Debate contribution: Storm Éowyn: Mobile and Broadband Connections
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 3 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Question for Urgent Oral Answer
- Heading
- Storm Éowyn: Mobile and Broadband Connections
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774344
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I concur with much of what the Member has said. Real inconvenience is being experienced by so many people, and the impact of the lack of connectivity is really significant not just for households but for people, particularly in rural communities, who are trying to do business. As I said, the Department for the Economy has limited levers to deal with those companies directly, but we are engaging through all channels. As the Member said, I have been in post for only a few hours, but I will absolutely make sure that we get the answers that we need from them. I will impress on them the need to take urgent action to ensure that people are connected as quickly as possible.
I have seen that some of the companies are already doing that. It is only right that, where people have faced significant inconvenience for some time, compensation is forthcoming, and those companies should certainly look at how they can do that and support their customers.
I am not over the detail of the compensation payments that the telecommunications companies will make and how exactly that will work. Certainly, I will ask officials to look at that. The Member referred to compensation payments from NIE. The detail of that is still being worked through with NIE and the Utility Regulator. DFE officials continue to engage with them on that. The Member will be aware that, under the British scheme, for example, the cost of compensation for severe weather is covered collectively by other customers. There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that people are compensated for the inconvenience and hardship that they have faced and deciding where that compensation is paid from. The detail of that is still being worked through.
I thank the Member for her good wishes. I do not have the detail of the Fibrus contract in front of me, so I am happy to write to the Member on that issue.
As I have said to other Members, the relationship that the Department has with the telecommunication companies is limited, except in the case of Fibrus, with which officials have been engaging. It is important that there is proper communication with customers. Fibrus has tried to increase the number people staffing its customer helplines. I am happy to convey the message that we need to see that communication improving, because people need reassurance about when they will be reconnected, if that is not happening now. We need to see that happening as quickly as possible. I am sure that all Members will appreciate that there are health and safety issues at play as well. There have been dangerous situations as a result of electricity wires being down, and other things have had to be repaired before work could be undertaken to restore broadband and other connections. It is important that people get that reassurance.
I thank the Member for her good wishes. In preparation for responding to today's question for urgent oral answer, I raised that issue with officials and asked whether it could be explored. Obviously, as I have indicated, there are limited direct relationships between the Department and those companies, but TEO and the civil contingencies group have a line of communication as well. We should look at where there will be delays in reconnection and whether any potential mitigations can be put in place. I am happy to take that away.
571 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 (0.86).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:53 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.