Housing Needs: Young People

Susan Murray Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the housing needs of young people.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. Everyone has the right to a safe, secure and healthy home, yet for far too many young people across the United Kingdom, that feels increasingly out of reach. The effects go far beyond housing: it is about young people’s ability to leave home, to work and contribute, to start a family, and to build a stake in the country they call home.

I am sure every hon. Member here can see the shift happening in their constituencies. We see children staying at home for longer and struggling to save to move out. In 2024, the Office for National Statistics showed that a third of men aged 20 to 34 were living with their parents, along with just over a fifth of women of the same age. That is not a lifestyle choice; it is the result of a housing market that has moved beyond what young people can afford.

Nowhere is the pressure clearer than in the private rented sector. Private renters in the bottom 20% of earners spend an average of 63% of their income on rent, and private renters overall spend 34% of their income on housing. That means that the average renter pays rent that, by the Government’s own definition, is not affordable. Someone renting from the age of 18 will have paid almost £200,000 in rent before reaching the average age of a first-time buyer in Britain—34. A young couple will have paid more in rent than the cost of an average home in the UK plus an extra £110,000 on top.

That is not a fair system. It simply strips wealth from younger people and takes away our children’s future. Given the enormous sums of money that young people pay in rent before they have an opportunity to get on the property ladder, will the Minister meet the Liberal Democrats to discuss a rent-to-buy scheme?

We also see the strain in the rise of what we call concealed households. In 2020, there were nearly 2 million households that included an additional adult who wanted to rent or buy but could not afford to do so. More than half the people in those households were aged 16 to 24. I am sure we all understand that this stems from years of failure; it is not a problem that has happened overnight. We now have adults living in childhood bedrooms—not because they want to, but because there is nowhere affordable for them to go.

For many young people, home ownership feels less realistic and more like a distant aspiration. High prices, high deposit requirements and the pressure of everyday living costs have pushed ownership further and further out of reach. Nowhere is that clearer than in the average age of first-time buyers. In the 1970s, it was as low as 24; now, as of this year, it has been pushed up to 34. It is no wonder that young people feel like the system is not working. ONS data shows that in 2024, the median house-price-to-income ratio was 7.9 in England, 5.4 in Wales, 5.3 in Scotland and 4.6 in Northern Ireland.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

In December 2023, the Scottish SNP Government slashed their affordable housing budget by £200 million—a 26% reduction. We have record levels of children in temporary accommodation in Scotland—10,000—and under the SNP’s watch, rough sleeping has increased by 66%. Scottish Labour is promising 125,000 new homes to add to the UK Government’s ambitious targets. Does the hon. Member agree that that would surely tackle the housing needs of our young people?

[Susan Murray]

I absolutely agree, and I would add that the Scottish Liberal Democrats are also contributing to the push for additional affordable housing in Scotland.

The ONS also found that a median-priced home was affordable to the highest-income 40% of households in Scotland and Wales, while in England it was affordable only to the top 10%. That means that even in the most affordable nation, the average house price is now more than banks are willing to lend to someone on an average salary. Can the Minister tell us what discussions the Government have had with the Financial Conduct Authority about its ongoing mortgage rule review and whether it will publish an assessment of how any changes would affect the under-35s? Any changes must not make the situation worse.

Lack of access to affordable homes causes the decline of communities and the widening of wealth gaps. If people can rely on family wealth, or perhaps family sacrifice, to access the property market, they have an enormous headstart on their peers. With that in mind, can the Minister explain what assessment has been made of whether the Government’s first-time buyer support schemes, such as help to buy ISAs, are genuinely reaching young people on ordinary incomes, rather than those who already have family who can help them out?

The consequences of this issue, as we have heard, go beyond housing. When young people cannot afford to live near work, talent leaves and our best and brightest look for opportunities overseas. When high rents dominate young people’s finances, local businesses suffer and third spaces die out. The economic impact of the financial stranglehold that housing has on our youth hurts us all. The Minister must recognise that housing and security are now affecting not only where young people live but whether they feel able to start a family.

I want to make something clear for those who misrepresent the struggles of young people trying to get on the property ladder: young people are not asking for handouts or special favours, and the reason that they cannot buy a home is not their lifestyle. They are asking for a fair chance—the chance to build a life of their own. It is a chance that previous generations have had. This Government have an enormous majority and, if used properly, the opportunity to give young people real hope. I urge the Government to listen to and work with young people to give them the future that they deserve.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Murray]

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate today. They all realise how important it is for young people to have a stable home, whether they come from a looked-after background, are looking for an affordable property or are in the fortunate position of trying to find a property to buy.

I thank the Minister for coming along today and for his comments. It is the privilege of Government to take action that matches the rhetoric. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) that the Scottish Government have failed in that. I look forward to this Government making affordable accommodation available for young people.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the housing needs of young people.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Susan Murray Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

Our society, at home and abroad, has so much further to go. Legislation such as that before Parliament can take us some way, but defeating prejudice requires each of us to challenge antisemitism and division in our communities, our schools and our daily interactions. I say to those gathering in Eastbourne: thank you for remembering, for standing against hatred and for choosing a better future. As we embrace the path forward and light candles of remembrance, let us move towards the tolerance and humanity that the Holocaust victims and survivors were denied. We will never forget.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Since the horrific attacks of 7 October 2023, we have seen a sharp and sustained increase in antisemitic abuse in Britain. Last year, a report commissioned by the Board of Deputies of British Jews found widespread failures to address anti-Jewish discrimination across public life, including in the NHS, education, the arts and policing. This matters today and is not a problem of the past. The Community Security Trust recorded over 3,500 antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2024—one of the highest totals on record.

I understand that some will try to tie what is happening here in the UK to Israel’s actions in Gaza. People may hold strong views about that conflict, but we must be absolutely clear: British Jews are not responsible for the actions of any Government overseas. They are simply trying to live their lives, regardless of their faith or community identity. They should never be blamed, targeted or held accountable for events beyond their control. That is why remembrance must go hand in hand with education. Holocaust survivors are fewer each year, as we have heard, and we cannot rely on living testimony alone. We need strong, honest education about the Holocaust, about antisemitism, and about how quickly lies and conspiracy theories can spread, especially online.

The truth is that hatred is often fuelled by misinformation and a lack of understanding. Today conspiracy theories travel faster than ever, amplified by social media and algorithms that drive people towards ever more extreme content. Given the ease with which hate can spread online, a memorial linked to a learning centre—one that helps people to understand the Holocaust and confront antisemitism—has real value.

As we approach Holocaust Memorial Day, I hope the House can send a clear message: we remember, we educate, and we will stand against antisemitism and prejudice, in all its forms, wherever it is found.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I rise briefly because I agree with both the tenor of the debate and the tone in which colleagues across the House have quite rightly highlighted the sheer horror of the Holocaust, the importance of remembering its sheer scale and the challenges particularly, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) highlighted, in the context of rising antisemitism, and as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) mentioned, in having fewer survivors with lived experience here to share their stories.

I want to address two points raised by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). First, he raised a point that I surmise was on security, and I say to him that I simply do not know where the best site would be from a security perspective. It may be that somewhere between Parliament, which is obviously heavily secured, and MI5 would be an appropriate location for a site that will always carry security risks. It may be that other sites are better, and I defer to those with far more expertise than me.

I note that the current Father of the House—like the previous Father of the House— has spoken about his concerns with the design of the memorial, which I think reflects the fact that he is a former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, but I always have a slight concern. We obviously all agree on the principle, because it is important, and as the Member for Chelmsford said, after 11 years there is a need to make progress. I am not calling for delay—I certainly am not—because this is important, and we need to get on with it and to deliver it. However, it is fair to say that when the House is agreed on an issue, there is a danger that that issue is not sufficiently scrutinised.

As I have said, the current Father of the House, like the previous Father of the House, has raised concerns. He speaks as a former Chair of the PAC; I currently chair the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is not responsible for restoration and renewal—the House will come on to debate that—but I have already seen very serious concerns emerging around the challenges of the programme. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have huge experience of the programme. Indeed, the programme has been repeatedly delayed and seen significant cost overruns. The design before us includes a significant proportion of construction underground in a very constrained site. I think the Minister opened the debate extremely well and I agreed with much of what she said, but it seemed to me that she is giving the trustees quite a lot of discretion, so I simply want to say how important it is, on this programme, that there is very real transparency about some of the challenges that I fear will emerge with the design, the construction, the risk of cost overruns, the constraints and the compromises.

Can I bring that alive with one example? This site was constrained, and Parliament, as is its right, chose to vote to remove that constraint. On the R and R programme, I am told that the children’s education centre has to move because of an identical constraint. I suspect that the interaction of this programme with the R and R programme will come before the House in due course and raise some challenges. Indeed, the House has not even decided about such matters as what will happen to the education centre under the R and R programme.

The importance of remembering the unbelievable horror of the Holocaust cannot be overstated—

Religious Crematoriums

Susan Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the provision of religious crematoria.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to have secured this important debate on the provision of religious crematoriums and the access issues faced by faith communities across our country.

At its heart, this debate is about dignity, respect and equality. How we support families at the end of life is a test of our society’s values. Every person, regardless of faith or background, deserves the opportunity to say farewell to their loved ones in a manner that honours traditions and beliefs. For many, cremation or burial may seem a straightforward matter, an administrative process supported by local authorities and funeral providers. Yet for a significant section of our population, and particularly those from minority faiths, the reality is far more complex. Limited provision, a lack of awareness, and regulatory barriers too often mean that families are left distressed and unsupported at the moment when they most need compassion.

I want to begin with the provision of crematoriums. There are more than 300 crematoriums across the United Kingdom, but the vast majority operate on a standardised model that does not reflect the full diversity of religious practice. For many communities, including Hindu and Buddhist communities, religious tradition often requires that cremation be accompanied by specific rites—including chanting, prayers and periods of meditation before the cremation itself—yet many crematoriums impose strict time limits, restrict the length of services or fail to provide space for those rituals to take place with the dignity they deserve. Families are therefore required to adapt their practices, often in ways that feel at odds with centuries of teaching. That adaptation is accepted by some. For others, it leaves a sense that their most sacred rituals are being denied.

This is not a question of faith; it is about fairness and equality. We must not have a situation in which some families can conduct funerals according to their beliefs with ease, while others must travel hundreds of miles, negotiate with reluctant providers or compromise on their most cherished traditions.

That inequality is compounded by financial barriers. In many parts of the UK, families seeking more accommodating crematoriums find themselves reliant on private providers. The cost of travelling, combined with higher fees, makes it impossible for many to access the services they need. For some, this results in long delays or fragmented ceremonies, which add to the distress of bereavement. Local authorities are, of course, under immense financial pressure, but the Equality Act 2010 places clear duties on public bodies. They must have due regard to the needs of religious communities under the public sector equality duty. Inadequate provision risks indirect discrimination against minority faiths, undermining the principle of equal treatment before the law.

There are some examples of progress. At Great Glen crematorium in Leicestershire, a dedicated Hindu shrine has been installed to support ritual practice. Leicester city council’s burial space strategy recognises the growing demand from Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist communities for more suitable provision.

Alongside cremation, I want to address burial. For Muslim families and Jewish families, religious teaching requires that a body be buried as soon as possible—within 24 hours of death. That is not a matter of preference; it is a religious obligation. Reading borough council took the local Muslim community’s needs into account when updating its cemetery regulations, but the truth is that good practice remains the exception, not the rule.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. As she knows, I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We speak out for those of Christian faith, of other faiths and of no faith, because we believe that everyone should be treated equally. Does the hon. Lady agree it is vital that we enable people of all faiths to access facilities to ensure that their loved ones’ wishes for their burial or cremation are respected, and even more so when it comes to the expression of that person’s faith and deeply held belief?

[Susan Murray]

I completely agree with that principle, but our systems are not always designed with it in mind. Delays in death certification, the coronial process and registration services frequently mean that families are unable to bury their loved ones within the required timescale. Some local authorities have taken steps to improve responsiveness by offering out-of-hours registration services. Those efforts show that, with the right planning and partnership, it is possible to respect religious obligations around timely burial, but provision remains patchy across the country and too often families are left facing painful delays at a time of grief. In 21st-century Britain, it is not unreasonable to ask that every family should be confident that their loved one can be buried according to their faith.

I understand that it is important to recognise the devolved aspect of this matter. In Scotland, the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 provides a modern legislative framework with greater recognition of religious needs. In Wales and Northern Ireland, responsibility also lies with the devolved Administrations, but in England the responsibility rests with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

At UK level, Parliament remains responsible for equalities law and for setting the broader standards of fairness and human rights that underpin our system. That means the Government cannot simply say that crematoriums are a local issue. There is a role for national leadership. All communities across the UK are entitled to expect that their needs will not be ignored because they are in a local minority. Minimum standards, guidance and funding support are all tools available to the Government to ensure fairness across the country.

Constituents and communities have raised this issue for many years. Hindu and Sikh organisations have petitioned successive Governments to highlight the lack of appropriate crematoriums. Muslim representatives have repeatedly drawn attention to the difficulties caused by delays in burial, which has also been highlighted by Jewish representatives. Behind every one of those campaigns is a grieving family—real people facing unnecessary distress because our systems are not flexible enough to accommodate their faith.

The basic concept is simple: public services must reflect the diversity of the people they serve. That is not a question of favouring one group over another, but of recognising that equality sometimes requires accommodation. A one-size-fits-all approach, designed for the majority, inevitably excludes minorities, and that is not good enough in modern Britain.

I therefore ask the Minister to commit to three steps. The first is to review the provision of religiously appropriate crematoriums across Britain, to identify gaps and to work with local authorities to close them. The second is to work with the relevant authorities to ensure that coroner and registration services are able to respond to the urgent burial needs of certain faiths with clear national guidance. The third step is to ensure that the equality duty is properly considered in all planning and funding decisions relating to crematoriums and burial services, so that minority communities are not excluded.

How we treat people at the end of life reflects who we are as a society. A society that truly respects diversity and equality is one that values every community, however small, and ensures that they can say farewell to their loved ones in accordance with their beliefs. Families in grief should not face barriers, compromises or indignities. They should find public services that meet them with understanding, respect and compassion.