text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill - Clause 55 - Imposing Conditions on Processions Such as Protests and on One Person Protests
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  @ MP voted aye voted to enable the police to impose conditions on processions such as protests, and on one person protests, deemed to be seriously disruptively noisy.
  
  @ MP voted no voted not to enable the police to impose conditions on processions such as protests, and on one person protests, deemed to be seriously disruptively noisy.
  
  The majority of MPs voted to enable the police to impose conditions on processions such as protests, and on one person protests, deemed to be seriously disruptively noisy.
  
  The majority of MPs voted not to suggest that the chance of such protests causing "serious unease" might be sufficient threshold for imposing conditions. 
  
  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 insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 73, insists on its amendment 74A to Lords amendment 74, disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 74B to that amendment in lieu, disagrees with the Lords in their consequential amendments 74C, 74D, 74E, 74F and 74G, insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 87, insists on its amendments 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 87E and 87F to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement to that amendment but proposes additional amendment (a) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 73 and additional amendment (b) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 87.
  
  Lords amendment 73[4], which was rejected by the majority of MPs, in this vote stated:
  
  :Page 47, line 1, leave out subsections (2) and (3)
  
  The explanatory notes to Lords amendment 73[5] state:
  
  :Lords Amendment 73* would omit subsections (2) and (3) from Clause 55. These subsections broaden the circumstances in which conditions may be imposed on those organising or taking part in a procession to include where the senior police officer reasonably believes that the noise generated by persons taking part in the procession may have a significant relevant impact on persons in the vicinity or may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession
  
  Lords amendment 74[4][5] set out additional circumstances in which the noise generated by persons taking part in a public procession may be considered to have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity including "significant delay to the delivery of a time-sensitive product" to consumers or "prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential service", including "money, food, water, energy or fuel", communications systems, places of worship, transport facilities, educational institutions and health services. 
  
  Amendment 74A, which was supported by the majority of MPs in this vote, sought to remove a line stating: "(2) After subsection (2) insertâ" from Lords amendment 74. This appears to just be the correction of a minor error, that line was already in the Bill and it applied to list of subsequent provisions, it just didn't need to be repeated. 
  
  Amendment 74B, which was rejected in this vote, was an amendment to amendment 74, it stated:
  
  :74B Leave out lines 20 to 26
  
  Had it not been rejected amendment 74B would have removed subclause 2ZC which gave an example of a situation where a noisy procession would be considered to be seriously disruptive - where those connected with an organisation near the procession would be unable, for a prolonged period of time, to carry on activities. 
  
  Amendments 74C, 74D, 74E, 74F, 74G and 87 were rejected in this vote, they stated:[4]
  
  :74C As an amendment to Lords Amendment 75, leave out âany of subsections (2ZA) to (2ZC)â and insert âsubsection (2ZA) or (2ZB)â
  
  Lords amendment 75[7] stated: "Page 47, line 34, leave out âmakeâ and insert âamend any of subsections (2ZA) to (2ZC) for the purposes of making". The amendment relates to the technicality of how, and where, the meaning of "serious disruption" is defined. Had the amendment not been rejected it would have put the definition into primary legislation but allow it to be amended by secondary legislation rather than allowing it to be set, and amended, by secondary legislation. The change made was from "The Secretary of State may by regulations make" to "The Secretary of State may by regulations amend...", the rejected amendment would have removed the reference to clause 2ZC. Clause 2ZC contained an example of when "serious disruption" due to noise would occur.[5] 
  
  :74D As an amendment to Lords Amendment 76, leave out âanyâ and insert âeitherâ
  
  Lords amendment 76[7] stated: "Page 47, line 39, after âparticularâ insert â, amend any of those subsections for the purposes ofâ". Had it not been rejected it would have been part of a set of amendments enabling definitions to be made via secondary legislation, rather than for them to be in primary legislation, but amendable via secondary legislation.  
  
  :74E As an amendment to the Bill, page 47, leave out lines 36 and 37
  
  Again, had it not been rejected this amendment would have removed the power for a minister to, through regulations, define "serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession". 
  
  :74F As an amendment to the Bill, page 47, line 40, leave out âan expression mentioned in subsection 12(a) or (b)â and insert âthat expressionâ
  
  Again, had it not been rejected this amendment would have removed powers for ministers to define terms through regulations. 
  
  :74G As an amendment to the Bill, page 47, leave out lines 44 and 45
  Again, had it not been rejected this amendment would have removed powers for ministers to define terms through regulations, in this case to give examples where a procession is not to be treated as resulting in "serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession"
  
  :87 Leave out Clause 61
  
  Clause 61 was of the Bill[2][3] was titled: ''Imposing conditions on one-person protests'' and provided for directions to be given by the police in respect of seriously disruptive, noisy, one person protests. 
  
  Amendments 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 87E and 87F which were supported by the majority of MPs in this vote stated[5]:
  
  :87A Page 55, line 21, at end insertâ
  :â(5A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), the cases in which the noise generated by a person taking part in a one-person protest may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the protest include, in particular, where it may result in persons connected with the organisation not being reasonably able, for a prolonged period of time, to carry on in that vicinity the activities or any one of them.â
  
  This amendment adds a new subclause to clause 61 was of the Bill[2][3] which was titled: ''Imposing conditions on one-person protests'' and provided for directions to be given by the police in respect of seriously disruptive, noisy, one person protests, giving a case where activities would amount to "serious disruption". 
  
  
  :87B Page 56, line 15, leave out âmakeâ and insert âamend subsection (5A) for the purposes of makingâ
  
  :87C Page 56, line 19, after âparticularâ insert â, amend that subsection for the purposes ofâ
  
  :87D Page 56, line 20, leave out âdefineâ and insert âdefiningâ
  
  :87E Page 56, line 22, leave out âgiveâ and insert âgivingâ
  
  :87F Page 56, line 29, at end insert â, including provision which makes consequential amendments to this Part.â
  
  Additional amendments (a) and (b) supported by the majority of MPs in this vote stated[6]:
  
  :(a)
  :Page 47, line 22, leave out âserious uneaseâ
  
  and
  
  :(b)
  :Page 55, line 28, leave out âserious uneaseâ
  
  These remove the suggestion that noise from (a) a procession or (b) a one-person-protest may be such that it warrants the police to impose conditions on that procession, if it may cause serious unease to persons of reasonable firmness with the characteristics of persons likely to be in the vicinity . 
  
  
  
  --
  
  * [1] [https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2839 Parliament's webpage on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill], Parliament.uk
  * [3] [https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/42132/documents/484 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, as introduced on 6 July 2021], Parliament.uk
  * [2] [https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/42162/documents/494 Explanatory notes to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, as introduced on 6 July 2021], Parliament.uk
  * [4] [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0291/210291.pdf Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, 23 March 2022], Parliament.uk
  * [5] [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0239/en/210239en.pdf Explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, 26 January 2022], Parliament.uk
  * [6] [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0291/amend/police_day_cclm_0328.pdf Amendment paper for consideration of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, 28 March 2022], Parliament.uk
  * [7] [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0239/210239.pdf Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, 26 January 2022], Parliament.uk
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  