Debate contribution: Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas
Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on .
- MLA
- Mr John O'Dowd
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 24 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4645010
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In response to the Chair's comments, just before we broke for lunch: the matters raised by the umbrella group for the mobile phone industry were the same as the issues raised with me by Vodafone UK when I met it, and we had an opportunity to discuss those. As I said, there is a push for permitted development. I think that that is a mistake, but, as I committed to earlier, we will continue to work with the mobile phone industry and others to ensure that everything is being done so that we have appropriate development of that and other industries across rural and other areas. Under the review of public administration, the Executive agreed to transfer significant planning functions to local government, a decision that remains right and proper as it allows communities to hold their councils accountable for how they discharge their planning functions. Councils, as individual, sovereign political authorities, therefore have a hugely important leadership role in delivering the main operational aspects of the system. That includes taking decisions on all planning applications for telecommunications development and producing local development plans, including local policies for telecommunications development, a process fundamental to the reform-led system and for the effective enforcement of planning control. As has been said, planning authorities rely on the expertise of statutory consultees to ensure that important public interests, such as road safety and environmental impact, are properly taken into account in planning decisions. Many of my ministerial colleagues will, therefore, also have a role in directly contributing to the effectiveness of the planning system. The mobile phone industry has an important role to play in site selection, the quality of applications entering the system, and timely and adequate provision of information. A number of Members made comments about their perception and experience of poor phone communication in certain areas. The comments from Keith Buchanan were particularly enlightening in respect of more use of poles instead of dedicated masts and perhaps a perception that mobile phone companies are moving away from having masts on private land to where they do not have to pay land rent, which may have an implication for the quality of phone communication in some areas. It has to be said that communications companies are individual companies in their own right, and they will make commercial decisions that they believe to be in the best interests of their company. Concern was raised about applications for individual masts rather than shared masts. There is a belief that there should be more sharing of masts among companies, which would mean not having the same amount of infrastructure spread across the countryside. Where there are existing telecommunication masts, we do have permitted development whereby changes can be made without the necessity for a fresh planning application. I mentioned that my officials are involved in the DFI-led barrier busting task force. I have listened to Members' concerns about the failure of that group to meet more regularly. I will play my part to ensure that the group does meet on a more regular basis and that issues that impact on the applicant or community are fully addressed and lessons learned. Where required changes are to be made, I will drive those changes forward to ensure that we have a modern telecommunications system in line with our modern planning policies and principles.
561 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: 0.02 (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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.91 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 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.