Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have received new backing in their UK security bid amid moving back to Britain. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex lost taxpayer-funded police protection after quitting as working royals in 2020. Since then, Harry has been in a legal dispute with the Home Office over his security arrangements, arguing that he needs adequate protection to bring his family to Britain.
Ex-Home Secretary said about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s security demands amid reported UK return
After six years abroad, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are set to return to the UK soon. Their arrival has been anticipated in the coming weeks, sparking debate over the level of taxpayer-funded security they should be given. The Home Office has not disclosed what protection it will provide for the King’s youngest son and his family.
However, as per the Daily Express, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) is understood to have finished its review. Protecting the family could cost taxpayers as much as £5 million a year. That said, a former Labour home secretary has said that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex should be granted “middle ground” security that is “reassessed” in two years’ time.
Lord David Blunkett, who served as home secretary between 2001 and 2004, told The Times on Sunday, “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.”
Blunkett went on to say there was an intermediate option involving one or two officers accompanying the principal, as the protectee is known. Another alternative, he noted, would be to provide a driver with security training. He suggested that the compromise between the two would be entirely sensible to offer for now. The arrangement could then be reviewed again in a couple of years.
Another senior Labour figure, Dame Emily Thornberry, emphasized that the Sussexes “deserve” to be kept safe. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has also urged a “common sense” approach to the issue of taxpayer-funded protection.
