Point of order, Joyce Watson.

Diolch, Llywydd. I want to raise a point of order about the behaviour that we all witnessed in this Chamber just a few minutes ago—behaviour that one of my colleagues felt so threatened by that she had to move away from that individual. And also that same behaviour showed huge disrespect to you as the Chair of this institution, and therefore the institution itself.

I've been here for over 15 years, and you've been here a lot longer, and I've never, ever experienced behaviour like that in this Chamber. I just hope, and I'm sure everybody will join me, that it isn't going to be repeated ever at all. It is a place of work, and, when people feel threatened by the behaviour of others in their place of work, especially when it's an elected Chamber and the office of Parliament, I think it is very concerning.

So, I thank you for allowing me to make the point of order. I hope the individual reflects seriously on his behaviour. I know that you asked for an apology. The apology, I think, is owed to all who witnessed it, but not least of all to the individual who felt so threatened and so upset by it. Thank you.

Thank you, Joyce Watson, for articulating some of the thoughts that have clearly gone through a lot of people's minds and have been sent to me here on the front desk, following what was an unacceptable outburst by the Member, and I think shook us all at the time, not only those in close proximity. I spent most of the morning telling a royal guest how well behaved we were as a Chamber in comparison to elsewhere, and I was wrong in that, and I'm sure the Member himself will want to reflect on his behaviour on this day, as well as any other day.

As I said just following the event, I will expect an apology from Gareth—. Gareth Davies—not Gareth Bale, Gareth Davies—before he is called again in this Chamber. That apology will be to me, yes, but it will be for all of us, and our expectations are high in this place, and one Member failed to reach that expectation of behaviour this afternoon. As you've said, Joyce Watson, I'm sure he will be reflecting on that at this point, as well as all of us, and I will expect the apology to come, and I shall make sure that all Members know when that is received.

A point of order, Presiding Officer. It's not the same point of order.

Yes, okay then—why not?

Thanks, Presiding Officer. I concur with the points made by Joyce, and you could hear the sentiment in the thing. But actually my original point of order that I was raising was on behalf of backbench Members who are not frontbench spokespeople. In introducing the substance of the remarks from the individual to my left behind me, he made it clear that he was using the opportunity as a frontbench spokesperson for social care to raise a constituency issue on health. That means that it prevents any other local or regional Members in that area—I'm not included in this particular one—to actually intervene or to come in on supplementary questions. My question—. You may not be able to answer it straight away—I appreciate that, Presiding Officer—but I really would appreciate, as a backbench Member, having some clarity on whether Standing Orders say anything on this, or whether it is indeed just for business managers within the political groups to do it. It seems deeply unfair to backbenchers that they're not able to speak on something that seems to me a misuse of a frontbench spokesperson's role.

Well, as I said during the questions themselves, it is a matter for the Conservatives to decide on what the content of their spokespeople questions is. It surprises me that a political group would choose to have their spokespeople questions focused solely on a constituency—a constituency, one constituency—issue, and I'll reflect on that. There is nothing in Standing Orders to prohibit it, and therefore it's in order, but I think that there are many aspects of that contribution this afternoon that will give us some issues to consider over a longer period of time. Thank you for that.