“SOMETIMES you just wonder what Labour is for.” That was the exasperated reaction of one campaigner on rights for the elderly to the Government’s decision this week to block a move to close a legal loophole which leaves aged and disabled private care home residents unprotected against human rights abuses. It is an understandably emotive response to an inexplicable and undefendable move by ministers and Westminster whips.

The law currently leaves those most vulnerable to abuse open to maltreatment, neglect, lack of privacy and cruelty. But the decision to resist a widely-supported backbench attempt to extend the law to cover the nine out of ten care homes that are in the private sector raises wider questions about the Government’s handling of legislation in the Commons.

Kelvin Hopkins, MP for Luton North, was forced to withdraw an amendment to prevent his colleagues on the committee scrutinising the Health and Social Care Bill from being voted down. The hope – as expressed by Age Concern director general Gordon Lishman on page 8 – is that common sense will prevail by the time the measure reaches the House of Lords sometime next month. Most of the Labour MPs on the committee, membership of which is determined by the whips and Downing Street, are parliamentary private secretaries, that is, on the Government’s “payroll” vote. Indeed one holds that position for a minister with responsibility for getting the bill through Parliament.

Packing committees with Government place-people is a long-established custom and practice at Westminster. Fear of the reasoning of genuine backbenchers does not make for good law. And in this case the binding of the payroll vote behind the move to block a sensible and overdue change in the law is blinkered, callous and even against what the Government itself says it wants to achieve.

Ministers have indicated that they aim to close the loophole in a new Bill of Rights some way down the legislative pipeline. The problem is that this bill has not been defined, let alone written, there is no guaranteed timetable for its appearance in the next or subsequent Queen’s Speeches and so it could be three to four years before protection from abuse for the elderly is on the statute book. That is, of course, if a general election does not intervene.

A survey by the British Institute of Human Rights has reported a catalogue of casual abuse in care homes, from residents being left in their own waste for hours to bathing older people one after the other in the same bath water and worse.

Thousands of those affected are nearing the end of their lives and cannot wait while the Government procrastinates for the protection they require to deter, and provide recourse against, such cruelties.

The chance to do something is staring the Government in the face. Health minister Ben Bradshaw has produced no convincing case as to why this loophole should not be closed in this particular bill. The amendment is sitting there. It is simple, specific and will be effective. The Government must think again and incorporate it into the Bill in the Lords.

***

THE embarrassment in which Peter Hain has put himself touches on just one of the flaws in the way the management of the Labour Party has drifted under “new” Labour. This week, party officers arranged a briefing for national executive members on recruitment, the party’s finances and the internal and external inquiries into its affairs – the public tip of the iceberg in terms of bad management. This is a good start in recognising that problems exist over the role of the National Executive Committee and party officers, not least the general secretary. The appointment of a new GS is an opportunity to usher in changes which restore the party’s stature and spirit, its reputation and finances. Financial accountability to the treasurer should be absolute – and that should include the oversight of internal election funding.

The faltering start to the appointment of a new GS, when no proper consultation of NEC members was carried out before the job was advertised has not inspired confidence. It is to be hoped that an essential requirement for the post is a provable ability to run the party for the party, in partnership with Downing Street but not at the whim of the Prime Minister.