Rural Mobile Connectivity

Julie Minns Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mobile coverage in my constituency is not good at the best of times. Although we are frequently told by the big four mobile network providers that they have 99% 4G coverage in the UK, including in my constituency, that does not ring true to anyone who, like me, is from Cornwall, and therefore knows what it is like to struggle regularly to get signal. Where there is 5G coverage, it is often from a single provider, and not one premises has 5G coverage from all four providers. Last year, Which? and Opensignal produced a mobile network quality map for the year, by using real-world data from people’s phones and assigning a score to each postcode. TR4, which covers places like Chacewater, Trispen and St Erme in my constituency, ranked the second worst for network quality, with a consistent 4G or 5G signal just 57% of the time. Sadly, that is not at all surprising.

As a rural part of the world, we have often struggled with connectivity. That has a particular impact on rural businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) pointed out, including farms, which still experience poor mobile and broadband service. Data from the NFU shows that just 33% of farming businesses have access to fibre, while only 22% report reliable mobile signal across their farm. Despite that, support schemes like the sustainable farming incentive and communication with the Rural Payments Agency are increasingly done online, so digital connectivity is more important to farmers than ever before.

Mobile coverage in my constituency failed spectacularly last month when Storm Goretti struck Cornwall, triggering a rare Met Office red warning, with gusts of about 100 mph. The storm caused widespread power outages and brought down over 1,000 trees, leaving many people completely cut off, with no internet and poor mobile phone signal. The new digital landlines that replaced the old copper networks did not work without power, and Ofcom’s rules require only one hour of battery back-up for vulnerable customers, which is completely inadequate. This meant that for days, and in some cases weeks, large parts of Cornwall were disconnected from the outside world, with no means of accessing information or getting assistance. For many, that was very frightening and showed how in some circumstances, mobile connectivity really could mean life or death.

The loss of telecommunications and poor signal made it harder for responders to identify and support vulnerable residents. Unlike the national grid, Openreach relied on people contacting their service provider to say they were offline, which was not sufficient in a context where many residents had no internet or phone signal. This was not helped by the fact that the providers generally displayed minimal customer service, and it was impossible to get through to human beings in many cases. There was then another layer of delay while the providers reported to Openreach, which had no map of the areas that were offline.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the role of Openreach in this scenario. I have said for some time that its role is equivalent to that of electricity distribution network operators. Although we all pay our bills to an electricity company, it is the distribution network that is responsible for getting our power back on, but Openreach delegates that to the individual service providers. Openreach needs to do more to look after the customers who are affected in these instances.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I agree. Although mobile providers are a category 2 responder under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 framework, they do not have the duties, responsibilities and powers that, say, National Grid or water companies do. There is a strong argument for changing that.

Furthermore, the storm exposed the fact that most mobile masts do not have back-up generators or meaningful battery reserves, making them highly vulnerable to power loss. That contrasts with the expectations placed on water and electricity companies, which operate under established resilience duties. Telecoms providers are arguably just as essential, and the civil contingencies framework should reflect that reality in practice, not just in statute. We need stronger requirements and powers for comms providers in emergency situations, and Ofcom needs the teeth to enforce them.

Storm Goretti demonstrated how dependent communities and responders now are on digital and mobile networks, and it showed the weakness and lack of resilience of those networks in rural places like Cornwall. As Private Eye pointed out, an Ofcom technical report from last year noted that roughly two thirds of the population would be able to make emergency calls in a power outage of under an hour. The number who would be able to do so by the six-hour mark was redacted and described as being “far fewer”.

As extreme weather becomes more frequent, it is crucial that rural areas are better connected. The deadline for nationwide 5G coverage has been pushed back to 2032, but communities like mine cannot wait, as these severe weather experiences become more and more frequent. The Minister has indicated that places like Cornwall could be pilot areas for emergency resilience measures, and I very much look forward to that work beginning as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for bringing forward this delayed but important debate. My constituency includes the very rural area of north Cumbria, bordering Scotland and Northumberland. It is beautiful, remote and, in parts, devoid of mobile coverage.

The lack of mobile connectivity is a particular issue in winter months, as we have heard, when snow and wind block roads and bring down power lines. As has been said, the shutdown of the public switched telephone network means that a loss of power to landlines, coupled with a paucity of mobile coverage, now leaves many of my constituents not only without telephony, but without any means of letting their electricity distribution network know that they have no power at all.

It is a year since Ofcom published the findings of its consultation on mobile RAN—radio access network—power resilience. I will forgive Members if they have not read it as I have. Currently, the regulator suggests a minimum back-up duration of just four hours for mobile RAN sites—the masts—and a minimum duration of one hour for battery back-up units for fixed-line phones, as we have heard.

Last year, however, a power cut affecting the village of Kershopefoot, which sits on the border of my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), lasted five days. I therefore think that a sensible and proportionate solution would be for Ofcom to require mobile networks to maintain a small fleet of electricity generators that could be used to power masts until the electricity grid can be repaired. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that point and an assurance that he will press Ofcom to go further on the issue of RAN resilience.

I will turn to the factors that determine the ability of mobile network operators to improve and maintain coverage: network investment, planning policy and spectrum availability. The first factor is principally a matter for shareholders, but the Government clearly have a role in creating the right conditions for investment, safeguarding competition and removing the policy barriers to network expansion. That brings me to the second factor, which is planning policy. I strongly urge the Minister to engage constructively with Mobile UK on the reform of permitted development rights and the notice to quit regime, which can see mobile operators forced from sites before a new site can be built.

That leaves the third factor, which is spectrum—a subject in which I take an unusual interest, having witnessed at first hand the contrasting approaches, and their consequences, of the Blair and Cameron Governments. The UK’s 3G spectrum auction in 2000 was designed not only to inject competition into the mobile market by reserving a licence for a new entrant, but to create a level playing field by preventing the incumbent networks from using their existing spectrum for 3G services. The effect was to create a level playing field and a competitive market for 3G services, with the result that the UK became the first country in the world to deploy a commercial 3G network. Prices fell, innovation grew and new services were spawned.

As take-up grew, more spectrum had to become available for 3G and 4G services, but simply allowing the four networks that had legacy spectrum to reuse it for 3G services would not only give them a competitive advantage over the newer entrant, but distort competition between the incumbent networks that held different spectrum frequencies. Different frequencies mean different capabilities. In particular, lower frequency spectrum is essential for getting coverage in rural areas.

The then Labour Government’s solution was to direct the regulator to take back the legacy spectrum and reallocate it to maintain a level playing field and maximise competition. Unfortunately, the 2010 election intervened before the legislation to direct Ofcom could pass, and in January 2011 the Cameron Government allowed the incumbent networks to use their 2G spectrum, creating, in the words of the new entrant, a “competitive distortion”—one that I argue has driven the consolidation in the market over the last decade, weakened competitive pressure on the networks to expand their coverage, particularly in rural areas, and left the taxpayer to pick up the tab for a market failure that was entirely avoidable. I urge the Minister, in matters of spectrum, to be more Blair and less Cameron, and ensure that this Government have a spectrum policy that supports a competitive mobile market that benefits every corner and field of our country.