Complaint over party political content of a Council report – Brent’s Final Word.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The opening paragraph of Cllr. Tatler’s Foreword in the SCIL request Officer Report to 8 April Cabinet.

 

For “Wembley Matters” readers who have been following my correspondence with Brent’s top Council Officer for Governance (and now with the extended title: Corporate Director, Governance and Law), since my initial guest post on 5 April, here is the final instalment.

 

When writing about the previous exchange (published on 18 April), I said that I felt ‘the Senior Officer was trying to create a smokescreen’, over the central issue of party political content in a Cabinet Member Foreword (see an example in the extract above, but with a ‘content and style’ of a political manifesto as well). That is why, when replying to her on 17 April, I wrote:

 

‘So that we can finalise this point, please let me have your straightforward answers to these two questions:

 

a) Do you accept that the Cabinet Member Foreword, in the SCIL Request Officer Report to the Cabinet meeting on 8 April, contained some political material, including at least one piece of Labour Party political material?

 

b) Do you agree that it is wrong for Officer Reports to Cabinet meetings to include material which ‘in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party’ (irrespective of whether or not its publication breaches Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986)?’

 

You can judge for yourselves how well (or not) these specific questions were answered in this final exchange of emails on this matter, set out in full below.

Email from Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance at 9.12 am on 23 April:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email,

 

My role is to advise the council in relation to the law and governance.  As a matter of governance, I do not consider there to be any good reason why reports to Cabinet should not contain a section for the relevant Cabinet Member to provide the council policy context of decisions to be made.  As indicated previously, it is my view that the Cabinet Member Foreword about which you are concerned did not contain any material covered by the legislation to which you refer.

 

The new report template, including the section for a Cabinet Member Foreword, was introduced at the request of the Chief Executive.

 

The Chief Executive has considered your emails and does not consider there to be any need for the inclusion of the Cabinet Member Foreword in the template to be reviewed.

 

I recognise that you have a strong opinion in respect of this matter.  As a result of your emails, I have reminded officers of the purpose of the Cabinet Member Foreword and how it should be presented in reports.  However, our opinions differ as to the appropriateness of including the Cabinet Member Foreword in Cabinet reports.

 

Best wishes

 

Debra

 

Corporate Director, Law & Governance

 

My response to that email at 8.45am on 26 April:

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for your email of 23 April.

 

On point 2 of my email to you of 17 April (Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate in Officer Reports to Brent’s Cabinet?), our opinions do differ. You have my views on this, and the reasons for them, on record should the matter be raised again in future.

 

I am disappointed that you have failed to answer either of the two specific questions which I asked you at point 1 of my email of 17 April (Did Councillor Tatler’s Cabinet Member Foreword contain political material?). Instead of the straightforward answers I requested, you have repeated your earlier view that the Cabinet Member Foreword: ‘did not contain any material covered by the legislation to which’ I had previously referred.

 

I acknowledge and accept that your ‘role is to advise the council in relation to the law and governance.’ But, as Monitoring Officer, should you not also be showing leadership, by example, in answering questions objectively and honestly, rather than evading them?

 

I can only hope that, when you say you have: ‘reminded officers of the purpose of the Cabinet Member Foreword and how it should be presented in reports’, this means that you have advised them to ensure that there is no party political material included in them in future.

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

Complaint over party political content of a Council report – Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate for Brent?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

This is a continuation of the correspondence which you may have read last week, in a guest post headlined “Abuse of Power?”. One anonymous comment was glad that Brent Council were being held to account, to which I replied: ‘It is not an easy task, especially when Senior Council Officers seem determined that they have to defend what is sometimes the indefensible.’

 

If you read the previous emails, and feel interested enough to read this further exchange, you may see what I meant by that. I felt that, rather than dealing with the issues I’d raised, the Senior Officer was trying to create a smokescreen. I have tried to cut through that, politely I hope, with a view to seek a resolution of the points I thought it important enough to write to her about in the first place.

 

Email from Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance at 4.25pm on 12 April:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email and I have considered the points you raise.

 

I have also had a quick look at practice elsewhere.  The templates used by councils for reports to their Cabinet (or Executive) are varied.  In at least 8 councils reports are expressed to be from the Cabinet member(s) to the Cabinet, in others the reports are jointly from the Cabinet member(s) and relevant senior officer(s). The template used by at least 5 councils includes a cabinet member foreword or introduction, e.g. Haringey and Newham.

 

The new approach in Brent was adopted for the reasons I gave in my previous email and is not out of step with the approach elsewhere.  Having adopted this template, reports addressed to Cabinet for decision are prepared using the template.  The legislation then requires the council (subject to rules concerning exempt and confidential information) to publish those reports and permit the public and press to attend and observe the Cabinet meetings at which they are discussed.  The publishing of the reports is clearly undertaken in compliance with the Regulations i.e. in discharge of the council’s duties under them. 

 

I remain of the view that it’s perfectly clear from the heading of the Cabinet Member Foreword section of the report that the comments in that section are comments of the Cabinet member and not of the officer.

 

I note what you say about section 3., “Contribution to Borough Plan Priorities & Strategic Context” in the particular report.  On reviewing the other reports on that agenda and other recent agendas I have noted that there is an inconsistency in practice, with some reports including this additional heading and some not.  The template itself does not have two separate headings.

 

Thank you for drawing this to my attention and I have reminded the officers who sign off the report and also the Governance team of this.  I have also reminded them of the purpose of the Cabinet Member Foreword as indicated in my previous email.

My response to that email at 4.45pm on 17 April:

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for your email of 12 April. 

 

I will make this response shorter than my email of 10 April, and will concentrate on the two main points.

 

1. Did Councillor Tatler’s Cabinet Member Foreword contain political material?

 

You appear to have overlooked that my original email of 5 April was a complaint, about political content in the Cabinet Member Foreword, and you have managed to avoid addressing this question in both of your replies to me (8 and 12 April). So that we can finalise this point, please let me have your straightforward answers to these two questions:

 

a) Do you accept that the Cabinet Member Foreword, in the SCIL Request Officer Report to the Cabinet meeting on 8 April, contained some political material, including at least one piece of Labour Party political material?

 

b) Do you agree that it is wrong for Officer Reports to Cabinet meetings to include material which ‘in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party’ (irrespective of whether or not its publication breaches Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986)?

 

2. Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate in Officer Reports to Brent’s Cabinet?

 

For ease of reference, this is the purpose of Cabinet Member Forewords given in your email of 8 April:

 

‘The purpose of the introduction of the Cabinet Member Foreword was to provide an opportunity for the council policy context of decisions to be made explicit in reports to Cabinet by the Cabinet Member who is accountable for initiating and implementing council policies within the relevant portfolio.’

 

You have not explained whose decision it was to adopt the practice of including such Forewords, or at whose request. Please provide that information.

 

You have brought in information about what some other local authorities do, but all that should concern us, as citizens, Officers or Council members of Brent, is what is appropriate for our borough.

 

I understand that it helps Officers drawing up reports for Cabinet meetings to have a template, and that template (or necessary variations of it) can be drawn up or amended as appropriate, when the question I have asked in the heading to this section is resolved.

 

I think the best way to resolve it would be through a review, as I suggested, overseen by yourself, as Corporate Director of Governance, but taking views from other Senior Officers, Cabinet members and, I would suggest, the Leaders of the other Party Groups on the Council, and perhaps also the Chairs of Scrutiny Committees.

 

I have already put forward my views, as a politically independent observer of local democracy in Brent, where I have lived for more than 40 years. To summarise my views:

 

·      Officer Reports should be written solely by Council Officers, as their role is to provide the Cabinet, impartially, with all the information they need to make key decisions, and to make recommendations based on that information.

 

·      Officers making and signing off those reports must be aware of the Borough Plan Priorities and other Council policies for the service area they are responsible for, and it makes sense for that to be included in one section of their reports.

 

·      If the Cabinet Lead member with the portfolio covered by the report wishes to add their own views on the policy context, they can do so when introducing the item at the meeting, and also by circulating their own briefing document to their colleagues, should they think it necessary.

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Wembley Housing Zone – Brent’s Cecil Avenue development downsized!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Revised East and South elevation drawings for Brent’s Cecil Avenue development.

 

It may not look any smaller, but as disclosed in the Affordable Housing Supply Update report to December’s Brent Cabinet meeting, the number of homes to be built on the Council’s Cecil Avenue development has been reduced. The reason is the need for second staircases, because of new fire regulations introduced as a result of the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

 

I mentioned this in a guest post last month, Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – open and transparent?, when I wrote: ‘the report does not say how many of the new figure of 237 homes will be for private sale, and how many of those left for the Council will now be for “genuinely affordable” rent, rather than shared ownership. A lack of openness, which I will try to remedy!’ 

 

I’ve now received a reply to a Freedom of Information request, and can provide the answer. Cecil Avenue is part of a wider Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) project, together with Ujima House, on the opposite side of the High Road. Brent Council’s contract with Wates in March 2023, said each would have half (152 out of 304) of the WHZ homes. However, all of the Wates homes, for private sale, would be on the more desirable Cecil Avenue site. 

 

The revised split of the Cecil Avenue homes, from Brent’s 8 January FoI response.

 

These figures show that although there will now be thirteen fewer homes on the Cecil Avenue development, those going to Wates will only be 2 less, while Brent Council loses 11. This is partly compensated for by the revised proportion of family-sized homes going in Brent’s favour. The Council will now have 71.4% of the family-sized homes, rather than 68.75%, but the total number of family-sized homes at Cecil Avenue has been reduced from 64 to 42, as part of rearranging the unit sizes to fit in the staircases.

 

Surely these changes would need planning permission? They did! An application was submitted on 21 August 2023, but Brent’s planners treated it as “non-material” amendments to the original consent given in February 2021, so that it was not publicised or consulted on. The application was approved by the Delegated Team Manager on 30 October 2023.

 

The heading to the Delegated Planning report, October 2023.

 

The report on this application (23/2774) makes clear that despite the WHZ involving two sites and a combined building contract, for planning purposes the Cecil Avenue application must be looked at on its own. Brent’s planning policies require that large housing schemes, such as this one, should provide 50% affordable housing. These revised proposals only provide 36.7% (and only 48.5% if the whole WHZ scheme is taken together). If it had been 50% at Cecil Avenue, there should have been at least 118 affordable homes on the site, not just 87 out of 237.

 

Brent’s affordable housing planning policies require a tenure split of at least 70% of the affordable housing to be “genuinely affordable”. The 56 homes at London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) out of 87 “affordable” Council homes is only 64.4% (62.4% over the WHZ scheme as a whole). Despite not meeting either of Brent’s planning policy percentages for affordable homes, the amended application was accepted. 

 

The only “good news” this time is that 21 of the 28 family-sized homes for Council tenants at LAR (down from 35 family-sized, on the figures supplied to me last July) will be 4-bedroom homes, with private gardens. There is currently a desperate need for these large family homes for affordable rent in the borough. It is unfortunate that, because of more than two years delay by Brent Council, in going down the “developer partner” route, it will be nearly three years before these homes are actually available! And LAR rent figures exclude service charges, which could bring the total bill up to as much as 80% of local open market rent level.

 

Extract from the approved documents for the amended application 23/2774.

 

35.6% of the “affordable” Council homes at Cecil Avenue will be what is known as Intermediate homes. This is a summary of what these 31 homes comprise:

 

Extract from the approved documents for the amended application 23/2774.

 

As shown in the information provided to me above, 28 of these homes will be for shared ownership (despite there being a surplus of these in the borough, it not being affordable to most people in housing need – a household income of £60k a year required to afford a 1-bedroom flat - and shared ownership being a “scam”!). What about the 3 “other affordable” homes? The planning application documents show that these Brent Council homes are intended to be sold, by Wates, as Discount Market Sale (”DMS”) homes.

 

The DMS homes must be ‘offered to Eligible Purchasers for sale at a price that is no more than 80 (eighty) per cent of Open Market Value, with the Council retaining and holding the remaining equity under an equitable charge’. To be an eligible purchaser for one of these 1 or 2-bedroom flats you would (on current figures) need to have an annual household income of no more than £90k. Affordable?

 

It is not just the number of homes (and affordable homes) which has been downsized in the amended plans for the Cecil Avenue development. In his reply to an email I had sent him about the Council’s Cecil Avenue development in February 2022 (that’s nearly 2 years ago!), Cllr. Muhammed Butt spoke proudly of ‘a new publicly accessible open space during this latest development. A positive outcome for the residents of Brent.’

 

My guest post including his reply did concede that: ‘The approved plans for the Cecil Avenue site include a courtyard garden square. This would mainly be for the benefit of residents, but there would be public access to it, through an archway from Wembley High Road.’ All of the tower block developments, existing and planned, along this stretch of the High Road, will bring thousands of extra residents within a short walk of this ‘publicly accessible open space.’ However, that too has been downsized:

 

Paragraph from the Delegated Planning Report on application 23/2774.

 

The amended external amenity space may just ‘exceed the minimum requirement’ for play space needed by the reduced number of future occupants at Cecil Avenue, but there will be little to spare for the other ‘residents of Brent’. 

 

Delay and downsizing. What more can go wrong for a Brent Council housing scheme, on Council-owned land, which received full planning consent on 5 February 2021? If only Brent had got on and borrowed the funds to build it, at the very low interest rates at then, and hired a contractor straight away, they could have had 250 (or at least 237) affordable Council homes at Cecil Avenue available in 2024, rather than 87 in late 2026.

 

Philip Grant.

Cllr Eleanor Southwood to step down from Brent Council Cabinet

 

Rumours that had been circulating for some time were confirmed today when at the end of a 30 minute Cabinet meeting, Council Leader Muhammed Butt, announced that Cllr Eleanor Southwood was stepping down as a Cabinet member and returning to the backbenches.

A potential successor had been named to Wembley Matters but no confirmation was forthcoming after enquiries were made. There is always the possibility of sharing the portfolio amongst the remainder of the Cabinet or a reshuffle at the Labour Group AGM. 

Cllr Southwood was considered one of the most able of the current Cabinet with a command of the detail of her brief and a strategic approach to its development.

Brent Civic Centre - a modern rival to Watkin's Folly?

 

 

Brent Cabinet last week approved a major reconfiguration of part of Brent Civic Centre under the low key title 'Improving Customer Experience at Brent Civic Centre'.   In fact these are major works costing £2m to the 'state of the art'  building which is just 10 years old.  The Cabinet report recognised problems that have been there since the building opened.  At the planning stage Brent Green Party were the only local political party that opposed the grandiose project as expensive (c£100m) and a vanity project when councils were facing funding cuts. By 2011 Labour had reviewed their support and decided to go ahead, Liberal Democrats wanted the library reduced in size as other libraries were being closed and Tories wrote to the local press, 'We don't need a new sparkling civic centre at the detriment of people's jobs and front-line services'. LINK

The initial aim was to centralise the many Brent Council buildings in Wembley. There was even a proposal from the then Brent CEO to rename the borough the London Borough of Wembley. Soon it became apparent that not everyone in the boroughwas prepared to go to Wembley for services and 'hubs' were set up in other areas. The complaint that the Council is 'Wembley-centric' is still common.

Well we got a 'sparkling civic centre' that one critic described as a building fit to house the parliament of a small European state , with an imposing atrium and staircase (not actually used as a staircase) occupying a huge amount of space. The steps were handy for wedding photographs, post-election photo ops and demonstrations. It was a huge area of empty space with office space for concil workers on one side and large and small IKEA style meeting rooms for councillors on the other.

Strathcona closure demonstration

As with any new building there were teething problems but some of those were a product of the sesign itself. The building was cold in winter and hot in summer despite the green credentials, acoustics were so bad in meeting rooms that microphones had to be used even for fairly small rooms, and people had wave their arms in the air to operate the movement activated lighting.  One of the worse issues early on was the telephony system which failed to the extent that staff hads to operate mobile phones on not very good lines. When you rang you could hear other staff bellowing down their phones in the background in an effort to be heard.

Cuts in funding led to a reduction in staff with some floors emptied and attempts were made to let them out to commercial organisations to raise funds.  The Melting Pot restaurant featuring in the public relations video closed.

Wembley Matters early on drew attention to the inflation of library visitor figures because staff chose to walk in and out of the Centre via the library entrance which was convenient to Olympic Way and the station.

That entrance, next to Sainsbury's will now be the new main entrance for residents, rather than the one opposite the Arena which opens on to the atrium and its staircase.

Extract from the report:

New entrance: With the improved layout, residents will enter the building through a new main entrance on Exhibition Way by Sainsbury’s. This follows feedback from residents that the current entrance is overwhelming, unwelcoming, intimidating and very cold in the winter months. Instead, residents will now enter into a dedicated space where they can immediately be triaged and directed to the service that they need. Customers will now have a clear journey through the building.

Temperature: The new layout will resolve current issues with the temperature of the atrium. The atrium’s temperature is similar to outside which means that, during the winter, conditions are extremely uncomfortable for customers and staff. A Health and Safety concern has been raised for staff who spend hours meeting customers in this space. It also creates an unwelcoming and hostile environment for residents visiting the building. The improved layout will see residents enter through a new ground floor entrance, into a vestibule, that will help to maintain heat in the building. This layout will help to ensure that the Civic Centre provides a warm space for residents, which is increasingly critical given the current economic and energy crisis.

Welcome Desk: Currently, residents seeking support and business visitors to the Civic Centre queue together at the Welcome Desk. This contributes to delays and confusion for both customers and visitors. Potential businesses looking to hire floors in the Civic Centre have expressed concerns about the current setup as visitors, including those arriving for interviews, meetings and conferences, are often delayed at the Welcome Desk. The new layout will mean that the smaller Welcome Desk is dedicated to business visitors. This will ensure that the Civic Centre represents a more appealing location for businesses and/or organisations wanting to rent office space. This pressure on the Welcome Desk to triage visitors will only increase with the restacking of the building. Without these changes, there is a risk that the forecasted additional income of almost £750,000 per annum, generated by renting out further floors, could be jeopardised.  (Not quite 'poor doors' but resident and business separation.)

The changes will cost £1.96m which will be borowed over the course of 10 years at £242k per annum with a potential National Lottery Heritage Fund for enhancement of the library. Rather ominously the report notes that the scheme will be partly funded through savings to be identified 'primarily' in Customer Services; Libraries, Arts and Heritage, and Revenue and Development. I am not sure the Lottery will buy that.

Customer Services Area 'Concept' (Willmott Dixon Interiors)

There can be no doubt that the atrium  space is rather overwhelming for visitors to the centre, especially if you are a homeless family with small children dragging your suitcases to find help. The contrast to the surroundings serves to intimidate and make you feel small and insignicant.

I am struggling to work out what is going to happen to the atrium. The presentation below gives few clues.

Overall the proposals raise questions about the original 'grand design' and its suitability, rather similar to those that the GLA experienced at the 'glass testicle' (now abandoned) - a building where architects neglected effective function. LINK

Watkin's Folly was the ill-fated attempt to build a tower at Wembley Park to rival the Eiffel Tower. If history deems Brent Civic Centre a 'folly', I wonder who it will be named after?

‘Tis the Season to be Sneaky! Is Brent trying to award the c£100m Wembley Housing Zone contract without scrutiny?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The location of the two Wembley Housing Zone sites.

 

If you’re a regular reader of “Wembley Matters”, you will be aware of Brent’s often repeated statements about the urgent need to build more Council homes for the families in temporary accommodation and on the waiting list. They are used to justify the Council’s often unpopular “infill” plans for some of its housing estates, and by Brent’s planners to justify recommending applications that breach some planning policies, and are seen by many as overdevelopment.

 

You will also be aware of Brent’s promise (and Labour Group election pledge) to build 1,000 genuinely affordable Council homes in the five year period ended 31 March 2024.

 

If you’re a regular reader, you will have seen at least some of my previous guest posts about Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone proposals. These include building 250 homes on the Council-owned brownfield site of the former Copland School building at Cecil Avenue. If they had got on and built them as soon as they had full planning permission in February 2021, that could have contributed a quarter of the 1,000 homes target. But as a result of a Cabinet decision in August 2021, 152 of those new homes are to be built for private sale at a profit by a “Developer Partner”. 

 

Title page to the Report which Cabinet approved on 16 August 2021.

 

For much of 2022, I tried to get this (what appeared to be an odd) decision properly scrutinised, but that was finally scuppered by the Chair of the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee (acting on whose instructions?) in September. Now there appears to be an attempt by those in power at Brent Council to stop any scrutiny of the actual award of the contract for the Wembley Housing Zone scheme.

 

This will be a very big contract, likely to be worth in excess of £100m. Brent advertised in April for expressions of interest from contractors for this, and they had to respond by the end of May. In November, Cabinet were informed that progress had been made, but the details were hidden away in an “exempt” appendix to the Report.

 

Extract from the November 2022 “Update on the Supply of New Affordable Homes” Report.

 

Then, in the past few days, an item appeared on the Forward Plan page, saying that the decision to award the contract, to be Brent’s Developer Partner for the Wembley Housing Zone scheme, would be made this month, under ‘urgency procedures’!

 

The Forward Plan entry from Brent Council’s website.

 

As Brent has been working towards this decision since August 2021 (in fact, long before that) and the contract procurement process has been going on for over six months, why was it urgent and what are those procedures? There are some clues from the document, dated 12 December, that was provided in a “link” from that Forward Plan, which I will ask Martin to attach a copy of at the end of this post, for general information.

 

It appears that there are various degrees of urgency. Normally, at least 28 clear days’ notice of a Key Decision has to be given. In this case, although it would be less than 28 days, it was planned to be ‘at least 5 clear days’ notice.’ The decision would be made on 19 December.

 

Extract from the Urgent Key Decision form.

 

If it had been less than five days, the Chair of a Scrutiny Committee would have ‘to agree that the decision is urgent and cannot be reasonably deferred for the reasons detailed ….’  But as it was ‘at least 5 clear days’, ‘the Scrutiny Chair is only required to note that the decision will be taken.’ In other words, there would be no scrutiny of whether or not the decision was actually urgent.

 

According to the Urgent Decision form, 28 days’ notice could not be provided because: ‘Conclusion of the contractor developer partner procurement was delayed.’ But Council Officers have been working on that procurement for months, and would have known that a decision on it would be required at some time in the near future, so notice could surely have been given earlier.

 

And the reason why it is ‘impractical to defer the decision to a later date’ is said to be ‘to meet delivery timescales and funding conditions.’ With the delays which have already occurred since Brent first entered into its Wembley Housing Zone agreement with the GLA in 2015, delivery timescales don’t seem to have been much of a priority before. As for funding conditions, the Council must have been aware of these ever since funding agreements were made (at least 15 months ago for the extra £5.5m the GLA agreed to offer).

 

As at 6.30pm on Wednesday 21 December the formal decision has not been published on the Decisions page of Brent Council’s website. Perhaps it will be published on 22 or 23 December. But why would Senior Council Officers (and the Cabinet member responsible for this project, who is the Lead Member for Regeneration, despite this being mainly a housing development) delay making the decision, and giving the intention to make it so little publicity, until just before the Christmas / New Year holiday period?

 

Why Call-in matters, from Brent’s Protocol on Call-in.

 

I’ve said before that those behind this controversial Wembley Housing Zone project want to avoid any scrutiny of it. The award of the contract is a Key Decision, so could be called-in for scrutiny. I may be wrong, but I suspect that the decision is being made now to minimise any chance of a call-in. For call-in to take effect, at least five backbench councillors (non-Cabinet members) need to request that a Key Decision is called-in, and they need to do so ‘within 5 days of the date on which the record of the decision is made publicly available.’ 

 

How many councillors, if they were not aware that this important Key Decision was about to be made (because the usual 28 days’ notice has not been given) would be looking at the Decisions page on the Brent Council website over the holiday period? And even if any of them were keeping an eye on it, what would be the chances of organising five members to complete and submit call-in request forms before the end of the fifth day?

 

That’s the main reason I’ve asked Martin to consider publishing this guest post – so that this Festive Season is not used as a cover to sneak through a Key Decision without anyone realising that has been done until it is too late!

 

Philip Grant