I am a great supporter of the Trussell Trust and the fantastic work of this organisation, setting up food banks across the country.

However, Ian Chisnall, in his Soapbox article (The Argus, January 4), comments that the Labour Party debate in Parliament a few weeks ago turned the issue into a “political football”.

Ian states that he has not seen the debate but that he read the Hansard transcriptions of what was said during the debate.

I saw the debate on TV and was disgusted with the comments, behaviour and actions on the Government side.

In brief, this consisted of accusations that people used food banks to get “free” food even though many did not require it, opposition MPs being constantly barracked as they described desperate cases and the two main ministers leaving the chamber during the debate itself as they plainly could not care less about the issue.

This matter is a highly political issue, along with cuts in benefits for working and non-working people, the “bedroom tax” and a million pensioners suffering from poor diets and even malnutrition. And all this in the sixth richest country on the planet – which raises the central question: if we are so rich, where is all that money? In the hands of the richest 5% in the country.

With even a minimal redistribution of that wealth, say 10% (over £400 billion), we would not need food banks, could create millions of jobs, guarantee pensioners a high standard of living and wipe out the deficit at a stroke.

Idealistic? Probably. But could it be done? Absolutely. Political? Of course it is.

Alex Knutsen, Unison