Courts and Tribunals Bill: Second Reading

Tuesday, 10 March 2026 · Division No. 445 · Commons

304Ayes

–

203Noes

Passed

141 MPs did not vote

centreGovernment wonPro Justice System Reform(Yes)Pro Jury Trial Rights(No)Pro Racial Equality In Justice(No)Pro Court Modernisation(Yes)

Voting Yes means

Support modernising the courts and criminal justice system, including reforms to jury thresholds, to make it fit for the 21st century

Voting No means

Oppose the Bill, citing concerns that reforms could undermine jury trial rights and disproportionately harm defendants from black and minority ethnic backgrounds

What happened

On 10 March 2026, the House of Commons voted by 304 votes to 203 to give the Courts and Tribunals Bill its Second Reading, allowing it to advance to the committee stage where MPs will scrutinise it line by line. This vote followed the earlier defeat of a "reasoned amendment" -- a procedural device used by the opposition to block the Bill -- which was rejected by 311 votes to 203 earlier the same day. The government's majority of 101 in this division ensured the Bill survived its first major parliamentary test.

Why it matters

The Courts and Tribunals Bill addresses England and Wales's criminal court backlog, which currently stands at around 80,000 cases, with some trials reportedly listed as far ahead as 2030. The Bill's central and most controversial measures include removing defendants' right to choose trial by jury for "either-way" offences -- crimes that can currently be heard in either a magistrates' court or the Crown Court -- and expanding the sentencing powers of magistrates' courts. It also proposes to restrict defendants' right to appeal convictions and sentences handed down by magistrates. Supporters argue these changes are necessary to reduce the case backlog and deliver justice more quickly for victims. Critics contend they fundamentally erode the right to jury trial, a long-standing protection in the English legal system.

The politics

The vote divided almost entirely along government and opposition lines. Labour MPs, including those sitting under the Labour and Co-operative Party designation, voted overwhelmingly in favour, contributing 305 of the 304 Ayes -- with 10 Labour MPs voting against the government, representing the most significant source of internal dissent. Every other party represented in the division -- Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, the DUP, the Greens, Ulster Unionists, and several Independents -- voted against the Bill or did not vote for it. The Conservative MP Nick Timothy moved the blocking amendment at Second Reading, framing opposition around the constitutional importance of trial by jury. The Bill now moves to committee stage, where its more contested clauses are likely to face detailed challenge.

How They Voted

Government position: Aye

Labour PartyWhipped Aye

274 Aye/10 No

10 rebels: Apsana Begum, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Ian Byrne, Ian Lavery, Imran Hussain, John McDonnell, Jon Trickett, Kim Johnson + 2 more

Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No

0 Aye/106 No

Liberal DemocratsWhipped No

0 Aye/63 No

Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye

31 Aye/0 No

Independent

0 Aye/8 No

Reform UKWhipped No

0 Aye/6 No

Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped No

0 Aye/5 No

Green Party of England and WalesWhipped No

0 Aye/3 No

Traditional Unionist Voice

0 Aye/1 No

Ulster Unionist Party

0 Aye/1 No

Your Party

0 Aye/1 No

10 MPs voted against their party whip

What They Said in the Debate

Nick Timothy

Conservative · West Suffolk

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Jess Brown-Fuller

Liberal Democrats · Chichester

Opposed

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.

Voted No

Geoffrey Cox

Conservative · Colchester

Opposed

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.

Voted Aye

Sir Jeremy Wright

Conservative · Kenilworth and Southam

Opposed

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.

Naz Shah

Labour · Bradford West

Questioning

Supports reform but needs robust, meaningful independent review to assess impact on BAME communities given Lammy's 2017 review highlighted disproportionate justice system impacts.

Voted Aye

Karl Turner

Labour · Kingston upon Hull East

Neutral

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'.

David Lammy

Labour · Tottenham

Supportive

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.

Voted Aye

Andy Slaughter

Labour · Hammersmith and Chiswick

Supportive

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.

Voted Aye