Coffee House

Edwina Currie is wrong about food banks

30 January 2014

8:03 PM

30 January 2014

8:03 PM

The Trussell Trust would like to correct the following inaccuracies and misleading statements made in Edwina Currie’s recent blog, and wishes to make readers aware that Edwina Currie has never spoken to The Trussell Trust, and has not sought to verify any of her assertions with us.

A response to ‘Food banks aren’t solving problems — they can make things worse too’

The Trussell Trust started Salisbury foodbank in 2000 and has been running it ever since.

The Trussell Trust started the UK foodbank network, a social franchise, in 2004. All foodbanks in The Trussell Trust’s network operate to a common system, adhering to agreed policies.

All Trussell Trust foodbanks share their data with The Trussell Trust head office using an online data collection system, enabling the Trust to report data trends and figures for all foodbanks in its network – hence we were able to report the 170 percent increase in numbers helped by Trussell Trust foodbanks last year.

The Trussell Trust does far more than ‘merely advise churches and community groups on how to [run a foodbank]’: this statement displays total ignorance about how The Trussell Trust network operates. Each Trussell Trust foodbank is provided with ongoing support by regional and national staff, including back office support in functions like marketing, IT, fundraising and corporate relations. The Trussell Trust provides practical resources to its foodbanks, as well as hosting training events and carrying out quality assurance audits.


Trussell Trust foodbanks do not give out food to anyone who turns up at a foodbank, you have to be referred by professionals such as social workers, health visitors, CAB, children’s centres and schools liaison officers. The increased supply is meeting unmet need, unless we believe that the 23,000 professionals who refer to foodbanks are wrong. Readers must choose who they believe: the thousands of professionals who refer clients to foodbanks, or Edwina Currie.

Edwina provides no evidence that foodbanks are perpetuating the problem. Foodbank use and poverty are undoubtedly linked and there is a wealth of evidence from a range of respected organisations such as Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Oxfam  and the SERC funded multi-university PSE UK Survey to suggest that there are increasing problems with poverty in the UK.

The Trussell Trust knows who needs foodbanks because we meet these people and help them. As a result we know that they come from a range of backgrounds for a wide range of reasons that are far more complex than Edwina Currie’s stereotypes.

Manchester has set aside funds to tackle food poverty not funds for foodbanks. Foodbanks are not a replacement for health services. Foodbanks work in partnership with agencies such as drugs and alcohol advice services, as well as mental health services.

Trussell Trust  foodbanks provide three days’ nutritionally balanced food and support, not just a tin of soup.

Trussell Trust foodbanks deliberately operate a very different model to foodbank models in the USA, Canada and parts of continental Europe. In particular, Trussell Trust foodbanks discourage dependency on a foodbank. Trussell Trust foodbanks offer a time-limited crisis intervention based on a referral system with food vouchers signed off by professionals, 50 percent of whom are statutory agencies. Trussell Trust foodbank clients may redeem three foodbank vouchers in a row, at which point the foodbank manager will contact the referral agent about putting together a support plan to help the client break out of crisis. Longer term support from the foodbank is available in exceptional circumstances as agreed between the foodbank manager and referral agency.

We signpost clients to other agencies and local services able to help resolve the underlying cause of the crisis.

Benefit levels are not normally viewed as “substantial”. We know of no-one who will argue this after they have tried living for a week or two on them, and several journalists and politicians have.

Far from perpetuating the problem they seek to solve, evidence from a wide range of professionals who refer to foodbanks states that the foodbanks in their community are not only vital in preventing short term hunger, but help to prevent crime, housing loss, suicide and family breakdown.

Foodbanks are not an alternative to a local shop. They provide short term emergency food to people in a crisis, people cannot just turn up, take their pick and leave. They must be referred, and there is time-limited help available to prevent dependency. There is no verifiable evidence given to suggest foodbanks have contributed to the decline in local food stores!

Helping to reduce the numbers of people in poverty in the UK is essential, that’s why The Trussell Trust has called for an official in depth inquiry into the root causes of poverty and increased foodbank use. The Trussell Trust is working to help create a nation where far fewer people are going hungry, but where there is essential local community support available when people hit a crisis.

Chris Mould is Chairman of the Trussell Trust.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • mamali

    Or rather. If you must publish, get your facts right first.

    کرکره برقی

    درب اتوماتیک

    کرکره برقی
    درب اتوماتیک

  • Anna C Young

    I agree with Edwina Currie

  • 170idiot

    more lies and spin from the Currie robot, spinning out the Tory lies as ever.

  • NeilM639

    Currie is not only a nasty piece of work, but a hypocrite as well. This is the woman who, while lecturing us about “family values,” was having an extra-marital affair with a senior colleague. It has been said, during what should have been working hours.

  • Sandra Williams

    Well said, Chris, and thanks for putting this straight. Currie is one nasty piece of work, a liar, and it’s great this article has put her in her place.
    Old mother Currie
    takes her free egg
    but thinks that others
    should have to beg.

  • Fordyce

    Judging by a food bank close by which is manned by enthusiastic volunteers it seems to be a comfortable form of social action for the local middle class residents.
    I doubt many of them would man a soup kitchen in town though the freezing night hours.

    • Kooljeff

      So you know them all individually and know what motivates each of them and what they will and won’t do?

  • curtisecarr

    “Helping to reduce the numbers of people in poverty in the UK is essential, that’s why The Trussell Trust has called for an official in depth inquiry into the root causes of poverty and increased foodbank use”

    Foodbank referrals are an everyday procedure often offered when processing applications for crisis grants by local authorities, the same local authorities that manage housing benefit and adult protection (social work services that encompass addictions to drug, alcohol, gambling etc.) My experience is that an overwhelming majority of foodbank vouchers are issued to claimants with existing dependency problems and / or sanctions on their benefits due to fraud etc.
    Perhaps more people have substance abuse issues but that shouldn’t be conflated with not having enough money to feed themselves or their families.

    • Kooljeff

      FACT: The largest percentage of Food Bank users are referred by the DWP because that organisation cannot process claims accurately or in a timely fashion. It is not about fraud.

  • Ciaran_J_Goggins

    I do not know how I would survive without the local food bank. They provide an excellent service to people in my situation.

  • Eyesee

    Every time you set up a channel, a repeated resource to give people things, they will come to rely on it. It is the easy option. Most foodbanks are ideological not substantive and the fact that they are always used to ’embarrass’ the Conservatives rams home the point. And I found it particularly interesting in the comments to hear Common Purpose and conspiracy raised, in a negative way. It is clear that Marxist principles are being applied across great swathes of the country, in unofficial and mainly with unelected bodies. Thatcher may have invented Quangoes (is that how it’s written?), but it was a gift to the Left as it now made it so much easier to get these powerful bodies run by the startling idiots they Left relies on. Then there is the Public Sector. Schools don’t educate, hospitals become careless killing factories, the police spout endless nonsense and don’t do their job, the Civil Service feels empowered to ignore government and push its own, pro-EU, anti-capitalist agenda. For goodness sake, otherwise sane people come to accept that Man is heating up the world, without requiring any evidence! (Lately, people have been asking more questions on this subject and the answer is from this list; you are a bad person, the science is settled, nobody should further investigate climate, there is a consensus or you are a bad person). So, it may be a conspiracy, or it may be that, having seen the people are not going to rise up in violent revolution and demand searing poverty, starvation, summary execution and gulags, decided to use alternative routes, individually without contact with others. There are an awful lot of ‘organisations’ on the Left though…….

    • ReefKnot

      And many of these organisations masquerade as ‘Charities’ when in fact they do no real charitable work at all but spend time lobbying and campaigning instead. Many of them are unwittingly funded by the taxpayer ( note not ‘supported’ ) and can thus afford to pay their CEO’s very large salaries – in excess of £60k. An awful lot of them have a very political left wing agenda.
      So should charities be funded by the taxpayer or should they be required to rely on private donations ? Should charities indulge in political lobbying and campaigning or should they be confined to doing real charitable work ?

      • SgtVimes

        Shouldn’t you be asking why there is a need for such charities, real or otherwise? If the government stops making charity cases, we’ll stop needing charities.

        • GnosticBrian

          They exist to provide well remunerated sinecures for bleeding heart lefties.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Did you ask that question from 2004 to 2010 when New Labour was presiding over plenty of charities and plenty of charity cases.

          Odd how all this sanctimony only seems to emerge when the leftists are not in government.

    • Kit Conway

      “…they will come to rely on it. It is the easy option.”

      Three times per year?

    • David Ritchie

      Enjoying the floods are we?

      • Eyesee

        Am I supposed to? The Left/EU floods you mean, yes?

    • Kooljeff

      Conspiracy theory nut-job.

  • Iain Hill

    Excellent model. Currie is the epitome of loud mouthed ignorance. Waste no time on her. Go on doing a great job. It shames the govt.

    • AndrewS

      ‘It shames the govt.’

      Therein lies the motive…well…that and the very good living that the ‘charities’ provide to those that run them. It will be interesting to see whether food banks become ‘so 2014’ if Labour win the next election.

      • Kooljeff

        Food Banks are staffed by VOLUNTEERS – idiot

  • drydamol1


    Cameron blatantly Lied again by saying “we are tackling Britain’s Debt we are making
    Progress “. Cameron will have borrowed more in three years than Labour Borrowed
    in 13 .There will be more Cuts of £11.5 201402015 (NAO) and the future for our
    children looks very bleak .

    Cameron and his cronies promote Privatisation which earns
    those that have it but they save it rather than circulate it within the Economy

    Most people on Benefits live week by week or fortnight by
    fortnight depending on how they are paid you do not have to be an Economist to
    reach the conclusion that if the Benefit Cuts had not taken place that money
    would have circulated back into the Economy on a weekly basis .

    What is he doing with all the extra money he borrows ,all Services have been cut ,Post office sold off and parts of the NHS .Between
    1997 and 2010 Labour Borrowed £429.475
    Billion since May 2010 the Tories have Borrowed £430.072 Billion .Poverty has
    grown overall and grows even more by
    interim Poverty ,those that are Sanctioned on a weekly basis . The so-called
    training providers such as A4e are tax
    payer funded we pay them to pay huge employers like ASDA and Marks & Spencers
    to keep their wage bills down by making use of unpaid workers .A4e are under
    fraud investigation at present .Austerity – there is something radically wrong somewhere

  • Fernando5

    Like any act of charity, those dispensing it get more benefit than those receiving it. It’s also more effective than the mere doling out of money by the state. The state is
    impersonal and remote. This is immediate and highly personal. There is a good
    old-fashioned Victorian element of censure involved. Rather than claiming something as a right you are admitting you’ve failed and are asking for help.

  • Frank

    Hardly a surprise that Edwina Currie got most things wrong!

  • johnslattery

    “Benefit levels are not normally viewed as “substantial”. We know of no-one who will argue this after they have tried living for a week or two on them”–Well, there’s me. At various times in my checkered career I have lived on around sixty pounds a week, for more than a couple of weeks. It’s doable.

    Benefit levels ARE substantial.

    • Ciaran_J_Goggins

      I get £72 per week job dodger allowance but they stopped my housing benefit because I told some porkies. Food banks and handouts keep me going.

  • Jimmy Sands

    We any of you visited by three ghosts over the holidays by any chance?

    What a revolting section of humanity this site attracts.

    • Adaadat

      You, for example.

      • SgtVimes

        I thought Oscar Wilde was dead.

    • Ciaran_J_Goggins

      Thank you so much.

  • Colonel Mustard

    On QT tonight Emily Thornberry complained about the unfairness of the ‘bedroom tax’. Hmm.

  • Adaadat

    Hmm, wouldn’t those who refer the ‘needy’ to the food banks, have some sort of ‘Labour’ axed to grind?

    Wouldn’t those professionals (no mention of who they are, of course) wish to score some political points?

    Wouldn’t those who are skilled at feigning illness and job-hunting, also be proficient at feigning hunger?

    Wouldn’t wide-spread publicity of the availability of free food and household necessities create a proportion of the increase in the demand for them?

    Wouldn’t some of the users of the food banks – the new ones, in particular – have xboxes, Sky subscriptions and snazzy smart phones, which they could downgrade?

    • SgtVimes

      That’s the stuff. Never let ignorance and delusion get in the way of an ill-informed rant.

    • Kooljeff

      “…wouldn’t those who refer the ‘needy’ to the food banks, have some sort of ‘Labour’ axed to grind?…”

      The ‘gatekeepers’ who issue vouchers to refer people to food banks include, the police, GPs, Social Services, the DWP, Councils and CAB. Is every member of those organisations across the nation a Labour supporter?

  • London Calling

    Thank God for food banks………………many would go hungry……….:)

    • Ciaran_J_Goggins

      So true, I would struggle to eat without their kindness and charity. Another fine example of David Camerons ‘Big Society’ working.

      • whs1954

        You can’t afford to buy food to eat, yet you can afford the internet connection to come here and post…

        • Kooljeff

          Because IDS wants all claimants to maintain their claims online. Internet is now a requirement to access Social Security. Do try and keep up.

  • manonthebus

    I don’t need to trust either Edwina Currie or Chris Mould. The statement “…23,000 professionals who refer to food banks…” tells me all I need to know. Nobody in this country is starving. Welfare benefits provide a standard of living for non-working people that would have been unheard-of when I was growing up. Mr Mould is probably a very nice man who can see only good in people. I’m afraid that I tend to rely on common sense.

    • SgtVimes

      So in your dictionary “Common sense” is defined as “my own petty prejudices”.

    • Kooljeff

      So Common Sense, means being prejudiced, holier-than-thou and free of compasion.

  • HookesLaw

    What Mr Mould does not explain is why when in recent years over a million jobs have been added to the economy, why are there still people on benefits at all and still as he claims not just poor but also nutritionally challenged?
    Benefits may or may not be ‘substantial’ ( – although it is well documented that there are indeed people living on such substantial levels that the government is constrained to limit benefits to £36,000 -) but benefits are we must surmise sufficient.

    Meantime in Canada over 800,000 used food banks in 2004. Now? Its still over 800,000. They create their own demand – but do they indicate any level of ‘poverty’?.

    • SgtVimes

      I think you are getting a little confused here. Mr Mould runs a charity. If anyone needs to explain why 1m new jobs hasn’t made us all comfortably off its the government. If DWP are refering claimants to food banks then either they are needed or the government is complicit in perpetuating this alledged scam.

      • Colonel Mustard

        Mould’s foodbanks have been going since 2004. Strange no-one was describing the government as complicit from 2004 to 2010.

        • GraveDave

          there’s always been food banks and soup kitchens, that’s true enough. But there’s only one IDS. And until the Tories there wasn’t nearly so many needed. Then the endless sanctions and disabled people being sentenced to die. As for bedroom tax -oh sorry – bedroom ‘subsidy’. Well let’s not get started on that one.
          Grubby little people.

          • SWalkerTTU

            To the tune of “Guantanamera”:

            There’s only one IDS
            There’s only one IDS
            And that’s one too many
            And that’s one too many

        • Kooljeff

          Listen Tory Central Office shill, being against Tory policy is not the same as supporting Labour. I know it’s a complex idea that is difficult for right-wingers to comprehend, but do try.

    • Adam Waldron

      Because the million new jobs are mostly part time 4-16 hrs a week jobs which are really just faux jobs and support little else than the govt jobless statistics.

      • Kooljeff

        And IDS is going to start sanctioning part-time workers next.

    • Kooljeff

      “…why when in recent years over a million jobs have been added to the economy, why are there still people on benefits at all…”

      Ah the oft quoted 1 million jobs trotted out by the Tories. One notices that (a) the unemployment figure stays roughly the same at 2.5 million and (b) that job creation count doesn’t grow. The fact is that if every vacancy was filled overnight there would still be nearly 2 million people claiming JSA. If we take all those under-employed (those looking for full time work, more hours who are on part-time or Zero hours contracts) you can add at least another 4 million.

  • AndrewS

    How many people starved to death last year in the UK?

    • SgtVimes

      It’s not just about starving to death, its about malnutrition more generally. Just so you don’t accuse me of being a bleeding heart lefty, here is a report on it from the Daily Mail

      • Mr Grumpy

        Your link leads me to suspect that the best contribution we could make to combatting malnutrition would be to go into our local hospitals and feed some patients – since the nurses can’t find the time/can’t be bothered and the hospital food’s crap anyway. I don’t expect to see former NHS bureaucrat Chris Mould making this point any time soon, though.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Well said.

      • AndrewS

        Obviously then we need to set up a few new quangos and/or charities to provide nutritionists to the needy. Or possibly expand meals on wheels? To attract the right type of volunteer we could provide free Range Rovers in return for dropping off a couple of plates on the way back from the school run.

    • Kooljeff

      “…How many people starved to death last year in the UK?…”

      Google Mark Wood.

  • mrsjosephinehydehartley

    Foodbank use and poverty are undoubtedly linked and always will be if people have to be referred to one by so-called professionals. This is how we get the “deserving” and the “undeserving” poor.

    One wonders who is serving who or what really? It strikes me that the hungry have to exchange what privacy, dignity and autonomy they might have left in order to deserve such a complex organisational set up. Never mind professionals – one wonders are such organisations with their corporate personalities really parting with any stuff ( food or otherwise) that can be called “goods”?

    In my view the so-called goods delivered via foodbanks and their minions – however well intended-may well be just another preposterous and pretentious pretext, designed to over-regulate members of the public who might be hungry in the short term, and in the longer term designed to spoil what’s left of our social security system together with our common understanding of what charity is supposed to be, for future generations.

    • fozz

      The “deserving” and the “undeserving” poor.

      Who decides who is who? Deserving/undeserving of poverty or of help?

      • SWalkerTTU

        If anything, of both poverty and help, the ones most deserving are the ones least likely to get it.

    • Rainsboro

      I am no blind supporter of endless welfare payments and, yes, I managed to survive on the dole for a couple of months when I was single but your comment is staggering ignorant, callous and pompous.

      We have a welfare system which, quite often, screws things up totally and leaves people without any money. Unbelievable as it may seem to you, a lot of these people don’t know anyone who can lend them any money. This means, quite simply, that they don’t eat and their children don’t eat.

      When I volunteered at CAB (and most of the volunteers were retired ladies – one nation Tories rather than foaming Marxists) I came across cases where the children were living on toast and not because their parents were lazy or stupid, they had been made unemployed and there were no jobs because employers could employ youths or immigrants. They, had, quite simply been the victims of poor economic planning and bad luck.

      They didn’t want to be on the dole, they wanted to work and they didn’t want to accept charity. However, they had no choice, they did not want their children to ‘be hungry in the sort term’. Are there no workhouses? God knows, the left p*sses me off a lot of the time, but I read comments like yours and realise there’s just as much prejudice, bigotry and stupidity on the right.

  • Curnonsky

    To summarize: shut up, we’re Professionals, we know best!

    • SgtVimes

      Or rather. If you must publish, get your facts right first.

  • Colonel Mustard

    How much do you earn Chris, and are you a Common Purpose graduate?

    • Andy

      Chris Mould, Curriculum vitae
      Age 53.
      Status Married with four daughters.
      Lives Salisbury.
      Education Royal grammar school, High Wycombe; Magdalen College, Oxford University, BA modern history; London School of Economics, MSc (Econ) social policy and planning in developing countries.
      Career 2010-present: partner, the Shaftesbury Partnership; 2007-present; director, the Trussell Trust (executive chairman since 2011); 2004-10: independent consultant, Transformation and Strategic Change; 2001-03: chief executive, Centrex (the central police training and development authority); 1992-2001: district general manager, Salisbury health authority and chief executive, Salisbury healthcare NHS trust; 1988‑92: general manager then chief executive, Community and Mental Health Services, South Bedfordshire; 1982-88: NHS planner and hospital manager, London and Southend.
      Public life Chair: Foundation for Social Change and Inclusion (a Bulgarian NGO), FranchisingWorks Ltd and Resolving Chaos; trustee: the Trussell Trust and the Ffald-y-Brenin Trust.
      Interests Family, running, mountaineering, theology.

      • Colonel Mustard

        Hmm. Reads like a Common Purpose elitist. Someone with a predominantly health background suddenly spends three years as ‘Chief Executive’ at the police training and development authority, presumably inculcating the ideology of ‘Social Change and Inclusion’ (aka cultural revolution).

        • Andy

          Forgot to add that he is also a member of the Labour Party.

          • Colonel Mustard

            Of course. So his far from independent public ‘message’ is just part of the third sector ‘shadow’ opposition.

            I’m surprised the Speccie published this tripe – at least without a health warning as to his deep rooted red credentials.

            • Shorne

              You have to keep trying to shoot the messenger don’t you otherwise people might start to realise that the message is correct and you and your kind are wrong.
              I wish I could believe that Matthew 25: 31-46 is what will happen.

          • HookesLaw

            Now you get to the nub.

            • Andy

              Yes I’m sorry. I should have mentioned that first. It explains all.

          • Alec

            Well, at least you’re not repeating the one about Mould and the TT being Tory stooges, as Mel Kelly of the Our Kingdom blog did before getting a well-deserved spanking.

            What Pa’ Gyllenhaal said to Maggie and Jake seems apposite.


        • HookesLaw

          Harping on about ‘common purpose’ looses you the argument you ought to win.

          • Colonel Mustard

            Why? It is a very real problem for democracy here. I wish it was ‘harped on about’ a lot more, especially by the people who are supposed to safeguard our liberties.

            And it is ‘loses’. You loosen ties.

            • HookesLaw

              Yes ‘loses’. Typing does funny things. I am profoundly overwhelmingly unutterably grateful to you.

              There is nothing sinister about ‘common purpose’ – stop inventing these conspiracies.

              • Colonel Mustard

                Oh really? And how do YOU know that?

                I presume you are aware of their record in Leveson?


        • Ian Walker

          and every single penny sucked from the public teat

          • Iain Hill

            What? Not my donations. Have you donated to help people in need?

          • Amanda Kendal

            Really? Donations of food to foobanks are “sucked from the public teat”?

            Try thinking before you jerk that knee. You might find it an interesting experience.

            • Ian Walker

              Try thinking yourself. I was referring to the list of jobs and employers.

        • Frank

          I am sorry Colonel Mustard, I usually like your comments, but I think that you are wrong about Chris Mould. Whatever his politics, he appears to be doing an important job. I don’t say that as a labour voter / sympathiser. I find it horrific that a nation that has a govt that spends somewhere around £750Bn a year has pockets of such acute poverty that food banks are required. I know that this govt has tried to make efficiencies and savings, but we clearly need to do much more and to focus govt aid where it is most needed (it might also help if HMRC grew a pair and nailed some of the international companies avoiding UK tax).

          • Colonel Mustard

            How can I be ‘wrong’ about him? I asked two questions, neither of which have been answered.

            But on the broader issue you won’t convince me that the current foodbanks exposure has not been deliberately orchestrated and whipped up by Labour and the leftist collective to serve their political purposes.

            It is strange that Mr Mould’s organisation has been providing foodbanks since 2004 but we heard little or nothing about them whilst New Labour was still in power.

            • MarcusPod

              “It is strange that Mr Mould’s organisation has been providing foodbanks since 2004 but we heard little or nothing about them” – that’s because there were so few of them under Labout. There WAS an increase under Labour, but a percentage increase from say 1 to 10 over a few years is NOT the same story as a rise form say 100 to 1,000 over a coupe of years. Figures are indicative, Google for the actual ones (but I doubt you will, because thee’s a danger there of you finding out some facts for once).

      • AndrewS

        Very impressive…but you don’t answer either question.

        PS In my view, it is the bleeding heart bien pensant that are the root of most of society’s current problems. It is intelligent to get someone to sign you into a food bank, or to claim benefits rather than work, or to come to the UK to work and send your income and child benefit back home, or to come to the UK to get the operation you cannot afford, or to claim victimhood when you know it will win any argument and it is truly big hearted useful idiots like you who make it so.

        • Andy

          I sought to answer neither. What he earns ought to be a matter of public record and I’ll wager he is ‘Common Purpose’. However, I thought his rebuttal smacked of the arrogance and ‘we know best attitude’ that we have all come to expect from the Fascist Labour Party.

          • AndrewS

            I assumed you were him. My bad. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

          • SgtVimes

            No one does arrogance better than the Bullingdon Club.

            • Colonel Mustard

              Stay around and read telemachus’ comments.

    • SgtVimes

      What does it matter. Edwina’s piece was riddled with inaccuracies. How much Chris earns has nothing to do with her lack of abilities or research.

      • Enders_Shadow
        see p.24 As a trustee, Mould is listed as having received less than 30K, and 12k of that relates to the previous year. Therefore the income he’s receiving is very low. It’s concerning to note that the payment was to a service company, thus avoiding tax liabilities,

        The annual report also indicates that NO employee received over £60k.

  • GraveDave

    So there Edwina!