On Tuesday Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the Commons Home Affairs committee, announced plans to hold an inquiry into the force amid concerns about its historic performance and allegations of corruption.
Since 2012 the Met has answered directly to Mayor Boris Johnson and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime which sets its budget and overall strategic direction.
Both the force and MOPAC are scrutinised by the London Assembly’s police and crime committee.
However MPs failed to consult the Mayor, MOPAC or Assembly Members over their planned inquiry.
Appearing before the Assembly committee on Thursday, Deputy mayor Stephen Greenhalgh accused Vaz of “grandstanding” by announcing in the inquiry at the end of a question and answer session with Met Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.
Mr Greenhalgh said the MPs’ review was “ill-thought out”. He added that it failed to take account of the Met’s new governance arrangements and said it was hard to see what “value” the inquiry would have.
The Deputy mayor also suggested that with public trust in Parliament standing at just 40% the Home Affairs Committee may not be the right body to scrutinise the Met’s culture and public standing.
Also appearing before AMs, the Mayor said “no power on earth” would stop Mr Vaz and his committee from seeking publicity.
Martin Davis says
Mr Vaz seems to have chosen his moment with an eye on maximising publicity but actually is he legally or in principle wrong in launching a parliamentary inquiry into the Metropolitan Police?
The public accountability of the police is crucial, if the principle of ‘policing by consent’ is to mean anything. This accountability needs to be effective at all levels – at ward, borough, regional and national levels through engagement, consultation, open and frank discussion and formal scrutiny.
The establishment of Police Authorities, and subsequently the establishment of Police and Crime Commissioners (of which Mr Greenhalgh is the London deputy), were attempts to ensure that the regional strategic management of individual police services was vested in publicly accountable bodies. However, these regional strategic overseers are not sufficient to guarantee effective public scrutiny – and that is especially so when dealing with the national and international roles of the Metropolitan Police Service.
This is why, at a regional level, the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee was established in law to scrutinise the work of Mr Greenhalgh and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the service that they oversee, and why in law the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and his organisations work, is also directly accountable to the Home Secretary – and therefore to parliament.
No Mr Vaz and his Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee have not got it wrong – this inquiry is well within their remit (as is their current Inquiry into regional Police and Crime Commissioners).