Did Labour break rules with hospital launch?
So was Labour breaking Cabinet Office rules by using NHS premises to launch its manifesto this morning (at what looked distinctly like a political meeting to me)?
Gordon Brown, pressed by Adam Boulton of Sky News, said it wasn't a problem as under PFI the building still belonged to the constructors, Balfour Beatty.
A few minutes ago the NHS Trust and Balfour Beatty issued the following joint statement.
"On the day the General Election was called University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust had already agreed to a media event involving David Cameron and the Conservative Party at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Subsequently, and in the interests of impartiality, the Trust was obliged to consider a request by the Labour Party to stage a general election event at the new Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham. Permission for use of the building was sought from Balfour Beatty as the new hospital is not Trust property until it is handed over in mid April 2010."
This does not answer the question I asked Balfour Beatty - did Labour pay them to use their building? From their above statement, I assume not.
A Balfour Beatty spokeswoman did tell me tonight, however: "We did give the NHS permission for something which the NHS had arranged."
A source in the corporate events industry estimates that hiring such a venue in Birmingham could cost about £7,500.
So if Labour didn't pay Balfour Beatty, it must have been a gift in kind, in which case Labour will have to declare it to the Electoral Commission. The same may apply to the Conservatives, depending on the scale of their event.
The new hospital in not due to open until June. I think I can guarantee that if David Cameron becomes PM he'll be offering to open it.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 12th Apr 2010, dennisjunior1 wrote:Michael:
Yes, in accordance to the rules and policies; What Labour did was breaking the rules regarding the location of the manifesto.
(Dennis Junior)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 12th Apr 2010, Jericoa wrote:I was on the early stage design team for that hospital...nice isnt it.
It ought to be for £564 million over 25 years.
That was the price then anyway.
Glad everbody is enjoying it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 12th Apr 2010, Briantist wrote:Since when can a private company claim "in the interests of impartiality" at an election? Last time I looked Balfour Beatty isn't a public service broadcaster.
I am therefore looking forward, with due impartiality to the SNP and BNP having their event there too.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 12th Apr 2010, Briantist wrote:27 minutes and still awaiting moderation...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 12th Apr 2010, GoBetween wrote:Why am I as a (´óÏó´«Ã½ licence payer) paying for you to investigate this cul-de-sac story? This is an important GE and I want to hear the policies and arguments of the parties involved not this gossip style nonsense.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 12th Apr 2010, woodnorton wrote:So Balfour Beatty gave the NHS permission to use it for something it was organising? Does that mean the NHS arranged a manifesto launch for the Labour Party? If so, this must be against every rule in the book, and I hope they will be repaying all the money spent in arranging this so that it can be used on frontline services.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 12th Apr 2010, dillert wrote:According to Cabinet Office guidelines here they didn't break any rules as the hospital isn't Government property.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 12th Apr 2010, magnificentpolarbear wrote:you say
'... must have been a gift in kind, in which case Labour will have to declare it to the Electoral Commission'
Who says it won't be declared? Please wait until the dealines for making declarations and sumbission of election expenses has passed before making this a story.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 12th Apr 2010, Briantist wrote:GoBetween: Because you, as a licence payer, have no say over individual stories. Did no one explain this to you?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 12th Apr 2010, stevie wrote:rejoice rejoice...a new hospital built...how many did the Tories build in eighteen years? The only problem is that this one should have cost millions but because of PFI will cost billions and someone, somewhere will be making an awful lot of money...out of you and me!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 13th Apr 2010, barriesingleton wrote:IS IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND MANGLISH, IN ALL ITS VARIETIES, IF THE HOSPITAL IS NEW?
When I was a Methodist, they used to say 'the Church is the PEOPLE, not the building'.
Doctors used to have a 'bedside manner' and nurses were 'instinctive carers' - vocational.
Now touch, has turned to technology, and care, to caretaking. As for empathic psychological support, that requires a common culture and easy understanding of the spoken word, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE FRAIL AND HARD OF HEARING, OR VERY YOUNG ARE CONCERNED.
'Stone walls do not a prison make, nor Iron bars a cage'; Smart buildings make no hospital, if staff share no heritage.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 13th Apr 2010, JunkkMale wrote:5. At 7:36pm on 12 Apr 2010, GoBetween wrote:
Why am I as a (´óÏó´«Ã½ licence payer) paying for you to investigate this cul-de-sac story? This is an important GE and I want to hear the policies and arguments of the parties involved not this gossip style nonsense.
As a fellow licence fee payer I must say that, as an issue that seemed to get quite high profile, yet around which facts were frustratingly absent, it's the kind of follow up news reporting I'd like to see more of. Especially as I understand the PM was reluctant to address the matter of rules and adhering to them.
Trouble is, between the story as is, Dennis Junior & Dillert, I remain still in some doubt. So further clarification would still be nice.
Plus, of course, hearing more of policies and arguments.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)