§ Mr. Mike O'Brien
To ask the Attorney General (1) if he will define the term "suggestion" as set out in his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), 9 December 1993, Official Report, columns 332–33, concerning the case of Roger Levitt; 895W
(2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) 19 June, Official Report, columns 68–70, with regard to the meeting which took place on 5 November, comprising prosecuting counsel and the director of the Serious Fraud Office, to discuss possible pleas in the case of Roger Levitt, on what date and in what form possible pleas were communicated to the defence; and if they amounted, in whatever form they were communicated, to a suggestion that Mr. Roger Levitt might plead guilty to only some of the charges; 
(3) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, East of 19 June, Official Report, columns 68–70, with reference to his statement about the Crown's likely attitude if Mr. Levitt tendered particular pleas, for what reasons this did not constitute a suggestion that Mr. Roger Levitt might plead guilty to only some of the charges; 
(4) pursuant to paragraphs 1.6 and 1.11 of Mr. David Cocks' evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, cited during the Committee's oral evidence session of 11 July, if a suggestion was made by the prosecution during discussions before 22 November 1993 that Mr. Roger Levitt might plead guilty to only some of the charges. 
§ The Attorney-General
I refer the hon. Member to the series of very full answers which I have already given and in particular to the sequence of informal discussions between counsel and prosecuting counsel's recollection of the circumstances surrounding and following the meeting on 5 November 1993 which have already been set out in my answers of 19 June 1995 to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)Official Report, columns 68–70, and of 28 June to the hon. Member for Warwickshire, South (Mr. O'Brien), Official Report, column 704.
The word "suggestion" in my answers of 9 December 1993 focused on the nub of the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), which askedWhen the Serious Fraud Office … first suggested to the counsel to Mr. Roger Levitt that he plead guilty to only some of the charges".—Official Report, 9 December 1993; Vol. 234, columns 332–33.
This was understood, in the context of the other questions asked by my hon. Friend which were critical of the Serious Fraud Office, to carry the implication that the Serious Fraud Office had improperly taken the initiative from an early date, seeking, in words later used by leading counsel for Mr. Levitt, to throw in the towel. I was concerned to refute that allegation immediately. Had I at that date known of the full sequence of events to which I have referred above I would have taken account of it in my answer.
The series of answers I have given to the House on this case give a full and fair picture of my understanding of the relevant events.
§ Mr. O'Brien
To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to the submissions received by his Department from(a) Jonathan Goldberg and (b) Sasha Wass in respect of the Roger Levitt case and the oral evidence heard by the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on 11 July, what assessment he has made of the accuracy of statements by (1) Mr. David Cocks and (2) Mr. Jonathan Fisher in respect of (i) telephone conversations on 21 November 1993 and (ii) the initial meeting on 22 November. 896W
§ The Attorney-General
Regrettably, the accounts given by prosecuting and defence counsel differ significantly and I do not consider that it is right for me to say more than that it is clear that they see the matter very differently.