Labour peers call for review of royal funding after sovereign grant approval
Labour backbenchers have called for a “root-and-branch review” of royal funding after the sovereign grant was approved by the House of Lords, reports BritPanorama.
Peers gave unanimous approval on Wednesday to £99.9 million to cover the monarch’s official duties and the upkeep of royal palaces for 2027-28.
Now set to become law, the Sovereign Grant Bill alters existing legislation by removing rules that previously stopped the annual grant from falling year-on-year.
The royal family was previously allocated £137.9 million for 2026-27, comprising £97.6 million in core funding alongside £40.3 million set aside for the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme.
A temporary uplift to the grant had been provided over the 10-year period leading to 2027 to finance that scheme. This year’s reduced sovereign grant figure of £99.9 million reflects the completion of work to update the plumbing and wiring at Buckingham Palace.
The grant itself comes from a percentage of profits generated by the Crown Estate—a portfolio of land and property across the UK belonging to the reigning monarch—with the remaining revenues going to the Exchequer.
Labour peer Lord Foulkes of Cumnock argued that the monarchy is not providing value for money and he called for the Public Accounts Committee to “conduct a full root-and-branch review of all royal funding and finances.”
He also criticised the royal family for the use of private jets and helicopters for short domestic trips, despite advocating for climate change initiatives, and insisted that many working royals are not engaging in “real work.”
Lord Foulkes stated: “When we ask the public to fund an institution to the tune of about £100 million a year through the sovereign grant, at a time where sadly we know many of the people in this country face severe pressure on their household budgets, we here have a duty to ask two fundamental questions.”
Further, he asked, “First of all, are we getting value for money? And secondly, do the actions of the institution match the value that it preaches? I would argue that in both cases the answer is no.”
He referenced reports of hundreds of private jet and helicopter flights for short domestic journeys, including a recent trip to the races where the royals concerned could have easily travelled by car. He remarked, “the taxpayer has funded two new helicopters for the royal family, whereas mountain rescue for their helicopters has to raise money through charitable efforts. Now, is that right in the 21st century?”
The former MP added: “While European neighbours have streamlined their royal houses, we continue to fund a sprawling network of so-called working royals. These ribbon-cutting duties… That is not real work. Not like a teacher who worked five days a week, or a nurse in a geriatric hospital who might be working a 12-hour shift.”
Another Labour peer, Lord Sikka, called for “major reforms” to both the calculation of the sovereign grant and the transparency around royal finances, highlighting that the grant increases 97 per cent from £51.8 million for 2024-25 to £99.9 million for 2027-28—an unprecedented rise at a time of widespread household financial strain.
He asserted, “Major reforms are needed on transparency, accountability, calculation and the grant of the sovereign grant. The royals frequently say that they wish to be treated as normal people. I urge the minister and the Government to fulfil that particular wish.”
In response, Treasury minister Lord Pitt-Watson explained that the funding level of nearly £100 million is necessary due to a maintenance backlog for royal residences, exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic.
He explained, “The completion of the capital programme at Buckingham Palace does not mean that all capital programs have disappeared. There remains a large and complex historic estate that requires ongoing maintenance and long-term planning.”
As discussions continue around funding and accountability, the conversation surrounding the monarchy’s financial responsibilities appears far from over.
