The Police and Crime Committee met on Wednesday 14 January 2026 to discuss the effectiveness of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) in overseeing culture change within the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The committee heard from two panels of guests, including representatives from think tanks, police associations, and community monitoring groups, who provided insights into MOPAC's oversight, the challenges faced by community scrutiny groups, and the effectiveness of various policing strategies.

MOPAC's Oversight of Culture Change in the Metropolitan Police Service

The effectiveness of MOPAC in overseeing culture change within the MPS was a central theme of the discussion. David Spencer, Head of Crime and Justice for Policy Exchange, highlighted MOPAC's strength in data transparency, noting that the MPS provides significantly more public data than other forces. However, he also pointed to a lack of transparency regarding how the MPS engages with stakeholders, making it difficult to understand the advice being given and how stakeholders are selected. Spencer expressed concern that MOPAC might not be adequately challenging the MPS on performance failures, citing reports of senior leaders remaining in post despite significant transgressions.

Diane Vincent, Chair of the Metropolitan Black Police Association, echoed these concerns, stating that cultural transformation is not being tracked through a clear, consistent, and transparent process. She argued for the need for robust Basic Command Unit (BCU) level data to identify hot spots of harm and track progress, suggesting that the same analytical approach used for external policing should be applied internally to issues like misconduct and vetting.

Chief Constable Gavin Stephens, Chair of the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC), referred to the national policing strategy on culture and inclusion, which outlines four key pillars: Protected, Respected, Involved, and Represented. He noted that the MPS has made entries in the national best practice document, but acknowledged that his role does not directly involve MOPAC oversight.

Assembly Member Lord Bailey questioned whether MOPAC is the appropriate body for oversight, given the MPS's national functions. David Spencer suggested that while the current mayoral model has been effective in the past, the current operation may be lacking, particularly in crime performance. Diane Vincent expressed reservations about MOPAC's proximity to the MPS, suggesting it could undermine independent oversight due to institutional and personal alignment. Chief Constable Stephens, however, stated that he has observed significant challenge and scrutiny from MOPAC, particularly during the MPS's move out of the HMIC Engage process.

A significant point of discussion was the lack of consequences for senior leaders when failures occur. David Spencer argued that it should be inconceivable for senior leaders responsible for areas like vetting and HR to remain in post after significant failures, questioning whether MOPAC is asking these difficult questions. Diane Vincent agreed, stating MOPAC should be more robust in challenging the MPS to publish timely and accessible statistics on misconduct and grievances.

Scrutiny and Accountability Mechanisms

The committee explored the effectiveness of various scrutiny mechanisms. David Spencer raised questions about the role and effectiveness of the London Policing Board (LPB), suggesting it might add complexity without tangible benefit. Diane Vincent noted that MOPAC representatives sometimes use we and us when referring to the MPS, indicating a close alignment that could soften scrutiny. Chief Constable Stephens stated that the MPS is likely one of the most scrutinised organisations globally, with extensive media reporting and oversight from bodies like MOPAC and the Police and Crime Committee itself.

The issue of operational independence and accountability was also debated. Alex Wilson AM highlighted the confusion around policy versus operational decisions and the tendency for passing the buck . David Spencer noted a shift in the conception of operational independence over the last two decades, making accountability less clear. Chief Constable Stephens emphasised that all organisations must operate within existing regulations, but acknowledged the MPS's efforts to stretch these to improve performance. He also pointed out that while the public often calls for crimefighting, their needs are broader.

The Panorama documentary on Charing Cross Police Station was discussed as an example of systemic failings. Diane Vincent stated that neither she nor many of her members were surprised by the revelations, citing experiences of unchallenged attitudes and behaviours, and a lack of accountability for misconduct. David Spencer questioned how MOPAC could have been reassured that issues at Charing Cross had been resolved, given the subsequent revelations. He also critiqued the MPS's promotion system for being imporous and lacking external input, contributing to a lack of consequence for failure. Chief Constable Stephens agreed that the system remains, referencing the Macpherson Inquiry's findings, but noted the recent response to Charing Cross had been more robust.

Community Oversight and Engagement

The second panel focused on community oversight through Community Monitoring Groups (CMGs) and Safer Neighbourhood Boards (SNBs). Mirren Gidda of Tower Hamlets CMG described challenges in engaging with the MPS, citing institutional defensiveness and pushback against feedback, particularly regarding stop and search. She noted that while MOPAC is supportive, it lacks the authority to enforce change. Collet Hunter of Lewisham SNB reported a more positive relationship with their local MPS team, highlighting transparency and a willingness to acknowledge mistakes, though she noted concerns about recent funding cuts from MOPAC. Ian Weatherley of Havering CMG also described a positive relationship with local officers, particularly through body-worn video reviews, but felt MOPAC's role in the CMN was primarily secretarial, lacking effective feedback loops.

The effectiveness of MOPAC in supporting CMGs was questioned. Mirren Gidda felt MOPAC lacked the power to drive change, citing instances where the MPS had not fully accepted findings from red-rated stop and searches. Collet Hunter noted MOPAC's positive presence and funding for projects in Lewisham, but expressed concern about the impact of recent funding cuts. Ian Weatherley described MOPAC's role in the CMN as purely secretarial, with a lack of communication on actions taken following raised issues.

The discussion also touched upon the fragmentation of scrutiny efforts across London. Mirren Gidda suggested that a statutory basis for groups, similar to those recommended by Lord Scarman in 1982, would strengthen their ability to demand attention from the MPS. Collet Hunter advocated for more scrutiny groups to ensure diverse voices are heard, while Ian Weatherley argued for distinct roles for CMGs, IAGs, and SNBs to maintain focus.

Stop and Search

Stop and search was a significant topic, with concerns raised about disproportionality, the routine use of handcuffs, and increased searches targeting vulnerable drug users. Mirren Gidda highlighted that in Tower Hamlets, stop and search rates had increased, despite efforts to reduce disproportionality. Ian Weatherley proposed that individuals should self-define their ethnicity during stop and search to improve accuracy, rather than relying on officer assumptions.

Assembly Member Alex Wilson questioned the predominantly negative framing of stop and search, asking if the panel accepted it as a crucial tool for tackling crime when used properly. Ian Weatherley and Collet Hunter agreed, citing its effectiveness in removing weapons and the positive impact of targeted searches. Mirren Gidda, however, maintained her focus on scrutinising the MPS's practices to ensure they are lawful, reasonable, and proportionate, rather than debating the overall effectiveness of stop and search.

The process of providing feedback on stop and search was also discussed. Mirren Gidda explained the rating system (green, amber, red) and the struggle to achieve effective outcomes for red ratings, noting that CMGs lack complainant status, preventing formal complaints to the MPS or IOPC. Ian Weatherley highlighted the limitations of current dip-sampling methods for body-worn video footage, advocating for the ability to select specific types of incidents for review to gain a more representative understanding of MPS practices.

Other Issues

The meeting also touched upon the role of the London Policing Board (LPB), with concerns raised about its composition, lack of political representation, and dominance by MPS presentations. The potential for splitting the MPS into national, specialist, and London responsibilities was discussed, with David Spencer and Diane Vincent suggesting it might be too large to manage effectively. Chief Constable Stephens cautioned that such changes carry significant risks.

The effectiveness of campaigns aimed at preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG) on public transport was examined. Panelists stressed the importance of evidence-based strategies, co-production with communities, and a holistic approach that addresses root causes rather than just reactions. The role of MOPAC in funding these initiatives was also discussed, with concerns about recent funding cuts impacting the ability of community groups to operate.

Finally, the panel discussed the importance of visible staff presence on public transport, particularly in outer London, and the potential benefits of CCTV with audio capabilities. The debate around women-only carriages was also raised, with a consensus that evidence-based approaches and a focus on prevention are crucial.