Kemi Badenoch defends Prince Harry's security in surprise intervention: 'He is in this position by birth'

Thank you for subscribing!

The Conservative leader noted the Duke of Sussex has a 'very high public profile'

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has urged a "common sense" approach to resolving the debate over the Duke of Sussex's security arrangements ahead of his family's return to Britain.

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."

She continued to tell the Telegraph: "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."

The Prime Minister took a markedly different stance on Tuesday, when Andy Burnham described the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's security as a "private matter", even though reinstating their protection could carry high costs for the public purse.

Lord Foulkes, a Labour peer who served as a minister under Sir Tony Blair, went further in dismissing any case for taxpayer-funded protection. He argued the couple's security was a "private matter and they should deal with it personally".

"They are wealthy people, and I wouldn't have thought it is something that the taxpayer should be expected to pay for," he said. "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."

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are due to relocate to Britain later this month, bringing with them seven-year-old Prince Archie and five-year-old Princess Lilibet.

Their security provisions remain uncertain, however, as the family still awaits the result of a review carried out by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) last month.

The Telegraph has claimed that this risk management board analysis, which the duke had sought for years, was his first formal assessment since 2019, having been promised by the Government late last year before being postponed without explanation from its expected March date.

The projected annual bill for reinstating police protection stands at roughly £5million, a figure whose criticism is understood to frustrate the duke, who regards it as a fraction of Ravec's total budget for royal security.

Not all Labour figures share the Prime Minister's reluctance to engage with the issue. Dame Emily Thornberry, who chairs the foreign affairs select committee, told the publication: "I would want to be reassured that his family are going to be safe. They deserve to be secure."

She emphasised the duke's military record, saying: "We have to remember he 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."

Mike Tapp, a Labour MP and former Home Office minister, insisted that protective security decisions must rest on a "clear-eyed assessment of the threat" made independently by professionals, rather than being shaped by "headlines, politics or public opinion".

Dawn Butler, who served as a minister under Gordon Brown, argued that factors including "sustained racial abuse directed at them or their family" should be weighed as part of any genuinely independent evaluation.

The duke has waged a lengthy battle for guaranteed police protection since his security was downgraded upon stepping back as a working royal, but both the courts and the Home Office committee responsible for such decisions have rejected his claims.

As things stand, any visit by the couple and their children requires 30 days' advance notice so that the circumstances can be individually assessed.

On previous trips to Britain, the duke has relied on a private security team that is legally barred from carrying firearms and lacks access to the real-time intelligence available to police officers, a restriction that remains a source of concern for him.