Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
Mr. Spratt, if I interpret you correctly, you are saying that while the Conservatives may be trying to make honour killing even more illegal than it is, they're failing because it's already as illegal as it's possible to be. With respect to the provocation defence, I think you're saying that they are taking away the provocation defence for things that maybe ought to be there, like if a Jewish person is submitted to extreme anti-Semitic language, or putting it there where it maybe needn't be there, like theft or mischief.
But I guess my question to you—other than to correct me if I'm interpreting you wrongly—is whether you see any role for any desirable change on the provocation issue, because I think it's true for that defence, that where it's been used successfully has generally been in the case of the killing of a spouse. Honour killing is all about that, so is there some change or improvement that could be made, or should it just be left the way it is?