The requester sought a complete copy of a 2017 report by Angela Main-Thompson reviewing potential conflicts of interest by Ministers Shimmin and Skelly regarding a planning application. The Cabinet Office confirmed the report is held but refused to disclose it, citing exemptions.
Key Facts
The report reviews the actions of Ministers Shimmin and Skelly concerning planning application 15/00124/B.
An independent Planning Inspector recommended refusal of the application due to environmental harm.
The Council of Ministers (CoMin) overruled the Inspector's recommendation and approved the application on 3 September 2015.
Ministers Gawne and Quayle withdrew from the CoMin meeting due to conflicts of interest, but Shimmin and Skelly did not.
The complainant alleged undeclared conflicts of interest and lobbied the Planning Committee previously.
Data Disclosed
18.02.17
2020-10-20
2020-12-18
15/00124/B
20 May 2015
17 June 2015
15 June
February 2012
24 July 2012
5 May 2015
6 August 2015
3 September 2015
28 August 2015
11 September 2015
14 December 2015
83 pages
3 documents
Original Request
I wish to be provided with a complete copy of a 'Report of review of the actions of Ministers Shimmin and Skelly and whether they knowingly failed to declare a conflict in relation to planning application 15/00142/B'
by Angela Main-Thompson Dated 18th February 2017
Data Tables (9)
Paragraph 1.4 continues—
“[If] a Minister has permission to be absent, the Minister’s views and feedback on
agenda items and topics should be provided to the Chief Secretary for inclusion in
the meeting.”
In other words, it is envisaged that Ministers will play a full part in discussions of
such items.
“Mr. Ash has reviewed the Inspector’s report. His advice is that the economic
arguments [my emphasis] in this case do not outweigh the reasons advanced
by the Inspector in reaching his recommendation for refusal, and do not
provide a sufficient basis to entitle the Council to reach a different overall view
of the planning merits.”.
Governance
AMT began by explaining that she wished to discuss Departmental governance,
and how information was shared between the Minister and the Department’s
officers.
CC confirmed that neither he nor any DED officer had access to the Minister’s
inbox. He commented that governance was extremely difficult because of the
use of electronic communication and, in particular, social media.
CC said that he spoke to the Minister on a daily basis and had regular meetings
with him. He relied on the Minister telling him of any important contacts which
he had had. CC said that at times the Minister communicated with the political
members of the Department and CC was not party to that information. This lack
of communication with the officers of the Department gave CC some cause for
concern in his capacity as Accounting Officer. This meant he was unable to offer
advice on policy proposals, and at the outset might have been unaware of
evolving policy development. In consequence, he could not always ensure that
officials were working in accordance with the Minister’s vision.
For meetings, CC took a list of bullet points for discussion. If something of
substance needed Ministerial approval CC would bring an email trail with him or
papers for discussion and decision.
Signature of letters of
support for planning
applications on grounds
of economic benefit
CC explained that the Department’s consideration of support for a particular
application was a political decision. It was therefore appropriate for the letter to
be signed by the Minister. In many cases the Minister will have had personal
contact with the HNWI.
AMT accepted that, if CC signed these letters, the Minister would still be
conflicted as the Minister for the Department, but that conflict would not
continue if he changed Departments. It was the personal involvement of
Minister Shimmin which had meant that the conflict continued.
AMT asked why the Minister could not determine the policy and set out the
circumstances in which DED would support an application on grounds of
economic benefit, and then leave it to officers to apply the policy, with the Chief
Executive signing the letter. CC thought this might be possible, but it would
need a change of Departmental practice. In particular, Ministers liked to be
engaged in individual cases.
Due diligence checks
AMT asked about the checks carried out when agreeing to support planning
applications on the basis of economic benefit. CC said that due diligence was
undertaken in relation to the individuals concerned and also in relation to the
likely benefits of the proposals such as jobs the development might create. At
the same time, once planning approval was granted a HNWI’s plans might
change and so the development might not proceed as initially anticipated. DED
needed the HNWI’s trust and would not wish to appear disbelieving or to be
questioning their bona fides. CC said that HNWIs could be difficult, but they
were the key engines to economic growth on the Island. Without them, the
Island’s economy would have been significantly harmed (in the last decade such
HNWIs had created around 1700 jobs as estimated by Economic Affairs) so their
businesses were very important to the Department.
AMT suggested that as DED were responsible for the Companies Registry, they
could conduct some checks from within their own records: CC said they could
do so but this was typically of limited value because the register contains only
limited information, and many of the companies are dormant. In respect of the
particular HNWI, CC thought that no such checks had been undertaken. If public
money was involved in the venture, a higher level of checks would be
conducted, but the level of checking had to be proportionate to the resources at
DED’s disposal and be focused on the areas of greatest risk.
CC gave as an example of a successful project with a HNWI
The HNWI had proposed including facilities
for disabled and also help for the disadvantaged and had delivered on
these proposals. However, CC conceded that had he not done so there would
have been nothing the Department could have done.
CC thought that DED’s corporate governance was good. [CC later suggested
amending “good” to “appropriate within the Department’s resources”].
Conflicts of interest
AMT explained her understanding that accounting officers had, from April 2016,
received copies of each COMIN agenda in advance of the meeting. CC agreed,
but thought this had only happened after the change of administration in
September 2016. CC did not know why it was being sent, and was surprised at
AMT’s suggestion that it would assist him in briefing the Minister about
Departmental conflicts of interest. He commented that he was now expected to
be responsible for data protection, freedom of information and now conflicts of
interest, which distracted from the main task of growing the economy.
CC accepted that the Minister should know of a personal conflict, but might not
always be aware of a Departmental one. However, it had not occurred to CC
that he should be checking the agenda for possible conflicts of interest. His view
was that Planning were best placed to inform the COMIN secretariat of the
Departments which had a potential conflict of interest, but he had no
suggestions about conflicts which did not involve planning.
CC said that the Department’s resources were stretched. There were even more
things to consider and think about. Duties were becoming more onerous as an
Accounting Officer and there were stricter interpretations. Resources were
constantly being cut and Departments are expected to deliver ever more, to a
higher standard and with less resource. DED were also taking on more sectors
so the burden was increasing.
On a small island it was easy to have conflicts of interest, and sometimes it was
difficult to find someone who could deal with a matter because the officers had
specialisms and they also had to avoid other conflicts. He gave, as an example of
difficulty in growing the economy, a matter he had been dealing with in which
the Island was seeking to attract a company but was unable to circumvent the
requirements of the UK immigration rules (and, in particular, the language
requirement) for key staff, whereas the Irish government were considerably
more accommodating.
“Protecting the
Minister’s back”
AMT asked about this. It was not a concept with which CC seemed familiar. CC
commented that “Life in government is not like “Yes, Minister”.”. CC said that it
was the Minister’s role to make decisions and exercise judgement and they
should be supported and advised by officers.
CC accepted that DED was constrained by legislation as to what could be done,
and needed to act within its legislative powers.
Background:
MS explained that he was elected in 2011, and was
Minister for Infrastructure for a few months before taking
on the Ministerial role at DED when Minister Shimmin
resigned in 2014.
MS explained that he was a member of DOI during
2013/2014 and Chairman of the Planning Committee for 1
year. There were three Chairmen during the period 2011-
14, Minister Quayle, Minister Ronan and MS.
Conflict of interest
Head of Deve
MS said that there were often conflicts when he was a
member of the Planning Committee: these would be
identified by the (then) Director, or
.
lopment Management
MS had had no involvement with the 2011/12 Meary Voar
development planning applications.
AMT drew the attention of MS to the terms of reference,
and noted the AG’s advice spoke of a perceived conflict of
interest. MS stated that he accepted that there had been
an actual conflict of interest when he attended COMIN and
participated in the discussion in September 2015. COMIN
meetings normally took place weekly, and MS had no
particular recollection of meeting on 3/9/16.
AMT asked MS whether he was aware of his being
conflicted in other situations. He said he relied on the
Chief Secretary or the AG to advise Ministers of a conflict
of interest. He would therefore expect to have been told
that he had such a conflict. At this stage, MS stated that
he believed that his conflict involved the hangar at
Ronaldsway and referred to the terms of reference. He
stated that he had no knowledge of the hangar and would
have expected to have been a matter for DOI.
AMT referred MS to the letter in support of the planning
application dated 5 May 2015 which MS had signed. This
contained an express reference to the hangar, but AMT
said that his conflict was not limited to the question of the
hangar, but extended also to DED’s express support for
the development. She also explained that the
Background
JS explained that he had been an MHK for 20 years, 15 of which had been
spent as a Minister in successively Department of Transport which is now
Infrastructure, DOLGE, DEFA, DED and as Minister for Policy and Reform.
Contact with the HNWI
JS explained that he and other Ministers had receive an invitation from the
HNWI to visit his home to look at the site and see what had been done
using local craftsmen. JS spoke of a hallway with a roof designed as a
cupola. The HNWI had said he was anxious to employ more local craftsmen
on the development of his property. JS thought the visit had been in 2007
or 2008.
AMT asked JS about his dealings with the HNWI when he became Minister
for Economic Development, JS said that he moved to DED after 2011
election but did not believe he spoke to the HNWI about this planning
application.
JS’s experience of Planning
JS said that having worked in DOLGE he had experience of planning matters
and the attitude of the planning officers, whom he clearly regarded as
hindering economic development on the Island. in 2007 he had been
working on the draft Strategic Planning Policy. He had found officers were
reluctant to consider any changes to their working practices. He had found
it particularly frustrating and drew attention to the colourful development
on the outskirts of Douglas. If a HNWI wished to
undertake an innovative development in a remote location where no-one
else would be affected the Planning Officers would object to it being out of
keeping with its location.
JS believed that the SPP had been deliberately delayed and this was a
failure on the part of both Ministers and their officers.
In February 2012 the consultation document for a Strategic Planning Policy
was finally issued in draft and it is still referred to as a draft policy. It
allowed economic benefit to be taken into account in determining planning
applications, but the Planning Officers were still reluctant to take it into
account and needed considerable evidence before doing so. He had found
their attitude increasingly frustrating.
JS referred to the Planning Officers as amateurs. They questioned the
HNWIs as to why ask they needed a bigger house which caused a strain on
the relationship between DED and the HNWIs and in consequence some
HNWIs have chosen to base themselves in other jurisdictions.
Planning Officers preferred their own professional views to the economic
interests of the Island, and viewed any attempt to put a contrary view of
the economic interest as an interference with their professional
independence.
JS’s 4 letters of support for
the application.
JS explained that a number of letters were required because the Planning
Officers wanted additional detail, and were not satisfied that the economic
benefit had been made out. DED officers went out, researched, and then
provided the details. The letters were discussed with the HNWI before
being sent.
JS believed it was for to DED to provide professional judgement and
determine the economic benefit to the Isle of Man. This was the reason for
multiple letters.
JS understood that the 2015 application differed from that in 2012 only in
respect of the appearance of the property.
Relationship with the HNWI
JS said that he had no reason to think kindly of the HNWI. He had caused JS
embarrassment after the original application was approved and the
property was put up for sale. JS was not privy to the reasons for the
HNWI’s actions.
AMT talked to JS about HNWI’s failure to seek planning consent before
undertaking quarrying and landscaping. JS replied there were inadequate
resources for enforcement.
Ministerial involvement in
particular cases
JS believed the Minister should not get involved and the HNWI should send
a letter setting out the HNWI’s view of the economic benefit to the
Secretary to the Planning Committee. If the Minister were involved this
would compromise him and there would be a conflict in interest.
JS did not consider that a letter from the Minister carried greater weight in
support of the application.
Perceived conflict of
interest.
JS accepted the AG’s view that there was a perceived conflict of interest.
Such conflicts will always exist in a small island; however the method of
dealing with these conflicts was the important thing. MS talked about how
he decided to resign from DED, which he had described as his “dream job”.
He was still annoyed by the need for him to resign because, as he put it,
two lawyers had disagreed. His decision was the right one for the Island at
the time.
In this particular case, JS said that he accepted there was a perceived
conflict of interest, and he held his hands up that he should have removed
himself from the meeting.
JS had no recollection of why he didn’t remove himself: he had no answer
for this and this wasn’t picked up by himself, Minister Skelly or the Chief
Secretary.
JS added that, with the benefit of hindsight, people could perceive that
there was a conflict of interest, although he did not feel there was anything
personal which would have affected his judgement or decision. He had no
personal interest in the matter.
Use of BoardPad
Minister Shimmin said that he would read and understand all of the papers
on BoardPad. He wouldn’t need to print them off as he was comfortable
with using the software.
JS’s proposals for avoiding
conflict in future
JS proposed:
- that letters of support are signed by the CEO rather than the
Minister;
- that planning applications should not go to a full meeting of CoMin
but be dealt with a 3 Minister subcommittee, the Ministers for a
particular application being chosen from those whose
Departments were not directly involved;
- that only applications which are of national importance should be
reviewed by a full meeting of CoMin.
Full Response Text
REPORT OF REVIEW OF THE ACTIONS OF MINISTERS
SHIMMIN AND SKELLY AND WHETHER THEY
KNOWINGLY FAILED TO DECLARE A CONFLICT IN
RELATION TO PLANNING APPLICATION 15/00124/B
PART 1
ANGELA MAIN THOMPSON O.B.E.
DATED 18 FEBRUARY 2017
The
Complainant
3
APPENDIX 4: Correspondence with the Ministers ........................................................................................ 64
The
development and lodged his paper on 20 May 2015, complainantwas included as an
"interested person".
6. The appointed independent Planning Inspector, Mr Stephen Amos, held an inquiry on
17 June 2015, following a site visit on 15 June. Meary Voar Developments Ltd was
represented by Mr G. Steele QC who called evidence from the architect and a town
planning consultant. g,:,plainant who had provided written objections also gave
evidence and the senior planning officer,
Witnessc
, was also questioned.
7. Before dealing with the Inspector's recommendations, it is necessary to go back to
the original application made in 2011 and approved in 2012. That application was
contentious and, as indicated, opposed by ,ptainant. Between the application being
lodged and its consideration by the Planning Committee, the then Minister for
Infrastructure, Mr David Cretney, presented to Tynwald in February 2012 a
consultation document on a draft planning policy statement C'PPS") which was to
have immediate effect. The purpose of the statement was to ensure that the
planning system supported economic and employment growth. The Department
would have regard to the development plan and, in particular, would seek proposals
to be supported by evidence demonstrating that the proposed development would
secure sustainable, long-term, economic growth of Island-wide benefit. The wider
benefits of economic development would be considered alongside any adverse
impact. Following this statement, the Department for Economic Development
C'DED'') sent four letters, each signed by the then Minister, Mr John Shimmin, to the
Planning Directorate before planning consent was given on 24 July 2012.
8. The 2015 planning application was also supported by the Department for Economic
Development and, by the time of the planning inquiry, the Minister, Mr Laurence
Skelly, had signed a letter dated 5 May 2015 which was before the Inspector. All five
letters are appended to this report as Appendix 2. It should be noted that it has not
been possible to number the pages within either Appendix 2 or Appendix 4 for
technological reasons.
9. Despite the letter of support from Minister Skelly, having considered all the evidence,
the Inspector recommended that planning approval be refused. He concluded that
the site lay in the countryside outside those areas zoned for development and it
would be contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic
Plan as it did not come within any of the exceptions provided for in the policy.
Further, the proposed building would be an alien and obtrusive feature which would
cause significant harm to its countryside surroundings.
10. The planning application was listed as the last matter on CoMin's agenda for the
meeting on 6 August 2015. Four ministers, Messrs Gawne, Quayle, Shimmin and
5
Skelly, disclosed a conflict of interest and withdrew. CoMin did not determine the
planning application, but decided to seek further advice from its own Planning
Adviser, Mr Mike Ash.
11. The next CoMin meeting was held after the summer holiday, on 3 September 2015.
On 28 August 2015, in accordance with the normal procedure, the Secretariat
uploaded the Agenda to the Ministers' BoardPads the agenda, the minutes of the last
meeting (in full, whether or not a Minister had withdrawn) and the papers to be
considered by CoMin, including the report from Mr Ash.
12. On 3 September two Ministers (Messrs Ronan and Watterson) were absent and
Messrs Gawne and Quayle withdrew when the planning application was discussed as
the 19th and final item on the agenda. Neither Mr Shimmin nor Mr Skelly withdrew.
Although Mr Ash's report recommended refusal, because the economic benefit did
not outweigh the adverse environmental impact, CoMin approved the planning
application. The parties, including ,p
1ainaat as an interested person, were informed of
this by the Planning Appeals Administrator on 11 September 2015.
13. '!!:,mplainant was aggrieved by the decision and sought further information. He received
the summary of the proceedings of the Council of Ministers for September 2015 in
respect of the planning application. f
n
;:,P!.aina noted that "The Minister for Health and
Social Care and the Minister for Infrastructure were not in attendance for this item"
and correctly concluded that "there were members of CoMin participating in the
determination whose Department had a direct interest in a particular outcome ..... or
who had lobbied the PC [Planning Committee] previously on behalf of the applicant.".
rhecomplainantwrote to HM Acting Attorney General complaining of the undeclared conflict
of interest and "the unacceptable behaviour which fell below the standards set by the
OCPA principles".
14.HM Acting Attorney General replied on 14 December 2015, suggesting that rheeomplainant
write directly to the two Ministers concerned (or their Departments) to clarify the
nature of their previous dealings with the planning application.
15.%;!, ainantWrote to both Ministers and on 18 December he wrote to the Chief Minister
asking him what action he proposed to take. Following advice from HM Acting
Attorney General, on 10 February 2016, proceedings were issued in the High Court
on behalf of the Council of Ministers seeking to quash the decision of 3 September
2015. Before the proceedings were served, however, perhaps in the course of
preparing affidavits, the Attorney General's Chambers learnt that the CoMin meeting
on 3 September 2015, even with Ministers Shimmin and Skelly present, had been
inquorate and the claim form was accordingly amended.
6
16. On 7 April 2016, a Consent Order was made by the High Court, quashing the
decision of CoMin dated 3 September 2015 and remitting the planning application to
CoMin to determine it within 28 days, CoMin was ordered to pay the company's
costs. On 3 May 2016 CoMin again considered the planning application. Ministers
Gawne, Shimmin and Skelly recused themselves declaring conflict of interest.
Minister Quayle, whose perceived conflict arose from his having been Chairman of
the Planning Committee in 2012, remained present but took no part in any discussion
nor in the decision. Without his presence, CoMin would have been inquorate.
The Witnesses
17. For the purpose of the Investigation, I interviewed the following witnesses whose
evidence I summarise below and whose statements are included as Appendix 3. The
statements as recorded have been checked and agreed in the case of officers and The
complainant. Neither Minister provided comments on his statement. As the Solicitor General
was providing only details of the Court proceedings, which are a matter of public
record, it was agreed that no statement from him was necessary.
2 September 2016
22 September 2016
22 September 2016
23 September 2016
27 September 2016
27 September 2016
29 September 2016
10 October 2016
12 October 2016
7 October 2016
Complainant
wmressA
Planning Appeals
Administrator, Cabinet Office
WitnessB
------- Personal Secretary,
OED
-
Senior
Planning
-
itnesso 11111 Senior Personal
Secretary to the Minister for Policy and
Reform, Cabinet Office
witness£
Assistant Secretary to
CoMin, Cabinet Office
WitnessF
Business
Development Manager, OED
Minister Laurence Skelly (MS), Minister
for Economic Development
John Shimmin (JS), Former Minister
Walter
Wannenburgh,
HM
Solicitor
7
14
did not know whether there would be a conflict as he was unsure of the CoMin
procedure.
Chris Corlett
36. My purpose in interviewing CC, who was still Chief Executive at the time of the
meeting on 11 November 2016, was primarily to see what recommendations he
could suggest for the avoidance of future conflicts of interest. In the event, he
provided no suggestions, but his attitude to the problems was instructive if, as Chief
Executive, he was giving a lead to other members of the Department.
37. I began by asking him about governance in DED. He said that it was very difficult
with Ministerial use of social media. He confirmed that he had no access to MS’s
emails and relied on MS telling him about anything important he was doing. It was
clear therefore that meetings held by the Minister with individuals external to
Government were being conducted by the Minister alone and that notes of such
meetings were not being filed, in breach of paragraph 2.9 of the Ministerial Code. MS
and CC spoke daily on the telephone and had face to face meetings several times a
week. For meetings, CC took a number of bullet points for discussion, but if they
were to discuss a matter of importance requiring Ministerial approval, he would take
the e-mail trail or papers for decision. CC said he was concerned as Accounting
Officer that the lack of communication with Departmental Officers meant that he was
unable to offer advice to the Minister on policy proposals and might be unaware of
evolving policy development. As a consequence, officials might inadvertently not
always be working to take forward the Minister’s vision.
38. I spoke to CC about the policy of supporting HNWIs to grown the economy, and
specifically asked him about due diligence checks. My note of our discussion recorded
that CC had stressed the importance of trust in the relationship, but CC amended the
note to suggest that due diligence checks were carried out on the HNWIs, but the
HNWI’s plans might change after planning consent was obtained. DED had estimated
that HNWIs had created 1700 jobs. CC cited
an example the
where the HNWI in question had said he would make provision for
the disabled and disadvantaged. He had done so, although CC pointed out that DED
would have had no sanction if he had not. They had to take the risk. I asked about
basic company checks, given that the Companies Registry formed part of DED. CC
doubted that they would help, because HNWIs had a number of companies, not all of
which would be active. Overall, CC believed that the corporate governance in the
Department was “appropriate within Departmental resources”.
39. I asked CC if he knew why letters to officers in other Departments were being signed
by the Minister. He believed that the Department’s support for a particular
as
15
application was a political decision so the Minister should sign any letter. The Minister
had often had personal contact with the HNWI. Ministers liked to be involved in
individual cases and, whilst it might be possible to change Departmental practice, it
would not prevent the Minister from being conflicted.
40. Finally, I asked CC for ideas to ensure conflicts of interest were identified in future. I
referred to the CoMin agenda which Chief Executives now routinely received. CC
confirmed that he did receive it, but had not appreciated that he was expected to
identify conflicts of interest as well as take responsibility for DPA, FoI and other
administrative burdens. DED was small and overburdened and these extra tasks
detracted from the work of growing the economy. It was clear that he did not believe
that “watching the Minister’s back” was his responsibility.
Minister Laurence Skelly
41. The meeting with MS had been fixed for his convenience and I was therefore
surprised to find that he had not prepared for it, by refreshing his memory or looking
at the Departmental papers.
42. MS said that he accepted that he had an actual (not merely perceived) conflict of
interest when he took part in the CoMin discussion on the Meary Voar planning
application on 3 September 2015. He had no recollection of the meeting and said
that he relied on officials such as the Chief Secretary or HM Acting Attorney General
to tell him of any conflict of interest. He understood that the conflict related to a
hangar being built at Ronaldsway about which he knew nothing and which he
thought should have been a matter for DoI.
43. I showed MS the letter in support of the Meary Voar Development, signed by him
and dated 5 May 2015, which made express reference to the hangar and its link to
the development of the property. MS had no recollection of it. I showed MS the
report of Stephen Amos referring him to specific paragraphs dealing with the
economic benefits which should have alerted him to his Department’s interest in the
planning application. MS conceded that had he read them, it would have alerted him.
He was happy to concede that he had been negligent but insisted he had not
knowingly failed to declare a conflict of interest.
44. I asked MS about his knowledge of the HNWI. He was certain that he had not met
him, but might have spoken to him on the telephone. He explained that, as the
previous planning application had been approved, DED had seen the application as
an extension of the first and had expected it to be passed without difficulty. At this
point, MS explained that he had been Chairman of the Planning Committee and
16
subsequently Minister for Infrastructure for a short period. He had found the attitude
of the Planning Directorate and their strict adherence to proper procedure and their
narrow vision extremely frustrating. He said that the shortage of suitable properties
and the problems over planning deterred HNWIs moving to the Isle of Man and this
was hindering economic growth.
I asked MS about a number of matters which had been raised during my interview
with witnesses. I asked if it was correct that no officer had access to his e-mails. MS
confirmed this was the case and explained that he communicated with the political
members on his gov.im e-mail account and would not want officials to see those
communications. There were also confidential e-mails between Ministers. He received
and sent e-mails himself and also made his own appointments. He accepted that this
caused problems, because of technical difficulties in transferring data and
synchronising electronic diaries, but he did not consider it his problem. He was
frequently out of the office, but could be contacted by telephone or e-mail and
delegated functions to officers and the political members of his department.
I asked MS if he had any suggestions which would prevent overlooking a conflict of
interest in the future. He saw this only in terms of planning and suggested that a
planning expert should attend CoMin discussions on planning applications to answer
questions, rather than CoMin relying on written reports. He pointed out that the Chief
Minister had the support of the Chief Secretary, whilst the other Ministers were
unsupported. He also thought it would be helpful for Chief Executives to see
[Response truncated — full text is 98,593 characters]