When the Government plan to introduce legislation to reform the law on transnational bribery.

Last year, the Government asked the Law Commission to undertake, as a priority, a fresh review of options for reform of bribery law and to prepare a draft Bill. Those processes are under way, and they cover both domestic and foreign bribery. The commission produced a consultation paper on 29 November, and its review and Bill should be complete by the autumn. Obviously, we will then have to look at the final proposals, but we will seek to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

When the Government published their next steps paper on reforming bribery law last year, they confirmed that the Attorney-General's consent for prosecution for all bribery offences, including transnational bribery, was to be replaced by the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or the Director of the Serious Fraud Office. That was a very wise decision. Is it still the Government's policy?

As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a review of the Attorney-General's role, which included consideration of the issue of consents, and until we announce our conclusions, which we will do shortly, I am not in a position to say more. However, my hon. Friend has hit on an interesting point. The Attorney-General's consent is required under the Prevention of Corruption Acts. In 2003, it was proposed in the Corruption Bill that we retain that requirement, but the Joint Committee providing pre-legislative scrutiny, of which I was a member, suggested that it should not be retained. The Law Commission proposes that it remain in place for domestic cases, but not for cases with an extra-territorial element. I should be very glad to have conversations with my hon. Friend on that interesting theme, but I cannot comment on what the outcome of the consultation on the Attorney-General's role will be.

But is it not entirely improper for a Minister of the Crown with political responsibilities to decide whether people should be prosecuted for corruption? Is it the case that the Attorney-General has again stayed an international corruption case on the basis of political considerations?

I cannot talk about individual cases, but I am not at all aware of the facts that the hon. Gentleman puts forward. I am aware of a number of ongoing cases, one of which awaits a decision, and one of which is coming quite close to conclusion. A number of others are being run by the Serious Fraud Office. No doubt their results will be made public in due course. I do not recognise the description of the case that he raised.

It is an offence to suborn a police officer, for instance by bribing them to provide information to a national newspaper, yet one editor of a national newspaper has admitted that she has done so, and one former editor of a national newspaper, who now works for the Conservative party, has said that he, too, has paid police officers for information. No prosecutions have ever been brought against a newspaper for paying police officers for information, yet the practice often undermines the criminal justice system. Should there not be reform of the law, so that bribery is dealt with severely?

Bribery must be dealt with severely, from wherever it emanates—and it will be. There are always headlines about cases, but then there is an important, second process called investigating to see exactly what is in the claim. Then there is a process called evaluating to see whether there is a 51 per cent. prospect of securing a conviction. I can assure my hon. Friend that those duties are carried out rigorously.