Sir - We cannot leave our children burdened with these debts, warned the Prime Minister before the election. A powerful message indeed.

Who would dare challenge such an obvious concern? The very mention of children invokes a warm glow, protective instinct and the willingness to make sacrifices and so its unsurprising this strategy has been used.

But in reality as a justification for the austerity now getting the green light from the electorate how does it stack up ? Healthy public services and the ability to access and make something of education are needed for children.

Child poverty has been alarmingly high with many underfed or otherwise poorly clothed being helped by schools. Supermarkets offer book vouchers for schools.

Many are growing up in families hit by debt and struggle and have had the experience of the family meal from a foodbank. Yes the Government is right. We don't want the next generation crippled by debt.

But nor do we want them traumatized and their prospects blighted by the austerity afflicting their families or indeed for them to grow up in a country where the example is given that to be poor is to be in danger of hunger or an unheated house and at the mercy of a growing culture of indifference and even resentment about the state support provided to others.

Where to fall on hard times is to be unsafe and yet where, perhaps just a few doors along the same street the comfortable circumstances enjoyed might as well be on another planet so remote a prospect it is to the poorer family to whom it is a torment rather than an incentive.

Where the child cannot settle at school or see the slightest point in doing their homework. These are the dangers to which children are particularly vulnerable.

This is not the 1930's but for millions it is no different and children really have taken a hit. The rhetoric is of protecting them but the reality falls somewhat short.

Andrew Brown

WORCESTER