Taxpayers should fund Harry and Meghan security, Labour MPs suggest
Taxpayers should fund Harry and Meghan security, Labour MPs suggest
Jacob FreedlandSat, August 22, 2026 at 7:33 PM UTC
0
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are to return to the UK having enrolled their children in school for September
Senior Labour MPs have suggested that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex should be given taxpayer-funded security when they return to the UK.
The Telegraph revealed that the couple would move back to Britain later this month with their children Prince Archie, seven, and five-year-old Princess Lilibet.
However, questions remain about their security arrangements, which were downgraded after they stopped being working royals.
Dame Emily Thornberry, a senior Labour backbencher who chairs the foreign affairs select committee, told The Telegraph: “I would want to be reassured that his family are going to be safe. They deserve to be secure.
“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 Duke has fought for the right to guaranteed police protection since the security arrangements were downgraded, but his efforts have been rejected by the courts and the Home Office committee responsible for such decisions.
Under the current system, each visit by the couple and their children requires 30 days’ notice before its circumstances are assessed on their merits.
The family are still waiting to hear the outcome of a review by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) before their return to the UK.
The Duke participated in a public wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the US – he is expected back in the UK within days
Mike Tapp, a Labour MP and former Home Office minister, said decisions about protective security should be based on a “clear-eyed assessment of the threat”.
Writing on X, he added: “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.
“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.”
Decision should be ‘transparent, consistent and fair’
Dawn Butler, another Labour MP and a former minister in Gordon Brown’s government, added: “Any system should be genuinely independent and based on an objective assessment of risk, rather than simply an individual’s position or title.
“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.”
Advertisement
Ms Butler said the key issue was ensuring that the system was “transparent, consistent and fair, so that decisions are made according to clearly understood criteria and public confidence can be maintained”.
Late last year, the Government promised the Duke a new risk assessment, his first since 2019, which had been expected to take place in March but was delayed without explanation.
The Telegraph revealed on Saturday that a Ravec risk management board analysis – for which he had fought for years – finally took place last month.
The Duke is still awaiting its outcome and has lobbied Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, for updates on that and the provision his family can expect when they return.
Couple’s security a ‘private matter’
The Sussexes could be forced to pay for their own private protection.
Criticism of the estimated £5m-a-year cost is understood to frustrate the Duke, who believes it is just a drop in the ocean of Ravec’s overall budget for protection of members of the Royal family.
He has repeatedly argued that the risk he faced was inherited at birth and, if anything, had only increased in recent years.
Whenever the Duke has returned to Britain, he has been protected by his own private security team, which by law is not allowed to carry arms. In addition, he is concerned that they are restricted from accessing up-to-date intelligence available to the police.
On Tuesday, Andy Burnham, the Prime Minister, said that the Duke and Duchess’s security was a “private matter”, despite the potential cost for taxpayers if their security was reinstated.
Kemi Badenoch says the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had a higher profile than some politicians who get given security - Robert Ormerod for The Telegraph
Meanwhile, Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, called for “common sense” to prevail on the question of the Duke’s security.
Speaking to The Telegraph during a visit to Edinburgh, she said: “Prince Harry is the son of the King and that means he has a very high public profile, more than most politicians who get security, and that’s just by reason of his birth.
“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.”
However, Lord Foulkes, a Labour peer and minister under Sir Tony Blair’s government, said the couple’s security was a “private matter and they should deal with it personally”.
He added: “They are wealthy people, and I wouldn’t have thought it is something that the taxpayer should be expected to pay for. Once you start doing that, there is a whole range of people it would extend to – where do you stop? They are not royal. There doesn’t seem to be any justification.”
Source: “AOL Entertainment”
