Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action it is proposed to take about the financial losses of the Crown Agents, and in particular about their operation which resulted in the loss to a firm in the North of England of their part of the contract for the Saudi Arabian University.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, on the particular point raised by the noble Baroness, as my noble friend Lord Winterbottom assured the noble Baroness on 19th February, there was no interference at any time to the detriment of the firm to which she refers, either by the Crown Agents or the Millbank Technical Services. In answer to the noble Baroness's general point, may I ask her to wait for the publication next week of the White Paper on the future of the Crown Agents?
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEMy Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I say I am fully aware that this was a matter which related to both Governments, and may I ask: is it not peculiar that up to the moment the large sums of money which appear to have been lost by the Crown Agents never seem to have been mentioned at all? With regard to the second point, may I say that as the Crown Agents were involved in arranging that an order which would have come to this country went instead to North America, I am still not satisfied that we have really got to the bottom of what happened? May I further ask: when this White Paper is published, are we then to know what will happen to the Crown Agents and to all the money that has been lost?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, as I am sure the House will agree—
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I do not have the noble Baroness's natural advantages! In fact, as I say, I am sure the House will agree, that we have debated many times the situation of the Crown Agents, and the House knows that the Government are behind the Crown Agents in settling their affairs and in arranging their future. If I may turn to what the noble Baroness said about this particular transaction, I am afraid that in spite of many explanations she has still not understood the situation. There has been and there is no question of the Crown Agents or their subsidiary having arranged for this firm to lose any contract at all. On the other hand, what they stand for is to try to help any British firm which is involved in this kind of transaction.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEMy Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply and for always answering the second part of my Questions rather than the first, may I ask her whether she is aware that, so far as I am aware, nobody has ever said anything about the vast sums of money that have been lost by the Crown Agents? Is it not a little odd, even though long debates 1653 have taken place concerning the Crown Agents, that nobody seems to be able to say anything about the money that has been lost? May I ask the noble Baroness whether she saw the "Money" programme on TV twice last week, as I think it was? May I ask whether that had no effect at all on Her Majesty's Government?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, one of the difficulties in which I find myself is that the second part of the noble Baroness's question beans no relation to the first. Nevertheless, I am sure the House is aware that the particular losses have been debated in great detail over and over again. May I add that I did see the "Money" programme, not once but twice—
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE—I saw it not once but twice, because I thought it my duty to do so. It was a fascinating programme. I must admit that in some ways I thought it was one-sided. It made no reference to the tremendous services the Crown Agents perform for developing nations, nor to the positive side of their work. But we do not complain. This is perfectly all right. It was a programme which was interesting of itself.