Press play to listen to this article
Voiced by artificial intelligence.
LONDON — After years of political turmoil, it’s boom time for at least one British industry: Demand for political bodyguards is through the roof.
For the first time in modern history, the U.K. now has six living former prime ministers, all of whom continue to receive extensive — and expensive — security protection.
With the ruling Conservatives on their fourth leader in as many years, and with the three most recently-departed — Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss — visibly cashing in on the lucrative international speaking circuit for ex-prime ministers, some are raising questions about the mounting cost to U.K. taxpayers.
Because every time an ex-prime minister travels abroad — even to earn themselves a six-figure sum for speaking at an obscure business conference — U.K. taxpayers are likely picking up the security tab.
“It’s an industry, there is no other word for it,” Dai Davies, a former head of royal protection at the Met Police, said.
The number of living ex-prime ministers is only likely to grow in the years ahead.
If the opinion polls are correct, Rishi Sunak will likely be out of office following next year’s general election. And the youthful nature of the current cohort — Truss is 47, and Sunak just 43, while Johnson and David Cameron are both still under 60 — means taxpayers could be on the hook for decades to come.
But the collective security bill for protecting high-profile politicians and royals, shouldered by the Home Office, remains shrouded in secrecy.
“It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on protective security. To do so could compromise the integrity of those arrangements and affect individuals’ security,” a Home Office spokesperson said.
In a sign that efforts are now underway behind the scenes to scale back VIP protection costs, Prince Harry’s taxpayer-funded security was abruptly removed when he stepped back as a senior royal in 2020. He unsuccessfully brought a case against the Home Office to court, arguing he is entitled to police protection even if he has to pay for it privately.
Under pressure
All such decisions about VIP taxpayer-funded security are taken by a secretive arm of the British state known as the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, or RAVEC.
The committee includes figures from the Home Office, Metropolitan Police and royal household, who advise an independent chair on the potential risks involved in each person’s circumstances.
RAVEC ‘s decisions are not made public for security reasons but multiple figures familiar with its rulings say protection is usually provided to former prime ministers, including when they are traveling abroad.
They will then be guarded by an elite unit of the Met Police, known as the Royal and Specialist Protection command (RASP).
Two figures with close knowledge of RASP operations, granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record, warned the unit is under pressure.
“It’s been remarked upon how many ex-prime ministers we now have — we’ve never had this many in quick succession who have required this much security,” one of the people with knowledge of the Met Police protection teams said.
“After all the [government] reshuffles, the Met were struggling to find enough security to protect everyone at once, and were having to think about numbers,” they added.
The person stressed that the strain on numbers was only internal “chatter” and that, to their knowledge, no formal request for extra funds has been made.
But they said officers within the elite unit had complained last year about having annual leave and rest days cancelled, and that for Boris Johnson specifically “they were pulling officers from other teams to try and put his together quickly.”
A second person linked to RASP confirmed police officers had been seconded over from another team to protect Johnson on his overseas travels.
Counting the cost
The amount of protection a minister or ex-minister receives — including the number of officers, and their level of training — varies from case to case, depending on their personal circumstances.
“They can’t just pull any officer into these teams,” the first person linked to RASP quoted above said. “They have to be firearms-trained, they have to have special vehicle training and some have higher training than that.”
Naturally, these protection teams come at a cost. The tab for their salaries, overtime, expenses, travel and meals is all picked up by the taxpayer.
The officers are “expensive people by any standard of civil servants,” according to Davies. “They are always experienced police officers.”
Tracking the extent to which they are used is almost impossible, given the arrangements of former PMs who are no longer in parliament — a list which until recently comprised John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron — is a private matter.
A 2015 Daily Telegraph investigation reported Blair was racking up thousands of pounds in security expenses while visiting up to five countries a week as he built up his business empire.
But ex-PMs still in parliament must register their interests on an official website.
And the declarations of Johnson — who only quit as an MP last month — along with May and Truss show all three have been making hundreds of thousands of pounds from speaking engagements, many of which have taken place abroad. In almost every case, the taxpayer may have been on the hook for the intensive security required.
In May alone, Johnson traveled to both Texas and Las Vegas, while Truss was the first former British PM to visit Taiwan since Margaret Thatcher.
“It’s us paying for it all, while they are having a jamboree really,” Davies said.
He suggested ex-prime ministers making lucrative speeches should “100 percent” contribute to the cost of their security.
“Why shouldn’t they? I mean, these people make millions,” he said.
The Institute for Government’s Tim Durrant, however, stressed the reason the ex-politicians required such security requirements was because of their profiles as former prime ministers.
“It’s sensible that they have the protection they need,” Durrant said. “They play an important role in public life, and it’s good that they are supported to do so.”
