Courts and Tribunals Bill: Second Reading
304Ayes
203Noes
Carried · majority 101 · Government won141 did not vote
648 Members · Aye 304 · No 203 · DNV 141 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
MPs voted 304 to 203 on 10 March 2026 to give the Courts and Tribunals Bill its Second Reading, allowing the legislation to proceed to further parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill is a government measure responding to record Crown Court backlogs in England and Wales. Its most contested provision would remove defendants' right to elect Crown Court trial for offences that can be heard in either magistrates' courts or the Crown Court, replacing jury trial in that tier with judge-alone "swift courts" for cases likely to attract up to three years' custody. The vote advances a legislative package that also extends magistrates' sentencing powers, tightens evidence rules in sexual offence prosecutions, introduces new protections for vulnerable witnesses, replaces automatic appeals from magistrates' courts with a permission-to-appeal requirement, and repeals a statutory presumption of parental involvement in children cases. The removal of the right to elect jury trial is the central controversy: it would affect a substantial category of mid-range criminal cases and has raised particular concern about its effect on ethnic minority defendants, who research has suggested are more likely to exercise that right. All 304 votes in favour came from Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs. Every Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Reform UK, Green, DUP and independent MP who voted did so against, giving the opposition 203 noes. Ten Labour MPs voted against their own government's bill, a notable rebellion at Second Reading. There were no cross-party votes for the Bill from outside the governing party.
Voting Aye meant
Support the Bill's package of court reforms, accepting that reducing defendants' right to jury trial for less serious cases is a necessary trade-off to clear the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims
Voting No meant
Oppose the Bill, arguing that removing the right to elect Crown Court jury trial undermines a fundamental constitutional protection, with particular concern about disproportionate impact on ethnic minority defendants
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 Aye
274
10
77
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
106
10
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
63
8
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
31
0
11
Independent
—
0
6
7
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
6
2
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
3
2
Plaid Cymru
—
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
1
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
0
1
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 aye · 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 no · 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 no · 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 aye · 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 aye · 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 no_vote_recorded · 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 aye · Read full speech (104 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0