Enhanced heating regimes: consultation analysis

Enhanced Heating Regime 3: standard temperature for longer hours

Q3a) Child under 3 and more time in the home

Question 3a) Do you agree or disagree that the Enhanced Heating Regime 3 (standard temperature with longer hours) should be applied to those households with a child under the age of 3 and who regularly spend more time in the home during the winter?

11 respondents (52%) agreed with our proposal with 8 respondents (38%) disagreeing. Two respondents did not answer the question.

The key theme in the comments of those who disagreed related to choice of age group.

Age

The majority of those who disagreed with the proposal stated that EHR3 should be applied to households with a child age 5 or under (or who were not yet in Primary 1). The remaining respondent proposed that it should relate to the age that the youngest child becomes eligible for 2.5 days of childcare.

Comments included:

• it may take time to fully realise the offer of 30 hours per week funded childcare across Scotland
• there may be geographical variations in the uptake or provision funded childcare places
• not all households would take up a funded childcare place, for a variety of reasons including other family caring commitments
• age 5 is appropriate until the results of the Early Learning and Childcare follow up audit can be reviewed - this is due in early 2020
• until there is evidence that there is widespread uptake of funded childcare for children between age 3-5 it is more appropriate to apply EHR3 to households with a child under 5.

Q3b) Other households to be considered

Question 3b) Are there other households that we should consider for the Enhanced Heating Regime 3 (standard temperature for longer hours) and why?

11 respondents replied yes to this question. The following comments were made by one or two respondents:

• Those in remote areas who work from home. A related comment referred to the increase of the gig economy and increased home working, and that the SHCS will need to expand its questions regarding employment to determine the nature of the workplace and if this is indicated as being the home, then it would be prudent to apply EHR3 to these households.
• Those with a shorter term health condition including cancer. These conditions would not be included within the category for long-term illness.
• Pregnant women. A reference was made to the Equality Impact Assessment published alongside the draft Fuel Poverty Strategy, which noted a lack of impact assessment relating to pregnant women. The respondent also noted that the Scottish Public Health Network includes pregnant women as being vulnerable to health damage from poor housing, and that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance includes pregnant women in their list of groups vulnerable to the cold.
• Carers. Such as members of the family including children and grandparents who care for others in the family and who would be more likely to be spending longer hours at home, should be included in this category. The point was made that it is not the carer who is the focus but the person being cared for. The advantage of including carers in this category is that they would be useful in determining the occupancy status of the person needing care. It was acknowledged that this is easier if the carer is a live-in assistant, and less so if they are a visiting carer.
• Children of school age. It was noted that they require a warm and comfortable environment to grow and develop in.
• Those with mental health illness
• Households with a member of pension age who is not working

One respondent noted that the Expert Panel should be reconvened to identify all appropriate households.