asked the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reasons he decided not to advise Her Majesty to exercise Her Royal Prerogative of Mercy in the case of Henry John Burnett.

It is the long-established practice not to give reasons for decisions in individual cases of this kind.

Does not the Secretary of State remember that in this case there was a great body of expert and powerful evidence adduced against this hanging? Will he realise that it is quite inconsistent with British ideas—Scottish ideas—of justice that people should be killed without the reasons being made public, particularly in a case of this sort?

I understand what the hon. and learned Member has said—that expressions of opinion have come from a number of different sources—but it is my duty to take into consideration all the relevant information, both medical and other, that I am given, and I must stick to the long-established practice that particular reasons are not given in individual cases.

Why does the Secretary of State act on evidence secretly adduced and presented to him which is contrary to evidence publicly adduced and the subject of cross-examination before judge and jury in open court?

I do not think that the hon. and learned Member is right. The evidence which is considered in court is given to the court, and the action which I take may be after that and may have to consider other factors, but it is not contrary to what is stated in court and judged by the court to be right.