Motion or amendment: High-quality Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Miss Áine Murphy on .
- MLA
- Miss Áine Murphy
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 20 September 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “High-quality Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas”
- Heading
- High-quality Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 410996
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
High-quality Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas - Amendment 1
Leave out all after ‘consequence;’ and insert:
‘acknowledges the work of the Department for the Economy in leading the Barrier Busting Taskforce and its planning subgroup, including the involvement of the Department for Infrastructure, local councils, and mobile network companies; endorses the aims of the subgroup to identify barriers relating to the planning system and to investigate best practice in mobile network development; further believes no community should be left behind; and calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to support the work of the Taskforce to address the barriers to extending the 4G and 5G mobile network in rural areas, whilst respecting the principles of an inclusive planning system and ensuring the benefits of mobile coverage are maximised across this region.’
130 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
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: 0.02 (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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:57 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.