Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — Clause 61 — Imposing Conditions on One-Person Protests — 28 Feb 2022 at 23:30
The majority of MPs voted to allow the police to place conditions on seriously disruptive noisy one-person 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 87.
Amendment 87 stated[4]:
- Leave out Clause 61
Clause 61 (3) of the Bill[6] began:
- Imposing conditions on one-person protests
- After section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 insert—
- “14ZA Imposing conditions on one-person protests
- (1) Subsection (2) applies if the senior police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any one-person protest in England and Wales is being carried on or is intended to be carried on, reasonably believes—
- (a) that the noise generated by the person carrying on the protest may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the protest, or
- (b) that—
- (i) the noise generated by the person carrying on the protest may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the protest, and
- (ii) that impact may be significant.
- (2) The senior police officer may give directions imposing on the person organising or carrying on the protest such conditions as appear to the officer necessary to prevent such disruption or impact.
- ..
Explanatory notes to the Lords amendment rejected in this vote stated[5]:
- Lords Amendment 87* would leave out Clause 61 which amends the 1986 Act by inserting new section 14ZA, which will allow for the imposing of conditions on a person organising or carrying on one-person protests where it is reasonably believed that the noise generated by the person carrying on the protest may have a significant relevant impact on persons in its vicinity or that such noise may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the protest.
--
- [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
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 | 290 (+2 tell) | 2 | 0 | 81.2% |
| DUP | 0 | 8 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 0 | 4 | 0 | 80.0% |
| Lab | 0 | 165 | 0 | 82.9% |
| LDem | 0 | 12 | 0 | 92.3% |
| PC | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SDLP | 0 | 2 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SNP | 0 | 37 (+2 tell) | 0 | 86.7% |
| Total: | 290 | 235 | 0 | 82.8% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by name
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 |
| Anne Marie Morris | Newton Abbot | Con (front bench) | no |