Now, before the select committee on—oh, and I still want the answer to that date, by the way—16 December, when Mr Mallard came to the committee he said these words: "I want to start today by restating the apology made both personally and in writing to the plaintiff." He goes on to say, "I apologise for saying the allegation associated with the individual amounted to rape, and that my understanding of the definition of rape at the time was incorrect", and so on. He talked about the Speaker needing to be above reproach. I agree with that. Then tonight, he reaccuses the individual at the heart of this, that he seriously sexually assaulted a woman. Now, the lawyers can help me out here. What we've heard is he was forced to back down over an accusation of rape, but maintains the accusation of a serious sexual assault. That, to me, says that he does not believe the apology he gave either to the plaintiff or to the committee. They were false words. 