Saturday, June 22, 2024

Thurrock MP defends position on voting against Foodbank investigation

THURROCK MP Jackie Doyle-Price has defended her position on why she voted in the House of Commons against an investigation into the growing use of foodbanks

Ms Doyle-Price was one of 296 MPs who voted against the Labour motion.

The motion “moved” by Maria Eagle (Lab) was:

“That this House notes that the number of people using foodbanks provided by the Trussell Trust alone has increased from 41,000 in 2010 to more than 500,000 since April this year, of whom one third were children; further notes that over the last three years prices have risen faster than wages; further notes the assessment of the Trussell Trust that the key factors in the rising resort to foodbanks are rising living costs and stagnant wages, as well as problems including delays to social security payments and the impact of the under-occupancy penalty; calls on the Government to publish the results of research into foodbanks commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which Ministers promised would be made public in the summer of 2013; and further calls on the Government to bring forward measures to reduce dependency on foodbanks, including a freeze on energy prices, a water affordability scheme, measures to end abuses of zero hours contracts, incentives to companies to pay a living wage and abolition of the under-occupancy penalty.”

Romford MP Andrew Rosindell summed up the feelings of many Conservative MPs when he told a constituent that he “Felt that the Labour Party used the issue to play party politics at Christmas time and I was determined not going to fall into their trap.”

Whilst Ms Doyle-Price took to Twitter to tell people why she voted against it.

Ms Doyle-Price said: “If you read the motion you would see why I voted against it. I am not going to endorse Labour’s halfbaked energy policy.”


  1. Ms Jackie Doyle-Price
    If the motion had been solely about “food banks” would you have supported it?
    Do you accept that an increase, since 2010, to the number of people relying on “food banks” from 41.000 to 500.00, i.e an increase of 459.000, is a cause for concern especially as one third, i.e 166.000, are children? Does it not bother you in the slightest?
    It was churlish of you to oppose the motion simply on the grounds that you were not going to endorse Labour’s half baked energy policy.
    Will you be asking the Government to publish the results of research into “food banks”, commissioned by DEFRA, which Ministers promised would be made public in the summer of 2013, now 6 months overdue? I suspect you will not for fear it will be embarrassing reading for you and the Government.
    Jackie when you are tucking into your Christmas dinner will you spare a thought for those who cannot afford such a dinner “half baked” or otherwise?

  2. Labour motion is simple statement of fact. If JDP and Rosindell had supported the motion, nobody would have commented. The fact they seek to rubbish the motion shows them both up for the Tory cheerleaders they really are.

  3. As usual, extremely poor politics from Labour. Honestly, did they really expect to get a result on that motion, worded as it was? Highlighting the food bank issue was a good idea and it’s right to call on the Government to publish the results of the research mentioned. Then, the MP loses the plot and asks for a raft of Government measures that are, by and large, pie in the sky! Of course JDP couldn’t support that, no MP with half a brain could. So, what would have been a good motion difficult to vote against turned into an easy get out. As I said, poor politics.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


More articles