±«Óãtv

Assistant Commissioner Robert Quick says, 'The officers explained the nature of the investigation and the purpose of the search and were satisfied that the Serjeant at Arms understood that police had no power to search in the absence of a warrant and therefore could only do so with her written consent or that of the Speaker. Prior to giving written consent the Serjeant at Arms told the officers that she would seek legal advice. Further discussion between the officers and Serjeant at Arms is detailed in the officer's statements. The Serjeant at Arms indicated that she would give her consent at the appropriate time and that she would take responsibility for informing the Speaker. It was further indicated the officer would seek consent the following day on Thursday 27th November 2008 and the MP concerned would be identified to her.'

The new committee will want to know what legal advice was provided to the Serjeant at Arms, and by whom; and, perhaps most pressingly, why the Speaker chose not to intervene to challenge the proposed search.

The Leader of the House has already suggested, today, that the next House of Commons Commission meeting will consider whether, in future, a High Court judge should have to grant a warrant for all police searches of parliamentary premises.

I have already rehearsed the argument deployed by critics of this police investigation, but what of the case that can be made for the Speaker himself? Those defending Speaker Martin may argue that the police were engaged in a lawful search, and as such they were acting on the authority of the House itself and pursuing the House's will. Since the police were enforcing the law, they do not represent a threat to the integrity of the legislature by pursuing their investigation inside parliamentary premises.

If that argument goes through, defenders of the Speaker could side-step the much-repeated comparison with Speaker Lenthall's challenge to the King's men as a false analogy. The police should not be portrayed as modern-day usurpers of parliamentary authority in the style of Charles I. Today's police are law enforcement agents, and if any historical analogy is to be drawn, the police are surely on the side of Parliament, not against it, to the extent that they are investigating a breach of the law in a manner that complies with the law.

Furthermore, had the Speaker insisted on a warrant, it seems almost certain that such a warrant would have been provided by a magistrate -- three related warrants had already been obtained by the police investigating this case -- and the search would have gone ahead. In other words, no one appears to be suggesting that the Speaker should, or could, have done any more than seek an additional piece of easily-obtainable legal documentation before permitting a search.

As it stands, the Speaker's personal authority seems to have suffered a severe blow, with some MPs calling for him to resign and others expressing their lack of confidence in him.