Since the couple stepped back from being working royals, their security was downgraded, meaning questions remain about how they will be protected on UK soil.

Dame Emily Thornberry, a senior Labour backbencher who chairs the foreign affairs select committee, 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 [the Duke of Sussex] 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 has fought for the right to guaranteed police protection since his security arrangements were downgraded.

However, the requests have been rejected by the courts and the Home Office committee that oversees the decisions.

He is currently required to give 30 days’ notice to allow for the circumstances of the visit to be assessed.

Labour MPs have argued that Meghan Markle and Prince Harry should have taxpayer funded security

The Sussexes are stil awaiting an outcome of a review by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec).

Ex-Home Office Minister Mike Tapp said that the decision regarding security should be based on a “clear-eyed assessment of the threat.

He said: “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.

“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.

Andy Burnham has said security for the Sussexes is a ‘private matter’

 | GETTY

“Those responsible should of course make their assessment based on evidence, intelligence and risk – not headlines, politics or public opinion.”

Dawn Butler, another Labour MP and a former minister in Gordon Brown’s Government, also 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.”

However, Prime Minister Andy Burnham said earlier this week that the security for the Sussexes was a “private matter”.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch had an alternative response when asked about the security measures.

She told The Telegraph: “Prince Harry is the son of the King and that means he has a very high public profile, more then 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.

“The fact is he is in this position by birth, not by choice of career, and I think there’s a common-sense position that can be found.”