By Steve Bargeton, political editor

MSPS HAVE backed the idea of directly elected health boards despite opposition from ministers.

Labour backbencher Bill Butler has introduced a members’ Bill which would mean that a majority of members on each of the 14 area health boards would have to be elected, at a cost of around £1 million.

Health Minister Andy Kerr has come out against the plan, arguing that direct elections were unnecessary, expensive and could damage the “clear and unambiguous” system of ministerial and parliamentary accountability. But yesterday MSPs on the powerful Holyrood health committee came out broadly in favour of the idea.

A commitment to “consult on introducing a directly elected element” to health boards was in Labour’s manifesto for the last Holyrood election in 2003.

But after the election, the idea never made it into Labour’s formal coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats.

The issue of directly elected health boards has divided the Labour Party in Scotland, where hospital closures and reorganisations have triggered a series of local outcries.

Putting the case for his Bill, Mr Butler said there was concern that no direct mechanism exists to hold health boards to account when decisions seem at odds with the views of a majority of the local community.

“I believe that the way in which health boards currently make decisions is outdated and doesn’t give due attention to the views of the communities they represent.

“Communities frequently feel that the decisions taken by health boards have been reached in secret with little or no explanation.

“When health boards consult with the public people are often left with the perception that the decision has been predetermined.”

Health committee convener Roseanna Cunningham said the committee supported the general principle of Bill.

“During evidence sessions, the committee heard repeatedly of dissatisfaction with the current consultation processes and, in particular, the number of consultation exercises which appear to have pre-determined outcomes,” she said.

“We have considerable sympathy with these views and agree that the status quo is not an option and that change is required.”

However, members raised concerns that the proposed size of electoral wards, if based on population, might result in undemocratic geographical representation.

There was also disagreement about the proportion of board members to be directly elected.

Fears were expressed that people on low income would be discouraged from standing because no mention of remuneration, which stands at around £7000 a year for existing board members, is mentioned on the face of the Bill.

Ms Cunningham said the committee believed elected members should be paid.

“This could be by annual remuneration comparable to that already paid to non-executive board members, or through compensation for loss of earnings and/or expenses incurred,” she said.