Jenrick accuses government of 'dereliction of duty' over Farage security

Farage rejected taxpayer-funded security package last year

Reform UK Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick on Tuesday accused the government of a “dereliction of duty” over Nigel Farage’s security, saying the party leader had not been offered the protection he needed until after the alleged murder of party colleague Ann Widdecombe.

The allegations come as counterterrorism police investigate Widdecombe’s alleged murder, and have revived debate over the level of security provided to MPs and political figures in the UK.

Jenrick accepted that Farage had turned down a significant offer of government-funded security last year. Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Jenrick said he found it “astonishing” that authorities had chosen to “massively downgrade” Farage’s security shortly after he was elected to Parliament. He confirmed that the security package offered to Farage was similar to that provided to Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, and that Farage rejected it because he felt it was insufficient.

Jenrick said the government should not have waited for Widdecombe’s alleged murder before arranging a meeting with the relevant Home Office committee. “It shouldn’t have taken the alleged murder of Ann Widdecombe for Nigel Farage to be given a meeting with the relevant Home Office committee — that really is a dereliction of duty, and it’s ultimately the home secretary who makes that decision,” he said.

He added: “I do question whether this would have happened to someone with different political views.”

Reports in the i newspaper said Farage “turned down taxpayer-funded security including a bodyguard, car and trained driver.” Reform’s Zia Yusuf has previously claimed that parliamentary officials took the decision in September last year to cut Farage’s publicly-funded security by 75%, with party donors stepping in to cover costs. Decisions over the security of current MPs and members of the House of Lords are made by the House of Parliament’s security team. A separate independent committee, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC), which is staffed by officials from the Home Office, the Cabinet Office, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, deals with high-profile political candidates.

On Monday, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said she would look at what security guidance could be given to former MPs. Farage has accepted an offer of a meeting with the Home Office over his security arrangements.

A Reform spokesman said that “within days of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, at a moment when the threat to public figures on the right was escalating, the security package Mr Farage was offered represented a 75% cut without clear reason.” The spokesman added: “Faced with a state offer that no longer matched the threat against him, Nigel declined the downgraded and inadequate package and Reform took the responsible decision to maintain proper protection rather than gamble with his life.”

The safety of politicians has been a prominent issue in recent years, following the murder of Conservative MP David Amess in 2021 and the ten-year anniversary of Labour MP Jo Cox’s murder last month. The Conservative government announced a £31 million package to increase security for MPs in May 2024.

Former Conservative Justice Secretary Sir Robert Buckland, who launched a review into MP security after the death of Amess, said he had been in correspondence with the home secretary and had recommended a second limb of his review — a “careful and close look” at security arrangements of MPs. He said it concerned him when MPs of any persuasion told him that the situation was “variable” and could have “an element of arbitrariness about it.”

Buckland also cautioned that a balance must be struck, saying: “I think all of us would agree that if we end up in a default position where MPs and political figures are more remote from those who they serve, then representative democracy, democracy itself takes a blow.”

The Commons security team has been contacted for comment. Commons authorities have previously said they do not comment on individual cases, but a “rigorous” process was in place to assess arrangements for MPs. The Home Office and RAVEC have also been contacted for comment.