Reform UK’s Treasury spokesman has accused the government of a “dereliction of duty” over Nigel Farage’s taxpayer-funded security, claiming it had previously been “downgraded”.
Robert Jenrick said his party leader had not been offered the security he needs, after it emerged Reform UK turned down an offer of government-funded security last year.
It comes as the alleged murder of Reform’s Ann Widdecombe, which is now being investigated by counterterrorism police, has prompted renewed debate over the security offered to politicians.
Farage is set to meet with the Home Office over his security arrangements, after accepting an offer of a meeting made by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood.
Reform’s Zia Yusuf has previously claimed 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.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Jenrick was asked to clarify whether the package offered to Farage was similar to that of Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch.
Asked if this was the offer Farage rejected because he felt it was insufficient, Jenrick replied: “That’s right. Yes that’s right.”
Decisions over the security of current MPs and members of the House of Lords are made by the House of Parliament’s security team.
There is a separate, independent committee, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC), to deal with high profile political candidates, which is staffed by officials from the Home Office, the Cabinet Office, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
Jenrick said: “Frankly I find it astonishing that, just a short period after he was elected to Parliament, the authorities, the government, chose to massively downgrade his security”.
“It shouldn’t have taken the death 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 added: “I do question whether this would have happened to someone with different political views.”
On Monday, Mahmood said she would look at the what security guidance could be given to former MPs.
The safety of politicians has been a prominent issue in recent years, with the murder of Conservative MP David Amess in 2021 and last month marking the ten-year anniversary of Labour MP Jo Cox’s murder.
The Conservative government announced a £31m 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 recommending an increase in security for some political figures.
“Prior to Ann’s death I’ve been in correspondence with the home secretary and made it very clear I felt that a second limb of my review was necessary, namely a careful and close look at security arrangements of MPs,” he told Today.
“Not just senior ministers who get round the clock protection, but MPs on all sides of the House – Nigel Farage, other Labour MPs under threat as well – all of that needs a very careful look.”
He added: “It does concern me when I hear MPs of whatever persuasion say to me that the situation is variable, that it can have an element of arbitrariness about it.”
But he said a balance must be struck, adding: “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”.
A Reform spokesman said: “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.
“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 Commons security team has been contacted for a 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 been contacted for comment.
