Publication - Research and analysis

Fuel Poverty Strategy for Scotland: consultation analysis

Published: 27 Jun 2018
Housing and Social Justice Directorate
Part of:

Analysis of written responses to the public consultation exercise on a draft Fuel Poverty Strategy for Scotland.

Fuel Poverty Strategy for Scotland: consultation analysis
1. Introduction

1. Introduction

1.1. This report presents analysis of responses to the Scottish Government’s consultation on a Fuel Poverty Strategy for Scotland.

1.2. The consultation opened on 9 November 2017 and closed on 1 February 2018. The consultation paper is available at and all published responses can be viewed at

Profile of respondents

1.3. In total, 91 responses were available for analysis, of which 80 were from groups or organisations and 11 from members of the public. [6] The majority of responses were received through the Scottish Government’s Citizen Space consultation hub. Others were received via email or in hard copy.

1.4. Respondents were asked to identify whether they were responding as an individual or on behalf of a group or organisation. Organisational respondents were then allocated to one of ten categories by the analysis team. A breakdown of the number of responses received by respondent type is set out in Table 1 below and a full list of organisational respondents can be found in Annex 1.

Table 1: Respondents by type

Type of respondent Number
Community or Tenant Group or Federation 4
Energy Company 6
Health and Social Care 5
Housing Association 8
Housing Body or Group 3
Inter-agency Group or Partnership 5
Local Authority 21
Other 7
Research Group 2
Third Sector 19
Organisations 80
Individuals 11
All respondents 91

1.5. As with any public consultation exercise, it should be noted that those responding generally have a particular interest in the subject area. However, the views they express cannot necessarily be seen as representative of wider public opinion.

Analysis and reporting

1.6. A number of respondents did not complete the formal consultation response questionnaire, instead opting to submit their comments in a statement-style format. This content was analysed qualitatively under the most directly relevant consultation question.

1.7. Where a closed question was asked, the results have been presented. A count of the number of comments made by respondent type is also presented at each question. If a respondent referred to their comments elsewhere within their response this has been counted as a comment. If a respondent said they had no view or did not feel able to make a comment this has not been included.

1.8. The remainder of this report presents a question-by-question analysis of the comments made. The main focus of the analysis is on addressing the specific questions posed. However, a number of respondents raised broader issues within their comments, sometimes focusing on the theme covered within a section rather than on the questions themselves. Summary analysis of these comments is also presented.

1.9. In line with the qualitative nature of most of the questions asked, the analysis reflects the diversity of issues raised by respondents. However, when a significant proportion of those answering the question (1 in 10 respondents or more) raised the same point an indication of scale has been given. In these instances, it should be noted that this does not imply anything regarding the views of other respondents who answered the question and their comments have also been reflected in the broader analysis.