MPs have voted to reinstate moves to clampdown on noisy protests to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill - despite a revolt by the House of Lords.

When scrutinising the legislation, peers dug in their heels and pressed for the controversial curbs to be stripped from the Bill.

But, on the third reading in the House of Commons - MPs voted 300 to 220, majority 80, to restore the wording once again.

READ MORE: Boris Johnson thinks he is still an 'asset' as MPs plot his exit

The measures would give police in England and Wales more powers to impose conditions on non-violent protests judged to be too noisy, and thereby causing “intimidation or harassment” or “alarm or distress” to the public.

The Government’s motion also included an amendment which would require the Home Secretary to conduct a review of the new powers within two years of them coming into force.

We previously told how Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie said there is “no appetite” to crackdown on climate protesters or pursue similar legislation north of the border.

The Bill has been described as “deeply authoritarian” by Amnesty International.

The National: Police 'remove' a protester in central LondonPolice 'remove' a protester in central London

In the Commons on Monday the Government was challenged to provide evidence of the need for new measures to prevent noisy protests by Labour.

As shadow Home Office minister Sarah Jones called on MPs to block the measures in the Bill, Home Office minister Kit Malthouse intervened with concerns about residents of central London impacted by demonstrations, asking: “Where is the balance between the rights of those residents to peaceful enjoyment of their homes and the rights of protesters to protest throughout the night, as she seems intent?

“Please explain to me why they don’t deserve some kind of protection from noise?”

READ MORE: Northern Ireland Protocol legal challenge referred to Supreme Court

Jones replied: “I would ask the minister back – where is the evidence that residents have asked for this change in legislation?”

Malthouse could then be heard shouting “see my inbox”.

Jones later added: “We believe that the right to protest is not an absolute right, that there have to be provisions in place to make sure they are reasonable and do not put out the public in too much of a way.

“The point with this legislation on noise is… it is almost impossible to interpret, it is really unclear, the police haven’t asked for it and the public haven’t asked for it and there are existing rules in place to make sure that a reasonable protest can take place.”

The National: Malthouse was challenged to provide evidence of his claims residents were affected by noisy protestsMalthouse was challenged to provide evidence of his claims residents were affected by noisy protests

Malthouse had earlier told the Commons that the Lords has “no democratic mandate” to continue delaying a major reform of policing and protest law.

He said: “We have reached the stage of the legislative process where the issue at stake is no longer simply about the merits or otherwise of the particular measures we are debating today. There is a more fundamental issue at stake, namely upholding the primacy of this elected House in our constitutional arrangements.”

Urging MPs not to remove measures to curtail noisy protests from the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, he added: “The other place, I have to say, composed as it is of hereditary and appointed members without any democratic mandate, has done its duty in asking this House to reconsider this issue.

READ MORE: Douglas Ross's approval rating among Tory members collapses by HALF

“We have now done so and made our position abundantly clear. We should send these provisions back to the Lords again with a clear and unequivocal message that they should now let them and this Bill pass.”

With the current parliamentary session expected to end on Thursday, the legislative stand-off between the two Houses over the Bill – known as parliamentary ping-pong – needs to conclude before then otherwise the Bill will fall.