Community Orders

Mr Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what the evidence base is to show that punitive community requirements will act as a deterrence mechanism and reduce crime; [136730]

(2) when he will publish research into the effectiveness of different community order requirements and their effect on reoffending rates for similar offenders. [136732]

Jeremy Wright: Provisions in the Crime and Courts Bill will require courts to include a punitive element in every community order unless there are exceptional circumstances.

We have undertaken research to determine the relative effectiveness of community order requirements at reducing re-offending, for offenders with similar characteristics. In relation to punitive requirements, the key findings of the research were that:

Offenders who receive supervision plus certain punitive requirements (unpaid work or curfew) committed fewer re-offences within a two-year period of the community order, compared to those who only receive supervision;

Offenders who receive supervision plus a curfew committed fewer re-offences within a two-year period of the community order, compared to those who receive only supervision;

Offenders who receive supervision, a punitive requirement (unpaid work or curfew) and a programme requirement were less likely to reoffend and committed fewer re-offences within a two-year period of the community order, compared to those who receive supervision and a punitive requirement;

There was no impact on reoffending of adding a punitive requirement to certain other specified combinations of requirements; and

Adding supervision to a standalone punitive requirement reduces reoffending.

This research is published on the MOJ website and can be located on the following webpage:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research-and-analysis/moj/effectiveness-community-order-requirements

We have also published a full impact assessment which outlines the impact of this proposal on reoffending rates. This can be located on the following webpage:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/effective-community-services-1/results/community-sentences-response-ia.pdf

Mr Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether it is his policy that punitive requirements as conditions of community orders will replace rehabilitative ones. [136731]

Jeremy Wright: Provisions in the Crime and Courts Bill will require courts to include a punitive element in every community order unless there are exceptional circumstances that would make it unjust for the court do so.

16 Jan 2013 : Column 811W

It will remain for the court to determine the number and type of requirements within a community order. Subject to the requirement to include a punitive element, section 148(2)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 will continue to provide that the requirement or requirements imposed as part of a community order should be those that are, in the court's opinion, most suitable for the offender. Courts will also continue to be required under section 142(1) of the 2003 Act to have regard to the five purposes of sentencing, which include the reform and rehabilitation of offenders.

Mr Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of the effect on the cost of the National Offender Management Service of any increase in the use of electronic monitoring as a consequence of the introduction of punitive requirements to community penalties. [136764]

Jeremy Wright: The Ministry of Justice published its response to the “Punishment and reform: effective community sentences” consultation on 23 October 2012. We are currently legislating to require courts to include a punitive element in every community sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances.

The full impact assessment that MOJ published alongside the Government response can be found on the MOJ website on the following webpage:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/effective-community-services-1/results/community-sentences-response-ia.pdf

We are also in the process of re-competing new contracts for the delivery of electronic monitoring services, which will drive down unit costs, but we cannot disclose information on these while the competition is in process.

Crimes of Violence

Mr Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps his Department is taking to tackle violent offences against those accused of being witches and to ensure prosecution of the perpetrators. [136656]

Mr Timpson: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Education.

The organisations participating in the National Working Group on Child Abuse Linked to Faith or Belief, including the Department for Education, are involved in developing practical solutions to tackle this abuse. The group decided that this could most effectively be achieved by means of an action plan, which was published in August 2012 and which sets out problems and solutions for members of the Working Group to take forward. Supporting victims and witnesses is a key theme in the action plan.

The Working Group meets on a regular basis to report and review progress in implementing the action plan and the next meeting will take place on 21 January 2013.

Electronic Tagging

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many offenders (a) were tagged and (b) breached the conditions of their tag in each year from 1997 to 2012; [136471]

16 Jan 2013 : Column 812W

(2) what sanctions were applied for breaches of licences by offenders who were tagged in each year from 1997 to 2012; [136472]

(3) what the average length of time was for which an offender was tagged in each year from 1997 to 2012; [136473]

(4) how many (a) men and (b) women were tagged in each year from 1997 to 2012; [136474]

(5) what the average age was of those offenders who were tagged in each year from 1997 to 2012; [136475]

(6) what the twelve-month re-offending rate was of those offenders who were tagged in each year from 1997 to 2012; [136476]

(7) what the average number of previous convictions was of those offenders who were tagged in each year from 1997 to 2012; [136477]

(8) how many of those offenders who are tagged have (a) no previous convictions, (b) one to five, (c) six to 10, (d) 11 to 15, (e) 16 to 20 and (f) more than 20 previous convictions; [136478]

(9) what the average cost of electronic tagging an offender was in each year from 1997 to 2012; [136479]

(10) what amount his Department has paid to each private company delivering electronic tagging services for the Department (a) in total since 1997 and (b) in each year from 1997 to 2012. [136480]

Jeremy Wright: The first national electronic monitoring contracts in England and Wales commenced on 28 January 1999. Information from local piloting schemes prior to this is not centrally available.

Information on new electronic monitoring orders imposed in England and Wales between financial years 1999-2000 and 2011-12 is contained in the following table:

Table 1: New electronic monitoring starts, England and Wales, financial years 1998-99 to 2011-12(1, 2)
 All subjects(3)Offenders(3)

1998-99(4)

3,508

3,452

1999-2000

19,073

19,012

2000-01

19,962

19,956

2001-02

21,796

21,754

2002-03

37,924

35,480

2003-04

46,472

42,045

2004-05

53,230

47,386

2005-06

60,006

51,458

2006-07

73,205

54,878

2007-08

90,036

65,100

2008-09

100,055

69,895

2009-10

105,773

70,515

2010-11(2)

115,874

79,698

2011-12(2)

105,105

78,110

16 Jan 2013 : Column 813W

Total

848,417

658,739

(1) These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. (2) Before October 2010 extensions of bail curfews (e.g. when a monitored defendant attended court and was re-bailed) were classed as new starts, whereas afterwards they were not. This caused an apparent fall in bail new starts over the period. (3) All subjects comprises bail, court order and released from custody; offenders comprises subjects sentenced to a court order or released from custody on licence. (4) Figures for 1998-99 are for 28 January 1999 to 31 March 1999 only (contract period).

Breach data before September 2010 are only available at disproportionate cost due to data crossover when the contractor’s case management system was upgraded. For offenders’ orders ending in financial year 2011-12 in England and Wales, 34,086 orders were reported by the contractors to the appropriate authority for breach action at least once, of 81,242 orders ending in that period.

The data are from the electronic monitoring service providers. The information held refers to violations reaching the breach threshold reported to the relevant authority such as the Probation Trust, Prison Service, Youth Offending Service, or police, and does not necessarily relate to breach action taken. In many cases the subject subsequently went on to complete the Order with no need for further intervention.

The National Offender Management Service is currently reviewing the information provided by the suppliers of electronic monitoring services to determine what historical statistics can be obtained and what should be published in future.

Offenders on licence who breach their electronically monitored curfew are reported by the electronic monitoring contractors to the appropriate criminal justice authority for recall to custody. It is not possible to provide the number of license recalls where the offender was electronically monitored except at disproportionate cost. Information would only be available through a manual trawl of prison and Probation Trust records.

Before 2011-12 it is not possible to provide the actual average number of days an offender is electronically monitored for the full time period except at disproportionate cost. However, an estimated number of days in each monitored period for offenders (sentenced to a court order or released on licence) from 2005-06 is contained in the following table:

Table 2: Estimated length of each period of electronic monitoring for offenders(1), financial years 2005-06 to 2011-12(2)
 Estimated(3) average length of each period of electronic monitoring

2005-06

74

2006-07

74

2007-08

74

2008-09

73

2009-10

72

2010-11

70

2011-12(4)

71

16 Jan 2013 : Column 814W

(1) Offenders are subjects sentenced to a court order or released on licence. (2) These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. (3) Information on the average number of days that a person is electronically monitored is not routinely available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost, with the exception of 2011-12. The estimates were calculated by dividing the estimated total days of electronic monitoring for the period by the total number of new starts in the period. (4) For 2011-12, where the order has not yet ended, but an end date was given when the order was received, the contractor used that date to calculate the length of the order. For post-release orders in 2011-12 the contractor excluded data for orders that were still running in July, but for which the end date was not yet known.

Gender information is not routinely reported by the electronic monitoring contractors. The information will take time to collate. I will write to the right hon. Member as soon as it is available.

The National Offender Management Service is currently reviewing the information provided by the suppliers of electronic monitoring services to determine what historical statistics can be obtained and what should be published in future.

Age information is not routinely reported by the electronic monitoring contractors. The information will take time to collate. I will write to the right hon. Member as soon as it is available. However, in 2011, the average age for an electronically monitored offender (subject to a court order or released on licence) was 28.

The Ministry of Justice is responsible for electronic monitoring in England and Wales. Adult (aged 18+) and juvenile (aged 10-17) proven re-offending data, by index disposal, for cohorts in England and Wales up to the 2010 cohort (latest available) are published in the Proven Re-offending Statistics Quarterly bulletin in tables 18a and 18b, available at:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/statistics/reoffending/proven-reoffending-jan10-dec10-tables.xls

Adults whose sentence included an electronically monitored curfew element are included in the proven re-offending rate for court orders (34.1% of adult offenders who started a court order in 2010 committed a proved re-offence within 12 months from the start of their sentence). Court orders include pre-Criminal Justice Act 2003 community sentences, new community orders and suspended sentence orders, therefore these rates include individuals whose sentence did not include an electronically monitored curfew requirement. Disaggregating these data would be possible only at disproportionate cost.

Juveniles whose sentence included an electronically monitored curfew element are included in the proven re-offending rates for Youth Curfew Orders (60.5% of juvenile offenders who were released on curfew in 2010 committed a proven re-offence within 12 months from the start of their sentence) and Youth Rehabilitation Orders (69.5% of juvenile offenders who were given a Youth Rehabilitation Order in 2010 committed a proven re-offence within 12 months from the start of their sentence). The Youth Curfew Order rate includes curfew orders with and without electronic monitoring and is one of nine separate youth sentences that were incorporated into the Youth Rehabilitation Order which came into effect for offences committed from 30 November 2009; electronic monitoring is one of 18 requirements that

16 Jan 2013 : Column 815W

can be made as part of the Youth Rehabilitation Order; therefore these rates include individuals whose sentence did not include an electronically monitored curfew requirement. Disaggregating these data would be possible only at disproportionate cost.

Please note that the Ministry's proven re-offending data measure re-offending of offenders within 12 months of commencing a court order. Therefore, this will not include all re-offences committed while subject to a court order: (a) some sentences last less than 12 months so an offender may no longer be subject to a court order at the time of committing the re-offence; and (b) some sentences last more than 12 months and the re-offending measure will not pick up any re-offences committed in months 13 and beyond.

A proven re-offence is defined as any offence committed in a one year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one year follow-up. Following this one year period, a further six month waiting period is allowed for cases to progress through the courts.

Proven re-offending rates for offenders receiving Youth Curfew Orders and Youth Rehabilitation Orders should not be compared to the proven re-offending rates for other sentences, as there is no control for known differences in offender characteristics.

It is not possible to provide the average number of previous convictions of electronic monitoring subjects except at disproportionate cost. Information could be obtained only by interrogating police records.

It is not possible to provide the number of previous convictions of electronic monitoring subjects except at disproportionate cost. Information could be obtained only by interrogating police records.

The average annual cost for each electronic monitoring subject is approximated as Financial payment in year/new electronic monitoring curfews. It is not possible to disaggregate the cost for offenders from the total cost, which includes subjects on bail, or to disaggregate all of the one-off payments.

Information on the estimated average cost per new electronically monitoring curfew is contained in the following table:

Table 5. Estimated average cost per new electronically monitored curfew in England and Wales, financial years 1998-99 to 2011-12(1, 2)
 Estimated cost per new start (£)

1998-99(3)

n/a

1999-2000

1,576

2000-01

1,647

2001-02(4)

1,770

2002-03

1,673

2003-04

1,755

2004-05(5)

1,932

2005-06(6)

974

2006-07

935

2007-08(7)

915

2008-09

924

2009-10

887

2010-11(8)

877

2011-12(8)

1,113

16 Jan 2013 : Column 816W

(1) All costs include VAT which rose from 17.5% to 20.0% in January 2011. (2) Average cost in year includes one-off payments made to contractors (e.g. set up and transition charges). (3) First contract year ran from 28 January 1999 to 31 January 2000. (4) Includes voice verification set up charge. (5) Includes tracking set up charges. Also includes £4,282,631 total transition payments to Premier and Securicor. (6) Includes £472,312.40 payment to G4S for transition installation charges. Does not include exit payment to Reliance of £587,500,000 (inc VAT). (7) Includes £545,710.27 EMDAS payments. (8) Before October 2010 extensions of bail curfews (e.g. where a monitored defendant attended court and was re-bailed) were classed as new starts, whereas afterwards they were not. This caused an apparent fall in bail new starts over the period. The period after October 2010 is therefore not comparable with the period before.

Information on the amount paid to each private company delivering electronic tagging services for the Department is contained in the following table:

Table 5. Financial payments to electronic monitoring contractors in England and Wales, financial years 1998-99 to 2011-12(1, 2)
Total (£)Serco (£)G4S (£)

1998-99(3)

5,769,533.00

n/a

n/a

1999-2000

30,057,536.00

n/a

n/a

2000-01

32,871,924.00

n/a

n/a

2001-02(4)

38,588,708.00

n/a

n/a

2002-03

63,448,639.00

n/a

n/a

2003-04

81,551,869.00

n/a

n/a

2004-05(5)

102,833,756.00

n/a

n/a

2005-06(6)

58,448,887.51

21,574,309.39

36,874,578.12

2006-07

68,475,135.31

26,331,248.40

42,143,886.90

2007-08(7)

82,356,667.53

33,287,146.71

49,069,520.83

2008-09

92,436,114.71

37,820,550.51

54,615,564.21

2009-10

93,872,485.81

40,666,092.66

53,206,393.15

2010-11(8)

101,607,672.50

46,120,078.31

55,487,594.19

2011-12(8)

116,906,086.86

54,646,542.56

62,259,544.30

Total

969,225,015.24

n/a

n/a

(1) All costs include VAT which rose from 17.5% to 20.0% in January 2011. (2) Payments by provider are only available for the current contracts (from April 2005); only total costs are available before this date. (3) First contract year ran from 28 January 1999 to 31 January 2000 (4) Includes voice verification set up charge. (5) Includes tracking set up charges. Also includes £4,282,631 total transition payments to Premier and Securicor. (6) Includes £472,312.40 payment to G4S for transition installation charges. Does not include exit payment to Reliance of £587,500,000 (inc VAT) (7) Includes £545,710.27 EMDAS payments. (8) Before October 2010 extensions of bail curfews (e.g. where a monitored defendant attended court and was re-bailed) were classed as new starts, whereas afterwards they were not. This caused an apparent fall in bail new starts over the period. The period after October 2010 is therefore not comparable with the period before.

Government Procurement Card

Jonathan Ashworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many (a) staff and (b) special advisers in his Department have use of a Government Procurement Card. [137258]

Damian Green: The Ministry of Justice has 2638 members of staff with Government Procurement Cards. None of the Department's special advisers hold a Government Procurement Card.

16 Jan 2013 : Column 817W

Human Trafficking: Victim Support Schemes

Mr Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the (a) nationality and (b) gender was of each suspected victim of trafficking referred to the Trafficking Victim Support Scheme operated by the Salvation Army in December 2012; in which local authority area each of the suspected victims was found; and which agency referred each case to the scheme. [136890]

Mrs Grant: In December 2012, there were 40 referrals to the Government-funded support service for adult victims of human trafficking in England and Wales administered by The Salvation Army. In the interests of victim safety the region in which the victim was encountered is provided rather than the local authority. Details are provided in the following table:

NationalityGenderRegionReferring agency

Albanian

Female

Yorkshire

Legal representative

Albanian

Female

West Midlands

UKBA

Albanian

Female

South East

NGO

Albanian

Female

North East

Police

British

Female

South

Legal representative

Bulgarian

Male

Yorkshire

Social services

Cameroon

Female

East

Prison Service

Chinese

Male

South West

Legal representative

Chinese

Female

South

UKBA

Ghanaian

Female

South East

Police

Ghanaian

Female

South

NGO

Hungarian

Female

North West

Police

Hungarian

Female

Yorkshire

NGO

Hungarian

Female

West Midlands

Police

Iranian

Female

South

UKBA

Kenyan

Female

South East

UKBA

Latvian

Male

Yorkshire

Police

Nigerian

Female

Yorkshire

UKBA

Nigerian

Female

South

UKBA

Nigerian

Female

South

Counselling Service

Nigerian

Female

South East

Self-referral

Nigerian

Female

South East

UKBA

Nigerian

Female

West Midlands

UKBA

Nigerian/Liberian

Female

South East

Self-referral

Polish

Female

Yorkshire

Police

Polish

Male

West Midlands

Police

Romanian

Female

West Midlands

Police

Romanian

Female

West Midlands

Police

Romanian

Male

Wales

The Salvation Army

    

Romanian

Female

Wales

The Salvation Army

Romanian

Female

North West

Police

Sierra Leone

Female

North East

Prison Service

Slovakian

Male

North East

The Salvation Army

Slovakian

Male

North East

The Salvation Army

16 Jan 2013 : Column 818W

Slovakian

Female

North East

Police

Slovakian

Female

South East

Social Services

Slovakian

Male

East

Police

Sri Lankan

Male

South

Legal representative

Togolese

Male

West Midlands

NGO

Ugandan

Female

South East

Solicitor

Press: Subscriptions

Jonathan Ashworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how much his Department spent on newspapers and periodicals in 2011-12; [137278]

(2) pursuant to the answer of 31 October 2012, Official Report, column 280W, on press subscriptions, how much his Department has spent on subscriptions since May 2010. [137294]

Mrs Grant: The Ministry of Justice's press office buys national newspapers on a daily basis. Library and Information Service purchases publications for the judiciary, courts, tribunals, and for the Ministry of Justice and Royal Courts of Justice libraries. The same account codes are used for the purchase of books as well as newspapers and periodicals. There is no central record of any subscriptions held by other business units. A complete answer to these questions cannot therefore be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

Prisoners: Foreign Nationals

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many foreign national prisoners have been held in each prison in England and Wales in each of the last five years; and in each such case what was the country of origin and offence committed. [136459]

Jeremy Wright: As of 30 June of each year from 2009 to 2012 and for England and Wales, table A provides information on the number of foreign national prisoners held in each prison; table B on foreign national prisoners by nationality and table C on foreign national prisoners by offence group.

These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Table A: Foreign national prisoners by prison establishment, as of 30 June of each year, England and Wales
 20082009201020112012

Altcourse

85

114

92

66

38

Ashfield

33

18

29

41

28

Ashwell

58

19

5

Askham Grange

5

2

1

3

4

Aylesbury

61

63

78

74

68

Bedford

105

105

102

94

92

Belmarsh

224

176

174

157

198

Birmingham

214

196

236

199

190

Blantyre House

2

2

Blundeston

106

77

83

47

40

Brinsford

37

37

52

48

56

16 Jan 2013 : Column 819W

Bristol

64

58

55

55

73

Brixton

239

285

240

247

83

Bronzefield

129

98

150

124

112

Buckley Hall

25

21

4

4

6

Bullingdon

161

141

147

149

146

Bullwood Hall

199

221

217

213

212

Bure

61

58

68

Canterbury

288

281

279

294

294

Cardiff

72

60

58

40

38

Channings Wood

49

18

5

12

45

Chelmsford

131

90

88

89

82

Coldingley

62

20

18

30

30

Cookham Wood

2

6

13

18

14

Dartmoor

39

68

68

40

21

Deerbolt

20

10

15

11

6

Doncaster

110

80

112

79

103

Dorchester

18

14

16

18

15

Dovegate

117

97

98

83

77

Dover IRC

300

307

304

268

295

Downview

71

79

69

79

91

Drake Hall

60

44

41

93

60

Durham

62

94

58

28

33

East Sutton Park

8

5

4

5

1

Eastwood Park

32

45

35

32

29

Edmunds Hill

78

90

86

86

Elmley (Sheppey cluster)

150

145

162

169

161

Erlestoke

58

11

16

7

13

Everthorpe

29

9

11

7

16

Exeter

29

27

38

34

21

Featherstone

73

67

57

50

47

Feltham

149

180

140

149

151

Ford

65

62

44

35

29

Forest Bank

104

88

99

64

50

Foston Hall

26

8

13

30

26

Frankland

39

47

56

56

62

Full Sutton

57

45

55

73

73

Garth

49

54

57

67

66

Gartree

43

62

83

89

109

Glen Parva

80

55

65

55

79

Gloucester

26

21

33

26

27

Grendon

14

24

20

1

11

Guys Marsh

58

89

66

47

47

Haslar IRC

143

149

112

130

137

Hatfield

4

3

4

8

5

Haverigg

20

17

111

70

40

Hewell(1)

183

170

189

143

157

High Down

231

223

224

232

190

Highpoint (North and South)

200

177

190

300

195

Hindley

17

12

9

18

13

Hollesley Bay

9

8

11

5

4

Holloway

159

133

121

171

172

Holme House

62

27

31

37

51

Hull

58

75

72

69

52

Huntercombe

56

39

11

6

291

16 Jan 2013 : Column 820W

Isis(2)

53

108

Isle of Wight(3)

226

216

220

197

199

Kennet

16

6

2

4

3

Kingston

14

18

14

335

22

Kirkham

5

7

5

5

9

Kirklevington Grange

4

2

1

Lancaster

5

1

5

Lancaster Farms

22

18

18

14

19

Latchmere House

12

5

5

5

Leeds

90

113

92

94

92

Leicester

69

71

69

57

58

Lewes

100

60

51

54

70

Leyhill

35

22

26

31

22

Lincoln

71

85

77

78

83

Lindholme

135

254

289

320

95

Littlehey

106

110

137

173

217

Liverpool

126

144

113

75

79

Long Lartin

58

82

83

85

86

Low Newton

21

15

8

6

6

Lowdham Grange

101

105

125

121

101

Maidstone

95

242

236

186

165

Manchester

189

163

165

109

111

Moorland

38

36

42

16

165

Morton Hall IRC(4)

262

228

174

119

286

Mount

222

207

191

194

106

New Hall

38

29

28

36

20

North Sea Camp

12

4

7

90

11

Northallerton

6

3

4

5

8

Northumberland(5)

37

35

22

9

8

Norwich

90

59

84

23

96

Nottingham

72

77

69

2

98

Onley

68

38

38

99

16

Oakwood

30

Parc

41

43

40

18

67

Pentonville

367

332

298

75

349

Peterborough (Male)(6)

98

114

107

32

105

Peterborough (Female)(6)

52

61

69

46

35

Portland

83

68

55

38

34

Prescoed

3

5

2

4

1

Preston

38

37

35

64

28

Ranby

92

105

108

127

119

Reading

15

25

19

100

18

Risley

71

123

148

59

195

Rochester

58

95

127

17

63

Rye Hill

135

134

120

143

105

Send

43

36

30

29

24

Shepton Mallet

5

6

8

51

14

Shrewsbury

44

30

14

24

16

Spring Hill

6

9

Stafford

51

63

74

10

45

Standford Hill (Sheppey cluster)

31

38

32

17

26

Stocken

71

47

32

217

17

16 Jan 2013 : Column 821W

Stoke Heath

26

27

24

13

31

Styal

43

55

31

34

34

Sudbury

14

16

19

16

21

Swaleside (Sheppey cluster)

162

163

199

10

218

Swansea

33

26

15

17

19

Swinfen Hall

44

47

55

6

49

Thameside

155

Thorn Cross

1

2

1

1

3

Usk

13

18

14

14

19

Verne

369

336

308

287

249

Wakefield

55

69

67

62

64

Wandsworth

473

555

497

560

448

Warren Hill

13

14

17

9

17

Wayland

128

119

37

32

22

Wealstun

33

22

14

12

14

Wellingborough

99

110

78

130

76

Werrington

12

4

2

14

14

Wetherby

8

8

9

10

17

Whatton

77

62

44

40

37

Whitemoor

61

73

99

111

105

Winchester

53

58

65

52

50

Wolds

22

12

10

8

10

Woodhill

139

148

103

118

110

Wormwood Scrubs

466

465

445

449

407

Wymott

60

59

72

68

67

Total

11,498

11,350

11,135

10,779

10,861

(1) HMP Hewell was created by an amalgamation of the three former prisons, Blakenhurst, Brockhill and Hewell Grange on 25 June 2008; as of the 30 September 2011 the Brockhill site closed. (2) HMP and YOI Isis, which opened on 28 July 2010, is sited within the perimeter wall of HMP Belmarsh. (3) HMP Isle of Wight was created by an amalgamation of the three former prisons, Albany, Camp Hill and Parkhurst on 1 April 2009. (4) On 13 January 2011 the Secretary of State for Justice announced that HMP Morton Hall will close (having previously been a female prison) and then re-open as an Immigration Removal Centre, holding immigration detainees on behalf of UKBA. On 16 May Morton Hall began operating as an Immigration Removal Centre. (5) HMP Northumberland is the new name for Acklington and Castington. (6) Peterborough is a dual purpose prison for men and women. Note: Detailed population breakdowns for 2008 and 2009 have been scaled and also rounded to the nearest whole number, therefore individual components may not sum to the totals. Data Sources and Quality: These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Table B: Foreign national prisoners by nationality, as of 30 June of each year, England and Wales
 20082009201020112012

Afghanistan

134

139

138

169

161

Albania

173

166

154

157

188

Algeria

198

158

175

144

154

Angola

86

86

74

60

62

Anguilla

1

1

2

Antigua and Barbuda

7

4

5

Argentina

4

5

3

3

Armenia

5

6

9

11

8

Aruba

1

2

1

Australia

28

32

25

21

18

16 Jan 2013 : Column 822W

Austria

17

14

15

13

13

Azerbaijan

2

3

4

3

3

Bahamas

4

3

1

3

5

Bahrain

1

2

Bangladesh

173

180

216

228

239

Barbados

36

37

39

42

36

Belgium

36

37

32

31

24

Belize

1

1

1

2

Benin

4

2

2

5

6

Bermuda

3

5

2

1

7

Bhutan

1

Bolivia

6

16

5

9

6

Bosnia and Herzegovina

14

8

18

12

12

Botswana

3

2

3

2

1

Brazil

75

81

65

50

56

Bulgaria

41

46

43

60

50

Burkina Faso

1

Burma

5

Burundi

16

15

11

16

14

Cambodia

1

1

Cameroon

42

38

30

27

24

Canada

38

30

33

26

27

Cayman Islands

1

1

2

Central African Republic

14

16

23

23

11

Chad

1

3

Chile

9

7

8

18

13

China

454

479

364

197

172

Colombia

104

78

75

61

58

Comoros and Mayotte

1

Congo

134

110

138

105

131

Congo, Democratic Republic

40

21

1

Costa Rica

4

6

5

5

5

Croatia

9

7

7

8

10

Cuba

8

3

4

2

5

Cyprus

45

35

28

27

26

Czech Republic

53

82

83

73

93

Denmark

6

13

9

12

12

Djibouti

1

 

Dominica

8

6

15

14

17

Dominican Republic

8

4

Ecuador

13

10

7

12

15

Egypt

20

23

20

23

22

El Salvador

1

1

1

Equatorial Guinea

2

1

1

1

2

Estonia

17

25

32

30

24

Ethiopia

77

77

59

65

72

Federation of St Christopher and Nevis

2

Fiji

11

10

6

4

5

Finland

4

4

3

3

5

France

159

157

149

132

110

16 Jan 2013 : Column 823W

French Guiana

2

2

3

4

3

French Southern Territories

1

1

Gabon

1

2

1

1

Gambia

42

52

58

57

54

Georgia

18

17

9

12

8

Germany

101

95

94

96

68

Ghana

233

181

141

118

139

Gibraltar

2

2

4

4

Greece

21

23

15

9

18

Grenada

15

15

17

16

8

Guatemala

3

2

3

9

6

Guinea

19

19

11

16

21

Guinea/Bissau

1

2

1

Guyana

45

41

34

25

26

Haiti

2

1

1

1

Honduras

1

1

1

Hong Kong

4

9

Hungary

36

38

47

41

40

Iceland

1

India

343

344

329

364

426

Indonesia

1

2

1

Iran

207

208

197

212

214

Iraq

283

284

234

183

202

Irish Republic

657

627

681

736

737

Israel

32

32

43

47

34

Italy

77

73

94

93

89

Ivory Coast

39

39

31

30

30

Jamaica

1176

1,055

942

837

900

Japan

1

1

1

1

5

Jordan

5

7

4

6

3

Kazakhstan

9

2

2

1

4

Kenya

73

65

62

56

52

Kiribati

2

1

1

1

1

Korea, DPR (North Korea)

2

 

2

2

1

Korea, Republic of

8

5

7

5

5

Kuwait

12

7

9

9

10

Kyrgyzstan

3

4

1

1

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

2

Latvia

65

114

150

167

182

Lebanon

25

11

16

16

13

Lesotho

1

Liberia

36

27

26

18

11

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

19

16

24

24

17

Lithuania

237

308

361

428

462

Luxembourg

1

1

Macedonia

11

9

6

4

7

Madagascar

1

Malawi

15

13

17

17

14

Malaysia

40

33

39

30

24

Maldives

1

1

Mali

4

2

1

2

Malta

9

6

3

3

7

16 Jan 2013 : Column 824W

Mauritania

2

4

5

2

6

Mauritius

17

16

18

16

20

Mexico

32

25

21

19

30

Moldova

18

32

18

11

9

Monaco

1

1

2

Mongolia

6

6

5

2

4

Montserrat

23

21

17

13

12

Morocco

41

47

58

52

55

Mozambique

6

3

4

5

1

Myanmar

4

3

2

1

Namibia

3

3

7

7

6

Nepal

3

2

10

12

8

Netherlands

108

101

119

137

144

Netherlands Antilles

6

8

7

5

New Zealand

12

8

5

3

4

Nicaragua

1

1

1

2

Niger

2

4

12

14

18

Nigeria

1002

765

727

614

594

Norway

7

6

7

4

5

Oman

1

2

1

Pakistan

393

457

440

498

472

Panama

2

1

1

1

Paraguay

1

 

2

2

1

Peru

4

5

5

3

2

Philippines

21

26

24

19

22

Poland

450

523

642

722

750

Portugal

199

202

209

225

220

Qatar

1

0

Romania

193

327

380

473

541

Russian Federation

93

89

108

99

65

Rwanda

15

15

20

9

15

Samoa

1

2

1

San Marino

1

1

1

Saudi Arabia

9

15

12

12

11

Senegal

7

7

5

5

5

Serbia and Montenegro

96

77

28

32

32

Seychelles

1

4

5

3

Sierra Leone

89

76

72

70

69

Singapore

7

6

6

4

3

Slovakia

40

46

65

63

87

Slovenia

7

6

4

1

2

Somalia

445

441

433

417

410

South Africa

184

151

137

114

90

South Georgia

1

1

Spain

64

60

66

84

84

Sri Lanka

160

184

139

144

141

St Kitts and Nevis

2

3

3

5

St Lucia

41

48

30

20

21

St Vincent and the Grenadines

11

16

16

16

13

Sudan

45

39

41

40

44

Suriname

4

4

2

3

3

Swaziland

1

1

Sweden

16

23

18

17

19

Switzerland

2

6

5

6

5

16 Jan 2013 : Column 825W

Syrian Arab Republic

8

8

11

7

19

Taiwan (Nationalist Chinese)

2

2

5

2

3

Tajikistan

1

Tanzania

13

15

27

20

26

Thailand

14

13

10

7

8

Togo

8

6

7

4

2

Tongo

1

1

Trinidad and Tobago

75

61

56

57

55

Tunisia

21

18

19

19

21

Turkey

202

186

167

142

116

Turkmenistan

2

1

1

1

2

Uganda

96

79

67

65

58

Ukraine

32

29

United Arab Emirates

11

5

1

1

2

United States

106

107

90

84

60

Uruguay

1

2

1

16 Jan 2013 : Column 826W

Uzbekistan

4

7

9

7

3

Venezuela

11

12

18

16

16

Vietnam

494

564

596

472

396

Virgin Islands

2

Western Sahara

1

2

2

Yemen, Republic of

12

13

10

10

10

Zambia

18

11

15

18

24

Zimbabwe

208

223

189

167

166

      

Other

6

5

1

1

0

      

Total

11,498

11,350

11,135

10,779

10,861

Note: Detailed population breakdowns for 2008 and 2009 have been scaled and also rounded to the nearest whole number, therefore individual components may not sum to the totals. Data Sources and Quality: These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.