Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
the advice upon, and for the organisation to feel comfortable to trust us to give us some very
highly sensitive and confidential information.”
6.70 We are satisfied that, in the words of the IAG’s submission to us “The IAG has
never shirked away from challenging the organisation or from temporarily suspending activities
with the MPS when required. The role of the IAG is to challenge the thinking of the
organisation and how it conducts its business.”
6.71 Nevertheless, given the importance of the role, we believe that it is time that
the IAG were put on a more transparent footing. This would emphasise the vital
public service which IAG members perform and ensure that the IAG has the
confidence of all stakeholders.
6.72 We believe that the MPA should be responsible for the appointment of IAG
members to emphasise the IAG’s independence from the MPS. This would be
analogous to the appointment of independent members of discipline panels by
police authorities. However, we do not consider that it is necessary for requests for
IAG assistance to go through the MPA to ensure objectivity, transparency and
proper accountability.
We therefore recommend that the ‘Nolan Principles’ for public appointments
should apply to the appointment of members of the Independent Advisory
Group and that:
i. their appointment should be by the Metropolitan Police Authority;
ii. they should be appointed in a transparent way following open
competition by public advertisement;
iii. the terms of their appointment, including tenure of office and any
remuneration, should be made public; and
iv. candidates should be assessed for their suitability against a formal
specification which should also be made public by the Metropolitan
Police Authority.
We also recommend that the Independent Advisory Group is properly
resourced and that this should include a budget for expenditure on items
such as independent professional advice (this includes legal advice), where
the Independent Advisory Group believes this is necessary.
6.73 Finally, we would like to deal further with the LAG involvement in Operation
Helios. We have already said that we are concerned that LAG members were not
given full information and particularly that, having assisted the MPS in the
Operation over some months, they were not consulted in relation either to the
decision to settle Superintendent Dizaei’s Employment Tribunal claim or in relation
to the terms of any settlement.
134