Getty
Show Hide image

Police and Crime Commissioners have significant powers - pay attention to them

The first PCC elections in November 2012 attracted the lowest national turnout in British electoral history.

Next month voters in England and Wales will go to the polls to elect Police and Crime Commissioners. The first PCC elections, which took place in November 2012, are notable for attracting the lowest national turnout in British electoral history with only around 15% of voters going to the polls. As a result the previous PCC elections represented extraordinarily poor value for money.

The 2012 PCC election cost around £75m to run yet only around 5 million people turned out to vote. This represents a spend of around £15 for every vote cast. In terms of spend per vote the election of PCCs in 2012 was more costly than the re-election of US President Barack Obama which took place earlier the same month.

Police and Crime Commissioners are powerful individuals with extensive powers to set policing priorities, allocate resources and appoint Chief Constables. However, the low turnout meant that most were elected with the support of less than 7% of eligible voters, which naturally raised concerns about the legitimacy of those wielding these powers.

Eyebrows were also raised by the large salary and allowance packages available to PCCs. The £65k a year PCC salary is markedly higher than the £10k basic annual allowance for the police authority members they replaced. Although when one considers that most police authorities comprised around fifteen members and that many of those were eligible for additional allowances on top of their basic salary the generous salary of one individual does look like better value.

However, many Police and Crime Commissioners have also appointed deputy commissioners and managerial teams - also on generous salaries. The replacement of a number of modestly-paid police authority members with a single highly-paid individual and a team of well-paid advisors begins to look like less good value for money.

Moreover, while all PCCs were directly-elected, albeit on a low turnout, their deputies and managerial teams were all appointed and as such are somewhat less accountable to the public than the local councillors who sat on the police authorities they replaced.

One reason why so many of the new PCCs appointed advisory and support teams was that many of them had little experience of policing prior to taking on the role. While most PCCs are without doubt well-meaning public spirited individuals who want to make a difference to policing in their local area, a strong public service ethic or even extensive experience in other fields does not necessarily qualify one to set priorities for public safety and security or to handle million pound budgets. Of course the police authorities they replaced were not comprised of law-enforcement professionals but they did include local councillors often with many years’ experience of handling local authority budgets and all included lay members who were magistrates and therefore had some experience of the law.

In most cases the main qualification for election as a PCC appears to be political affiliation. Only a quarter of PCCs elected in 2012 were independent and the majority of candidates for this year’s election are standing as representatives of a political party. However, unlike for example MPs or local councillors, PCCs are required to carry out their job with impartiality. It is somewhat odd therefore that voters are being encouraged to vote for candidates on the basis of their political affiliation rather than their capacity to do the job. In the case of Police and Crime Commissioners one might argue that political affiliation should be a disqualification rather than a qualification for the post.

The most significant power allocated to PCCs, which had not been exercised by police authorities, is the power to appoint Chief Constables. Once again the record here has been mixed. Several PCCs have had fractious relationships with their Chief Constables and there have been a number of well-publicised fallouts between the individuals holding these prominent positions. The impact of such breakdowns on morale in the wider police force is also a cause for concern. A recent parliamentary select committee inquiry found that, as a result of the introduction of PCCs, police forces were finding it increasingly difficult to find candidates willing to take on the post of Chief Constable.

Whatever the flaws, the creation of Police and Crime Commissioners has drawn attention to a role which in the past was largely exercised without considerable public oversight or debate. While most PCCs are not perhaps household names, they have provided a focus for media and therefore public attention. Moreover, the high profile coverage of some of the problems associated with the role is perhaps an indication of an increase in accountability, and may therefore be seen as a good thing. The fact that PCC elections are this year being run alongside local elections will inevitably mean an increase in turnout. It is to be hoped that the next batch of Police and Crime Commissioners repay the voters’ confidence.

Dr Andrew Defty is Reader in Politics at the University of Lincoln. He tweets @adefty

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