Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, cabinet secretary. That helpfully leads on to my next question. The evidence that we have heard reflects broad support for the proposal to abolish the not proven verdict, but we have been less clear about the extent of support for the proposed jury size change from 15 jurors to 12 and the associated majority required. Concerns have been expressed that that might make it harder to secure convictions. Indeed, the Lord Advocate expressed her concern about the proposal when she gave evidence last week.

Have you reflected on the concerns that have been raised? If so, what is your view on what we have heard? How might you respond to those concerns?

Probably both.

We are running over time, but this is a vitally important discussion.

I have a final question on the proposals about anonymity for victims. The written and oral evidence that we have received indicates that there is significant support for victims of sexual offences to have a statutory protection of their anonymity. Some issues were raised in relation to that, however. One question was whether protection of anonymity should extend beyond the death of a victim, and it was coupled with a right for family members to waive that. Can the cabinet secretary respond to that point?

Thank you. Members will have similar questions about the composition of juries and majorities.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will start with questions on part 4 of the bill, which is on the abolition of the not proven verdict and on changes to jury majorities. As you said, the committee has heard a range of views on the proposals on both issues. Is the Scottish Government still persuaded that the not proven verdict should be abolished? If so, will you outline the reasons for that?

We have about 15 minutes left, and I still have five members who want to come in. If we can have fairly brief questions and succinct answers, that would be helpful.

That allows to come in nicely with my follow-up question, which is about what you anticipate the pilot would explore. For example, does it seek to examine the impact on conviction rates, the experience for survivors and the resource implications? I am interested to get a wee bit more detail on what questions the pilot might ask and what it seeks to evaluate.

Thank you for that comprehensive response.

We will bring our session to a close. I thank everyone for their forbearance. I might incur the wrath of members in doing so, but, before the cabinet secretary leaves, I ask whether she wants to add any final comments, either on the parts of the bill that we have looked at today or on parts 1 to 3.

Let the cabinet secretary respond.