Conflict of Interest

 A brief history of the South Thanet MP, Craig Mackinlay

Craig was born in North Kent on the 7th of October 1966 and stood for Parliament 1st in 1992 as an Independent and failed. He then joined the United Kingdon Independent Party (UKIP) and stood as Parliamentary candidate in 1997, 2001 and 2005 losing each time.

He then defected to the Tories in 2007 finally standing and winning in a hard-fought battle with Nigel Farage (then leader of UKIP) in 2015. He has kept the seat twice since in 2017 and 2019.

So why do we have a conflict of Interest.

To summarise: -

The rules on the registration of shareholdings require Members to register a shareholding if the Member's shares exceed 15% of the total shares issued or have a value of more than £70,000. Although the company had never traded and the shares were of only nominal value, the Member held in excess of 15% of the total and he was therefore required to include this interest in the Register of Members' Interests within one month of his election in 2015.

Why we have this rule in Parliament

“To provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her action, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament”.

His excuse was: -

I am conversant with the rules for the registration of interests. I note under Threshold for Registration, paragraph 51(i) and (ii), clarified under paragraph 54 that these are not (i) and (ii) requirements, but are (i) or (ii) requirements. On the face of it, my shareholding - amount to 2 shares of 1 penny, being the entire issued share capital of the company would suggest a requirement to register under 51(i), however this would be a construction of the absurd in this instance. The company was formed on 4 April 2001 when I was pursuing, with outer, the potential for a low-cost airline operation. The idea progressed to a moderately advanced stage but literally fell apart, never to be resurrected again following the events of 9/11 in 2001, whereby for obvious reasons, interest in a new airline literally ceased in its tracks.

In the event Craig apologised for inadvertently misleading the house on 3 separate occasions. The 1st during his maiden speech to Parliament on the 28/5/2015 when he said

The 2nd was on 11/6/2015 when he responded as follows

That meeting then went ahead with the North Thanet MP Roger Gale

The 3rd took place on the 7/2/2018 as follows: -

As an aside to this support of Manston which takes the form of lobbying for Riveroak Strategic Partners (RSP), ostensibly on behalf of the people living in South Thanet, it does seem from a statement made during a fundraising BBQ for the Save Manston Airport Association (SMAa)

"We all remember that the DCO would have trumped whatever happened on that local plan, but the fear would have been that it had been re-designated away from aviation, it would have instantly inflated the value possibly to unacceptable standards in the future. That was my great worry, and we're out of that, so as Tony said, the EC4 designation of the airport (the old designation), while we have no local plan, still stays the same and is very powerful."

In other words, as the land at that stage was owned by Stone Hill Park, should RSP be in a position at a later stage to buy the 720 acres it may have cost RSP far more to purchase had it been designated mixed use.

The apology to the house took this form on the 20/6/2018

Craig's apology statement to his colleagues includes the words "It was an idea of its day (incorporated April 2001) and, following the tragedy of 9/11, it never came to anything, and plans ceased"

On the face of it one might wonder why a qualified accountant would keep a dormant company (4193829) on the books of Companies House for 17 years (now 21 years) with all the associated costs involved.

The company was set up in April 2001 with the following designations

51101: Scheduled air passenger transport

51102: Non-scheduled air passenger transport

51210: Freight air transport

In other words, mimicking the, at that time, the business plans of Wiggins, the owners of Manston under the control of Anthony Freudmann CEO.

Imagine my surprise when an archive Google search brought up the following link

This clearly indicates that far from "plans ceased" after September 2001 flights to Malaga were still being discussed. Further this comment includes a link to a website advertising MAMA Airlines which no longer exists however using "wayback" it shows the website still being active until December 2002

Clearly it states the following "London's newest airline will put the quality back into air travel with flights from the Southeast to Europe starting Spring 2003"

Maybe Craig just forgot however there could be an alternate reason. Manston as has been pointed out was run by Antony Freudmann on behalf of Wiggins. His CV is here 

He states that "Tony Freudmann also had the following to say regarding personal accusations thrown at him “I was responsible for Manston’s conversion to a civilian airport, building it up as a cargo airport and then being ‘let go’ when I protested that the EUJet plan made no economic sense.”

He ran Kent International from 1999-2005 during the time Craig intended to run MAMA Airlines Ltd so it isn't beyond the wit of man to think they worked together and of course despite the terrorist attack on the 11th of September 2001 Kent International didn't stop running flights.

What is clear is that there is a longstanding business link between Freudmann and Mackinlay dating back to at least 2001 and this Craig confirms during another fundraiser for SMAa on the 21st of July 2019 when during a speech he made the following statement,

"Well I’m sorry this is going to be the start of the regeneration and the renaissance of East Kent, particularly Thanet and that is why I’m so excited. I’ve been working with Tony (Freudmann) for many years, known him ……We go back quite a long way, even before this odyssey and I’m really pleased that this has come to pass, so we can turn the page, reassure the community that is going to work together for Thanet."

So, it is a legitimate question the electorate can ask: -

"Does Craig Mackinlay the MP for South Thanet have an ulterior motive in promoting RSP (Antony Freudmann)?"

This week (7th September 2022) the South Thanet MP has been promoting a petition as follows; -

"We note the previous spending of £10,000 of local Council taxpayer precept by Ramsgate Town Council to attach themselves to a prior judicial review action to prevent aviation activities at the Manston site. The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport has granted the Manston site development consent (a DCO) so that a new cargo hub and associated businesses can be advanced. The project is promoted by RiverOak Strategic Partners Limited and has long enjoyed the support of both Thanet MPs. Thanet perpetually has unemployment rates and average salaries behind South-East norms. A re-opened airport is expected to bring huge investment of hundreds of millions of pounds. This means new opportunities and a huge number of new jobs. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Ramsgate Town Council to accept the decision of the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, work constructively with the Government, RSP, Thanet’s MPs and other local authorities and elected representatives towards the re-opening of the airport, and to refrain from spending more public money on further legal challenges"

Clearly the statement in bold is politically motivated as Craig is a Conservative MP and the Ramsgate Town Council is a majority Labour Town Council however the statement is factually incorrect as the truth is there was a motion in Council which was debated, and a vote taken to give the judicial Review by Jenny Dawes £10000 towards appealing the decision of the SoS of the Department of Transport to grant a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the rebuilding of Manston for the following reason "I see Mackinlay doesn't explain the reason why the government did not defend the case & conceded. It was because they knew they would lose because the SoS acted unlawfully ..................The Defendant accepts that his decision letter dated 9 July 2020 (the “Decision Letter”) did not give adequate and intelligible reasons to enable the reader to understand why he disagreed with the Examining Authority Report on the issue of need for the development of Manston Airport.

The lack of adequate reasons in the Decision Letter rendered the Secretary of State’s decision dated 9 July 2020 to make the Manston Airport Development Consent Order 2020 (the “Manston DCO”) unlawful.

However, it is perfectly legal for Local Councils to utilise their funds in protecting the electorate as an example several councils put their money together to appeal the decision on Heathrow's third runway. This use of funds comes under Section 137 of theLocal Authorities Act 1972 applied and that the payments had been declared in the annual return and signed off without question by the relevant authority.