I take no pleasure in proposing this motion. It deplores the obscenely high salary that Russell Goodway has awarded himself and which has been backdated. We tabled this motion because urgent action must be taken. Failure to act will jeopardise any confidence that people still have in local government in Wales. Some say that a local authority has the right to do its own thing. Russell Goodway has ignored the fact that all democratic institutions are answerable to somebody. Parliament is answerable to the Lords and ultimately to the monarchy.

Do you think that Parliament is perhaps answerable to the people?

I do not want to hold a constitutional debate. It is a fair question and Parliament is, of course, answerable to the people. I am sorry if you are not as well-read on the constitution as some Members. If the Westminster Government decided to do something outrageous that was not in its manifesto and to which people objected but did not have the power to do something about until the next general election, the Lords and the monarchy would have the power to intervene. That is my point. For once, I am not trying to be controversial or hold a discussion about the constitution. I am trying to talk about Russell Goodway.

All democratic institutions are answerable to other people in certain instances. Russell Goodway and Cardiff City and County Council should be answerable to the Assembly because most of the money needed for the council to function is provided by the Assembly. There is some truth in the old saying ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’. The Assembly could and should have the power to do something about Russell Goodway’s salary.

On the radio this morning Ewart Parkinson said that people knew what Russell Goodway was doing before he was elected because the cabinet structure, involving large pay increases, was explained to people. I dispute that, as I do not believe that Russell Goodway fought an election on the basis that he would pay himself a £60,000 salary as council leader. I may be proved wrong by someone who can show me one of his manifesto leaflets. However, I do not think that it will mention a large salary. Ewart Parkinson was trying to say that people should have known about Ron Davies’s White Paper of July 1998, ‘Local Voices: Modernising Local Government in Wales’. I do not expect that many people have read the White Paper from cover to cover because it is not your usual bedtime reading. I have read the White Paper and the first page mentions cleaning up local government. There appears to be an admittance that all was not well in local government in Wales. Anyone reading that would not expect to see Russell Goodway paying himself a £60,000 salary.

The White Paper discusses the argument for a cabinet structure at length. I am not convinced of that argument, although I can see some merit in it. It was based on local government becoming more open and accountable. I have spoken to many people on both sides of the political fence in Cardiff City and County Council. Backbench members of Cardiff council certainly do not feel that they have a more open system of government. The White Paper discusses the importance of allowing backbench councillors, if I can use that term, to scrutinise the executive and the cabinet. We know what happens when anyone tries to scrutinise Cardiff council. If they are from the same party as the council leadership, the whip is withdrawn from them. I cannot believe that that was the intention of my colleague, Ron Davies, when he proposed plans for a cabinet system.

Therefore it must all be Ron Davies’s fault.

I am not blaming anyone in this Chamber for it. The cabinet structure should be operating properly before anyone can even start to argue that Russell Goodway has the right to award himself such an increase because he has moved to a cabinet structure.

People say that this is the sort of wage that he would have commanded in the private sector. It would be a sad day for all of us if people entered politics simply to give themselves a pay rise or for the money that is, sadly, available. I do not believe that any Member of any party in this Chamber entered this job purely because of the money. That would be a great disappointment. All of us have had jobs outside the Assembly and I am sure that most of us could have earned a similar wage outside our present jobs. I do not know why the leader of the opposition is laughing.

I was sympathising with you.

That is true even if you believe that people should not have to worry about the notion of public service when they enter politics. If Russell Goodway looked at the private sector, it would surely occur to him that not many accountants earn £60,000 a year for working a three-day week. I am told that Russell Goodway is some sort of a tax accountant. There are £7 million in unpaid council taxes floating around in Cardiff. How many accountant firms would pay someone £60,000 for working a three-day week if they had £7 million of unpaid debts? No one in farming or haulage would tolerate someone who left £7 million uncollected. Russell Goodway would not have earned that sort of money in the private sector. If he had behaved in the private sector the way that he has in the council he would have been sacked quickly.

This situation has gone on for far too long. Russell Goodway has become a standing joke. He is known around Cardiff as Russell Goodwage. He has abused his position in office and sets a terrible example—

I was not making a derogatory comment about the leader of Cardiff council. I was describing the situation as I see it.

I note your comment. Russell Goodway sets a terrible example for other local authorities in Wales. On the day—

As a councillor, I do not disagree with your comments. However, I wish that you would turn your attention to other senior councillors in Cardiff who also earn large amounts of money. It is important that we do not concentrate on one person, but look at the principle of high allowances for a large number of councillors in Cardiff council.

That is a fair comment. As Jenny knows well, the amount of money that is spent on councillors’ allowances in Cardiff has exceeded £1 million. At the same time, money has been cut back in other vital areas. I note your comment. Due to the nature of this debate, we are considering Russell Goodway in particular.

The events in Cardiff set a terrible example for other local authorities in Wales. I received my council tax demand this morning. Many of you will have received yours today or yesterday, or will do so in the next days. We will all see a huge rise in the council tax. I will not go over the reasons behind this. We know that it has happened because certain local authorities have not played by the rules and behaved in the efficient fashion that we would expect.

That is absolute rubbish.

That is the absolute truth and you know it. I do not particularly want to go over this argument. As you know, there are four local authorities that cannot spend within their standard spending assessments. If one local authority sets the example of paying its leader £60,000 a year for a three-day week, as well as paying huge amounts of money to others on the council, then it is likely that local authorities that are not prepared to play by the rules and do not run themselves efficiently will decide to follow suit. That is why we propose this motion.

Do you not agree that those four councils, which you did not mention by name, are in areas of huge deprivation and that the funding formula does not take into account the existence of such areas?

The funding formula does not take into account the huge problems of trying to deliver services in rural areas. Of those four local authorities, I leave Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council out of this to some extent, as I know that its leadership has changed. However, I find it unacceptable that the other three have shown no intention of playing within the rules and spending within their SSAs, unlike the large rural authorities such as Monmouthshire County Council. Monmouthshire receives less money per head than any other local authority in Wales and is being unfairly hit by one of the biggest increases in council tax. If councils are not prepared to play by the rules and spend within their SSAs, how can we expect them to pay their leaders fairly? It is time that this shambles was brought to an end. Russell Goodway—

I will not take any more interventions; I have taken enough. Russell Goodway has abused his position as a local authority leader. He has set a terrible example for Wales and the UK. That is why we call on Peter Law to end this shambles immediately by capping Russell Goodway’s wages and demanding that he pays himself a fair amount of money for his work.

It is right that we should debate this today. The events of the past few months in Cardiff County Hall have reduced Welsh local government to the level of pantomime. While the electorate boo and hiss off stage, Russell Goodway, the self-styled lord of Cardiff—or should that be lord mayor of Cardiff—and his Labour group have been hoarding the goodies for themselves. At the same time, they have ridden roughshod over the wishes of their electorate and, in some cases, normal council conventions. To illustrate my point I need only mention the huge wrought iron gates erected outside Cardiff mansion house without planning permission—presumably to keep the voters out—and the propaganda sheet that the council plans to circulate to every Cardiff home.

The council’s actions reflect badly not only on Cardiff and the Labour Party, but on local government as a whole. They are perfect examples of why the reforms introduced by this Government on how councils are run are wrong. No matter how good the intention, cabinet government and elected mayors concentrate power into the hands of a few councillors. Cardiff is a perfect example of how that privilege is being abused. Admittedly, it is an extreme example, but to a lesser degree the plethora of cabinets that will begin to emerge around Wales will revert to type. With only a few exceptions, they will meet in secret. The information on which they base their decisions will be less accessible. That will make councils less open and transparent and will disenfranchise backbench and opposition councillors.

The danger is that if Cardiff council is allowed to continue unchecked, we will see more and more of precious council tax payers’ money being drawn into salaries for top councillors, out of all proportion to their responsibilities. Even if we do sort out Cardiff, some councillors will seek to feed their own egos by ignoring the guidelines set down by the Boyne commission and set allowances out of all proportion to what is required. I doubt if they will be as high as Cardiff’s, but they will still be too high.

Having said that, the Assembly should not dictate to local government except as a last resort. Councillors are accountable to their electorate, although they would be more accountable if the electoral system allowed the outcome of elections to reflect how people vote. The Assembly is meant to be about partnership. In the spirit of partnership, the Welsh Local Government Association has proposed a third independent commission to sort out Cardiff’s troubles. How many commissions does it want? If we are to follow that line we will have commission after commission until Harry Jones and Russell Goodway get the result they want. Enough is enough. That is an unacceptable proposal and we should not go down that line. However, we cannot just sit down and produce arbitrary figures ourselves.

The Boyne report, although it has produced useful guidelines, was not written in a sufficiently flexible way to enable us to use it as a basis for capping special responsibility allowances. We need to revisit that report and work with the WLGA to adapt it to something acceptable to both sides. My amendment proposes doing that in partnership by reconvening the Boyne commission. Having discussed this issue with Peter Law earlier this week I accept that this might not be the most appropriate forum either. I am prepared therefore to withdraw my amendment if the Secretary for Local Government and Housing gives an assurance that he will set up a task and finish joint working group, with the WLGA, to reach agreement on maximum levels of special responsibility allowance in Wales. I hope that once that agreement has been reached it will be enforced by secondary legislation if necessary, and that we will have an announcement today that irrespective of that working group, Russell Goodway and his Labour colleagues will be brought into line as stated publicly by Peter Law at the weekend.

It is a privilege to represent a constituency as culturally and economically diverse as South Wales Central. The issues that concern people who live in Rhondda Cynon Taff are often different to those that concern people in the Vale of Glamorgan and Cardiff. We face many issues on a day-to-day basis but rarely do we come across an issue such as councillors’ allowances which seems to have united the region. As one of the representatives of the capital city, I have been inundated over the last weeks and months with letters from constituents outlining their concerns and outrage at the allowances that have been awarded not only to the lord mayor of the city but also to the cabinet members. Indeed, 22 special responsibility allowances have been awarded in the city council. This issue has been part of a long-running campaign not only by members of Cardiff council but by Members of this Chamber within the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrat party and Plaid Cymru.

I do not want to focus on personalities. The way in which the Labour Party in Cardiff council has dealt with this has been shameful, but it is important to look at the process to realise how we have reached this stage. We have two reports. You might ask how two reports on the same subject could reach totally different conclusions. The answer is simple: the reports started from different positions. The Boyne report, entitled ‘Rewarding Community Service’, examined how to reward the many hundreds of councillors in Wales who provide excellent service to their communities and how to compensate for their lost earnings. The Parkinson report concentrated more on how local government expenses and allowances could be linked to allowances and salaries in the private and public sector. When you have two different commissions based on two different perspectives, you end up with two different results. It is easy to establish a commission to produce the answer you want, which is what happened in Cardiff council with the Parkinson report. The group there received the answer it wanted by skewing the terms of reference of the Parkinson report. If one compares the rates of allowances paid to senior councillors in Cardiff with other cities throughout the United Kingdom, one sees a huge range of disparities. Sheffield City Council, for example, has a budget of £1 billion and the leader is paid £28,000 a year. In Cardiff the budget is £400 million but the leader is paid £58,000 a year. There are wide disparities.

Members of Cardiff council have indicated that their terms should not be compared with those of local authorities but with those of private companies and other organisations. When the Audit Commission provides analysis performance indicators of local authorities year in year out, it compares like with like. Analysis in the South Wales Echo compared like with like and was thorough, if you wish to examine it. Allowances paid to Cardiff councillors are fundamentally different to those being paid in other similar local authorities.

We must start setting the standard today. There have been two committees and the Boyne report—a combination of the Assembly’s and the Welsh Local Government Association’s work—which produced useful answers to this problem. The Assembly Secretary needs to bring forward an Assembly Order at the earliest opportunity, setting the parameters for councillors’ expenses and outlining the upper limits. We must start to regain public confidence in local government, which is being shattered not only in Cardiff, but across South Wales Central and, I suspect, in other local authorities in Wales. As a representative of the capital city, I believe that this issue has done untold damage to the dignity of the office of the lord mayor of the city. The public has traditionally held that office in high esteem and that has contributed to Cardiff’s standing as an international capital. I am afraid that this debacle has done nothing to enhance the city’s image or the role of the right honourable the lord mayor of the city of Cardiff.

The Government of Wales’s response thus far has been disappointing. Peter Law’s response on two occasions, during my short debate in January and in answer to an Assembly question this month, indicated that the Government of Wales felt that this was an issue for local authorities. We must take a stand given that such a large amount of money goes from the Assembly to local authorities and that council taxpayers are paying increases this year again. It is important for the Assembly to be able to take a view on this. If it does not, that could mean that other local authorities in Wales decide to make similar decisions. The Assembly must establish parameters.

On Peter Black’s amendment, it is not about setting up another commission, working group or committee. We have done the groundwork and we must now take action. I urge all Members to support this motion.

Few would disagree that the saga of allowances in Cardiff county council is one that has gone to extremes, in the amount of allowances that have been set for senior councillors. Many people now expect the Assembly to act against that. We cannot deny that this council has shown a flagrant disregard of the local electorate’s feelings and wishes. There is disappointment that some councillors who were elected to represent their local communities have shown so little integrity or sensitivity towards the feelings of that electorate in deciding their allowances. This issue has cast a shadow over local government in general. It has diverted attention away from important government issues. Much has been said about the excesses of Cardiff county council and the new system of allowances that has been introduced.

The setting of allowances has always been a poisoned chalice to councils. However low a council sets its allowances, someone always complains. Through an allowance system, we must acknowledge councillors’ work and the amount of commitment in time and effort that they are expected to make. We must not lose sight of most councillors’ commitment to community service.

We must also address the need to attract people from a variety of backgrounds to stand in local elections; allowances have a role here. Most people enter politics to change things and to serve their local community. They should not be put off either because they cannot afford to lose wages or because they cannot afford to pay for care for dependent relatives to enable them to stand.

Having said that setting allowances is a poisoned chalice for most councils, we should not take away their ability to set their own allowance schemes—schemes that reflect local needs. The ultimate responsibility should lie with councillors themselves. However, this does not mean that guidelines cannot be given, as the recently published Boyne report, ‘Rewarding Community Service’, sought to do.

The issue of council members’ allowances has been distorted by this episode in Cardiff City and County Council. ‘Rewarding Community Service’ was intended to be a basis for future discussions with councils on the level of allowances to be offered to members. This report recommended that the basic allowance should be £5,325, with special responsibility allowances added on. It recommended that leaders should receive just over £18,000. We are given to believe that the original recommendation made by this group prior to August 1999 was for a leader’s allowance of about £30,000. This was subsequently changed to £19,000. It would be interesting to know who changed that recommendation and why.

Nevertheless, this report makes recommendations that could provide the basis for councils to form their own allowances system. Given that this report was only published in January 2000 we see little need for another review. This document should form the basis for further negotiations—negotiations perhaps best undertaken, as has been said, through a cross party working group, including representation from the Welsh Local Government Association.

No one would deny that being a cabinet member on a modern council is a time consuming job requiring a person of high calibre, or that we need to attract suitable people to take on this onerous task. However, this Assembly cannot stand idly by when the present system is being so flagrantly abused. As Peter Law said,

‘It is right that councils should be allowed to take responsibility for setting their own allowances and for ensuring that what they pay is considered fair by their local electorates.’

There can be little doubt, however, that the local electorate in Cardiff would not consider an allowance of £58,500 to be a fair reward for providing community service.

Cardiff council commissioned its own independent report, paving the way for Russell Goodway’s excessive allowances. The terms of reference for this report sought to bring allowances into line with payments for professional posts. One must question whether this was an appropriate base for a report on councillors’ allowances—councillors whose work should be characterised by the contribution that they make to their local community. One must also bear in mind that councils employ highly paid officials to manage their councils.

A distinction must be made between the roles of officers and elected members. The role of councillors is changing, and will continue to develop, in response to the modernising local government agenda set by the Labour Government. Some councillors will become virtually full time professional councillors and it will be necessary to consider how these councillors will be remunerated.

We must, however, retain the element of commitment to community service. Certain elements in Cardiff council seem to have forgotten that. They have adopted a system of allowances that goes way beyond rewarding community service. To adopt it, they have used a strong party whip, denying members of their own group the right to vote. They have ignored pleas from their party to act reasonably. Their party has been totally ineffectual in controlling them. More importantly, they have ignored strong public feeling. The public now expects the Assembly to act swiftly to bring Cardiff council to account and to limit the expenses that they pay to their senior councillors.

Councillors should have enough integrity and sense of responsibility to be able to set their own allowances. Most councillors take this responsibility seriously. It is a great shame, therefore, that one council not only acts irresponsibly but in a way that brings all councillors into disrepute. This council refuses to listen not only to its own party but, more significantly, to the vast majority of its own constituents. That is why the Assembly must act to curb those excesses.

It is up to you, Peter Law, to call this council to account and to stop the payment of these excessive expenses today. An all-party working group must be established to develop an allowances system that will be fair to the whole of Wales.

It is a pleasure to follow those lucid remarks. I do not quite agree with the last one, but the general content of the speech was excellent. This emphasises the considerable cross party feeling on this issue.

On accountability, I cannot sign-up completely to my colleague, David Davies’s, remarks about the constitution—a rather Tudor-like vision. While the thought of re-establishing the sovereign’s veto is enticing, I believe that it died with Queen Anne. It is important that people have a direct right—an easy mechanism—to reject a particular proposal. When we consider politicians’ allowances and payments, it is important that the electorate can say ‘no, we do not want that’. Councillors could put this to the electorate in a local referendum, allowing people to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ directly. The Assembly could set guidelines and maximum limits, as Janet Ryder hinted. While that is not quite direct—people would have to wait until the next election if they did not like the limits and guidelines we had set—there would be a mechanism in place on which people could vote. We have a system where people are left out of the loop and do not have any mechanism by which to influence a decision. Any system of government that does not allow people a means of rejecting a policy is dangerous.

On leadership, I take a slightly heterodox position in the Conservative group about the reform of local government. I have believed for a long time that local government has needed considerable rejuvenation. I am pleased at the prospect of a more executive direction within councils, and councils taking forward more enterprising policies, and returning to a nineteenth-century vision. By this, I do not mean having a committee structure with merely the great and the good as councillors, but that councils could achieve major objectives, which enthused many people in the nineteenth century. There was a golden age in local government after the 1880s and it is not impossible to return to such a vision.

I have, for a long time—since Michael Heseltine raised the possibility in 1990—agreed that we ought to have elected mayors. It would be up to people to vote on this locally and they may not want an elected mayor, but it is good for people to have a chance to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The problem with what Russell Goodway has done is that he wants to be an elected mayor without an election, or at least without a proper election—he will allow an election within his own group. These proposals fall flat because people have not had a say. If the people of Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan were presented with the possibility of having an elected mayor, I would campaign for it. That would be an excellent way of having leadership at the local level, accountable to the people for what it does. However, what has happened again is that people have been left out of the debate and do not feel as if they have had a say. From my postbag as a regional Member serving Cardiff, the frustration felt by people on this issue is clear.

I am not an expert on the machinations of Cardiff council, and it would be for others to refute my analysis, but from my reading of the South Wales Echo and talking to people in Cardiff and to councillors, there seems to have been a lack of discussion in the council on this question. This is, perhaps, a flaw of the cabinet approach where some leading councillors are in the loop and all the other councillors have a rather vague scrutiny role that is currently rather poorly worked out. This is not a million miles away from the problem that we have with our Committees, which are supposed to deal with policy and scrutiny together. There is a real difficulty here. Cardiff is leading the way in tackling this issue according to Councillor Goodway. I do not think that it is being done well, within the council, or outside, in respect of the people of Cardiff.

People are massively against increases. Some might say that people are unlikely to vote for increases at any time. I accept that this is a sensitive issue. Political parties have a responsibility not to sign up to simplistic promises but to try to give a certain leadership. We want councillors to take on responsibilities and receive appropriate compensation for loss of earnings, or for giving up career prospects if they spend more time on council duties. That is fair, but making a loose connection to the private sector, as if the council is a private enterprise, is not what it is about. It is a publicly accountable, politically driven institution and it can achieve much public good. However, it is not a private enterprise whose goods we could choose not to buy. That is a ridiculous analogy. A great gulf has been created in Cardiff between the council and the people of Cardiff. If that is replicated around Wales, it will be a sorry day.

I finish with some comparisons. In this review, Councillor Goodway proposed a salary for himself which, if it were paid for five days, would be nearly as high as the Prime Minister’s salary, certainly higher than our First Secretary’s salary, and three times the amount of an Assembly Member’s salary. That is what he proposed and it is not right. No other council in the British Isles has done or proposed that. The fact that Councillor Goodway does not have many followers at that level surely indicates that he is out on a limb.

It is a sad day when we must take control of this issue and be firm, instructing councillors on how to behave. However, when they step out of line so much and reject the views and wishes of the people so flagrantly, the people of Wales expect the Assembly to take action and it should do so this afternoon.

I want to say a few words in defence of councillors across Wales, because there is a grave danger that with the sort of criticism that has been heaped on councillors in Cardiff and sometimes further afield, people will tar all councillors with the same brush. I have been a councillor, as have many Assembly Members. I know—and I am sure that other Assembly Members could testify to this—that the vast majority of councillors have a strong sense of public service. They enter local government to represent people and to deliver a good, high quality service to their constituents. There is a danger that this will be lost in the widespread criticism of local government in the media and elsewhere. By and large, people enter local government as representatives to improve the quality of life of the people they represent. That needs to be recognised in terms of allowances. It should also be recognised that a council is a public service and not a commercial enterprise. That is how I see it. Any scheme that is drawn up to deal with these matters in Wales should bear that in mind.

In my experience, many councillors make great sacrifices in terms of their careers and their families. It is difficult to hold down a full-time job and be a full-time councillor. It is difficult for the individuals concerned and for their families. It often has an adverse impact on their careers in terms of promotion and being able to function properly within their job. That must be acknowledged. We need a good cross-section of people as councillors in Wales, which we do not currently have. We need to attract people with full-time jobs into local government. When we set frameworks for allowances, which is necessary for us to do, we must bear that in mind.

I accept that Peter needs to act in a timely fashion—

Does John Griffiths accept that his view reflects the view of the Conservative group? The group is worried about the damage that recent events in Cardiff are causing to local councillors.

It is nice of you to agree with the Labour Party, Glyn. However, with the exception of David Melding, but especially with regard to David Davies, your party presents its argument in such a confrontational and aggressive manner that that is not the message that comes across.

In conclusion, I accept that Peter must act in a timely fashion on these matters. I hope that, in the longer term, we can allow our partnership with local government to come to the fore and recognise its direct accountability to the people. Local government is close to the ground. I hope that we bear our partnership in mind and find a reasoned and comprehensive way forward in the medium term.

As a Member for South Wales West, I can consider the machinations and strange events in Cardiff council objectively, hopefully. I wish to comment on some of the events that are widely reported in the South Wales Echo and the Welsh press as a whole.

Much reference has been made to the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. There is a clear principle in that relationship that is worth reflecting on. I understand that the House of Lords will not overrule anything from the House of Commons that was a clear manifesto commitment. That is the key issue here. No one would question local government’s ability to decide and spend the money according to its priorities and local circumstances. However, Russell Goodway did not make a manifesto commitment to award himself a salary of £60,000 for a three-day job. I accept that his responsibilities may exceed three days, but the responsibilities of councillors and other employees in all walks of life exceed the 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. standard working hours.

If there had been a manifesto commitment before the elections last May, we would not have the right to debate this and to seek to overrule local government. However, because there was no manifesto commitment and because the power presented to Russell Goodway following that election has been abused in such a way that he awarded himself such a high salary, we have an obligation to act responsibly for the sake of council taxpayers across Wales.

The Assembly as a whole, instead of the Executive, is often criticised for carrying out responsibilities, or not, or for taking decisions, or not, which are in the interests of the Welsh people. However, the Executive can act responsibly in limiting the expenses of councillors across Wales, especially when they abuse their responsibilities.

I said that I seek to consider the situation in Cardiff objectively. I am aware that councillors in Swansea are discussing their allowances also. The allowances may well need to be reviewed, but the high levels awarded by Cardiff council are a warning shot, which we must appreciate. High salaries could be adopted across Wales by other irresponsible councillors.

This debate should be about reason and common sense. It is not the trial of the leader of Cardiff council. Tirades of abuse, for example from David Davies, make it sound as such. In fairness, Russell Goodway works hard for Cardiff council. That is evident daily. We are discussing whether allowances paid in Cardiff are reasonable and appropriate. We do not need examples from the Tories, who stuffed us full of Quango bosses on extremely high wages for so many years. Those bosses had much narrower responsibilities, which were nothing like running a city the size of Cardiff. Conveniently, the Conservatives always tend to forget these matters.

Since the Assembly was established, what changes have you proposed to limit the salaries of chairmen or chief executives of quangos?

I am sorry, but no quangos are under my jurisdiction. However, my fellow Assembly Secretaries, with whom I work every day, constantly review these matters. Do not worry about that.

I recognise the concern about these matters, which has been emphasised for some time. I have also been concerned for some time, as you will have noticed from my comments during recent weeks. I have watched with interest the result of the work that has taken place in local government since the Boyne report was published. This issue has not crept up on me today: I have been considering it for a while, hence my comments, which you will have read last week. I need the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am concerned about what has been said about Cardiff council.

I remind you of your reply on 28 February to two letters that I wrote to you on 6 January and 1 February. You wrote that the issue was the subject of a short debate on 25 January and went on to state

‘I have no proposals to seek a further debate on this matter or to have it included on the agenda of a meeting of the Local Government Committee. This is now a matter for local authorities in Wales who must answer to their electorates for the decisions that they make.’

Can you explain how you came to change your mind?

That is my intention and hope. Jonathan Morgan highlighted today that, in answer to his question a month or so ago, I said this was a matter for local authorities, unless their local electors were faced with a situation that could be regarded by the public to be generally out of accord or inappropriate. If that was the case, I would review the situation. I made it known in that answer that I was considering how we would react to certain cases.

I want to seek to depersonalise this situation. A council made this decision, and a council is a corporate body, not a person, as Jenny mentioned earlier. It is unfortunate that, as the Secretary for Local Government and Housing, I was described in the media today as Clint Eastwood. Some in Cardiff suggest that I might be the white knight. I do not know, but I am law by name, law by nature. I do not always shoot from the hip. I will try to deal with matters reasonably, as I always do. However, at the end of today, there may be people who ask themselves whether they feel lucky. Therefore, it is important that we deal with this matter as positively as we can, bearing in mind that nothing is easy, as I often say when stood at this rostrum.

It is always difficult to determine how much somebody should be paid, particularly when setting councillors’ allowances. Nobody will be satisfied with the outcome of this issue, as we know from our own experiences. Whatever level of allowance is paid to councillors, it will be too much for some and too little for others, given the time commitment and responsibilities involved in being a councillor.

I do not want to be critical of Cardiff council either. My history books tell me that there was a time when so-called independent means were necessary for a person to be a Member of Parliament. Thankfully, the Chartists helped to change that system. One of their main aims was for Members of Parliament to be paid so that elected representatives were no longer chosen from a small, wealthy minority, Alun. I do not want to return to those days. The duties of local councillors today have become far more demanding than ever before, with large sums of money to administer and vital services to provide.

Do you not agree that the good name of our capital city and of the National Assembly for Wales will be tarnished if we do not decide to act quickly and decisively today to bring this matter to a swift conclusion? The case for immediate action is overwhelming.

I note what you say, Owen John, and I will comment on that in my speech later. I value the contribution made by councillors across the country. They give up their time and they must be given fair and adequate remuneration. I know from experience that a councillor’s job is not easy. It involves a significant time commitment in attending council meetings, meeting constituents in surgeries which can generate much correspondence and further meetings. I know that at 10 p.m. when things go wrong, as they do—and although the issue might not be related to a council—people go to the councillor’s front room. Do not forget that. Many of us in this Chamber, if not all of us in this building, have at one time or another visited a councillor to say that the electricity has gone off, or that there is a gas or sewer problem. It may not be the councillors’ responsibility but they are in the community to represent and help people. I value and respect that. We need to be careful about how we describe them in this Chamber.

At senior levels it is important that responsibility includes allocation of resources. I know that is the case in local authorities. It can be frustrating, as needs, however defined, are always greater than the resources available. The resulting choices can be difficult. Councillors have assumed that role voluntarily and I respect them for that. There are benefits to that work. There is a feeling of elation when something is secured for a constituent, a ward or council. Councillors’ allowances should reflect the voluntary and part-time nature of their roles. Allowances are intended to compensate councillors for the time they devote to council duties and any expenses involved in undertaking those duties. They were originally intended to draw elected members from the widest possible section of the public and to encourage people of modest means but of the highest calibre to take up council service.

The Government’s proposals for new political management structures in the Local Government Bill currently before Parliament will create a new context for the work of backbench and frontbench councillors. Some councillors will be eligible for pension payments for the first time. The role of leader and members of council cabinets or executives may involve a need to devote more time to council business. I envisage that in most, if not all Welsh councils, these roles will continue to be part-time but that is something that councils and the Assembly will need to review. Since 1995, when the Conservative Government amended the local authorities members allowances regulations, individual councils have set their own members’ allowances. Also since 1995, although councils have had the power to set their allowances, they have found it difficult in practise to approve the recommendations of even independent reviews of their members’ allowances because of significant public opposition to what they believe to be councillors setting their own pay. In fairness, Cardiff councillors did not set these rates themselves. In some Welsh authorities it has resulted in councillors being paid unreasonably low levels of allowances. There is no doubt about that. It was for this reason that individual councils and the Welsh Local Government Association lobbied the former Welsh Office for an independent review of members’ allowances at an all-Wales level. I commend them for that.

The independent members allowances working group was set up in May 1999 under the chairmanship of Professor George Boyne of the Cardiff Business School. It published its report, ‘Rewarding Community Service’ in January 2000. It was published just over two months ago. The members’ allowances working group’s report was not issued until after the publication of the Cardiff independent commission on councillors’ allowances, which came out in December. The Cardiff report recommended significantly higher levels of allowances for backbench and senior councillors than the Boyne report. The reason for the significantly higher levels of allowances recommended by Cardiff’s commission was that it sought comparisons between the remuneration of councillors and that of senior posts in public and private sectors. The members’ allowances working group emphasised the community service aspects of councillors’ roles and the link with the average Welsh wage.

I know that you would want me to make this important statement on behalf of the Government. I will take your request into account. The members’ allowances working group was set up and it was agreed with the WLGA. It was agreed that councils would have flexibility to set different levels of allowances according to their particular circumstances. Janet Ryder suggested that there might have been some interference with that working group. That is untrue. At no time was there any attempt to put pressure on the independent working group.

Officers of the WLGA and the Assembly formed the secretariat of that working group, which selected what it regarded to be appropriate levels of allowances. I did not see the report until January when it became available to the public. In the light of the discretion that will be available to councils, it was disappointing that Cardiff council took the stance that it did. I was concerned that Cardiff’s Labour group took disciplinary action against eight Labour councillors who did not support the recommendations of the independent commission because it does not accord with the scrutiny role of councils in the new legislation that is coming through. I felt that to be unfortunate at the time.

The free and open exchange of views by elected members in councils, especially in issues of principle, scrutiny of councillor’s decisions by the press and the willingness of councillors to engage with and respond to the public are three key safeguards that will ensure that the proposed political management arrangements will operate effectively in the public interest. I take seriously anything that prevents this from happening.

The whole episode has been an unwelcome deviation by Cardiff City and County Council. The political leadership of Cardiff council has been dynamic and far-sighted over the last 10 years. This has been reflected in the improving quality of life and prosperity of the city and its population. The regeneration in the city centre and in communities such as Ely has been inspirational. I recognise that and I see it every day. The positive progress that comes through hard work and time commitment follows—

This is such an important issue. People should receive fair and appropriate allowances bearing in mind the time that they invest. I do not feel that it is appropriate—I answer Peter Black on this—that another commission should be set up given that we had one report two months ago. It would be a waste of time and would be regarded by the public as such. It would be more appropriate to convene the all-party local government working group, in which I want Assembly Members and the WLGA to participate, to review the Boyne proposals.

The members’ allowances working group did a lot of good work but it would be wrong to refer anything back to Professor Boyne because we would appear to be trying to use him and his team as political pawns. They have only just reported their views, for which I respect and thank them. Having said that, I return to the Cardiff situation—

It is a vast subject. My preferred approach would be to examine the modernisation working group of the Partnership Council, as I suggested on all of these points. I will write to the WLGA to take this forward and I will look to the working group to advise the Assembly on how we can deal with this matter. As for Cardiff, it is clear that there is a strong groundswell of opinion saying that—

I will write to Cardiff council today. If I do not get the response that I expect in light of the situation, I will propose legislative plans.

I do not understand where the Clint Eastwood reputation comes from because we have just been treated to an exercise of kicking an issue into the long grass. I am afraid that Sid James in Carry On Up the Jungle would be a more appropriate comparison than a man of action.

The motion is quite clear. It calls for immediate action by the Assembly, which is why we cannot support the Liberal Democrat amendment. It would put this issue in the long grass. The last thing we want is a period of uncertainty with yet another working party or group examining the issue or a report gathering dust on somebody’s desk in the hope that the issue will go away. We need immediate action and that is why we have proposed this motion. The Boyne report of January 2000 reports on local councillors’ and leaders’ pay and on the election of mayors and whether they have cabinets.

Yesterday’s press release by Labour’s Sir Harry Jones infers that we need to take a fresh look at this. We do not. All the factors were taken into account by the Boyne report. That is reflected in the Welsh Local Government Association’s report, which was produced merely three months ago.

The Labour Party is fond of mentioning Best Value, and this applies to all Labour members of the Cardiff City and County Council cabinet, not only Russell Goodway. This is potentially also relevant to other parts of Wales because our actions will send a message to all parts of the country. I regret that this has been personalised to some extent. However, it was inevitable due to the way the issue has been handled by the leader of Cardiff City and County Council. I therefore make no apology about that. The plea was made to Russell Goodway by you, Secretary. You asked him to respond and it was therefore personalised. On a full-time basis he would be the second highest paid politician in the United Kingdom, being pipped at the post by Labour’s Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, who is a grand man with greater experience in going for broke. Little more needs to be said about Russell Goodway’s position in the pecking order.

This period has seen Russell Goodway show extraordinary arrogance and high-handedness. He has not responded to the ultimatum that I thought he had been given. The ultimatum now seems to have been withdrawn. It is clear that people throughout Wales, and particularly in Cardiff, do not believe that Russell Goodway’s salary is warranted. Jonathan Morgan has said that he has engendered unity throughout Wales, which is only exceeded by support for the Welsh rugby team.

Russell Goodway is no stranger to Assembly politics. He had more than a walk-on part in denying the Assembly the opportunity to sit at City Hall. I have little doubt that there is blood on his hands from the fiasco of handing the responsibility for Cardiff Bay over to Cardiff City and County Council. He is once again, like death, taxes and motorway cones, always with us. The Welsh Conservative group is pleased to have forced the hand of the Administration, however tentatively, just as it has with the new Assembly building which is again under scrutiny. What has engendered this change of heart? Is it coincidence that this new approach seems to date from when we tabled the motion. From that time the First Secretary’s brave stand on this issue seems to have changed. He wrote to me on 7 March, and I quote from the letter,

‘Under current regulations it is for individual councils to set their own elected members’ allowances. There are no plans to change the present position.’

Does the Secretary for Local Government and Housing intend to bring forward an Order to cap allowances? Will we see change or will the present situation remain? I am happy to give way if he will clarify that point.

I have made it clear that I will write to Cardiff City and County Council today. If I do not receive a response to my request for the withdrawal of those allowances, I will bring forward legislation for consultation. Nobody is backing away from anything. I recognise that this needs to be considered and I am taking the necessary action. I am making this point now as I did not have time earlier and I will be making a public statement shortly.

I appreciate your point about a second ultimatum. The first one did not seem to receive any response. We will look to you to ensure that there is immediate action. I trust that this will be reflected—and I can see the former First Secretary bouncing up and down—in the way that Labour Members vote today. I hope that they vote in support of the motion if they are going to introduce this Order immediately.

Do you accept that anyone who does not vote in support of this motion will be selling out to the people who elected them, particularly the Members for Cardiff and South Wales Central, and to the people who elected Lord Goodway to Cardiff City and County Council?

I agree that the motion is clear. I understand that Peter Law now supports the motion. It would be strange were he not to vote in favour of the motion and if the Labour group was to abstain. The Welsh Conservative group, including the Conservative group on Cardiff City and County Council, led by Gareth Neale, have made it clear that the proposed salaries are monstrously out of line with what they should be. That is the issue here today. The issue has been personalised but there is a wider message that needs to go out. The job of council leader is not another professional job to be tied to civil service or industry salaries. It is public service and also a job of work.

I regret that this debate has become personalised around Russell Goodway, the highest paid mayor in the country, but it is impossible to avoid that. He has succeeded in combining the elitist extravagance and arrogance of the Lord Chancellor with the assumed aura of infallibility that used to be confined to popes until Tony Blair arrived at 10 Downing Street. However, there is a broader issue. We send out a message today throughout Wales about what councillors and council leaders should be paid. This is not just about somebody who is regarded as a sort of end-of-the-pier act mayor. It is about what we expect our councillors and leaders to be paid. They deserve a reasonable rate for the job, but that sort of salary, which ranks second in the UK, is monstrously out of line with what is received in similar sized and larger cities in the UK, such as Edinburgh, Belfast and Sheffield.

Approving this motion—and I look to all parties to support it—will send out a clear message that local councillors and mayors combine public service with a job of work. Putting a cap on allowances in Wales at the level recommended by Boyne or just above it will underline the importance of public service and value for money. I urge Members to support this motion.

I withdraw amendment 1 in my name, as a result of the assurances given by Peter Law.

Yr wyf yn datgan diddordeb unwaith eto fel meddyg teulu. Cefnogwn welliant 1 yn enw Andrew Davies. Nid yw’n newid yr hyn yr ydym yn ceisio ei ddweud yn y cynnig hwn. Clefyd y galon yw prif achos marwolaethau yng Nghymru. Bydd tua hanner ohonom yn marw o glefyd y galon. Yn ystadegol, golyga hynny y bydd 30 o Aelodau’r Cynulliad yn marw o’r clefyd hwn os na wnawn rywbeth. Dyna pam yr ydym yn trafod y cynnig hwn y prynhawn yma. Mae 8,000 o farwolaethau o glefyd y galon yng Nghymru yn flynyddol ac mae yma gefndir o lefel uchel o glefyd y galon. Mae 18 y cant yn fwy o farwolaethau o glefyd y galon yng Nghymru nag yn Lloegr. Mae strategaeth ar waith yn Lloegr ac mae un ar fin cael ei chynllunio yng Nghymru. Siaradaf ymhellach am hynny yn y man.

Atal clefyd y galon yw sylfaen pob strategaeth i’w ymladd. Rhaid inni fod yn llawer cryfach ar hyn. Golyga hynny fod yn llym ar y rhai sydd yn ysmygu neu’n bwriadu dechrau. Dyna’r prif achos y gallwn wneud rhywbeth ynglŷn ag ef. Mae nifer o bethau’n achosi clefyd y galon. Gall y clefyd redeg mewn teuluoedd. Mae disgwyl ichi edrych ar ôl eich hunan drwy fwyta’n iach a gwneud ymarfer corff. Efallai y dylem ddechrau pob Cyfarfod Llawn gydag ychydig o ymarfer corff, Lywydd. Byddai’n ein cynorthwyo i weithredu ar ein holl fusnes. Mae’n ddigon hawdd siarad ynghylch y materion hyn. Dylem newid ein ffordd o fyw yn hytrach na dim ond derbyn yr ystadegau brawychus y bydd hanner ohonom yn marw o glefyd y galon. Rhaid inni weithredu ar hyn.

Rhaid inni fod yn llym ar y prif achos, sef ysmygu. Disgwyliaf gefnogaeth gan yr holl bleidiau yn erbyn ysmygu. Mae clefyd y galon yn llawer mwy cyffredin mewn ardaloedd lle y ceir tlodi enbyd. Yn ein hardaloedd mwyaf difreintiedig y ceir y graddfeydd uchaf o glefyd y galon, megis Blaenau Gwent a chymoedd eraill de Cymru ac Ynys Môn.

There is a national service framework strategy for coronary artery disease in England. It has targets and allocated moneys. By April 2001, there will be 50 rapid-access chest pain clinics in England, and 100 by April 2002. Also by April 2001, 75 per cent of accident and emergency departments will be able to provide thrombolysis. This is the clot-buster injection that Geraint will discuss further.

In England, there is an allocation of £50 million to increase the number of procedures by 10 per cent over the next two years. That could mean 3000 extra procedures. We are now discussing established heart disease or angina. That can be done by means of angioplasty and coronary artery bypass grafts. As a party, we declare an interest in heart disease. Clever work is being done in Wales and elsewhere with angioplasty. It is a marvellous technique in which there is expertise here, in England, Europe and North America. The technique involves sending a wire and a little balloon down the coronary artery. It is an amazing, Dynarod-type job. It can be performed under local anaesthetic and represents a significant advance in medical treatment during the last 10 years. The same is true of coronary artery bypass grafts. If the coronary artery in your heart is too narrow for the Dynarod job, it must be bypassed with a vein from elsewhere. You can have a double, treble or any number of coronary artery bypass grafts. A bypass used to be regarded as a major operation, but it is now routine. Hundreds of these operations are performed. Far more must be performed in Wales, as happens elsewhere. A sum of £50 million has been set aside in England to finance this national service framework.

At the weekend, I read that well-known cardiological journal, the Wales on Sunday. It highlighted a report that was first published about six months ago on our current level of performance. This is not a criticism of medical expertise in heart surgery in Wales, but we do not do enough of it because we cannot do any more. We need more capacity. We only have two heart surgery centres in Wales—in Morriston and Cardiff. We perform 1,300 heart operations a year but, despite that, 700 people are still on the waiting list. We should be performing twice as many heart operations to bring us to England’s level.

Also at the weekend, Paul Murphy mentioned his concerns about Plaid Cymru wanting to decouple the NHS in Wales from England. Heart surgery, as well as other treatment areas in Wales, is not the same as it is in England. We need to perform twice as many heart operations to reach the present English level. Effectively, we are decoupled now. For people in Wales who have heart disease, there is a different order of priority for treatment compared to England. Treatment is not the same in this national health service, because we are below capacity in Wales. We cannot respond to the need. We must spend £10 million now, according to a specialist cardiological report, which has been in the Assembly for six months, just to reach the level of heart surgery treatment in England. We underperform compared to England.

It would require even more money to respond to the national service framework, because we have greater levels of heart disease in Wales than in England. We must respond by having significantly more heart surgery performed in Wales than in England, because there are 18 per cent more deaths from heart disease in Wales. Therefore, £10 million to enable us to carry out the additional number of operations that will bring us to the same level, pro rata, as England is not enough. That assumes that we have the same level of heart disease in Wales as England, but we do not. We have far more. Therefore, it is disingenuous of Paul Murphy to suggest that we are trying to do something disastrous with the NHS. We are in the first phase of trying to bring the Welsh NHS up to the English level of heart surgeries performed. That takes £10 million. We require more money on top of that to do something specific, because we have greater need for heart surgery. That is only fair. That is not decoupling our NHS, but asking for fair play, which is what we are doing in this motion.

We have a Welsh equivalent to the national service framework. We have Dr Gillian Todd’s report on special cardiac services for adults, which goes some way as a Welsh response to the English service framework. Dr Gillian Todd’s team says that £8 million in capital is required to bring the Welsh level of heart surgery service up to the English level. That is for more operating theatres, nurses, doctors and drugs, such as statins to lower people’s cholesterol. You can talk about frameworks until you are blue in the face. However, this will cost a lot of money, because we have not spent half enough on this issue in Wales thus far. The health service in Wales has picked up the tab for poverty, bad housing and unemployment over the years. It is seen as extra health expenditure. On top of that, we need to spend far more than we do, particularly on heart disease, just to reach the English level. Paul Murphy can then be happy that, regardless of your location in the United Kingdom—Swansea, Glasgow, Southend, Edinburgh or Leeds—you will get the same treatment. At present, you do not. I am a member of Plaid Cymru to ensure that Wales gets at least the same level of treatment for heart and other diseases as England. That is why it is so important to support this motion.

In the third clause, delete ‘develop a’ and replace with ‘consider the’, delete ‘on the way forward in’ and replace with ‘for’ and after ‘Wales’ insert ‘being developed by the steering group set up to implement the national service framework for coronary heart disease’.

I speak today as Deputy Secretary on behalf of the Secretary for Health and Social Services. I wish the circumstances of my first contribution were different. I will speak to Jane Hutt tonight and convey your sympathy.

The Government of Wales thanks Plaid Cymru for tabling this motion today as it gives me an opportunity to confirm our shared concern about the high incidence of heart disease in Wales. The motion speaks of the need for action in future. A great deal has already been done to support Plaid’s requests, therefore we tabled an amendment to the motion to bring it up to date and to strengthen its effect. I am grateful to Dai Lloyd for accepting the amendment from the Welsh Labour group. The motion as amended reassures Members that tackling heart disease is already one of the national priorities of the Government of Wales for the NHS. We already have a strategic response in place for tackling heart disease. Today also gives me an opportunity to say that because of last week’s excellent announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are working urgently with the NHS, local government and our partners in the voluntary and independent sectors to prepare for better resourcing, priority health and health services.

As a key priority, cardiac services can benefit from investment over and above the £1.5 million extra invested this year. This will enable the Assembly to make significant progress in dealing with heart disease through investing in health promotion, cardiology, cardiac surgery and cardiac rehabilitation. Heart disease is the major cause of death in Wales, resulting in between 7,500 and 8,000 deaths in 1997 and 1998. Rates in Wales are higher than in England but lower than in Scotland or Northern Ireland. There are few people in Wales who do not either suffer from the disease or have a relative or friend who suffers from the disease. Coronary heart disease has long been a priority and was included in the first joint NHS and social services planning and priorities guidance, which covered 1999-2000. The draft guidance for 2001-04, which is now issued for consultation, builds on that by outlining a more focused agenda for the NHS and social services. Coronary heart disease is identified as one of the top priorities for the NHS.

Many factors contribute to heart disease such as smoking, lack of exercise, poor diet, access to services, pollution, family history, unemployment and poverty. We recognise the complex causes of ill health and the need for a coherent and co-ordinated approach across this Assembly and other agencies. It is not only the NHS and social services who have roles to play in reducing heart disease. We need to look at health promotion and prevention, delivering quality and accessible services. However, we also need to increase wealth in Wales and deliver a healthy environment. We must encourage people to take more personal responsibility for their health and well-being.

I welcome Dai’s comments on smoking. Around a quarter of all deaths from heart disease are caused by smoking, which is the primary cause of preventable illness and premature death in Wales. Last year we allocated £1 million to implement the tobacco White Paper in Wales, which was rightly titled ‘Smoking Kills’ and £500,000 went to health authorities to set up new smoking cessation services. Funding was also provided for smoking prevention initiatives in schools, smoking cessation training for primary health teams, the provision of a smoking cessation helpline and production of No Smoking Day materials. In 2000-01, the funding allocated to implement the White Paper will increase to £1.75 million. We have already committed additional resources to improving services. The specialised health services commission for Wales’s recent review of specialised adult cardiac services recommended significant investment to increase the number of coronary artery bypass grafts, angioplasty and angiograms undertaken on Welsh patients so as to tackle the waiting lists for specialist cardiac procedures. We are acutely aware that these are reaching unacceptable levels. We need more Dafydd Dynarods. While we are unable to meet the full costs, we have confirmed our commitment in this area by making available £1.5 million in 2000-01 to ease the severest pressures in the NHS. I can give an assurance today that we will further consider the commission’s recommendations in view of the additional resources that have been made available to Wales following the Chancellor’s budget last week.

The Chief Medical Officer’s 1998 report indicated progress towards meeting the targets set in ‘Better Health, Better Wales’. It noted that we appeared to be on course to meet our health gain targets for coronary heart disease. These were to reduce the mortality rate for people aged under 65 by 50 per cent and for people aged between 65 and 74 by 25 per cent by 2002. In 1995 the rate was 50 per 100,000 of the under 65 population, but by 1998 the rate had dropped to only 39.

While we have had successes, I acknowledge that we still have a long way to go. Because of the nature of this problem, the national service framework for coronary heart disease was launched at the beginning of this month. National service frameworks are a systematic approach to driving up standards to improve quality across health care sectors, in partnership with social care and other organisations. The framework focuses on those at highest risk, whose risk of a cardiac event is greater than 30 per cent over 10 years, and those with existing evidence of heart disease. It builds on evidence that a systematic approach to identifying, treating and following up patients with coronary heart disease yields the best results. This includes the development of practice based registers of those at risk, which offers patients appropriate advice on smoking, diet and exercise. It also offers patients advice on therapy, such as taking aspirin to reduce the risk of blood clots as well as other proven effective treatments. Appropriate prescribing of aspirin alone, which is an inexpensive common remedy, can save over 1,000 lives a year.

In anticipation of the framework’s publication, Dr Gillian Todd, Director of the Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales, was commissioned to lead a steering group to implement the standards contained in the national service framework. This steering group has representation from all sectors of the NHS that provide care for coronary heart disease as well as representation from the Welsh Local Government Association. Most importantly, there is patient representation from the British Cardiac Patients Association and from community health councils. The group is currently proceeding with a review of the services included in the framework, which it aims to complete shortly. The implementation plan will provide the Assembly’s strategic response to tackling heart disease. It is being designed to suit the needs of Welsh patients with the aim of improving cardiac services over the next 10 years. The group should be in a position to present its plan by September. I confirm that this is the intention, as outlined in the amendment we have tabled, so that the group can seek the view of the Health and Social Services Committee on this far-reaching strategy for tackling the high levels of heart disease in Wales.

At present, the steering group has examined the potential for immediate action in a number of key areas. For example, it is considering timely access to clot-busting drugs with appropriate facilities in a hospital, clear guidance on their future management and investigation for patients diagnosed with acute miocardial infarction or coronary thrombosis. It is also looking at partnerships between GPs and patients in promoting lifestyle changes and the benefits of joint working between local health groups and acute hospitals. Health authorities will need to address the implication of the framework through their health improvement programmes. This national priority will influence the planning and provision of services at a local level, taking into account local needs and circumstances. This is also an area where joined-up planning and action is required at all levels. The NHS must work closely with partners in local government, the voluntary and independent sector as well as the wider community. We expect to see clear proposals to address coronary heart disease set out in health improvement programmes, which tackle the root causes of this disease and promote better health as well as ensuring that clinical and cost-effective services are available where they are needed.

I have demonstrated the progress already made by this Assembly in tackling heart disease. We have a long way to go but the way forward for all of those involved in this important work is clearly laid down by the national service framework. It is essential that the additional resources that will be made available, together with those already committed are put to the best possible use and that there is a real improvement as a result. We will ensure this. I am delighted that we will be able to make real progress in reducing the scourge of heart disease in Wales.

Heb os nac onibai, mae gagendor iechyd amlwg wrth ystyried clefyd y galon. Mae ystadegau yn nodi mai mewn ardaloedd difreintiedig fel Merthyr, Blaenau Gwent a Rhondda Cynon Taf y mae’r nifer uchaf o farwolaethau yn deillio o afiechydon cylchredol. Yn ogystal, yr ardaloedd hynny sydd yn colli’r nifer mwyaf o flynyddoedd bywyd oherwydd marwolaethau cyn 75 mlwydd oed. Mae’r ystadegau yn tanlinellu’r dioddefaint a’r trasiedi sydd yn digwydd yn ein cymunedau.

Dylai’r frwydr yn erbyn clefyd y galon fod yn frwydr i’r Cynulliad cyfan ac nid yn unig i’r Pwyllgor Iechyd a Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol. Mae angen ymrwymiad clir gan Lywodraeth Cymru i fynd ati o ddifrif i wella’r sefyllfa. Mae’r hen ddihareb Saesneg, ‘Prevention is better than cure’, yn berthnasol iawn wrth ystyried clefyd y galon. Mae’n hanfodol bod y cynlluniau sydd i’w gweld yn fframwaith y gwasanaeth iechyd gwladol yn Lloegr yn cael eu gwireddu yng Nghymru. Rhaid inni gofio bod lefel clefyd y galon yn llawer uwch yng Nghymru nag yn Lloegr.

Beth felly yw gwraidd y cynlluniau? Yn gyntaf, fel y soniodd Dai, mae’n rhaid delio â’r epidemig ysmygu sydd yn gwaethygu mewn rhai sectorau o’n poblogaeth. Mae’r fframwaith yn argymell cynnwys canolfannau rhoi’r gorau i ysmygu sydd yn gyfleus i bobl ddifreintiedig. Mae angen targedu grwpiau penodol fel pobl ifanc a menywod beichiog. Rhaid i’r canolfannau hyn fod yn agored i bob un ac mae angen peirianwaith i alluogi arbenigwyr iechyd, athrawon a gwasanaethau gwirfoddol i gyfeirio pobl i’r clinigau.

Bydd y canolfannau hyn yn rhoi cymorth a chyngor er mwyn gostwng y ddibyniaeth ar ysmygu. Yn ogystal, bydd y canolfannau yn cynnal wythnos o therapi nicotin i hybu’r ysmygwyr gynt ar eu taith anodd i roi’r gorau i’r cyffur ofnadwy hwn. Mae’r canolfannau hyn i’w sefydlu yn Lloegr erbyn Ebrill 2001. Gofynnaf i’r Llywodraeth yng Nghymru pryd y byddant yn cael eu sefydlu yng Nghymru.

Yn ail, rhaid inni newid ein ffordd o fwyta. Rhaid dechrau yn yr ysgol i annog ein plant i fwyta yn iach. Rhaid sicrhau bod siopau lleol yn gwerthu bwyd iach am bris rhesymol er mwyn sicrhau nad yw’r difreintiedig yn cael eu dieithrio. Dylem hybu clybiau coginio er mwyn rhoi opsiwn deniadol i bobl yn lle sglodion gyda phob pryd. Gall hyn fod yn rhan o’r fenter dysgu gydol oes.

Rhaid inni hefyd annog ymarfer corff yn ein cymunedau. Mae ymweliad â chanolfan hamdden yn dod yn fwy o foethusrwydd. Mae’r sector hamdden yn tueddu i ddioddef yn annheg wrth i gynghorau geisio cwtogi eu gwariant. O ganlyniad, mae’r taliadau yn codi. Mae hynny’n arbennig o wir mewn ardaloedd lle ceir lefel uchel o glefyd y galon. Mae hon yn broblem sylfaenol sydd yn deillio o’r fformwla annheg a ddefnyddir i ariannu llywodraeth leol. Rhaid ehangu ar y cynlluniau lle mae pobl yn derbyn presgripsiwn nid am gyffur ond am raglen ymarfer corff mewn canolfan chwaraeon.

Nid yw’n angenrheidiol i bobl fynd i ganolfannau hamdden i gadw’n iach. Mae’n bwysig ein bod yn annog pobl i gerdded ar hyd y mynyddoedd yn y Cymoedd, er enghraifft. Mae angen rhoi mwy o gyhoeddusrwydd i lwybrau swyddogol, fel y gall y rheini ohonom y mae ein hoes aur yn y gampfa neu ar y cae rygbi drosodd eu defnyddio.

Mae’r fframwaith yn cynnwys cynlluniau ar gyfer 50 o ganolfannau buan ar gyfer cleifion â phoenau yn eu brest. Yn ôl y cynlluniau, bydd pobl sydd â symptomau angina yn gallu gweld arbenigwr o fewn pythefnos. Bwriedir i’r cynlluniau hyn fodoli erbyn Ebrill 2001, pan fydd y canolfannau ar gael yng Nghymru.

Gallai’r holl fesurau a amlinellais gael eu cydlynu o fewn parthau gweithredu iechyd. Byddai hynny’n ein galluogi i ganolbwyntio ar broblemau o fewn ein cymunedau. Gallai’r parthau osod targedau ac adolygu llwyddiant neu fethiant y mentrau newydd.

Os yw ataliad yn methu, beth yw tynged y claf sydd wedi cael trawiad ar y galon? Dywed y canllawiau y dylai dderbyn cymorth gan griw meddygol sydd wedi ei hyfforddi i ddefnyddio diffibriliwr o fewn wyth munud o alw am gymorth.

Fel y crybwyllwyd yn y ddadl ddiweddar ar wasanaethau brys, mae’r gwasanaeth ambiwlans yng Nghymru ymhell y tu ôl i’r targed o ymateb i 75 y cant o achosion o fewn wyth munud. Lefel Rhondda Cynon Taf yw 37 y cant ac yr wyf yn sicr bod y lefelau lawer yn is ym mhen uchaf y Cymoedd, lle mae gorsafoedd ambiwlans newydd gau. Yr wyf wedi derbyn nifer o gwynion oddi wrth fy etholwyr am amser ymateb yr ambiwlansiau. Mewn un enghraifft, arhosodd claf 40 munud am griw meddygol. Mae hynny’n hollol annerbyniol. Mae methiant i gyrraedd y claf o fewn wyth munud yn ei gwneud yn amhosibl roi’r cyffur chwalu ceulad o fewn y targed o 60 munud ers y galwad. Nid wyf yn gwawdio’r gwasanaeth ambiwlans. Gwna waith hynod o broffesiynol, ond mae angen mwy o adnoddau arno i gwtogi nifer y marwolaethau di-angen.

I gloi, yr wyf am drafod rheoli meddyginiaeth cleifion sydd yn dioddef o glefyd y galon. Ar hyn o bryd, mae’r meddyg neu’r arbenigwr yn rhoi presgripsiwn ac mae’r fferyllydd yn darparu’r cyffuriau. Yr wyf yn datgan diddordeb fel fferyllydd. Fodd bynnag, nid oes gan unrhyw un gyfrifoldeb am reoli meddyginiaeth a sicrhau bod y claf yn defnyddio’r cyffur yn gywir.

Gallai fferyllwyr cymunedol lenwi’r bwlch hwnnw. Gallent arolygu’r driniaeth a’i heffeithlonrwydd. Cyflwynwyd y syniad hwnnw ar gyfer cleifion sydd yn dioddef o glefyd y galon gan fferyllwyr yn Lloegr. Mae’r Adran Iechyd yn Llundain yn ei ystyried. Mae wedi derbyn cefnogaeth gan Gymdeithas Cleifion y Galon. Dylid ystyried y cynllun hwn o ddifrif yng Nghymru.

Os ydym am ymladd yn erbyn clefyd y galon, rhaid inni weithio gyda’n gilydd. Mae rôl gan bawb—y proffesiwn meddygol, gweithwyr iechyd eraill, y sector gwirfoddol a’r gymuned gyfan. Rhaid inni gael strategaeth sydd yn hybu cydweithio. Byddai sefydlu parthau gweithredu iechyd yn chwarae rhan ganolog yn y broses. Fodd bynnag, diwedd y gân yw’r geiniog. Rhaid cael adnoddau i ddelio â’r afiechyd dychrynllyd hwn sydd yn dinistrio cymaint o fywydau.

The Welsh Conservative Party is happy to support this motion and is pleased that Plaid Cymru has brought this issue to our attention. Many of us have been concerned about this for a long time. Alun Pugh’s remarks were apposite in outlining the initiative that has been taken to date and those that are planned. Other Members of Plaid Cymru will want to speak on their motion, so I shall refer to areas that have not been touched on so far.

No one has mentioned the role of hypertension in heart disease. It remains the most likely precursor to heart disease and it is the easiest to identify. If people are encouraged to have regular checks for high blood pressure, it can be treated effectively. It is the best way of reducing the level of stroke, which is a major cause of disability.

Advances in treatment can cause us to miss good news in many ways because we can offer so much to patients with heart disease. There is a range of effective treatments that can extend life by 20 or 25 years or more.

People who are in what was once called old age can receive treatment such as a heart bypass and live 10, 15 or 20 years after that. There has been a revolution in medicine since the 1960s and it puts pressure on the national health service. It is a happy obligation to have to meet the advances in treatment and provide resources so that the population can receive the benefits in this area of medicine. The increase in capacity that we require has been referred to by several people and I notice that the national framework requires all heart disease to be identified, or at least, that is the objective set for GPs. That is a major target, which will increase the level of treatment that is required.

We must remember that when we increase the capacity in any one centre, as we did recently in Morriston, the whole diagnostic practice of an area improves. Waiting lists often do not go down but may go up as diagnostic practice has improved. We cannot simply look at waiting lists as a performance indicator in this area. I urge a little caution on this matter.

We must concentrate on waiting times. If you are told that you require a heart bypass, it is a cause of anxiety not to be told when you may receive it and that can affect your condition. I am sure that I am not the only AM who receives letters from people who have been waiting for over a year for a heart bypass operation. This is not a satisfactory level of service. If you are told that you need a bypass, you should be told that you will receive treatment promptly, within about three months. I think that that is a reasonable indicator.

If we start by giving a guarantee of three months, or six months if that is too ambitious, we can then work back and gauge how much capacity we need. The problem at the moment is that we do the reverse. We put people on waiting lists not knowing how long they will have to wait. It is important that we gauge the need for acute services in the health system by a more rational mechanism than waiting lists or what a particular sector can argue for in the political arena. Setting waiting times would be a great advance in this area.

The figures are frightening. One in five people in Wales have been treated for heart disease and it is by far the biggest killer in this country. With a few exceptions, the incidence of ischaemic heart disease is worse in Wales than in any other country in the European Union.

The huge variations within Wales are equally worrying. Some communities are blighted more severely than others. Given that fact, one would expect that we would have the best forms of prevention and treatment. Instead, we have units that are stretched to breaking point, waiting lists and times that grow like topsy because of a lack of operating theatre space, intensive care and high dependency beds and the lack of appropriately trained medical and nursing staff.

In the last year, the percentage rises for inpatient treatment have ranged from 9 per cent in Gwent to a staggering 110 per cent in north Wales. That gets worse month on month. Nowhere in Wales is doing well. The inequality of access of treatment is particularly pernicious. In simple terms, people in areas with the worst levels of heart disease have the most difficulty in getting it treated. That cannot be allowed to continue.

I am glad that Dai Lloyd has accepted the amendment on behalf of the Labour administration because it would not be appropriate for the Health and Social Services Committee to develop a strategy. It is rare for me to hand over power from my Committee, but the work of Dr Gillian Todd and the national service framework has established what needs to be done on this. At present, we perform 1,999 bypass operations in Wales each year. Dr Gillian Todd reveals that we should be performing around 2,635 operations. We perform 7,872 angioplasties; over 11,000 are needed. That will cost £12 million each year. With due respect to Alun Pugh, that puts your £1.5 million investment beyond the pale. On top of that, we need £9 million of capital investment to allow these operations to take place.

We cannot accept that these operations are inevitable or the norm. To quote Dr Hamilton-Kirkwood of Bro Taf Health Authority, who contributed to the specialised cardiac services report

‘Despite one of the worst records for coronary disease internationally and the UK, Wales, in particular, has one of the lowest intervention rates. Barring unanticipated advances in the effectiveness of health promotion, this will continue to be the case for the forseeable future’.

To date, our health promotion activities have not been as successful as we hoped. As a nation, we still smoke too much, eat too much of the wrong type of food and live sedentary lifestyles. Unless we make investments in health promotion, we will never get Wales off the bottom of that EU table.

Today, we have heard a great deal about statistics, figures, percentages, zones and resources, but there is a human story behind each. One story relates to John whose wife wrote to me today. John was diagnosed with angina in September 1998 and was advised of his need for a bypass in December 1998. He is still waiting to be admitted. I quote from that letter

‘In view of John’s family history—his brother died following a heart attack at the age of 43—this is extremely worrying. John gets very depressed and his health is deteriorating. Our GP has again written to the hospital but to date, he has not received a reply.’

Let us do something for John and everyone else and pass this motion today.

There was a time when heart disease was considered the disease of the stressed, middle-class executive. The incidence of heart disease in the contented, working man—which is how he used to be described—was lower than in the stressed, middle-class executives. However, as many contributors have indicated, heart disease is the commonest cause of premature death in Wales and it is not surprising that a social gradient is reflected in the disease pattern across Wales. It is difficult generally to explain the mechanisms behind the social gradient for diseases, but in the case of heart disease, it is not too difficult. Heart disease is the sum total of life experiences from the cradle to the grave.

There is a growing body of compelling evidence, albeit inconclusive, showing that the type of programming that leads to cardiac disease can occur not only from the cradle but also in the womb. If we are to respond to the challenge of cardiac disease, then we should deal with adverse life circumstances that affect people even before they are born. I will, therefore, congratulate the Chancellor, because the Institute for Fiscal Study indicated that over the last three years the Labour Government has succeeded in redistributing 8-9 per cent of wealth to the poorest 20 per cent in the UK. Measures like the redistribution of wealth to the poorest in our society will contribute significantly to tackling this disease.

I am glad that Plaid Cymru has accepted Andrew Davies’s amendment. Alun Pugh outlined a range of activities that have been undertaken by Labour since it came to power. In October, we had the report of the specialised cardiac services for adults by Dr Gillian Todd and following the extra money that Wales has been given we will be able to tackle the challenges outlined by Dr Gillian Todd initially.

In dealing with the risk of heart disease, we have been paralysed for many years by the challenge of not knowing who we were going to treat and of having to deal with such a wide section of the population at potential risk. Over recent years, by using mechanisms such as the Sheffield risk table, it has been possible to identify those who are most at risk and to target treatment much more effectively. As Alun Pugh said, it is now possible to identify the 30 per cent of people who are most at risk over the next 10 years. If we can focus treatment on that segment of the population, we may be able to achieve significant results. That will have resource implications, as other speakers indicated. Based on Dr Gillian Todd’s report, even preventing heart disease before it occurs will cost £8-£9 million, if everybody agrees to partake in that programme. The £15-£16 million that Dr Gillian Todd has identified to respond to heart disease would be in addition to that. We are looking at a budget of £20- £25 million in Wales to tackle heart disease.

It is not simply a problem of providing resources, access is also important. Kirsty touched on this when she indicated that there were major regional disparities in the way that people access high-technology heart services. There are also class differences. People from the poorest classes are least likely to be referred for treatment and even when they are referred, they are least likely to be classified as patients in need of urgent treatment. That is a double discrimination. There is also gender discrimination because women are less likely to be referred for high-technology heart procedures and less likely to be classified as being in need of urgent treatment. We must tackle the lack of resources, prevention, issues dealing with people’s life chances and those of gender and class. The amount of money allocated to the health service that Edwina Hart announced last week is evidence of the Welsh Labour Government’s commitment to tackle those issues.

I thank those who contributed to this debate, particularly Alun Pugh who spoke on behalf of the Government of Wales, for accepting our debate in the positive spirit in which it was intended.

If, instead of debating heart disease, we were debating the impact of an infectious disease, we would be talking about an epidemic of alarming proportions. We would regard the situation as a national crisis and would want to take urgent action. As it is, heart disease is a quiet catastrophe. I do not need to reiterate the alarming statistics that we have heard this afternoon. We know that we have one of the worst rates of heart disease in Europe and what that means in terms of blighted lives and premature deaths. Crucially, as has already been stated, our poorest communities are the worst affected: Merthyr Tydfil, Blaenau Gwent and Rhondda Cynon Taff. Carmarthenshire is worst affected by deaths from stroke.

People in the poorest communities have the worst access to services when they become ill, as well as being most affected by the social conditions that lead to heart disease, such as poor diet, stress and high rates of smoking. This quiet catastrophe needs tackling on many fronts. In this context, we warmly welcome the national service framework already referred to by David Lloyd and Alun Pugh and the additional resources referred to by Alun Pugh today, if they are a first step. Kirsty Williams and Brian Gibbons have already talked about the true extent of the resources that we will need to put in if we are to tackle this problem seriously.

I will draw attention to a few issues that Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales wishes to see emphasised in the strategy that will come from the national service framework. Prevention is all-important, as many speakers today have stressed, and health education is vital. However, if you are too poor to buy fresh fruit and so stressed and desperate that you cannot think about giving up smoking, then knowing that you are not taking the best care of yourself and your family just makes matters worse. In the long term, our best and most effective weapon in our fight against heart disease is our anti-poverty strategy. It was important for Brian to draw attention to disparities caused by poverty. We want to see resources concentrated not only on providing services in communities but on tackling the underlying causes.

As a group, we are deeply concerned about the lack of specialist staff available to provide treatment. The service framework has already made comments on this, but we need urgent action to recruit and retain more specialist nursing staff. In the short term much could be achieved by bringing back into the service some of the thousands of experienced nurses in Wales who have left. That must be a priority in the human resource strategy being developed by the NHS in Wales. We will need imaginative solutions.

Geraint Davies has already spoken about access to emergency treatment. We know that this is a major factor in surviving a heart attack and a major challenge, particularly in rural areas. The target time of eight minutes until emergency treatment is little more than a pious hope in much of Wales. We therefore urge the Government of Wales to look closely at the pilot schemes being run by the Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust, in which properly trained and equipped volunteers provide first aid until ambulance staff arrive. I understand that such schemes have been hugely successful in reducing death rates in parts of rural England and that the Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust would like to extend them, but lacks the resources to do so.

It is right and proper that the Assembly, the Health and Social Services Committee and the Government of Wales take the time needed to develop the right response to this quiet catastrophe. I inject a note of urgency into this debate. We need to take, and be seen to take, action soon. As a group we support the set targets, but we want a real sense of action taking place now. There can be few of us, as has already been said, who do not have a family member or a close friend—or, in our case, a close colleague—whose life is not badly affected by heart disease and related conditions.

David Melding and Kirsty Williams also referred to the issue I now raise. I am sick and tired of having constituents come to my surgeries who have to wait, sometimes for over a year, for vital heart operations. It makes me angry to have to tell them that there is little I can do. I do not want to be in that position in a year’s time. Therefore, let us treat heart disease as the quiet epidemic that it is and take urgent as well as appropriate action to end what amounts to a national disgrace.