Britain faces a significant and growing financial strain due to the lifelong, high-level security provided to former prime ministers, according to a former head of Royal Protection.
The cost of providing round-the-clock protection for ex-premiers is estimated to be as high as £100 million annually, a figure the Home Office does not publicly disclose. This expenditure covers specialist officers, armored vehicles, and fortified residences.
This issue is becoming more pronounced as the number of living former prime ministers increases. With the potential for nine living ex-premiers soon, the financial and logistical demands on the taxpayer are escalating. This situation is unprecedented, as historically there were seldom more than five former prime ministers alive simultaneously, and they were often elderly.
Providing full-time security for one individual requires a team of at least 12 officers to account for days off, training, and leave. This level of protection includes armed officers equipped with advanced weaponry and vehicles armored to withstand significant threats, including potential drone strikes. Former prime ministers' homes are also reinforced with 'safe rooms' and structural enhancements, necessitating ongoing technical support and maintenance.
The security arrangements contrast with those for other public figures. While members of the Royal Family receive varying levels of state-funded security based on their roles, former prime ministers are entitled to protection regardless of current threat assessments. This contrasts with other former high-ranking officials, such as deputy prime ministers or home secretaries, whose security is contingent on a threat evaluation.
Beyond security, former prime ministers are also eligible for the Public Duty Costs Allowance (PDCA), which can provide up to £115,000 annually to cover office and secretarial costs associated with their continued public activities. In the past year, several former prime ministers claimed the full or near-full amount, with only Rishi Sunak declining to use the fund.
The author suggests that the current system, which grants lifelong, comprehensive security to all former leaders, may not be sustainable, particularly for those who served brief tenures in office. He draws a parallel to Prince Harry's forfeiture of public security funding after ceasing to be a working royal, implying that a review of security arrangements for politicians no longer in office is warranted.