The controversial Public Order Bill has been passed at Westminster by 276 votes to 231.

The bill would introduce new laws governing protests, as well as the powers police have to stop and search people.

It received the backing of 276 MPs, 275 Conservative and one independent Rob Roberts.

The no votes included 39 from the SNP, 163 from Labour, seven independents including Jeremy Corbyn and Margaret Ferrier and Alba Party MP Kenny McAskill.

A total of 75 Tories abstained, with no vote recorded for 31 Labour, five SNP including Ian Blackford, and Alba's other MP Neale Hanvey.

Here's what you need to know about the vote.

Read More: Liz Truss accused of 'sweeping betrayal' after PM not committed to pensions triple lock

Why is it being introduced?

The Government says it's to stop protests such as those by Extinction Rebellion that are disruptive.

Former Home Secretary Priti Patel, who introduced the bill said: "What we have seen in recent years is a rise in criminal, disruptive and self-defeating guerrilla tactics, carried out by a selfish few in the name of protest.

"Not only do these anti-social protests cause untold delays and misery for the law-abiding public wanting to get on with their lives, it tears police away from communities where they are needed most to prevent serious violence and neighbourhood crime.

"This bill backs the police to take proactive action and prevent such disruption happening in the first place. These measures stand up for the responsible majority and it is time that Parliament got behind them."

HeraldScotland: A  Extinction Rebellion funeral procession and memorial service to mourn the loss of the life the planet starts outside the town hall and ends with a 'die-in' and vigil in High Street.  Picture: MARK ATHERTON

Why is it so controversial?

Those who are opposed to the bill believe it poses a real danger to the right to protest or even strike.

Who was urging MPs to vote against?

A coalition spanning human rights, privacy, criminal justice, democracy, children's rights, international development, environment, freedom of speech, violence against women and girls, refugee and migrant rights, community and faith sectors put out a joint briefing warning the bill could have a "chilling effect on our ability to stand up to power".

That included Amnesty International, Greenpeace, the TUC and Unison.

Aren't buffer zones around abortion clinics included?

Yes, in an amendment to the bill today.

The House of Commons voted 297 to 110, majority 187, in favour of an amendment to the Public Order Bill in a bid to offer greater protection to women by preventing protesters from gathering.

The move, pushed by a cross-party group of MPs, would introduce buffer zones around abortion clinics and hospitals in England and Wales where it would be an offence to interfere, intimidate or harass women accessing or people providing abortion services.

That seems like a good idea, why did so many vote against the bill?

In short, because of the other things in it.

Elements of the bill were previously thrown out by the House of Lords, after they concluded that the Government hadn't sought proper debate.

Late amendments would have given police powers to stop and search peaceful protestors without probable cause, make 'locking on' (attaching oneself to a person, object or land) an offence and allow the banning of protests.

They were introduced as part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill and are back in the Public Order Bill.

It would allow police to "stop any person or vehicle and make any search the constable thinks fit whether or not the constable has any grounds for suspecting that the person or vehicle is carrying a prohibited object", with a 'prohibited object' defined as those which could be used for 'locking on' and other forms of protest.

Under current laws that is only allowed if there is deemed to be an imminent threat of serious violence.

Anti-racism campaigners have pointed out that black people are 40x more likely to be stopped and searched by police than their white counterparts.

Other measures proposed in the bill include giving courts the power to issue Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs), which can ban individuals from attending protests.

Amnesty International has said such measures go further than similar laws in Russia, as they woukdn't even require a conviction.

Possible restrictions include 24/7 GPS tracking and the limitation of access to the internet.

What about strikes?

That's another area of concern. Clause 6 of the bill makes it an offence to interfere to obstruct major transport works, and Clause 7 makes it an offence to "interfere with the use or operation of key national infrastructure in England and Wales".

Unions and human rights groups fear this could be used to clamp down on things like rail strikes.

What happens next?

The bill will still have to go through the Lords, as well as receiveing Royal Assent, before it becomes law.