Debate contribution: Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas
Debate contribution by Mr Peter McReynolds on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter McReynolds
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 24 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4644978
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I speak as an infrastructure spokesperson for the Alliance Party and as someone who had the wisdom and good sense to marry a woman from Strabane five years ago this November, so I speak to the motion as someone with family outside Belfast who are affected by poor mobile connectivity. As has been articulated by my party colleague, Andy McMurray, we support the principle of the DUP motion and the amendment from Sinn Féin, which rightly acknowledges the role of the Department for the Economy when it comes to increasing high-quality mobile coverage in rural areas in Northern Ireland. Some 75% of Northern Ireland's rural areas are designated as total 5G not spots, meaning that, in three quarters of rural areas, you cannot access the 5G network. That is evidence of a significant digital divide between our rural and urban communities that contributes to the regional imbalance that has emerged west of the Bann, a problem of which we speak regularly in the Chamber and that I also regularly hear about from family. All our communities deserve access to high-quality, affordable and secure digital infrastructure to ensure that every person can benefit from fast and reliable communication networks.
The impact of 4G in rural areas is overwhelmingly positive and well documented: it is improving productivity, spearheading innovation and driving economic growth.
As the mobile action plan identifies, no Department has overall responsibility for mobile and digital roll-out. There is a need to work collectively to deliver parity of service across Northern Ireland. That also relies on a number of factors, of which planning is one. I recognise that the planning system can present a barrier to the expansion of mobile coverage by preventing the installation of infrastructure, thereby threatening to maintain regional disparities. It is for that reason that mobile networks are built on a local basis, with the construction of one piece of infrastructure that requires one application to one planning authority. A planning application for a 5G mast is not considered regionally significant, so councils are central components to ensuring that telecommunications infrastructure does not become significantly delayed. It is largely under the remit of councils to adopt policies that address important planning considerations in their local development plans (LDPs). I would appreciate an update today from the Minister on the work that he has been doing with his departmental officials to aid the progression of the LDP process and on the engagement that he has had with the NI barrier busting task force planning subgroup — I had not said that out loud before, and it is a bit of a mouthful. On the issue of mobile phone coverage, like the proposer of the motion, I was aware from responses to questions for written answers that the subgroup had not met as frequently as the Economy officials. I am keen to hear from the Minister why that is the case. As has come up frequently in the Chamber, planning and planning reform are major concerns for developers, businesses and residents across Northern Ireland. I suspect that it will be a key area for discussion tomorrow morning when the Minister joins us at the Infrastructure Committee. We have to make sure that those involved in planning are doing anything and everything that they can to maximise opportunities for all who live here. It is about achieving a balance, yes, but, all too often, I hear that a logjam of applications is forcing the system to grind to a halt. We have a responsibility to nurture the right environment for investment in and the roll-out of mobile infrastructure, and that extends across public perceptions, planning, costs, public assets and the barriers that the mobile action plan NI identified. I look forward to the Minister's update on the work that he has been doing in that area and how he is making sure that his officials are doing all that they can to ensure that the planning process plays its part in ensuring that our rural communities are not left disconnected.
671 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 | 0.73 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.18 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.07 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.