Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — Clause 56 — Imposing Conditions on Noisy Assemblies Such as Protests — 28 Feb 2022 at 23:30
The majority of MPs voted to empower the police to set conditions on noisy assemblies such as protests.
MPs were considering the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill[1][2]
The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:
- That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 80.
Amendment 80 stated[4]:
- Leave out Clause 56
Clause 56 of the Bill[6] was titled: Imposing conditions on public assemblies.
and provided for an amendment to Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 (imposing conditions on public assemblies). Clause 55 introduced a provision enabling the police to make directions relating to assemblies such as protests where:
- (aa) in the case of an assembly in England and Wales, the noise generated by persons taking part in the assembly may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the assembly,
or
- (ab) in the case of an assembly in England and Wales— (i) the noise generated by persons taking part in the assembly may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the assembly, and (ii) that impact may be significant, or”
and to change the provision relating to directions from:
- he may give directions imposing on the persons organising or taking part in the assembly such conditions as to the place at which the assembly may be (or continue to be) held, its maximum duration, or the maximum number of persons who may constitute it, as appear to him necessary to prevent such disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation.
to:
- (1A) The senior police officer may give directions imposing on the persons organising or taking part in the assembly—
- (a) in the case of an assembly in England and Wales, such conditions as appear to the officer necessary to prevent the disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation mentioned in subsection (1);
- (b) in the case of an assembly in Scotland, such conditions as to the place at which the assembly may be (or continue to be) held, its maximum duration, or the maximum number of persons who may constitute it, as appear to the officer necessary to prevent the disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b).
The Public Order Bill had previously[7] enabled the police to set directions for protests where:
- (a)it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or
- (b)the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do,
The provisions went on to provide for interpretation, and powers for ministers to make regulations on interpretation. A further clause included:
- (2A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(ab)(i), the noise generated by persons taking part in an assembly may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the assembly if—
- (a) it may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness with the characteristics of persons likely to be in the vicinity, or
- (b) it may cause such persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress.
The explanatory notes to the rejected amendment[5] stated:
- Lords Amendment 80* would remove Clause 56 which amends section 14 of the 1986 Act to broaden the range of circumstances in which conditions can be imposed on a public assembly in England and Wales, allow for any type of condition to be imposed on such a public assembly, and provide the Secretary of State a power to make provision about the meaning of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public assembly”.
--
- [1] Parliament's webpage on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Parliament.uk
- [2] Explanatory notes to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Parliament.uk
- [3] Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, as introduced on 12 May 2021, Parliament.uk
- [4] Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, 26 January 2022, Parliament.uk
- [5] Explanatory notes to Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, 26 January 2022, Parliament.uk
- [6] Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, as introduced to the House of Lords on 6 July 2021, Parliament.uk
- [7] Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, as at 1 October 2008 (as it was before the amendments being considered in this vote), Parliament.uk
Party Summary
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
Party | Majority (Aye) | Minority (No) | Both | Turnout |
Alliance | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
Con | 285 (+2 tell) | 1 | 0 | 79.6% |
DUP | 0 | 8 | 0 | 100.0% |
Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
Independent | 0 | 4 | 0 | 80.0% |
Lab | 0 | 164 (+2 tell) | 0 | 83.4% |
LDem | 0 | 12 | 0 | 92.3% |
PC | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100.0% |
SDLP | 0 | 2 | 0 | 100.0% |
SNP | 0 | 38 | 0 | 84.4% |
Total: | 285 | 234 | 0 | 81.8% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by party
MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote
Name | Constituency | Party | Vote |
Steven Baker | Wycombe | Con | no |