In the eight minutes which remain available to me I cannot cover all the points I should like to have raised if I had the full 15 minutes. However, I can tell the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) that his remarks tonight will be closely examined and carefully studied. I appreciate that he has deeply held views about the conviction of George Beattie, and in responding I shall deal first with the conviction and then with the life sentence aspects.

George Beattie was convicted of murder on 4 October 1973 in the High Court in Glasgow. The victim was a 23-year-old woman from Carluke. She had been stabbed repeatedly on the body and robbed. Doubts have been raised subsequently about the safety of this conviction. I know that various submissions have been made to previous Secretaries of State about Mr. Beattie's case.

In particular, a former Member of Parliament, the late Dame Judith Hart, who was Mr. Beattie's Constituency Member of Parliament at the time, wrote to the then Secretary of State in November 1983. She drew to his attention the findings of the BBC production team who had studied Mr. Beattie's case in preparing a programme in the "Rough Justice" television series, which had been shown earlier that month. Having examined these points carefully, the Secretary of State replied in April 1984 explaining that there were not sufficient grounds for him to intervene in the case.

Dame Judith wrote to the Secretary of State again in May 1984, enclosing a paper written by the BBC producer involved, seeking to challenge the Secretary of State's decision. It dealt with several forensic matters and, again, it was carefully examined. The forensic evidence in the case was re-examined by an independent expert with no previous involvement in the case—the director of the medico-legal department at Liege university, Belgium. His report confirmed the validity of the techniques that were used by the forensic scientists in the case and showed that the BBC material did not materially affect the consideration of the case.

The Secretary of State replied to Dame Judith in June 1985, explaining that there remained a lack of any grounds on which he could properly intervene in the case.

I know that there has been some renewed interest in the conviction recently, on the part of the hon. Gentleman and others. I realise that this may have been intensified by Mr. Beattie's recall to custody. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman met my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, to discuss the case on 4 November 1992. I can confirm that at present there is no petition before the Secretary of State on Mr. Beattie's behalf. However, if the hon. Gentleman, or anyone else, has new evidence or other considerations of substance in the case which have not previously been examined, he or she should submit a petition to the Secretary of State as soon as possible.

The hon. Gentleman has expressed concern that a forensic report on blood found at the scene of the murder has not been made available. The report was referred to in a letter of 25 June 1974 from the Solicitor-General of the time to the late Dame Judith Hart, who was Mr. Beattie's Member. The report classified the victim's blood and blood found on stones beneath her head as group O,MN, and accordingly did no more than suggest that the blood on the stones was that of the victim. The then Solicitor-General also confirmed to Dame Judith that no blood was found near the scene of the crime belonging to a group other than Beattie's or the victim's.

Indeed, both the blood on the stones and the blood on the tissues was found on testing to be similar to the victim's blood. The confusion arose because of a misconception that the victim's blood could not have been both group O,MN and group 0 rhesus D positive. In fact, it could be both. I stress that both tests were carried out on blood taken from the same sample of the victim's blood.

I have noted the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the police conduct of the inquiry into the murder of Margaret McGlouchlan. As I have said, his words will be carefully considered and examined. If he has evidence in support of his allegations, and sources, he should arrange to submit them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will ensure that they are closely examined.

It may be helpful if I explain the review procedures for life sentence prisoners in Scotland. The mandatory life sentence exists to protect the public from those who have committed the extremely serious crime of murder. Our system of law provides safeguards and hurdles so that the very greatest care and consideration precedes the release of any life prisoner. The hon. Gentleman said on 19 October: Prisons are there to contain people who threaten our community, but people should not be imprisoned unless they deserve it."-[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 272.] If, at any time, a life licensee's behaviour gives cause for concern, the Parole Board may recommend his recall to custody, whereupon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may revoke a life licence. A person recalled to custody is informed of the reasons for his return to prison and has the right to make written representations.

In Mr. Beattie's case, there were several reviews. He had regular local and home leaves, which with the exception of one, when he returned to the hostel late, passed without incident. He was released on life licence in August 1986. He was supervised in the community first in Scotland and later—