Tackling child poverty: Review of the type of targets in the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act - expert advisory group minutes - September 2026

Attendees and apologies

• Mick Wilson, Deputy Director Communities Analysis Division, Scottish Government (Chair)
• Ashwin Kumar, Institute for Public Policy Research
• Helen Barnard, The Trussell Trust
• Mike Brewer, The Resolution Foundation
• Peter Matejic, Joseph Rowntree Foundation
• Stephen Sinclair, Poverty and Inequality Commission
• Spencer Thompson, Fraser of Allander Institute
• Donald Hirsch, Loughborough University
• Luke Stanilan, Department for Work and Pensions
• Peter Martin, Principal statistician (Communities), Northern Ireland Executive
• Claire Griffiths (sub Launa Anderson), Welsh Government
• Gavin Brown, Economic Adviser, Scottish Government
• Angelica Lorenzo, Principal Research Officer, Scottish Government
• Elizabeth Fraser, Statistician, Scottish Government
• Andrew Fraser, Tackling Child Poverty Policy, Scottish Government

Secretariat

• Tackling Child Poverty Strategy, Scottish Government

Apologies

• Kitty Stewart, LSE
• Tom Wernham, Institute for Fiscal Studies

Items and actions

Introductions

The Chair welcomed members to the first meeting of the Expert Advisory Group (“the group”) and noted that minutes of group meetings would be published on the Scottish Government (SG) website. The Chair set out the purpose of the meeting and items for discussion.

Purpose of the review and Terms of Reference

The Chair gave an overview of the purpose of the review and the role of the group as set out in the Terms of Reference. The group will act as a “critical friend” and make recommendations to Ministers. It is not a decision making forum and will not discuss policy issues. Members were invited to provide formal comments on the Terms of Reference by 25 September.

The Chair set out the timeline for the review, noting that the 2030 targets remain in place.

The group discussed that, given the timeline, measures likely need to be available already or those in development currently. The Chair noted advice to Ministers can highlight the potential for future metrics and gaps that cannot currently be measured.

Action: Members to provide any formal comments on Terms of Reference by 25 September.

Process to develop list of options

Critical success factors

SG provided an overview of the process and factors for consideration in the assessment of metrics for the longlist. Officials noted that the Critical Success Factors will be applied to the initial longlist of metrics identified. This will consider whether metrics are relevant, able to be influenced and both robust and timely. Metrics will be assessed on a pass / fail basis to develop a shortlist.

The group discussed:

• the importance of clarity and consistency in how things are classified – for example, the need to distinguish between poverty itself as ultimate outcome and the drivers and consequences of poverty. Members noted it would be useful to be clear on this structure when assessing options and making recommendations
• as well as considering whether data is robust and timely, it was suggested that consideration should be given to whether data could realistically be improved to a standard suitable for use within a reasonable timeframe
• the need to consider the long-term stability and sustainability of data sources
• the need to select metrics where change can be clearly interpreted as positive – for example, take-up of a benefit or service is not usually a good measure because a fall in take-up could indicate reduced need or poorer access to support, while an increase could reflect improved access or growing need
• the potential risks related to measuring poverty based on what SG can influence, noting that child poverty outcomes are shaped by a range of factors, including UK Government policies. Metrics in scope are being kept deliberately broad at this stage, but the wider point around targets and external environment was acknowledged
• the need to consider both breadth and depth of poverty when assessing metrics
• ongoing work to review the Child Poverty Measurement Framework – recognising that some important metrics may be more appropriate as indicators than as statutory targets.
• interaction and alignment between the review of poverty targets and the current review of the National Performance Framework
• whether there is a definition of child poverty underpinning the review, and whether this is in scope for change. SG noted that how child poverty is defined and measured is an area the review will consider

Action: SG to revise the factors and coding framework to reflect this discussion.

Shortlist factors

Scottish Government provided an overview of the factors to be applied to shortlisted measures, noting that the weighting of these factors would be considered at a future meeting.

The group discussed:

• the difference between causality and influence and the need to be clear on this point
• the need to avoid too much duplication. The review should seek to identify the best measure among the other candidate measures
• the importance of ensuring any basket of indicators provides a balanced and well-rounded picture of poverty. A measure should be contributing something specific and distinctive compared to the others in order to be a useful addition to the basket
• the concept of relevance – this could be more clearly articulated, focusing on how meaningful a measure is as an indicator of poverty and its strengths and limitations. This will be addressed through refinement of existing factors rather than adding a new one
• granularity and the practical limitations imposed by sample sizes. This was noted as a point for future discussion around weighting of factors, with an acknowledgement of likely trade-off between granularity and volatility
• the meaning of "credibility" as an assessment factor, noting the need for a clear understanding of who a measure should be credible to and how credibility should be assessed. This will be picked up in later discussions
• that targets are primarily used to assess direction of travel over time and challenges in setting meaningful poverty thresholds

Longlist creation

SG outlined the process to create the longlist, noting that next steps will include reducing duplication within the metrics.

The group discussed:

• the definition of ‘poverty gap’ and whether this could better be described as ‘poverty attributable gap’. SG agreed to consider this further

Action: SG to review language around ‘poverty gap’.

Next steps

The Chair invited members to review the assessment factors and longlist of metrics and provide comments, including suggestions for additional metrics, by 5 October. Feedback could be submitted in the form of a short ‘think piece’.

The next meeting of the group will be arranged for November.

Action: Members to share any further comments on the materials and/or a short ‘think piece’ by 5 October.

Action: Members to confirm availability for an in-person session in Edinburgh in November.

Any other business and close

In discussion it was noted that it would be helpful to articulate the underlying definition of poverty to inform the identification of metrics. SG agreed to share a draft paper outlining these considerations.

Action: SG to share draft paper outlining considerations around definition of poverty.

The Chair thanked everyone for their time and engagement and closed the meeting.