David Davis Portrait

David Davis

Conservative - Goole and Pocklington

3,572 (7.2%) majority - 2024 General Election

First elected: 10th July 2008


David Davis is not a member of any APPGs
6 Former APPG memberships
Deliberative Democracy, Drones, Future of Work, Responsible Tax, Social Integration, Trafficked Britons in Syria
Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill
1st May 2024 - 8th May 2024
Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
13th Jul 2016 - 8th Jul 2018
Shadow Secretary of State (Home Office)
10th Nov 2003 - 12th Jun 2008
Shadow Lord Chancellor and Shadow Secretary of State for Justice (also Shadow Minister for London)
23rd Jul 2002 - 10th Nov 2003
Shadow Minister without Portfolio
18th Sep 2001 - 23rd Jul 2002
Liaison Committee (Commons)
30th Oct 1997 - 11th May 2001
Public Accounts Committee
25th Jul 1997 - 11th May 2001
Minister of State (Foreign and Commonwealth Office)
20th Jul 1994 - 2nd May 1997
Parliamentary Secretary (Duchy of Lancaster Office)
27th May 1993 - 19th Jul 1994
Assistant Whip (HM Treasury)
3rd Dec 1990 - 27th May 1993


Division Voting information

During the current Parliament, David Davis has voted in 34 divisions, and 2 times against the majority of their Party.

12 Nov 2024 - House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill - View Vote Context
David Davis voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 15 Conservative Aye votes vs 18 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 41 Noes - 378
29 Nov 2024 - Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - View Vote Context
David Davis voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 23 Conservative Aye votes vs 92 Conservative No votes
Tally: Ayes - 330 Noes - 275
View All David Davis Division Votes

Debates during the 2024 Parliament

Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.

Sparring Partners
John Whittingdale (Conservative)
(4 debate interactions)
Dan Jarvis (Labour)
Minister of State (Home Office)
(2 debate interactions)
Richard Tice (Reform UK)
(2 debate interactions)
View All Sparring Partners
Department Debates
Home Office
(5 debate contributions)
Ministry of Justice
(3 debate contributions)
Northern Ireland Office
(2 debate contributions)
Cabinet Office
(2 debate contributions)
View All Department Debates
View all David Davis's debates

Goole and Pocklington Petitions

e-Petitions are administered by Parliament and allow members of the public to express support for a particular issue.

If an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures the Government will issue a written response.

If an e-petition reaches 100,000 signatures the petition becomes eligible for a Parliamentary debate (usually Monday 4.30pm in Westminster Hall).

Petitions with highest Goole and Pocklington signature proportion
Petitions with most Goole and Pocklington signatures
David Davis has not participated in any petition debates

Latest EDMs signed by David Davis

7th November 2023
David Davis signed this EDM on Monday 4th December 2023

Sixth year of detention of Jagtar Singh Johal

Tabled by: Martin Docherty-Hughes (Scottish National Party - West Dunbartonshire)
That this House notes that Friday 4 November 2023 marked the sixth anniversary of the arbitrary detention in India of Jagtar Singh Johal, a Sikh activist and son of the Rock of Dumbarton held since being abducted from the street during his honeymoon by unidentified assailants who turned out to …
54 signatures
(Most recent: 7 Dec 2023)
Signatures by party:
Scottish National Party: 35
Independent: 7
Plaid Cymru: 3
Labour: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Green Party: 1
Alliance: 1
Conservative: 1
13th July 2023
David Davis signed this EDM as a sponsor on Thursday 13th July 2023

Debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee's report on China

Tabled by: Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative - Chingford and Woodford Green)
That this House ensures that the Intelligence and Security Committee Report on China, published on 13 July 2023, is debated on the floor of the House of Commons before the House rises on Thursday 20 July 2023.
4 signatures
(Most recent: 18 Jul 2023)
Signatures by party:
Conservative: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
View All David Davis's signed Early Day Motions

Commons initiatives

These initiatives were driven by David Davis, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.

MPs who are act as Ministers or Shadow Ministers are generally restricted from performing Commons initiatives other than Urgent Questions.


David Davis has not been granted any Urgent Questions

1 Adjournment Debate led by David Davis

Thursday 18th July 2024

6 Bills introduced by David Davis


A Bill to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and make other provision in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.

This Bill received Royal Assent on 26th June 2018 and was enacted into law.


A Bill to confer power on the Prime Minister to notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

This Bill received Royal Assent on 16th March 2017 and was enacted into law.


A Bill to make provision about the handling of complaints by the Health Service Commissioner for England; to require the Commissioner to notify a complainant of the reason for the delay if the investigation of the complaint is not concluded within a twelve month period; to require the Commissioner to lay before Parliament an annual report giving details of how long investigations of complaints have taken to be concluded and progress towards meeting a target of concluding investigations within a twelve month period; and for connected purposes.

This Bill received Royal Assent on 26th March 2015 and was enacted into law.


A Bill to place a duty on universities to promote freedom of speech; to make provision for fining universities that do not comply with that duty; and for connected purposes.

Commons - 20%

Last Event - 1st Reading
Tuesday 19th January 2021
(Read Debate)

A Bill to require the Secretary of State to make provision about obligations on wind farm operators in respect of financial cover for potential liabilities arising from cause of public nuisance; and for connected purposes.

Commons - 20%

Last Event - 1st Reading: House Of Commons
Tuesday 21st July 2015

A Bill to amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide that disclosures of information about malpractice to a Member of Parliament where the disclosure is in the public interest be included as protected disclosures; and for connected purposes.

Commons - 20%

Last Event - 1st Reading: House Of Commons
Tuesday 19th November 2013

Latest 22 Written Questions

(View all written questions)
Written Questions can be tabled by MPs and Lords to request specific information information on the work, policy and activities of a Government Department
7th Oct 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, what estimate he has made of the amount of roof space in the UK that would be suitable for installing solar panels.

As part of our mission for clean power we will unleash a UK solar rooftop revolution, alongside accelerating energy efficiency improvements of the existing housing stock. Rooftop solar on new homes and buildings will, where appropriate, play an important role in the drive for solar, delivering cleaner energy and lower bills to millions of households and businesses. Future standards next year will set our new homes and buildings on a path that moves away from relying on volatile fossil fuels and ensures they are fit for a net zero future.

Michael Shanks
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
18th Nov 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, with reference to the Answer of 14 May 2024 to Question 24976 on Artificial Intelligence: Government Departments, what recent estimate he has made of when phase one Departments will publish their first Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) records on the ATRS hub.

Central government departments and arm’s-length bodies (ALBs) have been working to draft Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) records since this became mandatory earlier this year. Publication plans were disrupted by the general election, but multiple records are expected to be published soon.

Since the introduction of a mandatory requirement for use of ATRS in cross-government policy, we have seen a significant acceleration in progress towards adopting it, which will be reflected soon in published records. As such, we do not believe that legislation is necessary at this time. We will continue to explore further options for encouraging and enforcing the use of the ATRS, and the need to extend the breadth of the policy beyond central government.


In the UK’s data protection framework, Article 22 of the UK GDPR sets out the rules relating to solely automated decisions that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Under these circumstances, individuals have the right to specific safeguards, including being notified of the decisions, being provided information about the solely automated decision making that has been carried out, and the right to contest those decisions and to obtain human intervention.


These specific safeguards for solely automated decision making complement the wider data protection framework’s existing data subject rights, including the rights to transparency, objection and access. Organisations must also continue to observe the data protection principles to ensure personal data is processed lawfully, fairly and transparently. These rules apply to all organisations, including public bodies.

Feryal Clark
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)
18th Nov 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, with reference to the report entitled Securing meaningful transparency of public sector use of AI: Comparative approaches across five jurisdictions, published by the Public Law Project in October 2024, whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of putting public sector compliance with the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard on a statutory footing.

Central government departments and arm’s-length bodies (ALBs) have been working to draft Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) records since this became mandatory earlier this year. Publication plans were disrupted by the general election, but multiple records are expected to be published soon.

Since the introduction of a mandatory requirement for use of ATRS in cross-government policy, we have seen a significant acceleration in progress towards adopting it, which will be reflected soon in published records. As such, we do not believe that legislation is necessary at this time. We will continue to explore further options for encouraging and enforcing the use of the ATRS, and the need to extend the breadth of the policy beyond central government.


In the UK’s data protection framework, Article 22 of the UK GDPR sets out the rules relating to solely automated decisions that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Under these circumstances, individuals have the right to specific safeguards, including being notified of the decisions, being provided information about the solely automated decision making that has been carried out, and the right to contest those decisions and to obtain human intervention.


These specific safeguards for solely automated decision making complement the wider data protection framework’s existing data subject rights, including the rights to transparency, objection and access. Organisations must also continue to observe the data protection principles to ensure personal data is processed lawfully, fairly and transparently. These rules apply to all organisations, including public bodies.

Feryal Clark
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)
18th Nov 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, with reference to the report entitled Securing meaningful transparency of public sector use of AI: Comparative approaches across five jurisdictions, published by the Public Law Project in October 2024, whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of introducing a requirement on public bodies to notify individuals when a decision has been taken about them that was (a) made and (b) supported by (i) AI, (ii) an algorithmic and (iii) automated tool.

Central government departments and arm’s-length bodies (ALBs) have been working to draft Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) records since this became mandatory earlier this year. Publication plans were disrupted by the general election, but multiple records are expected to be published soon.

Since the introduction of a mandatory requirement for use of ATRS in cross-government policy, we have seen a significant acceleration in progress towards adopting it, which will be reflected soon in published records. As such, we do not believe that legislation is necessary at this time. We will continue to explore further options for encouraging and enforcing the use of the ATRS, and the need to extend the breadth of the policy beyond central government.


In the UK’s data protection framework, Article 22 of the UK GDPR sets out the rules relating to solely automated decisions that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Under these circumstances, individuals have the right to specific safeguards, including being notified of the decisions, being provided information about the solely automated decision making that has been carried out, and the right to contest those decisions and to obtain human intervention.


These specific safeguards for solely automated decision making complement the wider data protection framework’s existing data subject rights, including the rights to transparency, objection and access. Organisations must also continue to observe the data protection principles to ensure personal data is processed lawfully, fairly and transparently. These rules apply to all organisations, including public bodies.

Feryal Clark
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)
18th Nov 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, with reference to the report entitled Securing meaningful transparency of public sector use of AI: Comparative approaches across five jurisdictions, published by the Public Law Project in October 2024, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of introducing a requirement on public bodies, when a decision has been taken about an individual that was (a) made and (b) supported by (i) AI, (ii) an algorithmic and (iii) automated tool, to proactively provide an explanation of (A) how and (B) why the decision was reached.

Central government departments and arm’s-length bodies (ALBs) have been working to draft Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) records since this became mandatory earlier this year. Publication plans were disrupted by the general election, but multiple records are expected to be published soon.

Since the introduction of a mandatory requirement for use of ATRS in cross-government policy, we have seen a significant acceleration in progress towards adopting it, which will be reflected soon in published records. As such, we do not believe that legislation is necessary at this time. We will continue to explore further options for encouraging and enforcing the use of the ATRS, and the need to extend the breadth of the policy beyond central government.


In the UK’s data protection framework, Article 22 of the UK GDPR sets out the rules relating to solely automated decisions that have legal or similarly significant effects on individuals. Under these circumstances, individuals have the right to specific safeguards, including being notified of the decisions, being provided information about the solely automated decision making that has been carried out, and the right to contest those decisions and to obtain human intervention.


These specific safeguards for solely automated decision making complement the wider data protection framework’s existing data subject rights, including the rights to transparency, objection and access. Organisations must also continue to observe the data protection principles to ensure personal data is processed lawfully, fairly and transparently. These rules apply to all organisations, including public bodies.

Feryal Clark
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)
25th Nov 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of 30 July 2024 to Question 1398 on Down Syndrome Act 2022, what recent progress his Department has made on producing statutory guidance under the Down Syndrome Act 2022; and whether he plans to publish that guidance before the end of the year.

Officials are taking forward, as a priority, development of the Down Syndrome guidance, as required under the Down Syndrome Act 2022. Engagement with relevant stakeholders, including people with Down syndrome and organisations that work in support of people with Down syndrome, people with other genetic conditions, and a learning disability, or both, is taking place to inform the guidance. Most recently, a roundtable on improving life outcomes for people with Down syndrome was held on 26 November 2024.

We expect to publish the draft guidance for public consultation as soon as possible in the new year.

Stephen Kinnock
Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
16th Oct 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps he is taking to encourage (a) the NHS, (b) Daiichi Sankyo, and (c) AstraZeneca to reach a commercial agreement that makes Enhertu available on the NHS in England.

Decisions on whether new medicines should be routinely funded by the National Health Service in England are taken by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on the basis of an evaluation of a treatment’s costs and benefits. These are very difficult decisions to make, and it is important that they are made independently and on the basis of the available evidence.

We know the NICE’s decision to not recommend Enhertu for use in the treatment of HER-2 low metastatic and unresectable breast cancer, has come as a blow to many women and their families. We understand that the NICE and NHS England have already sought to apply as much flexibility as they can in their considerations of Enhertu for HER2-low breast cancer and have made it clear to the companies that their pricing of the drug remains the main obstacle to access.

The Government wants to see a deal reached to make Enhertu available. The NICE and NHS England remain open to considering an improved offer from the companies through the rapid review process, and we strongly encourage the companies to come back to the table.

The NICE does recommend Enhertu (trastuzumab deruxtecan) in advanced breast cancer for treating HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer after one or more anti-HER 2 treatments.

Karin Smyth
Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
4th Oct 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, when the National Screening Committee will next review the potential merits of screening for prostate cancer.

The UK National Screening Committee’s (UK NSC) evidence review for prostate cancer screening is already underway, and plans to report within the UK NSC’s three-year work plan.

The evidence review includes modelling the clinical cost effectiveness of several approaches to prostate cancer screening, including different potential ways of screening the whole population from 40 years of age onwards and targeted screening aimed at groups of people identified as being at higher than average risk, such as black men or men with a family history of cancer.

Andrew Gwynne
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
22nd Jul 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what the infant mortality rate was in intensive neonatal care units in each year between 2010 and 2023; and if he will hold discussions with his counterpart in the Welsh Government on providing comparative data for Wales.

Reporting of neonatal mortality in neonatal care units is conducted through audit programmes. Data is published by the National Neonatal Audit Programme (NNAP), with the figures for January 2017 to June 2024 available at the following link:

https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/nnap-data-dashboard#view-the-dashboard

In addition, Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK (MBRRACE-UK) also report neonatal mortality in neonatal care units, with the figures for 2017 to 2022 available at the following link:

https://timms.le.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk-perinatal-mortality/surveillance/

The NNAP covers England, Wales, and in more recent years, Scotland, and reports the proportion of very preterm babies, those born at 24 to 31 weeks completed gestation, who are admitted to a neonatal unit and die before discharge home, or 44 weeks post-menstrual age, whichever occurs sooner. It does not, therefore, report on babies born before 24 weeks or after 31 weeks, or babies not admitted to a neonatal unit.

The MBRRACE report covers the United Kingdom and captures mortality rates up to 28 days after birth, broken down by the level of neonatal care provided by the trust or health board where the birth occurred.

These data sources only give a partial view of infant mortality in England. All infant deaths, both neonatal and post-neonatal, in England and Wales are reported by the Office for National Statistics, and are available at the following link:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/childhoodinfantandperinatalmortalityinenglandandwales/latest

Department officials meet with Welsh authorities on a regular basis to discuss a range of maternity and neonatal-related issues.

Karin Smyth
Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
22nd Jul 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what recent guidance his Department has issued on safe staffing limits for nurses qualified in intensive neonatal care in a high-risk neonatal unit.

NHS England recently completed an update to the Neonatal Critical Care service specification. Service specifications set national standards which all commissioned providers of Neonatal Critical Care services are required to meet. The updated specification for Neonatal Critical Care outlines nurse staffing requirements for the three different levels of neonatal care, including high-risk neonatal intensive care services. The specification requires neonatal units to meet the British Association of Perinatal Medicine’s (BAPM) standards in relation to safe staffing limits for registered nurses with a neonatal Qualification in Specialty. The service specification is available at the following link:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Neonatal-critical-care-service-specification-March-2024.pdf

Furthermore, the BAPM standards are available at the following link:

https://www.bapm.org/resources/service-and-quality-standards-for-provision-of-neonatal-care-in-the-uk

Karin Smyth
Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
17th Jul 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what additional funding NHS trusts receive per cot for high-risk neonatal units.

All neonatal units receive funding depending on the number of days that care is provided, as well as the type of care provided. Specific prices for a ‘cot day’ of neonatal care activity are agreed between local commissioners and National Health Service providers.

From the most recent National Cost Collection for the NHS, in 2022/23, the average national unit cost for neonatal intensive care was £1,879 per bed day. The average national unit cost for neonatal intensive care, special care without an external carer, was £976 per bed day.

Karin Smyth
Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
17th Jul 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many and what proportion of nurses are qualified in intensive neonatal care and work in high-risk neonatal units.

Of the 3,898 registered nursing staff working in Neonatal Intensive Care Units, 2,251 have a qualification in specialty (QIS) for neonatal care. QIS-trained nurses are constantly supporting and directly supervising non-QIS-trained nurses in the day-to-day care of babies within low to high-risk neonatal units.

Karin Smyth
Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
17th Jul 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many NHS trusts receive funding for high-risk neonatal services.

There are currently 43 Neonatal Intensive Care units in England providing care to high-risk babies.

Karin Smyth
Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
16th Oct 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of issuing sanctions on individuals associated with the detention of Alaa Abd El-Fattah in Egypt.

We remain committed to securing Mr Alaa Abd El-Fattah's release. We raise his case at the highest levels. The Prime Minister did so with President Sisi on 8 August, the Foreign Secretary with Foreign Minister Abdelatty on 7 October and myself with Foreign Minister Abdelatty on 15 October. Our approach to the case is under regular review. It is not appropriate to speculate on possible future designations.

Hamish Falconer
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
19th Nov 2024
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether her Department plans to publish risk assessments of proposed changes to (a) Agricultural Property Relief and (b) Business Property Relief.

At Autumn Budget 2024, the Government took a number of difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare, and spending to restore economic stability, fix the public finances, and support public services.

The Government published information about the reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief at www.gov.uk/government/publications/agricultural-property-relief-and-business-property-relief-reforms/summary-of-reforms-to-agricultural-property-relief-and-business-property-relief. Further explanatory information is also set out at www.gov.uk/government/news/what-are-the-changes-to-agricultural-property-relief.

In accordance with standard practice, a tax information and impact note will be published alongside the draft legislation before the relevant Finance Bill.

James Murray
Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury)
31st Oct 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 28 October 2024 to Question 10678 on Deportation and Detainees, what steps she takes to ensure that her Department follows the Office for Statistics Regulation's guidance on data transparency.

The Statement of Compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics sets out how the Home Office and all Government departments should comply with the Code of Practice agreed by the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) and Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR).

As referenced in the Ministerial Code, Ministers are mindful of the UK Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice which defines good practice in relation to official statistics, though it is not for the Home Secretary to offer guidance to government on the public disclosure of unpublished data.

Our Head of Profession for Statistics meets regularly with the OSR to discuss statistics matters, including the department’s approach to handling requests for operational data that might not be routinely published. OSR have been supportive of the general approach this department has taken. In the note on embedding transparency in government written by the OSR Director General and published on 14th October, the Home Office was cited as having demonstrated good practice in this regard.

Angela Eagle
Minister of State (Home Office)
31st Oct 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer of 28 October 2024 to Question 10678 on Deportation and Detainees, if she will issue cross-Departmental guidance on the public disclosure of unpublished data.

The Statement of Compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics sets out how the Home Office and all Government departments should comply with the Code of Practice agreed by the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) and Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR).

As referenced in the Ministerial Code, Ministers are mindful of the UK Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice which defines good practice in relation to official statistics, though it is not for the Home Secretary to offer guidance to government on the public disclosure of unpublished data.

Our Head of Profession for Statistics meets regularly with the OSR to discuss statistics matters, including the department’s approach to handling requests for operational data that might not be routinely published. OSR have been supportive of the general approach this department has taken. In the note on embedding transparency in government written by the OSR Director General and published on 14th October, the Home Office was cited as having demonstrated good practice in this regard.

Angela Eagle
Minister of State (Home Office)
23rd Oct 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she is taking to ensure that her Department publishes the statistics it collects on detention and returns promptly.

The Home Office publishes quarterly data on detention and returns in the “Immigration system statistics release”. Data up to the end of June 2024 was published on 22nd August 2024 following our usual publication cycle. The Home Office pre-announces these statistical releases in the “Research and statistics calendar”, in accordance with its Statement of compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics.

Publishing timescales for returns and detention statistics are in line with other statistical indicators published in the Immigration system statistics release. For information about our statistics, and our quality assurance processes, please see the user guide.

Official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics, taking into account a number of factors including user needs, as well as quality and availability of data.

Angela Eagle
Minister of State (Home Office)
4th Sep 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many people were extradited to the United States for (a) violent and (b) non-violent crimes in each year since 2003.

All figures are from local management information. As such they should be treated as provisional and therefore subject to change. The figures do not include Scotland, which deals with its own extradition cases. How many people were extradited from the United States to the UK for (a) violent and (b) non-violent crimes in each year since 2003?

Year

Total number extradited

Total number extradited for non-violent offences

Total number extradited for violent offences

2003

2

1

1

2004

4

1

3

2005

1

1

0

2006

4

2

2

2007

6

3

3

2008

10

1

9

2009

7

1

6

2010

5

3

2

2011

5

1

4

2012

4

2

2

2013

4

0

4

2014

0

0

0

2015

2

0

2

2016

5

2

3

2017

2

0

2

2018

5

3

2

2019

3

0

3

2020

4

1

3

2021

7

3

4

2022

2

1

1

2023

6

3

3

2024*

5

2

3

* Figures until 5 September 2024. How many people were extradited to the United States for (a) violent and (b) non-violent crimes in each year since 2003?

Year

Total number extradited

Total number extradited for non-violent offences

Total number extradited for violent offences

2003

6

6

0

2004

8

5

3

2005

14

11

3

2006

19

14

5

2007

9

8

1

2008

6

5

1

2009

16

13

3

2010

12

8

4

2011

8

6

2

2012

20

12

8

2013

11

9

2

2014

18

15

3

2015

6

5

1

2016

9

4

5

2017

9

7

2

2018

6

3

3

2019

13

9

4

2020

10

7

3

2021

7

4

3

2022

16

15

1

2023

30

29

1

2024*

6

4

2

* Figures until 5 September 2024. For the above two tables, we have taken non-violent offences to include:
  • Fraud
  • Drug related offences
  • Theft
  • Forgery
  • Money laundering
  • Handling stolen goods
  • Obtaining property by deception
  • Tax evasion
  • Unlicensed exporting of goods
  • Obstruction of justice
  • Bribery
Dan Jarvis
Minister of State (Home Office)
4th Sep 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many people were extradited from the United States to the United Kingdom for (a) violent and (b) non-violent crimes in each year since 2003.

All figures are from local management information. As such they should be treated as provisional and therefore subject to change. The figures do not include Scotland, which deals with its own extradition cases. How many people were extradited from the United States to the UK for (a) violent and (b) non-violent crimes in each year since 2003?

Year

Total number extradited

Total number extradited for non-violent offences

Total number extradited for violent offences

2003

2

1

1

2004

4

1

3

2005

1

1

0

2006

4

2

2

2007

6

3

3

2008

10

1

9

2009

7

1

6

2010

5

3

2

2011

5

1

4

2012

4

2

2

2013

4

0

4

2014

0

0

0

2015

2

0

2

2016

5

2

3

2017

2

0

2

2018

5

3

2

2019

3

0

3

2020

4

1

3

2021

7

3

4

2022

2

1

1

2023

6

3

3

2024*

5

2

3

* Figures until 5 September 2024. How many people were extradited to the United States for (a) violent and (b) non-violent crimes in each year since 2003?

Year

Total number extradited

Total number extradited for non-violent offences

Total number extradited for violent offences

2003

6

6

0

2004

8

5

3

2005

14

11

3

2006

19

14

5

2007

9

8

1

2008

6

5

1

2009

16

13

3

2010

12

8

4

2011

8

6

2

2012

20

12

8

2013

11

9

2

2014

18

15

3

2015

6

5

1

2016

9

4

5

2017

9

7

2

2018

6

3

3

2019

13

9

4

2020

10

7

3

2021

7

4

3

2022

16

15

1

2023

30

29

1

2024*

6

4

2

* Figures until 5 September 2024. For the above two tables, we have taken non-violent offences to include:
  • Fraud
  • Drug related offences
  • Theft
  • Forgery
  • Money laundering
  • Handling stolen goods
  • Obtaining property by deception
  • Tax evasion
  • Unlicensed exporting of goods
  • Obstruction of justice
  • Bribery
Dan Jarvis
Minister of State (Home Office)
22nd Jul 2024
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for what reason Crown courts can refuse to release audio recordings of criminal hearings.

Access to audio recordings of proceedings in the Crown Court is at the discretion of the Court, subject to procedures and principles set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules and Criminal Practice Directions.

Heidi Alexander
Secretary of State for Transport