Lord Foster of Bath:

Moved by Lord Foster of Bath

88: After Clause 19, insert the following new Clause—“An annual report on prison capacity(1) The Lord Chancellor must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, make a report on prison capacity.(2) When reporting on prison capacity under this section, the Lord Chancellor must include the available data on—(a) prison population projections,(b) projection for the supply of prison places,(c) information on prison service staffing, and(d) information on probation service staffing and caseloads.(3) The Lord Chancellor must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(4) The Lord Chancellor must publish the report once a copy has been so laid.(5) If this section comes into force after the beginning of a financial year, the first report may relate to a period beginning with the day on which that section comes into force and ending with the end of the next financial year.”Member’s explanatory statementThis new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to publish an annual report on prison capacity, in line with the commitment in its Annual Statement on Prison Capacity: 2024 for a statutory annual statement. In line with the 2024 statement, it also requires the publication of information on probation service staffing and caseloads, given the importance of probation service capacity in managing offenders with community orders, suspended sentences and on licence.

My Lords, in moving my Amendment 88, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. Before I do so, it is important for us to understand why the various proposers have thought them necessary. In one way or another, most address a concern about the existing capacity within the MoJ and the very big concern that there will be insufficient capacity to deal with the new responsibilities arising from the Bill.

Most, but not all, of the amendments focus on staffing in the Prison Service and the Probation Service. Damning concerns about staffing levels in those two services regularly appear in the annual reports of the prisons and probation inspectorates. In an earlier debate, I mentioned the concern about prison officer numbers and pointed out that, as the prison population has risen, the number of prison officers has declined. Prison officers are leaving at an alarming rate—17% each year—and half of them do so after less than one year in service.

On the Probation Service, Ministers themselves have acknowledged that they have inherited a service “under immense pressure”, and the Chief Inspector of Probation has referred to “chronic understaffing”. The Bill envisages more sanctioned early releases from prisons and an almost doubling of the number of people being tagged. That means more people to be supervised and therefore more work for probation officers. Currently, approximately 7,000 officers are doing this existing supervision work, and that number is considered inadequate. As one senior probation officer put it, when talking about things going wrong:

“It’s infuriating when some of us are being told it’s our fault we’re not doing enough and that we need to up our game, but actually the workload is sky high”.

I will give an example of why this really matters. Just one year ago, 73 out of every 100 released prisoners were recalled to prison. By June this year, the recall population had reached 13,538. That is the equivalent of nine prisons, costing £3.5 billion a year. Most are recalled not for new crimes but for failing to comply with their licence conditions. That is often because, frankly, they have no home or income, and they are supervised by an overworked probation officer. Preparation for release is minimal, and support afterwards is thinner still. The easy solution for these overworked probation officers, when facing licence breaches, is to get the offenders off their books and avoid any comeback if something goes wrong by taking the risk-averse route and simply sending them back to prison.

That is the situation now, but some research has indicated that, to effectively manage existing case loads and the new ones that will arise from the Bill, an extra 10,000 probation officers will be needed. The Minister will talk about how we can use new technology to help. He is absolutely right, and we fully support him, but that alone will not resolve the situation. He will also talk about the 1,000 additional probation officers already recruited and the 1,300 additional officers the Government hope to recruit. He will talk about the £700 million over four years of extra funds for the Probation Service. We do not yet know how that money is to be allocated, but it is certain that not all of it will be spent on new staff. It is my contention that combining these measures will certainly help and certainly be welcome, but they seem unlikely to meet current and new demands combined. As I said at Second Reading, I therefore fear that we will not have the means in either the Prison Service or the Probation Service to achieve the ends.

That is the context of the amendments in this group, which fall into two categories. The first consists of amendments which call for regular reports on capacity issues. The second consists of amendments that, in effect, would prevent the main measures in the Bill being enacted until proof of adequate capacity to deliver them, or that they will deliver what is intended, is provided.

In the first category, reports on capacity issues, my Amendment 88 serves as a clear illustration. It would require an annual report from the Lord Chancellor on prison population predictions, projections of the supply of new prison places, information on Prison Service staffing and information on Probation Service staffing and case loads.

Such reports have been produced from time to time. Indeed, there was one last year, but that report had something additional within in it. It included a very specific commitment by this Government that there would be a statutory requirement for similar reports on an annual basis. I confess that I was surprised not to see that commitment appear in the Bill. I hope the Minister will assure me that the Government are still committed to this type of annual capacity report on a statutory basis, that its failure to be included in the Bill was an oversight, and that he is grateful to me for giving them the opportunity to rectify the oversight. I hope, therefore, that he will support the amendment.

I hope the Minister will look equally favourably on other amendments in this group calling for reports. My noble friend Lady Hamwee has Amendment 110ZB, on an annual report on the availability in prisons of education and vocational provision, and the training of staff to deliver them. My noble friend Lady Hamwee, in conjunction with my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has Amendment 139A, on a report on resources for the Probation Service, including regional resources, and their Amendment 153 is on a report about the operability of the driving prohibition provisions in the Bill. My own Amendment 110ZB is on an annual report looking specifically at Probation Service resources to implement electronic monitoring or tagging provisions.

Finally, and very importantly, given the announcements yesterday on the removal of trial by jury in certain circumstances, Amendment 93 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames would require the Secretary of State to undertake and then publish an assessment of the potential merit of removing the cap on sitting days in Crown Courts in relation to sentencing hearings. My noble friend will talk about this amendment and why it is a better way forward than yesterday’s proposal to reduce trials by jury. I point out only that the need for some action is urgent. Crown Courts are facing a record backlog, with more than 78,000 cases waiting to be completed. Unless something is done, a suspect charged today can expect a trial in late 2029 or even early 2030. This is clearly unacceptable both for the suspect and for the victims, and of course some of those people are on remand in prison, increasing prison capacity.

The second category of amendments is about various requirements, capacity or delivery probability before enactment of the main measures in the Bill. My own probing Amendment 137 and associated amendments are perhaps the most obscure; ringing in my ears, as I was drafting it, was the probation officer who said that workloads are sky-high and other probation staff who have reported impossible case loads. It seems sensible to get some measure of an acceptable case load for each of the different roles of a probation officer and then set a maximum, which would of course focus minds on the number of staff needed.

However, I will be the first to admit that the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, have come up with something less complicated and, frankly, more encompassing. Their Amendment 134 proposes that, until the Chief Inspector of Probation is satisfied that there is sufficient capacity in the service to deliver those aspects of the Bill likely to increase demand, they cannot be implemented. My noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Marks will no doubt speak to Amendments 153 and 154, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, will speak to Amendment 155, but I just point out that all three require reports, before implementation, on the practicality of different aspects of the Bill.

It is clear that across your Lordships’ House there is, subject to caveats, general support for many of the measures in the Bill, but there is also wide-scale concern about the capacity of the MoJ to deliver them, especially within the Prison and Probation Service. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for example, when discussing my amendment on including gambling disorder considerations within the criminal justice system when we were last discussing the Bill, said:

“The onus, therefore, is on the Government to demonstrate that the noble Lord’s well-intentioned amendments can be accepted, if possible, and then implemented. We would like this to be the case, but only if possible”.—[Official Report, 1/12/25; col. 1643.]

That is the concern that many of us have.

The Minister has offered a separate session to demonstrate his confidence in delivery capacity once the Bill is enacted, and that of course is very welcome and we look forward to it. But if he is so confident, none of the amendments in this group should be of any concern to him, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say. However, in particular, I hope he will support my Amendment 88, since it merely requires the Government to stick to their promise to deliver a statutory annual capacity report. I beg to move.

My Lords—

Can the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, get up?

My apologies—I was waiting for a colleague to jump in. Late though it may be, it is very difficult to follow that outstanding contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Foster. It was exhilarating for me to listen to it.

My Amendment 134 is on probation capacity. It is crucial, bearing in mind that I raise this as a consequence of issues raised with me by the probation union Napo. The amendment seeks to give the Probation Service watchdog some teeth. Currently, only the people running local probation units can trigger special measures and what is called the prioritisation framework. This has given rise to accusations that they are marking their own homework. My amendment seeks to share that power with the Chief Inspector of Probation.

Prioritisation is an important safety valve to stop probation units from being swamped, but sometimes an outside perspective is needed to gauge this accurately and honestly, for obvious reasons. It is widely accepted that the Probation Service is under extreme pressure—there is no doubt at all about that—and this Bill will only add to those pressures. Officers are trained to assess risk, but they must be given the space and time to do that properly if we want to avoid reinforcing the risk-averse culture that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned. It is causing so much damage to the service—damage that we can do without.

I am sure that the Committee will join with me in paying tribute to the probation officer who, shamefully, was stabbed in Oxford last week while supervising an offender. I commend his bravery and fortitude. Thankfully, he was not critically injured. We wish him a complete and fully supported recovery. Beyond the immediate harm that was caused, this incident—the second such attack recently, as an officer was stabbed in Preston in August—underscores the increasing risk faced by probation officers and the crisis of prison violence spilling over into probation. Not surprisingly, staff morale and retention have collapsed, made worse by over a decade of real-terms pay cuts while case loads have soared to unimaginable levels, and worse is yet to come.

This amendment also seeks approval from the Chief Inspector of Probation before any extra pressure is placed on the Probation Service from within the Bill. This simple safeguard should address fears that the service may be unfit for purpose or otherwise, if it is unprepared for the extra work coming its way.

I place on record Napo support for the other amendments in this group, on capacity, which all seek to place in the Bill perfectly reasonable safeguards such as maximum case loads for probation officers and annual reports on probation resourcing and tagging operations. I sincerely hope that the Minister can appreciate the merits in these suggestions and those in my Amendment 134, which have come directly from staff on the front line. I look forward very much to his response.

My Lords, I support Amendment 134, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on his very passionate speech.

This issue has come up several times, but it does need more emphasis. It is incredibly important. Although I very much support the intentions of the Sentencing Bill, we cannot avoid at least acknowledging the strain already placed on the Probation Service. If we are going to put new demands on the service, we must first be confident that it can meet them. The latest report from the National Audit Office makes it painfully clear that the service is struggling with staff shortages, rising workloads and unsatisfactory outcomes. Only 79% of target staffing levels for qualified probation officers have been met, leaving around 1,500 vacancies across England and Wales. Of the 12 regions, 10 are operating beyond full capacity, and almost half of local delivery units are now rated red or amber for performance.

In that context, asking His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation to confirm adequate capacity before we put pressure on it is a necessary safeguard. If we want the measures in the Bill to succeed, our Probation Service must be set up to succeed. This proposed new Clause would ensure that—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his kind words about it; I am a complete passenger on this—and that is why I am pleased to second it.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 93E. In this case, the capacity is that of prison officers. The amendment calls for an annual report, but, as we discussed on the first day in Committee, the wording is really only a mechanism to introduce an issue. In this case, this is a probing amendment seeking assurances about activities and the need for prison officers to support those activities.

It is common sense that activities in prison are important. Nothing in what I say is intended to downplay the work of probation officers; this is just a different focus. Activities that are “purposeful”—a word that we used a lot on the previous day—including, in particular, educational and vocational activities, are too often either not available or not sufficiently available. They would not all be delivered by prison officers, but they need their buy-in and support. I have raised this because I have become aware, as others will have been for longer than I have, of the shortage of prison officers and the strain on them. To be attractive, the work needs to be more rewarding and to have its professional status recognised.

Purposeful activity—by which I mean meaningful and rehabilitative, not performative—should be central to time in prison to reduce reoffending and for transferable skills to be taught. But we know that activities start from a low base—they are inadequate in number and, I guess, in type—and are cancelled because of chronic staffing shortages. As a result, basic numeracy and literacy are not available.

As the Justice and Home Affairs Committee report said:

“The Ministry of Justice should prioritise purposeful activity as a core function of the prison regime, ensuring that work, education, and rehabilitative programmes are protected from disruptions caused by staffing shortages. This will require a strategic focus on maintaining consistent activity delivery, even in the face of staffing challenges”.

That was one of the recommendations accepted in full by the MoJ. This amendment therefore has two focuses: the activities themselves and the position of prison officers.

My Lords, I will speak first to my Amendment 93, which would remove the cap on sitting days in the Crown Court for sentencing hearings. This was an amendment moved by my Honourable Friend Monica Harding in the House of Commons. I will then move on more generally to sitting days and the other amendments in the group.

There has been a somewhat surreal argument in this House and elsewhere about the number of sitting days, given the appalling background of delays in Crown Court hearings, particularly with trials delayed sometimes, as we have heard, until 2029, which has amounted to a denial of justice as well as a delay in justice. Our wish is to see everything possible done to reduce court delays.

That is clearly important in the context of my amendment and for sentencing hearings, just as in respect of contested trials. We would like to see more done—I have said this before—in investigating evening and weekend sittings for sentencing hearings. I know they have been trialled in part but that that has not been pursued. One advantage of sentencing hearings being held in the evening and at weekends is that, because they involve fewer people attending court than trials, there are significant opportunities for using resources more wisely. They have the advantage of not cutting into the working day of offenders who have found work because they do not have to get time off work to attend such hearings, with the lengthy and difficult explanations that necessarily involves to employers and others. Such hearings would free up courts for use in the working day and court resources for trials. Certainly, one accepts that staff would have to work out of hours to cover them, but that is not an insuperable obstacle.

Another advantage of increasing sitting days for sentencing hearings is that, because they are far shorter than trials, a considerable number can be held within the space of a day. Such hearings involve fewer people attending than trials, and there are significant opportunities for using resources more wisely. For example, the CPS routinely sends just one advocate to conduct a series of sentencing hearings at a given court on a given day. There could be much more co-ordination with defence advocates and solicitors to encourage courts to try to arrange for advocates with several pending sentencing hearings in a particular court to have a number of them heard on the same day. I suggest it is well worth an assessment of how far sentencing hearings could be removed from within the cap on sitting days.

More generally, I would argue that we should not be operating a cap at all. Crown Courts should be sitting for as many days as capacity would allow to cut the backlogs. That would involve a significant increase in sitting days. The important point is that all these cases have to be heard eventually, except in the unwelcome case, which we should discourage, that witnesses abandon contested cases for want of a timely trial because they give up hope of their case being heard quickly. However, in the generality of cases, there is no saving of resources to be made by deferring trials. Delays merely make trials less just, as recollections fade and events become further apart from the hearing and the disposal. That is also true of delayed sentencing hearings, just as it is of delayed trials.

We should be doing everything we can to keep courts open as much as possible. That means undertaking necessary repairs as quickly as possible and ensuring that court staff are available and that we have sufficient criminal advocates, judges and recorders to do the work. As the Minister said last night in the discussion of the Statement on criminal justice, we need more advocates. The Government say that they are committed to solving the problems caused by the shortage, but there is a great deal more that can be done to cut delays and backlogs, which we have discussed at great length in this House. Even if the Government are right to blame the delays on the previous Government, and I believe they are, they must nevertheless themselves show determination and courage, and make the money available, to make good the shortages and bring down the waiting list. That means moving, I suggest, from a cap to a target, and not being complacent or self-congratulatory when there are incremental increases in days sat. The increases need to be radical.

Certainly, the issues should not be met, as we discussed last night, by denying the right to jury trial to many defendants, as the Government presently intend. That suggestion is contrary to generations of members of the Labour Party and Labour Governments adhering to and admiring the principle of jury trial. It is deeply disappointing to see those principles abandoned.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. I support everything that my noble friend Lord Foster has said on his amendments relating to prison population, current and predicted; prison capacity; and the Probation Service and its need for resources. I know that the Government have taken on board that there is a shortage of resources and a need for more resources, but it does not sit well for the Government to blame the Opposition for what they did in government and then not to increase the resources to the level that is needed. We have severe concerns, of which I have spoken before, about whether the extra money currently available for probation will be sufficient to meet the extra demands made upon the service by the provisions of the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Foster also spoke about the staffing of the Prison Service and the Probation Service, and probation officers’ individual case loads; he said much about tagging. I agree with him that the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, may have found a simple way in Amendment 134 of delaying implementation to make the point. But there is considerable merit in the point my noble friend made, which underpinned his case, that regular reporting is crucial if we are to improve not just sentencing but the criminal justice system as a whole.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has spoken, on her Amendment 93E, of the need for rehabilitative activity and education. That is an extremely important point that has run through the debates in Committee. I know that the Government have the gist of it and have the commitment to it, but, again, it needs the resources and the determination to make it real.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 119 on digital sentence management raises an important point that has been discussed recently in several debates and discussions in the context of accidental releases. The Minister has promised a move to more use of technology to control releases. I am listening to what he has to say. Many of us have been amazed by how much sentence management is still dependent on paper records. In that case, it is no wonder that mistakes are made. The reliance on paper records also causes a lack of co-ordination as prisoners are moved from prison to prison. That process is worse given the current overcrowding. Bad co-ordination of prisoner movements and prisoner management causes mistakes and increases the capacity for further mistakes to be made.

Digital management is also vital for efficient management of probation. In a memorable phrase, the Minister said that he wanted to see every probation officer with a computer on their desk. That is particularly important in the context of broader opportunities for more offenders on community sentences, because those offenders will now be undertaking, we hope, more education, more training programmes and more addiction support, and that also needs to be digitally managed to make sure it works. It is important for probation officers, and indeed for defendants themselves, many of whom will have smartphones and computers, to have a co-ordinated digital management and reminder system to ensure that what is planned and organised actually happens—on time and in the right place—and is then properly monitored after these activities have been undertaken. Digital systems are simply much better at ensuring that happens.

Amendments 153 and 154 in my name were also not moved in the Commons. They would ensure that driving prohibitions and restriction zones do not adversely affect the ability of offenders on probation to attend their employment, education or rehabilitation programmes. We discussed the principle of this on Monday, and I accept the noble Lord’s assurance that the imposition of these restrictions will be carefully tailored so as not to have adverse impacts on those activities. Again, a digital management system will avoid conflicts much more efficiently than a paper-based one.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. If there is a single theme in these amendments, it is that we cannot go on legislating for increased demands on our criminal justice system without ensuring that the system has the capacity and is resourced to cope with them. Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is a straightforward attempt to put the Government’s own commitments on a statutory footing. If the Government are serious about being transparent about prison capacity and probation case loads, as their 2024 annual statement on prison capacity claims, they should have no hesitation in agreeing to Parliament receiving that information on an annual basis. It is not possible to plan sentencing policy responsibly without understanding the numbers and the pressures on the system that must administer it.

Amendments 93, 93D and 93E in this group address the issue of Crown Court sitting days. These backlogs have consequences for victims awaiting closure, for defendants waiting to clear their name, and for the overall ability of the system to move cases towards sentence. Whether the cap on sitting days should be lifted entirely or adjusted specifically for sentencing hearings is a legitimate question, and an assessment of the merits is the very least the Government should provide.

Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, calls for digital tracking of offenders’ progress and provides for the sharing of data on offenders’ progress between the courts and the agencies—this is plainly a good idea, and we support it. We urge the Government to take it on board and give teeth to the new court powers. It is difficult to think of any sensible objection. If we move offenders out into the public from prisons, we need to know how they are doing. Good, accurate data informs good policy.

The Committee has also heard important contributions on the impact on the Probation Service of new sentencing and community-based powers. The Probation Service already strains under unmanageable case loads and severe staff shortages. That is why we support Amendments 134 and 137. Amendment 134 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would ensure that provisions in the Bill likely to drive up demands on probation are not to be brought into force until the independent inspectorate is satisfied that the service can meet that demand. It would also empower the inspectorate to trigger a prioritisation framework for local areas. That is not disruptive; it is responsible. It recognises that probation officers cannot be asked to do more and more with less and less resource and without there being, in the end, a serious risk to public safety. Amendment 137, again from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, would require the Secretary of State to establish maximum case load limits before commencing major parts of the Bill. If the Government believe that probation has to shoulder more responsibility, they must give probation the capacity to succeed.

Amendments 139A, 149, 150 and 152 are all aimed at ensuring proper resourcing. Again, there is the need to ensure that the Probation Service is not overloaded and is properly resourced. For the reasons I have explained, that is absolutely right and necessary.

Two of the final amendments in the group, Amendments 153 and 154, both from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, raise another important point: the ripple effects of sentencing policy on rehabilitation. Conditions such as driving prohibitions or restriction-zone requirements may be appropriate in many cases, but they must be introduced with a clear understanding of how they will interact with an offender’s ability to access employment, education or treatment.

Before I conclude, I will briefly address Amendment 155, tabled in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. This is a simple but necessary drafting amendment to ensure that Section 16 should not be, and will not be, brought into effect until the report on the practicability of enforcing restriction-zone requirements that is introduced by new electronic monitoring provision is laid before Parliament. It is a matter of basic good order: Parliament should have the relevant evidence before the provision is commenced, not afterwards.

The amendments in this group do not seek to frustrate the Bill. They seek to ground it and make it work. They ask the Government to confront the reality that, without adequate court time and adequate prison places, and without a functioning and properly staffed Probation Service, the good intentions of this legislation simply cannot be translated into safer streets or reduced reoffending. If there are not the proper resources, the provisions of the Bill will result, as we have pointed out throughout our debates on it, in the number of prisoners being released decreasing temporarily, but only temporarily, and then a subsequent increase in prisons because there has not been the necessary support for effective use of non-custodial sentences. That will add to the pressure on the prison system, with more people going into it, not fewer. That of course will increase the capital cost of building new prisons. It will result in more and more people being housed at a cost of £54,000 per year at current figures. We want to prevent that, which is why we have mounted objections to the Bill in practice and support these amendments.

For that reason, I hope the Minister will listen carefully to what has been said today. If the Government remain determined to legislate extensively in the realm of sentencing, they must also be prepared to legislate for the capacity required to make these sentences meaningful, safe and effective.

My Lords, before the Minister responds, perhaps I could ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, a question. I think that the Amendment in his name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, refers back to their Amendment 76, headed “Electronic monitoring: practicability of enforcing restriction zone requirements”. That amendment itself acknowledges that there may be differences in the availability and accuracy of the technology in urban, rural and indoor environments. This is a straight question: I am not sure whether we are in the UK here, or just in England and Wales, but is the noble Lord suggesting that the restriction-zone condition should not be brought in until the whole country is covered by the technology?

We are saying that the relevant technology has to be available for this to work. It might be that it could be done on a regional basis, but the important thing is that it is not introduced somewhere where there is not the ability to make it work.

I would like to begin by thanking noble Lords for giving the Committee the opportunity to debate the capacity of the criminal justice system. I must of course start by saying that this Bill is a necessary step towards ensuring that we have a sustainable justice system.

I turn first to Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. I reassure noble Lords that this Government are committed to greater transparency on prison capacity. We showed this by publishing the first annual statement last December, and we will shortly publish the 2025 edition. However, setting the timing of publication and the content of the report in primary legislation would create unnecessary rigidity. Our goal is to increase transparency without compromising flexibility.

I now turn to the amendments that address the issue of capacity within the Probation Service. I am pleased that this gives me another opportunity to pay tribute to our incredible probation staff, who work tirelessly to keep the public safe. I am proud to be their colleague.

I begin by recognising the close interest of probation trade unions in Amendment 134, tabled by my noble friend Lord Woodley. I greatly value our ongoing engagement and meaningful consultations; their input will continue to inform our approach. I also thank my noble friend for mentioning the two horrendous attacks on our probation staff in Preston and Oxford. These are fine public servants who turn up to work to protect the public; they, and all probation staff, should not be in fear of their safety. I send both my colleagues best wishes for their recovery.

We recognise HM Inspectorate of Probation as a key stakeholder and value its involvement in implementing the provisions of this Bill, but it is important to preserve its independence as an inspectorate. This amendment risks shifting the inspectorate towards a regulatory role, compromising its independent scrutiny.

While we are sympathetic to Amendment 139A, we fear it would duplicate existing reporting mechanisms and risk delaying measures in the Bill that would themselves improve probation capacity. We already have strong and independent scrutiny, and ensure transparency on probation case loads and staffing through various publications. For example, HMPPS publishes quarterly reports covering probation staffing and case loads.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, noted, the National Audit Office has conducted a thorough analysis of probation capacity, and this is informing a Public Accounts Committee inquiry. However, a further statutory reporting requirement, particularly one imposed within three months of Royal Assent, would duplicate existing processes and divert resources away from implementation and capacity building. Thanks to the established analysis and reporting processes, we are clear about the challenges facing the Probation Service, and, thanks to the detailed picture on capacity that this data gives us, we are taking swift, targeted action.

As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, correctly predicted, I can inform noble Lords that we are recruiting an additional 1,300 trainee probation officers by March next year and are working hard to retain experienced officers. We are also investing up to £700 million by the final year of the spending review. While the detailed allocations of that money are still to be finalised, I reiterate that my priorities are clear: more people in post, digital investment that saves time and tools for probation to use.

We are starting to see the benefits of an initial £8 million investment in new technology, including an initiative called Justice Transcribe. This cutting-edge AI tool has cut note-taking admin time by around 50%, with outstanding user satisfaction scores. I have heard that probation officers are describing it as life-changing. Furthermore, many of the measures in this Bill will have a positive impact on probation capacity. Delaying these essential reforms while we undertake work proposed by the amendment would not be helpful for our front-line staff.

Amendment 137 speaks to a similar concern about the case loads that our hard-working probation officers manage on a daily basis. While I understand the intent behind this amendment, it is important to recognise that not all probation cases are the same. Imposing a fixed case load limit would not account for these variations; it would make it difficult to manage workloads effectively across the service, it would reduce organisational flexibility and it could undermine the professional autonomy and judgment of our valued practitioners and managers. These top-down limits could therefore potentially lead to unintended delays and bottlenecks, and would serve only to mask the capacity problems I am working to resolve.

On Amendment 119, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the Probation Service already uses digital systems to effectively manage those under probation supervision, but there is a lot more to do here, especially using AI. I believe that its potential is massive.

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for Amendments 153 and 154, which give me the chance to discuss one of my favourite subjects: the rehabilitation of offenders. Supporting offenders to rehabilitate and stopping the cycle of reoffending is a vital part of ensuring that the new restrictive conditions protect victims. All restrictive measures must accommodate rehabilitative aims such as employment. That way, we will better protect not just a single victim but all victims. So, where there is a rehabilitative purpose, such as driving for employment, practitioners will have the ability to grant permission for this. Restriction zones will be developed to ensure that an offender can access rehabilitative activities, including employment, while, of course, also considering the victim’s needs.

Electronic monitoring is the subject of Amendment 155, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and Amendments 93D and 110ZB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. This is a vital tool for managing offenders in the community, and there will be a significant uplift in tagging alongside the provisions in this Bill. Where appropriate, electronic monitoring will be applied to support monitoring and compliance with restriction zones. When a restriction zone is not electronically monitored, the Probation Service will monitor offenders’ behaviour and any potential breach. They will have a suite of options available to them to respond to breaches if they identify that offenders have not complied—for example, through police intelligence or victim concerns. Our professionally trained staff are experts in this specialist work, but we do not feel that a report on the practicality of enforcing restriction zones is necessary.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her Amendment 93E. We share the ambition of ensuring that time in custody is used productively to reduce reoffending. Every prison has a legal duty to provide education. This is monitored through the annual HMIP report, regular Ofsted inspections and published prison education statistics. Therefore, a statutory requirement is not necessary. I reassure the noble Baroness that I look at the data regularly, and I challenge it when I am not content.

Lastly, I turn to Amendment 93 and remind noble Lords that we inherited a justice system in crisis, with a court backlog at record levels and rising, and victims waiting years for justice. We have already taken action to tackle court backlogs and improve court productivity. For this financial year, we are funding a record 111,250 Crown Court sitting days to deliver swifter justice for victims—over 5,000 more than the previous Government funded last year. This will mean that more trials and hearings can be heard, tackling the backlog of cases. However, even at maximum capacity, sitting days alone cannot solve the backlog. We need to do things differently. This is why we need fundamental reform, not piecemeal measures.

The previous Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to lead an independent review of the criminal courts. We are considering its recommendations carefully before legislating where necessary. This amendment seeks to require an assessment of introducing uncapped Crown Court sitting days for sentencing hearings. However, listing decisions are a judicial function, not an executive one. It is essential to preserve judicial independence in managing court business. Introducing a statutory requirement in this area could be seen as government influencing judicial listing decisions, which would compromise that principle.

I am grateful to noble Lords for bearing with me. I hope I have reassured them about the seriousness with which this Government are taking the issue of capacity. I reiterate my offer to meet with noble Lords before Report.

Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who has spotted a drafting error in the Bill and sought to correct it through Amendment 103. He clearly has a bright future in legislative drafting ahead of him. I confirm that the Government accept that this amendment is needed and will not oppose it if the noble Lord wishes to move it formally.

My Lords, I reassure the Committee that I will formally move Amendment 103 at a later stage. I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate, which has clearly illustrated my main contention that there are many welcome provisions in this Bill but they are unlikely to be delivered unless we address the serious capacity crisis within the MoJ and in particular within HM Prison and Probation Service.

My biggest concern about the Minister’s response, for which I am grateful, relates to my first amendment, Amendment 88, which seeks to give the Government an opportunity to put into practice a commitment that they made at an earlier stage to have a statutory report on capacity every year. The Minister has just said to us that he is not prepared to accept that amendment, whereas I had hoped that he would thank me for drawing attention to the fact that the Government had forgotten something that they had meant to put in the Bill. Instead, he has told us that he is against having a statutory report, because it provides a lack of flexibility.

Therefore, I shall read to the Minister his own Answer to a Parliamentary Question on 20 March 2025, when he said:

“The Government has committed to legislating to make laying the Annual Statement on Prison Capacity before Parliament a statutory requirement in the future, when parliamentary time allows”.

I provided the parliamentary time, but the Minister has not taken it up. Rest assured, I shall return at a later stage to give him another opportunity to accept the commitment that his Government have made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 88 withdrawn.