Social Housing Bill [HL]

Baroness Murphy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

My Lords, I am no expert in housing, as many people in the Chamber are; if some of my questions and comments appear naive, it is because I am reflecting what many of the general public think and understand about social housing.

It is 30 years since I was on the board of a housing association, which was in inner east London. I joined because of my realisation of the importance of housing to the general health of the population, which was more my direct concern. I have never forgotten the enthusiasm and commitment of my colleagues on the housing association board, and I have never doubted that we will always need some kind of social subsidised housing. I am going to keep saying “subsidised”, because it is most important we remember that the taxpayer is funding the majority of this social housing. The population at large do not understand the terms “social housing” and “affordable housing”. It is really confusing to get to grips with what they mean these days. Who is paying? Who is responsible? Do the general public know what they are?

I should declare that I was a beneficiary when the right to buy was introduced. We were renting a flat in the Barbican tower block—indeed, I still live there. In those days, the City of London Corporation rented them out at economic market rents. We were council tenants, of course, and we benefited phenomenally from this extraordinary policy. If the private rented sector had been able to use the receipts, or if receipts had been collected from right to buy and then spent on other social housing or on private rental markets that would produce better quality housing, all would have been fine, but that never happened, because of the very reasonable political reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Young—and I understand the hypothecation problem. We have lost so much housing stock, which has been pretty catastrophic. It has left an extraordinary number of people without any hope of being able to afford a home of their own, either rented or purchased.

I welcome the narrow focus of this Bill and shall certainly support it, although I wonder whether the years of eligibility as a criteria for purchase should be even longer than is being suggested. I am also concerned about the quality of new homes, both private and social rented, but I was reassured when the Minister waved her somewhat daunting spreadsheet of quality improvement work at us Cross-Benchers at a meeting. I shall say no more about that at the moment but to wish her luck in getting all those brown ticks done.

We can debate the other provisions of the Bill in greater detail in Committee, but a huge number of rental properties remain empty. What are the Government doing about that when they are proposing that we should have a lot more social homes and are thinking about where they should be built? We have already heard about the somewhat catastrophic loss in rural areas, where people have had to move away. I wonder whether we have the balance right, and I am particularly concerned about empty homes.

Like many people, I wonder whether the Government should examine more closely why such a high proportion of our population lives in social rented housing compared to the rest of Europe. The Netherlands is higher still, at 20% of housing provision, and we are, as we heard, running at about 16%. Are the Government giving any thought to this issue? I understand that the reasons are historical and, sadly, ideological, but I question whether it is necessary or desirable. It seems to me that people staying in social rented accommodation long after they can afford to move out is an imposition on other taxpayers. I remember that the Cameron Government tried to introduce legislation to change this, and it failed for practical reasons and because of disincentives in the system. But when you are struggling to finance a steep mortgage, it comes as a bit of a shock to discover that the relatively well-off neighbours have such a public benefit. Security of tenure is one thing—giving people security to know where they are going to live is good—but retention of the financial benefits for many years over those which are necessary is quite another.

If the Government want to ensure that social housing policy is fair for all people, they must surely tackle homes left empty and question who is occupying those that are available. I repeat that I shall support this narrow Bill, so let us get it done.

Social Care Strategy

Baroness Murphy Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

My Lords, the helpful House of Lords Library briefing paper by Eve Collyer Merritt started with great clarity. The opening statement was:

“Social care services help people living with illness or disability”.


That is so often forgotten. I think the people in this Chamber today know that—we would not be here if we did not. Indeed, I see assembled before us a number of what I would call the usual suspects for debates of this kind. However, vast sections of the population do not comprehend at all what social care services are. When we have a candidate for leading the Conservative Party who refers to carers recruited overseas as “bottom wipers”, I find myself in an angry rage at her astonishing ignorance, and feel that many politicians require some educating.

That problem explains, in part, the catastrophic neglect by successive Governments, who come to the elections and find that nobody is the slightest bit interested in it as a vote winner. It seems that this Labour Government, whom I expected better of, are also kicking the can down the road. That is one theme that I think will remain constant through this debate today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, set out clearly and admirably the challenges, and I can do no more than repeat her words and support her call for a long-term strategy for what should be a growing workforce and the desperate need for training of staff too—especially in dementia, I would say. In view of the fact that over half of home recipients of care and over 70% of care home residents have a degree of dementia, it is surely unacceptable that fewer than half of residential carers have any training whatever in how to manage that condition. I suppose that at this point I ought to draw the House’s attention to my lifelong professional interest in this area and current role as an ambassador with the Alzheimer’s Society.

Since the Dilnot commission report of 2011, there has been talk of capping care costs in residential care, but I am pleased to say that the one thing the Government have said is that they do not support that line. Capping costs simply transfers the burden from those who have the resources, albeit often locked up in property and capital assets, to the Government and, by extension therefore, to the working population through taxes. It has the effect of unjustifiably allowing older people who need residential care to hang on to properties and pass them on to their children, while adding an extra tax burden on to younger people, most of whom will not own homes. There are many ways to ensure that payment can be deferred so individuals and spouses do not have to pay and, in that sense, I agree with the Government’s announcement.

I do not think we can ever get away from the profound unfairness that was established in 1948, when healthcare and social care were separated. We are in danger of recreating a national care service which makes all the same mistakes as the behemoth of the National Health Service. Please do not move away from having a locally focused and locally accountable social care service. By all means have a national strategy but not, please, a national care service.