Mr Devine denied yesterday that his comments were a warning to Tony Blair not to soften Labour commitment to undoing the Tories’ NHS reforms.His comments were condemned by Dr Brian Potter, secretary of the British Medical Association in Scotland. Labour nationally will publish its health policy proposals following a meeting of its National Policy Forum in June. “The party is totally opposed to the the quangoisation of public services which the Tories have introduced. We intend to replace Tory-dominated health quangos with bodies which will give local people a direct say in how their health service is run. If we’ve got our act together early, I am sure then Walworth Road will be following up behind us.”"The policy of abolishing NHS Trusts and holding direct elections to health boards has been approved by the executive of the Scottish Labour Party and it is almost certain to be approved by the Scottish Labour Party conference in Inverness next month. He said that a Labour government would abolish all NHS trust hospitals.

Control would revert to Scotland’s 15 health boards, whose members would be newly elected.
So far, strategists at the Labour Party’s Walworth Road headquarters say only that they will “democratise” health boards and “remove hospital trust status”. Mr Devine was confident Labour officials in England and Wales would follow the lead set by the Scottish party, but Dr Brian Potter, secretary of the British Medical Association in Scotland, said: “The last thing the health service in Scotland needs is more ideologically- driven change.”Mr Devine said yesterday that he was confident Labour officials in England and Wales would follow the lead set by the Scottish party. Divisions between Scottish Labour MPs and party strategists emerged yesterday when Jim Devine, chairman of the Scottish Labour Party, insisted that under Labour, NHS hospitals north of the border would return to full public control, writes John Arlidge. They should also not be allowed to lobby on behalf of outside interests.A register of interests was not a sufficient safeguard.

He suggested the creation of a select committee with a judicially qualified chairman, to give guidance to peers on particular problems as well as investigating alleged breaches of the relevant principles and rules.end cpm. Peers should act as individuals, not on behalf of outside interests, and it was unacceptable for peers to accept a direct or indirect financial reward for doing so, he said. When asked if he thought such conduct was “widespread”, Lord Lester said his source would not have been so reluctant to give information “unless he felt that there was still a continuing activity”.In the written submission, Lord Lester said the source had told him he had paid substantial sums and given indirect financial benefit to four peers as well as several MPs, to ask questions and take other action on behalf of him and his company.The claims come as the Nolan committee sits and as the Commons Privileges Committee investigates allegations that two Tory MPs took cash for questions.Lord Lester criticised the “narrowness and obscurity” of existing guidance to peers about outside commercial interests. The allegations came in secret written evidence to the Lords Sub-Committee on Declaration and Registration of Interests.
Appearing before the committee last night, he said he believed the practice was widespread in the Lords, but was unable to supply the names of the four.Lord Lester said his source – a commercial client at the Bar – had been “reluctant” to give him any further information and had not given him the names.

The Liberal Democrat lawyer Lord Lester QC last night demanded tougher rules to stop peers taking cash to push outside commercial interests. He raised a “sleaze” furore this month when he claimed four peers had taken substantial sums to put questions to ministers. It was no good pretending Parliament could manage on its own. His solution was a small group, set up along the lines of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who reports to Parliament on financial matters, but dealing with MPs’ conduct.The new body would report to the MPs’ Privileges and Members Interests Committees, thus preserving MPs’ right to regulate themselves.. It was disingenuous for politicians to claim they should be treated differently.Professor Hennessy said the informal code governing ministers’ conduct, Questions of Procedure for Ministers, should be put on a firmer, statutory footing. I do not think it is any more the sort of collection which could or should be put in the public domain than my Filofax!”Professor Hennessy argued that while he had been denied a copy, it was vital that the Nolan committee ask to see it.On other matters, he said ministers should be subject to the same rules as senior civil servants on taking jobs after leaving office. It is in no sense a public record.”Sir Robin continued: “Much of the Precedent Book consists of precedents derived from personal information about the affairs of ministers and ex- ministers which I am sure you will appreciate should not be released …