. >> a few days later it was by the speaker, michael martin, he admitted there was serious failings andadmitted to allowing the police on the parliament premises without a warrant and without consulting him. >> before i decided there was no one, i thought that the search was authorized by a search warrant. this seemed to me to be so basic that i did not ask the sergeant when i was told of the search warrant on 21st of november. >> on the second of december he held a meeting and found out that they knew about this for a week before the search. >> i asked the sergeant why she conducted in this manner. the [inaudible] had done business with the sergeant and to keep the matter from her immediate superiors. >> and he continues. >> i have been an mp and an area that can have difficults for years, and never has anyone come and spoke to me and said that my house was searched and there was no warrant. that's always been with a search a warrant. that was basic. and that's what i expected to happen, a warrant. >> the next witness, ed bateman , who was head of security of parliament denied giving c

head tricked the sergeant at arms into giving assent without involving her boss, then-speaker michael martin. >> don't you think you should have had permission, informed her clearly she did not have to consent because this is the basis of the difficulty here. >> i think she probably thought i was patronizing her if i did that, if -- after all the conversations we had, if i had a conversation explaining why we were seeking consent, i had a conversation explaining, if you don't consent we can get a warrant. i think she would have thought i was -- i think she would have looked -- >> excuse me. it's not a question of her not understanding what consent meant. it was a question of her understanding that she did not have give that consent and that indeed you would go and apply for a warrant. it's nothing to do with patronizing her, it's informing her of the facts which clearly you didn't do, as she said, for forever reason. >> my understanding is that she knew she did not have to consent. a conversation we had led me to believe that. >> led you to believe that, but you did not have to tell -- you d

charge of security at the department, denied he tricked the sergeant in arms to involve her boss, michael martin. >> don't you think with your duty to the house you should have informed her very clearly that she did not have to consent, because this is the basis of the difficulty here. >> if i could just -- i think she probably thought i was patronizing her. if i said after all the conversation conversations we've had that we'd had a conversation that explained why -- i'd had a conversation explaining that, you know, if i then said do you understand what the word consent means, i think she'd have looked at me -- >> excuse me, excuse me, it's not a question of her understanding what the word consent meant, it was a question of her understanding, right, that she did not have to, you know, to give consent and that, indeed, you would go and apply for a warrant. there's nothing to do with patronizing her, it's simply informing her of the facts which, clearly, you didn't do as she just said for whatever reason. >> my understanding, perhaps i'm not being clear, my understanding is that jill fully knew