H&F Labour's War On Waste Will Keep This Inept Conservative Run Council On The Back Foot

Incompetence and waste: Hammersmith and Fulham Council
eventually handed itself over to HMRC while admitting it had been
operating outside UK tax laws because of the Conservative
Administration's self-confessed "carelessness" with public money

Fourteen months ago, at last year’s budget meeting, the public nearly got their first glimpse of Hammersmith and Fulham Conservatives’ 2014 election narrative. The visual was a large black solid circle photocopied onto A4 paper. All the Borough’s Conservative councillors filed into the chamber clasping their copies which they quickly stashed out of sight under their desk. Their plan was to orchestrate a synchronised raising of their sheets at a signalled point during the evening. Some clearly imagined it would be hilarious - unable to curtail their sniggering and offering up sneak previews of their papers across the council chamber. But the call never came and this silly stunt was never activated.

The problem the Conservatives had was that my Labour colleagues and I spent that evening underlining how we would root out waste, cut council taxes and only make funding pledges that were properly costed and rigorously tested. The Conservatives' mood slumped even further when we listed some of the incompetence and waste of millions of pounds of public money which had gained them notoriety in the national media and been investigated by the UK tax authorities. We called for a war on waste. By the end of the evening, a glumness had settled over the Conservative group. Their “Labour’s black hole” argument had been proved to be really rather daft.

Fifteen months have passed and as the election approaches H&F Conservatives will undoubtedly try and wheel out that nonsense again. It won’t work and not just because it isn’t true. It will fail because my Labour colleagues and I will set out a thoroughly costed plan that will deliver on our tax cutting and manifesto commitments and we do that against a back-drop of Hammersmith and Fulham Conservatives’ increasing reputation for financial incompetence.

Consider that in the last eighteen months Bob Neill MP (Con) (one of their own local government ministers) accused our Tory councillors of “slackness” after it emerged they had wasted vast amounts of tax payers' money. Or, that in the last six months the Borough’s Conservative Administration wrote to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs service to plead that they had been “careless” with tax payers’ money which is the best excuse they could agree on after being caught out operating outside UK tax laws. Regular readers will recall how this Conservative Administration has been exposed in countless national media for wasting millions of pounds on unorthodox uses of consultants – many of whom are retired local government officers wrongly working as “consultants” so as to not forfeit their generous pension payments. And how our council has the accolade of having both too many and having the highest paid senior bureaucrats in the UK. There is much more and it is insightful to their attitude that they okayed a £7,000.00 Monday afternoon booze-up for a favoured local government employee and did that in these austere times.

There needs to be a change and cutting council waste needs to be central to the changes this Borough needs.

What Happened To Make H&F's Conservative Councillors Capitulate In Negotiations To Save Our Hospitals?

How government health chiefs now view H&F
Conservatives since they have started
backing their hospitals cuts plan

Ask anyone who has studied negotiation: is it a good idea to back down from a strong position; take away all pressure from your opponent; and shake hands on a deal months or even years before any deadline requires you to do so? You will get a very clear answer - No! So why did our Borough’s Conservative councillors lead the Council to do precisely that when they stopped their support of the cross-party, residents-led campaign to save local hospitals?

This matter was considered at an emergency Full Council Meeting called last week by my fellow Labour councillors and I. It was a chance for Conservative councillors to explain themselves, in public and on-record. Hundreds of people turned out to listen. Some angry, some distraught and some just keen to understand what had happened. But no good answers came.

One resident perceptively pointed out how the ashamed body language of the Conservatives’ more thoughtful elected representatives became increasingly more squirmish as their own side tried to explain what had happened. In short, their argument is that this was the best possible deal they thought they could get.

But this was the first deal the government offered them and they immediately snapped it up. The Conservative/Lib Dem government also offered Ealing Council and Lewisham Council similar initial deals at the same time and those elected representatives (of all parties) turned them down and said their residents deserved much more. So what was the real reason our Conservative councillors capitulated?

It turned out that there has been a considerable amount of disquiet amongst local Conservatives about attacking their own government’s policy of hospital cuts. Many had never wanted to join the residents-led campaign in the first place. When the government offered them a cop out they took it and figured they could use council funds to blanket the Borough with propaganda spinning what they had done.

They have so far spent over £20,000.00 of tax payers’ money telling residents that they have “Saved Charing Cross Hospital.” Nobody who has studied the facts or heard their explanations believes that’s true. In fact, in the panic of trying to explain themselves last week, one Conservative councillor admitted nothing had been finalised and nothing yet agreed - underlining how the Conservatives have undermined their negotiating position. 

If this is such a "great deal" and an "amazing triumph" why did Conservative councillors sneak off behind the backs of the residents, they had pledged to work with, and agree all this in secret? Why did they only tell their former partners in the residents campaign about their "brilliant success" the day before they announced it on a glossy council leaflet posted out to all Borough residents? And why did they not call for any type of independent clinical assessment of this deal before they agreed it and before they announced it?

By the end of the meeting our Conservative councillors' had demonstrated that their position is no more than a bad-judgement call, a political mistake, an inept negotiation and a betrayal of residents who expected our council to put their health needs first.

So, at last week’s meeting my Labour colleagues and I called three separate votes. All the Borough's councillors were required to vote for or against the following:

1. A commission that will carry out an independent clinical assessment of these proposals
2. For the Council to ask the Secretary of State for Health to hold a public inquiry into how these proposals will affect local residents
3. For the Council to re-open negotiations with Government health chiefs to get a better health deal for Hammersmith and Fulham's residents.

All of our Borough’s Conservative elected representatives voted against those proposals. They were therefore blocked from happening.

So now residents face a situation where our council has agreed that the A&E at Hammersmith Hospital will close and the A&E at Charing Cross Hospital will close leaving no accident and emergency services in the Borough. Nearly all other acute health facilities at Charing Cross will close. Charing Cross Hospital will be reduced to 13% of its current size; and 60% of the Charing Cross ground site will be turned over to the Conservatives' property speculator friends. And all of this while London’s population is set to expand by the equivalent of a city the size of Leeds over the next 12 years.

My Labour colleagues and I will continue to stand with local residents and will keep campaigning against these hospital closures.

It’s not too late for Conservative councillors to realise their mistakes. I for one would welcome it if they re-joined the Save Our Hospitals campaign. I know how difficult it is to oppose those in your own party. My local Labour colleagues and I opposed the last Labour London Mayor on the western extension of the congestion zone and the last Labour government on the third runway at Heathrow. But there is no more important issue facing the Borough than saving our hospitals for current and future generations of residents. Once those critical health services have gone they will not be coming back. 

Labour Calls A Vote For Independent Assessment Of Conservatives' Hospital Cuts Plan At Next Week's "Extraordinary Council Meeting"

The Labour Opposition on Hammersmith and Fulham Council have called an emergency council meeting to discuss the private deal Conservative Councillors struck with government health chiefs at the end of last year - as reported here. The Mayor has scheduled the Extraordinary Council Meeting for next Tuesday, 19th March. It will begin at 7.00pm in Hammersmith Town Hall. You can view the agenda by clicking here.

My Labour colleagues and I called this vote as we believe that it is important that the Council agrees to have this deal objectively assessed by an independent health expert. All councillors will therefore be given the opportunity to vote on that proposition.

We are also questioning the propriety of the Conservatives’ behaviour because they did not call an emergency meeting of the Borough's Health Select Committee to assess their deal before they privately shook hands on it and they did not inform any of their partners in the residents' led Save Our Hospitals campaign that were even entering talks. Instead, they spent an estimated £20,000.00 of council tax payers' money on hospital leaflets which falsely claim they have "saved Charing Cross Hospital." It's hard not to see how they are doing anything other than playing fast and loose with public health and public money.

Schmid Hits The Ground Running With Calls For War On Council Waste And Genuine Tax Cuts

Cllr. Max Schmid (Lab) setting out the case for genuine tax cuts
and rooting out the chronic levels of council waste

Newly elected Councillor Max Schmid gave his maiden speech at the very first opportunity - the Annual Budget Meeting. Here's what he said:

"I would like to start by thanking the voters of Wormholt and White City who elected me to represent them. I also want to thank the police and election officials who ran such a smooth process.

The election, though, came under by the worst possible circumstances - the sad loss of Councillor Jean Campbell.

As we all know, Cllr. Campbell was a strong and much admired representative for her ward. She built up a huge respect in the community. She was a genuine leader whose loss has been felt deeply.

On the doorstep, many residents warned me that she is an impossible act to follow, but I will do all I can to carry on working for the positive changes she wanted to see for Wormholt and White City.

I want to use this speech to discuss two points about this budget:

I will talk about the Council’s range of taxes, fines and charges, and I will then discuss tackling council wastefulness.

In the recent by-election, I stood on a platform that supported the council tax cuts and argued for reductions across many forms of council stealth taxes.

So I understand why the Administration makes much of the Council Tax cut. They have even gone as far as changing their logo. Gone is “Putting residents first.” That has been replaced with “The low tax Borough”. But is that true? Or, is this claim contradicted by the nearly 600 stealth taxes that have been introduced or increased since 2006.

I worry that when you consider all of the costs imposed by the Council on the residents it once claimed to put first, we actually live in a High tax Borough.

Residents don’t distinguish between the different ways the Council takes money from them. They look at what they get from the Council, and what they pay in through not only the official Council Tax, but also the huge range of stealth taxes. More and more, they are not satisfied with the deal they are getting.

Let’s take the example of a 72 year old lady I met last June while canvassing in the Town by-election. She lives in a nice flat, she worked hard all her life and has always paid her taxes. She told me that since 2006 her Council charges for meals-on-wheels, which she depends on, have gone up dramatically above inflation, adding an extra £700 to her annual bill.

She thinks that Hammersmith and Fulham is a high tax Borough for elderly residents.

While canvassing in Fulham Reach ward last weekend I talked to a small business owner who told me that his costs for refuse collection had gone up drastically in the last three years alone. They go up even further in this budget.

He told me that Hammersmith and Fulham is a high tax Borough for small businesses.

During this month’s by-election, I met parents in White City who take their kids to play football in Hammersmith Park. They told me how important it was for them to keep their children active and fit. But they complained that the council has rented out the park to a private contractor that has imposed charges for a pitch to up to 90 pounds an hour.

For them, Hammersmith and Fulham is a high tax Borough for families.

And a few weeks ago the Sunday Times exposed the £3m motorist trap in Fulham that Transport for London said was specifically designed to multiply council earnings instead of properly regulate traffic.

As they sit at home and ponder their exorbitant ticket, these 80 people a day can only conclude that Hammersmith and Fulham is a high tax Borough for motorists.

And all the while lots of council waste that should be tackled isn’t. Perversely, one of the biggest areas of waste is the millions every year the Council spends congratulating itself and trying to convince residents they are getting a good deal. The expensive, glossy leaflets printed and delivered to residents, the acres of high-rate newspaper adverts, the Maoist posters hanging from streetlights and now a ridiculous rebranding exercise.

All of this £5 million of waste on PR could be cut. Instead—only a paltry £10,000 savings is made in this budget on Communications.

With massive cuts everywhere else in this budget, communities facing the sale their homes to overseas developers and our two Hospitals betrayed, the propaganda budget seems to be the only thing this Council is prepared to protect.

So, just as I did in my recent election, I will continue to campaign for a genuinely low tax Borough.

I will work to cut council waste on propaganda, to remove layers of expensive senior bureaucrats and end its exorbitant use of consultants.

But I will also fight for a better deal for local residents.

I want a Council that thinks it is worth fighting to keep Hospitals in the area instead of wasting even more money on a PR campaign pretending the local health service had been saved—a preposterous claim that yesterday even the Conservative Secretary of State seemed unimpressed by.

Hammersmith and Fulham is crying out for a fresh approach. One that genuinely puts money back in people’s pockets, tackles waste and still aspires to put residents first.

Thank you."

Residents Accuse Conservative Councillors Of Betrayal After Secret Deal To Shut Hospital Services And Turn Most Of Charing Cross Hospital Into Luxury Flats

Last July, at a packed public meeting, residents were aggressively questioning Conservative councillors about whether they could be trusted to protect our local hospitals. The Conservatives sat looking brow-beaten and so I found myself in the unusual position of speaking up for them. I said that Conservative councillors had promised me and residents’ groups that they would work with us to protect our local hospitals and that I believed it was right we should take them at their word. Just over three weeks ago the Conservatives publicly left the campaign to Save Our Hospitals. Now all of us that believed their promise feel more that a little duped. 

In short, both of the Borough’s accident and emergency departments will now close and the Conservatives have already agreed that the majority of the Charing Cross Hospital site will be turned over to property speculators who will use the land to build luxury flats.

Here’s the details of the deal our Conservative run Council has agreed with government heath chiefs:

• Only 13% of the current Charing Cross Hospital will be used for NHS care
• That 60% of the Charing Cross Hospital ground-site will be sold to property speculators and turned into luxury flats
• Both of the Borough’s A&Es at Charing Cross Hospital and Hammersmith Hospital’s will close
• Shut the stroke unit at Charing Cross Hospital
• Shut the Intensive Care Unit at Charing Cross Hospital
• Cut 440 beds at Charing Cross Hospital, leaving just 60 beds
• End acute care at Charing Cross Hospital
• The remaining 13% space of the current Charing Cross Hospital site will be turned into a specialist health clinic and adult social care convalescence centre
• Residents will spend up to 30 crucial minutes travelling by ambulance to A&Es in other boroughs and up to an hour by car
• The possible demolition of the award-winning Maggie’s Centre with it being rebuilt on a less valuable piece of land.

Once this deal had been put together the Chair of the Borough’s Health Select Committee should have called an emergency meeting to review it. But that position is held by Ravenscourt Park Councillor Lucy Ivimy (Con). She refrained from calling that meeting so there was no objective independent assessment or public scrutiny of this deal before it was agreed. Instead, the day after Conservative councillors announced they were leaving the Save Our Hospitals campaign they instructed the Council to send out a tax-payer funded, glossy leaflet to all residents in the Borough. That falsely told people that they had saved the hospitals. People will judge the truthfulness of that for themselves.

The last scheduled Health Select Committee took place on 20^th February. At that meeting Conservative councilors voted down the Labour Opposition’s request to have an independent health expert assess the deal they had agreed. They also admitted that they had been working on their deal since last year and had privately agreed to leave the Save Our Hospitals campaign before Christmas.

The time-line to the Conservative Administration’s change of heart raises further questions. Shortly after Christmas a source close to senior council officials let me know that Conservative councillors had agreed to publicly change their position and support the hospital closures. My source told me there had been a considerable amount of disagreement in the Conservative Group with many feeling uncomfortable attacking their own government’s hospital closure plans. By 30^th January 2013, Cllr. Lucy Ivimy and Fulham Reach Councillor Peter Graham (Con) gave speeches at the Full Council Meeting indicating they were actively favouring much of the government’s hospital closure programme. On the 7^th February the Conservative administration finally came clean and announced the deal done with government health chiefs before Christmas. The next day their glossy propaganda leaflet flopped onto the doormats of 180,000 Borough residents.

This privately agreed deal is awful. The Conservatives appear to have been, at best, thoroughly incompetent in their negotiations. Their underhand approach will have undermined their negotiating position and can only be seen as an effort to undercut the local residents' campaign they had previously pledged to support. I know that the residents who have worked tirelessly on the Save Our Hospitals campaign feel thoroughly betrayed.

The campaign to Save Our Hospitals carries on. My Labour colleagues and I continue to support it.

Save Earls Court Exhibition Centres And 760 Local Families' Homes From Demolition And Overdevelopment

If you have a moment, please use it to click here and sign an important petition urging the government to "call in" Hammersmith and Fulham Conservatives' decision to demolish the iconic Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre and if that wasn't bad enough also demolish 760 local families’ homes on the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates.

Labour's Candidate For Wormholt And White City Keen To Build On Jean Campbell's Legacy

Max Schmid has been selected as Labour’s candidate for Wormholt and White City ward following the sad death of Councillor Jean Campbell. The by-election will take place early next year.

Max is a seasoned campaigner for the Labour Party having run for elected office in North End ward in 2010. He currently works for a charity that supports some of the most vulnerable communities in the developing world.

Max said “I am honoured to be chosen for this campaign. Jean Campbell was an inspiration and I will do all I can to live up to her legacy and to the high standards she set.

“Wormholt and White City is made up of many vibrant communities yet many of its residents face untold hardship because of the Conservatives’ hospital closures, because they’re closing Shepherds Bush Police Station and cutting police numbers and because of the awful things they’re doing on housing. I will campaign to defend the people in this ward and work for better outcomes for all that live there. Jean Campbell wanted to see so much done in this area and it will be my privilege to carry on working to bring about the changes she cared for so much should I be elected in the New Year.”

Councillor Jean Campbell

Councillor Jean Campbell

It is with profound sadness that I announce Councillor Jean Campbell died on Saturday.

Jean had represented the nearly 8,000 citizens of Wormholt and White City ward since 4th May 2006. She was also an active member of her local church, a member of the Hammersmith Labour Party’s general committee and an executive member of the White City Tenants and Residents Association - having been re-elected as its treasurer just last Wednesday night.

Jean Campbell was a part of that great pioneer generation and having been born in Belmont, St. Andrew, Jamaica on the 6th March 1947, she arrived in Britain in 1970. She worked as an auxiliary nurse in the West London Hospital, then as a civil servant in the Department of Trade and Industry and did all of this while volunteering in her local community and bringing up four sons.

For Jean, looking out for others was just how she lived her life. Accompanying her on a walk around White City could be a leisurely affair as she would be stopped by neighbours and constituents all keen to pass the time of day, discuss some issue of concern or shout a friendly greeting as they dashed by. She was a captivating speaker in the Council Chamber – always sticking up for those most hard done by or for people whose voices were being ignored. She was the original community leader and organiser, always thinking how she could get something done and working to make things better.

Flag flying at half mast over Hammersmith Town Hall today
out of respect for Councillor Jean Campbell who gave
a lifetime of service to others

For the last seven years Jean was the carer for her partner Jones Delauney who sadly died in July after a long illness. Jean lived with her mum.

Recently, Jean was campaigning for better care for elderly residents in sheltered housing, for better youth services and was in the process of sending food parcels to Jamaica after the devastation of Hurricane Sandy.

I had last spoken with Jean on Friday night. She was on good form and looking forward to the future – even joking about going dancing again. Jean was much loved and respected by all of us. Her death is a terrible shock and a dreadful loss.

I know the thoughts of everyone who knew Jean will be with her mum, her children, their partners and her grandchildren, all of whom she was very proud - as were we of her.

H&F Conservatives Side With Property Speculator And OK CPO Powers To Demolish Shepherds Bush Market

Conservatives agreed to CPO Cooke's and
the surrounding shops so their
property speculator colleagues
can go ahead with the demolitions

On Monday night, Hammersmith and Fulham Council’s Conservative Administration met to vote through compulsory purchase orders (CPO) for the shops on the Goldhawk Road. They did this against the wishes of the small retailers who have long run those businesses  - many fearing that this will finish them off.

In agreeing the CPOs the cabinet also chose to ignore a ruling from the High Court that their Administration had acted unlawfully and they strengthened the negotiating position of the large property speculator who is currently discussing terms with the small retailers for the demolition of their premises.

I asked the Conservative cabinet members why they had placed hundreds of thousand of pounds of tax payers’ money, their officials’ time and other resources at the disposal of their chosen property speculator. They explained they believed it was necessary to push this deal through.

Cllr. Mark Loveday. Enjoyed a £12,000.00 tax
payer funded jaunt to the French Riviera
where he hawked the Borough's
"Contentious development sites."

Councillors Andrew Jones (Lab) and PJ Murphy (Lab) urged the Conservatives to refrain from allowing the use of CPO powers and asked about details of the scheme that was missing from the reports and about the vague assurances being offered to the small retailers. Officers and Conservative councillors were unable to answer many of their questions. At this point, Cllr. Mark Loveday (Con) made a somewhat emotional interjection involving shouting personal insults at my colleagues. In part this was his usual technique to try and stop a line of questioning. But, Cllr. Mark Loveday had been responsible for many of the unhappy deals the Conservative administration has made with big property speculators across the Borough. Regular readers will recall how he enjoyed a £12,000.00 tax payer funded jaunt to the French Riviera where he met many property speculators while hawking the Borough’s “contentious development sites.” He was also exposed as having misled the public about dealings with the same property speculator on another site. So Loveday’s ill-considered personal defensiveness is perhaps understandable.

What is unforgivable is that despite the warm words offered by the Conservatives they are undermining the small businesses on that site and doing so during George Osborne’s double dip recession. It’s likely the decision they made on Monday night will force many to close. Like many residents before them the retailers are asking why H&F’s Conservative run Council is building relationships with large property speculators that are too close for comfort and detrimental to their interests? You can read more about the background to this deal on the Shepherds Bush Blog.

H&F Conservatives’ £2m Gift Of Public Cash To Barclays Bank/Boris Scheme Stinks

Bungling H&F Conservatives have handed over £2m of public
money for their mate Boris' Barclay's bikes scheme

“Have they lost their minds?” one local resident asked me on hearing that Hammersmith and Fulham Conservatives have agreed to hand over a staggering £2 million of council funds for the Barclay’s Bank/Boris Bike Scheme.

Why they are giving away any public money to anything to do with the recently discredited Barclays Bank is hard to fathom. But this looks like a grubby favour done to help their close friend Boris Johnson - the Mayor of London.

You also have to ask yourself what type of incompetent, spendthrift, public-money-squandering bozo negotiated such a deal that it can only go ahead if a small Borough like Hammersmith and Fulham hands over £2m of extremely scarce resources?

Hammersmith and Fulham’s Conservative Administration says that the residents shouldn’t be too bothered because the council received this £2m as statutory planning gain from a property developer. But, that conveniently ignores all the lost opportunities of other important things this money could have been used for such as improving local infrastructure, investing in critical services or sorting out the Borough’s finances.

This deal stinks. It appears to be done for no other reason then to help out a political mate. Why weren’t Barclays Bank asked to pay? As much as I think it would be good to have a scheme such as this in our Borough, I do not think it is worth £2 million and neither do any of the residents who have contacted me about this.

H&F Council Spent £10m Of Tax Payers' Money On Homes It Now Plans To Demolish

Hammersmith and Fulham Council has admitted that over the last nine years it has spent over £10,000,000.00 of hard-earned tax-payers' money refurbishing two estates it now plans to demolish.

In an email to Cllr. Lisa Homan (Lab), the Borough's director of housing wrote: "I can confirm that the total capital expenditure on West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estates between the financial years of 2002/3 - 2011/12 was £10.34 million, which includes work undertaken as part the Decent Homes programme, together with environmental improvements."

This £10.3m improvement scheme had been the first major investment into improving those council homes in decades. They were brought up to scratch with new environmentally efficient windows and doors, new kitchens. new bathrooms and improvements to the public space.

But all of that money has been wasted. Within the last two weeks the Conservative Administration has sold the two estates to a favoured property speculator at a knock-down price. Then Conservative councillors granted them permission to demolish the 800 families' homes that form the community on what is now viewed by the Conservatives as no more than a development site. 

Has H&F Council Been Complicit In Offering Homes For Support Of Their Demolition Scheme?

Hammersmith and Fulham Council has admitted that it has long been aware that new homes were being offered to residents of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates in return for support of the Council’s controversial scheme to demolish both of those estates.

While it blames its partners for compiling the “VIP list” it has consistently refused to investigate why its officials didn’t immediately stop it and to what level, if any, they were involved in agreeing it. We therefore have a situation where at the very least H&F Council appears to have turned a blind eye to a hoodwinking exercise designed to falsely win support and it did this while it was carrying out the necessary statutory consultations about this scheme.

On 31st January 2012 two directors of the limited liability company, H&F Council had helped establish, resigned. The company had been formed for residents supporting the demolition of the two estates but both directors became disenchanted when they concluded the scheme was flawed and bad for their fellow residents. In his resignation email to H&F Council, one of the former directors stated "remember the list of about 120 VIP estate residents who have been promised priority in the move to Seagrave Road (if it ever happens) irrespective of if their homes are required for development."  He alleged that the VIP list had been compiled “to garner resident support” and that a council official had “agreed” all of this.  If that has happened the Council will have acted unlawfully.

I had previously heard rumours of such activities but when this document was forwarded to me in March it was the first time I had seen anything specific or in writing. Coming from such a prominent person, I believed H&F Council would naturally want to investigate what had actually occurred.  I asked Cllr. Andrew Johnson (Con), the Borough’s cabinet member for housing and Mr. Melbourne Barrett, the director of housing about this alleged bribery and to tell me what actions they have taken to investigate it and how they intend to deal with it?

I did not get a straight answer to any of those questions - despite my persistence over the following months. This smelt like a cover up. Andrew Johnson didn’t even bother to respond. On 16th August Derek Myers, the Council’s Chief Executive, emailed to me to say following his "enquiries" he considered that I have “no independent information which forms the basis of any allegation of dishonesty or impropriety.” The evidence from the former company director was dismissed on the bizarre basis that he no longer “believe[s] the council should enter into an agreement with CapCo and he has expressed his opinion on this in a variety of correspondence.”

At the Cabinet Meeting on Monday 3rd September, Derek Myers informed the Committee that the full extent of his investigation was no more than to ask Mr. Barrett about what had happened. Melbourne Barrett told us that the full extent of his investigations were no more than to ask a project manager about it.

Meanwhile, Melbourne Barrett agreed that there is a "longstanding" and "close and fluid" working relationship between CapCo, the Council's residents group and the Council - adding an assurance that this was all above board and beyond reproach. I cannot see how he was able to make such an assurance given the Council's complete failure to properly investigate or take seriously these alarming allegations.

Melbourne Barrett went on to admit that the Council had known about the VIP list since at least January of this year but he refused four times to confirm exactly when they first became aware of it. He did volunteer that the Council does have an "early leavers list" but said officials had not considered the possible correlation between that and the VIP list. At 10.15 the next morning Derek Myers emailed me stating “I now regard the matter as closed.”

Yesterday morning the West Kensington and Gibbs Green residents associations delivered a dossier to my office. It contained further and similar allegations of a VIP list which they compiled after listening closely to the council officials' unsatisfactory answers at last week’s cabinet meeting. They have also handed a copy to the Borough’s police and appear to have press released it. This matter is clearly far from closed.

If council officials believe they can white wash this or continue to obfuscate and consistently refrain from answering questions or that this matter will just go away, they are wrong. I am calling for Hammersmith and Fulham Council to arrange for a full independent investigation and to tell us what has happened. That investigation must report:

• Exactly how was this VIP list compiled?
• When did this begin and is it still happening?
• Which people were involved in compiling it?
• What were the terms and requirements for getting onto the VIP list and how was it used to "garner support?"
• Which council officers knew of the VIP list and exactly when?
• Were any council officers involved in compiling it or agreeing it in any way - as alleged?
• What measures did H&F Council take to stop it and when did they do this?
• Exactly what correlation is there between the 120 people alleged to be on the VIP list and the Council's own "early movers list?"
• What conclusions did council officers and their legal advisers reach about this potential illegality and unlawfulness?
• To what level has this affected or invalidated the statutory consultations H&F Council carried out during this period?

I am sure there are plenty of other questions that need to be answered about the homes for support allegations but these are the very least Hammersmith and Fulham Council needs to come clean about.