Labour MPs Say Taxpayers Should Foot £5m Bill for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s Security
A fresh political row has erupted in Britain over the security arrangements for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, after senior Labour MPs argued that the couple’s protection should ultimately be determined by the level of threat they face rather than simply by their decision to step away from royal duties.
The controversy comes as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex prepare to return to Britain with their children. Their move has revived a long-running dispute over who should pay for their security and whether the British state should provide armed police protection to a couple who are no longer working members of the Royal Family.
The potential cost has been widely reported at up to £5 million a year, although the precise figure remains uncertain. Current reporting indicates that there are no plans at present to provide the Sussexes with taxpayer-funded armed protection, while their security arrangements remain subject to assessment.
The issue has nevertheless attracted support from several Labour politicians.
Dame Emily Thornberry, a senior Labour backbencher and chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, has argued that Harry’s public service, royal status and profile should be taken into consideration when assessing the threat to his family. She said she would want reassurance that the Sussexes would be safe when they return to Britain.
Former Home Office minister Mike Tapp has taken a more explicitly security-focused position. Rather than arguing that Harry should receive protection because he is a prince, Tapp has said that the decision should be based on an independent and evidence-based assessment of the threat.
That distinction is crucial.
Police protection is an expensive and limited public resource. Providing armed officers to protect a prominent individual can require significant manpower, planning and coordination. The question facing the authorities is therefore not simply whether Harry and Meghan are famous, but whether intelligence and risk assessments demonstrate that state protection is necessary.
Tapp’s position reflects the principle that security should be based on risk rather than status. If a credible threat exists, authorities should have the ability to respond. If the threat does not justify a particular level of protection, public money should not automatically be committed simply because someone is a member of the Royal Family.
Dawn Butler, another Labour MP, has similarly stressed the importance of an objective assessment. She argued that factors such as public service, identifiable security threats and sustained abuse should be considered by the relevant authorities.
The debate is particularly sensitive because Harry has already fought a lengthy legal battle over his security arrangements in Britain. After stepping down as a working royal, his automatic entitlement to taxpayer-funded police protection was removed. He subsequently challenged the decision, arguing that the reduced level of protection left his family vulnerable when visiting the United Kingdom.
The courts ultimately rejected his challenge.
The dispute has continued, however, because Harry maintains that his family faces genuine security risks when they visit Britain. His concerns have been particularly significant because the couple no longer live permanently in the country and have relied on private security arrangements overseas.
Their planned return has therefore created a new situation.
Harry and Meghan are expected to establish a private home in Britain rather than resume their former roles as working royals. Their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, are also expected to attend school in the United Kingdom.
That means the security question is no longer simply about protecting a visiting royal family during a short public appearance. If the Sussexes spend substantial periods in Britain, authorities will have to consider the risks associated with their residence, travel, public engagements and the movements of their children.
The issue also raises an uncomfortable question about fairness.
Britain has many high-profile people who face threats because of their public positions. Politicians, judges, journalists, celebrities and senior officials can all require security. Police resources, however, are finite. Giving one family a large publicly funded security operation could mean allocating resources that might otherwise be used elsewhere.
Supporters of taxpayer-funded protection respond that Harry is not an ordinary celebrity.
He is the son of the King, a globally recognised member of the Royal Family and a former British Army officer whose public profile is unusually high. His military service and continued connection to the monarchy could make him a more attractive target for hostile actors than an ordinary public figure.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has also acknowledged that Harry’s position is unusual. She has argued that his security should be assessed by the palace and security professionals, pointing to the fact that his public profile exists partly because of his birth rather than a career he chose.
That argument provides an important middle ground.
It does not necessarily mean that Harry should automatically receive the highest level of police protection. Instead, it suggests that his circumstances should be evaluated seriously and independently.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham has so far declined to intervene publicly in the dispute. Asked about the arrangements, he described the issue as a private matter concerning Harry and Meghan and wished them well with their move.
That response reflects the unusual position of the British government.
Security decisions for prominent individuals are generally not supposed to be determined by political popularity. The Royal and VIP Executive Committee, known as RAVEC, is responsible for assessing which public figures require protective security and at what level. The body operates independently under the Home Office framework.
Reports indicate that Harry requested a fresh review of his family’s security, but that the assessment had not yet taken place as of August 2026. The delay has added uncertainty just as the Sussexes prepare to return.
The reported £5 million figure has also intensified public debate.
For many taxpayers, £5 million is an enormous amount of money. It could fund public services, additional police resources or other government priorities. At a time when Britain continues to face pressure on public finances, the prospect of spending millions of pounds protecting two private individuals is likely to attract criticism.
But the cost of security cannot be evaluated in isolation.
If intelligence indicates that a serious attack is possible, the cost of protection becomes secondary to preventing loss of life. Security decisions cannot simply be reduced to a calculation of whether an individual is popular enough to justify the expense.
This is where the principle of independent risk assessment becomes essential.
If Harry and Meghan face a credible and specific threat, their protection should be determined by professionals rather than public opinion. Conversely, if the assessment concludes that their circumstances do not justify permanent taxpayer-funded protection, that decision should also be respected.
The most controversial outcome would be one in which security is granted or denied primarily because of political pressure.
The Sussexes remain deeply polarising figures in Britain. Some people believe Harry has been unfairly treated and deserves protection because of the threats he and his family have faced. Others argue that he and Meghan voluntarily abandoned royal duties and should therefore accept responsibility for their own private security.
Neither position should determine the official assessment.
The purpose of protective security is not to reward members of the Royal Family. It is to prevent attacks and manage credible risks. That means the same basic principle should apply regardless of whether the individual involved is a prince, politician or private citizen.
The return of Harry and Meghan could therefore become an important test of that principle.
If the authorities decide that the couple require protection, the government will need to explain why the threat justifies the expense while maintaining appropriate confidentiality around sensitive intelligence. If they decide that private security is sufficient, they will need to demonstrate that the decision adequately protects the couple and their children.
Either way, transparency about the process will matter.
The British public may never be given every detail of the security assessment, and for legitimate reasons. Intelligence about threats cannot simply be published. But voters should at least understand that the decision has been made according to established rules rather than political favouritism.
The £5 million figure may dominate headlines, but the underlying question is more fundamental: should security be determined by who someone is, or by the danger they face?
The strongest answer is that it should be determined by evidence.
Harry’s royal status, military service, public profile and family circumstances are all relevant factors. So too are any credible threats against him, Meghan or their children. But none of these factors should automatically guarantee a particular level of taxpayer-funded protection.
As the Sussexes prepare for their return, the controversy is unlikely to disappear. The couple’s security arrangements will remain under scrutiny from politicians, taxpayers, royal watchers and the media.
Ultimately, however, the decision should remain in the hands of security professionals.
If the evidence demonstrates that Harry and Meghan require substantial protection, Britain should provide it. If the evidence does not, the government should not spend millions simply because the couple are famous.
That principle offers the fairest way through an increasingly heated political dispute: protect people according to the threat they face, spend public money responsibly, and ensure that security decisions are made by evidence rather than headlines.