Unpaid carers - right to breaks and timescales for support plans: consultation

5. Transitional arrangements

This section asks for views on two transitional measures to help ensure the introduction of the right to breaks works smoothly:

• a phased approach to moving carers with existing ACSPs and YCSs into the new system
• prioritising carers with the greatest need, using an interim definition of “sufficient breaks”.

5.1 Background

We are aware of concerns about current system capacity to deliver the new right to breaks. As with any new legislation, it is important to consider whether adjustments can be made to avoid bottlenecks and help make delivery more effective while the new system is bedding in.

When the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 came into force in 2018, transitional arrangements were put in place so that local authorities had three years to offer an ACSP or YCS to all carers who already had a carer’s assessment under the previous legislation. These rules enabled a managed transition, where carers already receiving support moved onto the new system on a phased basis, alongside providing ACSPs and YCSs to ‘new’ carers who needed support for the first time.

To help ensure a smooth transition to deliver the new right to breaks we are considering a similar phased approach to moving carers with existing ACSPs and YCSs into the new system.

In addition, again because of concerns about system capacity, we are considering measures to prioritise carers with the greatest need for a limited period, by using an interim definition of “sufficient breaks”.

5.2 Why this is important

Transitional arrangements are important to ensure the right to breaks can be introduced smoothly and without bottlenecks. Recognising that local authorities and carer support organisations have limited capacity, we are looking to help them:

• balance the needs of existing carers and those who are seeking support for the first time
• ensure that carers in greatest need can access support.

5.3 Proposal - Phased approach

We are looking for views on having a phased approach to moving carers from the current system into the new system. This would be achieved by introducing a deadline for local authorities of either 2 years or 3 years from the go-live date. All carers who are already being supported before the right takes effect would need to have their plan and support needs reviewed under the new rules by that final deadline.

5.4 Proposal - Prioritising carers in greatest need

We are also proposing to create an interim definition of “sufficient breaks” when the right first takes effect, to ensure that early delivery of this right is prioritised towards those in greatest need. This would mean a smaller number of carers being entitled to support, while the sector manages the expected initial increase in demand. To achieve this, we are seeking views on using the following definition for an initial period:

“Sufficient breaks” means “breaks from caring which enable a carer to have enough rest, leisure and time to:

a. Minimise significant negative impacts from their caring role on their health and wellbeing; relationships with others; and life balance; and

b. help to support their priority personal outcomes in these same areas”.

This definition deliberately uses similar language to that proposed in the “Definition of sufficient breaks” section of this consultation but focuses on the most significant negative impacts and priority personal outcomes.

5.5 Questions – Phased approach

13. Do you agree with a phased approach for moving carers from the current system into the new system?

• Yes
• No

14. Under such a phased approach, how long should be allowed for all carers to have their needs reviewed:

• 2 years
• 3 years
• Another period – please specify

Please explain the reasons for your answer. You may wish to reflect on points which are relevant to you, such as what may be achievable for local authorities or carer organisations who develop ACSPs and YCSs on their behalf, or what is reasonable for carers.

5.6 Questions - Prioritising carers in greatest need

15. Do you agree with using an interim definition of “sufficient breaks” as proposed above, to prioritise carers in the greatest need while the new right is bedding in?

• Yes
• No

Please explain the reasons for your answer.

16. What would be the main benefits and risks of using an interim definition of “sufficient breaks” as proposed?

17. Do you think the timescale for moving from an interim definition of “sufficient breaks” to a broader definition covering more carers should be:

• set at the outset to provide certainty, e.g. 3 years, or
• be guided by monitoring and evaluation of take-up, to ensure systems are geared up to support a greater number of carers?