Royal Finances

Campaigning for honesty, transparency and accountability in the reporting and auditing of royal finances.

The Royal Finances Reform Charter

Republic's Royal Finances Reform Charter proposes the following simple reforms, to improve accountability, transparency and fairness in royal finances:

1	Parliament to set an annual fixed budget for the monarchy, to be managed and reported on by a government department, not Buckingham Palace;
2	The Queen to be given a salary, and the Civil List to be scrapped;
3	All security costs to be made transparent and accountable;
4	All costs of royal visits around the country to be incorporated into the monarchy's budget, not met by local authorities;
5	The institution of the monarchy, and all members of the royal household, to be required to abide by the same tax laws and rules as all other public bodies and private individuals;
6	The monarchy's finances to be fully scrutinised by the National Audit Office, in the same manner as any other public body.

Of course, Republic sees these as interim reforms until such time as we achieve the abolition of the monarchy.

Why this matters

Republic objects to the monarchy because it is undemocratic and unaccountable, and entirely unsuited to a modern democratic constitution. However, it is vital that we directly challenge the palace's assertion that the monarchy is 'value-for-money'.

This issue raises serious questions about the way in which the monarchy is managed. The sheer scale of waste of taxpayers' money, the secrecy and lack of accountability for royal budgets, the shameless spin put on these figures are all cause for concern.

The monarchy is expensive, it is wasteful, it is secretive and unaccountable and it is definitely not 'value for money'.

Total Cost of the monarchy

Royals '17 times more expensive than MPs'

There has rightly been a lot of criticism in the media about parliamentary expenses and salaries. It is worth noting that a 'working royal' costs 17 times more than an MP.

There are fifteen working royals according to the official monarchy website. That means we pay around £10m a year for each one.

The total bill for parliamentary salaries and expenses is around £155m. Add other costs of running the House of Commons and we're looking at a total bill of approximately £365m. With 646 MPs that makes them cheap by comparison, at just £565K each.

Sources:
Telegraph
The First Post

No, the cost isn't offset by tourism revenue or the Crown Estates

CROWN ESTATES

It is claimed, by the Queen herself no less, (see the report), that the monarchy costs this country nothing because she gives the revenue from the Crown Estate to the nation, and therefore is subsidising the Royal Family and their position in our society.

Because it is described as the queen 'surrendering' the revenue from the Crown Estate in return for the Civil List allocation, it is mistakenly assumed that this 'surrendering' is a personal financial sacrifice on her part for the good of the nation. And this fantasy is enthusiastically perpetuated by monarchists. The truth is rather different.

The Crown Estate and its revenue have never been the private property of the queen, or any of her predecessors. The Crown Estate is officially described as "hereditary possessions of the Sovereign", not the personal possessions of the individual acting as Sovereign.

She cannot give us what she has never owned. Her role is simply one of an individual - Elizabeth Windsor - acting in her constitutional role - the Sovereign - performing her constitutional duty and overseeing the transfer to the government the income from a totally separate legal entity - the Crown. The queen incurs absolutely no financial loss in this transfer process.

The Crown's legal status is that of a corporation sole, an independent legal entity with the right to hold assets. To suggest that Elizabeth Windsor personally 'owns' and 'gives' the assets and revenues of this incorporated body is as ludicrous as suggesting that the Chairman of British Airways personally 'owns' and 'gives' the assets and tax revenues of the incorporated body he represents.

If the monarchy were to disappear tomorrow, the Crown Estate would continue to do what it has always done for nearly one thousand years - provide income for the administration of this country.

When Sir Michael Peat cheekily suggested that the Windsor's should receive the income from the Crown Estate rather than the Civil List, royal financial experts quickly pointed out the constitutional reality of the situation to him.

"The Crown Estate income has always been for paying the expenses of government. When the monarch was effectively the government that is the basis on which he or she received the income. It was never private income. Now that the government is the state, the state receives it."

Source: Professor Phillip Hall

TOURISM

The argument that the monarchy brings in tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, it is also untrue. There is not a single bit of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it, Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family.

The British tourist industry is successful and robust - castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy (look at Versaille). Other attractions, such as the London Eye, Trafalgar Square, the west end, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside and so on, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today.

Value for money? Comparisons with republics

In a piece of spin that would put Alistair Campbell to shame, palace spokesmen have claimed in recent years that the monarchy is 'value for money'!

Even assuming that their own figure of £37m is accurate, an elected Head of State would be considerably cheaper.

Here are the costs of comparable European heads of state:

Country	Cost
UK	£150m (£37m officially)
Ireland	£1.5m
Austria	£3.5m
Finland	£7.9m
Germany	£9.9m

What you can buy for £150m

It may not be a large slice of government spending, but here's what you can get for £150m:

8792 new nurses; or
7575 new police officers; or
7450 new teachers; or
3000 new GPs; or
462 new hospital beds; or
15 new schools

The costs of the monarchy lack transparency and accountability

Cost	£ (millions)	Reference
Official costs of the royals	37.4	As disclosed by the royal finances 2005/06: Royal Finance Report
Additional security costs	100.0*	Estimated by the Times in 2004: The Times article
Unpaid tax	0.5	The Prince avoids Corporation Tax on the Duchy estimated to be around £500,000. IT Week news story
Unpaid tax (Queen)	Unknown (£5m+?)	The Times article
Grants in Aid to Prince Charles	2.0*	Given to partly cover costs of official residence and travel: BBC News story
Costs to Local Councils (for royal visits)	10.0*	Official cost of Queen's visit to Brighton in March 2007 was £11,451, as disclosed to Republic via a Freedom of Information request. Extrapolating this cost for each visit undertaken in 2006 by the Queen's (425) and Prince Charles (500) would mean costs to local councils of £4,866,675 and £5,725,500 respectively. Telegraph article Therefore the figure given is a conservative estimate based on these costs, particularly as it does not include visits undertaken by other royals (total number of visits is claimed by the royal press office to be near to 3,000). Royal site It is also worth considering that in 2007 a visit by the Queen to Romsey left the local town council with a bill for £58,000, including £5000 for a new toilet. Daily Mail article
TOTAL	149.1	-