Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
to have great integrity, mental acuity and strength of character; in short, all the
qualities we regard as essential in IAG and LAG members.
6.62 We must therefore make it clear that anything we say which is critical of the
IAG system and how it operates must not be read as a criticism of the individuals
involved, but of the system itself.
6.63 We have heard some criticism of the IAG and particularly of IAG involvement
in investigations of black officers as a ‘rubber stamp’ or a mechanism to ‘race-proof’
an inquiry. These criticisms relate to individual IAG members being ‘cherry-picked’
and formed into small ‘quasi-IAGs’ for specific cases:
“… These ‘appointments’ were often shrouded behind a cloak of secrecy that we would argue
seriously undermines their terms of reference and raises further questions over the allocation
of resources and the use of cash incentives.” (Submission from the MBPA.)
6.64 The MBPA has recommended that:
● “The IAG should come under the jurisdiction of the MPA, in order to maintain their
independence and to prevent further suggestions of manipulation.
● That no member of the IAG should be in the paid employment of the MPS or the
Home Office, or be a member of a company that receives remuneration from the
provision of consultancy or other services to the MPS.
● New criteria should be developed in relation to the recruitment, tenure and structure
of the IAG.”
6.65 The MBPA also recommends that the MPS requests for IAG assistance should
go through the MPA “to ensure objectivity, transparency and the maintenance of proper
accountability.”
132