Debate contribution: Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 24 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4644963
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his intervention. Quality mobile coverage has become a tenet of any modern society. Bridging the connectivity gap could prove utterly transformative for rural communities. A report carried out by FarrPoint highlighted the game-changing impact of its 4G sites in the Scottish Highlands as being essential for business, transforming local industries and driving tourism opportunities, education and social inclusion. The past few years have served as a masterclass in the opportunities of mobile connectivity. Many of us, even the older generations, have got a grip, eventually, on new technologies, ensuring that we can stay in touch with loved ones via Zoom calls. Hybrid working brought significant flexibility in the worlds of employment and learning, offering new opportunities also for people struggling with mobility, through disability maybe, caring responsibilities or location. Mobile connectivity removes barriers and promotes a better quality of life for all and helps us all reduce our carbon footprint. However, many, especially those living in rural areas, have been excluded from the chances afforded by modernity and have been left isolated geographically and by sub-par infrastructure. The North ranks lowest in 4G coverage and voice call coverage for premises, trailing behind other regions. The Derry City and Strabane District Council area has the lowest coverage of any council area and has been revealed to have the worst mobile coverage in the UK. The north-west, which is not entirely rural, ranks even lower than the Shetland Islands and the Isles of Scilly. Given their remote and geographically challenging locations, we might expect those archipelagos to be disconnected, but, once again, the Bann seems to be the biggest barrier of all to equality of access. We need Departments to work together to resolve the issues, but that does not mean absolving DFI of its responsibility, for example on guidance and support to councils.
It is clear that planning delays are hampering infrastructure improvements across the board and leaving many areas underserved, but what are the additional barriers to planning? One barrier that has not been mentioned yet is public perception and, I suppose, the view that 5G masts are detrimental to public health. People should be furnished with the full facts as part of the planning process. Some have genuine concerns, while others have been guided by online theories, ironically relying on 4G and 5G coverage to suck them down those rabbit holes, but that is beside the point. What I am getting at is that communication is key, not just telecommunications but communication with the public by Departments and providers. We will support the amendment, as it recognises that the issues require buy-in and cooperation across Departments. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues on the Floor today, but people need to see and hear improvement. We need to work harder to close the urban/rural divide.
472 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: 0.04 (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 (0.98).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.90 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.