A further twist has emerged around a PSNI decision to provide escorting explosives for the mining industry free of charge.

While senior police are now describing this as a  “new position”,  it is unclear how matters originally operated  as a Freedom of Information (FOI) request has established no policy ever existed.

The PSNI previously billed a mining exploration company  £437,610 for the provision of explosives escorting over a 10-month period; however, an instruction was later issued not to pursue this.

More information on the controversial move has since emerged, including acknowledgement the Policing Board was not advised of this, and there remains no indiction from where additional funding will be sourced.

The subject has proved divisive at Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, with some members  opposed to this use of public money, and others believing it is justified.

Members sought the potential additional costs with enquires sent to the Minister for Justice, the Policing Board and the Chief Constable.

The Minister cited PSNI independence, while Chief Superintendent Sam Donaldson referred to a review currently under way around explosives escort services.

He described costings as “variable and difficult to establish”, but suggested an approximate figure of £285 per initial escort, based on two officers and lasting around five hours.

This is at odds with the original PSNI invoice of £437,610, and if the latest figure applied, that particular bill  would have been £23,386 for 1,534 escorts.

The Policing Board confirmed while having an oversight role of the PSNI and reviewing the policy of charging for policing services, it held “no information in relation to costs for escorting explosives”.

Councillor Emmet McAleer, Independent, said this added further confusion, as the Board “talk of oversight on policy change and charging of policing services, but don’t hold information on costs – how can policy be reviewed if they can’t access potential costs?”

Referring to “massive implications” for the Department of Justice  budget, he added: ” Someone must have made a strategic decision, but nobody is admitting responsibility.

“Whether it is procedurally sound  is very important. It’s a huge change in policy. When was the decision taken, who took it, and what consultation was carried out?”

Ulster Unionist Councillor John McClaughry however assured members: “The policy change is publicly known and occurred following legal advice.”

But a FOI request by BBC Local Democracy seeking the PSNI’s existing or previous policy on the provision of police escorts for explosives revealed no information was held, and enquiries failed to locate any relevant records or documents.

The response stated: “There is not currently, nor has there previously been, any policy in force” in respect of this matter.

The PSNI were asked why the decision was taken not to pursue the £437,610 and by whom; what consultation was carried out, and who has ultimate oversight?

Chief Superintendent Donaldson replied: “Having taken legal advice and established services provided to mining companies using explosives, [these] cannot be classed as ‘special police services’, so costs will not be sought from these companies.

“A strategic review is ongoing, considering all aspects and will determine how the movement and security of explosives is managed on a longer-term basis. The legal advice is broadly that provision of such services in mining/quarrying is necessary, partly because of the prevailing terrorist threat level, and due to our statutory legal obligations around how explosives are managed.

“This being so, these services are considered to be security-related rather than ‘special police services’, which can be chargeable.”

This didn’t fully address the issues raised, so the enquiry was sent back. Chief Superintendent Donaldson responded: “The decision is not a change of policy – rather, it’s a new position we were obliged to adopt.

“Whilst the Department of Justice and the Policing Board have some remit, the legal advice confirms the decision not to charge for this service remains a matter for the Chief Constable.”