Sir: As a past member of inquiry panels I have been following the correspondence in the Bulletin recently and was interested in the suggestion by Dr Duncan Veasey (Psychiatric Bulletin, November 1999, 23, 690) that some sort of truly independent authority should be set up by the Government with multiple representation to deal with public inquiries of all kinds. However, I wonder if this isn't a rather bureaucratic approach to seek to ensure that ‘appropriate’ psychiatrists are selected as inquiry members? Dr Veasey does not address the issue of what makes a suitable inquiry member, but implies that the choice will continue to be drawn from the expert witness community.

I believe that there are no specific qualities that define the necessary characteristics of those psychiatrists fit to be members of inquiry panels. The problem lies more in establishing a uniform, acceptable process by which the terms of reference of an inquiry panel can be fulfilled. For some years, for example, the College Council has endorsed the principle that draft and preliminary findings of panels should be shared at an appropriate stage with colleagues who might be criticised, particularly in order to not only confirm the accuracy of the facts but also to establish the reasonableness and fairness of the opinions. Criticism, of course, can never be wholly avoided but the complaints of your correspondents have highlighted a perceived unfairness of process which inevitably undermines the credibility of inquiry report conclusions.

I would suggest that what is needed is for the College to ensure that potential members of inquiries have had induction training for hte role similar to processes increasingly accepted for becoming Examiners, Advisers and even members of the expert witness community.