Meeting of the Parliament 04 February 2016
Amendments 33 and 34 are intended to help make the breaks from caring that may be delivered through support under the bill more effective. Section 23(1) of the bill requires that
“A local authority, in determining which support to provide to a carer under section 22(4), must consider in particular whether the support should take the form of or include a break from caring.”
Amendment 33 would mean that, in providing support by virtue of subsection (1),
“a local authority must have regard to the desirability of breaks from caring being provided on a planned basis.”
The benefits of properly planned breaks for carers are clear. They have certainty about when they will have breaks, which provides peace of mind, as they know that they have breaks to look forward to.
Amendment 33 would not prevent breaks from being provided for immediate need, perhaps in response to a crisis situation, as well as enabling provision over a period of time. Section 19 of the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 concerns the promotion of options for self-directed support.
Amendment 34 would insert a new subsection in section 23 of the bill, which is on the provision of support to carers by providing breaks from caring. That would put it beyond doubt that section 19(2) of the 2013 act includes support that takes the form of a break from caring. I know that carer organisations would welcome that, to make clear the policy intention that local authorities should promote a variety of options for services that provide such breaks, including services that are provided by the local authority directly and those from other service providers.
I would like local authorities to encourage the provision of all forms of support in the community, including short breaks. For example, if local authorities know that there are play schemes for children that could do more to make themselves accessible to disabled children by employing specialist play workers, which would provide a break for the carers of disabled children, they could promote the possibility of play workers.
The example that Rhoda Grant gave clearly indicates why her amendment 32 is required. I will wait to hear what she has to say in response to the minister’s comments.