More likely it was there to ease the pain for the British airframe and engines industry, who lobbied hard to get a piece of the action following the cancellations of the TSR2 and other aircraft.
Sure, but the Spey F-4 programme for the RAF could still have gone ahead without going to the expense of converting a very tired ship to operate the jet for only 8 years.
Why was the Ark Royal so tired anyway? After construction that began in WW2, it finally entered service in 1955 and so had only served for 23 years when retired - and that time included a couple of extensive re-fits. Compared to the USS Midway 1945-92 (47 years) or USS Kitty Hawk 1961-2008 (47 yrs) it seems like a very short life. Was it's basic construction sub-standard due to wartime practices and poor materials? The USN do seem to have a record a getting more out of their vessels than the RN.