THE Conservative Party last night gave its support to The Northern Echo’s campaign to get answers from the Government and Lloyds TSB over the loss of the £300m SeaDragon project.

Greg Clark, the Shadow Minister for Teesside, yesterday pledged to write to Lord Mandelson to demand an explanation as to why the oil and gas platform, which would have created 1,000 jobs in the region, has been moved to Jurong, off Singapore.

Despite the project costing £110m to build in the Far East, as revealed by The Northern Echo, part-nationalised Lloyds TSB will continue to back it financially after deeming the rig “too risky”

to be built in the North-East.

And Mr Clark, also Shadow Energy Secretary, pledged to press for answers to nine questions posed by The Northern Echo to Lloyds TSB – 43 per cent owned by the taxpayer – and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Berr) calling on it to explain its involvement.

While both have been approached numerous times over the issue, Lloyds TSB consistently maintains it cannot comment on individual commercial decisions, and Berr said it could not intervene to keep SeaDragon in the UK due to “legal and state aid rules”. Neither has been willing to elaborate further.

Yesterday, Mr Clark threw his weight behind The Northern Echo’s efforts, and vowed to press for answers.

He said: “I have written to Lord Mandelson asking him to have a meeting with me, when I will be able to ask these questions.

“Berr exists to help the sponsorship of industry and to create jobs to help British business prosper and, given that role, there are questions that need to be answered over the SeaDragon project.

It is unacceptable that they should refuse to do that.

“The involvement of the bank adds a whole extra dimension, and something else which we need answers to.

“Everyone knows we are in the middle of a credit crunch, and that there have been calls for the Government to step in and ensure that credit gets through to investments – we have been calling for the national loans guarantee (which provides some protection to bank investments) for some time, which could have protected the SeaDragon project, but the Government has been almost lackadaisical about its introduction.

“There has been a desperate urgency about the introduction of this loan scheme.”

The unanswered questions

● Why did the Government fail to intervene to stop 1,000 jobs and £300m of investment from being exported to Asia?

● Why has Lloyds TSB been allowed to recommend that the SeaDragon project is pulled from the UK, and then finances it abroad, when it is 43 per cent owned by the British taxpayer?

● Why is the project being financed in Singapore instead of in the North-East when it will cost at least £110m more to build the rig overseas?

● Why was the contract to build the SeaDragon 1 rig given to the North-East if it was deemed to be “too risky” only a year later?

● Why is Lloyds TSB’s response to any questions asked over the SeaDragon issue ‘No comment’?

● Why has no one from the Government been willing to comment on the issue, and why have numerous requests for interviews been declined?

● Why does the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform refuse to elaborate on its claim it could not intervene in the campaign to keep SeaDragon in the UK due to “legal and state aid rules”?

● Why has the Government decreed that no Freedom of Information requests can be made to nationalised or partnationalised banks, even though taxpayers should be entitled to answers to their questions?

● Why is it that, despite widespread outcry, a bank part-financed by the British taxpayer and a Government installed by the British electorate can avoid answering pertinent questions over this issue?