This lady is desperate.
I have picked her voucher out of the in-tray: another parcel to make up, but the volunteer interviewer, moved by her plight, tells me that for some misdemeanour her state benefit has been virtually halved, and she has children.
"Please find her something nice."
I pack some good toiletries and treats for her kids: she becomes a person, not a parcel.
People are referred to food banks by the DWP; indeed to stick within Trussel Trust rules that everyone needs a referral, our interviewers will sometimes demand one from DWP staff.
However they are referred, a frequent reason for people coming to the bank is they have been "sanctioned" by the DWP, their benefit cut for some perceived failure, and it doesn't take much.
I hear of a Kurdish man, settled in Glasgow, who under pressure to prove he was looking for work to get his benefit applied for one of the few jobs he was qualified for. It was in a cafe in Devon, but not being great on UK geography he assumed that was near Glasgow. He was sanctioned for applying for a job he could not reasonably hope to get, and ended up at a food bank.
The Trust doesn't want to become part of the system and will not take Government grants; Government ministers have in the past tried to deny that the DWP actually makes referrals.
But the Government is relying on food banks, depending on the Trust and others to pick up the pieces of the system it's broken.
If it wasn't they'd be saying it's quite right for a benefits official to punish this woman or the Kurdish guy by sentencing them to starvation, for errors such as not applying for the right jobs or not turning up for interviews.
I don't know human rights law too well but I'd guess starvation would be what's known as a cruel and unsual punishment, on the torture spectrum. It would rightly be illegal to use on the worst criminals. But benefits claimants? Oh, fair enough.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article