcohol) tends to be overstated and not strongly supported by evidence. Most research shows that people overwhelmingly spend cash support on essentials. Focusing too heavily on potential misuse risks reinforcing stereotypes and can lead to policies that are less effective overall.
Third—and this is where it links to your structural point—cash-first approaches can actually **reduce pressure on crisis systems** and help prevent people from falling deeper into poverty. That makes it easier, not harder, to address the bigger issues like housing and wages. It’s not an either/or choice.
Finally, addressing housing and affordability is crucial, but those are long-term reforms. People facing food insecurity now can’t wait for systemic change. A cash-first approach acknowledges that reality while still leaving room to push for deeper reforms.
So I’d frame it less as “cash vs systemic change” and more as:
**cash-first for immediate stability, alongside long-term structural fixes like housing reform.**
Both are necessary if the goal is genuinely to reduce—and eventually eliminate—food poverty.