This week’s Independent R&B Monday Discussion Group opened with two subjects that, on the surface, might have looked separate, but quickly proved to be deeply connected. Malcolm Gardner framed the session around a practical question for local government: what happens when immediate hardship on the ground meets a wider economic shock that is still only just coming into view?
The first part of the discussion was led by Bob Wagstaff, formerly a Revenues and Benefits practitioner and now manager of Boston Food Bank. His presentation was one of those rare accounts that cut through abstraction very quickly. Rather than talking about poverty in broad policy language, Bob described what it looks like when it arrives at the door in real time. He explained that Boston Food Bank is a Trussell Trust food bank run by the parish church, operating through a referral system designed to provide emergency food in times of crisis rather than long term substitute shopping. In principle, recipients should not normally receive more than three parcels in six months, although Bob was candid that real life is messier than policy design and some people need far more help than the model assumes.
What stood out most was the scale. Bob said Boston Food Bank distributed 32 tonnes of food in 2025 and gave parcels to around 4,500 people, equivalent to about 10 per cent of the town’s population. That figure visibly landed in the discussion. This was not a marginal story about a small number of people falling through the cracks. It was an account of hardship operating at a scale that local services cannot ignore. He also described the practical mechanics behind the figures: around two thirds of a tonne of food leaving the food bank each week, the same amount needing to be collected again, 25 volunteers, only one part time paid manager, and a huge amount of unseen effort in collection, sorting and packing before a parcel ever reaches anyone in need.
Bob’s account also challenged some familiar assumptions about who food banks serve. He explained that the majority of users are of working age, that pensioners form a relatively small proportion, and that many of those seeking help are not out of the labour market altogether but trapped in insecurity, particularly those in zero hours or seasonal work. In Boston’s case, this was closely tied to the structure of the local economy. Recent pressure had come not from a single national announcement but from the weather. Bob described how around 60 days of continuous rain had severely disrupted agricultural work, pushing many already precarious workers into immediate hardship. Demand rose sharply just as post-Christmas donations fell away. For him, climate and hardship were not abstractly linked; they were directly visible in the queue outside the food bank.
Rachael picked up that point powerfully. She said that although everyone thinks they understand poverty, hearing the numbers and the operational detail brought home the reality in a different way. Her main reflection was on weather as a driver of crisis. Drawing on her own local authority experience, she observed that weather affects demand far more than services sometimes acknowledge, whether through calls, pressure or hardship. Her question was whether councils are really building potential weather events into the design of crisis and resilience responses. It was a practical intervention, but also a warning that councils may still be underestimating one of the most immediate triggers of financial distress.
Bob’s answer was blunt. In his view, the CRF is not ready for weather related shocks, and the experience in Boston suggested that this gap will only grow as climate impacts intensify. He said that what he had seen since Christmas felt, in practical terms, like climate change arriving through the front door of the food bank. It was not only homeless people or those with entrenched problems who were affected. It was also working households whose income disappeared as the rain continued and the work dried up.
Paul Howarth took the discussion in another direction, asking whether crises are genuinely being resolved or simply papered over. It was an important challenge, because food banks can easily become seen as evidence of support without anyone asking whether the underlying problem has actually changed. Bob’s response was balanced. He said many people do use the food bank for the intended short bridging period, perhaps once or twice while waiting for a first wage or a benefit payment. Some do move on, and he gave examples of people securing accommodation or getting into work after a short period of crisis. But he was equally clear that there are others whose problems are much more persistent, especially where addiction is involved, and that repeated referrals can become a sign that the wider system has failed to resolve anything durable.
There was also a note of hope in that part of the conversation. Malcolm asked whether some former food bank users return as volunteers, and Bob said yes, some do. In those cases, the food bank becomes more than emergency provision; it becomes part of a cycle of recovery and contribution. That mattered because it stopped the discussion becoming entirely bleak. It also reinforced Bob’s broader point that the work is about stabilising people long enough for something better to happen, not simply handing out tins and bags.
The conversation then widened. Rachael asked whether early prison releases were having an impact, noting that if food banks were seeing an uptick, this might indicate a wider service issue. Bob said Boston had indeed seen pressure linked to released prisoners, which he connected to the nearby prison. Ben Hamilton offered a more cautious view from his own area, saying he had not seen a similar pattern on his side, though he suspected any effect might be felt more in benefits work than elsewhere. This exchange was useful because it showed how local variation matters. National policies do not land evenly; they interact with local labour markets, local institutions and local vulnerabilities.
Tom Clark then brought in the Liverpool perspective. He said Bob’s presentation had really hit home and described how Liverpool works with community partners such as Feeding Liverpool in shaping its Crisis and Resilience Fund approach. Tom’s interest was in sustainability and whether community food pantries might become part of the long term picture. Bob drew a clear distinction. Boston Food Bank, he said, remains a crisis model rather than a pantry model. Pantries may offer lower cost food and a more relaxed structure, but the food bank’s function is emergency support. Tom’s intervention helped move the discussion from immediate operational pressure to wider questions about how local support ecosystems should evolve.
From there, Malcolm shifted the group into the second half of the meeting: stagflation, energy shocks and the prospect of a new cost of living crisis. He argued that councils need to stop waiting for lagging national indicators and start planning now. His concern was not simply about inflation in the abstract, but about a wider chain reaction: conflict disrupting oil and logistics, higher energy and transport costs feeding through into essentials, households entering the shock already carrying debt and arrears, and local services being hit before the formal data catches up. He described this as a financial resilience crisis, not merely a welfare issue.
Paul confirmed Malcolm’s point that it is unusual for COBRA to be convened around something economic rather than military or civil emergency in nature. That observation gave weight to the seriousness of the issue. Malcolm’s wider argument was that councils should assume demand will rise before the formal July energy cap increase, because the anticipation of higher bills and the visible rise in fuel costs will already be affecting behaviour. He linked that directly to council tax hardship, discretionary support, debt advice, food aid and future collection performance. In his view, both household and business fragility mean the effects will show up quickly in local finance systems.
Rachael responded by reflecting on what she called a kind of permanent crisis. She noted, only half-jokingly, that younger adults have now lived through repeated supposedly unprecedented global shocks. Her point was that councils no longer have any excuse for acting surprised. The lesson from the post Covid cost of living crisis should be to look back, learn quickly and act earlier. Her contribution sharpened the policy challenge. This is no longer about whether shocks happen; it is about whether institutions are willing to prepare properly for shocks that are already visible.
Tom agreed with Malcolm’s general picture and added a further emphasis on community intelligence. In his experience, councils often neglect the value of local information that sits much closer to real hardship than national statistics do. He also stressed that impacts would vary by place. A city such as Liverpool will not experience the same pressures in the same way as a rural or agricultural area. That was one of the most useful themes of the afternoon: the idea that preparation must be grounded in local conditions rather than copied from a national template.
Sean O’Sullivan offered a more technical intervention, but an important one. He pointed to Reigate’s experience and argued that councils should look much harder at arrears, write ons and the interaction with CTR and discretionary support. His view was that some authorities leave resources or options sitting unused in their systems because the work is difficult or overlooked. In a tightening environment, he suggested, that kind of technical grip can make a real difference in preserving support rather than cutting it back.
Julie Smethurst brought in an organisational concern from Tameside. She agreed strongly with the importance of local intelligence, but said her worry was that the Crisis and Resilience Fund was not being driven locally by Revenues and Benefits. Instead, other parts of the authority were leading, and although there had been some input from Revs and Bens, she had not yet seen enough tangible planning. Her intervention highlighted a familiar problem in local government: everyone can see the risk, but the right teams are not always leading the response.
Paul closed the meeting on a note that was cautious but clear. He said it would be interesting to see how government responds, but in his view some form of expanded provision now looks inevitable, whether through targeted help for those on oil heating or wider emergency support such as benefit uplifts. His final point was that the uncertainty of geopolitics should not become an excuse for inaction. The conflict may end quickly or it may not, but the need to think about support now is already evident.
What made this session so compelling was that it moved seamlessly from the concrete to the strategic. Bob Wagstaff showed what crisis looks like when it arrives in parcels, queues, volunteer car boots and impossible choices over heating oil. Malcolm Gardner then connected that reality to a larger economic threat that councils can already see forming. Around them, the other speakers added challenge, caution and practical insight. Rachael urged councils not to ignore weather and not to pretend that repeated shocks are still unforeseeable. Tom argued for community intelligence and place based preparation. Sean reminded authorities to use the tools and flexibilities they already have. Julie warned that organisational leadership still matters. Paul pressed the question of whether support is sufficient for what may be coming next.
Taken together, the discussion offered a simple but serious message. The next phase of hardship is unlikely to arrive as a sudden surprise. It is already building through fuel, food, arrears, weather and fragile household finances. The real test for councils is whether they act while the warning lights are flashing, or whether, once again, they wait until the queue is already outside the door.
THE RECORDING CAN BE FOUND HERE
Downloads
Please note that the handout contains additional slides covering other items of interest in the news and job adverts, which are provided in partnership with Business Smart Solutions (https://www.businesssmartsolutions.co.uk/).