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

Co-Design Programme Engagement Analysis

The Scottish Government undertook a series of co-design sessions through its Co-Design and Participation Programme and with members of the Lived Experience Experts Panel. The Scottish Government would like to thank all those carers and organisations who participated in these engagement sessions. Their feedback will be considered alongside the results of the written consultation in deciding on these

Co-design sessions

These sessions took place during January to March 2026, hosted by 5 funded partner organisations. They included people from the Lived Experience Experts Panel.

The supporting organisations were:

• Action for Children
• Carr Gomm
• Deafblind Scotland
• MECOPP
• Sikh Sanjog

We worked with groups of carers who impact assessments identified as being more likely to:

• experience significant impacts when the right to breaks is introduced
• find it more challenging to share their views via formal consultation.

The focus of the engagement sessions was on the consultation’s key topics:

• the definition of “sufficient breaks”
• the proposed interim definition of “sufficient breaks”
• transitional arrangements
• timescales for support plans
• types of breaks

Below is a summary of key themes, high level findings, similarities and differences between groups. These are set out by topic. We have also included notable comments.

The definition of “sufficient breaks”

We asked carers whether:

• they found the draft definition clear
• it covered the appropriate elements of a carer’s experience
• they were confident it would enable authorities to deliver the appropriate support.

The following responses relate to questions 1 and 2 of the formal consultation, above:

• concerns about unclear language and a need for further explanations around definitions and implementation
• calls for clear guidance on how the right would work, including expectations around decision-making
• concerns across all groups about the definition being interpreted too narrowly and inconsistently
• some carers, especially young carers and rural and island carers, felt that the definition did not fully cover the elements of the caring role or its impact
• some carers were concerned that they would not be able to receive enough breaks
• some carers, across most of the groups, found elements of the definition which they did like, including the clarity of the proposed language and its focus on carers’ needs
• some carers wanted to include explicit reference to mental health
• young carers focused on the need for a broader view of the caring role as part of the definition, to enable organisations to consider how caring impacts wider aspects of their lives.

Some carers from all 5 of the participating organisations had positive comments on the proposed definition, feeling that it provided a clear explanation and was focused on wellbeing and positive carer outcomes. Several carers noted that this definition felt like an improvement on existing criteria for support.

A number of wider concerns were flagged by respondents when reviewing the definition, including:

• support may not be offered until carers reach crisis point
• the definition of “sufficient” was not easily measurable
• it was not sufficiently person-centred
• it did not adequately cover the varied needs for support
  • beneath this ran a concern that they wouldn’t get as many breaks as they think they would need
  • they didn’t know what was available
  • questions about who made decisions about the types and frequency of breaks
• support may be offered at times and in ways that better suit the support organisation and cared-for person, rather than the carer
• the terminology of “avoiding” negative impact was impractical

Types of breaks

On this topic, we shared lists with carers and asked whether they agreed with including an indicative list, and whether any types of breaks should be added or removed. This topic covers answers we received to consultation questions 3-8. We heard:

• carers were generally supportive of having a list of accepted types of breaks
• carers were also supportive of having a list which included activities not to be considered breaks
• examples of breaks carers would like to have access to included:
  • urgent access breaks
  • accessible breaks
  • Respitality-type breaks
  • breaks in their local area
  • longer breaks (2 weeks or more)
  • group activities (especially supported by young carers)
  • access to day-care centres
  • free time for carers
  • support for practical tasks

Concerns raised by carers included:

• that these lists should not be exhaustive
• some carers were concerned that having a list at all may limit flexibility of support
• access to types of support, particularly in rural and island areas, could be challenging due to resource and availability
• minority ethnic carers in particular faced challenges in accessing breaks as it was assumed that the family would step in to offer support
• minority ethnic carers also highlighted a lack of availability for culturally appropriate breaks
• resource requirements being passed on to carers – such as time and effort to plan the break, travel costs and their own time
• getting access to replacement care was noted as important but very challenging, preventing carers from actually taking a break comfortably
• some carers had concerns about some of the types of breaks listed and the benefits of these for the cared-for person rather than the carer themselves
• several groups noted that very short breaks – of a few hours or less – often resulted in more work for the carer and did not feel like a valuable break
• young carers noted finding overnight breaks particularly challenging
• if a carer is looking after more than one person then a break away is often particularly difficult to achieve

Types of activities discussed which should not be considered a break included:

• work, including seasonal work, volunteering, jobhunting and vocational training
• when their cared-for person is in hospital or at medical appointments
• when the cared-for person is in education
• housework or other domestic responsibilities (including shopping)
• attending official activities to represent the voice of carers (for example, these engagement sessions, NCS Forum, local authority consultation activities)
• travel to and from activities

Timescales for support plans

We asked the engagement groups whether young carers and adult carers should have the same time limits and how long this should be. Responses to this topic will be considered alongside consultation responses on questions 10-12.

The findings on this topic highlighted the following views which were shared repeatedly by participants:

• most groups were in favour of shorter timescales for young carers
• carers across all groups except one felt 8-10 weeks was too long. One group said that 8-10 weeks felt about right
• young carers felt that shorter timescales were needed for them but they also felt that young carer statements were generally quicker to complete
• young carers also felt that 8-10 weeks was too long, however were accepting of capacity challenges meaning longer times may be required
• some carers expressed concerns about continued burnout and other negative impacts during a long wait
• some carers expressed concerns about timescales negatively impacting service delivery
• some carers were accepting of proposed 8-10 week timescales but, where this was the case, 8 weeks was preferred
• some ethnic minority carers expressed concerns about increased likelihood of carers being “lost in the system” and forgotten about if timescales are too long
• carers did not want to wait 8-10 weeks and were keen that this be seen as the maximum

Transitional arrangements - interim definition of “sufficient breaks” and phased approach

We asked carers for their views on the proposed interim definition to initially prioritise carers in greatest need, and how long an interim definition should apply. The views shared in this section will be considered alongside responses to question 15 of the consultation.

The findings on this topic highlighted the following views which were shared repeatedly by participants:

• some carers, mainly young carers, expressed confusion or concern about the language used. It was felt this was too vague and impractical and requests were made for the language to be more user-friendly and accessible
• most carers we heard from wanted the interim definition in place for as short a time as possible
• there was a degree of pragmatism about the feasibility and requirement for a longer lead-in time, but these comments were only seen from half of the groups and all from adult carers
• support to speed up the transition was mentioned by multiple groups
• people asked for clarity about what support will continue to be available during any such transitional period, to avoid confusion
• young carers found it confusing to have two definitions. If an interim definition is agreed, they felt additional work would be needed to provide explanation via resources, etc

We then asked carers for their views on the pros and cons of the proposed phased approach covered at questions 16 and 17 above.

Carers shared the following anticipated benefits of applying an interim definition and phased approach to introducing the right:

• that carers in greatest need would be prioritised, and those we spoke to were largely in favour of this
• that the proposals would support a person-centred approach
• that this approach would benefit both carers themselves as well as delivery partners by allowing for capacity building

Concerns which carers raised about an interim definition and phased approach included:

• the potential for long waiting times to lead to worsening outcomes for carers
• some carers may feel excluded, leading to potential negative impacts on relationships
• concerns about managing the interim period
• concerns around deciding who would be able to access support
• timescales for moving from the interim definition carried risks of ending too soon, without capacity to deliver, or too late
• ensuring that carers can be identified or self-identified for access to support.

We did not hear many views on deciding an end point for use of the interim definition. However, some carers said there would be benefits to having clear, transparent milestones for moving from an interim definition to the full definition of “sufficient breaks.”