Request for details of rent paid by Robert Jenrick MP

I can confirm that we hold information relevant to your request.

Mr Jenrick has paid rent during the financial years you listed, for both office and residential accommodation.

Rent for his office accommodation was paid to The Newark Conservative Association for all the periods in your request, and continues to be paid today.

In terms of residential accommodation, unfortunately the details of the landlords are subject to a Refusal Notice under the FOIA. The relevant exemptions fall at section 31(1)(a) the prevention or detection of crime, and section 38(1)(b) health and safety.

Section 31(1)(a) prevention or detection of crime. This exemption applies where the disclosure of information would or would be likely to prejudice the prevention of crime. Section 38(1)(b) health and safety. This exemption applies where the disclosure of information would or would be likely to endanger the safety of any individual.

These exemptions are both concerned with a high likelihood of prejudice to the prevention of crime, i.e. there is a real possibility that crime could occur, and a high likelihood that the personal safety of an individual would be put in danger if information was disclosed.

IPSA maintains that if the names of the residential landlords were disclosed, then there is a high likelihood of risk to the life of Mr Jenrick and his family. In effect their safety would be a risk from physical attack.

Both sections 31 and 28 are qualified exemptions and therefore subject to the public interest test. In 2017 following the attack on Westminster Bridge in London, the IPSA Board agreed that that it would no longer publish any details regarding MPs’ travel arrangements which could potentially put at risk the safety of MPs and their families. The full details of what was agreed can be seen in the IPSA Board Minutes for 29 March 2017.

The non-disclosure of the names of the residential landlords, which could then make it possible to determine the location of the accommodation, is in keeping with this approach.

What I can tell you is that rent was paid to two private landlords. One was paid for the period 2015-16 and the second paid from 2016-17, with a contract which is ongoing. While I can understand that it would be helpful for the public to understand to whom MPs are paying for their accommodation I believe that the threat to the safety of MPs and those connected to them has not changed since 2017, and that there remains a high likelihood of the endangerment to their safety.

I therefore find that the public interest in withholding this information outweighs the public interest in disclosure at this time.