A bitter row in the House of Lords over the Royal Albert Hall Bill, proposed by the venue’s trustees, has highlighted deep concerns about the charity’s governance. Critics argue that the governance model, dominated by seat-holders who can profit from ticket sales, creates conflicts of interest and undermines public access, while parliamentary amendments have been introduced to safeguard against these abuses.

A report from the House of Lords Select Committee on the Royal Albert Hall Bill highlighted that the venue missed a key opportunity to reform its governance. The proposed bill aimed to address significant conflicts of interest by reducing the influence of seat-owning trustees whose private financial interests conflicted with the charity’s public mission. The bill was withdrawn following opposition from peers, drawing criticism over the institution's unwillingness to change its governance arrangements despite recommendations from regulators.

House of Lords peers and charity experts have criticized the Royal Albert Hall’s governance model for its inherent conflicts of interest, as the charity’s trustees – who are also seat-holders – have proposed a private bill to expand their decision-making powers without addressing longstanding issues. Critics argue that this self-serving governance model damages public trust and undermines the integrity of the charity sector.

The Royal Albert Hall has been referred to the Charity Tribunal over concerns that its governing council is dominated by families who financed its construction in the 1860s, raising an inherent conflict of interest due to the financial benefits they reap from resale of seats.