REFERRING to your lead on May 29, like many others I too am concerned at the rising numbers using food banks. But it is a problem we have largely created for ourselves. Originally invited to help set up a food bank and knowing little about them, I referred to the Trussell Trust website and developed distinct reservations. They seemed to work effectively as a Government agency directed to issuing the products of freely given donations only to specified 'clients' by way of vouchers issued by approved authorities. Notably, and strangely for a charity, not including the food bank themselves. We have, through food banks, effectively replaced the original state safety net with a lower one; this only to ensure that the poor do not actually starve. I began a campaign for the proper and efficient maintenance of the welfare state, a once declared objective of food banks. Their uncomfortably 'slick' web site speaks of 'restoring dignity and reviving hope', when they will know better than anyone that, as confirmed by the Lambie report of several years ago and much anecdotal evidence since, feelings of humiliation and anger are the more common mindset of supplicants. How could it be otherwise, people being driven to such extremities to put food on their table? Our current Archbishop bewails the rising tide of food parcels and seems uncomfortable with the 'success' of his church's own brainchild. The Government can now apply more draconian disciplinary measures involving the cutting and indeed the entire withdrawal of benefits from the unemployed and can be less concerned with raising the levels of low pay because the poor will not actually starve and many good Christians can be relied on to 'feed my sheep'. Since it is quite often the poorest who give the greatest part of their income to charity, it is all self-financing; the poor pay for their own salvation and the whole process is cost free to the Exchequer. This, I suppose, must be seen as the Prime Minister's 'Big Society' writ large. So 'political' has this charity become that my own church is now entirely compromised. It cannot withdraw from what has become a part of the welfare state. It can, however, withdraw from the voucher scheme and relinquish the connection with this and any other Government's political philosophy. It will be difficult to be the judges as to who eats and who doesn't, but it will force the Government to resume its responsibilities. Food banks can then both feed the poor and campaign more vigorously in their interests free of the taint of political association; when you sup with the 'devil', a long spoon is never long enough! Brian Martin Bere Alston