A Labour peer will launch a blistering attack on the Royals this week as he calls for the King’s public funding to be slashed.
Former Cabinet member Lord George Foulkes will argue the public is not getting value for the £100million it is set to hand over next year. He told The Mirror he was incensed by the monarch’s use of private jets and helicopters and questioned why the family needs so many homes while making public statements on homelessness.
Article continues below
On Wednesday he will tell peers that the UK has by far the most expensive state-funded monarchy in Europe as he argues the Sovereign Grant is too high. The government’s Sovereign Grant Bill – which sets the amount the royals receive – will get a second reading in the House of Lords on Wednesday.
The former Scotland Secretary will tell peers: “When we ask the public to fund an institution to the tune of over just under £100 million a year through the Sovereign Grant, at a time when many are facing severe pressure on their household budgets, we have a duty to ask two fundamental questions – are we getting value for money, and do the actions of this institution match the values it preaches?
“I would argue that the answer to both is no.”
Lord Foulkes will add: “While European neighbours have streamlined their royal houses, we continue to fund a sprawling network of ‘working royals’ whose ribbon-cutting duties would, in any other sector, face strict audit and productivity metrics.”
The grant is an annual payment to fund the monarch’s official duties, such as overseas trips. The payment – based on profits from the Crown Estate – also covers the cost of palace maintenance and employing staff.
King Charles will be given £99.9million by the Treasury in the next financial year. This is down from £137.9million because a decade-long, £369million refurbishment of Buckingham Palace is finished.
Article continues below
But the sum is three times the £31million awarded when the Sovereign Grant was created by Tory austerity Chancellor George Osborne in 2012/13.
Defending the rise, Treasury minister Dan Tomlinson last month said the royals are carrying out more engagements than under the final years of the late Queen. He said they must be adequately funded for their duties.
Lord Foulkes told The Mirror: “They talk a lot about climate change, yet I’ve seen lots of criticism about the number of private jets and helicopter flights that they use for short journeys.
Article continues below
“That’s pretty hypocritical. Then the Prince of Wales has got a major campaign on homelessness, but they’ve got so many empty and underutilised properties all across the country. Why do they need so many houses? That’s a rather embarrassing contrast.”
The peer will call for MPs to carry out a full review of royal financial arrangements – and for greater transparency. He will tell peers that Spain’s public grant to its royals is roughly £7million, Sweden’s under £15million, while the Netherlands sits around £45million. “In terms of value for money, our monarchy remains, by a vast margin, the most expensive state-funded royal family in Europe,” he will say – suggesting the allocation should be halved.
In July a YouGov poll found 68% of Brits believe King Charles is doing a good job.
Article continues below
In the year to March 31, the royal annual financial report showed £5.1million was spent on travel, £33.7million on payroll and £3.5million on housekeeping and hospitality. Property maintenance totalled £67.5million.
Nearly £127,000 was spent on travel for the King and Queen to make an official visit to Rome last April. Documents show £733,000 was spent on 177 helicopter flights over 12 months. And 60 charter flights cost £837,000 in that time.
In September Mr Tomlinson told MPs: “The new level of the grant will ensure that the Royal Household can continue to deal with property maintenance backlogs following some years of constrained funding during the pandemic.
Article continues below
“It will also allow the Royal Household to replace ageing systems to strengthen cybersecurity and to install energy-efficient heating systems.”
He said the grant must make sure the royals are funded adequately for their duties, stating: “And it is worth pointing out, of course, that those activities have increased significantly in recent years.
“Towards the end of her reign, the late Queen was not carrying out a large number of foreign engagements, and also was hosting a smaller number of state visits.
Article continues below
“The King has increased the engagements that he is carrying out on our behalf as part of his public duties, and that has involved more expenditure in terms of staff costs and making sure that those engagements and the benefits that in terms of the representation of our country and supporting good causes here in the UK can get the funding and the support that they need.”
The grant is set each year by the Royal Trustees – comprising the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and the Keeper of the Privy Purse.
Under a deal reached during the coalition Government, the grant is calculated based on the profit of the Crown Estate. In the past decade, over £5billion of profits from the Crown Estate have been paid to the Exchequer.
Article continues below
Keeper of the Privy Purse, James Chalmers, said: “This is not a blank cheque. Expenditure is governed by the same standards and disciplines as any publicly funded body, with strict value-for money requirements, detailed planning, multi-year strategies, independent audit, and Treasury oversight.”
Labour Peer to Launch Blistering Attack on Royals Over £100m Taxpayer Grant
A Labour peer is preparing to challenge the Royal Family over the nearly £100 million in public funding it is due to receive next year, reigniting a debate about the cost of the monarchy, the use of taxpayers’ money and whether the institution is providing sufficient value for the public.
Lord George Foulkes, a former Cabinet minister, is expected to argue that the Sovereign Grant should be significantly reduced and that the financial arrangements supporting the Royal Household require a more thorough review. His intervention comes as households across Britain continue to face pressure from the cost of living, housing expenses and demands on public services.
At the centre of the dispute is the decision to set the Sovereign Grant at £99.9 million for the 2027–28 financial year. Although this represents a substantial reduction from the £137.9 million allocated for 2026–27, critics argue that the remaining sum is still too high and that the public deserves a clearer explanation of how the money is spent.
For Lord Foulkes, the issue extends beyond the headline figure. He has questioned the use of private aircraft for royal travel, the number of properties associated with the monarchy and the relationship between the institution’s public commitments and its spending decisions.
His criticism is likely to reopen difficult questions about how Britain should fund its head of state and whether the current arrangements remain appropriate in an era when public spending is under intense scrutiny.
The £100 million question
The Sovereign Grant is the annual public funding provided to support the monarch’s official duties. It covers expenses such as staff salaries, official travel, the maintenance of occupied royal palaces and the administrative work required to support the Royal Household.
It is important to distinguish this grant from a personal payment to King Charles or individual members of the Royal Family. The money is intended to finance official functions and institutional operations, rather than provide an unrestricted personal income to every royal.
Nevertheless, the distinction does not eliminate questions about accountability. Critics argue that any institution receiving substantial public funding should be prepared to explain its costs, demonstrate efficiency and show how its activities benefit the country.
The planned reduction in the grant follows the completion of major refurbishment work at Buckingham Palace. A temporary increase had been introduced to help finance the extensive programme of repairs and modernisation, which included replacing ageing electrical and mechanical systems.
With that exceptional requirement coming to an end, the Royal Trustees concluded that the annual grant should fall to £99.9 million from 2027–28. The new arrangements also change the percentage of Crown Estate profits used in the funding formula.
Lord Foulkes believes that the reduction does not go far enough. He is expected to press for a wider review of the monarchy’s finances and argue that the public should be able to judge whether the money allocated to the institution is justified.
The dispute therefore involves two separate questions: whether the new grant is sufficient to meet the Royal Household’s official responsibilities, and whether those responsibilities could be carried out at a lower cost.
Private travel under scrutiny
One of the issues attracting attention is the Royal Family’s use of private aircraft and helicopters.
Royal travel can involve complicated security arrangements, demanding schedules and the need to attend several official engagements within a limited period. Supporters of the current system argue that these practical requirements must be considered when assessing transport costs.
However, critics question whether every journey represents an appropriate use of resources. Shorter helicopter trips and charter flights can attract particular attention when members of the public are being encouraged to reduce their own expenses and consider the environmental impact of their activities.
Lord Foulkes has raised concerns about the contrast between the monarchy’s public statements on climate change and the criticism directed at some forms of royal travel. His argument is that the institution should be expected to demonstrate consistency between its stated values and its operational choices.
The Royal Household’s defenders can point out that official travel is not undertaken solely for private convenience. The monarch and other working royals represent Britain at diplomatic events, receive foreign leaders, attend national ceremonies and support charitable organisations.
Such engagements can contribute to Britain’s international profile and provide opportunities to strengthen diplomatic and commercial relationships. But determining the value of those benefits is more complicated than simply counting the number of visits or calculating the cost of each journey.
A comprehensive review could examine whether different transport arrangements would reduce expenditure without compromising security or preventing the Royal Family from fulfilling its official duties.
That approach would move the discussion beyond competing accusations and towards measurable standards for cost, efficiency and public benefit.
Royal properties and the homelessness debate
The number and use of royal properties form another important part of the controversy.
The Royal Family is associated with a substantial collection of palaces, residences and other properties, although these do not all have the same legal status or serve the same purpose. Some are used for official duties, some are privately owned, and others belong to the Crown or are managed through separate arrangements.
Lord Foulkes has questioned why the institution needs so many homes, particularly when members of the Royal Family speak publicly about homelessness and housing insecurity.
The contrast is politically sensitive. Housing affordability remains a major concern in Britain, with many families struggling to find suitable accommodation and local authorities facing pressure to provide temporary housing.
Supporters of the monarchy would argue that royal residences cannot automatically be treated as ordinary homes available for redistribution. Historic buildings may require specialist maintenance, provide workplaces for staff, accommodate official events or form part of the country’s cultural heritage.
Some properties also have restrictions on their use, ownership or management that would make a straightforward transfer to housing programmes impossible.
Even so, critics maintain that the scale and utilisation of the royal property portfolio deserve greater public examination. They argue that a transparent assessment should distinguish between buildings essential to official duties and properties that may be underused.
Such a review would not necessarily mean that historic residences should be sold or converted into housing. It could, however, clarify which properties are necessary, what they cost to maintain and whether their use can be made more efficient.
The central question is whether the Royal Household can demonstrate that its property arrangements are proportionate to its constitutional and public responsibilities.
How Britain compares with other monarchies
Lord Foulkes is also expected to compare the cost of Britain’s monarchy with the public funding received by royal households elsewhere in Europe.
Such comparisons can be politically powerful because they suggest that Britain may be spending considerably more than other constitutional monarchies. Figures cited in the debate put the annual public grants of countries including Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands below the amount allocated to the British Royal Household.
However, international comparisons need to be treated carefully. Different countries use different accounting systems, and the costs associated with monarchies may be divided among government departments, security services, heritage organisations and other public bodies.
A smaller direct royal grant does not necessarily mean that a country’s total monarchy-related expenditure is proportionately lower. The number of official engagements, the responsibilities of the head of state, the maintenance of historic buildings and the treatment of security costs can all affect the figures.
Britain’s monarchy also has particular responsibilities associated with diplomatic visits, Commonwealth relationships and the management of numerous historic sites.
These factors do not invalidate the argument for reform. Instead, they suggest that a fair comparison should examine total public expenditure and the services provided, rather than relying exclusively on a single annual figure.
If the government and the Royal Household were required to publish more comparable information, the public could make a better-informed assessment of whether Britain’s arrangements are unusually expensive and which changes might deliver savings.
The government’s defence of the grant
The government has defended the funding arrangements on the grounds that the monarchy must have sufficient resources to carry out its official responsibilities.
Ministers have argued that the Sovereign Grant supports the staff, travel, property maintenance and essential services required for the monarch to act as head of state. Royal engagements can include hosting foreign leaders, representing Britain overseas and supporting national institutions and charitable causes.
The government has also pointed to continuing maintenance requirements, ageing digital infrastructure and the need to strengthen cybersecurity. The completion of the Buckingham Palace refurbishment programme reduces one major expense, but it does not eliminate the ongoing costs of maintaining occupied royal buildings.
The new grant level is intended to reflect those changing requirements. The reduction from £137.9 million to £99.9 million is therefore presented as an adjustment following the end of exceptional refurbishment funding, rather than a complete reassessment of the monarchy’s overall role.
There is also an established mechanism for overseeing the arrangements. The Royal Trustees, comprising senior government figures and the Keeper of the Privy Purse, review the funding formula and consider the Royal Household’s projected expenditure and expected Crown Estate revenues.
The Royal Household has maintained that its spending is subject to financial controls, planning requirements and independent audit. Those safeguards are important, although critics may still argue that formal oversight does not answer every question about whether the institution could operate more economically.
The challenge for ministers is to explain why the new allocation is justified while demonstrating that public money is being used responsibly.
A wider debate about the monarchy’s future
Lord Foulkes’s intervention comes at a time when the monarchy faces competing expectations.
Many people value the institution for its ceremonial role, its contribution to national identity and its ability to represent Britain independently of day-to-day party politics. Royal visits and state occasions can attract international attention, while charitable engagements allow members of the Royal Family to support causes that might otherwise receive less publicity.
Others question whether those benefits justify the expense and argue that a modern constitutional monarchy should operate with greater transparency and tighter financial controls.
The debate is not necessarily a simple choice between supporting the Royal Family and opposing it. It is possible to value the monarchy’s constitutional role while demanding stronger scrutiny of expenditure. Equally, those who favour more fundamental reform may argue that the institution’s costs should be considered alongside alternative ways of carrying out the head of state’s duties.
The Sovereign Grant controversy offers an opportunity to examine those issues in practical terms. Parliament could consider more detailed reporting on travel, property maintenance, staffing and the outcomes of official engagements. It could also examine how international comparisons are calculated and whether the public has enough information to assess the monarchy’s overall financial footprint.
Such measures would not settle every argument about the monarchy, but they could make the debate more evidence-based.
What happens next?
The upcoming parliamentary discussion is expected to put pressure on the government and the Royal Household to explain the reasoning behind the £99.9 million allocation. Lord Foulkes is calling for a broader review and a substantial reduction, although any changes would have to be considered within the legal and constitutional framework governing royal funding.
The government’s position is that the new grant reflects lower costs following the completion of the Buckingham Palace refurbishment programme while preserving the resources needed for official duties.
The disagreement ultimately concerns what taxpayers should reasonably expect in return for public support. Critics want clearer evidence that the monarchy offers value for money, while defenders argue that its diplomatic, ceremonial and constitutional responsibilities cannot be measured solely by the size of its annual budget.
As the debate develops, the most consequential questions will be whether spending can be reduced without undermining official duties, whether property and travel arrangements can be made more efficient, and whether financial reporting should become more accessible to the public.
The Royal Family’s public funding is likely to remain a subject of political argument. For Lord Foulkes and other critics, the proposed grant is an opportunity to demand reform. For those defending the existing arrangements, it is a reminder that maintaining the monarchy’s role requires resources as well as public confidence.
The challenge for Parliament will be to scrutinise the figures carefully, distinguish institutional costs from personal wealth and determine whether the funding system strikes a reasonable balance between the monarchy’s responsibilities and the expectations of taxpayers.