Despite stern Unionist opposition, members of Fermanagh and Omagh District Council have voted by majority to continue fighting for answers in the long-running battle over the PSNI not charging for escorting explosives for the goldmining industry, even though one councillor deemed this “a waste of time”.

A strategic review into the move has been completed but is still under consideration by the PSNI and has not yet been made public.

Last month, the Council wrote to the Chief Constable, the Policing Board, and the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) seeking clarification as to whether a feasibility study or financial impact assessment was undertaken in relation to the cost to the public purse of escorting of explosives and associated duties for the goldmining industry, and to clarify when and by whom the change in policy regarding this matter was decided.

Responding for the PSNI, Chief Superintendent Jon Henry advised neither a feasibility study nor financial impact assessment was conducted, although an internal review is currently under way which “aims to assist with determining the resources required to fulfil our obligations relating to the licensing, use and transportation of explosives within Northern Ireland”.

He clarified, however: “This review does not include, nor does the PSNI have any plans to undertake, a financial impact assessment.”

In relation to the policy change, Superintendent Henry added: “The PSNI has concluded that we cannot charge for the provision of such services under existing legislation as they do not constitute special police services. This decision was taken by senior PSNI management in April, 2021.”

Meanwhile, correspondence from the NIO signed off by the National Security Casework and Protection Team, repeated: “The supervision of civil explosives is an operational matter for the police ... We believe they are best placed to provide any further clarification.”

A response from Policing Board Chief Executive Sinead Simpson read: “The [Policing] Board is responsible for the strategic oversight of policing; however, the Chief Constable retains operational independence in respect of all PSNI operational matters.

“It is the Board’s understanding the PSNI is conducting a review regarding the licensing, transport and use of explosives. This review is an operational PSNI matter on service delivery.

“Any change in policy in respect of the outcome will be decided by the Chief Constable. The Board does not hold information in relation to costs associated with the escorting of explosives or any associated financial impact assessment.”

Independent Councillor Emmet McAleer, who has been driving the campaign for answers, was unimpressed with all responses, telling members the PSNI “have changed their practice”, adding: “Superintendent Henry makes it clear while a review has been undertaken to determine resourcing requirements to fulfil their obligations, there remains a lack of clarity on the implications for the public purse.”

He continued: “Clearly the PSNI do not accept this is a matter for them. It’s important to remember that the position until 2016 was for the PSNI to bill goldmining companies for provision of security, transportation and other services.”

Councillor McAleer proposed again writing to the Policing Board and Department of Justice requesting information around the impact on the public purse and to provide an estimated costing.

This was seconded by Councillor Donal O’Cofaigh, CCLA; however, Ulster Unionist Councillor Victor Warrington was strongly opposed.

He said: “This has been going back and forward for a long period of time and we keep getting the same answers.

“Yet again, Councillor McAleer has asked to send more letters out, and that’s putting extra work on council officers. We’re going over old ground.

“Does Councillor McAleer hope that if we keep writing, we’ll get a letter back that suits him? That’s not going to happen.

“It’s quite clear from correspondence it’s not going to change. I’m opposed to writing any further letters.”

Democratic Unionist Councillor Paul Robinson agreed, contending: “It’s a waste of time.”
With dissent evident, the matter went to a vote, which passed 16 – 9.