The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has upheld an allegation that South Thanet MP Craig Mackinlay breached the Members Code of Conduct.
Kathryn Stone OBE said Mr Mackinlay had omitted to register his interest in Mama Airlines Ltd after becoming an MP.
She also found that Mr Mackinlay did not disclose his interest in the company on two occasions during parliamentary proceedings when the rules of the House required him to do so.
The complaint relates to non-disclosure of a company, Mama Airlines Ltd, and whether it was relevant to disclose during proceedings regarding the Manston airport site.
Informing the complainant of the decision, the Commissioner said Mr Mackinlay had accepted the decision and acknowledged his breach of the rules.
Mr Mackinlay has apologised for his failure to register mama Airlines Ltd and agreed to apologise to the House for for not disclosing on two occasions when it was relevant to proceedings.
The finding is due to be published on the Parliamentary Commissioner website.
Mr Mackinlay said not in his ‘wildest dreams’ did he expect the registration and declaration rules to cover a ‘dormant company’ which has never traded and has just 2 pence in assets.
He said he has asked that as part of the closure of the investigation, new rules be brought in so ‘insignificant’ companies are not treated the same as large shareholdings.
Mama Airlines Ltd was set up in 2001. Mr Mackinlay said this was due to his interest in starting a low-cost style airline. The name derived from a proposed route of Manston to Malaga but plans were ditched following the 9/11 tragedy.
Mr Mackinlay said: “A company, Mama Airlines Ltd, was incorporated in 2001 with 2 pence of share capital, owned by me. The project never ‘got off the ground’ with the events of 9/11 preventing any further progress or interest.
“The company remains in my ownership, as a dormant company with no assets whatsoever save for the 2 pence of shares. The company has never traded, has never even had a bank account, and I have never derived any remuneration or benefit from it.
“Despite its name, the dormant company is no more an airline than it is a sweet shop.
“The Parliamentary rules state that any shareholding over 15% in a company, or if that shareholding is under 15% but has a value of more than £70,000, needs to be registered as a financial interest.
“Therefore, if a member has a shareholding of under 15% in a company and it is worth £69,999, quite perversely in my view, it does not require registration.
“Not in my wildest dreams did I think, through any common-sense interpretation of the rules, that a dormant company, a mere incorporation of an idea some 17 years old would require registration.
“I have made suggestions as part of the closure of this investigation that a sensible de-minimis should be incorporated into any new rules as I am sure they were never intended to encompass such an insignificant shareholding in a company that has never traded.
“I will continue speak up for an aviation future for Manston as much as I am able, not least as, despite the passage of time, it is an industry that I understand and have, albeit historic, knowledge of.”
The company is listed as active on Companies House but accounts are also listed as being made for a dormant company for each accounting period that it has existed.
He will continue to speak up against the constituents he represents because like Roger Gale they both have private interests in aviation. A couple of personal agendas over the residents of Thanet. Not good all this.
From what I see on companies house it doesn’t look like a dormant company to me. Typical response you would expect “change the rules” Also is that a Photoshopped picture ?
It is listed as dormant and no, it’s not photoshopped (not by me anyway!)
Let me clarify, the accounts are listed as for a dormant company, the company is listed as active. Craig says it is dormant. I hope that is clearer
I understand he had been in negotiations with Freudmann during his time at Manston to use Manston as a base for his company MaMa Airline. Given he is an advocate for RSP Freudmanns a company Freudmann is involved with he should have know better. If in doubt he should have declared it or at least asked. seems to me he makes a few mistakes like this.
He won’t listen to any constituents critical of reopening Manston as an airport. Would it still be insignificant if his input helped to reopen Manston and he decided to revive his company.
Given that every shred of expert evidence says that comnercial aviation at Manston won’t work, I wonder just what Mr Mackinlay has in mind.
Flights of fancy?
If RSP succeeds in winning the DCO he and Roger Gale will, I’m sure, benefit handsomely from the property development that RSP will undoubtedly pursue once they’ve conned the site off its lawful owners. He and Gale continues to show their ignorance and contempt for the people of Thanet.
What’s that, a Tory breaking parliamentary rules, I don’t believe it. Mr Gale has made a career out of doing absolutely Sod all for the people of Thanet and yet you’d think he’d brought success and prosperity with the way he talks.
Now his buddy, you know the ex UKIP nutter is running rough shod over the people he is supposed to represent. Wake up Thanet, these jokers have taken you for a ride for too long. Get rid of them.
So both Thanet MP’s have an interest in air companies, even if they are dormant, what a surprise! Neither of them have the slightest interest in the people of Thanet, and neither of them even live here. This is why they couldn’t careless if upwards of 2 or 3 cargo aircraft an hour, 24 hours a day would fly in at 300 meters over Ramsgate Harbour, to land at Manston, day and night! Destroying the tourist industry, creating noise, and air pollution, local businesses, the education of our children who wouldn’t get a good nights sleep, and devaluing thousands of properties! Why don’t they make their financial interests in airlines public knowledge, scared are they?
In some ways, this issue illustrates the parallel world of the Tories and businessmen in general. Who amongst us would have a “dormant” or “active” business name just sitting around on the off chance of setting up a whole airline? Yet there is a class of people who regard this as normal. The “entrepreneurs” really are a separate species, living in a world where investment money for numerous projects is readily available. And where it is possible to own a whole range of businesses and appear to run them all while being an MP at the same time.Truly, there are two Britains. With one group with access to money and power, and the vast majority with neither.
There are various breaches of standards codes by the two MP’s for Thanet in that they both have interests in aviation taking off at Manston. Neither has spoken up about there business with Fraudemann in public and ministers are happy to keep it all hushed up too. Just a slap on the wrist and a request to apologise to the House. Something big is amiss here and I am surprised the media haven’t taken the pair to task yet.
“Surprised the media haven’t taken this pair to task” over their aviation interests and their support for having an airport at Manston? I’m not surprised at all ! Let’s ask ourselves who owns and runs the media. Businessmen, large corporations and Russian oligarchs. The editors and owners mix in the same dodgy circles as the Tory politicians and the Bankers. Our two MPs allegedly having aviation companies ready and waiting (whether dormant or active) while simultaneously campaigning to return the Manston tarmac to an airport is just normal business practice to them.
To the people who own and run our mass media this just isn’t newsworthy. It is perfectly acceptable.
A bit like the rumour that Jacob Rees Mogg, the MP for the 18th century, has nearly 60 million pounds invested in the big Russian Sberbank, while we are supposed to be boycotting and condemning Russia for its interference in the EU referendum. The media see this as normal. Why bother investigating?
Pretty sure I have never met a Russian oligarch