A heated political row over whether British taxpayers should fund security for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex has intensified as the couple’s relocation from California draws closer, with estimates suggesting the bill could reach £5million annually.
Lord David Blunkett, who served as home secretary under Tony Blair, has entered the debate by proposing a compromise arrangement.
The Labour peer argued that a “middle ground” package involving one or two protection officers accompanying Prince Harry would be “perfectly reasonable” temporarily, subject to review after two years.
His intervention comes as politicians from across the spectrum have staked out sharply differing positions on the matter, with some insisting the King’s son and his family deserve state-funded protection while others argue the wealthy couple ought to cover the costs themselves.
Lord David Blunkett, who served as home secretary under Tony Blair, has entered the debate by proposing a compromise arrangement
|
PA
“There are three areas of security… the fully blown, blacked-out back-up car with two or three close protection – one in the passenger car and the others in the back-up – on a 24-hour basis,” Lord Blunkett told The Times.
“There’s then the middle ground… where you have one or two officers who travel with the principal, as they call it. The third is they get a driver with security training,” he said.
The former home secretary, who ran the Home Office between 2001 and 2004, made clear his preference for the intermediate tier. “The middle of that is a perfectly reasonable thing to offer for the time being, and then it could be reassessed in a couple of years,” he told the newspaper.
Several prominent figures have voiced support for providing the Sussexes with publicly funded protection. Dame Emily Thornberry, who chairs the Commons foreign affairs committee, stressed that the family’s safety was paramount.
A heated political row over whether British taxpayers should fund security for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex has intensified
|
PA
“I would want to be reassured that his family are going to be safe. They deserve to be secure,” she said, adding: “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.”
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has urged a “common sense” approach to the question, noting that Harry’s status as the sovereign’s son gives him a public profile exceeding that of most politicians who receive protection.
Labour MP Mike Tapp, a former Home Office minister, took a more measured stance, arguing that any decisions about the couple’s security should be grounded in a “clear-eyed assessment of the threat.”
Not all politicians share that view, however. Labour peer Lord Foulkes, who served as a minister under Tony Blair, argued firmly that the Sussexes’ security is “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.”
Andy Burnham described the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s security as a ‘private matter’
|
PAPrime Minister Andy Burnham has similarly described the couple’s protection arrangements as a “private matter,” while a Home Office spokesman confirmed on Sunday that the department does not comment on individual security provisions.
Critics of taxpayer-funded protection have also pointed to the precedent set by other non-working members of the Royal Family. Peter Phillips, Zara Tindall, and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie all go without police protection, despite their proximity to the Crown.
A source close to the Sussexes has added further uncertainty by suggesting their stay in Britain could last as little as six months.
The couple revealed last week that they would be returning to Britain after six years in the United States, where they had been raising their children, Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five. Their arrival is anticipated within the coming weeks.
Harry and Meghan are understood to be planning to settle in a non-royal property outside London, having already secured places for both children at British schools.
The move followed a visit in July during which the duke and duchess brought Archie and Lilibet to see King Charles at Highgrove for the first time in four years, though the couple did not raise the prospect of relocating at that meeting.
A review by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, the body comprising the Home Office, Metropolitan Police and Royal Household that advises on protective security for public figures, is thought to have been finalised.
Harry has been locked in a protracted legal battle with the Home Office over his family’s security since his protection was altered when he ceased to be a working royal in 2020.