Prince Harry and Meghan Markle should be offered a limited level of temporary security if they relocate to the UK, former home secretary David Blunkett has said, as the dispute over who should pay for the couple’s protection continues.
Lord Blunkett argued that a middle-ground arrangement could provide the Duke and Duchess of Sussex with one or two protection officers while they are in Britain, with the level of security later increased or reduced depending on the assessed threat.
His intervention comes amid renewed debate over the Sussexes’ security arrangements, with the potential cost to taxpayers reportedly reaching around £5 million a year.
The discussion has intensified as reports suggest the couple’s plans to spend more time in Britain are taking shape, although a source close to Harry and Meghan has indicated that the arrangement could last for as little as six months.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex should be allowed limited, temporary security as their relocation to the UK takes shape, a former home secretary says
Former New Labour home secretary David Blunkett has said Prince Harry and Meghan Markle should get a ‘limited’ level of royal security
Blunkett backs a middle-ground approach
Speaking to The Times, Lord Blunkett outlined three broad levels of protection that could be considered for Harry.
At the highest level, he described a round-the-clock arrangement involving a heavily protected backup vehicle and two or three close-protection officers.
A second, less intensive option would involve one or two officers travelling with the person being protected.
The third option would be a driver who has received security training.
Blunkett said the middle option would be “perfectly reasonable” as a temporary measure, with the arrangement capable of being reassessed in the future.
His comments come as Harry continues his long-running dispute with the Home Office over the level of security he receives when visiting the UK.
Who should pay for Harry and Meghan’s security?
The question of whether taxpayers should fund protection for Harry, Meghan and their two children has become increasingly contentious.
Harry, 41, and Meghan, 45, are parents to Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five.
Labour MP Dame Emily Thornberry said she wanted reassurance that the family would be safe and argued that Harry’s position placed him and his family at particular risk.
She pointed to his status as the King’s son and his public service, saying those factors contributed to the potential threat facing him.
Labour MP Mike Tapp, a former Home Office minister, took a more cautious position, saying decisions should be based on a “clear-eyed assessment of the threat”.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch also acknowledged Harry’s unusually high public profile because he is the son of the sovereign.
But Labour peer Lord Foulkes argued that the matter should be treated as a private responsibility.
The former minister under Tony Blair said the Sussexes were wealthy enough to arrange their own protection and questioned why taxpayers should be expected to cover the expense.
Other non-working members of the Royal Family, including Peter Phillips, Zara Tindall and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, do not routinely receive police protection.
Security review reportedly completed
The latest debate follows reports that the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, known as Ravec, has already completed a review of Harry’s security arrangements.
Ravec is responsible for overseeing security arrangements for key VIPs in the UK.
Harry has reportedly been privately pressing Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood for the outcome of the review.
The Duke previously lost automatic taxpayer-funded police protection after stepping down as a senior working royal and moving with Meghan to North America.
His legal battle over his security arrangements has continued since then.
The issue has become particularly important as Harry is expected to spend more time in Britain, raising questions about what level of protection would be appropriate during those visits.
Couple’s plans for UK remain uncertain
There has also been uncertainty over the length of the Sussexes’ proposed relocation.
While reports have suggested the couple could establish a more substantial presence in Britain, a source close to them said their stay could last for only six months.
That uncertainty has added another layer to the debate over whether a long-term security arrangement would be justified.
Lord Blunkett’s proposal would effectively provide a temporary middle ground, allowing protection to be adjusted as circumstances change rather than committing immediately to the most extensive level of security.
Home Office refuses to comment
Andy Burnham has described the couple’s security as a private matter.
The Home Office has declined to discuss the specific arrangements in place for Harry and Meghan.
A spokesman said the department did not comment on private security arrangements.
The dispute therefore remains centred on two competing questions: the level of threat faced by the Sussexes and whether the cost of protecting them should be borne by the public.
For now, Blunkett has argued that a limited, temporary arrangement could provide a compromise—giving Harry and his family protection while allowing authorities to reassess the situation as their UK plans develop.
