Before I call Deborah Erskine to move the motion, I remind Members of our rule on being quorate in the Assembly Chamber. Please carefully take note of the numbers that we have in here. I do not want to have to ring the Division Bells to get Members back in. I encourage you all to remain here for the debate.

I beg to move

That this Assembly recognises the need for high-quality mobile coverage in rural communities across Northern Ireland; supports the roll-out of the Shared Rural Network (SRN) by the UK Government and four leading mobile network operators and welcomes progress to date; expresses concern that further investment in new and existing phone masts under this initiative has been jeopardised by major delays in the planning process; believes no community should be left behind as a consequence; notes with disappointment the Minister for Infrastructure’s failure to engage directly or meaningfully with the mobile infrastructure industry since February 2024; urges the Department for Infrastructure to update planning guidance to local councils in order to advance this project and ensure the planning system supports the delivery of rural mobile infrastructure more generally; and calls on the Minister to urgently address barriers to extending the 4G and 5G mobile network in rural and hard-to-reach areas of Northern Ireland.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. As an Amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Deborah, please open the debate on the motion.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The development of mobile infrastructure is key to ensuring that our communities are more connected and that technology can play a role in boosting our business and civic life. Unfortunately, I am aware that planning applications are stuck in the system, which means that the roll-out of the Shared Rural Network is stunted. I am aware that, to July 2024, in council areas across Northern Ireland, seven mobile infrastructure planning applications have actually been pulled out of the system by investors because of how convoluted the process was, the delays and the time that it was taking to get through the system. That means that seven areas in Northern Ireland have been held back from getting the infrastructure that they need and deserve and the connectivity that they need to be able to meet the demands of the 21st century.

Mobile UK is an association for the UK mobile network operators EE, O2, Three and Vodafone. Its aim is to identify barriers to progress and work with all relevant parties to bring about change. One of the main issues that it has identified is the planning system. It recognised that there is a workforce crisis in the system, whether that is in the planning departments or related to statutory consultees. It also found that uncertainty around planning policy and delays in decision-making are causing private investors to go elsewhere. Often, planning decisions for mobile infrastructure in what are known as "hard-to-reach areas", which is a term that I hate — rather, I detest it — can take up to two years to complete. We need to change that narrative.

There appears to be a lack of awareness and weighting in the planning system of the social and economic benefits of mobile connectivity to society, leading inevitably to objections in the planning system. Mobile UK has been trying to put that case to the Minister, I believe. So far, however, it has been unable to do so. Despite Mobile UK's being a member of the task force, it appears that its concerns have largely been ignored so far. We cannot continue to point only at the mobile action plan (MAP) and the barrier busting task force (BBTF) when there is a blatant need to review the likes of permitted development rights and planning issues. Such a review would unlock connectivity and improve the Shared Rural Network.

While my party will support the Amendment, I find it interesting that Sinn Féin has removed criticism of its Minister. However, I welcome the inclusion of the Economy Minister, given that it is a cross-departmental matter. It seems that there is a lack of leadership in building mobile infrastructure: planning sits with the Department for Infrastructure; telecoms policy sits with the Department for the Economy. Therefore, there seems to be no clear lead to resolve the issues that are affecting further roll-out. Yes, permitted development rights were updated in 2020, but the changes were superseded by those in Scotland and England. Their changes to permitted development rights took into account the need to speed up roll-out and technological changes.

If we overcame the challenges in roll-out, it would be a game changer for the Northern Ireland economy, which is now a leader in the likes of broadband roll-out. We could do that again. The Future Communications Challenge Group (FCCG) estimated the economic impact of 5G roll-out. It expects that, by 2023, it could be worth £164 billion to the UK economy and that the sectors most likely to benefit would be manufacturing, construction and agriculture. We are lagging behind on that investment in our economy.

My party is committed to ensuring the transformative aspects of better mobile connectivity across Northern Ireland. It was a commitment in our manifesto. Certainly, I would like to see better mobile connectivity in my household and, particularly, in my rural Constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It is imperative that we tackle the digital divide between urban and rural parts of Northern Ireland. As I said, we simply cannot hide behind or point towards the Northern Ireland barrier busting task force oversight group. Yes, the mobile action plan was published in June 2022, and the task force first met in December of the same year. However, since then, the planning subgroup, which was tasked to deal with and deliver specific barrier-busting themes, has met only twice. How can we say that a key barrier to getting better provision is being tackled if it has met only twice since then?

The amendment points to the work of the Department for the Economy in leading the barrier busting task force, but when I asked for a timeline for the completion of the mobile action plan through the task force, there were no specific dates. I was told that it would be discussed at the next meeting.

I do not want to see Northern Ireland being left behind. We need mobile infrastructure for the reasons previously outlined. When it comes to health, our ambulance drivers need it for life-saving technology and equipment. We are also starting to look at the implementation of the all-island strategic rail review. 5G is being developed for rail, and it would be good to look into that when we are looking at building more and better rail links. We will need to include that in our delivery plans or else we will have rail systems in Northern Ireland that will need to be updated before tracks are even laid.

I trust that you can see the need to act. While it takes, as I said, criticism about the lack of engagement on the planning-related issues regarding mobile infrastructure out of our motion, we will support the amendment, as it is imperative that we all work together on the matter.

I beg to move the following Amendment

Leave out all after "consequence;" and insert: "acknowledges the work of the Department for the Economy in leading the barrier busting task force and its planning subgroup, including the involvement of the Department for Infrastructure, local councils and mobile network companies; endorses the aims of the subgroup to identify barriers relating to the planning system and to investigate best practice in mobile network development; further believes no community should be left behind; and calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to support the work of the task force to address the barriers to extending the 4G and 5G mobile network in rural areas, whilst respecting the principles of an inclusive planning system and ensuring the benefits of mobile coverage are maximised across this region."

You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Over to you, Cathal.

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

As a rural MLA and someone who lives in a rural area, I know all too well about the issues that rural dwellers face in relation to poor mobile coverage. As we know, in some areas, the coverage is non-existent. The lack of high-quality mobile coverage in rural areas causes everyday problems for local people. I welcome the opportunity for us to highlight those issues, look at the work that is ongoing to address the problems that exist and look at the work that still needs to be done.

In many cases, the services that many rural dwellers pay for relating to their mobile phone signal coverage do not serve them well when they are at home, which is, quite possibly, the place where they spend most of their time. I do not imagine that that is an issue that is experienced by people who live in more urban areas. Constituents often remark on the fact that they are paying for a service that they just do not get to use, which leaves them worse off than those who do not reside in rural areas.

There is work for the phone network providers to do to ensure that local issues are worked on and addressed in a bid to provide more and better coverage for their rural customers. The Shared Rural Network aims to improve geographic coverage to 79% of areas of natural beauty — up from 51% — across these islands. However, the investment in the North alone will not address all the issues that we are aware of in our rural communities. The scheme is heavily focused on rural Scotland, which leaves the North without its fair share.

Where areas have little to no mobile phone coverage, local people have become reliant on broadband coverage and on using Wi-Fi for calling and messaging. However, many Members will be aware of the shortcomings of Project Stratum, which has not yet made it into many local communities, leaving people without broadband coverage. That further compounds the issues that people —.

I thank the Member for giving way. He will understand that £150 million was secured for Project Stratum. What would have happened had that £150 million not been secured for rural areas?

I appreciate the Member's Intervention, but, as one who dealt with the situation when it presented itself, I know that thousands of people were left out of the original scheme. We welcomed the scheme, but, as the Member said in her opening remarks, there are gaps out there. We tabled our Amendment to try to address those gaps. Nobody has criticised Project Stratum, but it has left people out, which is why we are having this debate in the Chamber.

Many Members will be aware of the shortcomings of Project Stratum, which has not yet made it to many communities. That has left people without broadband coverage, which further compounds the issues that people face with mobile coverage.

The motion highlights the fact that the planning system is an issue when it comes to progress being made on rural mobile coverage. As in previous debates in recent weeks, I do not refute the fact that there are issues in the planning system. However, it is important to remember that applications such as those that deal with phone signal masts are dealt with at council level. It is important that motions that come before the Assembly do not go over the heads of or undermine our councillors in the important part that they play in the planning process to overcome issues and get to an outcome that has the support of communities.

Our amendment aims to recognise the ongoing work with the Department for the Economy's barrier busting task force, which has a dedicated subgroup that looks at the planning issues. That group works to identify barriers relating to the planning system and investigate best practice for future mobile network development. It is chaired by the director of planning for Belfast City Council, which is important, given that those issues, as I mentioned, fall to our councils. It is important that the group, which works across the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for the Economy, is given the space needed to collect and consider information relating to perceived delays in processing those types of applications.

Ensuring that all our rural communities are not left behind is imperative. Local reps and councils must work with others, continue to do all that they can to overcome any planning challenges and ensure that a focus is put on developing high-quality mobile phone coverage right across rural areas. We must work to ensure that people who live in rural areas have the same access to services as everyone else. I ask Members to vote for the amendment.

I support the spirit of the motion and the Amendment.

High-quality mobile coverage is important to our economy, communities and public services. Improving rural connectivity is particularly important. Some rural areas in Northern Ireland are still held back by poor connectivity. That affects business, investment and access to distance education and remote jobs and services. High-speed networks can provide access to important public services like remote GP consultations. New technologies such as agri-tech and virtual reality rely on 5G. Those technologies are particularly relevant for the agriculture and tourism sectors, but 5G is still not widely available in rural areas of Northern Ireland. It is important that our rural economies benefit from those innovative technologies as much as possible.

Depending on how it is measured, the extent of 4G coverage by at least one network is, in percentage terms, in the mid to high 90s in rural areas here but is lower in rural areas of Newry and Armagh, south Down and west Tyrone. We need to make sure that areas that do not have indoor access to 4G through any networks are connected as soon as possible. For 5G coverage, the difference between rural and urban areas is much bigger. 5G coverage by at least one provider is rolled out to only about 50% of rural Northern Ireland compared with 80% of urban areas. The UK Government, who are responsible for telecommunications, have a target of delivering stand-alone 5G coverage to all populated areas in the UK by 2030. It is fair to say that our rural areas have some way to go to meet that goal.

I recognise that 5G technology presents particular challenges in rural areas. Environmental and aesthetic considerations are also important in rural areas and need to be given due weight. I do not want to see 5G masts installed in any place at any cost, but we still need to ensure that we remove any unnecessary barriers to the technology where possible. Telecommunications are a reserved power, but the delivery of mobile infrastructure projects often overlaps with our devolved planning powers. Updating communications infrastructure often involves building new masts or making existing masts bigger, which requires planning permission. That is typically dealt with at council level.

In 2022, the previous Minister for the Economy established a barrier busting task force to identify and address the barriers preventing the fast and efficient deployment of mobile connectivity in Northern Ireland. It includes a planning subgroup that looks at barriers related to the planning system. The Minister for Infrastructure said in July that the group had met twice since 2022 and is at an early stage in its deliberations. It has been nearly two years since that group was established, and we would be interested to know when we can expect deliberations to come to a more mature state.

The Minister also advised that we should wait for evidence from the task force before making policy changes. The Alliance Party has always supported evidence-based policy, but the failures of our planning system are extremely well researched. I spoke in the Chamber only last week about some issues in relation to renewable energy infrastructure. The barriers are the lack of progress on local development plans; capacity and skills shortages in planning departments in statutory consultees; the financial sustainability of the planning system; a lack of cooperation between organisations; and poor-quality planning applications. Wind turbines and 5G masts have a lot in common, and I expect that the planning system fails them in similar ways and that many of the problems that our planning system faces have nothing to do with the type of structure in question. Will the evidence from the task force give significant insight, or are we are merely kicking the can down the road?

The Alliance Party has long asked for fundamental reform to create a sustainable and functional planning system. Pre-application discussions and checklists for major applications will help to reduce waiting times, as will statutory time frames for determining applications and a sustainable funding model for the planning system.

On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party I support the motion and the Amendment. I agree with much of what was said by those who proposed both.

Mobile coverage is something that most people in Northern Ireland take for granted in 2024. However, sadly, as we heard from the statistics cited today, a significant minority of areas in Northern Ireland still do not have it. That is extremely frustrating for them. We have heard about the economic impact that not having mobile phone coverage can have in those areas. We hear about the community impacts as well. We often hear at the Infrastructure Committee about how many road traffic collisions happen on rural roads. Many of those rural roads do not have mobile coverage, and that provides an additional safety impact.

The proposer of the motion talked about "hard-to-reach areas", which is a frustrating term. I totally agree with her: there should not be any. I declare an interest, Mr Deputy Speaker: I live in a hard-to-reach area. I sympathise with the many people who are west of the Bann, but I live in east Antrim, and, where I live and in the houses surrounding mine, there is zero mobile phone coverage. It is not an issue that affects only the west of the Province; it affects many people across Northern Ireland.

I thank the Member for giving way and for sympathising with the likes of me, who has to put on Wi-Fi calling just to get a signal. We are obviously aware that some masts have had 3G switched off, but we are not seeing the infrastructure coming in behind it, as happens elsewhere in the UK, to be able to continue the roll-out of better 4G and 5G networks. That is a real problem. The motion points to rural areas, but we see that impact in some urban areas as well.

The Member has an extra minute.

The Member makes a valid point. It is frustrating when people are in touching distance of that infrastructure but, for whatever reason — it may not be switched on — the service is not being provided.

I agree with the proposer of the Amendment, as well, about the processes in planning. We devolved that power to councils. We ask not to interfere with that but that the processes are streamlined and that there is an understanding of how essential the infrastructure is. I cannot imagine that anyone particularly likes to look at a mobile phone mast. In the same way, I do not like to look at an electricity pylon in my garden, but it is a vital piece of infrastructure on which we all rely daily. They are an essential evil, and they must be provided.

The proposer of the motion talked about the Mobile UK framework and the feedback that it has given. It talks about some delays. The proposer mentioned the seven applications that have been withdrawn recently after suffering such delays. In Fermanagh and South Tyrone, one planning process took over 720 days. There has to be scrutiny and process, and planning committees and planners must be given time, but that seems to be excessive for something that, we all accept, is a vital infrastructure asset. The people impacted most by that are the 8,000 or 9,000 people living in that area who required it most and are relying on other technologies.

I support Mobile UK's six-point plan. There is not a great deal to oppose about increased funding for planning services; recognising the importance of mobile infrastructure in the planning process; hiring digital champions to support the planning process; attracting and retaining talent, which is vital; improving planning policy frameworks; and fostering proactive digital leadership from councils. We could all get behind all of those points and support them.

There are many new and emerging technologies that would go hand in hand with and support that. It is vital, whether it is led by the Infrastructure Minister or the Economy Minister, that all of us get behind supporting that future technology. I have had to avail myself of it in my area, and I know that many others are doing the same. It is important to look towards that technology and make sure that the processes are in place to support it as well. As I said, we will support the motion and the amendment.

I am a bit unsure about the motion, which levels unfounded, in my view, criticism at a Minister. I remain unsure about what efforts the Minister has made —

[Interruption.]

I do not know what efforts the Minister has made to engage with the mobile infrastructure industry or, to be fair, what efforts the industry has made to engage with the Minister. I am sure that he will inform us. On the other hand, we have a Sinn Féin Amendment that looks to give credit to another Minister and his barrier busting task force. I have not seen much, or any, evidence that the work done by that group is actually busting barriers or that mobile coverage has improved; in fact, I would argue that it is the opposite. From personal experience and anecdotal evidence, there appears to be an increase in the number of not spots.

I want to focus on how we resolve the practical issues and how the lack of coverage impacts on people daily, rather than play the political blame game. I, for one, am fed up with tit-for-tat motions that distract and detract from the issues at hand.

I thank the Member for giving way. It is on an issue that I have not heard raised at this stage. I understand that lots of people are in areas where they cannot receive a signal, but I do not know whether, in rural constituencies, people have the frustration that I have that, when driving from point A to point B, you used to have a signal and you used to be able to have a phone call, but, all of a sudden, the phone signal drops right across areas. I had one phone call with a constituent, and, in the space of about five miles, the phone call dropped eight times. That did not happen before, and I hope that the Minister might be able to put some pressure on the phone companies to find out why they are reducing the services and making them worse in areas rather than better.

The Member has an extra minute.

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.

I thank the Members who have spoken already, because some of them have covered my points. However, it is worthwhile talking specifically to the lack of mobile coverage in some areas of Mid Ulster, the rural community that I represent.

Mobile service is vital for everyday use and for people to make phone calls. If you are doing so on the road, I certainly hope that you are using hands-free. It is important for business. Business in Mid Ulster tends to be in rural areas. Many of our big engineering companies are in rural areas, and it is vital for them to have that connectivity. As others have outlined, it is also extremely important for those who need to get in contact urgently with any of our blue light services. Whether it is for a business or a resident in the Washing Bay area of Killeen or Derryloughan or whether it is in an emergency on a rural road, mobile connectivity is a lifeline.

In speaking to the motion, it is important to address the key issues: the responsibility of mobile providers and the role of the planning process. First, I emphasise that the planning process exists for a reason. As others have outlined, it ensures that we maintain a balance between the need for infrastructure and the rights of residents and rural dwellers. We cannot bypass those protections in a rush to build more masts or roll out new infrastructure. We must consider the impact on local areas and the residents who live there. They deserve to be part of the conversation about how infrastructure is developed; Mark Durkan mentioned that. It is about communication and talking to those communities. They are up for it, but they need to understand what is happening and why. Planning safeguards are critical to ensuring that mobile masts and other infrastructure are introduced in a way that respects local character, the environment and the well-being of residents.

That said, the real issue lies with the mobile providers. In Mid Ulster and, particularly, Killeen and Derryloughan in the Washing Bay area, there already is the physical infrastructure, but the mobile companies are choosing not to upgrade or properly invest in it. That goes back to points that have been made around collaboration and everybody working together. Mobile providers are choosing not to invest in rural areas. They need to be answerable as to why that is. Whether it is in a rural area in Mid Ulster, Strabane or Derry, it creates a digital divide that is leaving our rural communities behind. Our local council has been very supportive of residents in areas that have no mobile coverage, but, thus far, there has been no satisfactory response from the companies responsible. The lack of investment from mobile phone companies leaves rural areas with substandard service compared with urban areas, and we cannot allow that urban/rural divide to grow. The providers reap the benefits of serving urban customers — I acknowledge that there are issues in some urban areas too — while neglecting many of our rural communities and thus the businesses and residents who depend on it.

Reliable mobile coverage is crucial for emergency services, as I have outlined. In rural areas, where the response times can be longer, the ability to make a phone call in a crisis can make all the difference.

Again, however, our residents are left vulnerable because of the lack of infrastructure and lack of investment from mobile providers.

I welcome the Amendment and acknowledge the work that the Department for the Economy and the barrier busting task force are doing. I have no doubt that more work needs to happen in that area, but, again, it comes back to what we have talked about: collaboration between all the stakeholders, including Departments, councils, mobile network companies and local communities, about which we have talked.

The amendment reinforces the idea that:

"no community should be left behind".

It emphasises the need for a well-rounded approach that ensures that rural communities receive the mobile coverage that they need. As I said, that will be done only through collaboration by all stakeholders, including government, councils, elected representatives and the communities that we represent. The communities need to be part of the conversation. As I said, they are always up for improvements being made and for moving forward, but they need to be involved in the conversation.

I thank the proposer of the motion and the proposer of the amendment.

Access to reliable and fast digital connectivity is essential to our rural communities and rural economies in all areas. It also allows people to stay in touch with friends and family. That connectivity should be affordable, and it is essential that we work collectively to deliver for our constituents. Constituents should have adequate coverage whether they live in rural, suburban or urban areas. Coverage varies in different parts of the country, with urban areas having better coverage, broadly, than rural areas.

I have recently been in contact with O2, Virgin Media and Vodafone about coverage in Mid Ulster, and I will continue to liaise with all providers to ensure that not just constituents but those in the whole of Northern Ireland receive the necessary service. I have noticed recently that, in areas that once had it, good coverage has now disappeared. As Colin mentioned, we are all aware of the roads on which we will need to say to the person to whom we are talking, "I will ring you back, because I am going to lose signal".

Something has changed. Things are happening, but I am not sure what. The signal has disappeared in areas where it was once good. For example, the A29 corridor had perfect coverage, but the signal now completely disappears on part of it. Something is changing. Areas such as Tobermore, Killeen, referred to by the Member who spoke previously, Ballyronan and Moneymore, to name but a few, have always had poor or no coverage. On a number of occasions, constituents trying to access their GP or a hospital have not been able to connect or their signal has dropped during the call. That is unacceptable. No region of the United Kingdom should be left behind. No part of Northern Ireland should be left feeling abandoned and disconnected.

During the General Election campaign, my party included in its manifesto the need for and benefits of the Shared Rural Network initiative, the aim of which is to ensure high-quality mobile coverage from the four main operators. In my Constituency of Mid Ulster, however, my office consistently deals with cases in which mobile coverage is poor or non-existent. It was my party that secured the £150 million in 2017 and spearheaded the provision of full fibre broadband across Northern Ireland. We will continue to ensure that that roll-out is completed by the end of 2025.

I will pick up on Cathal's point from earlier and say that a lot of places did not make it on to the whitelist. The Department of Finance can maybe answer the question of why its system did not put houses there on to a list, as they would then have gone on to the whitelist. I appreciate that that is a problem across Northern Ireland, but a lot of those buildings there did not exist on any list. The Department of Finance did not send that list across to the Department for the Economy. That is for another discussion on another day, however.

We must build on this and ensure that we have proper and adequate mobile coverage for all communities. The provision of high-quality mobile coverage is essential in rural areas. It will not only help individuals make personal calls but allow businesses to stay in touch with suppliers and customers, whilst making everyday banking and electronic payments more accessible. Councils need to have clear guidance and the capacity to handle planning applications that are integral to developing SRN projects and investing in new digital infrastructure in rural areas.

We need coverage, but we do not need unnecessary masts, which Andrew and John touched on. Providers are moving from traditional hilltop masts to roadside poles. I am no telecommunications engineer, but I know that recent applications to Mid Ulster District Council were not optimising the mast share or site share part of the policy. Everybody seems to want their own. Providers are not site sharing or mast sharing as they should be, and councils are not aware of the issue. It is not for every provider to have its own mast. We see that in the move from traditional hilltop to roadside masts, which is being done to prevent payment to landowners, and that reduces signal quality. It is something of which councils are not aware, so a wee bit of work needs to be done on that.

I look forward to the Minister's comments on the issue and the steps that he, along with Executive colleagues, can take to address the problem.

Today's motion and Amendment feel a bit like déjà vu all over again, with the leading parties in the Executive jockeying to pat their own Ministers on the back while expressing disappointment in the Ministers of their partners in government: so much for joined-up working and collective responsibility. I am curious as to why we are asked to acknowledge the work of the Department for the Economy in leading a planning subgroup that it does not actually lead, a fact made more curious when you consider that the group in question has met only twice that we know of since it was formed. Before I join the chorus of applause, I would like to know what the subgroup has achieved.

Also lacking is a specific call for a robust rethink of the mechanisms for engagement with communities to identify appetite and secure buy-in for mobile infrastructure development. One recurring issue for me as a Constituency MLA in Newry and Armagh, which is largely rural, has been balancing the need for enhanced coverage with local objections to conspicuous development in areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs) and with safety concerns about proximity to masts. If the call today is for an overhaul of processes, I would like the Executive to show more thought about how they propose to bring communities into the process more meaningfully.

The DUP wants to update planning guidance to prioritise mobile infrastructure. How will that chime with existing planning guidance on rural development? How do the Executive plan to avoid a two-tier planning system that prioritises development of rural mobile infrastructure while leaving family farms and rural housing out in the cold? Bizarrely, the motion and the amendment raise more questions than they answer. Neither the task force nor its planning and publicly owned assets subgroups have published any meaningful work since they were established. The communications subgroup seems to be the only one that has conducted any substantive work. It signed off a stakeholder engagement strategy and communication plan, and, by last August, all 11 of the North's councils had identified digital champions/coordinators. None of the strategies or plans has been published, and the subgroup does not seem to have had any outworkings since August 2023.

Today's motion and amendment feel an awful lot like a group of students jointly presenting a class project that they have cobbled together on the school bus on the way in. There is a lack of joined-up thinking, a bit of exaggeration about who is in charge of what, a lack of evidence of continuous working and some finger-pointing on who is to blame for the confusion. If I were marking that work, it would be with qualified support and, "Must do better".

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.

I welcome today's motion and the opportunity to highlight the need for better provision of high-quality mobile coverage in rural communities across the North, but this is not exclusively about rural communities, as I will come to in a moment or two. People need mobile coverage, whether it is to check on kids at school, make an appointment with the doctor, do everyday business or help to promote their businesses. In an area such as mine, many people are self-employed and are on the move quite a bit, and they need a decent mobile signal to help them to run their business.

I represent a mostly rural Constituency, and, as other rural representatives clearly outlined today, we are kindred spirits when it comes to our constituents' experiences with the mobile signal. I frequently get complaints, more so recently, from across the constituency about the poor quality of the mobile signal and areas where the signal drops out. There is another element that others and I have noticed, and my colleague Mr McGrath referred to it in his contribution: a previously reasonable or half-decent mobile signal that has deteriorated and dropped off. I do not know the technological reasons for that, but it is happening. I have had complaints from people in Magherafelt, the Coagh area and Cookstown about the deteriorating signal. I cannot understand why that should be the case, but it is clearly happening.

Whether the Assembly chooses to criticise the Infrastructure Minister, as in the motion, or opts to praise the Economy Minister, as in the Amendment, people's experience will not change. They want to know what is being done to improve the signal so they can get on with their daily lives and businesses.

The reality is that from the publication of the 'Mobile Action Plan for Northern Ireland (MAP NI)' on 23 June 2022 until February of this year, there was no Infrastructure Minister or Economy Minister. However, the barrier busting task force has apparently met during that time. Its oversight group, which includes members from DAERA, the Department for the Economy, the Department of Education, the Department of Finance, the Department for Infrastructure, the UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Full Fibre NI Consortium, Mobile UK, local government heads of planning and ofcom, has met seven times. Its communication subgroup has met 11 times, the planning subgroup has met just twice, as has been referred to, and the publicly owned assets subgroup has only met twice.

Earlier this month, in response to an Assembly question for written answer, the Economy Minister stated that he had asked his officials to discuss a delivery framework with all task force members at the next meeting. He also said that he would publish that when it was available. Perhaps a member of the Executive could provide an update on the progress of that delivery timetable — I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to do that today, but we will hear later on — because it is clear that it is an Executive issue. It is not an issue solely for the Infrastructure or Economy Ministers.

Rural communities are being left behind in digital connectivity, as was the case with the roll-out of high-speed broadband. Unless the task force starts to deliver on addressing the barriers to extending the 4G and 5G mobile networks in rural areas and some of the rural towns, the Shared Rural Network will continue to come up against those barriers. If the issue is planning, let us see the task force proposals to address that. If putting masts on publicly owned assets will improve mobile coverage in rural areas, let us see the task force proposals on that too. If there are other issues, let us see the task force proposals. A continued failure to deliver will mean that rural communities, rural villages and rural towns will continue to endure poor-quality mobile coverage. It will also mean that they — by that, I mean "we" — will continue to be left behind by the Executive.

I look forward to hearing the proposals, I look forward to hearing about the work of the oversight group, and I look forward to hearing from the Executive on what is happening to address the deficiencies in what many in other areas regard as an everyday service.

Minister, you have up to 15 minutes, but we will be stopping at 1.00 pm.

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion on the very important topic of mobile infrastructure in rural areas, and I welcome the contributions from Members during the debate. I fully agree with the need for high-quality mobile coverage in rural communities and, indeed, in urban parts of the region too. A modern and efficient telecommunications infrastructure is an essential and beneficial element of everyday living for our people and our visitors. Improving our digital infrastructure is vital to our economy, and planning has a crucial role to play in supporting the delivery of that infrastructure and facilitating appropriate proposals that deliver a high level of connectivity, while ensuring that the provision of such infrastructure is sited and designed to keep environmental impacts to a minimum.

I fully support the public investment in, and roll-out of, the 4G Shared Rural Network initiative, and I am pleased to note the considerable progress that has been made by participating network operators. ofcom is responsible for measuring each operator's coverage to ensure that it has met the individual requirements under its licence obligations. On 12 September, Ofcom published a statement on mobile network operators' compliance with their SRN geographical coverage obligations for June 2024. Members will be pleased to learn that Ofcom noted that BT, EE, Virgin Media O2 and Vodafone met the 88% UK-wide threshold, including coverage obligations for the North. I expect that Ofcom will update its assessments in the coming months to confirm that Three has also since met its obligation threshold. I also suspect that the gains made so far will improve mobile coverage in our rural areas.

I turn now to the suggestion in the motion that major delays in the planning process have jeopardised the Shared Rural Network initiative. The planning system and the council planning authorities have played a key enabling role in the delivery of telecommunications infrastructure over recent years. Members will be interested to note that official planning statistics for the period April 2021 to March 2024 indicate that 165 planning applications for telecoms development have been approved. That demonstrates that the planning system is supporting appropriate proposals.

It is worth pointing out that we have a planning system that is based on the rights of the applicant and of the objector, concerned resident, neighbour or whoever it may be. We could have a 100% success rate for any application if we simply had a planning application process in which someone applies and gets approval. On the other side of that, we could have a situation in which, if someone objects, nothing goes ahead. However, that is not the system that we operate. We have a system in which an applicant is invited to submit an application. The key to the success of that application, in my opinion, is that it is fully formatted and has all the information that is required when it is submitted. It then goes through a number of processes to ensure that it meets planning policy and regulations etc. Any objections that are raised are also assessed. Some of those objections may be major or minor, but they have to be fully interrogated and investigated before a decision can be made. I understand why people would want to have a speedy planning process. That is perfectly justifiable for a variety of reasons, but we also have to have an effective and efficient process.

It is worth noting that it is right to deliver for rural communities across the North when it comes to increasing mobile network coverage, but it is also right that our planning system is capable of protecting communities and long-term public interests from inappropriate development proposals. My Department maintains a positive working relationship with mobile operators, and my officials remain committed to working constructively with the industry and other key stakeholders.

I will turn to the criticism of me in the motion. Criticism of a Minister or a Member is fair enough, and, when justified, it is even fairer. Nevertheless, I want to put on the record that I have had two invites to meet from the telecommunications industry. One was from the umbrella group, which I did not fulfil, and senior officials attended it. The other one was from Vodafone UK, which I did fulfil, and I met that group. I have had no other correspondence from any other representatives of the mobile phone industry on their concerns about the planning system or about my role or the role of the barrier busting task force. If they wish to write to me again, I will give it due consideration, as I do all invites to meet.

Since 2019, officials have continued to sit on the SRN working group, building a constructive working relationship with Mobile UK to help ensure that the initiative is progressed across the region. The Department was previously represented on a DFE cross-sectoral working group that led engagement with the industry and oversaw the publication of the mobile action plan on 23 June 2022. The mobile action plan sets out eight actions, including the creation of a DFE-led barrier busting task force, which commenced later that year.

My Department is represented on that body, and officials have participated in the planning subgroup of the barrier busting task force. That is, rightly, chaired by local government, which, in this instance, is a representative from Belfast City Council. Both groups also include industry representatives. I note Members' concern about the fact that the group has met only twice. Following the debate, I will undertake to go back and see what barriers there are to the barrier busting task force's meeting. I will see whether we can ensure that the group meets more regularly and that the issues that are at the heart of concerns are dealt with in a way that they can be.

I suspect that some in the industry are seeking permitted developments for new masts etc, but I do not think that that is the road to go down. Some Members expressed concerns about the visual impact that telecommunications masts can have in rural communities. Some residents have also had concerns that, in some instances, have been ill-informed. It is only right and proper that, when new significant development is proposed in an area, communities have a right to raise their concerns and that those are dealt with appropriately through planning legislation.

I am sorry. I know that time is against us, so I thank the Minister for giving way and for his commitment to go back to look at the barriers to that group's meeting, because that is essential. Although his officials attended the umbrella group meeting that he did not, I am sure that he was apprised of some of the planning issues that were brought up at that meeting. Hopefully, all those issues can be taken forward when reviewing the barriers to the task force's meeting.

Regrettably, time has run away from us. The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue at 2.00 pm, when the Minister will resume his remarks.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.59 pm.

On resuming —