---

Crime and Security Bill

My Lords, we congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, on the efforts that he has put into bringing this issue to your Lordships. I was not the holder of my current portfolio on the previous occasion, but my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford congratulated him on, ""his fight to widen the security and safety of the ordinary citizen"," and on, ""clearly having pushed the Government along the road to a certain degree"." My noble friend went to say that at that time, during the proceedings on the Serious Crime Act 2007, ""We on these Benches are, for the moment, happy with the position that the Government have reached due to his efforts".—[Official Report, 24/10/07; col. 1113.]" I have not had an opportunity to talk to my noble friend today, but having congratulated the noble Lord as I have done, and sharing his concerns about gun crime, I have a number of concerns about the proposed new clause, which seems to be wide. The term "police constable" could mean any officer, while having "reason to believe" and, ""a person … in a particular area may be carrying firearms"" are also wide. How much of what the noble Lord provides in his amendment is not possible now? Paragraph (a) provides for the area to be "sealed off". I am not quite sure what that means, but one has frequently observed that the police block roads when they need to do so. I am not sure what the implication of that wording is. Paragraph (b) talks of, ""searching … by whatever means he considers appropriate"." Again, I am not sure what that might encompass—it seems to be wide. Both people and vehicles are searched now, and we have had many debates on the issue. While expressing the concerns that I have, I ask the noble Lord if he can tell the Committee what, within the points that he raises, is not possible now.