The Police and Crime Committee met to discuss the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime's (MOPAC) oversight of culture change within the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The committee heard from various stakeholders, including representatives from community monitoring groups, safer neighbourhood boards, and national policing bodies, who shared their experiences and perspectives on the effectiveness of current oversight mechanisms, the challenges faced in achieving genuine cultural reform, and the role of community engagement in holding the MPS accountable.

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

The effectiveness of MOPAC's oversight of culture change within the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) was a central theme of the meeting. While some witnesses acknowledged MOPAC's supportive role and the availability of data, a recurring concern was MOPAC's perceived lack of authority to enforce meaningful change and hold the MPS to account.

David Spencer, Head of Crime and Justice at Policy Exchange, highlighted the MPS's superior data transparency compared to other forces, noting that MOPAC runs the Public Attitudes Survey, which has been in existence for around 30 years. However, he also pointed out a significant gap in accountability for performance, particularly concerning crime. Spencer questioned the continued presence of senior leaders in post despite serious failings in areas like vetting and human resources, as reported in The Guardian¹, and expressed concern that MOPAC might not be asking the necessary questions to address these issues. He argued that there should be more consequences for failure, stating, If you are a senior police officer who is just rubbish at leading crimefighters, you should not be in your job anymore. ²

Diane Vincent, Chair of the Metropolitan Black Police Association (Met BPA), echoed these sentiments, stating that MOPAC should be more robust in challenging the MPS. She believes the proximity between MOPAC and the MPS is too close for comfort, leading to a blurred accountability that could undermine independent oversight. Vincent also stressed the need for policy changes alongside cultural change, as current policies may not benefit ethnic minority officers and staff.

Chief Constable Gavin Stephens QPM, Chair of the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC), stated that the MPS is probably one of the most scrutinised organisations in the world ³, with significant test and challenge observed through MOPAC and other mechanisms. However, he acknowledged that the MPS, like other forces, needs to improve ease of movement and reduce friction for external perspectives to be integrated.

Community Oversight and Engagement

The role and effectiveness of community oversight were extensively discussed, with varying experiences reported across different boroughs.

Mirren Gidda, Chair of the Tower Hamlets Community Monitoring Group (CMG), described her experience as very challenging due to the MPS's institutional defensiveness ⁴. She noted that while her group has adopted a new model with broader powers, including thematic body-worn video viewings, MOPAC lacks the authority to enforce agreements with the MPS. Gidda highlighted a specific instance where the MPS refused to accept a red rating for a stop and search involving disproportionate use of force against a 15-year-old, and despite MOPAC agreeing with the CMG's assessment, the MPS maintained its position. She stressed the need for the MPS to listen to what we are saying and accept it ⁵, rather than constantly pushing back. Gidda also advocated for a clearer statutory basis for scrutiny groups to enhance their ability to influence the MPS.

Collet Hunter, Vice-Chair of the Lewisham Safer Neighbourhood Board (SNB), presented a more positive experience, describing a platform of transparency ⁶ with the Lewisham police team where feedback is listened to and actioned. However, she noted that recent cuts to MOPAC funding for projects in Lewisham could negatively impact organisations reliant on this support.

Ian Weatherley, Chair of the Havering CMG, also reported a positive relationship with the MPS in his borough, particularly concerning stop and search. He highlighted the importance of self-defined ethnicity in stop and search data to avoid misrepresenting individuals. Weatherley also praised the value of the pan-London CMG network for sharing best practices, but noted a lack of similar collaborative forums for SNBs.

Stop and Search

The effectiveness and oversight of stop and search practices were a significant focus. Mirren Gidda expressed concerns about disproportionality in Tower Hamlets, particularly against Black and Asian individuals, the routine use of handcuffs without proper justification, and an increased focus on low-level drug searches. She noted that while her group can rate stop and searches, the lack of a clear outcome for red ratings and the inability of CMGs to formally complain to the MPS or the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)⁷ hinders effective scrutiny.

Ian Weatherley emphasised the importance of self-defined ethnicity in stop and search data to ensure accurate disproportionality figures. Collet Hunter agreed that stop and search is a necessary tool if done properly and respectfully, highlighting the need for sensitivity, particularly when engaging with young people. Alex Wilson AM, Assembly Member, argued that stop and search, when conducted effectively, is a crucial tool for tackling crime and removing weapons from the streets, and that focusing on its proper implementation, rather than its existence, should be the priority.

London Policing Board (LPB)

The role and effectiveness of the London Policing Board (LPB) were also discussed. David Spencer questioned its representativeness, suggesting that its members might all ascribe to a progressivist approach ⁸ aligned with the Mayor's views, rather than offering a plurality of views. Diane Vincent expressed uncertainty about the LPB's current purpose and its difference from its original intent following the Casey Review, noting that board meetings can be dominated by MPS presentations rather than scrutiny. She also raised concerns about the lack of public acknowledgement of board members' resignations due to frustration.

Funding and Future of Community Oversight

Concerns were raised about MOPAC's funding decisions, particularly the reported cessation of funding for Safer Neighbourhood Boards (SNBs) and the potential transfer of this responsibility to the MPS. Collet Hunter confirmed that her SNB had received a letter stating this was the last funding, which she believes is due to budget cuts. Ian Weatherley expressed concern that combining CMGs and SNBs under the MPS would be a mistake, potentially jeopardising the independence of community scrutiny and impacting existing MOPAC-funded projects. Mirren Gidda stated that her group still receives funding from MOPAC for website renewal and training, and that a shift to MPS funding would jeopardise their independence.

Recommendations and Future Actions

The discussions highlighted several areas for potential improvement:

• Increased MPS Accountability: A stronger emphasis on consequences for failure within the MPS, particularly for senior leaders, was repeatedly called for.
• Enhanced Community Scrutiny: Greater clarity on the purpose and statutory basis for scrutiny groups, improved communication and feedback loops from the MPS, and the ability for groups to escalate serious concerns to disciplinary processes or the IOPC.
• Data Utilisation: While data is available, the focus should be on its analysis and use to drive change, rather than just collection.
• LPB Effectiveness: Further examination of the LPB's representativeness, purpose, and effectiveness in challenging the MPS.
• Structural Reform: Consideration of more radical structural options for the MPS, as suggested by Baroness Casey, to ensure Londoners' needs are prioritised.
• Stop and Search Practices: Continued focus on ensuring stop and search is conducted lawfully, reasonably, and proportionately, with particular attention to disproportionality, use of force, and the self-identification of ethnicity.

The committee noted the report and discussion, delegating authority to the Chair to agree any output arising from the discussion. The work programme was also noted, with future Q&A sessions with MOPAC scheduled.