Debate contribution: No-fault Evictions: Legislative Ban
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- No-fault Evictions: Legislative Ban
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4266813
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Phase 1 of my Department's programme of private rented sector reform already includes work to improve security of tenure through the introduction of much longer notice to quit periods via the Private Tenancies Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. The Act also specifies that regulations on exemptions must be in place before these longer notice periods are commenced. This is because, without such exemptions, the legislation would be susceptible to challenges under article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 with regard to interference "to control the use of property". My officials have taken on board the views of stakeholders and are developing a robust equality impact assessment to inform the drafting of these regulations, with consultation planned in the coming months. In parallel, I am considering what phase 2 of the private rented sector reform programme should include. I am conscious that the reform programme began with a review that is now over eight years old, so I have asked my officials to re-engage with key stakeholders to refresh our thinking on what the most impact on improving the safety, security and standards of the private rented sector could be.
193 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.87).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.89 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.08 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:46 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.