Row over who will fund the Sussexes' security drags on despite reports Home Office review already complete

The row over whether taxpayers should fund security arrangements for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex dragged on today, amid claims a Home Office review had already been completed.Foreign affairs select committee chairman Dame Emily Thornberry said Harry, Meghan and their children ‘deserved to be safe’, while other senior Labour politicians argued for a ‘clear-eyed assessment of the threat’.Meanwhile, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch called for ‘common sense’ to prevail.But it came as there were claims that a review had already been concluded by the risk management board of the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec), with Prince Harry ‘privately pleading’ with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood for the result.There was further confusion after a source close to Harry, 41, and Meghan, 45, said their surprise move back to the UK could last for as little as six months.Dame Emily told The Telegraph: ‘I would want to be reassured that his family are going to be safe. They deserve to be secure.‘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.’ Harry and Megham are expected to arrive back in the UK next weekFellow Labour MP Mike Tapp, a former Home Office minister, said a ‘clear-eyed assessment of the threat’ was needed for decisions about security.‘Having worked in national security, I strongly believe the only relevant consideration should be the assessed level of threat and the professionals should be allowed to reach that decision independently,’ he wrote on X.‘Police protection is not a reward for public service. It exists to prevent attacks, deter those who would do harm and manage known risks before lives are lost.‘Those responsible should, of course, make their assessment based on evidence, intelligence and risk - not headlines, politics or public opinion.’Dawn Butler, a former minister under Gordon Brown, added: ‘Any system should be genuinely independent and based on an objective assessment of risk, rather than simply an individual's position or title.‘Where someone has served their country, faces specific and identifiable security threats, is a member of the Royal family, and is connected to additional risk factors such as sustained racial abuse directed at them or their family, those circumstances should be carefully considered as part of that assessment.’But Labour peer Lord Foulkes, a minister for Tony Blair, argued the Sussexes’ security was a ‘private matter and they should deal with it personally’.He said: ‘They are wealthy people and I wouldn't have thought it is something that the taxpayer should be expected to pay for. Relations have been strained between the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and other Royals following a series of damaging claims'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.’Other non-working royals, such as Harry’s cousins Peter Phillips, Zara Tindall and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie do not receive police protection.Ms Badenoch said: ‘He's the son of the Sovereign 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.‘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.’Andy Burnham last week refused to be drawn on the matter. The Prime Minister said the Duke and Duchess’s security – which could cost £5 million a year - was a ‘private matter’.The couple’s decision to return to the UK this month came as a bolt from the blue last week, six years after they quit the country and moved to their mansion in Montecito, California.Just 18 months ago, Harry – who blamed an ‘establishment stitch-up’ when the Court of Appeal turned down his application for taxpayer-funded security after it was denied by the government - complained that he ‘couldn’t see a world in which I would be bringing my wife and children back to the UK’.Ravec is understood to have carried out its review into the matter last month – although this would have been before Harry announced his family’s return to Britain. King Charles reportedly only learned last week of his younger son's plans to return to the UK with his family The Duke is said to have directly approached Ms Mahmood to 'plead for answers' about his and his family's security status before they arrive here. His and his wife's children, Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five, are understood to have been enrolled at school and there is speculation the family’s non-royal residence will be in the Cotswolds.The sudden return leaves the Royal Family with difficult problems to negotiate, particularly with Prince William’s relationship with his brother said to be ‘in cold storage’ after a slew of damaging claims. The King reportedly only learned of the plan last week.A Mail on Sunday poll yesterday found just four per cent of Britons believe the Prince of Wales, 44, should be the one to offer an olive branch to Harry.But a source told the Sunday Times of the ‘reverse Megxit’: ‘It could be six months, it could be a year, it could be more. I don’t think even they know yet.‘They might suddenly go “Why don’t we try Canada for a while?” They love Canada.’A Home Office spokeswoman said: ‘It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.’