The government has been reported as saying that, after the police inquiry, there will be publication of the full report by Sue Gray. In fact, an “update” has been promised in the light of the police inquiry (Report, 31 January). An update may or may not be the “full” report. But the scope of publication of the Scott inquiry report is a precedent which may help Sue Gray. The Scott inquiry report in 1996 (re whether licensing by the UK government of defence exports to Iraq was in contravention of the government’s policy) examined the conduct of two prime ministers, several cabinet and junior ministers, and civil servants. The report was published in full, save for exclusion of a small segment concerning a sensitive intelligence matter. There were also limited redactions for overriding national security reasons. Such transparency was the only way in which the public could have confidence in Sir Richard Scott’s conclusions, not least in view of criticisms that ministers had deliberately withheld relevant information about Iraq-related defence exports in answer to questions from parliamentarians and had wrongfully withheld information in court proceedings at the Old Bailey. Specifically, what did full publication entail? The judge published (a) the extensive written questionnaires sent to witnesses and their responses; (b) the source documents to which express reference was made in the report; and (c) the documents and submissions made by government departments and the intelligence agencies in response to the inquiry’s general questions. The oral hearings had largely been in open session and so transcripts had already been published. The question of full publication must, of course, be treated on its own merits. For example, if civil service staff were involved in misconduct short of criminality which might result in disciplinary proceedings against them, fairness might require a degree of anonymisation pending the outcome of such proceedings. This approach has been previously adopted in Whitehall. Subject to that, full publication in line with the Scott inquiry precedent is the right thing to do in the national interest. Christopher Muttukumaru Bromley, London