Your reporting of the Tory welfare cuts was interesting and astute (Tory welfare cuts will plunge 500,000 children into poverty, News, June 28).

However, your criticism of Tory plans to redefine child poverty was blemished by a flawed definition (Scotland's first poverty adviser: The Tories' plans to redefine child poverty are 'wicked', News, Jun 28). You reported that the "current definition of poverty is whether a child lives in a household which has an income less than 60% of the minimum wage". Minimum should have read median, and income is more appropriate than wage as many people have substantial income which is not wage-related.

Poverty can be defined and measured in several ways. Relative income poverty compares each household's income, adjusted for family size, to median income. The median is the middle income: half of households have more than the median and half have less. "Less than 60% of the median income" is one standard definition of poverty.

Prime Minister David Cameron has stated: "Today, because of the way it is measured, we are in the absurd situation where if we increase the state pension, child poverty actually goes up." It might: but then again, it might not. It certainly will if mean income (as opposed to median) is your standard measure.

Methinks Mr Cameron, like many before him, confuses median and mean (average). Is it difficult to imagine that austerity promoters, like Mr Cameron and his ilk, may misconstrue the import of the word "mean"?

Any change in definition will not decrease a whit the level of suffering of our impoverished citizens. It is a politician's duty to minimise this suffering, not to play with semantics, like David Cameron in his attempt to ingratiate himself with fat cats and judgemental voters.

If Naomi Eisenstadt, Scotland's first poverty adviser, is willing to challenge Westminster, she deserves our support.

David Muir

Edinburgh