Enhanced heating regimes: consultation analysis

Enhanced Heating Regime 2: higher temperature for standard hours

Q2a) Long term illness but not more time in the home

Question 2a) Do you agree or disagree that the Enhanced Heating Regime 2 (higher temperatures for standard 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 but they do not regularly spend more time in the home, on weekday, during the winter?

13 respondents (62%) agreed with the proposal with another 2 (10%) agreeing in part. 5 respondents (24%) disagreed and 1 did not answer the question.

Comments related to two main themes:

• phrasing of the question
• type of health condition included

Phrasing of the question

Several respondents who made comments at Question 1a) about the potentially confusing or ambiguous of use of the word 'winter' and the subjective nature of the term "more time", repeated these views here.

Illness

As with Question 1a), a few respondents suggested that there should be a list of categories of illness that are susceptible to the cold and that these should be reflected in SHCS questions. Comments relating to the period of time (6 months instead of 12 months) and addition of "health condition" to the question were also repeated.

One respondent noted that symptoms are not uniform or straightforward, and queried how an assessor would prove that the household member does not regularly spend more time in the home, on weekdays, in the winter. Another commented that people that fit this criteria should not be penalised when assessed for support to tackle fuel poverty. These comments perhaps reflect a misunderstanding about the purpose of enhanced heating regimes and how they will be used to calculate fuel poverty rates.

Q2b) Receipt of benefits but not more time in the home

Question 2b) Do you agree or disagree that the Enhanced Heating Regime 2 (higher temperature with standard hours) should be applied to those households where a member is in receipt of benefits received for a care need or disability but they do not regularly spend more time in the home, on weekdays, during the winter?

13 respondents (62%) agreed with our proposal with a further 2 responses agreeing in part. 4 respondents (19%) disagreed with our proposal and 2 respondents did not answer the question.

Comments were similar to those given at Questions 1b), and related to two main themes:

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

Phrasing of the question

Respondents noted that these could be some improvement made to the wording of the question to make it clearer. For example, to make it clear that it was time spent in the home on weekday. There were some suggestions around the use of the word winter, with one suggestion that this should be stated at the start of the question, another that it should not be used at all. As with earlier questions, it was also noted that people who spend more time in the home due to a disability spend more time at home all year round - not just in winter.

Benefits

As with Question 1b) there was general support for the use of benefits for a care need or disability as a proxy for those individuals who would be more likely to need higher temperatures for longer hours. However, a few respondents noted that for care benefits it was important that it was the household with the person receiving care that should have the enhanced heating applied when calculating fuel poverty. Again, a few respondents mentioned that there should be consideration of those that are or would be eligible for these benefits but do not claim them. Two respondents noted that the type of benefit should be specified in the regulations.

Q2c) Aged over 75 but not more time in the home

Question 2c) Do you agree or disagree that the Enhanced Heating Regime 2 (higher temperatures with standard hours) should be applied to those households where a member of the household is age 75 and over but they do not regularly spend more of their time in the home, on weekdays, during the winter?

13 respondents (62%) agreed with our proposal with 7 respondents (33%) disagreeing. One respondent did not answer the question.

Comments were made only by those who disagreed with the proposal. Most referred back to their comments at Question 1c), and related to the same two themes:

• phrasing of the question
• choice of age group

Phrasing of the question

Issues raised were the same as detailed at Q1c). No new issues were identified.

Age

Issues raised were the same as detailed at Q1c). No new issues were identified.

Q2d) Other households to be considered

Question 2d) Are there other households that we should consider for the Enhanced Heating Regime 2 (higher temperatures for standard hours) and why?

Seven respondents made further suggestions, which are listed below. Some of these are the same as those suggested at Question 1d).

Health and disability

• fluctuating health condition, that would require an enhanced heating regime, but who does not regularly spend more time at home, on weekdays, during the winter.
• learning disabilities e.g. autism
• respiratory problems and related conditions e.g. COPD
• physical disability e.g. stroke and 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
• all health conditions which have temperature vulnerability, including terminally ill
• disability that would require an enhanced heating regime, but who does not regularly spend more time at home, on weekdays, during the winter.

Household characteristics

• low income families with children and disability
• households with young children and unemployed parents