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
Parliament voted on 10 March 2026 to give the Courts and Tribunals Bill its second reading (the stage at which the House approves a bill's general principles), defeating a Conservative reasoned amendment that sought to block the bill's progress. The reasoned amendment, which argued against the bill's removal of defendants' right to elect jury trial, was defeated by 311 votes to 203. The bill therefore cleared its second reading and will proceed to further scrutiny. The bill's central and most contested provision establishes a new Crown Court Bench Division, under which cases likely to attract a custodial sentence of up to three years would be heard by a judge sitting alone rather than a jury. The government argues this is necessary to reduce Crown Court backlogs and will cut trial times by at least 20 per cent, according to Sir Brian Leveson's independent review. The practical effect is that defendants charged with mid-range offences classified as triable either way (meaning they can be heard in either a magistrates' court or the Crown Court) would lose their existing right to choose a jury trial. Critics contend this erodes a centuries-old safeguard, and several MPs raised concerns about disproportionate effects on defendants from ethnic minority backgrounds. The vote divided along largely party lines. All 106 voting Conservatives and all 63 voting Liberal Democrats supported the blocking amendment, as did Reform UK, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and most independents. Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs provided the bulk of the no votes, backing the bill. Seven Labour MPs voted with the opposition in favour of the amendment. The bill is the government's flagship justice reform, framed around a package that includes 2.78 billion pounds of investment in the courts alongside structural changes drawn from the Leveson review.
Voting Aye meant
Support blocking the bill, arguing it erodes the fundamental right to jury trial and risks disproportionate harm to defendants from ethnic minority backgrounds
Voting No meant
Back the government's Courts and Tribunals Bill, accepting that judge-alone trials for lower-to-mid-range offences are a necessary response to a justice system paralysed by record Crown Court backlogs
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
8
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
30
12
Independent
—
6
0
7
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
Your Party
—
2
0
0
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
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