Behind the Terrace curtain
Con Air: the Tag Team
Following on from Westmonster's post yesterday on Flying Lion and its apparent desire to jet members of the Conservative front bench around the world in the luxury to which they are doubtless entitled, Political Penguin has picked up the baton and done some top-quality sleuthing.
Yesterday we were unsure as to whether Flying Lion merely wrote the cheques for actual first-class travel on another carrier, or loaned the Tories the use of the Falcon jet they have registered to them. Political Penguin - a veritable Poirot of the blogosphere - has managed to get his mitts on a planespotter's log from Luton Airport, November 2006. One entry shows the Flying Lion Falcon jet undertaking a journey from London to Khartoum on dates that are very similar to the time that the Boy David flew to Sudan "to investigate the humanitarian situation in Darfur."
His entry on the Register for Members' Interests says that the return flight was provided by Flying Lion, but it's still not possible to be sure in what form. It is, however, interesting that Flying Lion were responsible for getting Dave back to Blighty, and the Falcon flew back on the same day he did.
Apparently the commercial cost of such a flight on a pukka private jet comes in at upwards of £80,000 out and back, so it's not easy to ascertain what the equivalent value of a one-way trip would be. However, according to the figures sumitted to the Electoral Commission, the total cost of all donations received from Flying Lion is only £123,840.37 for 24 flights, which wouldn't even cover the collective cost of canapes and champagne onboard the Falcon.
Also - and Westmonster could be wrong - but Davy's name does not appear to be on the Electoral Commission's website meaning that the cost of the Darfur round-trip must have come in at under £1,000 so there's absolutely no way the jet could have been used, unless there are special rules for leaders of opposition parties or something. From the Electoral Commission's document Donations and loans: guidance for Members of Parliament:
4.3 In line with the reporting requirements for permissible donations, a donation to meet the cost of an overseas visit should be reported to the Commission if it exceeds £1,000.
Interestingly, the Tories' key-seats strategist Lord Ashcroft owned Flying Lion's parent company and served on the board of the organisation that took it over in 1997, but he resigned in 2002.
Nevertheless, it would be interesting to know why Flying Lion appear to be such generous friends of the Conservative Party.
del.icio.us
digg
Facebook
Newsvine
reddit
4 Comments
A small contribution in the form of a liveried up version of such a plane with Dave-id Cameron smirking at the camera.
Whilst the research being undertaken is interesting, the rules for costing donations in kind require the following: -
"4.2 In cases where MPs do not receive a cash donation to meet the cost of a visit
because the costs are met by the host organisation or individual, MPs should
calculate the notional value of the trip, based on the equivalent commercial travel
and accommodation costs."
Thus the actual cost of the flight isn't relevant ... it is the 'notional value of the trip' that is and this is 'based on the equivalent commercial travel ... cost'.
If the rules change then there may be legitimacy in your complaint; but until then ...
Hmmm, I take you're point but surely "equivalent commercial cost" is well, commercially equivalent?
I mean supposing somebody paid for me to go to Edinburgh in a huge car with butler service, as many Ginster pies as I could eat, champagne, and a Yes Minister box-set.
Now, would I be allowed to submit an entry to the register for £2.98 on the basis that that would be the commercial cost if I had walked and only spent a couple of quid assuming I had stopped off at the Watford Gap Service station for a Vimto and a Wagon Wheel?
I'm not implying anything, I'm just asking a genuine question and I will check it out.
Sadly, the test is the 'notional value of the trip' ... and it is this that is based on the 'equivalent commercial travel ... cost'.
Looking at it as a lawyer, I would say that if your trip to Edinburgh was in a Rolls-Royce even with champagne thrown in, you would be able to put it down to, say, a first class rail ticket, possibly even standard fare. The problem is the fact that what is being provided is not the cost of the travel, but the travel itself. What it may cost to obtain a private charter flight is not relevant ... 'the notional value of the trip' is: and it would be assessed, on my reading of the rules, on what it would cost the individual to fly on a commercial flight to the destiination in question.
The problem for the PSB would be to work out what is the actual cost ... does it include depreciation and loss of use of the aircraft for the owner? Does it include the cost of the staff and pilots? What about insurance? I have enough difficulty working out questions like these when I take the car to court for my tax return ... with the result that I usually don't bother.