Bercow seeks to reassure after MP's office is searched by police

The Speaker attempts to show that lessons have been learned from the Damian Green affair, telling MPs that he "considered the warrant personally".

John Bercow has just informed the Commons that an MP's office was searched by police yesterday in relation to a "serious arrestable offence". 

Bercow did not name the MP involved, but Nigel Evans, the deputy speaker and the Conservative MP for Ribble Valley, is currently under investigation by Lancashire police after being arrested on suspicion of rape and sexual assault earlier this month. Bercow's statement was notable for its attempt to reassure MPs that lessons have been learned from the Damian Green affair in 2008, when police searched the Conservative MP's office despite not having a warrant to do so. 

While reminding the House that "the precincts of Parliament are not a haven from the law", Bercow added that he "considered the warrant personally and was advised by Officers of the House that there were no lawful grounds on which it would be proper to refuse its execution." 

Here's his statement in full:

I wish to report to the House that the rooms of a Member were searched yesterday pursuant to a warrant issued by the Circuit Judge in Preston Crown Court on 16 May. The warrant related to the investigation of a serious arrestable offence.

I should remind Members, as did my predecessor in 2008, that the precincts of Parliament are not a haven from the law. In accordance with the Protocol issued by my predecessor on 8 December 2008 on the execution of search warrants within the precincts of the House of Commons, I considered the warrant personally and was advised by Officers of the House that there were no lawful grounds on which it would be proper to refuse its execution.

In addition, as provided for in paragraph 6 of the Protocol, I consulted the Attorney General and the Solicitor General who concurred in this advice. I am very grateful to them. The Clerk of the House was kept fully informed throughout, and also concurred.

The Serjeant at Arms and Speaker’s Counsel were present when the search was conducted. Undertakings have been given by the police officers as to the handling of any Parliamentary material until such time as any issue of privilege is resolved.

The investigation is continuing and it would not be right to comment further. I will not take questions on my statement.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Grenfell survivors were promised no rent rises – so why have the authorities gone quiet?

The council now says it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels.

In the aftermath of the Grenfell disaster, the government made a pledge that survivors would be rehoused permanently on the same rent they were paying previously.

For families who were left with nothing after the fire, knowing that no one would be financially worse off after being rehoused would have provided a glimmer of hope for a stable future.

And this is a commitment that we’ve heard time and again. Just last week, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) reaffirmed in a statement, that the former tenants “will pay no more in rent and service charges for their permanent social housing than they were paying before”.

But less than six weeks since the tragedy struck, Kensington and Chelsea Council has made it perfectly clear that responsibility for honouring this lies solely with DCLG.

When it recently published its proposed policy for allocating permanent housing to survivors, the council washed its hands of the promise, saying that it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels:

“These commitments fall within the remit of the Government rather than the Council... It is anticipated that the Department for Communities and Local Government will make a public statement about commitments that fall within its remit, and provide details of the period of time over which any such commitments will apply.”

And the final version of the policy waters down the promise even further by downplaying the government’s promise to match rents on a permanent basis, while still making clear it’s nothing to do with the council:

It is anticipated that DCLG will make a public statement about its commitment to meeting the rent and/or service charge liabilities of households rehoused under this policy, including details of the period of time over which any such commitment will apply. Therefore, such commitments fall outside the remit of this policy.”

It seems Kensington and Chelsea council intends to do nothing itself to alter the rents of long-term homes on which survivors will soon be able to bid.

But if the council won’t take responsibility, how much power does central government actually have to do this? Beyond a statement of intent, it has said very little on how it can or will intervene. This could leave Grenfell survivors without any reassurance that they won’t be worse off than they were before the fire.

As the survivors begin to bid for permanent homes, it is vital they are aware of any financial commitments they are making – or families could find themselves signing up to permanent tenancies without knowing if they will be able to afford them after the 12 months they get rent free.

Strangely, the council’s public Q&A to residents on rehousing is more optimistic. It says that the government has confirmed that rents and service charges will be no greater than residents were paying at Grenfell Walk – but is still silent on the ambiguity as to how this will be achieved.

Urgent clarification is needed from the government on how it plans to make good on its promise to protect the people of Grenfell Tower from financial hardship and further heartache down the line.

Kate Webb is head of policy at the housing charity Shelter. Follow her @KateBWebb.