Home News

Downing Street has urged employers to allow staff to work from home during next week’s rail strikes as the transport secretary warned strikers they were risking their jobs because the railway was now competing against remote working and other forms of public and private transport.Half of Britain’s rail lines will be closed on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday when members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) and Unite walk out over pay, jobs and conditions.A No 10 spokesperson said it was for individuals to decide whether they could get to their workplaces but there were some jobs where home working would not be suitable.“As during the pandemic, it obviously remains sensible for public- and private-sector organisations to offer flexible working arrangements for some jobs,” the spokesperson said.He insisted the government was not “standing by” while the strikes loomed.“I wouldn’t accept that: ministers remain close to the situation and will remain close to the negotiations and discussions,” he said.“Industry is offering daily talks with the unions and that’s what we want the unions to engage with and get back round the table.”He insisted ministers could not intervene in the negotiations, adding: “But what you have seen is us consistently call on the unions to call off the strikes, given the impact it’s going to have on people being able to get to work, kids being able to get to school – some of which will be doing exams – and we think that they will be damaging for the railways.”Transport secretary Grant Shapps issued a plea to those embarking on the three days of walkouts, warning they risked striking themselves out of a job.He said the government planned to introduce legislation to enable the use of agency workers during industrial action “if the strike drags on”.Transport for London (TfL) has strongly encouraged people not to travel on London Underground on Tuesday.Mr Shapps said: “These strikes are not only a bid to derail reforms that are critical to the network’s future, and designed to inflict damage at the worst possible time, they are also an incredible act of self-harm by the union leadership.”“We’re going to endanger the jobs of thousands of rail workers,” he claimed. “It’s alienating its passengers and the freight customers with long and damaging strikes.”In response, RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said: “Instead of playing to the gallery for his own personal political ambitions, Mr Shapps needs to act like a pragmatic transport secretary who is willing to meet with the union and help us reach a negotiated settlement.”Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association leader Manuel Cortes said: “Bullyboy tactics will not wash with our union when the truth is our members are fighting for their jobs, pay and for a safe railway fit for the future.”Mr Shapps said season-ticket holders would be paid full compensation on strike days, and he had “moved to help make that an automatic process”. More

Four people have had their applications to be removed from the Home Office’s deportation flight to Rwanda rejected by the High Court. The four asylum seekers brought legal challenges to their scheduled flight on Tuesday. Two legal bids to stop the plan failed in the Court of Appeal and the High Court yesterday but individuals could still appeal the decision to put them on the flight. The individuals included one Iranian father, whose son is the UK, a Vietnamese national, an Iranian Kurd whose sister is living in the UK, and another Iranian national. In the first application, an Iranian Kurd – who had suffered PTSD in Turkey while travelling to the UK – asked not to be put on the upcoming flight due to his mental health and his relationship with his sister in the UK.However, in a short ruling on Tuesday morning, Mr Justice Swift refused to grant interim relief.He said: “The Secretary of State was entitled to reach the decisions she did.”The Vietnamese individual also had his application to stop his deportation refused.His lawyers argued that he was told about the decision to deport him to Rwanda in a letter which he could not read. The claimant can only speak Vietnamese and did not understand English. His lawyers said that there was not a translator present when he was given the letter.Goverment lawyers presented witness testimony that said that the individual was given an interpreter to aid him. The judge sided with the government’s evidence and said that the Vietnamese individual had been fairly notified of his deportation.Another asylum seeker applying to be removed from the flight was a Christian convert from Iran.The Iranian and his son are both in the UK but only the father has been scheduled to go to Rwanda.He said that he had during his travels to the UK he was threatened with a knife, constantly abused and witnessed people stabbing each other. He detailed being abused in Greece and said that he received no help from the Greek authorities when he appealed for help.“They made our lives hell, we tried to report it but nobody helped us,” he said.In mental health assessments read out to court, the man was described as “middle-aged man, tearful intermittently and severely anxious.”He was described as “suffering from depression disorder which is of a moderate degree and post traumatic stress disorder.”His son said in a statement that he speaks to his father “in any period that he gets” and “this is the longest period I have been away from him.”His father is currently being held in Colnbrook detention centre.In the final application for removal, the High Court heard that the claimant, an Iranian man who spoke Sorani Kurdish, should not be deported to Rwanda because there would be no one there who spoke his language. A mental health assessment of the man, read out to court, found that he experiences “voices, apparently psychotic symptoms, voices calling his name.”A psychiatrist found that the man had “profound symptoms indicating of anxiety and depressive disorder” and was “at increased risk of self half due to his isolation and potential impulsivity.”Home Office laywers testified however that he could get access to health services in Rwanda and that he would be provided with a phone and access to the internet. This, they said, would allow him to access the translation services Big Word if he needed help communicating. Justice Swift rejected the man’s application to be removed from the flight, saying: “I accept that the fact of removal to Rwanda will be distressing for this claimant, it will be a further step in a long journey that this claimant has already undertaken.”Foreign secretary Liz Truss vowed on Tuesday morning that anyone pulled from the flight would be “on the next flight”. She defended the government’s decision, saying: “Our policy is completely legal, it’s completely moral.” More

‘No Rwanda’ protests staged at immigration removal centre ahead of first deportation flightA victim of torture is still scheduled to be deported to Rwanda tomorrow despite the number of passengers being slimmed down by successful appeals, a barrister told the Court of Appeal today. Raza Hussain QC, representing two people at risk of removal and three organisations challenging the policy, read out a Home Office communique to court which said that his client’s deportation should still go ahead because “Rwanda has a functioning healthcare system.”“I have just received the news that his removal is going to be maintained… it appears that torture has been considered but the removal hasn’t been deferred,” he added. The number of people on Tuesday’s flight has now been cut down to eight, according to campaign group Care4Calais. The Home Office’s plan is facing two legal challenges today. The PCS union, which represents Border Force staff, is appealing a decision made on Friday for the flight to go ahead tomorrow. The charity Asylum Aid is also mounting another attempt to stop the flight. Judges at the Court of Appeal heard today that the UNHCR, the UN’s refugee agency, was concerned about “deficiencies” in Rwanda’s immigration process and warned the government not to pursue the plan.Show latest update

1655131630Injunction sought against Rwanda flight to give more time to assess it’s legality in court A charity is appealing to the High Court for an injunction on the Home Office’s deportation flight to Rwanda so that more time can be given for the asylum seekers to access justice. Barrister Charlotte Kilroy QC, who led the charity Asylum Aid’s legal team, asked Mr Justice Swift to impose an “urgent interim” injunction – to give time for the charity’s claim to be fully argued.“The claimant is applying for an urgent interim order that the defendant be prohibited from enforcing the removal of any asylum-seeker to Rwanda pursuant to ‘safe third country’ decisions taken under the new arrangements the defendant has adopted … pending the outcome of this claim,” she said in a written case outline.Ms Kilroy added: “Without interim relief there is … a real risk that individuals will be unlawfully removed to Rwanda without access to court and may suffer irreparable damage as a result.“Given the nature of the decisions taken, in a context where only the highest standards of fairness will suffice and fundamental rights … are in issue, the Claimant submits that the balance of convenience lies strongly in favour of the grant of the interim relief it seeks.”Holly Bancroft13 June 2022 15:471655130549Demonstration planned outside the Home Office at 5:30pmProtesters are expected to gather outside the Home Office at 5pm today to call on the government to halt their deportation flight to Rwanda. Ali Jones, an organiser of the demonstration from SOAS Detainee Support, said: “Immigration detention and deportations are always cruel and unjust, but forcibly and permanently deporting people to a country they have never been to – away from their families and communities – is plain torturous.”Zrinka Bralo, chief executive director of Migrants Organise, said: “We have had enough. The Rwanda sham is the latest cruel expansion of Britain’s Hostile Environment immigration system.”Holly Bancroft13 June 2022 15:291655129774‘Errors’ in Home Office letters to asylum seekers ‘mischaracterised’ the UN’s role in RwandaErrors made by the Home Office in letters to asylum seekers “mischaracterised” the UN refugee agency’s role in Rwanda, lawyers have told the Court of Appeal. Raza Husain QC told the court that UNHCR’s position had been “erroneously understood” by the government. With regards to claims that UNHCR can oversee Rwanda’s asylum process, the secretary of state Priti Patel had said: “The UNHCR is closely involved with the NEDP, and will provide oversight of individuals relocated from the UK.”However Mr Husain said “well with great respect, no they won’t”. He told the court that this has now been accepted as incorrect and the Home Office have issued an apology. The Home Office said “this was an error of a misreading of the [UN] report”.Mr Husain added that the UNHCR’s own evidence said that they could not “monitor the quality of decision making” of the Rwandan authorities. “Over the past years UNHCR has not been permitted to observe the refugee status determination committee and information on the asylum case is not shared systematically by the UNHCR by the Rwandan authorities” they said. Holly Bancroft13 June 2022 15:161655127944Campaigners ‘hopeful’ flight will be scrapped – as passenger numbers cut to eightCare4Calais saying they are “very hopeful” that the Rwanda flight will have to be cancelled through a series of individual challenges.The campaign group told The Independent that only eight people were still on flight list after more successful challenges. Activists are hoping to get a lawyer for the last person without legal representation this afternoon.Care4Calais founder Claire Mosely said: “We’ll have to fight every single case individually. We’re very hopeful all of them will be removed from the flight list by tomorrow.”She added: “We don’t want the Home Office to be able to deport anyone to Rwanda until the full court case in July – how can they deport people before it’s been determined if the policy is unlawful?”Adam Forrest13 June 2022 14:451655127583Two more Rwanda flight passengers have their tickets cancelledTwo more people who were scheduled to be on the deportation flight to Rwanda have had their tickets cancelled, according to campaign group Care4Calais. They shared the news on Twitter, saying: “Two more Rwanda deportees have had their tickets cancelled. Twenty three people have now had their Rwanda tickets cancelled. Eight still have live tickets for tomorrow.”Holly Bancroft13 June 2022 14:391655127383Second challenge to Home Office Rwanda deportation begins A charity has begun another legal challenge to a Government plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda.Asylum Aid have asked a High Court judge to temporarily block ministers from enforcing the removal of “any asylum seeker” to Rwanda.Lawyers for the charity argued the procedure adopted by the Government was unfair.Mr Justice Swift is considering the challenge at a High Court hearing in London.Lawyers representing Home Secretary Priti Patel say Asylum Aid’s application should be dismissed.Press Association13 June 2022 14:361655124582Number of passengers on Rwanda flight ‘cut down to 10’The number of people scheduled to be on the flight to Rwanda tomorrow has been cut down to 10, according to campaign group Care4Calais. They tweeted the news saying: “Another Rwanda deportee has had his ticket cancelled. Twenty-one people have now had their Rwanda tickets cancelled, but ten still have live tickets for tomorrow. “Holly Bancroft13 June 2022 13:491655123895Torture victim recalls ‘shock’ of finding out he could be sent to RwandaA young Sudanese man has spoken to campaign group Care4Calais about the shock he felt when he found out he is scheduled to be sent to Rwanda. “They showed me the letter saying I would be sent to Rwanda. I felt.. it’s just total shock,” he said. He had travelled to the UK from Calais and said he was there “for 9 months trying to get on lorries.”“People were talking about Rwanda [in Calais],” he said, “but I never thought it would be true, and you know as we don’t have TV there, and I wasn’t really familiar with the internet, we don’t really have proper news.”The 23-year-old spoke about how he had to run away from Sudan as a teenager after he fell in love with a girl and got her pregnant to the anger of her family. As she was from a different tribe, which was seen as higher to his, her family were outraged at what had happened and “came after me to attack me,” he said. He moved from Sudan to Chad and then to Libya. “I was seized and held three months by a militia, being beaten and tortured with electricity and fire, morning to night,” he said. “It left marks all over my body. They demanded that my family send money, but I told them, my family didn’t have that sort of money. So instead they just made me work for them.”Eventually he managed to escape and to cross in a boat to Malta. After nine months in detention in Malta, he got in a lorry to Genoa, and then on to Marseille and then to Calais. Speaking about potentially being sent to Rwanda, he said: “My feeling is shock that after all the time I had spent travelling, just hoping to find somewhere safe I could have a normal life, and thinking I would find a safe place, that they would just send me back again.”Holly Bancroft13 June 2022 13:381655122330Rwanda flight challenges are just ‘teething problems’, says Johnson Boris Johnson has said that his government’s policy to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is experiencing “teething problems”. Mr Johnson was responding to questions to a number of legal challenges to stop the Home Office’s deportation flight to Rwanda tomorrow. He said: “When we announced the policy, I always said that it would begin with a lot of teething problems and you have a lot of legal action against it. And they will try and delay it, that’s inevitable.”He added: “What we’re trying to do is stop the business model of criminal gangs who are preying on people, moving them across the Channel in unseaworthy vessels, risking their lives and sometimes costing their lives. But it’s worse than that, what they’re doing is undermining people’s confidence in legal migration and people’s support for legal migration.” More

Prince Charles privately described the government’s policy of sending migrants to Rwanda as “appalling”, according to reports.The heir to the throne is said to be particularly uncomfortable with the scheme as he believes the widely criticised policy will overshadow his upcoming visit to the country, where he will represent the Queen at the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit.Charles was heard expressing opposition to home secretary Priti Patel’s plans several times in private, and was “more than disappointed”, a source told The Times and the Daily Mail.”He said he thinks the government’s whole approach is appalling. It was clear he was not impressed with the government’s direction of travel,” the Times reported.Clarence House did not deny this was the case, but said Charles would never seek to influence the running of government.A spokesperson said: “We would not comment on supposed anonymous private conversations with the Prince of Wales, except to restate that he remains politically neutral. Matters of policy are decisions for government.”The Prince of Wales’ alleged comments came as the High Court blocked a bid to stop the first flight of migrants to Rwanda.Up to 130 people had been notified they could be removed, with 31 people due on Tuesday’s flight.Lawyers for almost 100 migrants had submitted legal challenges asking to stay in the UK with the remaining anticipated to follow suit.But the High Court rejected campaigners’ bid for an injunction to stop the deportation flight,Ms Patel welcomed the ruling, saying the government will “now continue to deliver on progressing our world-leading migration partnership”.“People will continue to try and prevent their relocation through legal challenges and last-minute claims, but we will not be deterred in breaking the deadly people smuggling trade and ultimately saving lives,” she said.“Rwanda is a safe country and has previously been recognised for providing a safe haven for refugees – we will continue preparations for the first flight to Rwanda, alongside the range of other measures intended to reduce small boat crossings.”Campaigners said they were “disappointed” and “deeply concerned” for the welfare of those due to be sent to Rwanda, but added that they would appeal against the decision in court on Monday. More

Home secretary Priti Patel’s highly-controversial plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda on a plane next week has been given the go-ahead, despite warnings by the UN’s refugee agency the scheme is unlawful. A High Court judge rejected campaigners’ bid for an injunction to stop the Home Office’s first deportation flight to Rwanda, scheduled to leave on Tuesday with 31 migrants onboard. Despite outrage from human rights groups and opposition MPs, up to 130 people have been notified that they could be sent to the central African nation for asylum “processing”, as the Home Office plans to schedule more flights this year.The Prince of Wales was reported as privately describing the government’s policy as “appalling”, with Charles said to have been especially frustrated at the policy as he will represent the Queen at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Rwanda later this month.The Times and the Daily Mail each said a source had heard the heir to the throne express opposition to the policy several times in private, and that he was “more than disappointed”.Ms Patel welcomed Friday’s court ruling and insisted that she would “not be deterred” by any further attempts “prevent their relocation through legal challenges and last-minute claims” by activists.“Rwanda is a safe country,” said the home secretary. “We will continue preparations for the first flight to Rwanda, alongside the range of other measures intended to reduce small boat crossings.”Campaign groups said they were “disappointed” and “deeply concerned” at the verdict – but vowed to keep fighting the Rwanda plan. The decision will not stop individual refugees from making their own legal challenges against removal.Court documents revealed the Home Office cancelled deportations to Rwanda for five migrants who appealed. Lawyers for almost 100 migrants have submitted legal challenges asking to stay in the UK, with the remaining expected to follow suit.The court action was brought by lawyers on behalf of Care4Calais and Detention Action, and the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), who challenged the legal principle of the policy.Rejecting the bid to block the flight, Judge Jonathan Swift said some of the risks facing the deported asylum seekers were small and “in the realms of speculation”. Mr Justice Swift said there was a “material public interest” in allowing the home secretary to implement immigration decisions.Clare Moseley, founder of Care4Calais responded: “Today was just the beginning of this legal challenge. We believe that the next stage of legal proceedings may bring an end to this utterly barbaric plan.”Mr Justice Swift did grant the groups permission to appeal Friday’s verdict, suggesting Court of Appeal judges would hear the case on Monday. The judge also said a full judicial hearing to decide on the scheme’s overall legality would take place before the end of July.Detention Action said: “Our appeal will be heard on Monday and our larger legal case against this policy will be heard over the coming weeks. Thanks to all those standing with us.” More

Jacob Rees-Mogg and Commons leader Mark Spencer have refused to take part in a public debate on why they “blocked” a bill that would have spared elephants from torture in Asia.The Brexit opportunities minister and Mr Spencer are widely thought to have vetoed planned legislation to ban UK adverts for foreign theme parks where elephants are stabbed, chained and deprived of sleep, food and water to make them comply with orders.The Animals Abroad Bill, previously agreed in cabinet, would have outlawed adverts by British holiday companies for attractions where the animals are forced on pain of punishment to give rides and perform “tricks” such as playing football and painting pictures.The bill, which would also have banned imports of foie gras, fur and hunting trophies, was dropped earlier this year because of opposition from ministers who deemed it “un-Conservative”.Activists from the Save the Asian Elephants organisation, who were furious at the measure being canned, wrote to the two senior MPs asking them to take part in a debate in their constituencies over the issue and also to go on a fact-finding mission to see how elephants are treated behind the scenes at tourist attractions.The government’s own Animal Welfare Action Plan, which ministers vaunted as groundbreaking when they launched it last year, included a promise to ban the adverts.The sister of a British woman killed by an elephant at one theme park told two months ago how she was disgusted the government had performed a U-turn on its plan.But the bill was dropped from the Queen’s speech at the reopening of parliament.Duncan McNair, chief executive of Save the Asian Elephants (StAE), who has previously had meetings in Downing Street to lobby for a ban, wrote to the two MPs: “This omission came as a shock not only to those engaged daily in working to protect the highly endangered species from brutality and extinction to whom government has repeatedly made such promises, but to the many tens of millions in the country which polling show to be strongly supportive of such a ban.”He said in Mr Rees-Mogg’s North East Somerset constituency, 87 per cent of voters supported the ban and 86 per cent in Mr Spencer’s Sherwood constituency.“Government has yet to explain why it has abandoned its promises of such a ban,” the letter added.“I invite you to debate the issues with me in a convenient large public space within your constituency to see what local people think having heard both sides…“We also invite you to join StAE for a fact-finding visit to SE Asia so you may see first-hand the brutality inflicted on Asian elephants and their babies in tourism at ‘attractions’ promoted by UK companies.”The office of Mr Rees-Mogg, a former Commons leader, did not respond to repeated requests by The Independent to comment on the invitations and to say whether he believes cruelty to elephants can be justified.But a brief reply from the Cabinet Office to Mr McNair said the MP could not agree to either request “due to diary pressures”.A source close to Mr Spencer told The Independent he would not take part in either a debate or visit to elephant attractions in Asia.The source said Mr Spencer would not comment on the letter or on why he opposed the bill.But they said the government was confident it would deliver all its manifesto commitments on animal welfare by the end of the parliament in 2024, as well as pledges in the animal welfare action plan – including banning adverts for low-welfare experiences.Mr McNair has asked Mr Rees-Mogg to write personally explaining his views. More

The Conservative candidate in the Tiverton and Honiton by-election has refused to say how she would have voted in Monday night’s confidence ballot on Boris Johnson had she been an MP, labelling the question “irrelevant”.Helen Hurford said she now backed the prime minister but, asked on Tuesday, if she would have voted to keep Mr Johnson in post, she declined to answer.“I’m not in Westminster,” she said. “I don’t have a vote. Thank you for asking. That would make me sound very important, but it’s irrelevant. It’s happened. He’s here.”The exchange came as the former headteacher battles to retain the rural Devon seat for the Conservatives after former MP Neil Parish resigned following an admission that he had twice watched pornography in the House of Commons.While on paper, the seat should be safely blue – the party has held the constituency since its creation in 1997 and won a 23,000 majority three years ago – the Lib Dems have been made favourites amid continuing anger with Mr Johnson over partygate.Speaking to Radio Exe, Ms Hurford said she had “welcomed” the confidence vote in which 211 Tory MPs voted to keep Mr Johnson as leader compared to 148 who wanted him out.But she said it was now time to “close” the issue.“There’s been a democratic vote, he has had a third mandate now, let’s move forward,” she said. “He’s done a brilliant job with Russia’s war against Ukraine. Putin hates him as prime minister because of how he’s delivering.“He has supported us over the pandemic. My business [ a beauty business in Hiniton] would not be here without the grants. I know loads of my friends who were supported with the furlough. They would not still have their homes if it hadn’t been for that.”Her refusal to clarify if she would have supported Mr Johnson comes after The Independent revealed that Tory strategists had spent much time agonising over how the candidate should answer questions about partygate – in which the prime minister presided over a culture of illegal lockdown parties in Downing Street.So imperfect was every response they workshopped that they decided to simply stop Ms Hurford doing almost any media appearances to prevent her from being scrutinised about the issue.Richard Foord, the Lib Dem candidate, said the Conservatives had taken the area “for granted for decades” and the party’s current infighting would mean further neglect.He said: “Local people are crying out for help but Boris Johnson simply isn’t listening. He’s more focused on trying to cling to power that helping struggling families.” More

Labour has warned of a “cost of living tsunami” as families face price rises of up to 50 per cent on everyday grocery items.Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that the cheapest pasta rose by 50 per cent in the 12 months to April, while the average price of bread, minced beef, rice and crisps increased by more than 15 per cent.Charities say the increase will see more of the poorest families turn to food banks as households struggle with the brunt of the cost of living crisis, which has driven up energy bills, rent prices and food costs.It comes after The Independent revealed how tens of thousands of Britain’s poorest families stand to miss out on help measures introduced by the chancellor Rishi Sunak thanks to the benefits cap.Jonathan Ashworth, shadow secretary of state for work and pensions, said: “Prices are soaring while struggling families are cutting back or even turning to food banks.“Tory MPs last month cut universal credit in real terms after slashing it by £20 a week last year. This is a cost of living tsunami caused by years of Tory economic mismanagement.”Sabine Goodwin, coordinator of the Independent Food Aid Network (IFAN), said: “Increasing staple food prices combined with rising costs in energy are inevitably going to put yet more pressure on low-income households and in turn increase the need for food banks“The chancellor’s cash-first interventions are very welcome but they don’t go far enough given the scale of the UK’s long-standing poverty crisis.”IFAN said 93 per cent of its food banks have reported an increase or significant increase in the need for their services since the start of 2022.As part of the ONS research, statisticians chose 30 low-cost groceries that are regularly purchased by households and tracked their prices from April 2021 to April 2022. During this period, average prices jumped by 6 to 7 per cent, running close to the inflation of overall food and alcohol prices.”For months we’ve heard that families on the lowest incomes have had to make tough choices when doing their weekly food shop, putting items back on the shelves and at the till when hit with rising prices,” said Alice Fuller, head of child poverty at Save the Children UK.“This new ONS analysis of 30 everyday grocery items confirms their experiences and shows the cost of living crisis has already had an impact on people’s finances and the way they eat … The price of a basket of shopping is adding to people’s woes.”Some everyday items tracked in the ONS analysis showed a drop in prices, including cheese, pizza, chips, sausages and apples. The cost of potatoes saw the most notable decrease, at 14 per cent.However, the research, which the ONS said was “highly experimental”, does not take into account the costs associated with buying a product. While potato prices have dropped significantly, many struggling households avoid them because they take longer to boil than alternatives and therefore use more gas or electricity. In March, the boss of Iceland said that some food bank users were turning down potatoes and other root vegetables because they could not afford to boil them.At the same time that staple grocery items have increased, food bank usage has also risen, according to the Trussell Trust.Between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022, food banks in the charity’s UK network distributed over 2.1 million emergency food parcels to people in crisis – a year-on-year increase of 14 per cent.Elizabeth Maytom, a project manager for Norwood-Brixton Food Bank, in south London, said local demand had particularly intensified in recent weeks, describing it as “unprecedented”.“We don’t have enough stock,” she said. “Even basics like pasta and baked beans, we’re asking the general public for, which we never used to do. We’re seeing lots of people needing help for the first time.”IFAN said more than 80 per cent of its 194 food banks reported that they have struggled with food supply issues over the last four months.Kathy Bland, an IFAN member of Leominster Food Bank, in Herefordshire, said their organisation gave out 179 food parcels in April 2022, compared to 86 in April 2021.“We can’t replace the welfare system, and neither should we,” she said. “Providing long-term support for people unable to afford food isn’t sustainable.”Separate data from The Food Foundation recently showed a 57 per cent increase in the proportion of households cutting back on food or missing meals altogether in just three months.In April, 7.3 million adults lived in households that said they had gone without food or could not physically get it in the past month. This is compared with 4.7 million adults in January.“There’s no doubt that the cost of living crisis is having a devastating impact on families’ ability to afford the food they need,” said Shona Goudie, policy research manager at The Food Foundation. “This is in part due to the large increase in food prices that we’re seeing, but also due to increases in prices of other essentials (such as energy bills) which is putting pressure on families’ disposable income and therefore squeezing their food budget.”After weeks of pressure, chancellor Rishi Sunak last week announced a £5bn windfall tax of 25 per cent on oil and gas companies to help fund a £15bn package of assistance for struggling households.Mr Sunak said that almost all of the 8 million worst-off households in the UK will benefit to the tune of £1,200, made up of support measures including a £650 cost of living payment for the poorest, a one-off £300 payment to 8 million pensioner households and £150 each to 6 million disabled people.He added that he will double the assistance with energy bills on offer to all households this autumn from £200 to £400 and convert the payment from a loan to a grant.However, while benefits payments are set to soar by as much as 10 per cent from April, more than 120,000 households will lose out unless ministers raise the cap on how much they can receive from the state. More