NEW: Why the security threat against Prince Harry and Meghan Markle needs URGENT addressing

We are joined now by Mike Tapp, MP for Dover and Deal. Good afternoon to you Mike. You wrote quite a passionate column in the Telegraph last week, saying that Britain should be more generous to Prince Harry and welcoming him home. Why did you feel compelled to write that? I think public opinion can often go one way and I think as a nation we're quite fair. We've seen this with many other stars and celebrities, whether it's sporting or in other celebrity life, where the public can become quite negative towards somebody and sometimes I think that can be a little unfair and people need to consider that. We've got a guy here who's had a tough childhood. What he experienced in the glare of the public eye is something that not many people have to go through. He chose to serve his country. He chose to go to war and put his life on the line. He's done a hell of a lot for veterans, including the Invictus Games, which has completely reshaped the world of veterans who've been injured in service. So this man who wants to live his life with his family and be happy and find happiness is a decent person. Actually I have spent a bit of time with him in the past in a more private capacity and that's the impression I got. He's a normal guy who went into circumstances well and truly beyond his control and I think that the opinions people have of him and have of him perhaps leaving his royal role should have absolutely no impact on whether he receives some sort of protection from the police. So this has to be an independent assessment that takes into account the specific threat. Now I've worked in national security myself so I've looked at these types of cases in the past so they have to look at the specific threat but also the enduring threat. And of course he's the son of the king. He's one of the most recognisable faces in the world and of course he's a high-profile veteran. So all these things need to be considered carefully so that when there's a decision and if that decision is to not provide him with security it has to stand up to scrutiny because if something happens it will be scrutinised. With all that in mind and you talk about the threats against Prince Harry, why was it taken away by the Home Office Committee, RABIC, in the first place if, as you say, this should be an objective process? Yeah well of course he moves abroad and that sort of security isn't provided abroad. But of course there is also a strong argument to say that when he's back he may well need that sort of security. That's not for me to have a strong opinion on publicly at least because this is an independent process that has to take into account the threats that he potentially faces. But we have to remember private security is completely different to what the state can offer. It doesn't have access to state tools. You know looking at things like fixated threats there's a specific unit that the police can tap into to ensure they understand that fully. There's also of course the intelligence that's gathered on threats and I think actually most importantly is the ability to carry some sort of weapon which is a force multiplier when it comes to defending an individual. Private security simply can't do that, not even a baton. And well therefore those private securities you say you can't carry a baton, even a bus knife really, if it's going to be used as a weapon. Do you think people or lawmakers such as yourself should be looking at legislation for private security firms in the interim at least to be able to carry some kind of weapon, not necessarily a firearm but a taser or a baton at least? Well I think in this instance we need to be assessing the threat to Prince Harry and make a decision as to whether he should have that sort of security. I think the problem with the private security environment is it's so vast and that legislating for anyone to carry a weapon is probably not the right approach. Let's leave that to the police who are trained to use that sort of defence. The risk management boards of essentially looking at all this evidence and assessing the level of threat against an individual, in this case Harry and Meghan, we believe that was carried out at the end of July. Ravik still haven't made their decision, we're not sure when or if they're going to be making a decision very quickly. You of course are a former Home Office Minister yourself. Why do you think it is taking so long for a decision like this, bearing in mind they're already in the country, to be made? I don't know the answer to that but I would urge them to make a prompt decision on this. It has to be independent and it has to look at the evidence. Is there a threat to Prince Harry and his family? And it has to stand up to scrutiny if it is denied because if something happens that has to be and will be looked at. I have absolutely no doubt about that. But the reason I say it needs to be quite prompt is because now that they're in the country they will start setting patterns. For example taking the kids to school and leisure and social activities which actually increases the threat further. But do you think this is civil servant incompetence, too much red tape or something else? Because for a normal individual they think right well this can be an hour-long meeting. We can all sit together, make the decision and move on quickly. Why is it taking so long? I don't know. I don't know what sort of workload they have. I didn't oversee RABIC. It wasn't within my responsibility or portfolio but I would say get on with it. The public reaction to Prince Harry and Meghan coming back particularly when it comes to the security decision has been mixed, to put it politely. The biggest argument for not providing police protection is that it would cost the taxpayer money and the British public or a lot of them appear would be quite angry. But if you look at the polling, if Harry and Meghan are provided with taxpayer funded protection which can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. Well this sort of protection is not based on the wealth of an individual. It's based on the risk and threat that they face. I do seem to remember that he did offer to pay but that doesn't fit in with the system. You can't be buying state security. It doesn't work like that. It has to be based on the threat that they are facing. What do you think should be happening now? Should there be a time frame or is he entitled to 24-7 police protection or something less than that when he's just on public engagements for example? It does depend on the threat. Is there a specific risk coming from for example terror organisations or fixated individuals? But we mustn't ignore that enduring risk because of who he is and often you know having worked in the security sector myself you can't know everything and these low morph individuals you might not pick up on them. So does his profile mean that he should receive some sort of security? But of course I haven't seen the intelligence and the assessment so I can't make that sort of call at the moment. And we know that Prince Harry's lawyers have spoken or contacted the Home Secretary to try and get her to speed up the process. Of course she's not individually responsible as the Home Secretary but she could potentially speed up the process. Have you spoken to your former colleagues in the Home Office or civil servants about this issue? So look my approach to this is you're right they oversee the process. They're not involved in the decision making. But what can be done is ensuring a prompt decision but also ensuring that that decision will stand up to scrutiny if it's wrong. And just one final question. You of course used to work in counter-terrorism yourself. You've obviously served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Prince Harry also done two tours of Afghanistan. With all of that history involved do you believe there are credible threats against Prince Harry and his family in the UK? It's hard to say whether there's any specific threats because I can't see that quite rightly. But a common sense approach would say that because of who he is, being the King's son, one of the most recognised faces in the world and a high profile veteran, that there's likely to be an enduring threat. But that's for RABEC to conduct that independent assessment, not for politicians to tell them. Mike Tapp, thank you very much for your time. Thank you.