Expert Witness Blog

12/07/2012: Who cares? And who cares about Lords reform? by Chris Stokes

expert witness blog logoIt's amazing what happens when you turn your back for a second. Last week I began work looking at the Government's proposals for reform of the House of Lords and the effect it would have in Scotland.

The Law Society of Scotland stated in response to the proposals: "The UK Parliament still has important legislative functions in relation to Scotland in the context of UK legislation on reserved areas under the Scotland Act 1998 and as amended in 2012, which must also be taken into account."

Its director of law reform Michael Clancy welcomed the Bill that was introduced on 27 June, saying: "As the UK does not have a written constitution, having two Houses of Parliament provides an essential system of checks and balances, however we believe the House of Commons should retain its prominence."

Come Monday, however, all hell had been let loose, with an unprecedented number of Tory MPs threatening to join Labour to defeat the Bill and sink the coalition. What caused such fury? The threat to have up to 80% of peers elected was seen as a threat to the supremacy of the Commons. Only in this country could a proposal to introduce democracy into a legislative chamber cause outrage among members of another democratically-elected chamber. Of course, a desire among the Tory backbenchers to test the mettle of the Lib Dems by taunting them into giving up their first taste of Government in nearly a century couldn't possibly have had anything to do with it. Perish the thought!

Meanwhile, the aforementioned Mr Clancy has been invited to contribute the views of the Scottish Law Society to the regular review of issues north of the border in the Your Expert Witness paper magazine. What is likely to surprise expert witnesses looking to work in Scotland is the extent to which the two systems are similar, rather than their differences.

Another fine mess the Government seems to have got itself into is over the funding of social care. While anyone and everyone was endorsing the capping of lifetime care costs – a measure recommended last year by the Dilnot Commission – the level at which the cap will be set, whether it would be universal or compulsory and when it would happen were all thrown into the air by the cost. As usual, cheaper options are being investigated. It looks like the cap is to be set at a level few people can afford, anyway. Still, there will be plenty of experts in financial planning in the expert witness directory who can advise on the best way forward.

And while the social care system is creaking at the joints, the Government is demanding that more local authorities improve their 'online social care', according to a report in the e-government newsletter. Moreover, Francis Maude is proposing shutting down traditional methods of delivering services – like talking to someone – once they are available online. That comes only three days after a campaign was launched by the Government's own 'digital champion', Martha Lane Fox, to make the internet more accessible to the 43% of disabled people who have NEVER been online.

The question still remains, though, of just how a website can bathe, clothe and feed an old person with dementia. Only real people in a real care situation, being paid a living wage, can do that.

Chris Stokes