𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

This is expected to happen on a weekly basis. This newspaper also asked about the cost of any extra police and security presence and where it is from. But the department cited Section 24(1) (National Security) and Section 31(1)(a) (prevention of crime) of the Freedom of Information Act, suggesting that the answers to these questions could not be given for security reasons. This is despite it acknowledging that there is a public interest in releasing information about Government spending.

Reform UK has criticised this decision.

A spokesperson for Nigel Farage’s party said: “This is exactly the kind of secrecy taxpayers are sick of.

“Ministers told us No. 10 North would cost nothing extra, and now they won’t even publish the figures.

“When politicians hide the true cost of vanity projects from taxpayers, they show contempt for the people footing the bill.”

An FOI officer wrote: “In favour of release, I recognise that there is a general public interest in openness and transparency on Government spending.

“This has to be weighed against the stronger public interest in preserving the security and integrity of Government sites, including the No10 North estate.

“Information on any aspects of the security of our sites is classified in the interests of national security, and, as such, cannot be divulged.”

They added: “In line with the practice followed by successive Administrations, the Government does not comment on security matters.

“Anything released into the public domain about the security information in place greatly helps those who would wish to know it for malicious purposes.

“In addition, it would not be in the public interest to release information pertaining to the security of our sites in that it would prejudice the security of UK personnel.”

Even though the release of individual pieces of information “may seem innocuous in themselves”, the Government argued, they “could provide insight into the provision of security and give potential adversaries tools to commit malicious activity”.