Debate contribution: No-fault Evictions
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 26 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- No-fault Evictions
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4677509
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member is right to raise the situation in Scotland. Scotland tried to put in place what is, in theory, a no-fault eviction ban, but, in practice, it has been something very different. There are 18 exemptions and grounds on which a landlord can apply for an eviction order. The notice period for an eviction depends on the application ground and the length of a tenancy. Exemptions include circumstances in which the landlord intends to sell the property; he wants to refurbish it; he wants to live in it himself; a family member wants to live in it; he intends to let the property for a non-residential purpose; he wants to let the property to a religious worker; the tenant has a criminal conviction; the tenant is no longer occupying the property; there is a breach of agreement; or there is engagement in antisocial behaviour. There are many more. We need to be careful, because, if we introduce stringent restrictions, they sometimes require additional exemptions, which can open it all up again. I am trying to make sure that we get the balance right between the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords and, in doing so, ensure that there is a supply of housing.
205 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging 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 | 0.76 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.23 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:36 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.