Sexual harassment in the City

It's not just Westminster.

The sexual harassment allegations against Lib Dem peer Lord Rennard and the accusations levelled at the Lib Dems that they ignored the complaints against him, have drawn attention to how women are treated in Westminster.

A piece in today's Guardian claims that "many women at Westminster…complain of encountering neanderthal behaviour among prominent parliamentarians" and lists a number of incidents of sexual harassment faced by women MPs, aides, lobbyists and journalists. It blamed the 'antiquated rules' that govern parliament, with one female victim of sexual harassment saying that the men involved understand that they are in a position of "power" and that a woman hoping for career advancement is unlikely to kick up a fuss.

It's not only Westminster that's governed by these rules, but the City too. When I was fifteen and doing my GCSEs, I did two weeks work experience at a magic circle law firm. One of the trainees charged with assisting me in operating the photocopier and other important tasks, started behaving increasingly inappropriately towards me. It was a relief to leave after two weeks, and even a decade on, I cringe at the memory.

I was too young then to understand just how wrong his behaviour was. I found the whole situation deeply embarrassing — but then, when you're 15 life in general is deeply embarrassing. I like to think I'd launch a formal complaint if it happened today, but it's rarely easy to make this kind of complaint about someone in power — particularly when they are in charge of your career advancement.

A (male) friend of mine working at an investment bank has confided in me how difficult he finds the 'banter' at work — especially when he sees how uncomfortable it makes his one female colleague, who is forced to either play along or risk being sidelined in the team. I will never forget a female former-RAF captain who now works as an investment manager telling me that she experienced far more sexism in the City than in the army.

I don't want to suggest sexual harassment isn't rife elsewhere — waitressing, I remember, was awful for it too. But, with their large HR departments, big City law firms and banks have many more resources than small businesses to clamp down on inappropriate behaviour.

Whether you're a 15-year old intern, a 35 year old associate, or a 55 year old partner, it can be both embarrassing — and potentially career-damaging — to report incidents of sexual harassment. That's why it's so important that if HR executives, or other employees in senior positions, spot their colleagues behaving inappropriately, they speak out.

This piece first appeared on Spears.

City of London. Photograph: Getty Images

Sophie McBain is a freelance writer based in Cairo. She was previously an assistant editor at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The tale of Battersea power station shows how affordable housing is lost

Initially, the developers promised 636 affordable homes. Now, they have reduced the number to 386. 

It’s the most predictable trick in the big book of property development. A developer signs an agreement with a local council promising to provide a barely acceptable level of barely affordable housing, then slashes these commitments at the first, second and third signs of trouble. It’s happened all over the country, from Hastings to Cumbria. But it happens most often in London, and most recently of all at Battersea power station, the Thames landmark and long-time London ruin which I wrote about in my 2016 book, Up In Smoke: The Failed Dreams of Battersea Power Station. For decades, the power station was one of London’s most popular buildings but now it represents some of the most depressing aspects of the capital’s attempts at regeneration. Almost in shame, the building itself has started to disappear from view behind a curtain of ugly gold-and-glass apartments aimed squarely at the international rich. The Battersea power station development is costing around £9bn. There will be around 4,200 flats, an office for Apple and a new Tube station. But only 386 of the new flats will be considered affordable

What makes the Battersea power station development worse is the developer’s argument for why there are so few affordable homes, which runs something like this. The bottom is falling out of the luxury homes market because too many are being built, which means developers can no longer afford to build the sort of homes that people actually want. It’s yet another sign of the failure of the housing market to provide what is most needed. But it also highlights the delusion of politicians who still seem to believe that property developers are going to provide the answers to one of the most pressing problems in politics.

A Malaysian consortium acquired the power station in 2012 and initially promised to build 517 affordable units, which then rose to 636. This was pretty meagre, but with four developers having already failed to develop the site, it was enough to satisfy Wandsworth council. By the time I wrote Up In Smoke, this had been reduced back to 565 units – around 15 per cent of the total number of new flats. Now the developers want to build only 386 affordable homes – around 9 per cent of the final residential offering, which includes expensive flats bought by the likes of Sting and Bear Grylls. 

The developers say this is because of escalating costs and the technical challenges of restoring the power station – but it’s also the case that the entire Nine Elms area between Battersea and Vauxhall is experiencing a glut of similar property, which is driving down prices. They want to focus instead on paying for the new Northern Line extension that joins the power station to Kennington. The slashing of affordable housing can be done without need for a new planning application or public consultation by using a “deed of variation”. It also means Mayor Sadiq Khan can’t do much more than write to Wandsworth urging the council to reject the new scheme. There’s little chance of that. Conservative Wandsworth has been committed to a developer-led solution to the power station for three decades and in that time has perfected the art of rolling over, despite several excruciating, and occasionally hilarious, disappointments.

The Battersea power station situation also highlights the sophistry developers will use to excuse any decision. When I interviewed Rob Tincknell, the developer’s chief executive, in 2014, he boasted it was the developer’s commitment to paying for the Northern Line extension (NLE) that was allowing the already limited amount of affordable housing to be built in the first place. Without the NLE, he insisted, they would never be able to build this number of affordable units. “The important point to note is that the NLE project allows the development density in the district of Nine Elms to nearly double,” he said. “Therefore, without the NLE the density at Battersea would be about half and even if there was a higher level of affordable, say 30 per cent, it would be a percentage of a lower figure and therefore the city wouldn’t get any more affordable than they do now.”

Now the argument is reversed. Because the developer has to pay for the transport infrastructure, they can’t afford to build as much affordable housing. Smart hey?

It’s not entirely hopeless. Wandsworth may yet reject the plan, while the developers say they hope to restore the missing 250 units at the end of the build.

But I wouldn’t hold your breath.

This is a version of a blog post which originally appeared here.

0800 7318496