MPs voted today to pass the Courts and Tribunals Bill at its second reading. This legislation contains the government’s controversial reforms to jury trials: 304 MPs voted for the bill, with 203 voting against. There were 101 Labour abstentions.
Under the proposed measures, juries in England and Wales would be replaced by a single judge for cases where the court assesses that the likely sentence is three years or fewer. The plans have drawn criticism from some Labour backbenchers as well as members of the legal profession. On Tuesday, 3,200 lawyers wrote to the Prime Minister urging the government to abandon the reforms.
Rumours of a backbench rebellion have been circulating for some time. But will one materialise? Karl Turner, the Labour MP for Hull East, who has said he would consider resigning his seat over the reforms, claims that 67 MPs are prepared to defy the government when the bill returns to the Commons later this month.
The government, however, was confident that the bill would pass its second reading. As it has. A new briefing from the Institute for Government, published on Monday, has been circulating in Labour group chats. Ministers have highlighted the briefing’s conclusion that the government’s approach to “modelling the impact of reform is sound”, though the same paragraph notes that it “relies on several assumptions – some of which are highly uncertain”.
This stage concerns the bill’s overall principles – MPs voted on the legislation in its entirety rather than on individual measures. As a result, some MPs who oppose the jury reforms are believed to have voted for the bill – or abstained – with the intention of pressing the government to amend it later at report stage.
“There are good elements in the bill,” one critical MP planning to abstain said. But they added that “the government must understand that it needs to change direction on these issues while pursuing other court efficiencies.”
Some suggested that frustration with the government, and Keir Starmer’s leadership, could encourage MPs to oppose the reforms. “People don’t care about rebelling,” said one MP who supports the bill, “or worse, they actively court it as a way to differentiate themselves from Keir”.
Another Labour source disagreed, suggesting recent events had drained the bill of political momentum. “This should have bubbled up as the next big fight between frontbench and backbench. But despite the breadth of opposition in the legal sector, I don’t feel the political pressure has really built within the PLP.”
Speaking to the New Statesman podcast The Exchange, Justice Secretary David Lammy said he had spent “a lot of time speaking to colleagues” and was “confident” the bill would pass.
Elsewhere, members of the women’s Parliamentary Labour Party have been organising to ensure the bill passes. Their argument echoes that of the government – outlined by justice minister Sarah Sackman in an interview with the New Statesman – that the current system is failing victims. In a letter, a group of female Labour MPs urged ministers to “remain steadfast” in their pursuit of reform.
More concrete opposition may emerge as the bill progresses through the Commons, and some Labour backbenchers are clearly incensed by the proposals. But whether that opposition will materialise at second reading remains uncertain.
[Further reading: Will Nato split the Green Party?]Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentA Starmer government which buckled under to Trump’s pressure and declared Palestine Action a terrorist organization because a bunch of pensioners were able to get onto an air force base and put paint on jets has failed Britain. A Starmer government lacking the foresight, integrity, or courage to rejoin the customs union and EU has failed Britain. The Starmer government and preceding Tory governments have failed to prosecute rape cases, but the “cure” to reduce fundamental British liberties as a bandaid to cover up government incompetence is throwing the baby out with the bath water.