As London continues to grapple with complex challenges around public safety, trust in policing, and community cohesion, the role of the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime has never been more critical-or more closely scrutinised. Tasked with shaping the capital’s crime reduction strategies and holding the Metropolitan Police to account on behalf of Londoners,the Deputy Mayor operates at the junction of politics,public service,and everyday lived experience.
In this Q&A, hosted on london.gov.uk, the Deputy Mayor responds directly to questions about key priorities: tackling violent crime, improving confidence in the police, supporting victims, and addressing inequalities in how justice is delivered across the city. The exchange offers a window into how strategic decisions are made, what progress has been achieved so far, and where the most urgent work still lies. For residents, campaigners, and observers alike, it is an prospect to understand not just what City Hall is doing on policing and crime-but how it intends to be held to account.
How the Deputy Mayor shapes policing priorities across London
The role sits at the junction of City Hall, communities and the Met, turning political vision into operational focus. In weekly briefings, the Deputy Mayor interrogates crime data, community feedback and inspectorate reports to decide where officers, funding and specialist teams are most urgently needed. From violence against women and girls to youth violence and online fraud, emerging threats are translated into clear strategic objectives for the Commissioner. These are then hardwired into the Police and Crime Plan, performance scorecards and funding agreements that ultimately shape what Londoners see on their streets: more patrols in transport hubs, targeted operations around knife crime hotspots, or enhanced support for victims.
- Sets city‑wide priorities based on evidence, hearings and consultation.
- Challenges the Met’s leadership on culture, performance and fairness.
- Directs funding towards neighbourhood policing, prevention and victim services.
- Amplifies local voices from boroughs,faith groups and youth forums.
| Focus Area | What Changes on the Ground |
|---|---|
| Neighbourhood policing | More visible officers in estates, town centres and on buses. |
| Serious violence | Dedicated taskforces and investment in youth diversion schemes. |
| Trust & accountability | Stricter oversight of stop and search and officer misconduct. |
| Victim support | Quicker referrals to advocacy services and specialist helplines. |
Because the post is politically accountable but not operational, influence is exerted through scrutiny, funding levers and public openness, rather than day‑to‑day direction of officers. Public Q&A sessions, community meetings and formal oversight boards create pressure for the Met to align its practice with Londoners’ expectations on fairness and effectiveness. In this way,the Deputy Mayor acts as a conduit: converting residents’ concerns into measurable targets,confronting the Met when it falls short,and backing reforms that rebuild confidence while keeping the capital safe.
Inside the oversight of the Metropolitan Police and accountability to Londoners
The Deputy Mayor explains that mayoral oversight is now more data-led, self-reliant and public than ever. Performance panels scrutinise everything from response times to stop and search outcomes, with findings published online and discussed in public meetings at City Hall.Londoners can watch these sessions live, read the papers, and submit questions in advance.Alongside this, independent voices – including community representatives, victim advocates and academic experts – are invited to challenge the Met’s leadership directly, ensuring that operational decisions are tested against both public confidence and legal standards.
- Public meetings that question senior Met officers in real time
- Transparent data dashboards tracking crime, complaints and conduct
- Community reference groups feeding lived experience into policy
- Independent inspections and reports driving reform plans
| Oversight Tool | What Londoners See |
|---|---|
| Public Q&A Sessions | Senior officers questioned on live issues |
| Performance Reports | Clear charts on crime and trust trends |
| Complaint Data | How misconduct is investigated and resolved |
| Reform Tracker | Progress on culture change and vetting |
Accountability also relies on formal powers.The Deputy Mayor sets the Met’s budget and priorities through the Police and Crime Plan, can require detailed explanations when targets are missed, and pushes for disciplinary action or systemic change where necessary. This is linked to community-facing mechanisms such as borough hearings, online consultations and focused engagement with under‑represented groups. Together, these structures aim to ensure that the Met’s authority is matched by clear lines of responsibility back to Londoners, who fund the service and live with the consequences of its decisions.
Tackling violent crime and trust in policing through community centred strategies
Addressing serious violence in the capital means moving beyond enforcement alone and investing in the relationships that keep neighbourhoods safe. The Deputy Mayor explains how the city is expanding violence reduction units, supporting youth workers in A&Es and custody suites, and funding local mentorship programmes that intervene before conflict escalates.These initiatives are designed with residents, community leaders and victims’ advocates, ensuring that solutions reflect lived experience rather than top‑down assumptions. Alongside targeted hotspot policing and intelligence-led operations,Town Hall is pushing for better data sharing between agencies so that warning signs-such as school exclusions,homelessness or exploitation-trigger support,not just surveillance.
Rebuilding confidence in policing is treated as inseparable from reducing harm. Londoners are being given more direct channels to shape local priorities through community scrutiny panels, independent advisory groups and yitness and survivor forums, while new cultural and professional standards are being driven into everyday frontline practice.This includes strengthened misconduct processes, refreshed training on bias and de‑escalation, and public reporting that allows residents to see change-or lack of it-in black and white. Below is a snapshot of how these community-centred measures are being put to work across the city:
- Neighbourhood panels co-designing patrol plans with local officers.
- Youth assemblies shaping funding for prevention projects.
- Faith and cultural forums advising on stop and search and hate crime.
- Community-led audits monitoring how fairly powers are used.
| Initiative | Community Role | Impact Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Violence Reduction Hubs | Local groups co-run services | Cut youth reoffending |
| Scrutiny Panels | Residents review cases | Improve fairness, transparency |
| Street Outreach Teams | Mentors from the area | Defuse conflicts early |
| Trust Surveys | Regular feedback from all wards | Track confidence in policing |
Recommendations for improving transparency engagement and support for victims
To rebuild public confidence, City Hall must move from reactive statements to a culture of radical openness and consistent outreach. That means publishing clear, plain-language summaries of key policing decisions, stop-and-search data and complaint outcomes, and presenting them through accessible dashboards rather than dense PDFs. Regular, live-streamed Q&A sessions with senior officers and the Deputy Mayor, held in different boroughs and promoted in multiple languages, would allow Londoners to interrogate decisions in real time. Crucially, frontline engagement should not be limited to crises: community liaison officers, youth forums and independent advisory groups need visible backing, transparent feedback loops, and publicly tracked commitments so residents can see which promises are kept, delayed or dropped.
For victims, access to justice frequently enough hinges on whether they feel heard, believed and practically supported from the moment they report a crime. The Deputy Mayor is urging a standardised victim care pathway across London,with named case contacts,proactive updates and trauma-informed communication built in as non-negotiables. Investment in specialist advocates-especially for domestic abuse, sexual violence and hate crime-must be matched by simple digital tools that let victims check case progress and request support without retelling their stories. To make these pledges tangible, City Hall could publish a concise public charter and track delivery against it:
- Clear data: rights, timelines and next steps explained at the first point of contact.
- Consistent updates: agreed contact schedule, with options for SMS, email or phone.
- Specialist support: fast referral to services that reflect London’s diversity.
- Independent scrutiny: victim‑survivor panels feeding directly into policy reviews.
| Priority | Action | Measure of success |
|---|---|---|
| Openness | Publish quarterly policing data in plain English | Higher public understanding scores |
| Voice | Host rotating borough Q&A forums | Increased attendance and diverse participation |
| Support | Guarantee a named victim contact officer | Improved victim satisfaction in surveys |
| Accountability | Publish progress against a victim care charter | Independent panels verify delivery |
Insights and Conclusions
As London grapples with complex challenges around safety, trust and accountability, this exchange with the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime offers a snapshot of how City Hall intends to respond. From resourcing neighbourhood policing to addressing disparities in the justice system, the priorities outlined here will help shape how London is policed in the years ahead.
Ultimately, the impact of these commitments will be judged not in press conferences or policy papers, but in the daily experiences of Londoners: whether they feel protected, listened to and treated fairly. As new strategies are rolled out and existing ones tested, scrutiny from the public, the Assembly and independent watchdogs will remain critical. The questions will keep coming – and so, too, must clear answers.
