Debate contribution: Mobile Coverage in Rural Areas
Debate contribution by Miss Áine Murphy on .
- MLA
- Miss Áine Murphy
- 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 4645015
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
As I make a winding-up speech on the amendment, I thank the Members opposite for bringing the motion to the Floor today. As we have heard throughout the debate, better connectivity in rural areas is absolutely vital. I want to take the opportunity to highlight the importance of our rural communities, and many in the Chamber have heard me wax lyrical about rural communities over the past number of months. They are sewn into the very fabric of our society. Access to services is more difficult in those areas, and a perfect example of that is the lack of access to proper mobile coverage. There are huge pockets in my constituency and, indeed, in other rural constituencies where people cannot make a phone call from their home due to a poor signal. Entire towns have no ability to either make or take calls. Rural communities have a proud history of entrepreneurship, from farmers to craft producers and from manufacturers to tourism operators. To expand, compete and thrive, rural businesses require access to high-quality mobile coverage. Expanding mobile coverage in our rural areas will bring local businesses into the global marketplace and ensure that rural businesses can continue to drive our local economies. Addressing that issue will also be a factor in addressing regional imbalance, and I welcome some of the steps that have taken place in relation to the roll-out of fibre-optic broadband and the commencement of Project Gigabit to capture those properties that are, unfortunately, not included in the initial roll-out. It would be remiss of me not to mention the many factors that are at play in relation to mobile coverage. They have been touched on throughout the debate, and they include planning, commercial interests and maintenance, to name a few. Those issues have been articulated very well by Members who spoke previously, and, like many challenges facing rural communities, a one-size-fits-all approach will not address the lack of mobile coverage. In conclusion, cross-departmental working and sectoral inclusion will be key. I acknowledge the work that is being carried out by the Department for the Economy through the task force. Of course, there are issues that we need to be cognisant of, particularly those relating to planning and concerns that are raised throughout the planning processes. It is incumbent on all local councils to take stock of those concerns and, of course, work with all stakeholders to reach appropriate decisions.
409 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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | 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 | 0.73 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.26 |
| Another identity-related subject | 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.