A Bill to Make provision in relation to criminal courts in England and Wales; to make provision about the leadership of tribunals; to amend section 1 of the Children Act 1989 to remove the presumption relating to the involvement of parents in the life of a child; and for connected purposes.
House of Commons
Mr David LammyLabour (Co-op)
10 April 2026
May contain errors — check source documents for definitive information.
The Courts and Tribunals Bill would reform England and Wales’ criminal courts, change how tribunals are led, and alter family-law provisions such as removing the default presumption that parents should be involved in a child’s life. It also includes ideas for possible judge-led trials, faster court sittings, new safeguards for victims, and specialist courts, all subject to funding and impact assessments. The Bill is at Committee stage in the Commons, where MPs are debating broad reforms and a wide set of amendments.
The Bill is in Committee stage in the Commons, with extensive amendments under consideration. A previous second-reading approval and a defeat on a reasoned amendment show ongoing cross‑party debate before further stages (Report and Third Reading).
In the Commons, the Bill passed the second reading (304-203). An amendment to the second reading was defeated (203-311). Party positions are mixed across groups, with some groups voting for protections and resources and others opposing or seeking substantial changes; Plaid Cymru supported the Bill in principle. The Committee stage will continue to test these proposals and amendments.
Generated 26 February 2026
25 Feb 2026
10 Mar 2026
10 Mar 2026
10 Mar 2026
25 Mar 2026, 14 Apr 2026, 16 Apr 2026
Showing agreed, defeated, and withdrawn amendments.
Based on 2 recorded votes • Sorted by % Aye
This Bill was debated at second reading on Tuesday 10 March 2026 and has now been sent to a Public Bill Committee which will scrutinise the Bill line by line and is expected to report to the House by Tuesday 28 April 2026.
The submission argues that the Courts and Tribunals Bill would restrict the right to elect a jury trial for offences likely to carry under-three-year sentences and remove the automatic right of appeal to the Crown Court, constituting a major constitutional change. It contends such changes should be considered by the full House and, if there is no democratic mandate, possibly decided by referendum, and that they would not meaningfully reduce court backlogs or safeguard against miscarriages of justice. Instead, the author calls for more judges, more court sittings and proper funding to clear backlogs, pointing to Liverpool Crown Court as a model of efficient resource use.
Professor Rebecca Helm’s written evidence reports on a UK public survey about jury trials in light of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. It finds high general trust in juries (around 80%), and that most people oppose restricting jury trials (especially for offences punishable by 3 years or more), with opposition stronger among those with jury experience or those who have been charged. The findings also highlight ethnic differences (notably among Black and Mixed ethnicity groups) and argue that these experiences and perspectives should be considered to avoid disproportionately impacting certain groups when reforming the jury system.
