HC Deb 12 July 1993 vol 228 cc663-4
29. Mr. Winnick

To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received in the last two years over the Nadir case.

The Attorney-General

I have explained to the hon. Member in a written answer this afternoon, of which I have given him notice, that a total of eight Members have written or spoken to me or my predecessor about this case. Of these, four have made representations during the past two years.

Mr. Winnick

It is now eight hon. Members and not seven. Although the Attorney-General is reluctant to reveal their names, can he explain why the majority of hon. Members who made representations are very reluctant for their identities to be known? What were their reasons for making those representations in the first place? Is not there a particular responsibility on those who championed the cause of Mr. Nadir in the House of Commons, strongly to urge him to return so that he can put his case in open court? Does the Attorney-General accept that the money given by Mr. Nadir to the Conservative party should be returned promptly because it comes from a very dubious source?

The Attorney-General

I do not accept the factual premise of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Most people, I think, have made it clear whether they wrote—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, they have not. Name them."] However, as to contributions to any particular political party, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. This case makes it abundantly clear that it does not produce any favour or affection either way, whatever party may be involved.

Mr. Dykes

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while not condoning melodramatic practices by any of its operatives, hon. Members should not, in general, attack the Serious Fraud Office? Should we not all support it and give it greater resources in the fight against fraud?

The Attorney-General

My hon. Friend may have seen the remarks in the royal commission's report about the importance of the work of the Serious Fraud Office, both in maintaining high standards of financial probity in the financial services industry and in making it possible for anyone who abuses the privileges that apply to that industry, thereby damaging investors—often small investors—to be brought to justice more effectively.