Houses in Multiple Occupation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Ferguson.)

I am speaking about this subject tonight because over the past six years, I have been contacted by hundreds of families in Ashfield who have raised serious concerns about the impact that houses in multiple occupation are having on my community. Anyone can set up an HMO overnight, with no qualifications, no training and no checks. All they need is a few thousand pounds in the bank and a mortgage. They can buy a cheap terraced house somewhere in the midlands, in the north, or in a place like Ashfield, and turn it into an HMO. This leads to thousands of unscrupulous investors living thousands away from places like Ashfield buying up properties there and filling them with people who, quite frankly, I do not want living in my community—people who are criminals, people who are thieving of a night, people who are creating antisocial behaviour. They are filling our streets full of wrong’uns. Then the local politicians, the police and the councillors sit there scratching their head, asking themselves why crime is on the up in the area.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that local authorities like the Liberal Democrat-controlled Three Rivers district council in my constituency should be issuing, for instance, article 4 directions to protect our areas from a proliferation of HMOs?

I do agree with the use of article 4 to put HMOs through the planning process. I have forced my local council to do that, but unfortunately it is doing it only in certain areas. I would like to see it being done throughout the constituency.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree with me, and indeed with the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), that the Conservative-run council in Newcastle-under-Lyme should also be applying article 4, sooner rather than later?

I think it is a matter for local councils to decide. In my constituency, HMOs are a big problem, and I am glad that my council has used article 4 in some areas, although I would like to see it rolled out to the whole constituency.

We have druggies, criminals and other wrong’uns living—sometimes six in one small house—in streets that were once considered good places to live. The decent folk who can afford to leave those streets are leaving, in their droves, but the problem is that the investors—the landlords—then buy up their houses and turn them into HMOs. Other decent people, however, cannot afford to move, and have to stay and put up with a life of misery.

The problem is becoming worse and worse. Labour Front Benchers, and indeed Back Benchers, bang on about emptying the hotels that are full of illegal migrants, and no one wants a hotel full of illegal migrants in their area. Nobody wants young, fighting-age males—400 of them sometimes—from backward cultures that treat our women as second-class citizens roaming our streets, but the hotels are now being emptied. Where are these young men going to go? I will tell you where they are going to go: they are going to go into an HMO on a street near people in this Chamber; near my family, near my friends, near my neighbours. We have had enough of this. We have enough of our own home-grown nuisances in this country without importing even more to live in HMOs.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the proliferation of these houses in multiple occupation is leading to whole streets being transformed and communities being torn apart, with no sense of engagement from those occupying these HMOs, and it is leading to rubbish, mess, destitution, disruption and utter chaos in streets and whole communities?

I thank my hon. Friend, and I will put what I think he is trying to say more succinctly: the proliferation of these HMOs is turning some of our areas into ghettos.

I have seen in Ashfield that, because of HMOs being filled with young men, some young girls are frightened to walk the same streets. They have even changed their route to school. That is unacceptable. It is not right that, in 2026, young British girls are having to change the way they walk to school. It is not fair on our citizens. As I said, the illegal migrants who have been dispersed among our communities in HMOs are mostly young men from backward cultures. Some have medieval views towards our women and girls. Women and girls tell me they are more afraid now to walk our streets than they have ever been. Nobody deserves that.

To make matters even worse, this Government—and, to be fair, the previous Government—have allowed Serco to hoover up HMOs on seven-year deals and fill them full of illegal migrants, which means it is now even more difficult for British people to find accommodation. This has also led to a huge increase in rents in places like Ashfield. The increase in HMOs in places like Ashfield has meant that people who were born and bred there are becoming homeless in our own town. That is an absolute disgrace. Normal, hard-working people in Ashfield are being made homeless by companies and landlords seeking more profit as their homes are converted into HMOs.

In Ashfield, there are supposedly 110 asylum seekers living in this sort of accommodation at the taxpayer’s expense. It is shameful that we have had nurses kicked out of their HMO—nurses who work at my local hospital; the same hospital where I was born—to be replaced by illegal migrants, because Serco has taken over the contract. We are supposed to be here in this place to make people’s lives better, but we are making them worse.

There is a solution to all of this, because HMOs should not be a problem; it is the management of them that is the problem. I recently spoke to Richard Purseglove in my constituency, who runs Purseglove Property. He has housed thousands of people over the past 15 years in HMOs with zero antisocial incidents. He told me that, done properly, HMOs are convenient, affordable housing for nurses, key workers and single professionals. I agree with him: HMOs can be a good thing for people in need of housing—I think we all know that. The problem is that there is no regulation of HMO management.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) on securing this important debate. I also thank those other hon. Members who have made contributions.

I appreciate fully the concerns that the hon. Member for Ashfield raises about houses in multiple occupation. HMOs can play an important role in the housing market, providing relatively low-cost accommodation for rent. However, it is right that local planning authorities can act, where appropriate, to minimise any negative impacts that such houses may have on local communities.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of points concerning the interaction between HMOs and the planning system. Larger HMOs always require an application to the local planning authority for planning permission. However, national permitted development rights allow for existing homes to change use to a small HMO for up to six people without the need for a planning application. Such smaller HMOs are also able to change back to a standard family home under similar rights.

We do recognise that the free operation of the national permitted development rights is not always suitable for all areas. That is why, where there is sufficient evidence of the need to protect local amenity or the wellbeing of an area, local planning authorities can remove permitted development rights in a specific area by means of introducing an article 4 direction, following consultation with the affected local community.

I am well-versed with the Minister through our work on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Will he consider looking at reducing the threshold from six individuals to four? I am finding in Three Rivers that several of the homes are probably inappropriate for six distinct individuals but may be appropriate for four. Unless the evidence threshold is there for an article 4 direction, I have communities that will be impacted significantly, unless we are able to change something here.

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will come on to say how we are keeping regulation under review, but I note the point he makes.

Once an article 4 direction is in place, any change of use to either a large or small HMO requires an application for planning permission. All such applications are considered by the relevant local planning authority, in line with the development plan for the area and in consultation with the local community. A clear and up-to-date local plan policy for HMOs can support assessment of future applications. I know the struggle of the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) with his local authority to get an up-to-date local plan in place.

Whether any given local planning authority chooses to consult on introducing an article 4 direction to remove the national permitted development rights that I have referenced is ultimately a decision for it to take. It is not something that the Government seek to influence in any part of the country. We do not believe that the process is costly or burdensome, and approximately 75 councils have put in place article 4 directions for HMOs in parts of their authority area—although I note that Ashfield district council has no article 4 directions in place for small HMOs. The hon. Member for Ashfield may wish to take that up with his local authority.

In addition, the Government recently consulted on a new national planning policy framework. That consultation includes proposals relating to article 4 direction policy, proposing a more flexible approach so that local planning authorities can remove national permitted development rights where it is necessary to protect the amenity or wellbeing of an area—for instance, where there is an over-concentration of small HMOs. We are currently analysing the feedback received and will publish our response in due course.

Turning to HMO licensing, it is, of course, crucial that HMOs are safe and well managed. That is why all HMOs are subject to management regulations. Those regulations place duties on managers of HMOs—typically, the landlords—to take safety measures, supply and maintain gas and electricity, and maintain common parts, fixtures and fittings.

What would the Minister advise me or my local authority to do to stop HMOs kicking out working people in Ashfield and putting in illegal migrants?

I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. They are on the record, and I will pass them on to the relevant Ministers in the Home Office. The Home Office is working in collaboration with other Government Departments to deliver accommodation across a range of sites, including larger, more basic accommodation, and the action we have taken to date means that the number of hotels is down to 190—around half of what it was under the previous Government. We want to find the right balance, and dispersed accommodation, including HMOs, is an important tool that local authorities can use to accommodate those seeking refuge as their claims are assessed. The Home Office will continue to work closely with my Department to explore a model of asylum accommodation that achieves value for money and supports asylum system reform, and the Government will provide further detail in due course.

Local planning authorities already have powers to limit the proliferation of HMOs. They already benefit from, or can deploy, licensing powers to ensure that HMOs are safe and well managed, and they have robust powers to ensure that landlords of HMOs comply with all relevant regulations. If local planning authorities are struggling to apply these powers effectively or feel that they are lacking, I want to know. To the point made by hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), we will keep the regulation of HMOs under review. I know that this is a concern to a number of Members across the House, and I am more than willing to continue to engage with Members on both sides on this important policy area.