Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, is no longer a working member of the Royal Family carrying out official duties on behalf of the Sovereign.

He and Meghan have now relocated from the US to live in the UK full-time as non-working royals, reportedly settling in the Cotswolds with their children enrolled in school. This isn't a flying visit anymore. It's a permanent move, which makes the security bill an ongoing cost, not a one-off.

RAVEC, the Home Office committee that decides royal protection, downgraded Harry's automatic taxpayer-funded security back in 2020 when he stepped back from official duties. He challenged that decision twice, in the High Court and then the Court of Appeal, and lost both times. The courts found RAVEC's approach lawful.

That's why we think the principle should hold now more than ever. Publicly funded protective security should be reserved for people carrying out official duties, or for cases where there's a genuine, assessed public need. Choosing to live in the UK privately, outside any royal role, shouldn't come with an automatic taxpayer-funded security detail.

We call on the Home Secretary to:

Maintain RAVEC's existing position that Prince Harry's private life in the UK, including his and his family's private residence here, does not by itself entitle him to taxpayer-funded personal security.

If the family want a higher level of protection, they're free to pay for it privately. British taxpayers shouldn't be funding it.