By 
A vote at Fermanagh and Omagh District Council to block a second trip to China by council officials and elected members has failed.
Last month, Fermanagh and Omagh District Council (FODC) was among a number of local councils across the North invited to visit China at the end of April. FODC delegations previously travelled to China in 2018, while a smaller delegation of two councillors and one council official visited the country last October.
However, a motion saying the council should not take up the latest invite, which was proposed by UUP councillor Mark Ovens at the council’s monthly meeting last night, was defeated.
The recent visits to China took place under the auspices of a ‘friendly city’ arrangement between the council area and Huangshi in China.
The most recent delegation, which travelled in October, comprised three people: Chairperson Barry McElduff, Deputy Chair Shirley Hawkes and Council Chief Executive Allison McCullagh, at a cost of £5,500.
The proposed April visit is intended to strengthen relationships between China and local authorities across the UK.
It would involve a delegation of up to six people including councillors and council staff spending three days in Beijing and three days in Huangshi.
While the trip was initially proposed as being fully funded by the Chinese government, the council’s chief executive said any such visit would instead be funded by the council due to the overall cost involved.
Councillor Ovens told last night’s meeting he believed voters did not want elected representatives or council officials taking part in the trip and argued that it would be a waste of public money.
“I see no foundation or basis for this council to take up this invitation,” he said.
“Instead of taking free trips, this council should be focusing on the issues that matter most to ratepayers, emptying the bins, keeping the parks clean and delivering improved leisure facilities. These are the things we are elected to do. We are not elected to go off on trips to China, whether paid for by the Chinese Communist Party or by ourselves.”
He added, “We are approaching a period when this council is likely to vote to increase rates. It is highly likely rates will rise, and I think it sends the wrong message if this council is seen to accept another trip just weeks after a delegation travelled to China late last year at a cost of £5,500 to local ratepayers, for what I believe was negligible benefit.
“We need to get a grip on our priorities.”
Mr Ovens proposed that the council decline the invitation and thank the Chinese government for the offer, stating that the council had other priorities.
SDLP councillor Adam Gannon supported this position, saying the proposal ‘came out of the blue’. He also referenced China’s human rights record and questioned why councillors had been invited to visit.
Alliance Party councillor Stephen Donnelly echoed those concerns, describing it as ‘irresponsible’ for FODC to send a delegation so soon after the previous visit.
“I think it would be irresponsible, and I don’t think there is a strong argument for returning to China with such a large delegation so soon after the last one,” Cllr Donnelly said.
He added that he would be inclined to support Councillor Ovens’ proposal.
Sinn Féin group leader Debbie Coyle said the party would not support the UUP motion and instead proposed deferring any decision for a month to gather more information about the visit and explore whether the itinerary could deliver benefits for the local community.
“We will not be supporting Councillor Ovens’ proposal,” she said. “I will be proposing that we defer this for a month to find out more about the itinerary and see what benefits there could be locally.”
She added, “I do not think anybody’s bin was missed in October because the council chair was visiting China.”
The vote on the UUP proposal by Cllr Ovens to decline the invitation failed, with 15 councillors in favour and 19 against.
A Sinn Féin motion by Cllr Coyle to defer the decision on whether to take up the China invitation until next month’s meeting passed, with 19 councillors voting in favour, 12 against and two abstentions.
