Seòmar agus comataidhean

Surely, in a murder case, which is a very serious case, the Crown will proceed if there is sufficiency of evidence. That would be the test that it would apply in a murder case.

You are saying that you do not think that single-judge trials are the solution. Is there any solution if you believe that it is inevitable that conviction rates will be lower for rape? Is there anything that this Parliament should do to change how the process works in order to improve conviction rates, given that we know that there is a sufficiency of evidence in the cases that are taken forward by the Crown?

That is not what is being said. I have one final question. You said:

“There will, inevitably, be lower conviction rates”.

Are you saying that there will be similar conviction rates whether you have a jury or a judge-only case?

My question is for Gordon MacRae and Gavin Smith, because I believe that their organisations are represented on the homelessness prevention task and finish group. As they will know, the Scottish Government’s response to the task group’s recommendations prioritised action that would have the greatest impact on reducing the numbers of households in temporary accommodation. Is there anything further that you can say about how long-term measures around the recommendations would impact on other working groups—for example, on the financing of temporary accommodation?

Thank you. Gavin Smith, do you want to come in on that?

My next question is directed to Nicky Brown and Jim McBride. In the longer term, the Scottish Government plans to introduce a new statutory prevention duty. How do you envisage that impacting on demand for temporary accommodation?

What is Social Security Scotland doing to ensure that all client-facing staff know how to refer clients with disabilities to VoiceAbility advocacy services?

Thank you.

Are you convinced that that is working well? Do you see any problems?

I would like to ask one question, if that is okay.

Lord Advocate, I completely understand that I am asking you to speculate on this. You have already indicated that you believe that the current proposals would be likely to make it more difficult to get convictions. In your view, what would be the likely impact on convictions if the not proven verdict was simply abolished without any changes to the size of juries or verdict majorities? I appreciate that I am asking you to speculate.