 George Beattie is innocent. Two years ago, those were the first words that I spoke in this chamber, and I suspect that all MSPs remember their maiden speeches, and I'm sure we all carefully consider what we intend to say. So why did I begin my time as an MSP by saying that George Beattie is innocent of the murder of a young woman called Margaret McLaughlin? Quite simply, because I firmly believe that George Beattie is the victim of a miscarriage of justice, a miscarriage that casts a dark shadow across Scotland's justice system and has done so for half a century. Before I get much further, I would like to acknowledge the attendance of some guests this evening. George Beattie is in poor health and cannot be here, but his elder brother Robert Beattie and Robert's wife Anne are in the gallery. Robert and his family believe that George Beattie is innocent. Also present is Peter Hill, the journalist who produced the BBC Rough Justice Documentaries, which first shone light on George Beattie's conviction. Peter believes that George Beattie is innocent. We're also joined by Bob Alexander and his wife, Elizabeth. In 1973, Bob was engaged to Margaret McLaughlin. Bob believes that George Beattie is innocent. Now let's go back to the summer evening of July 6, 1973. Margaret had left her family home in Carlux Glenburn Terrace to catch a train to Glasgow. During the short walk beside a small, wooded area known as Colonel's Glen, she was murdered. She was stabbed 19 times. The police officer in charge of the investigation was chief superintendent William Muncie, who happened to come from Carlux. Muncie was a celebrated detective, who reveled in his 100 per cent conviction rate for the crime of murder. He made his name by catching the 1950s serial killer Peter Manuel, who was hanged for the murder of seven people. Very quickly, George Beattie was in his sights, and less than three months later, George Beattie was convicted of murder. He was aged just 19 at the time. He was a cheerful, happy-go-lucky figure in Carlux. He loved train spotting and model railways. His sister, Ina, tells me that he is a big, softie, one of eight children he was doted on by his mum, Jeanne, who passed away five years ago. It's important to understand that George is of below average intelligence according to psychological assessments. Such tests found him to be a slow learner and with a tendency to provide elaborate descriptions of events. They also showed that he was prone to changing his answers when subjected to integrative pressure. He was interviewed alone by the police, which would never happen today. He supposedly confessed, telling a strange story about seeing men with mirrored top hats. I met George three years ago while working as a journalist with STV News. He was gentle and polite, almost childlike in his manner, and it was obvious that I was not face-to-face with some savage killer trying to play the system. Accompanied George that day was Peter Hill, the journalist. Peter was protective of George and passionate about his innocence. With an encyclopedic knowledge of the case, he did most of the talking. I refer members to speeches that were made to the House of Commons by the late Jimmy Hood MP. Alongside Peter Hill, Jimmy Hood campaigned for years to clear George's name. He savaged William Muncie in the Commons, ripping apart the police investigation and its lack of integrity. In the seven minutes available to me today, it would be impossible to go into the necessary level of detail. However, by today's standards, George Beatty would have been quickly eliminated as a suspect. By today's standards, there is absolutely no chance that he would have entered up in the dock of the High Court and from there a Berlinie prison cell. Put simply, there was no forensic evidence, no corroboration, his legal defence was woeful. Damningly, it was later found that police had suppressed evidence that supported George Beatty's innocence. Now, for many years, the campaign dropped off the public radar. The world moved on. Yes, I will. Graham Simpson says that there was no forensic evidence at the time. Has any emerged since? Forensic evidence that was relied on during the trial has actually since been discredited. There was a handkerchief with a spot of blood in George Beatty's possession, which was discovered to have not been Margaret McLaughlin's blood, but during the trial, it was suggested that that is what it was. For years, the campaign dropped off the radar. Then until 2020, when a criminologist, Professor David Wilson, who also happens to come from Carluck, published a book about Margaret's murder and having examined all the available evidence, Professor Wilson concluded that George Beatty is innocent. He went further, alleging that he was not, I quote, fitted up by William Muncie. Professor Wilson's book, Signs of Murder, is not just some rehash of old material. His investigations led him to the front door of a man called Les Jardin. He does not accuse Les Jardin of murder, who is now dead, so cannot defend himself. For detailed reasons set out in the book, he explains why Jardin is a more likely suspect than George Beatty ever was. The book triggered another significant event. After 47 years of silence, Bob Alexander spoke out. He told the media that George Beatty, a man he has never met, could not possibly have killed Margaret. Bob thought that by speaking out that this wrong would finally be righted and that he remains perplexed by the inaction of the authorities. People often ask me, did George Beatty appeal? The answer is yes, he did, but such with the narrow legal parameters of the appeal process, they felt tokenistic. They did not seem like a real quest for justice, a real quest for answers, but something almost performative. I would like to end on a powerful and thought-provoking quote. I think that in Scotland we have the view that we don't have the same problem with miscarriages of justice as elsewhere perhaps as in England, but I think that the reality from my experience is that we are just not quite so good or open at dealing with them. Those are the words of John Scott KC, spoken to STV in 2020. Last year, John Scott was appointed as a judge in Scotland's Supreme Court where he now presides. George Beatty is resigned to the fact that he will go to his grave as a convicted murderer, but time is running out. Scotland's criminal justice establishment won't listen to the rest of us, perhaps they will listen to Lord Scott, one of their own. I urge Police Scotland and the Crown Office to look again, and not just as a tick box exercise, knowing that the news cycle will move on and public interest will fade. They owe it to the people of Carluck, they owe it to George Beatty and they owe it to Margaret McLaughlin. We now move to the open debate. I call first Colin Smyth to be followed by Graham Simpson in around four minutes, Mr Smyth. Thank you to Russell Finlay for his motion on the 50th anniversary of Margaret McLaughlin's tragic murder. In any debate, any discussion of that tragedy, first and foremost, we should always be mindful that this is about a young lady aged just 23 years old, engaged to be married, who should have had the vast majority of her life ahead of her. Instead, on July 6, 1973, Margaret left her family home in Glenburn, Terrace and Carluck to catch a train to Glasgow to meet the sister of a fiancée at the time, Bob, to discuss her wedding arrangements. During that walk, Margaret was brutally stabbed and killed in what can only be described as a frenzied savage murder. Since then, Margaret's family are friends and her then fiancée have had to live with that loss for 50 years. I was less than one year old when this tragedy took place and, unlike Mr Finlay, I do not have knowledge of the events in debate then or, indeed, since that ultimately prompted his motion. However, I have the privilege of representing the south of Scotland region that includes the town of Carluck. In fact, I had the honour of being in Carluck recently to judge that the Gala annual parade. It is a proud tight-knit community. Speaking in recent days to those who do remember Margaret McLaughlin's murder, it was a tight-knit community back then, a community that was left shocked by this tragedy. As Mr Finlay's motion highlights, there have been many claims that the subsequent conviction of George B.T. was a miscarriage of justice. As we have heard, the BBC's rough justice programme highlighted serious concerns about the conviction. A new edition of his book, Professor David Wilson, went as far as identifying who he described as a more likely suspect, and Margaret's then-fiancy, Bob Alexander, who I know joins us today, has stated that he believes that George B.T. was innocent. It is a claim that has been made by Russell Finlay in this Parliament before today, but it was also made in the UK Parliament by my former colleague Jimmy Hood. Jimmy represented Carluck for 28 years, firstly as the Labour MP for Clydesdale, and then Hamilton and Lanark East following boundary changes. Jimmy felt so strongly about the issue that he held not one, but two adjournment debates in the House of Commons on the matter, the first in 1993 and the second in 1995. During that first debate on 3 March 1993, he told the House of Commons that, and I quote, there is no evidence concerning police conduct in the case that points to George B.T. being a victim of a miscarriage of justice on several levels. The aspect of B.T.'s case to which I refer concerns personalities, professional reputation, police bureaucracy and, yes, politics. Jimmy told MPs that he believed that the investigation was badly handled, and when George B.T. was charged on July 1973, the leading detective William Muncie was, and I quote, already four days into a botch-up on an investigation over which he had lost control. Jimmy recounted a number of what he said were mistakes that had been made, uniform police contaminating the crime scene before the leading detective had even arrived, journalists publishing a photograph of where Margaret's body had been found in evidence that was missing or allegedly suppressed. The treatment of George B.T. in the lead-up to being charged with murder was also a concern that Jimmy Hood raised in Parliament. George was charged initially at 1.30 am after six hours of interrogation, but was then brought before detective Muncie at the crime scene at around 5.30. George was unwell and had been awake for more than 20 hours, but was denied the doctor and subsequently charged again without a solicitor present. Jimmy returned to the Commons in 1995 to further highlight what he said were a number of failings and mistakes that he believed and I quote, cost George B.T. the best years of his life. He told MPs that police had never had to demonstrate the circumstances surrounding the interrogations with B.T. or the admission that they claim he made during this time. He pointed out that the Procurator Fiscal should have had the duty to make inquiries into those police processes. I repeat those points made by Jimmy Hood because they highlight the fact that there were concerns over this case from many people and from across the political spectrum. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will point to the fact that this has been dealt with through the courts on more than one occasion, that appeals process itself was not without criticism from Jimmy Hood and others. I return in closing, Presiding Officer, to my opening point. Above all else in this debate, what is at the heart is the tragedy and the loss of life of a young woman. Brutally taken away and at all times my thoughts are with those such as Bob Maggots family who knew and loved her and I am sure that I will still feel that loss 50 years on. Thank you very much indeed and I thank Russell Finlay for securing this debate today. I remember his maiden speech well. I was not familiar with the case at that time but I am more familiar now. We are coming up to the 50th anniversary of the murder of Margaret McLaughlin and it is Margaret that we must think of because she was the victim here and we must think of her family on that anniversary. I can tell you as someone who has had a relative murdered that that will never ever leave the family of Margaret McLaughlin. Russell Finlay is convinced that George Beattie is innocent. I do not know if George Beattie is innocent but what I have heard and what I have read is that there is enough doubt to justify there being possibly a retrial, certainly a refreshed look. In my family's case when we got justice my view was there was no justice, there is no justice in murder but justice must be served and in this case there is no justice for Margaret McLaughlin. She was brutally murdered but for the sake of her family and the sake of George Beattie and his family justice must be served. It is not enough just to convict the result has to be the right result, the right person has to be convicted so I congratulate again Russell Finlay and the various people in the gallery. It will be lovely to meet you afterwards. Thank you Presiding Officer. As we approach the 50th anniversary I would like to begin by joining others in this chamber in paying tribute to Margaret McLaughlin. At the time of her murder as we have already heard she was a young woman of 23 years of age she was engaged to be married and had her whole life in front of her and it is hard to imagine the pain and suffering that her friends and family felt at the time of the murder and continue to feel all these years later and I have no doubt that the trauma and the pain lingers through the generations and that it is not abated by the passage of time. Mr Finlay's motion draws attention to concerns that have been expressed that the man convicted of Margaret McLaughlin's murder, George Beattie, may have been wrongly convicted and note that there have been calls upon the police and Crown to reopen the investigation into her murder. I trust that members will understand that it would be entirely inappropriate for me, as a Scottish Minister, to make any comment on a specific case that is dealt with in the criminal courts and that of course includes this case and I will not be doing so today. With the greatest of respect to those members who have expressed their views and beliefs I do give advance notice that I will not take any interruptions. However I do think that it is important to help Parliament understand the independent checks and balances within Scotland's justice system where a person claims a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Firstly, Police Scotland are rightly operationally independent of the Scottish ministers. Secondly, the Lord Advocate is the head of the systems of prosecution and investigation of deaths. The independence of the Lord Advocate's decision in this role is protected by the Scotland Act 1998. The independence of both Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate ensures that there is no risk of political interference in the investigation and prosecution of crime. Any decision on reinvestigation of Margaret McLaughlin's murder is therefore not for the Scottish ministers. Equally, the processes for investigating and determining alleged miscarriages of justice operate independently of the Scottish ministers and it is not my place to offer any view on this or any other case where it is alleged that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Ultimately it is for the appeal court to determine in any given case whether to overturn a person's conviction because they conclude that it amounts to a miscarriage of justice. However, it might also be helpful if I outline the processes that exist to enable a person who says that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice to seek to have their conviction overturned. At one time, Government ministers, namely UK Government ministers, did have a role in deciding whether to refer criminal cases back to the appeal court for a fresh appeal once the time limit for lodging an appeal has elapsed. Indeed, in 1993, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, a member of the UK Government, referred Mr Beattie's conviction back to the appeal court for a fresh appeal and this appeal was not successful. Since 1999, when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was established, ministers have had no role in deciding whether a Scottish case in which it is alleged that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred should be referred to the appeal court for a fresh appeal. That properly reflects the fact that such decisions should never be subject to any perception that they may be taken for political reasons. It is for the independent commission to review and investigate cases where it is alleged that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, either in relation to conviction or sentence. The commission has extensive powers to obtain documents from any person or organisation, including the police and Crown Office, and to request evidence on oath. Under a statutory test set by Parliament, the commission will refer a person's conviction to the appeal court for a fresh appeal if, after considering the application, it thinks that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and that it is in the interests of justice for the case to be referred back to the appeal court. Where a case is referred back to the appeal court for a fresh appeal, it will then be for the appeal court to determine, like any other appeal. Since the commission was established in 1999, as at the end of 2022-23, it has reviewed 3,052 applications, of which 157 resulted in the case being referred back to the appeal court for a fresh appeal. Of those 157 cases, 137 have been determined by the appeal court. That is because some cases have been abandoned by the applicant. Of the 137 cases determined, 8-8 were successful, with 47 having their sentences reduced and 41 having their conviction overturned. I am aware that the commission referred Mr Beattie's conviction back to the appeal court on the grounds that there may have been a miscarriage of justice. In 2009, the appeal court considered this referral and upheld Mr Beattie's conviction for murder. The motion indicates that Mr Beattie does not believe that there is an available route to challenge his conviction. Noting that Mr Beattie has had two opportunities in the appeal court to seek to have his conviction quashed already, it does remain open to Mr Beattie to submit a further application to the commission. That would be on the basis that there is additional evidence to support a claim that there has been a miscarriage of justice, which was not considered by the court when it heard a previous appeal. In addition, it is open to anyone who believes that the commission has acted irrationally or unreasonably by refusing to refer their case back to the appeal court to seek a judicial review of this decision. I hope that the information that I have set out provides some reassurance to members that there are processes in place to investigate and review alleged miscarriages of justice in Scotland. I finish by once again offering my heartfelt sympathy to the family and friends of Margaret McLaughlin for a life taken far too soon.