Debate contribution: Houses in Multiple Occupation: Regulation

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 21 October 2025.

MLA

Mr Gordon Lyons

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

21 October 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Ministerial Statement

Heading

Houses in Multiple Occupation: Regulation

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5197268

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I agree with the Member. There are others in the Chamber who continue to bury their head in the sand and say that the UK Government's policy on housing and immigration has not had an impact on housing in Northern Ireland: of course it has. This Government and the previous Government accelerated the rate of their decision-making on right-to-remain applications, changing it from being a UK Government responsibility to being the responsibility of the Housing Executive and, ultimately, my Department. That is one of the reasons that we have seen an increase in temporary accommodation, which has resulted in additional housing stress. I hear tuts from around the Chamber, but that is not opinion but fact. It is having an impact, and that is why we need to take the issue seriously. It is not the only issue — of course it is not — but it absolutely contributes.

That is one of the reasons that I made the statement today and that I wrote to council chief executives. I did so to make them aware of the powers that they have available to them. Some councils' local development plans have no provision at all for HMOs. That council took the right decision last week. There will be different approaches taken. It is up to councils to decide on their approach on the basis of the particular circumstances in an area or even on a street. It is right that councils have the ability to take decisions in accordance with what is right for an area. My concern, however, is that there is inconsistency, in that sometimes no policies whatever are in place. That is what councils should seek to rectify.

It is absolutely right that councils consider local people's views on the proliferation of HMOs on certain streets or in wider areas. That is why it is important that councils have policies in place and adhere to them as part of the planning process. Of course, it is absolutely legitimate for people to raise concerns and say, "I have concerns about what this will do to the residential nature of this area and that it is transforming it from a family area into an area with more HMO accommodation", or that they raise concerns about other associated issues such as the provision of waste water infrastructure or parking, which are particularly pertinent in the example that the Member referred to in our constituency. That is why it is important that councils do the work, put the policies in place and ensure that local people have a say.

First, it is clear to me that some people do not understand what their responsibilities are. Secondly, there is never any harm in reminding people or, indeed, in telling the House, because I have received numerous questions for written answer on the issue, and not everybody has been clear on the rules. As I said in my answer to a previous question, we are happy to look at the legislation and at whether additional legislation is required — a review of the Act was done in 2021 — but it is important that people use the powers that are available to them and make sure that local people have their say.

I am happy to repeat, for the Member's benefit, that there is an inconsistency in approach, especially to local development plans (LDPs). Some councils have those plans in place and some do not. It would be appropriate for councils to be very clear in those plans about what is acceptable for HMOs and what additional measures need to be in place for HMOs to get the necessary approval and consent. That is where I see an inconsistency in approach.

I need to be clear with the House that all HMO properties are subject to a physical inspection as part of the application process for a licence to ensure that the property meets the required standards of space, safety and facilities for the number of occupants. Inspections are also carried out when a licence renewal application is made and in the case of any reports of a breach of a licence. Those reports need to be made, however, as councils and the HMO unit can take action only if we have the reports. I encourage people, if they have concerns — I know that there are concerns — to contact their local authority. As I said, in part, in answer to a previous question, it is important that we highlight the powers and sanctions that are available, the fact that we take the issue seriously and the fact that we do not think that landlords should break the law. It is important that we say that it is right that things are done legally and to the required standards, and it is important that, if people think that they can step outside what is required of them under the law, there is sufficient punishment for them.

The statement is not anti-immigrant; it is anti the landlords who are willing to take advantage of those people. It is not about those who are housed in HMOs. The responsibility lies with those who often take advantage of people and do what they should not do. I do not make any apology for wanting to make sure that the law is upheld and that those who are in breach of the law are dealt with. It is right that we take that approach and highlight the powers that are available. On her other comment, it is right that we are seen to uphold the law. That is also a Christian principle. I am more than happy to have a further conversation with her about that, if she wants, and talk through some of the theology on it.

Yes, that is absolutely the case. Time and time again, working-class communities bear the brunt of many of those issues. I am a little bit frustrated with the approach of some people in the House today, because I am making a very reasonable statement. It sets out the fact that people should adhere to the law and that policies should be in place to ensure a consistent approach across Northern Ireland to determining whether or not an HMO should be in place. Those who cause issues, break the law or do not adhere to the terms of their licence should be dealt with, because there are real-life implications. Sometimes those implications are for the people who live in the HMOs, and, sometimes the implications are for the people who live around the HMOs. It is entirely reasonable and proportionate that we set out what the law says and what we will do to enforce it. A lot of people here seem to have a problem with that today.

I have power over policy and legislation relating to the issue. Largely, the issue of HMOs lies with councils, particularly the HMO unit at Belfast City Council. If we get to the stage where councils are not using the powers or where additional powers are required under legislation, that can be looked at.

The right-to-rent scheme is a UK Government scheme that requires landlords and letting agents in England to check that tenants have the legal right to live in the UK before renting a property. To comply with that, landlords must verify a tenant's immigration status and right to reside by checking original documents before the tenancy begins. The scheme applies to all properties in England but not in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. That is why I have written to the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary to ask that they extend the provisions to Northern Ireland. I have not had a response from either the Home Office or the Northern Ireland Office.

I am grateful to the Member for his question. I am happy to confirm that 77 fixed penalty notices have been issued and paid. The fines totalled £343,800, which helps us to fund the HMO unit that operates in Belfast City Council. There have also been two successful prosecutions for the operation of unlicensed HMOs and one such prosecution for exceeding the licensed occupancy.

The number and over-proliferation of HMOs are increasingly a concern for communities across Northern Ireland. It comes back to councils, which have the power to limit or cap the percentage of HMOs in an area, even down to the level of streets. Planning permission, which takes into account issues such as parking, water and waste, must be sought for new HMOs. Those are the ways in which we can prevent further HMOs being approved.

The enforcement of HMO legislation is funded from HMO licence fees and income that is generated through fixed penalty notices and fines. The licence fee is kept under review by the Department and has been uplifted in regulations to allow the scheme to continue to operate on a cost-neutral basis, with no additional cost to ratepayers. I assure the Member that it does not concern me one bit if people want to question me, my integrity or even my faith. I am more than happy for people to make those comments. As I have said, I will have those conversations with anyone, and I am happy to discuss the matter further.

I am not sure whether she would welcome it, but I am more than happy to do so. I have not had that direct engagement, but my Department and the Housing Executive often meet interested groups. It is absolutely about dealing with those who are intent on breaking the law. Responsibility lies with the landlords, not with those whom they may try to exploit.

It is up to councils to take those issues into consideration and to determine their policies, but a planning committee, in looking at the issues, would take such factors into consideration when making a determination. Regardless of that, if fresh applications are made, it will be up to councils to consider any pertinent factors.

My goodness, the Member is some craic, is he not?

He really likes what I am saying, but that is a problem for him because he does not like to agree with what I am saying. He wants me to crack down on rogue landlords, but not in this way. It looks as if he is just looking for something to disagree with or argue about. I make no apology whatsoever: people should adhere to —.

It is OK. I will come to it.

Mr Speaker, I will come to it if the Member gives me the opportunity to speak; I am more than happy to do so. This is about making sure that we enforce the standards that are there. It is about making sure that HMOs only get a licence if they meet the criteria. For those who are breaking the law, operating illegally, operating without planning permission or operating beyond their licences, there are penalties, and I have put them in the letter to the councils. Fines of between £5,000 and £20,000 can be issued for the 21 offences in the HMO legislation that are punishable by fixed penalty notices. It is all in there. On the right-to-rent scheme, I say this again: I do not understand why people would have an issue with making sure that someone who wants to rent a property in Northern Ireland has a legal right to live here.

First, there is a housing crisis, and we are bringing through a number of policies to try to help deal with that. That is why it is so important that we have policies in place that work for HMOs, and the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council could put in place a policy that works for it, taking into consideration all the necessary factors that need to be considered before the granting of a HMO licence. The need for workers and the economic benefit that those workers might bring is something that could feed into that process, but it has to be balanced against the rights of local residents and the residential nature of the area that may be changed. Again, that is why we need to have a consistency of approach in the policies that are in place, whilst ensuring that they can be adapted for local areas.

2,049 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:32 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification