Courts and Tribunals Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading
203Ayes
311Noes
Defeated · majority 108 · Government won134 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 203 · No 311 · DNV 134 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
On 10 March 2026, MPs voted on a reasoned amendment -- a procedural motion used to argue that a bill should not proceed -- to the Courts and Tribunals Bill at its Second Reading (the first major parliamentary debate on a bill's principles). The amendment, put forward by opposition parties, sought to block the bill from advancing any further. It was defeated by 311 votes to 203, meaning the bill was allowed to proceed to the next stage of parliamentary scrutiny. The defeat of the amendment clears the way for the Courts and Tribunals Bill to continue through Parliament. The bill is the government's response to a record backlog of around 80,000 cases in the criminal courts, with some trials reportedly listed as far ahead as 2030. For victims waiting for justice and defendants whose cases remain unresolved, the bill represents a potential acceleration of court processes. Blocking it at this stage would have halted those reforms entirely, keeping the current system in place. The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs voted overwhelmingly to reject the amendment and let the bill proceed, with only 7 Labour MPs voting to block it. Conservatives (106 votes), Liberal Democrats (63), and a range of smaller parties including Reform UK, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens all backed the amendment. The same day, the bill itself passed its Second Reading by 304 votes to 203, confirming cross-party opposition to the legislation's principles even as the government secured its passage.
Voting Aye meant
Support blocking the Courts and Tribunals Bill, opposing changes to the criminal justice system including potential reductions in jury trial eligibility
Voting No meant
Support allowing the Courts and Tribunals Bill to proceed, backing government reforms to modernise courts and tribunals while retaining jury trials as a cornerstone of justice
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
7
281
73
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
106
0
10
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
63
0
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
30
12
Independent
—
7
0
6
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
6
0
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
3
0
2
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Your Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Bill reform is essential to protect juries and deliver swift justice by establishing judge-alone trials for cases under 3 years, removing election rights for either-way offences, and increasing magistrates' sentencing powers, supported by £2.78bn investment.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (4,336 words) →
Bill attacks an ancient constitutional right without mandate, consultation, or evidence; jury trial restrictions will save only 1-2% of court time while judges will require lengthy reasons for convictions, politicising the judiciary and undermining public confidence.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (3,719 words) →
While the backlog crisis is real, juries are not the problem; inefficiencies, crumbling infrastructure, and failed contracts are; the Bill was not in Labour's manifesto and extended sitting hours or other efficiency measures would be more effective.Liberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,010 words) →
Supports investment but key provisions on jury trials, magistrates' powers, and appeals restrictions are unworkable and unjust; will abstain if offered seat on Public Bill Committee to push amendments removing 'worst parts'.Labour · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (1,340 words) →
Backlog crisis requires structural change; supports judge-alone trials and removal of election rights as necessary, but concerned magistrates courts lack capacity and legal aid threshold creates access-to-justice risks needing government attention.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,650 words) →
As experienced barrister, jury trial is precious institution uniting all politics, safeguards against oppression, and most potent weapon against injustice; now is the wrong time to undermine public institutions under attack.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (868 words) →
Government selectively adopted Leveson recommendations to restrict jury trials rather than adopt alternative efficiency measures; Bill's requirement for judges to give detailed reasons will increase appeals and create appeal burden.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (312 words) →
Supports reform but needs robust, meaningful independent review to assess impact on BAME communities given Lammy's 2017 review highlighted disproportionate justice system impacts.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (104 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0