British royals tighten the belt

By Hasan Suroor

LONDON, JULY 3. They are saving and scraping at the Palace, even economising on heating by installing a new-fangled energy-saving unit. No, they are not bracing themselves for the rainy day - there are no rainy days at the Palace - but simply responding to the public concern that it is costing the exchequer too much to sustain the monarchy.

So, the Royal Family has been cutting down on expensive travel, trimming the house-keeping budget and with revenues from the Crown Estate to the exchequer sharply rising because of the increase in the value of real estate, the Queen is actually costing ``nothing''. The British Royalty is value for money, the Britons were told on Thursday as the Palace released its first- ever annual breakdown of public-funded expenses. ``People are inclined to talk about how much the Queen costs the taxpayer. In fact, the Queen doesn't cost the taxpayer anything'', disclosed the Queen's Treasurer, Sir Michael Peat, famously known for his belt-tightening skills.

With Palace expenses pruned by 58 per cent - ``an irreducible minimum'' - and Government coffers bulging with increased revenue from Crown property, the Queen was in fact in ``credit'', he said. A group of British journalists was even given a guided tour of the Buckingham Palace boiler room to show them the miraculous economy power of the new ``combined heat and power units'' which had reduced energy wastage from 50 per cent to 20 per cent. ``Against the backdrop of hissing and alarming clanking, Sir Michael, the man in charge of Royal finances, described the energy efficient capabilities of these, his prized combination heat and power units'', reported The Daily Telegraph with a touch of sarcasm that wouldn't have amused the Queen, coming as it does from a royalist newspaper.

The Times was even more cynical. ``Royals join the economy class to save œ 3 million'', it said in a tongue-in-cheek heading to a report that went on to detail the ``continuing high cost of royal travel'', nailing official claims to the contrary. The most expensive trip, it said, was by the Princess Royal to India, Bangladesh and Nepal in November last year costing the taxpayer œ 214,000. A visit by the Duke of York to the Gulf cost œ 105,000, it said. The Times also pointed to an expensive five-day trip by the Earl and Countess of Wessex to the Emirates in March. ``It was at the height of the controversy over the Countess' indiscretions in a taped conversation with a bogus Arab Sheikh'', it said referring to the row over her interview to an undercover journalist in which she made disparaging remarks about prominent royal and non- royal figures.

Other newspapers had their own examples of the royal ``splurge'' with The Independent pointing to the Prince of Wales' œ 33,000 train journey from Salisbury to Birmingham. Other ``fine examples of royal belt-tightening'', discovered by the paper, included a œ 34,000 train journey by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, and refurbishment of royal apartments.

Sir Michael, however, maintained that the royal expenditure dropped by œ 3 million last year, compared to the previous year - and a whopping œ 48 million since 1991. Most of the savings were made possible by cutting down on travelling - and travelling in style. Not to forget, of course, the energy saving device in the boiler room.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : International
Previous : Mahathir cautions against Islamisation
Next     : Pressure on Pak. to get Kabul throw out Osama