I will address the amendments in my name first before I turn to the amendments that were lodged by Nanette Milne and Rhoda Grant.
Section 23, on “Provision of support to carers: breaks from caring”, was included in the bill, as introduced, in order that the local authority must consider in particular whether the support that is provided to a carer should take the form of or include a break from caring. We also introduced a regulation-making power principally to deal with the issue of the waiving of charges for replacement care that meets the identified needs of the carer. I made it clear to the committee that the requirement to waive charges will be made through minimal amendments to the existing regulations on the waiving of charges, and that remains the case. My clear policy intention is that neither the carer nor the cared-for person will be charged for what we called replacement care meeting the carer’s assessed needs. Members will recall that, in stage 1 evidence, Mr Lyle in particular was interested in pursuing that issue with me.
Amendment 20 means that the terminology “replacement care” will no longer be used in the bill. I thought that it was confusing; instead, I prefer the wording “provision of care for the cared-for person”, which is provided to enable the carer to have a break from caring. That describes exactly what is being provided to enable the carer to have a break from caring.
Amendment 17 provides that the power and duty to provide support to a carer do not apply where the carer’s needs can be met through the provision of services or assistance to the cared-for person. Therefore, if a carer’s needs could be met by, for example, a bath hoist for the cared-for person, that should be agreed through the community care assessment for the cared-for person. However, there is an exception to that rule in circumstances in which care is provided to the cared-for person in order to give the carer a break from caring.
Amendments 20 and 21 give further effect to that policy by amending the regulation-making power so that it focuses specifically on circumstances in which care is provided to the cared-for person in order to give the carer a break from caring.
Amendment 22 removes section 23(2)(b)(ii), as it is no longer necessary given the other amendments to sections 22 and 23.
10:30
Amendment 23 corrects a technical problem in the drafting of section 23(3) to make it clear that any support that is provided to a carer in order to provide a break from caring is provided under section 22 and not under section 23. Support is provided under section 22, albeit that it is provided following specific consideration of whether the carer requires a break from caring, which is required under section 23.
A further policy intention is to secure the involvement of the cared-for person in relation to decisions about the provision of care to the cared-for person to enable the carer to have a break from caring. I believe that that is important, as it would be inappropriate for a cared-for person to be forced to receive care that could involve personal or intimate care without being involved in that decision-making process.
There are, however, a number of practical issues to be considered regarding the involvement of the cared-for person in decision making about the provision of care that enables the carer to have a break from caring. Those include, in particular, whether the cared-for person should have to provide their express consent. I propose that regulations on those matters will be made using the powers at section 23(2)(b)(i). I want the procedure for those regulations to be affirmative. Amendment 68 gives effect to that.
Turning to amendment 102, in the name of Nanette Milne, I fully understand just how beneficial breaks from caring are in supporting carers. A break from caring can allow the carer to get some rest and recharge their batteries. Those breaks can make all the difference for carers being able to maintain their caring role. Through the bill, the outcomes that carers would like to achieve and the support that is required to meet those outcomes will be identified. That is the core purpose of the bill. In many cases, that will include a break from caring.
The intention behind amendment 102 appears to be that carers should have access to a market that provides a range of short breaks to meet the individual needs of carers. However, existing provision, under section 19 of the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013, already requires local authorities to promote a variety of support and support providers to deliver short breaks. As a result of amendments that are being made by the schedule to the bill, it is clear that the reference to support in that section covers support to both adult and young carers under this bill.
Amendment 102 appears also to place a duty on local authorities to ensure individual carers are provided with sufficient short breaks. The person-centred approach to adult carer support plans, young carer statements and subsequent support will ensure that individual carers are provided with adequate support to meet their needs. That would include short breaks. However, I would like to get a better understanding of the issues underlying the amendments in the name of Nanette Milne. On that basis, I ask her not to move amendment 102 and to meet me to discuss the issue ahead of stage 3. If necessary, the issue can be returned to then with a similar amendment.
I do not believe that amendment 79, which was lodged by Rhoda Grant, is required to section 23(1). It already makes it clear that support may be provided in the form of a break from caring where that is to meet the carer’s identified needs rather than those of the cared-for person. The framework of the adult carer support plan and young carer statement schemes—in particular the personal outcomes approach and obligation to identify the nature and extent of caring—should make it easier to identify whether support is to meet the needs of the carer or the cared-for person. I ask the member not to move amendment 79.
I move amendment 17.