The implications of a potential US trade agreement on the UK’s IP framework will depend on any final negotiated text. As negotiations are yet to begin, there is no deal to assess against. However, Government officials are considering the costs and benefits to the UK of similar existing trade agreement provisions and are taking into account stakeholder responses to the Department for International Trade’s consultation on a potential US trade agreement which closed on 26 October 2018.

The UK is fully committed to working with other countries to tackle climate change and achieve the Paris Agreement goals including limiting global average temperature increase to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. My rt. hon. Friend the Prime Minister has raised the issue of climate change with the President of the United States. She has been clear that she believes the Paris Agreement is the right global framework for tackling climate change.

The bilateral Nuclear Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America was signed on 4 May 2018 and the text of the agreement was transmitted by the President of the United States to US Congress on 7 May 2018, initiating the ratification process.

Ratification in the US requires the agreement to remain in Congress for 90 joint sitting days, whereby the US Senate and House of Representatives both sit, and the consent of two-thirds of the US Senate. Congress also has the option of adopting either a joint resolution of approval, with or without conditions, or standalone legislation that could approve the agreement. UK officials have held detailed discussions with the US and both sides are satisfied that this process can be completed ahead of the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom.

In the United Kingdom, the agreement will be presented to Parliament prior to ratification, in accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, during the course of 2018.

The US has a legal requirement for a nuclear cooperation agreement to be in place before civil nuclear trade with another country can be permitted. For this reason, the Government has prioritised discussions with the US, to ensure that a new bilateral agreement will be in place when Euratom’s agreements no longer apply to the UK. The strong links between US and UK on civil nuclear matters ensure that both parties are keen to progress this agreement to their mutual benefit. Significant progress has been made on the substance of the new agreement and it is on track to be presented to the UK Parliament and US Congress in the course of 2018 for ratification, ensuring that the agreement will be ready well before the end of 2020

Total US imports of steel from the UK in 2017 were 351 thousand tonnes with a value of £360m. This represents 5% of UK steel production in 2017, in tonnage. We are working closely with the steel and aluminium industries to assess the potential impact of these measures.

Total US imports of steel from the UK in 2017 were 351 thousand tonnes with a value of £360m. This represents 5% of UK steel production in 2017, in tonnage. We are working closely with the steel and aluminium industries to assess the potential impact of these measures.

Since the outset of this investigation the Government robustly defended UK interests. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised this issue with President Trump a number of times, most recently in Davos last week. We are therefore pleased that the US ITC found in favour of Bombardier and ruled that there is no injury to the US aerospace industry.

The UK Government has updated the European Commission on progress of its discussions with third countries about nuclear co-operation agreements, including with the USA, as part of the separation negotiations.

The Home Secretary agreed to review the case of Gary McKinnon in May 2010. She will consider carefully all the relevant medical and legal material, and other representations before making her decision.

The Home Secretary agreed to review the case of Gary McKinnon in May 2010. She will consider carefully all the relevant medical and legal material, and other representations before making her decision.

Extradition between the UK and the US is governed by the bilateral UK-US treaty that came into force on 26 April 2007, as amended by the agreement on extradition between the US and the European Union, which came

into force on 1 February 2010. Extradition between the UK and Commonwealth countries is governed by the London Scheme on Extradition within the Commonwealth.

Although not identical, both these instruments contain safeguards for defendants commonly found in cross-border criminal justice measures. The London Scheme requires the requesting state to establish a prima facie case that the person committed an offence, but this is disapplied in domestic law in relation to Australia, Canada and New Zealand. It has also been disapplied as between the UK and the US. The UK still requires prima facie evidence from other signatories to the London Scheme. These differences are based on judicial considerations and not on international security arrangements.

Extradition arrangements between the US and Commonwealth countries are a bilateral matter for the countries concerned.

The sole issue for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to consider is whether Mr McKinnon's extradition would contravene his human rights. She is currently reviewing all the relevant material, including extensive representations provided by Mr McKinnon’s solicitors covering all aspects of his case.

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on a case being considered in another jurisdiction. I would, however, note that Mr McKinnon’s case has been exhaustively considered in the UK courts.

There have been no substantial alterations made to the UK’s extradition arrangements with the US and no new safeguards have been implemented since 2010. The terms for extradition are as broadly reciprocal as can be between two countries given that they are based on different legal systems.

The UK-US extradition treaty was also considered by the independent review of the UK’s extradition arrangements led by Sir Scott Baker. The panel found that the treaty does not operate in an unbalanced manner. The Home Secretary is considering the review panel’s findings and will announce the Government’s response shortly.

As a person’s nationality has never been a bar to extradition between the UK and the US, the nationality of the person whose extradition was sought was not, before 2010, always recorded. Information about where the alleged offence was committed in each case is not held centrally; however, in every case the alleged offence would have to come within the jurisdiction of the requesting state. The answer reflects these qualifications.

Between 2010 and April 2012, 10 people were extradited from the US to the UK, of whom two were US nationals. Neither has been identified as being accused of a crime which was committed while the person was in the US. Currently, there is one outstanding request from the UK to the US for a US citizen. This has not been identified as involving a crime which was committed while the person was in the US.

In the same timeframe, 23 people were extradited from the UK to the US. Fifteen were UK nationals, of whom three were dual nationals (of the UK and a third state). None has been identified as being accused solely of a crime committed whilst the person was in

the UK. There are currently 17 outstanding requests from the US to the UK for UK citizens. Of these 17, there are five cases where I can confirm that the alleged offences were committed whilst the person was in the UK.

The figures given in this reply do not include requests between the US and Scotland.

As a person’s nationality has never been a bar to extradition between the UK and the US, the nationality of the person whose extradition was sought was not, before 2010, always recorded. Information about where the alleged offence was committed in each case is not held centrally; however, in every case the alleged offence would have to come within the jurisdiction of the requesting state. The answer reflects these qualifications.

Between 2010 and April 2012, 10 people were extradited from the US to the UK, of whom two were US nationals. Neither has been identified as being accused of a crime which was committed while the person was in the US. Currently, there is one outstanding request from the UK to the US for a US citizen. This has not been identified as involving a crime which was committed while the person was in the US.

In the same timeframe, 23 people were extradited from the UK to the US. Fifteen were UK nationals, of whom three were dual nationals (of the UK and a third state). None has been identified as being accused solely of a crime committed whilst the person was in

the UK. There are currently 17 outstanding requests from the US to the UK for UK citizens. Of these 17, there are five cases where I can confirm that the alleged offences were committed whilst the person was in the UK.

The figures given in this reply do not include requests between the US and Scotland.

The sole issue for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to consider is whether Mr McKinnon's extradition would contravene his human rights. She is currently reviewing all the relevant material, including extensive representations provided by Mr McKinnon’s solicitors covering all aspects of his case.

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on a case being considered in another jurisdiction. I would, however, note that Mr McKinnon’s case has been exhaustively considered in the UK courts.