Constitution of Inquiry
Section 9: Requirement of impartiality
19.A person might be said to have an “interest” in the events which gave rise to the inquiry where the matters raised impinge on issues which he is concerned about, either personally or professionally. Therefore a “direct interest” would be present where the individual’s concern with the events is particularly strong. In contrast, “close association” focuses not so much on the interests of the individual, but on the links (whether personal or professional) that the individual has. For example, were an inquiry panel member to have ties with a witness, there might be concerns about the weight which that inquiry panel member would give to the evidence.
20.The section does not prevent the appointment of individuals with expertise in a specific subject area, as section 8 makes clear. For example, if an inquiry were set up to look into the circumstances surrounding allegations of misconduct by a doctor this section would not prevent the appointment to the panel of individuals with expertise in NHS monitoring practices who had not been involved in the case of that particular doctor. That experience in itself would probably not be regarded as constituting a “direct interest” or “close association”.
21.There might be cases in which it would be beneficial to the inquiry to appoint a person with more direct experience of the area under investigation. In some specialised subject areas, it could be difficult to find panel members who did not have some sort of association with those involved, or a general interest in the subject matter. Even if a prospective panel member did have a “direct interest” or “close association”, the section allows the Minister to appoint the individual, provided that the interest or association could not reasonably be regarded as affecting the impartiality of the panel as a whole.
