Apologies that Mark Reckless wasn't in his space. [Laughter.] I had assumed that the Chair of the standards committee would be speaking first.

There's no notice of this event on the computer system we have here for the agenda. It wasn't mentioned as a change to the agenda by the acting leader of the house. I did get an e-mail at 12.34 p.m. with a link to an agenda, with this as an unnumbered item between No. 2 and 3. And I just want to share my concern about the way that we're addressing this. It says in the motion that the standards commissioner can't consider the matter of this complaint from Joyce Watson in May, or the other complaints relating to the same subject matter, and the reason he can't consider it is that he has already considered it and determined that, in his view, in that consideration, it did not merit consideration by the standards committee as a whole or a report. 

Now, I don't know the merits of that decision. I haven't seen the video that's been complained about. All I know is that we have a standards commissioner. I respect him and his decisions, and if he's considered a matter, surely we should accept that decision rather than complain about it and pressure him to retake that decision in a different way, when, actually, our procedures don't allow us to. So, we now look to have a different motion to get around this by appointing someone else to come in and do it over the head of the standards commissioner who's already considered it, and we propose to pay him £392 a day, as well as having a press officer coming in for the standards commissioner in future. I would just question the way this is done. I think it's important that Members and others in the justice system, as in the justice system outside, don't suffer double jeopardy, and just because a Member may be unpopular or people may take a different view from the standards commissioner on a certain thing he's considered, surely it would be better to accept his decision rather than seek to reopen it.