Senior Labour MPs have called for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to receive police protection funded by taxpayers when they return to Britain, reopening a politically sensitive dispute over who should pay for security around the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said Harry’s royal status, military service and public profile created risks that should be taken seriously by the authorities.
“I would want to be reassured that his family are going to be safe. They deserve to be secure,” she told The Telegraph.
“We have to remember [the Duke of Sussex] has made a contribution to this country through his public service and heroism.
“He is the son of the King, he has made a big contribution to our country through public service – that puts him and his family at risk.”
The intervention comes as the Sussexes prepare to return to the UK later this month, with their security arrangements still the subject of a long-running dispute.
Harry lost his automatic entitlement to taxpayer-funded police protection after stepping back as a working royal. He has subsequently challenged the decision, but his legal efforts to secure guaranteed protection have been rejected.
Under the current arrangements, visits must generally be notified 30 days in advance so that the circumstances and threat level can be assessed.
The Royal and VIP Executive Committee, known as Ravec, is also reviewing the Sussexes’ position.
Mike Tapp, a former Home Office minister, argued that the question should be settled by intelligence rather than political considerations.
“Having worked in national security, I strongly believe the only relevant consideration should be the assessed level of threat, and the professionals should be allowed to reach that decision independently,” he said.
“Police protection is not a reward for public service. It exists to prevent attacks, deter those who would do harm and manage known risks before lives are lost.
“Those responsible should of course make their assessment based on evidence, intelligence and risk – not headlines, politics or public opinion.”
Dawn Butler, another Labour MP and former minister, also backed an objective assessment of the couple’s circumstances.
“Any system should be genuinely independent and based on an objective assessment of risk, rather than simply an individual’s position or title,” she said.
“Where someone has served their country, faces specific and identifiable security threats, is a member of the Royal family and is connected to additional risk factors such as sustained racial abuse directed at them or their family, those circumstances should be carefully considered as part of that assessment.”
The comments put pressure on the government to explain where it draws the line between publicly funded protection for senior public figures and security that should ultimately be paid for privately.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham sought to distance himself from the controversy earlier this week, describing the Sussexes’ security arrangements as a “private matter”.
Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, took a more cautious position, arguing that the decision should be left to security professionals.
“Prince Harry is the son of the King and that means he has a very high public profile, more then most politicians who get security, and that’s just by reason of his birth,” she told The Telegraph.
“So what I would expect is that between the palace and the security experts, they make the right assessment on the kind of security he needs.
“The fact is he is in this position by birth, not by choice of career, and I think there’s a common-sense position that can be found.”
The dispute exposes a wider tension in Britain’s approach to royal security, whether protection should follow an individual’s status and risk profile, or whether taxpayers should continue funding protection for a couple who no longer undertake official royal duties.
For Harry, the issue remains both a personal security concern and a constitutional question over the privileges attached to his position as the King’s son. For ministers, it is a potentially expensive and politically awkward decision that must ultimately be justified by intelligence rather than royal precedent.
Leave a Comment