Crime and Immigration: 5 Burning Questions

When Andy Burnham becomes Prime Minister, he will face tough decisions in every area of domestic policy. Here are five key questions the MP for Makerfield will have to find answers to on crime, policing and immigration:

1  Prisons: will sex offenders and domestic abusers be released early?

2  Courts: how will backlogs be cut if reforms to jury trials are scrapped? 

3  Police: will forces be merged?

4  Immigration: what concessions will there be on plans to tighten settlement rights?

5  Asylum: where will claimants be housed once hotels are no longer used?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1  Prisons: will sex offenders and domestic abusers be released early?

This is arguably the most politically hazardous area of criminal justice policy facing the new Prime Minister. Under changes designed to ease pressure on prisons in England and Wales, the Government devised legislation, passed by Parliament, to allow offenders serving fixed-term (determinate) sentences to be released from prison early. 

Thousands of inmates who would have been let out after serving 40 per cent of their sentence will be freed at the 33 per cent mark; those who would have served two-thirds of their term in custody will be eligible for release at the halfway point. Unlike a previous scheme, which moved the release date from 50 per cent to 40 per cent, the new rules apply to people serving determinate sentences for serious crimes, such as sex offences, violence and domestic abuse. 

The measures will start to take effect six weeks after Andy Burnham enters Downing Street.  As victims have been contacted, to warn them that their perpetrators will leave jail sooner than expected, there has been an understandable backlash. The Victims Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner are among those who have urged ministers to pause the implementation of the legislation. It is not too late to do so.

Burnham should consider, as a matter of urgency, suspending the early release measures for determinate-sentence prisoners convicted of serious violent crimes or sexual offences. Although capacity is tight in jails, with more than 86,000 locked up, there are currently over 3,000 spare places, enough, one would have thought, to ensure that the most dangerous of those who were due to be freed early remain behind bars until their scheduled release date.  Making an announcement along these lines would send a powerful signal - especially given Labour’s twin commitment to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls within a decade. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2  Courts: how will backlogs be cut if reforms to jury trials are scrapped? 

The contentious Ministry of Justice (MoJ) plan for some trials to be dealt with by a single Crown Court judge, rather than a jury, has faced fierce resistance from Opposition MPs and many backbench Labour members and is likely to be subject to even greater scrutiny if it reaches the House of Lords. There is speculation that Andy Burnham will ditch the proposal; you can certainly understand why it might form part of a ‘get the barnacles off the boat’ strategy when he gets into office.

However, it would be a colossal mistake to abandon the idea in its entirety. The Government’s botched presentation of the jury reform plan allowed barristers to craft a misleading narrative that a centuries-old right to ‘trial by jury’ was being cast aside. There is no such right, and in any case, jury trial is not being dumped. These distorted claims must not blind Burnham to the chronic problem of court backlogs which can be tackled only through fundamental policy changes, allied to extra resources and more efficient working practices. An extensive review by the retired judge Sir Brian Leveson outlined the argument compellingly, and an independent analysis, commissioned by the MoJ, set out the substantial impact of such a three-pronged approach.

The involvement of lay people - jurors - in the criminal justice system is precious and must be protected. But the reality, as anyone who has spent time in the courts knows, is that jury trials are often time-consuming and cumbersome (and costly). They take far longer than cases dealt with by magistrates or district judges, so, at a time of scarce resources, and court delays for victims, witnesses and defendants stretching for up to four years, it is only right that trial by jury should be reserved for the most serious crimes. That has to be the starting point for any discussion about reform.

Burnham could allay some of the fears about the Government’s plan by agreeing to pilot the judge-only trials initiative and promising an independent evaluation of its effectiveness before it is rolled out. He should set a ‘sunset clause’, so that a return to the old system remains on the table. At the same time, ministers ought to reclassify some offences so that they can be dealt with by magistrates rather than at Crown Courts. 

The MoJ has proposed to remove a defendant’s right to choose where their trial is heard, in so-called ‘either way’ cases. That’s a logical step. But the new PM should explore allowing defendants whose cases are heading for the Crown Court to opt for judge-only trial, instead of trial by jury, as a way of speeding cases through the system. Many people accused of crimes might prefer a swift resolution to a long wait, though in every case the victim would have to agree as well. 

If the new Prime Minister tears up the jury reform plan you can be sure that in three years time, when he seeks an electoral mandate, the bulging 80,000-strong Crown Court backlog will hardly have budged and in all likelihood will be far bigger - and we will be having the same debate as we are now. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3  Police: will forces be merged?

Arguably the most politically sensitive proposal in the Government’s bold White Paper on police reform is to significantly reduce the number of police forces in England and Wales by merging some of them. Andy Burnham knows only too well how delicate this topic is: he was a Home Office minister during the last, doomed, attempt at police force mergers in 2005-2006, when Charles Clarke as Home Secretary tried to ram the changes through. Then, the plans were scuppered over concerns about funding and the impact locally, especially in rural areas and isolated communities.

This time, to mitigate those fears, mergers are being framed rather differently. Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, says the “building blocks” of the plans will be ‘local policing areas’ (LPAs) across the country, broadly mirroring local authority boundaries, with police able to tailor their approach to the law enforcement needs of residents. Newly-merged forces will sit above the LPAs to deal with larger-scale and complex crimes, public order incidents and major investigations.  

We don’t yet know how many and which of the 43 constabularies will be combined. Mahmood has asked Lord Hogan-Howe, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, to advise on that; he is expected to report back with recommendations by the end of August. The moment of maximum jeopardy for Burnham’s new administration on this issue is when it becomes known which forces will vanish or be subsumed into larger ones. The Conservatives and Reform UK are already lining up to do battle and will no doubt present mergers as a threat to local policing, which is why Mahmood has been rolling the pitch in the way she has.  

As a supporter of devolved government, Burnham may well have misgivings about such a shake-up. During his time as Mayor of Greater Manchester, he was responsible for local policing in the city and would have worked closely with fellow mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners, who are set to be abolished under the plans. The White Paper also envisages a far stronger role for the Home Office and a new central body, the National Police Service.  On the face of it both developments appear to be the exact opposite of the King of the North’s objective to “rewire” Britain and hand more power to towns and cities. 

Burnham will come under immense pressure to water down the police merger plans - and his instincts may be to do so, particularly if Mahmood is moved from the Home Office. But this is an overhaul of law enforcement that is long overdue, well thought through and supported, in the main, by key figures in policing.  With the right leadership directing the changes and enough resources to smooth what will inevitably be a bumpy transition, Burnham should give it his backing and encourage the Home Office to proceed at pace. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4  Immigration: what concessions will there be on plans to tighten settlement rights?

Last November, Shabana Mahmood announced plans for sweeping changes to the rules which allow foreign nationals to stay permanently in the UK, with entitlement to benefits. Her reforms would mean that most migrants will have to wait much longer than the current five years to be given settlement rights in Britain, also known as indefinite leave to remain (ILR). The benefits bill would reduce, as a result.

The standard period for ILR will increase to ten years, under her initial proposals, but for those in low or medium-skilled jobs, such as social care, it will be a 15-year wait to qualify. For people granted asylum, ILR will come after 20 years, while illegal migrants and those who have overstayed their visas settlement will be permitted only after 30 years.  Those assessed to have made a “strong contribution to British life” will be entitled to reductions on the time period.

The changes will affect everyone who is already in Britain and not yet given settlement rights. In other words, if you arrived in the country in 2023, as part of the infamous ‘Boris-wave’ of mass migration, thinking that in 2028 you’d be given the right to stay here for good, you will have to think again. Some two million people could be affected.

But the proposals are not yet in force. Officials and ministers have been considering a vast volume of responses to a public consultation - 130,000 people and organisations gave their views - as well as deciding how to resolve the thorny political, social, economic and practical problems that would result. 

Even though he’s not yet PM, Burnham is already coming under pressure over the plans - on two flanks. Nearly 80 Labour MPs have reportedly written to him warning that the changes are "unfair" and "un-British" and will punish essential workers and push costs onto local councils and housing services.  At the same time, senior Conservatives - sensing political advantage from a potential climbdown - are urging the government not to soften the measures. 

An added complication is that the Home Office minister responsible for immigration, Mike Tapp, has acknowledged that the plans go too far - in an article in the Times which was not approved by his boss but shed light on the department’s thinking.  “Those who have come to the United Kingdom on care worker visas who have played by the rules and have genuinely contributed to our care system should not be required to wait longer to apply for settlement,” wrote Tapp. 

“That is the issue I am working hard to address,” he added.

All the indications are that once Burnham is installed, the Government will compromise. How many concessions are made when the final plans are announced in September will depend to some degree on whether Mahmood remains as Home Secretary or not: she is clearly the driving force behind the administration’s tough immigration stance. However, whatever carve-outs there may be for certain categories of worker, she has made it clear the changes will apply to migrants already in Britain, as well as those yet to arrive. 

The position Burnham’s government comes to will tell us much about the direction he intends to take on immigration. He would be well advised to retain the broad thrust of the plans - though a simpler route to settlement than the elaborate one set out in the consultation document would be easier for the Home Office’s beleaguered immigration officials to administer. It’s a policy that will require all of the new Prime Minister’s presentational, political and personal skills to keep his MPs on side and the critics at bay.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5  Asylum: where will applicants be housed once hotels are no longer used?

Andy Burnham inherits an improving picture on asylum - but huge challenges remain.  At around 12,500 the number of small boat crossings so far this year is about 40 per cent of the level it was at the same point in 2025, while the backlog of asylum seekers waiting for the Home Office to make initial decisions on their application has fallen to 49,000, the lowest figure in seven years. Meanwhile, removals have been steadily rising.

But the welcome surge in asylum decision-making has led to a record caseload of 87,500 appeals. On average, each appeal takes over 12 months to resolve. That’s one of the reasons why the Government’s progress on moving migrants out of hotels has been so slow: there are 21,000 living in hotel accommodation, with almost 170 hotels still operating.

In its 2024 General Election manifesto, Labour pledged to close all asylum hotels, so it’s a commitment that Burnham will have to stick to. Shabana Mahmood said this month that the Government remains “on track” to meet the target by the end of the Parliament - June 2029 at the latest.  But to do so will require painful choices.  

There are three main types of alternative to asylum hotels: former military bases; unused residential buildings, such as student blocks; and ‘dispersal’ accommodation - typically, houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) - where the majority (68,000) are currently living. Ministers have plans to make more use of all three, but are likely to face stiff resistance in every location. 

Campaigns have already been formed to oppose the conversion of military sites at Bicester in Oxfordshire, Barnham, Suffolk and Linton-on-Ouse, North Yorkshire - at the same spot where in 2022 the Conservative government was forced to abandon its own plans for an asylum camp, at a cost to taxpayers of nearly £3 million. Two existing asylum centres on military sites - at Wethersfield, Essex, and Crowborough, Kent - remain deeply unpopular with local communities.

Proposals to turn student housing into asylum sites in Leeds and Huddersfield have also run into problems due to planning issues, while the acquisition of extra houses to add to the stock of HMOs is fraught with difficulty too. The latest example was in Shropshire where Serco, one of the three asylum accommodation contractors, wanted to place 83 migrants in a new development in Stoke Heath. The Home Office blocked the plan following complaints from MPs, councillors and local residents.  Clearsprings, another provider, has identified 2,500 new bed-spaces in the south of England - but needs local authority permission first, which is not guaranteed.

Over the past two years, there has been a wave of protests outside asylum hotels some of which have turned violent. While Burnham’s Government deals with that problem - by attempting to move migrants out of hotels - it may well discover that the seat of unrest has simply been transferred to other locations.

There is no simple solution, but one way of easing the burden on communities in the UK would be to establish asylum hubs overseas. They could be used for rejected applicants who are awaiting return to their home country or who can’t be sent back, and for those whose claims are expected to fail.  Alex Norris, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, confirmed last month that “conversations” about third-country hubs were taking place. The new PM should immediately intensify efforts to get such a programme off the ground.  Sir Keir Starmer showed what can be achieved through international agreement and diplomacy - this is an opportunity for Andy Burnham to build on that legacy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------