The second thing I want to bring to the House's attention is that Mr Mallard intended on pleading truth to the defamation claim. On 10 June 2019, the plaintiff, through his lawyers, wrote to Mr Mallard. He asked for the release of an apology to him. He asked for the apology to be read by Mr Mallard to the House. He asked for the payment of damages, and he asked for an undertaking that Mr Mallard would not make any more defamatory statements. Mr Mallard refused. On 24 June, he wrote back. He refused to publish an apology. He refused to pay damages. He claimed his statements were either truth or honest opinion or covered by qualified privilege. Let me be clear about what that means: Mr Mallard said he intended to prove, in court, the plaintiff was a rapist. He intended to do this knowing it was false. Remember, as I've just said, Mr Mallard was told by the general manager the complaint was not about rape, and Mr Mallard told us last year he knew he'd made a mistake within probably 24 hours. So, even though Mr Mallard knew he was wrong, knew he'd made a mistake, in June 2019 he was planning on actually proving the person he defamed was a rapist. The consequences of this are severe. Mr Mallard was either planning on misleading the court or he has misled Parliament. These are not the actions of someone fit to be Speaker.