Debate contribution: Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas
Debate contribution by Mr John Stewart on .
- MLA
- Mr John Stewart
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 24 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4644947
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party I support the motion and the amendment. I agree with much of what was said by those who proposed both. Mobile coverage is something that most people in Northern Ireland take for granted in 2024. However, sadly, as we heard from the statistics cited today, a significant minority of areas in Northern Ireland still do not have it. That is extremely frustrating for them. We have heard about the economic impact that not having mobile phone coverage can have in those areas. We hear about the community impacts as well. We often hear at the Infrastructure Committee about how many road traffic collisions happen on rural roads. Many of those rural roads do not have mobile coverage, and that provides an additional safety impact. The proposer of the motion talked about "hard-to-reach areas", which is a frustrating term. I totally agree with her: there should not be any. I declare an interest, Mr Deputy Speaker: I live in a hard-to-reach area. I sympathise with the many people who are west of the Bann, but I live in east Antrim, and, where I live and in the houses surrounding mine, there is zero mobile phone coverage. It is not an issue that affects only the west of the Province; it affects many people across Northern Ireland.
The Member makes a valid point. It is frustrating when people are in touching distance of that infrastructure but, for whatever reason — it may not be switched on — the service is not being provided. I agree with the proposer of the amendment, as well, about the processes in planning. We devolved that power to councils. We ask not to interfere with that but that the processes are streamlined and that there is an understanding of how essential the infrastructure is. I cannot imagine that anyone particularly likes to look at a mobile phone mast. In the same way, I do not like to look at an electricity pylon in my garden, but it is a vital piece of infrastructure on which we all rely daily. They are an essential evil, and they must be provided. The proposer of the motion talked about the Mobile UK framework and the feedback that it has given. It talks about some delays. The proposer mentioned the seven applications that have been withdrawn recently after suffering such delays. In Fermanagh and South Tyrone, one planning process took over 720 days. There has to be scrutiny and process, and planning committees and planners must be given time, but that seems to be excessive for something that, we all accept, is a vital infrastructure asset. The people impacted most by that are the 8,000 or 9,000 people living in that area who required it most and are relying on other technologies. I support Mobile UK's six-point plan. There is not a great deal to oppose about increased funding for planning services; recognising the importance of mobile infrastructure in the planning process; hiring digital champions to support the planning process; attracting and retaining talent, which is vital; improving planning policy frameworks; and fostering proactive digital leadership from councils. We could all get behind all of those points and support them. There are many new and emerging technologies that would go hand in hand with and support that. It is vital, whether it is led by the Infrastructure Minister or the Economy Minister, that all of us get behind supporting that future technology. I have had to avail myself of it in my area, and I know that many others are doing the same. It is important to look towards that technology and make sure that the processes are in place to support it as well. As I said, we will support the motion and the amendment.
632 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | 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 | 0.74 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.14 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.05 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.02 |
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.