Leading Article: Scott inquiry proves its value

THOSE WHO claimed that Lord Justice Scott's inquiry into the arms-to-Iraq scandal would be nothing more than a whitewash are this week having to eat their words. The examination on Monday of Sir Hal Miller, a well- connected former Conservative MP, brought forward valuable new evidence on two questions. One was whether ministers were more willing to have innocent men sent to jail than to have government secrets revealed; the other was whether the security services told businessmen to withhold information from a parliamentary committee investigating the affair.

The judge will face a stiffer test tomorrow when Sir Patrick Mayhew, the former Attorney-General, responds to allegations that he tried to suppress evidence that could have helped to acquit businessmen wrongly accused of breaking the Government's arms-export rules. The issue hinges on Walter Somers, a Black Country engineering company that received Iraqi orders for goods that it suspected might be intended for military purposes. According to Sir Hal, the firm alerted the Government of its concerns through him. Its management was willing to accept the orders, to refuse them, or to fulfil them but secretly mark the products supplied so that they would be detectable by satellite.

Yet despite their patriotism, two officials of the company were held for 30 hours by the authorities, were refused access to lawyers and had their houses searched without court orders. When it became clear that they might be prosecuted, Sir Hal showed the Attorney- General handwritten notes and a fax that proved the men's innocence, in the lobby of the House of Commons, and said he was willing to produce these documents in court in their defence. Sir Patrick has issued a statement disputing the evidence, denying that he urged Sir Hal 'or anyone else' to withhold information helpful to a defendant.

As we report this morning, he was probably instrumental in having the case against the two men dropped - though his reasons for doing so remain unclear. Even before Sir Patrick takes the stand, however, it is clear that either he or Sir Hal must be wrong. There can be room for misunderstanding about their brief exchange when the two men were standing around waiting to vote. But either the MP showed the Attorney- General those documents, or he did not.

Sir Hal's position in the affair was mostly disinterested. He was evidently trying to do the right thing for his country, his constituents and his party. But he may have taken party loyalty just a little too far in failing to come forward to the Trade and Industry Select Committee with the full details of his explosive story, and choosing to release it only to Lord Justice Scott a year after the 1992 general election was safely in the bag.

The allegation against Sir Patrick is far graver. Even if he did not urge the MP to suppress evidence, as Sir Hal claims, the suggestion that he knew such evidence existed but chose to do nothing about it is shocking enough. Attorney- Generals often face a conflict of interest between their membership of a government and their job as the country's top law officer to decide which cases shall and shall not be prosecuted. But Sir Patrick is being accused of behaviour in his former post that goes far beyond the bounds of propriety. If he cannot clear his name, the Prime Minister would be unwise to reappoint him in the coming reshuffle.