text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill - Clause 58 - Obstruction of Vehicular Access to Parliament
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  @ MP voted aye to prohibit obstruction of vehicular access to the Parliamentary estate even if permission for the obstruction has been given by the relevant person. 
  
  
  @ MP voted no to allow obstruction of vehicular access to the Parliamentary estate if permission for the obstruction has been given by the relevant person. 
  
  The majority of MPs voted to prohibit obstruction of vehicular access to the Parliamentary estate even if permission for the obstruction has been given by the relevant person. 
  
  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 81.
  
  Amendment 81 stated[4]:
  
  :Page 52, line 18, at end insert âunless permission for such obstruction has been given by the relevant personâ
  
  Had it not been rejected this amendment would have impacted Clause 58 (3) of the Bill[6] which provided for amendments to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and began:
  
  :(3) In [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/13/section/143/enacted section 143 (prohibited activities in controlled area of Parliament Square or in Palace of Westminster controlled area)]â
  :(a) in subsection (2), after paragraph (e) insertâ 
  :â(f) obstructing, by the use of any item or otherwise, the passage of a vehicle of any description into or out of an entrance into or exit from the Parliamentary Estate, where that entrance or exit is within, or adjoins, the Palace of Westminster controlled area.â,
  
  Had the amendment not been rejected the proposed text would have been added to the end of this provision. 
  
  Explanatory notes to the Lords amendment rejected in this vote stated[5]:
  
  : Lords Amendment 81 would provide that it would not be a prohibited activity to obstruct a vehicular access to the parliamentary estate if permission for such obstruction has been given by a relevant person (including the Greater London Authority or Westminster City Council).
  
  It is not clear where the definition of "relevant person" comes from, "relevant authority" is defined in Section 143 of the of the 2011 Act as meaning (a) a Minister of the Crown or a government department, (b) the Greater London Authority, or (c) Westminster City Council. It appears, especially given the Explanatory Notes, that the intent may have been for the amendment to refer to "relevant authority" rather than "relevant person". 
  
  
  --
  
  * [1] [https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2839 Parliament's webpage on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill], Parliament.uk
  * [2] [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0268/en/200268en.pdf Explanatory notes to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill], Parliament.uk
  * [3] [https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41453/documents/192 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, as introduced on 12 May 2021], Parliament.uk
  * [4] [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
  * [5] [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0239/en/210239en.pdf Explanatory notes to Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, 26 January 2022], Parliament.uk
  * [6] [https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/42132/documents/484 Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, as introduced to the House of Lords on 6 July 2021], Parliament.uk
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  