NURSES Lucille McLauchlan and Deborah Parry, wearing black Islamic robes and looking tired, last night emerged into public view for the first time in more than a year and boarded a London-bound plane at Dhahran airport.

Parry carried no more than a black handbag and had black rings round her eyes. McLauchlan wore her black robes loose, revealing jeans underneath. Saudi security guards prevented reporters from entering the terminal.

They are believed to be travelling club class and will have access to alcohol, hot vegetable samosas and fresh fruit, and a full, hot breakfast before landing at Gatwick around 6am this morning.

But the peace of their journey is likely to be short-lived. They will arrive amid a fierce row over the decision by two newspaper editors to pay for their stories in six figures sums ''and upwards'', and news that a fresh court appearance awaits Lucille McLauchlan. She will have to appear at Dundee Sheriff Court next month on theft charges.

A spokesman for the Crown Office said: ''The procurator-fiscal at Dundee has obtained a warrant to cite Lucille McLauchlan to appear at Dundee Sheriff Court on June 18. A summary complaint containing two charges of theft will be served at her solicitor's office in Dundee today.''

The sentences on the nurses for their role in the murder of Australian colleague Yvonne Gilford in 1996 were dramatically commuted by the Saudi monarch on Tuesday.

Publicist Max Clifford yesterday confirmed that their families had agreed deals with editors. McLauchlan's is with the Daily Mirror.

There had been ''huge'' interest in the women which had led to public interest in their accounts of what had happened, he said, adding that such deals with tabloid newspapers were only the start: books and TV documentaries could come later. The question of whether such deals broke ethical guidelines was ''very delicate'', said Mr Clifford.

''The newspaper editors obviously don't think that's the case. Having consulted with the lawyers and presumably the Press Complaints Commission, that's what they have decided - that they are not in breach.''

He said ''the world's media'' had approached the families. ''Handling the media is a very specialised business, so that's why their solicitor has come to me for advice and guidance.'' Asked about possible criticism that McLauchlan was ''cashing in'' on murder, Mr Clifford said: ''If they believe that she is guilty, then obviously I can imagine the offence that will cause.

''If you believe she is innocent, she is totally entitled to speak out and do what she wants, if she wants to. It comes down to what you believe. I think it's up to every individual to make up his or her mind.''

However, Labour MP George Galloway said the nurses had been convicted of murder and ''criminals were not supposed to profit from their crimes''. This was the argument used by the same newspapers bidding for the nurses' story to justify their recent ''witch hunt'' of convicted killer Mary Bell, Mr Galloway said.

The MP said in a letter to the Press Complaints Commission that ''to see these women lionised in the press - I understand there is also a discussion about a film contract - is deeply distressing and must court criticism in Saudi Arabia of the king's leniency.''

Mirror editor Piers Morgan defended his paper's decision. ''We have bought the rights to Lucille McLauchlan's story be-cause we believe that she has been the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice,'' he said.

The two women had been held since Christmas Eve 1996, ac-cused of the murder of Miss Gilford at the complex where all three worked.

Parry was sentenced to death. McLauchlan was found guilty of being an accessory and sentenced in September to eight years in prison and 500 lashes. The lashing has not been carried out. Parry escaped beheading when Miss Gilford's brother, Frank, waived his right to demand the death penalty in exchange for money.

Parry and McLauchlan initially confessed to the murder after their arrests, but later recanted, saying their confessions were obtained through physical and sexual abuse by interrogators.

Meanwhile, lawyers acting for Frank Gilford demanded the immediate release of the #1m ''compensation'' to be paid to Mr Gilford following his waiver.

The nurses' lawyer, Salah al-Hejailan, said yesterday he would not release the money to the Gilford family if they insisted on calling it ''compensation'' rather than ''blood money''.

He said: ''They call it compensation, and compensation means admission of guilt while the court said all along it's blood money.''

He added that he was not reneging on the promise of payment - the money is already held in Australia - but said it had not been decided whether all of the payment would be made.

Mr Gilford gave a hollow laugh when told that the pardons had been described as a ''shining example of Saudi justice'' and added: ''Is that what it is?''

He went on: ''I suppose they are going to get home and make a $20m film of their lives now. That's what I heard on the radio.''

The decision to commute the sentences was welcomed by Tony Blair's official spokesman, who said that he and Mr Blair did think the nurses would be released after they had made representations to the Saudis. The spokesman said the Prime Minister believed the decision to free the women was ''a generous act by the king''.