Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. And actually, this has illustrated the point I wanted to make.

First of all, can I commend the report that's come forward? It's a difficult decision whenever such allegations are levelled against any Member and also for the individual, I have to say, who has been the subject of the original complaints as well. And I think the way in which, Neil, you've dealt with this today has just resurfaced those issues in a very uncomfortable way—and I say this politely—to great discomfort, not only to the individual, but to Members and people watching these proceedings.

But can I just say, because the point that I wanted to come to is to do with the way that we deal with this? And first of all, it should be on the basis that you play at the whistle. You do not question the referee. And, Neil, you know as well as I know that when a Member in the House of Commons is sanctioned, they not only appear there and are expected to sit there and to listen, in courtesy and in humility to what is being said, but they are often asked by the Standards and Privileges Committee to make an apology in person. I am amazed, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I think we need to revisit our Standing Orders to insist that the Member is present. I've seen it too many times in this place that the Member scuttles off somewhere to hide from this and allows somebody else to barrack a defence on their behalf. And I would welcome the opportunity that we actually revisit Standing Orders and look at both the insistence that the Member should be present and, secondly, that we extend those Standing Orders that we have under 22.10—where we are allowed to censure a Member, withdraw rights and privileges, exclude a Member from Assembly proceedings—to also add the fact that we could demand an apology if the grievance is significant.

Secondly, the power of the Chair, or in this case the Deputy Presiding Officer. In Erskine May, in the House of Commons, it says very, very clearly that the power of the Chair, the Speaker, to name and sanction a Member who's disregarded the authority of the Chair, or who has persistently and wilfully obstructed the house by abusing its rules, he or she, after generally being given every opportunity—that empty chair today speaks volumes—every opportunity to set matters right, may be named, and then may be suspended for five days, for 20 days, for as long as that house decides. In our Standing Orders, here in this red book, which is our bible, it says, if a Member, Neil,

'refuses to conform to any Standing Order or other requirement...; or...disregards the authority of the chair.'

There is only one thing that keeps us within rules, within conduct in this house; it is the authority of the Chair.

The reason I've stood to speak is not on the substance, although I welcome the findings and the recommendations that have come forward, I really do. But, should that Member not see it fit—who is absent today—to apologise, to show some contrition for what is done, I would thoroughly recommend that the committee revisits it, comes back, and revisits the option of actually bringing forward a further suspension, but in so doing also looks at the range of penalties that can be done.

I would like to see that Member here, not being defended by somebody else, but to speak for themselves and to apologise and to show contrition. Because if they don't, it is not only out of compliance with Standing Orders, on which we will shortly vote and show the will of this house, but it's also out of compliance with the Standing Orders about the power of our Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer. Disregarding the authority of the Chair. I should think there is disrespect being shown not only to the Member, but also to this Chamber here. And if we are a democratic institution, as Neil was so keen to say, then we abide by the rules, we apologise when we all do things wrong, and the committee says so, and we listen to the Chair and we accept the sanctions. [Applause.]