Enhanced heating regimes: consultation analysis

Enhanced Heating Regime 1: higher temperatures for longer hours

Q1a) Long term illness and more time in the home

Question 1a) Do you agree or disagree that the Enhanced Heating Regime 1 (higher temperatures for longer hours) should be applied to those households where a member has a long-term mental or physical illness lasting or expected to last 12 months or more and they regularly spend more time in the home during winter.

13 respondents (62%) agreed with our proposal with 4 (19%) disagreeing.

Of the remaining respondents, 3 partially agreed or agreed in principle suggesting some modifications. One made no comment.

Comments related to two main themes:

• phrasing of the question
• type of health condition included and the definition of "long term".

Around half of those that agreed with the proposal also made comments on these themes.

Phrasing of the question

Several respondents commented on both "more time" and "winter", noting the subjective nature of these terms. It was generally assumed that "more time in the home in winter" was relative to summer, but one respondent queried whether in fact it was meant to be relative to other types of households.

Some suggestions were made including, replacing winter with 'heating season', or 'any season other than summer'.

Several responses noted that people who spend more time at home in the winter are also likely to spend more time in the home all year round, with one response noting that probably everyone spent more time in the home in the winter.

There were also a few comments related to occupancy of the home, and whether the question referred to weekdays or throughout the week. One response noted that the main room for some people with a health condition may be a bedroom, with the implication that the temperature regime for the living room and bedroom would need to be reversed.

Illness

There were some concerns expressed about the time period of 12 months.

Comments included that Enhanced Heating Regime 1 (EH1) should also be applied to those who had a fluctuating condition, and that 12 months was too long and a period of 6 months should be used instead as this would include those who, for example, had been discharged from hospital and had shorter term enhanced heating needs. The suggestion was that the question should be changed to 'do you or a household member have a long-term mental or physical illness lasting or expected to last 6 months or more, or have recently been discharged from hospital in the last month after an extended stay of 7 days or more'.

A few respondents suggested that in order to identify which households should have EH1 applied, it would be helpful to specify, guided by health professionals, the broad categories of illnesses that are sensitive to cold temperatures. One respondent also recommended identifying those conditions where higher temperatures are not beneficial.

The above responses are perhaps indicative of a misunderstanding about the purpose of the enhanced heating regimes, as noted earlier.

A further comment was that the question should include the term "condition", as well as "illness".^[2]

Q1b) Receipt of benefits and more time in the home

Question 1b) Do you agree or disagree that the Enhanced Heating Regime 1 (higher temperatures for longer hours) should be applied to those households where a member is in receipt of benefits received for a care need or disability and they regularly spend more time in the home during winter.

13 respondents (62%) agreed with our proposal with 4 (19%) disagreeing. Of the remaining respondents 3 partially agreed or agreed in principle. One response made no comment.

Comments related to two main themes :

• phrasing of the question
• type of benefit, and how benefits are used as a proxy

Phrasing of the question

A few respondents repeated the points they had raised under Question 1a) relating to the fact that people who spent more time at home in the winter probably spent more time at home all year round, as well as throughout the week, and that the heating season is longer than the winter months.

Benefits

There was general support for the use of benefits for a care need or disability being a 'fair proxy' for those individuals who would be more likely to need higher temperatures for longer hours.

Several respondents voiced concerns about receipt of benefits being used as the sole criteria, and recommended that those who are or would be eligible for these benefits but do not claim them should also be included. However, one respondent noted that these households would be included through other criteria, namely long term illness or aged over 75.

Two respondents suggested that the benefits would need to be specified in the regulations.

It was noted that for care benefits such as Carers Allowance it should be the household with the person receiving care that has the enhanced heating applied when calculating fuel poverty. It was also suggested that carers, especially a person who cares for someone in their family, could be included under Enhanced Heating Regime 3.

Q1c) Aged over 75 and more time in the home

Question 1c) Do you agree or disagree that the Enhanced Heating Regime 1 (higher temperatures for longer hours) should be applied to those households where a member of the household is age 75 and over and they regularly spend more time in the home during winter?

13 respondents (62%) agreed with our proposal with 7 (33%) disagreeing. The remaining respondent did not respond to the question.

Comments related to two main themes:

• phrasing of the question
• choice of age group

Phrasing of the question

As with Question 1a) and b), concerns were raised about potential confusion and ambiguity of the wording. One respondent noted that would be important to be clear who was spending more time in the home in multi-generational households.

Age

Of those disagreeing with the proposal, only 3 disagreed with the proposed age of 75 and over. Two respondents suggested alternative ages: one 70 years and over, and the other 60 years and over. Both these responses were concerned with taking into account socio-geographical conditions, with one noting that climate, demographics and house types in the islands were a factor and the other noting lower life expectancy in Glasgow as a factor.

One respondent who agreed with the proposal noted that the option to amend the age criteria needed to be retained if medical evidence suggested another age.

Q1d) Other households to be considered

Question 1d) Are there other households that we should consider for the Enhanced Heating Regime 1 (higher temperatures for longer hours) and why?

8 respondents (38%) stated "yes" to the question and suggested that households with the following characteristics should be considered:

Health and disability

• health conditions with temporary vulnerability
• recently discharged from prolonged stay in hospital where enhanced heating is required for recuperation
• respiratory problems and related conditions e.g. COPD
• physical disability e.g. stroke
• any debilitating condition that may be short to medium term e.g. cancer that has the potential to become a more complex illness or condition.
• members with ill health and babies
• all health conditions which have temperature vulnerability, including terminally ill
• learning disabilities e.g. autism
• premature baby in the household over winter

Age

• 65 and retired

Economic

• households vulnerable to fuel poverty
• low income families