 The next item of business is an urgent question, and I call Jamie Greene. To ask the Scottish Government for its response to the Scottish Law Commission's discussion paper on the mental element in homicide and the wider implications it has in ending the so-called rough sex defence. Cabinet Secretary, Keith Brown. Can I thank Jamie Greene for his question and also for the constructive discussion we had once he'd been appointed to his post and also welcome to him to the role of just a spokesperson for the Scottish Conservatives. We are very pleased that the Scottish Law Commission has published an extensive discussion paper on reforms to homicide law. The Scottish Government asked the Scottish Law Commission to undertake this project in light of various court judgments which recommended a fundamental study into homicide law and so it's positive to see that this progress has been made by the commission. In line with the normal processes for law commission reports, we await the commission's final report, which will be developed and informed by the responses to their initial discussion paper. I don't want obviously to pre-empt the final recommendations of the commission, but I do very much welcome their inclusion of certain aspects of homicide law for consideration for reform. This includes the commission looking at whether Scottish law needs to be made clearer in terms of the rough sex defence so-called, whether new defences in respect of those who experience domestic abuse are needed and the consideration of reforming the defence of provocation in this area of law. It's of course right that Parliament will have the opportunity to consider the commission's final recommendations on these matters when they report. Jamie Greene I thank the current secretary for his response and welcome him to his new role in the challenging of times, but this much needed discussion paper effectively opens the door for the potential of changes to the law in the most serious of crimes, namely of murder and culpable homicide. The chair of the Scottish Law Commission, Lady Patton, said that she hopes that this paper will ascertain if current Scots laws truly fit for purpose in the modern era. This is a modern era that has shone a spotlight on violence against women, on coercive behaviour and redefining how a case for defence is made by those who have suffered at the hands of abuse. Can I ask the cabinet secretary, given that his predecessor, sitting a few feet away from him, previously said that it was only a perception that the defence of rough sex still exists in Scots law? If responses to the paper make it clear that it is the law itself that is deficient, not perceptions of it, will the Government commit to legislative change in this area? I thank Jamie Greene for his supplementary question. I think that that is the purpose of the report, so that we can look at what comes back from the Scottish Law Commission, not just in its interim report, but in its final report, when it has had submissions and consultation responses, including from anybody in its Parliament, which wants to respond. There is an acknowledgement that there needs to be, and that is the purpose of the report, an updating of some of the defences for homicide and murder. There is no doubt about that, and to take into account some of the points that Jamie Greene makes about gender-based violence, some of the language, some of the notions that are used. I understand and accept that point. There is some confusion over the rough sex defence, whether it is a defence in terms of a crime that is being committed, or whether it can be used not in mitigation, but certainly to reduce the charge that is made by making sure that the murder charge is not made out, if you like. It can also be used subsequent to a guilty finding in order to inform sentencing. It is very important that we have clarity on that, which is one of the things that the support seeks to do. I hope that that will be welcome, not just by Jamie Greene, but by everybody else that is interested. I agree with the cabinet secretary in the sense that there can never be any defence for gender-based sexual violence. That is something that the chamber would commit to agreeing on. The SNP manifesto ahead of the election did promise and committed to a reformed justice system. The problem is that we have an enormous backlog in our courts right now. There are nearly 38,000 cases. The forecast is that we will not clear that for at least four years. The effects and the trauma of those lengthy waiting times are clear to the victims and their families. What urgent action has the Government taken right now to clear the backlog? Will the reformed justice system finally put the needs and the rights of victims at the heart of it? Jamie Greene will know that a number of the actions that are already taken by my predecessor and the Scottish Government previously, for example, is £50 million to help to deal with that backlog, the unusual sighting of additional cases that have been taken through the system just now. He is right to say that, of course, there is a backlog, a significant one. There is one, I think, in every developed country in the world in terms of backlog in terms of the courts. However, going back to the point that he first raised about this particular report, it is important—he is right to say that there is a need for reform here—that it is taken together. That is why the Scottish Law Commission has taken a number of different aspects of the justice system and put those together. If you uproot one part of it, you can cause unintended consequences elsewhere. It is very important that they have done this comprehensive review that it is now subject to consultation. Everybody who is interested has the chance now to make their views heard. We want to do that in a way that, when we can make progress as we are doing with the backlog, we can do that in as far away as possible and take into account the much better appreciation that there is these days for the gender violence within the justice system for women and girls. I have a number of supplementaries. I ask members who are interested in asking a supplementary to please press the request to speak button. I call Pauline McNeill to be followed by Emma Roddick. Does the cabinet secretary agree that consent to sex can never be a defence to murder or serious sexual assault? The We Can't Consent campaign noted that there were 60 cases across the UK where the so-called rough sex defence was used and that 40 per cent of women under 40 reported being violently assaulted during sex. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is in fact time to remove the partial defence or provocation by sexual infidelity from our law books to show them that, when it comes to the law, our law seeks to keep women safe? I would in general agree with what Pauline McNeill says. There are different things that she has mentioned there. She has mentioned consent and she has also mentioned provocation, which can be applied in different ways. I think that she is absolutely right to say that consent cannot be used if you are harming somebody in that way. Somebody has consented the old principle. I think that it was called the Volante that you volunteer to have that hand done to yourself as no defence. We have to make sure that the reforms that we carry out to the legal process reflect that. Yes, there is no question that it has been used by some people in the past. I think that the courts have exercised very keen fairness, if you like, in decision making powers in relation to whether they see that as acceptable. I do expect and I hope that the thrust of this report, not just in this one area that we are discussing just now but throughout it, will lead to an updating in very many important respects of the legal process in this area. I hope that that will be supported by the Labour party as well. The cabinet secretary will be aware that a person who kills in a jealous rage brought on by the belief that they have been cheated on can escape a murder conviction under the law as it stands. Does the cabinet secretary believe that regardless of the ultimate conclusions on the more technical aspects contained within the discussion paper, the partial defence of provocation by sexual infidelity has no place within modern Scots criminal law? Can I thank Emma Roddick for her question? I am not sure that this is the first time she has spoken in the chamber, but can I welcome her to her place as well in the chamber? Of course, at some of the points that she raised, they are similar to the ones that Pauline McNeill has just raised. It is a very important issue. I hope that members will understand that the law commission will prepare the final report with recommendations and deliver that to ministers. I do not want to pre-empt that consideration when the final report is provided. However, I think that there is a compelling case for serious consideration to be given in the specific area of reform. I look forward to seeing what people have to say in response to the discussion paper. I think that it is very likely that many people will hold the views expressed by Emma Roddick before the commission make their recommendations for reform. The so-called rough sex defence is not the only issue in our justice system to impact women who have been the victims of sexual violence. I am talking about the not proven verdict, which was returned in 20 per cent of all acquittal verdicts in Scotland in 2019-20. In rape and attempted rape cases, the figure was 44 per cent. Behind those numbers are real people who suffer additional trauma from a verdict that serves no useful purpose. For the sake of future victims, surely not proven must be scrapped without any further delay. I am not sure that that was a question rather than a statement, but I would say that, of course, the SNP's manifesto committed to look at this area. I think that it is also true that it is linked fundamentally with other potential reforms of the justice system, some of which I think it may well be that the member would support. It is important that it is taken forward in a considered way. It is right that time is taken to get these things right. I understand entirely and do not disagree with the points that the member makes about the way that this is badly served, women in particular, in relation to that. However, I think that it is important that we take it forward in a considered way. To that end, I would repeat my invitation to any member, whether it is the justice spokesperson for the Scottish Conservatives, the member himself or any others that want to contribute to this process, for more than willing to listen to the points that are made. For me, I want to be clear and help to protect anyone against any sexual violence, but just to be clear, Cabinet Secretary, in Scots law, there is no so-called rough sex defence. The doctrine of valenti was excluded by the celebrated case Smart v HMA 1975. The square go case, meaning that in Scotland, the claim to claim any victim consented to the act resulting in their injury or death is not a defence in itself to crimes of assault to injury, culpable homicide or murder. Does the cabinet secretary therefore agree with me that, while there is still more to be done to protect against sexual violence, our law in Scotland does not allow for the so-called rough sex defence? I thank Emma Harper for her question. It is the first time that I have heard the reference to the square go defence in terms of law, but it is a very important point, and it is similar to the one that Pauline McNeill and Emma Roddick have raised. An accused person cannot claim that a person consented to the harm caused to them, so it is right to say that there is no legitimate rough sex defence. However, it is also true to say that an accused person may seek to portray events in such a way to reduce the charge, as I mentioned from murder to culpable homicide. That is for the court to determine in a given case, and I am pleased again that the commission is looking at the sphere to see if steps are needed to make the law clearer in this regard. I will consider carefully the recommendations, but I do agree with Emma Harper that it is important to be clear what is being talked about when discussing the rough sex defence. I have previously asked the Scottish Government about the recording of data and cases that involve violence during what began as consensual sexual activity. The then justice secretary confirmed that the police and the court do not provide information on such cases that said that discussions would take place with stakeholders about how the data could be extracted. Can the cabinet secretary provide any update on related discussions and on any work that is going to be taken place to ensure that data and such cases are recorded so that we can better understand the extent of the issue? I am more than happy to provide the update to the member in writing, but given the discussions that we have just had and the reforms that are being proposed and the law commission's report, the area is going to be subject to substantially more scrutiny. I think that the fact that it should be based on relevant and up-to-date data is very important, so I am more than happy to respond to where we are just now and also to give some indication of where we intend to go in future with the collection of such data. I have long campaigned for the elimination of violence against women and girls, and the cabinet secretary will be aware of the campaigns led by my incredibly brave, determined and focused constituent Fiona Drewitt. It is vital and important that we do, and I seem to do all we can to ensure that justice is done for all victims of domestic abuse, but can the cabinet secretary advise whether the Scottish Government will commit to undertaking research in the future and whether the changes made in England have any effect in practice? I thank James Donham for his question. I also commend Fiona Drewitt's and the Emily test the works that are taken to support effective gender-based violence interventions in colleges and universities. I commend his constituent Fiona on all her efforts, in particular those that are focused on improving students' wellbeing and ensuring that victims of abuse do not blame themselves for crimes committed against them. I am aware of the work that she has done in further and higher education institutions. In respect of the changes in law in England and Wales, whereby the previous common law was placed on statute, the effect is that it is now a matter of statute that a person cannot claim a so-called rough sex defence, where as previously it was a common law practice. As the UK Government has acknowledged, that was not a new law, but as I have said, it was made clear in statute for the first time. For that reason, the new statute law is not yet enforced. It was only recently passed, but I commit to answering the member's question directly to engaging with the UK Government to understand what plans they might have to monitor and evaluate the effect of the new law. That concludes that item of business. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 00196, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a revised business programme for this week. I call on George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak on the motion. The question is that the motion be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed and there are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 144.4, in the name of Annie Wells, which seeks to amend motion 144, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on health recovery be agreed. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and we will suspend for a technical break.