It is very problematic, and I don't have any ready answer. I can share that there are three layers of problem-solving that I could see. One is at the initial lower level where it is really an interpersonal issue where mediation and reconciliation can occur, and that's a good, positive healing thing for having a positive work environment.
The next one is at what I would call the political level where the whips I think have a legitimate interest in knowing whether a member should be reassigned to different duties. There's a layer of essentially informal political sanctions that could be in place, such as taking somebody off the preferred committee meetings, taking them off the travel list, and so on. There's a range of medium-level sanctions a whip can impose, which I think are meaningful and can bring a message home to an MP.
But beyond that, there's a question of whether someone's behaviour raises the question of whether they are fit to remain a member of the House, and that to me is a very high bar to reach. But once you reach that level, then I really do think that's a decision that should be dealt with in the normal way through the House.