Public Services

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, revenue from parking is ring-fenced, and most local authorities would never incentivise any staff who are doing this to start to fine—

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

If you believe that, you will believe anything.

Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill

Lord Cormack Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad to follow my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I associate myself with some of the remarks made by my other noble friend, but particularly underline the very real importance of the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who has a lifetime’s experience here.

I must begin by declaring an interest that, for almost half a century, I have from time to time given advice to the Machinery Users’ Association, which was founded as long ago as 1884 to advise—I see the noble Earl nodding—industry and business on the rating of plant and industrial machinery. There is real concern in the association on behalf of its many members in many businesses and industries. There is an element of retrospectivity in this legislation, which is not good.

I am also somewhat disturbed by the way in which we are debating Second Reading but not debating Second Reading. This was scheduled to be taken on the Floor of the House on 26 October. It was then scheduled to be taken on the Floor of the House yesterday. The change, I might say, had nothing to do with the tragic events of Friday; it had been announced before then. I do not really think this is the way we should legislate when the legislation is very broad-ranging.

I will say nothing about the directors—with broad agreement over that section of the Bill, I do not need to—but we have real uncertainty facing many businesses. The noble Earl put this very graphically in talking about the £1.5 billion. When will we know how this will be distributed? What will be the criteria? We ought to know. Business ought to know.

I asked the MUA to give me one or two examples. I will not detain or weary the Committee by going into great detail, but I am told that the owners of a former British Home Store in Barnstaple, in Devon, cannot market it or let it—they could not begin to let it during lockdown—yet they were required to pay 100% of the rates and were not entitled to a retail discount. For another totally different company, a tenant in Sloane Street—an exclusive address, with costs to match—had premises effectively vacant from the beginning of the first lockdown. This could be replicated up and down the country. I do not dissent at all from anything the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said about the importance of business rates to local authorities, but local authorities will get nothing at all if they are surrounded by bankrupt businesses, and it is very important—even at this late stage in the progress of the legislation—that the Government come clean a little more clearly.

The sum of £1.5 billion sounds extraordinary and magisterial—to all of us in this Committee it is—but not when spread over a whole country. How long is it for? What precisely will happen when revaluation comes about in 2023? I am delighted to see the noble Baroness nodding vigorously, because these questions must be answered. People’s livelihoods and the livelihoods of local authorities depend to a large degree on this. It is a most unsatisfactory piece of legislation. It is two pieces of legislation cobbled together. One of them I do not particularly dissent from, because nobody could conceivably approve of fraud, and fraud perpetrated at the expense of the taxpayer during a pandemic is about as low as you can get. We would all agree with that. However, the rating put on at the beginning is a different subject which needs more comprehensive and joined-up thinking.

I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Callanan has been called away, but I ask my noble friend who will reply to this debate whether we can have some conversations, if not before Second Reading then at least before Committee, because it would not be beyond the wit of man and certainly should not be beyond the wit of government to table one or two amendments that would bring a degree of cohesion to the Bill. It should be accompanied by a reasonably detailed statement about how this £1.5 billion is to be used.

I could go on, but I will not. However, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for bringing his lifetime of professional experience to our deliberations.

England: Historic Counties

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Flight (Con)]

I support my noble friend Lord Lexden’s request. County boundaries have been changed in the past, particularly by the Heath Government, but mercifully were restored subsequently. However, there can be some case to amend boundaries largely to accommodate urban population developments. I suggest that county boundaries might be reviewed every 25 years to check whether the growth in urban areas within them needs to be addressed.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Not a good idea at all.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

It sounds like someone is pre-empting my response. We need to recognise that historic counties are there and part of our fabric and history. We also need to realise functional economic areas, which do change with time. Obviously, we will reflect our administrative boundaries as the demography of the country changes.

Fire Safety Bill

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans will have heard the strong support across the House for his amendment. He said at the beginning of his remarks that he intended to press the matter, and I would strongly encourage him to do so. It looks to me as if he will have a commanding majority across the House.

The Minister’s speech was very odd. Indeed, it was so odd that I cannot think that he actually wrote his own speech. It must have been written by some political adviser in his department, who just put together a set of remarks that he thought would basically tell the House of Lords to get lost. That was the gravamen of his argument, presumably hoping that, the third time around, we would not press this—indeed, that we would not even get into the arguments.

The Minister said—I noted it down carefully—that the proposal in the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans was “inappropriate and unworkable”. I was waiting for him to describe to the House why it was inappropriate and unworkable, but he did not. He said that he would not comment in detail at the beginning, but would do so at the end. That is not much use to us, because the debate takes place before his closing remarks, not afterwards, and we have no means of replying to them. That argument is clearly of no account, unless the Minister has such compelling arguments against the right reverend Prelate that, on hearing them, we will be completely silenced.

When we read the amendment, it is impossible to see how it could be described as inappropriate and unworkable. The right reverend Prelate proposes, first, that the costs may not be passed on to leaseholders or tenants—an argument in its absolute state, which the Minister has objected to, and I understand his arguments. However, the crucial part of the amendment is subsection (2) of the proposed new clause:

“This section has effect only until a statutory scheme is in operation which ensures that leaseholders and tenants of dwellings do not have to pay for remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act.”


What is inappropriate and unworkable about that? The right reverend Prelate proposes simply that the Government’s own scheme, which one assumes will not be inappropriate or unworkable, must be before Parliament and subject to consideration before people are faced with costs—unless I have missed something in the arguments. The right reverend Prelate is nodding in agreement, and the Minister has not said anything to the contrary.

By definition, that cannot be inappropriate and unworkable, because we are talking about the Government’s own scheme. All that the right reverend Prelate seeks to do, which it is absolutely within the role of a revising Chamber to insist on, is that leaseholders should not be subject to these costs, which could bankrupt them and cause them enormous distress, being simply unmanageable, until there is a scheme. The scheme must have been presented and agreed before they face these costs.

We have heard harrowing stories from people with individual and personal cases at stake, but also, as the right reverend Prelate so rightly says, there are potentially—we are not quite sure what the numbers are—hundreds of thousands of people affected. What impact will that have? It is not unreasonable for this House to insist that before leaseholders are faced with those costs, we must know what the scheme is and it has been subject to proper consideration.

What makes it all even odder is that the Government themselves say that that is their intention. When the matter last came before the House of Commons, the Minister responsible, Christopher Pincher, said:

“We have been working hard to ensure that those with broader shoulders and those that should pay do pay.”


That is precisely the principle we are all seeking to establish. He continued:

“That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced at the Budget that there will be a levy on tall buildings and a tax on the sector. We do not want to absolve the industry of its responsibility. We are finalising how the levy will be calculated and the Treasury is leading on the development of the tax. Of course we want to ensure that it works effectively, and that small and medium-sized developers are not unfairly disadvantaged. We want to get it right and we want to get it done as quickly as we can … We will bring forward as soon as we possibly can the workings of the financial support scheme that we announced at the Budget that will ensure that leaseholders in buildings below 18 metres pay no more than £50 a month.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/21; col. 707.]


Those commitments and statements by the Minister are completely consistent with the proposal of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, which simply says that the scheme must be ready, approved and operable before leaseholders pay any costs. The Minister’s substantive argument—that the right reverend Prelate’s proposal is inappropriate and unworkable—is clearly nonsensical and wrong.

The Minister’s other argument was that we were somehow delaying matters. The House of Commons last debated this issue on Monday 22 March. The date today is 20 April, a month later. The reason for the delay in considering this Bill has nothing to do with your Lordships, nothing to do with the leaseholders, nothing to do with the right reverend Prelate, and everything to do with the Government.

Indeed, on the same day as the House of Commons considered our amendments to the Fire Safety Bill, they also considered our amendments to the Trade Bill. Those of your Lordships who multitask—some of us do more than one Bill at a time—will know that the amendments to the Trade Bill were dealt with in your Lordships’ House within a matter of days. It was, I think, three or four days later, because it was still the twenty-something of March when we dealt with them. The reason why we have not considered this matter until 20 April, very close to the end of the Session, has nothing whatever to do with your Lordships, and everything to do with the Government.

We still have time between now and the end of the Session. As the right reverend Prelate so rightly said, if the Prime Minister can spring into such dramatic action in response to developments in the Football League, he and the Government can certainly get their act together to consider and put forward proper proposals in respect of a scheme. Much more pertinently, if they say that the full resources of the Government, drafting and all that, are not available, because the parliamentary draftsmen are on holiday or whatever and so cannot do it—the noble Lord, Lord Newby, could read out more “Yes Minister” excerpts on this—all he needs to do is to accept the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. That is what we are urging him to do. It would give him the time to do it, because its key provision is that leaseholders will not be faced with these charges until the statutory scheme is in operation, so he will have the time that he needs.

However, it is not just that the reason for the delay is the Government and not this House; we are dealing with a situation that is nearly four years old. It is not as if Grenfell happened a few months ago, we are still trying to estimate what the impacts were, and we are being rushed into legislation and the design of a scheme. It has been four years, and there is a whole public inquiry, the first stage of which has already reported. Again, the reason for the delay in this respect has nothing to do with the leaseholders, nothing to do with this House and everything to do with the Government.

What was the special adviser who wrote the Minister’s speech actually seeking to do? I think it is pretty clear, because most of us here are seasoned politicians. They were seeking to see that the Fire Safety Bill becomes law before the impact on the leaseholders is fully known. We need to get to the heart of what is happening here. Obviously, in response to the urgent and compelling safety crisis that we face, there had to be changes in the safety regulations. More precisely, we had to see that the existing safety regulations were actually enforced. That is what we are really talking about as the fundamental point of principle here.

The Government do not want leaseholders, who may face large bills of potentially tens of thousands of pounds and who in many cases may not be covered by the schemes, which are only in outline at the moment in their descriptions, to be faced with those costs or any knowledge of what they might be before the Bill becomes law. However, that is all the more reason why Parliament should not be prepared to play the Government’s game, because this is not a political game or a script of “Yes Minister”; these are the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who face bills of tens of thousands of pounds. It is perfectly reasonable that this House and the House of Commons should at least know what the schemes are, in respect of which people are going to have to pay these sums, and should have given their assent to them before they become law.

The Minister said that the right reverend Prelate’s proposal was inappropriate and unworkable. There is nothing inappropriate and unworkable whatever about ensuring that a statutory scheme must be in operation before leaseholders face bills that could, as I say, run into tens of thousands of pounds. The only reason for the delay in the past and now is because of the Government. This could all be sorted out in the next few days, before the end of this Session, if there is a will to move.

For that reason, I strongly urge the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, on behalf of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens who have a right to expect fair play from Parliament, to press this amendment to a vote.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, having heard so much this afternoon, I do not think that I really wish to add to the powerful arguments that have been advanced.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, first, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd and chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association.

It is most disappointing that we are back here again, because the Government have neither listened to nor recognised the plight of the people trapped in their homes. For me, that is extremely disappointing. I have spoken to a number of the innocent victims over recent weeks. Think of the stress, worry, concern, costs and lives on hold. For many, there is no end in sight. It is not good enough, and we must ask the other place to think again on this issue. We must stand with the innocent victims, the leaseholders and the tenants. It is a disgraceful, monumental scandal, and the Government cannot be let off the hook today. We hear lots from the Government about levelling up; it is one of their new phrases that we have heard over the last year. What about some levelling up for the victims of the cladding scandal? That is what we need to hear today.

Rough Sleeping

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on what has been achieved. I am particularly glad that they are trying to ensure that every rough sleeper has a GP. Can my noble friend tell the House what percentage are now registered with GPs? Furthermore, has any any study been conducted into how many are driven into homelessness by drugs and how many are driven to drugs by homelessness?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for showing the complexity that underpins rough sleeping. We know that 82% of rough sleepers have a mental health vulnerability; 83% have a physical health need; and 60% have substance misuse needs. We do not necessarily know the interrelationship between those problems. Getting rough sleepers vaccinated is very much part of the Protect Plus programme, which is backed by £10 million to support and urge local authorities to play their part in getting rough sleepers—whether on the streets or in emergency accommodation —vaccinated when it is their time in the queue. We also continue to work closely with NHS England and Public Health England to ensure that this vulnerable cohort of people gets vaccinated at the earliest opportunity.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Cormack Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 18th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord and I very much endorse what he said on those subjects. I begin by declaring my relevant interests as set out in the register.

I wholly endorse the powerful and often moving points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews, Lady Thomas of Winchester and Lady Randerson, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire: we cannot, in a civilised society, allow squalor to prevail when we should have dignified surroundings. If anything underlined the need for decent public facilities in the form of public lavatories, it was the series of repulsive scenes in the summer when people flocked to tourist areas and defiled them—in some cases wantonly, but in others because there was no adequate facility.

I want to concentrate my remarks on the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill because it is absolutely essential that we concentrate, as many noble Lords have this afternoon, on the dire future facing the retail trade—in particular the entertainment sector, including hotels, restaurants, cafés et cetera. I congratulate the Government and thank them warmly for the rescue action they took last year in giving the business rate holiday. They were right to defer the revaluation.

I want to concentrate my remarks on our town, city and, indeed, village centres, and on our high streets. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, in particular, made some extremely important points: if you want to sustain the throwaway society, all you need to do is depopulate our town and city centres. What has to be addressed in the review—it is vital that it is thorough and that we have it soon—is the disparity of treatment between town centre and high-street shops and the vast warehouses, which we have all drawn on during periods of lockdown. They perform a valuable service but they are getting away, if not scot free, then with very little to pay for it. We have to readjust the balance; we have to means test business rates in a way that means the Amazons of this world pay what they properly should, and the small, specialist shops in a glorious town such as Ludlow in Shropshire, or Louth here in Lincolnshire, are not penalised to the point of extinction.

Let us concentrate on this specific issue, and let us also remember that while we have to nurture the smaller shops so that they survive, we have to recognise that the supermarkets have prospered wonderfully over this last year. After all, they are virtually the only large shops allowed to be open at the moment. I thank them for their service. We all depend upon them. They were right to pay back some of what they had been given, but they must be treated differently from the smaller shops.

We have to remember in this context that one of our greatest industries, on which we will depend considerably in the future, is tourism. If we rip the heart out of towns such as Ludlow and Louth by, in effect, closing their restaurants, pubs, et cetera, and their smaller specialist shops, we will certainly decrease the attractiveness of our towns and cities to tourists.

I implore my noble friend to do all he can to bring on the review, but he must make sure that it is thorough and realistic. We all remember the poll tax; I do, as one who never cast a single vote in its favour, even when it was introduced in Scotland. We do not want to have a review that leads to anything like that. We must reform our non-domestic rating system to allow prosperity to return to our towns and cities. If we do not, we will have missed an opportunity. The business rates holiday must continue throughout this next year; otherwise, we will destroy that which we proclaim we wish to preserve.

Covid-19: Places of Worship

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I am very happy to give that assurance. As soon as we have the specific evidence of the review by Public Health England, that will be made available to all.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend has not given a single shred of evidence as to why churches should not be open for public worship. I want to put a specific point to him. On the morning of Sunday 8 November, we are planning a remembrance service in Lincoln Cathedral—an immense space where everybody can be properly socially distanced. Instead, the Government have come up with an imbecilic answer—that the veterans, all of whom are 90 and over, can stand in the cold and be rained on but they cannot go into a safe, socially distanced cathedral. This is a disgrace.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise that this is a difficult time for people of all faiths. Remembrance Sunday services are of course an important part of celebrating what generations before have done for this country, but they can take place at the Cenotaph in a Covid-secure way. I recognise the point that my noble friend makes but we should also recognise that British Hindus will not be able to celebrate their version of Christmas—Diwali—during this period, and there is also the birthday of Guru Nanak for British Sikhs. We understand that these are sacrifices but, as someone who, during the first lockdown, lost his mother, who was very much a believer, spent three days in hospital before she died and said her rosary every day, I understand what it means to have faith. On Sunday, for the first time, I was able to take my father, who survived, to the church where they worshipped every week. That was very difficult for me—he was very emotional—so I understand the point that my noble friend makes.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 6, 7 and 8 in this group—briefly, because the case seems self-evident. These amendments provide that consultation materials should be provided in accessible formats for the benefit of disabled people, particularly those with visual impairments, and that the clock on consultation should be started only once materials have been made available online in an accessible manner. I would be most grateful if the Minister would be willing to take these amendments on board.

[Lord Cormack (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I sat in your Lordships’ Chamber last Monday and heard every speech on Second Reading. Two things came across to me powerfully: the second I will deal with later, when I speak to my Amendment 28. First, I want to address a few remarks to my Amendment 20 and, as it is so short, I will read it for the benefit of your Lordships. Line 7 on page 5 of the Bill says:

“The Secretary of State may publish conditions for pavement licences.”


We should probably change that “may” to must”. I have added the words:

“and in doing so must take into account the needs of the disabled, including the blind and the partially sighted.”

It came across in speech after speech last week that there was real concern on this issue—a concern most graphically expressed by my friend the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, who has just spoken, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, who introduced this series of amendments.

t is one thing to aspire to a café society, which is very pleasant. It is entirely reasonable that we should spill out on to the pavements, if it is safe and suitable to do so. But it is essential that the needs of the disabled —including the blind and the partially sighted—are properly recognised. I very much hope that when the Minister comes to reply, we will have an assurance from the Government that this matter will be explicit and on the face of the Bill. If it is not, I will seek to reintroduce an amendment next week on Report and, if necessary, divide the House, but I am confident that that will not be necessary. I hope that this debate will be brief, and unanimous that on this issue, in those immortal words, “something must be done”.

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21 in my name, but begin by referring to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee, which I have the honour of chairing. It was critical of these conditions, which are legally enforceable but not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The committee’s report last week said:

“In the absence of cogent reasons for not requiring mandatory conditions to be imposed through regulations, we recommend that the power to impose legally enforceable conditions in Clause 5(6) should be exercisable through regulations and that the negative procedure would afford an adequate level of parliamentary scrutiny.”


However, today I am requesting simply that we apply it to the national condition relating to space on pavements for disabled people, because the guidance is absolute nonsense which would not survive proper parliamentary scrutiny.

This is nothing to do with my noble friend the Deputy Leader, or the Minister, who did not invent this guidance published by the Government on 22 June. Paragraph 4.2 refers to

“the recommended minimum footway widths and distances required for access by mobility impaired and visually impaired people as set out in Section 3.1 of Inclusive Mobility”.

Paragraph 2.2 on page 5 of Inclusive Mobility says that:

“Someone who does not use a walking aid can manage to walk along a passageway less than 700mm wide, but just using a walking stick requires greater width than this; a minimum of 750mm. A person who uses two sticks or crutches, or a walking frame, needs a minimum of 900mm, a blind person using a long cane or with an assistance dog needs 1100mm. A visually impaired person who is being guided needs a width of 1200mm. A wheelchair user and an ambulant person side-by-side need 1500mm width.”


So, if I read this correctly—and I apologise to the Minister if I have got it wrong—rather than one simple instruction to café owners to keep a space of 1,500 millimetres, there are six different widths by which they might be guided.

Some noble Lords are old enough to remember two ancient television programmes. I can imagine a Benny Hill sketch—or something like that wonderful “Fawlty Towers” episode in which John Cleese keeps moving his diners from table to table—whereby a café owner sets out his tables at 700 millimetres and sees someone with a walking stick coming and moves them out to 750 millimetres, then I come along in my chair with my wife beside me, and he moves them out to 1,500 millimetres, and closes them back to 1,100 millimetres when my noble friend Lord Holmes comes along with Lottie, his guide dog, or the noble Lord, Lord Low, comes along with his white stick.

These guidelines are unworkable. We must have one simple rule: a minimum of 1,500 millimetres in all cases. That would also go some way towards aiding social distancing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Several speakers have withdrawn from this part of the proceedings: the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Haringey, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Lord Naseby and Lord Hayward.

[Lord Cormack [V]]

I am glad to take part in this, I am sure, brief debate. I am delighted with the statement made by my noble friend at the beginning but I want to hear more about it.

I was persuaded to table my Amendment 28— incidentally, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has signed it; I am grateful to him—for three reasons. One was a speech made by Meg Hillier, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in another place, in which she talked about the terrible squalor created by binge drinkers in her constituency. The second was the speech made at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which was equally graphic and very persuasive. Thirdly, when I was in London last week, I talked to two taxi drivers who had been first-hand witnesses to some appalling scenes.

Selling in open containers is really rather silly. The timing should be restricted. Personally, I would not sell before noon or after 10 pm—the times that I have put in my amendment—but I accept completely that any times are arbitrary, to a degree. It is important that we protect people living in areas where binge drinking at night is a real social evil and menace. I therefore look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister says when she winds up. I thank her in anticipation but hope that she will fill in a few details.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Lord Whitty? The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is muted so I call the noble Lord, Lord Robathan.

Yorkshire: Devolution

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

It is. The criteria for devolution, which we have consistently applied, are that it has to be to a functional economic area that is strong and has accountable governance. Those are the criteria we should stick to.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, why does my noble friend continue to insist that there has to be “one area, one mayor”? Many people do not like that model. While I endorse what my noble friend from Lincolnshire said about Lincolnshire, I stress that many people believe that having one mayor is completely unnecessary. You can still have one Yorkshire.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

As I say, it is up to discussions that are taking place. My noble friend will know that Cornwall is different, so it is not just one model for the whole of England. We are having discussions on a variety of ideas, but the mayoral model seems to be a good one that is accepted locally.