1-20 of 20 results for subject:USA
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.267 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- subject:USA
- We searched for
- subject_t:USA OR subject_t:"United States" OR subject_t:"United States of America" OR subject_t:US OR subject_ses:13557
Type
+
Members' contributions (12)
-
Oral answers to questions (6)
-
Oral questions (6)
+
Parliamentary committees (6)
+
Committee proceedings (1)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (1)
-
Select Committee reports (2)
-
Select Committee reports (Government responses) (2)
-
Select Committee written evidence (1)
+
Parliamentary papers (5)
-
Command papers (1)
-
House of Commons papers (4)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (1)
+
Debates (1)
+
Committee proceedings (1)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (1)
+
Parliamentary questions (8)
-
Oral questions (6)
-
Written questions (2)
House
Session
More
2007-08 (20)
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Arms trade (20)
Publisher
Type
Select Committee reports (Government responses);
Command papers
Author
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Laid on
1 September 2008
Subjects
Children's rights; Arms trade; Cluster munitions; China; Democracy; Women; Human rights; Iraq; International criminal law; Pakistan; Treaties; Torture; USA; Saudi Arabia; Myanmar; Afghanistan; Russia; Israel; Sudan; Zimbabwe; Tibet; Iran; Syria; Darfur; Rendition; Colombia; Ethiopia; Occupied territories; North Korea; Somalia; World political situation
Commons Library location
CS 962
Date
1 September 2008
Reference
Cm 7463
House
House of Commons
Type
Select Committee reports; House of Commons papers;
Parliamentary committees
Committee
Foreign Affairs Committee
Witnesses
Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Dalai Lama; Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch; Lord Malloch-Brown
Subjects
Children's rights; Arms trade; Cluster munitions; China; Democracy; Women; Human rights; Iraq; International criminal law; Pakistan; Treaties; Torture; USA; Saudi Arabia; Myanmar; Afghanistan; Russia; Israel; Sudan; Zimbabwe; Tibet; Iran; Syria; Darfur; Rendition; Colombia; Ethiopia; Occupied territories; North Korea; Somalia; UN Human Rights Council; World political situation
Commons Library location
CS 962
Date
9 July 2008
Reference
HC 533 2007-08
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform if he will provide assistance to small and medium-sized businesses to enable them to take advantage of the UK/US Defence Technology Co-operation Treaty.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform if he will provide assistance to small and medium-sized businesses to enable them to take advantage of the UK/US Defence Technology Co-operation Treaty.
Asked by
Ben Wallace
(Conservative)
Answered by
Gareth Thomas
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answering body
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
22 April 2008
For answer on
24 April 2008
Answered on
30 April 2008
A key aim of the US/UK Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty is to remove the administrative burden of applying for and processing US export licences, helping all companies to reduce their costs in this area. Once the treaty is ratified by the United States, the MOD will develop and issue guidance for industry which will be supported by training packages as required. BERR's Export Control Organisation will provide information to business on the interaction between the treaty and UK export controls.In addition, MOD is working closely with the larger defence companies to find the best ways for their sub-contractors to take advantage of the treaty.The UKTI Defence and Security Organisation (DSO) will continue to offer support to defence SMEs through its existing Charter scheme. More generally, Business Link has been created to act as the primary channel for all businesses providing them with access to the help and support they need to start and develop their business.
Subjects
Arms trade; USA
Date
30 April 2008
Reference
475 c571-2W; 201578
House
House of Commons
Type
Select Committee reports (Government responses); House of Commons papers;
Parliamentary committees
Committee
Defence Committee
Subjects
Arms trade; Defence equipment; Licensing; International cooperation; Treaties; USA; UK/US Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty
Commons Library location
CS 873
Date
26 February 2008
Reference
HC 375 2007-08
House
House of Commons
Type
Select Committee written evidence;
Parliamentary committees
Committee
Defence Committee
Subjects
Armed forces; Defence; Arms trade; Treaties; USA
Commons Library location
CS 873
Date
19 February 2008
House
House of Commons
asked Her Majesty's Government:When the implementing arrangements for the United Kingdom-United States Defence Trade Co-operation Treaty will be agreed.
asked Her Majesty's Government:When the implementing arrangements for the United Kingdom-United States Defence Trade Co-operation Treaty will be agreed.
Asked by
Lord Astor of Hever
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
19 February 2008
The negotiations on the implementing arrangements for the UK-US Defence Trade Co-operation Treaty have now been completed and signature of the Memorandum of Understanding containing these arrangements took place on 14 February 2008.
Subjects
Arms trade; Treaties; USA
Date
19 February 2008
Reference
1803; 699 c37-8WA
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I can confirm that the Home Office has received a request for assistance from the United States of America in respect of corruption allegations concerning BAE Systems. The request is being dealt with in accordance with the bilateral treaty on mutual legal assistance between the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
My Lords, I can confirm that the Home Office has received a request for assistance from the United States of America in respect of corruption allegations concerning BAE Systems. The request is being dealt with in accordance with the bilateral treaty on mutual legal assistance between the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
Answered by
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Avebury
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
What requests they have received from the authorities of the United States of America for documents held by the Serious Fraud Office on alleged offences committed in connection with sales of military aircraft to Saudi Arabia.
Subjects
Administration of justice; Corruption; Arms trade; International cooperation; Military aircraft; Serious Fraud Office; USA; Saudi Arabia; BAE Systems
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c1812
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, considering that after five months’ procrastination on this request the Government have now finally refused to give the US Department of Justice the information it sought, and also bearing in mind the comments of Lord Justice Moses in the case for judicial review of the decision to halt the SFO investigation, that the case involved, "““matters of public concern and public importance””,"
and that the challenge, "““cries out for a hearing””,"
do not the same arguments apply to the refusal of a reasonable request for information by the Department of Justice? Is not the refusal a breach of our obligations under the OECD convention on bribery, notwithstanding the fact that the requests were made under mutual legal assistance of the bilateral treaty? Do not the arguments of the convention apply pari passu to requests made under the bilateral treaty?
My Lords, considering that after five months’ procrastination on this request the Government have now finally refused to give the US Department of Justice the information it sought, and also bearing in mind the comments of Lord Justice Moses in the case for judicial review of the decision to halt the SFO investigation, that the case involved, "““matters of public concern and public importance””,"
and that the challenge, "““cries out for a hearing””,"
do not the same arguments apply to the refusal of a reasonable request for information by the Department of Justice? Is not the refusal a breach of our obligations under the OECD convention on bribery, notwithstanding the fact that the requests were made under mutual legal assistance of the bilateral treaty? Do not the arguments of the convention apply pari passu to requests made under the bilateral treaty?
Asked by
Lord Avebury
(Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
6 December 2007
My Lords, I am somewhat confused by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The Home Secretary has not refused this. She is in the process of giving this request the detailed consideration that it requires. About 5,000 of these requests come in annually and some of them are highly complicated and have complex investigative and criminal aspects to them. It is not unusual for one to take this long; many take longer than this.
Subjects
Administration of justice; Corruption; Arms trade; International cooperation; Military aircraft; USA; Saudi Arabia; BAE Systems; Serious Fraud Office
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c1812-3
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I am somewhat confused by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The Home Secretary has not refused this. She is in the process of giving this request the detailed consideration that it requires. About 5,000 of these requests come in annually and some of them are highly complicated and have complex investigative and criminal aspects to them. It is not unusual for one to take this long; many take longer than this.
My Lords, I am somewhat confused by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The Home Secretary has not refused this. She is in the process of giving this request the detailed consideration that it requires. About 5,000 of these requests come in annually and some of them are highly complicated and have complex investigative and criminal aspects to them. It is not unusual for one to take this long; many take longer than this.
Answered by
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Avebury
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, considering that after five months’ procrastination on this request the Government have now finally refused to give the US Department of Justice the information it sought, and also bearing in mind the comments of Lord Justice Moses in the case for judicial review of the decision to halt the SFO investigation, that the case involved, "““matters of public concern and public importance””,"
and that the challenge, "““cries out for a hearing””,"
do not the same arguments apply to the refusal of a reasonable request for information by the Department of Justice? Is not the refusal a breach of our obligations under the OECD convention on bribery, notwithstanding the fact that the requests were made under mutual legal assistance of the bilateral treaty? Do not the arguments of the convention apply pari passu to requests made under the bilateral treaty?
Subjects
Administration of justice; Corruption; Arms trade; International cooperation; Military aircraft; Serious Fraud Office; USA; Saudi Arabia; BAE Systems
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c1812-3
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, this is not a mundane day-to-day request such as the 5,000 that are received, as the noble Lord has explained. It is a matter of vital importance, not only because of the presence of BAE in the United States and its recent multibillion takeover of the Armor Corporation but of the right of BAE to continue doing business in the United States and not to be under the cloud of investigation that it is in breach of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which is US law? Does not the noble Lord consider that it is a matter of importance to give a prompt reply to the Department of Justice?
My Lords, this is not a mundane day-to-day request such as the 5,000 that are received, as the noble Lord has explained. It is a matter of vital importance, not only because of the presence of BAE in the United States and its recent multibillion takeover of the Armor Corporation but of the right of BAE to continue doing business in the United States and not to be under the cloud of investigation that it is in breach of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which is US law? Does not the noble Lord consider that it is a matter of importance to give a prompt reply to the Department of Justice?
Asked by
Lord Avebury
(Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
6 December 2007
My Lords, we are in no doubt about how important this is, and there are a number of issues and a number of complications within it. That is why the Home Secretary is considering it so carefully. As I said, it is not unusual for something like this to take a length of time. Many such requests have taken much longer than this. We are looking at it very closely. It is a very important issue and the fact that it is taking time, if anything, shows how important we believe it is.
Subjects
Administration of justice; Corruption; Arms trade; International cooperation; Military aircraft; Serious Fraud Office; USA; Saudi Arabia; BAE Systems
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c1814
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, we are in no doubt about how important this is, and there are a number of issues and a number of complications within it. That is why the Home Secretary is considering it so carefully. As I said, it is not unusual for something like this to take a length of time. Many such requests have taken much longer than this. We are looking at it very closely. It is a very important issue and the fact that it is taking time, if anything, shows how important we believe it is.
My Lords, we are in no doubt about how important this is, and there are a number of issues and a number of complications within it. That is why the Home Secretary is considering it so carefully. As I said, it is not unusual for something like this to take a length of time. Many such requests have taken much longer than this. We are looking at it very closely. It is a very important issue and the fact that it is taking time, if anything, shows how important we believe it is.
Answered by
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Avebury
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, this is not a mundane day-to-day request such as the 5,000 that are received, as the noble Lord has explained. It is a matter of vital importance, not only because of the presence of BAE in the United States and its recent multibillion takeover of the Armor Corporation but of the right of BAE to continue doing business in the United States and not to be under the cloud of investigation that it is in breach of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which is US law? Does not the noble Lord consider that it is a matter of importance to give a prompt reply to the Department of Justice?
Subjects
Administration of justice; Corruption; Arms trade; International cooperation; Military aircraft; Serious Fraud Office; USA; Saudi Arabia; BAE Systems
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c1814
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, my noble friend raises an issue but we have these mutual legal assistance treaties with many countries, not just the United States, so it not a one-way street. These things are very sensitive; we have to be very careful when talking about them. It is highly unusual for the fact that one has been requested to come into the public arena. This is an extremely unusual circumstance.
My Lords, my noble friend raises an issue but we have these mutual legal assistance treaties with many countries, not just the United States, so it not a one-way street. These things are very sensitive; we have to be very careful when talking about them. It is highly unusual for the fact that one has been requested to come into the public arena. This is an extremely unusual circumstance.
Answered by
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Berkeley
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that rather than being a bilateral agreement it is a unilateral agreement? It seems—and I think President Bush confirmed this the other day—that the United States believes that it has the right to go into any country and remove anybody it believes has committed a crime in the US. Is it not about time we got equal balance both ways?
Subjects
Administration of justice; Corruption; Arms trade; International cooperation; Military aircraft; Serious Fraud Office; USA; Saudi Arabia; BAE Systems
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c1813
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I thought I had already answered the noble Lord’s question. As I said, there are about 5,000 of these requests annually. Some of them are highly complicated and they very often take a very long time to deal with. This one is very complicated. There are a number of issues. The Home Secretary is in the process of giving very detailed consideration to this request and looking at all the ramifications and complications.
My Lords, I thought I had already answered the noble Lord’s question. As I said, there are about 5,000 of these requests annually. Some of them are highly complicated and they very often take a very long time to deal with. This one is very complicated. There are a number of issues. The Home Secretary is in the process of giving very detailed consideration to this request and looking at all the ramifications and complications.
Answered by
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, the OECD convention is a convention which we ratified in 1998 for combating the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. That requires this country to the fullest extent possible under its laws and relevant treaties and arrangements to provide prompt and effective legal assistance to another party for the purpose of criminal investigations. How is it that this request has been hanging around for six months in the Home Office without being properly replied to? Why has the Home Office objected to the Americans taking evidence from a Mr Peter Gardner who has taken the invoices relating to these transactions over to America for their purposes?
Subjects
Administration of justice; Corruption; Arms trade; International cooperation; Military aircraft; Serious Fraud Office; USA; Saudi Arabia; BAE Systems
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c1813
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, have the Government given any assistance to the American authorities? Has anything happened as a result of that, or is it just going to be quietly thought about for the next 12 months in the Home Office? Cannot the Home Office give the issue some priority?
My Lords, have the Government given any assistance to the American authorities? Has anything happened as a result of that, or is it just going to be quietly thought about for the next 12 months in the Home Office? Cannot the Home Office give the issue some priority?
Asked by
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
6 December 2007
My Lords, the fact that this has taken time does not mean that the Home Office has not given it priority. I am unable to talk in any detail about the matter because of the need for confidentiality. As with all treaties with nations to do with mutual legal assistance, it is part of the treaty that we do not talk about it. It is very unusual that this matter has come to light. It came to light because of a Statement made in another place. It is very unusual and something that we cannot talk about in detail because it involves criminal action.
Subjects
Administration of justice; Corruption; Arms trade; International cooperation; Military aircraft; Serious Fraud Office; USA; Saudi Arabia; BAE Systems
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c1814
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that rather than being a bilateral agreement it is a unilateral agreement? It seems—and I think President Bush confirmed this the other day—that the United States believes that it has the right to go into any country and remove anybody it believes has committed a crime in the US. Is it not about time we got equal balance both ways?
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that rather than being a bilateral agreement it is a unilateral agreement? It seems—and I think President Bush confirmed this the other day—that the United States believes that it has the right to go into any country and remove anybody it believes has committed a crime in the US. Is it not about time we got equal balance both ways?
Asked by
Lord Berkeley
(Labour)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
6 December 2007
My Lords, my noble friend raises an issue but we have these mutual legal assistance treaties with many countries, not just the United States, so it not a one-way street. These things are very sensitive; we have to be very careful when talking about them. It is highly unusual for the fact that one has been requested to come into the public arena. This is an extremely unusual circumstance.
Subjects
Administration of justice; Corruption; Arms trade; International cooperation; Military aircraft; Serious Fraud Office; USA; Saudi Arabia; BAE Systems
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c1813
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, the OECD convention is a convention which we ratified in 1998 for combating the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. That requires this country to the fullest extent possible under its laws and relevant treaties and arrangements to provide prompt and effective legal assistance to another party for the purpose of criminal investigations. How is it that this request has been hanging around for six months in the Home Office without being properly replied to? Why has the Home Office objected to the Americans taking evidence from a Mr Peter Gardner who has taken the invoices relating to these transactions over to America for their purposes?
My Lords, the OECD convention is a convention which we ratified in 1998 for combating the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. That requires this country to the fullest extent possible under its laws and relevant treaties and arrangements to provide prompt and effective legal assistance to another party for the purpose of criminal investigations. How is it that this request has been hanging around for six months in the Home Office without being properly replied to? Why has the Home Office objected to the Americans taking evidence from a Mr Peter Gardner who has taken the invoices relating to these transactions over to America for their purposes?
Asked by
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
6 December 2007
My Lords, I thought I had already answered the noble Lord’s question. As I said, there are about 5,000 of these requests annually. Some of them are highly complicated and they very often take a very long time to deal with. This one is very complicated. There are a number of issues. The Home Secretary is in the process of giving very detailed consideration to this request and looking at all the ramifications and complications.
Subjects
Administration of justice; Corruption; Arms trade; International cooperation; Military aircraft; Serious Fraud Office; USA; Saudi Arabia; BAE Systems
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c1813
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, the fact that this has taken time does not mean that the Home Office has not given it priority. I am unable to talk in any detail about the matter because of the need for confidentiality. As with all treaties with nations to do with mutual legal assistance, it is part of the treaty that we do not talk about it. It is very unusual that this matter has come to light. It came to light because of a Statement made in another place. It is very unusual and something that we cannot talk about in detail because it involves criminal action.
My Lords, the fact that this has taken time does not mean that the Home Office has not given it priority. I am unable to talk in any detail about the matter because of the need for confidentiality. As with all treaties with nations to do with mutual legal assistance, it is part of the treaty that we do not talk about it. It is very unusual that this matter has come to light. It came to light because of a Statement made in another place. It is very unusual and something that we cannot talk about in detail because it involves criminal action.
Answered by
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, have the Government given any assistance to the American authorities? Has anything happened as a result of that, or is it just going to be quietly thought about for the next 12 months in the Home Office? Cannot the Home Office give the issue some priority?
Subjects
Administration of justice; Corruption; Arms trade; International cooperation; Military aircraft; Serious Fraud Office; USA; Saudi Arabia; BAE Systems
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c1814
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
What requests they have received from the authorities of the United States of America for documents held by the Serious Fraud Office on alleged offences committed in connection with sales of military aircraft to Saudi Arabia.
What requests they have received from the authorities of the United States of America for documents held by the Serious Fraud Office on alleged offences committed in connection with sales of military aircraft to Saudi Arabia.
Asked by
Lord Avebury
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord West of Spithead
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Procedure
Topical questions (HL)
For answer on
6 December 2007
Answered on
6 December 2007
My Lords, I can confirm that the Home Office has received a request for assistance from the United States of America in respect of corruption allegations concerning BAE Systems. The request is being dealt with in accordance with the bilateral treaty on mutual legal assistance between the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
Subjects
Administration of justice; Corruption; Arms trade; International cooperation; Military aircraft; Serious Fraud Office; USA; Saudi Arabia; BAE Systems
Date
6 December 2007
Reference
696 c1812
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Type
Select Committee reports; House of Commons papers;
Parliamentary committees
Committee
Defence Committee
Subjects
Arms trade; Defence equipment; Licensing; International cooperation; Treaties; USA; UK/US Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty
Commons Library location
CS 873
Date
4 December 2007
Reference
HC 107 2007-08
House
House of Commons
Type
House of Commons papers; Select Committee oral evidence;
Parliamentary committees
Committee
Defence Committee
Subjects
Arms trade; Ministry of Defence; Treaties; USA; Cabinet Office; BAE Systems; Defence Industries Council; Society of British Aerospace Companies; General Dynamics; Northrop Grumman; Taylor of Bolton, Baroness; Aerospace Industries Association; Export Group for Aerospace and Defence
Date
21 November 2007
Reference
HC 107-i 2007-08
House
House of Commons