Starmer’s legacy on prisons and what we can expect from Burnham

Keir Starmer’s labour government needs to be credited with having prevented the complete collapse of the prison system.

The crisis of overcrowding – caused by the inaction of his predecessors and decades of sentence inflation– was so dire that at one point there were fewer than 100 spaces left in the entire estate and police cells had to be used to hold prisoners. As an emergency measure, beginning in September 2024, thousands of low-to-medium-risk offenders were released early, with their release date brought forward from 50% to 40% of sentence spent.

As a consequence of the crisis, the government commissioned a sentencing review, led by former Justice Minister David Gauke. Many of its final recommendations were implemented in the Sentencing Act of January 2026 and welcomed by prison reform charities. These include a presumption against prison sentences of less than 12 months – recognising their poor outcomes, and recommending community orders instead - as well as an earned progression model, releasing SDS prisoner after having spent a third of their sentence.

The appointment of James Timpson as Prisons Minister was seen by many as a masterstroke. Rather than being another politician with no skin in the game and no expertise, he is a passionate expert who knows more about the realities of prison than many, having supported and hired ex-offenders for decades as well as regularly visiting prisons. His progressive views (for example that two-thirds of inmates shouldn’t be in prison) could be seen as a sign that this government was determined to enact meaningful reform.

Unfortunately, this is where the positives end.

With the power of hindsight we can see that the sentencing reforms and early release of prisoners arose not from a recognition that too many are being sent to prison for too long and that fundamental reform was needed; but rather because the government simply had no other choice as prisons were full.

Otherwise it wouldn’t simultaneously have pledged to build 14,000 prison places by 2031 –not with the aim of replacing decrepit Victorian prisons, but to further increase capacity-  showing that it did not understand that building more prison places is not the solution, but the problem.

And otherwise it would have recognised that sentencing reform was needed to address the root cause of sentences that have become too long. There is no point of many prisoners early when their places are being filled immediately and too many keep being sent to prison.
There was no proper planning and foresight in the early release scheme ,which can be seen by the fact that most are now being recalled to prison and the probation service is completely overworked. It was all just reaction to crisis without a proper long-term plan being developed.

Equally, the appointment of Timpson can in hindsight be seen as an empty PR-exercise. This was most obvious when he proudly announced the use of AI to improve the Prison Service: More gimmicks and tinkering around the edges, rather than tackling root causes and changing systemic issues from the ground up.

In many ways, the Starmer government wanted to have it both ways:
Signalling to the left and to prison charities that he is serious about the need for reform by appointing someone like Timpson, but then at the same time trying to satisfy right-wingers and the tabloids and not having the courage to challenge them on overly punitive approaches that have led us into this mess.

It is this complete lack of principle - of showing no clear direction or vision- that has marked his premiership. Not just when it comes to prison, but in all other areas of government. It is one of the main reasons why he has ultimately failed.

So what can we expect from Burnham?

Whilst we have little that he has said about prisons in the past, we can try to make predictions based on what he has done during his first weeks as PM.

Let’s look at his ministerial appointments: John Healy as Chancellor (fiscal stability, more money for the military, sweeping reform of failed neoliberal model through things such as wealth taxes unlikely), Shabana Mahmood stays Home Secretary (continuing hardline approach on immigration); Ed Miliband as Foreign Secretary rather than Chancellor (avoiding the fight against the political right when it comes to protecting the environment).
These suggest stability and perhaps no appetite for radical reform, as well as an orientation more to the right than some on the Labour left might have hoped.

What about his devolution agenda?
In his final Inspectorate of Prisons report, Charlie Taylor highlighted how prison governors had to spend too much time on HR processes and not having the authority to even purchase items above £500 without the permission of superiors from the Prison Service.

Could Burnham instinctively understand that decentralising the system and giving prison governors more powers to act independently could be a way to improve prison conditions? It is an interesting thought but we will have to await developments.  

Another good indicator of future policy was Burnham’s baptism of fire regarding prisons just this week when victims highlighted that under the early release scheme many violent and dangerous offenders with long sentences would be released early this September. The fact that he halted the scheme, pending an investigation, shows that he will put emphasis on public safety and listening to and caring about victims.

His popular/populist approach might therefore be another indicator against radical reform, as the popular debate around prison tends to be weighed towards more punitive approaches and safety.

Ultimately, Burnham is a people-pleaser who finds it hard to say no.
This will be an obstacle to the reforms that are necessary to solve the prison crisis, as many victim groups will always plead for harsher sentences, and Burnham might not have the will to be disliked.

Summing all these up, it might well be that Burnham will emphasise the need for rehabilitation and to stop the revolving door of reoffending, as well as tackling the sources of crime in the community (youth unemployment, closure of youth centres, homelessness, etc.).  Yet he will not risk public outrage by announcing policies that might be considered to be “too soft on criminals”.

In other words, more or less a continuation of what Starmer has done.
Unfortuantely, therefore, a continuation of a wishy-washy approach that will not solve anything and keep us in this mess.