Courts and Tribunals Bill: Second Reading

**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.