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 a panel of experts who offered varying perspectives on MOPAC's performance, data transparency, and the challenges of achieving genuine accountability within the MPS.

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

The effectiveness of MOPAC in overseeing culture change within the Metropolitan Police Service was a central theme of the meeting. David Spencer, Head of Crime and Justice for Policy Exchange, highlighted the MPS's transparency in data as a positive aspect, noting that MOPAC provides more publicly accessible data than many other forces. However, he also pointed to a lack of transparency regarding stakeholder engagement and expressed concern that MOPAC may not be adequately challenging the MPS on performance failures, citing the continued presence of senior leaders in post despite significant issues raised in reviews such as the Casey Review and the vetting review.

Diane Vincent, Chair of the Metropolitan Black Police Association, echoed these concerns, stating that MOPAC should be more robust in its challenges to the MPS. She argued that the close institutional and personal alignment between MOPAC and the MPS could undermine independent oversight and that personal relationships might soften necessary challenges, particularly concerning culture, discrimination, and misconduct.

Chief Constable Gavin Stephens QPM, Chair of the National Police Chiefs' Council, affirmed that MOPAC does provide significant test and challenge, referencing the MPS's move out of the HMIC Engage process as an example. He stressed the importance of the National Policing Culture and Inclusion Strategy, which outlines four key pillars: Protected, Respected, Involved, and Represented, as a framework for quality assurance.

However, a recurring concern throughout the discussion was the perceived lack of consequences for failure within the MPS. David Spencer argued that it is rare for senior or middle leaders to lose their jobs for poor crime performance, suggesting a systemic issue that MOPAC struggles to address. This sentiment was shared by Diane Vincent, who felt that MOPAC should be more proactive in ensuring accountability.

The question of whether MOPAC is the right body to provide oversight was also raised. David Spencer noted that policing governance arrangements have changed over time and that while MOPAC has been effective in the past, the current operational effectiveness is being questioned. Diane Vincent expressed uncertainty, citing the close proximity between MOPAC and the MPS as a potential issue. Chief Constable Stephens, however, stated his belief that MOPAC is the right body, citing observed test and challenge.

The Casey Review's assertion that the MPS made it difficult for MOPAC to scrutinise them was discussed. Mirren Gidda, Chair of Tower Hamlets Community Monitoring Group, described her experience as challenging, citing institutional defensiveness from the MPS and a refusal to accept feedback. Collet Hunter, Vice-Chair of Lewisham Safer Neighbourhood Board, had a more positive experience, noting that the Lewisham team listens and acts on feedback, though she highlighted concerns about funding cuts impacting their work. Ian Weatherley, Chair of Havering CMG, described his liaison with MOPAC as primarily secretarial, with a lack of clear feedback on actions taken following raised issues.

Community Oversight and Stop and Search

The importance of community oversight was emphasised by the panel members. Mirren Gidda highlighted the vital role of community oversight in addressing disproportionality in policing, particularly concerning stop and search rates for Black individuals in Tower Hamlets. Ian Weatherley noted the positive relationship his group has with the MPS in Havering, particularly in scrutinising stop and search data.

The effectiveness of stop and search as a policing tool was debated. While Ian Weatherley and Collet Hunter affirmed its value when conducted properly and respectfully, Mirren Gidda expressed concerns about high rates of searches yielding no results and the resulting community distrust. She also raised issues regarding the routine use of handcuffs and the non-completion of use of force forms. Ian Weatherley suggested that self-defined ethnicity should be a key part of the stop and search dialogue to improve disproportionality figures.

A significant point of discussion was the lack of clear outcomes for red rated stop and search incidents by CMGs. Mirren Gidda highlighted that CMGs do not have the status of complainants, preventing them from formally lodging complaints or accessing the IOPC, which hinders effective disciplinary processes.

The Role of MOPAC and the London Policing Board

The role of MOPAC in supporting community monitoring groups was also examined. Mirren Gidda found MOPAC supportive but lacking the authority to enforce change, citing instances where the MPS pushed back against agreed procedures. Collet Hunter noted MOPAC's positive presence and funding for projects in Lewisham, but expressed concern about recent funding cuts. Ian Weatherley described his interaction with MOPAC via the CMN as primarily secretarial, with a lack of clear feedback on actions taken.

The effectiveness of the London Policing Board (LPB) as an additional scrutiny mechanism was questioned. David Spencer noted that the LPB appears not to be politically representative and that its members may share a similar progressive outlook, potentially aligning with the Mayor's views. He also raised concerns about the Mayor appointing all Board members without external checks and balances. Diane Vincent echoed these concerns, stating that Board meetings are dominated by MPS presentations and that some members have resigned due to frustration.

Broader Issues and Recommendations

The discussion also touched upon the broader issues of police reform, the size of the MPS, and the need for greater transparency. David Spencer suggested that the MPS's national responsibilities, particularly counter-terrorism, could be split off to allow for greater focus on London's crime. Diane Vincent agreed that the MPS is too large and should be broken into smaller, more manageable pieces. Chief Constable Stephens advocated for a stronger national centre for policing to handle counter-terrorism and serious organised crime responsibilities.

The panel also discussed the importance of data collection, the need for a cohesive strategy for VAWG on public transport, and the role of education and prevention programmes. The effectiveness of campaigns and the need for robust monitoring and evaluation were also highlighted.

The meeting concluded with a commitment to further investigation and a note of thanks to the guests for their valuable contributions.