Debate contribution: Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas
Debate contribution by Mr Cathal Boylan on .
- MLA
- Mr Cathal Boylan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 24 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4644934
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
As a rural MLA and someone who lives in a rural area, I know all too well about the issues that rural dwellers face in relation to poor mobile coverage. As we know, in some areas, the coverage is non-existent. The lack of high-quality mobile coverage in rural areas causes everyday problems for local people. I welcome the opportunity for us to highlight those issues, look at the work that is ongoing to address the problems that exist and look at the work that still needs to be done. In many cases, the services that many rural dwellers pay for relating to their mobile phone signal coverage do not serve them well when they are at home, which is, quite possibly, the place where they spend most of their time. I do not imagine that that is an issue that is experienced by people who live in more urban areas. Constituents often remark on the fact that they are paying for a service that they just do not get to use, which leaves them worse off than those who do not reside in rural areas. There is work for the phone network providers to do to ensure that local issues are worked on and addressed in a bid to provide more and better coverage for their rural customers. The Shared Rural Network aims to improve geographic coverage to 79% of areas of natural beauty — up from 51% — across these islands. However, the investment in the North alone will not address all the issues that we are aware of in our rural communities. The scheme is heavily focused on rural Scotland, which leaves the North without its fair share. Where areas have little to no mobile phone coverage, local people have become reliant on broadband coverage and on using Wi-Fi for calling and messaging. However, many Members will be aware of the shortcomings of Project Stratum, which has not yet made it into many local communities, leaving people without broadband coverage. That further compounds the issues that people —.
I appreciate the Member's intervention, but, as one who dealt with the situation when it presented itself, I know that thousands of people were left out of the original scheme. We welcomed the scheme, but, as the Member said in her opening remarks, there are gaps out there. We tabled our amendment to try to address those gaps. Nobody has criticised Project Stratum, but it has left people out, which is why we are having this debate in the Chamber.
Many Members will be aware of the shortcomings of Project Stratum, which has not yet made it to many communities. That has left people without broadband coverage, which further compounds the issues that people face with mobile coverage. The motion highlights the fact that the planning system is an issue when it comes to progress being made on rural mobile coverage. As in previous debates in recent weeks, I do not refute the fact that there are issues in the planning system. However, it is important to remember that applications such as those that deal with phone signal masts are dealt with at council level. It is important that motions that come before the Assembly do not go over the heads of or undermine our councillors in the important part that they play in the planning process to overcome issues and get to an outcome that has the support of communities. Our amendment aims to recognise the ongoing work with the Department for the Economy's barrier busting task force, which has a dedicated subgroup that looks at the planning issues. That group works to identify barriers relating to the planning system and investigate best practice for future mobile network development. It is chaired by the director of planning for Belfast City Council, which is important, given that those issues, as I mentioned, fall to our councils. It is important that the group, which works across the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for the Economy, is given the space needed to collect and consider information relating to perceived delays in processing those types of applications. Ensuring that all our rural communities are not left behind is imperative. Local reps and councils must work with others, continue to do all that they can to overcome any planning challenges and ensure that a focus is put on developing high-quality mobile phone coverage right across rural areas. We must work to ensure that people who live in rural areas have the same access to services as everyone else. I ask Members to vote for the amendment.
770 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: 0.03 (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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.68 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.20 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:06 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.