On November 23, 2011 David Cameron was questioned in the House of Commons by fellow Tory MP Stewart Jackson about the difficulties experienced by Thomas Cook over the preceding couple of days.

In his reply the prime minister called the company an “iconic and important British business” before adding: “I have asked the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills [Bis] to give me a report on what is happening at Thomas Cook, because it is important to ensure that it is in a good, healthy state.”

It sounded formulaic enough, but after a lengthy Freedom of Information investigation carried out by TTG along with a related tribunal hearing, we now know a bit more about what was really going on in the background.

More importantly, we also now know just how desperate Thomas Cook, Bis and the CAA were about keeping the contents out of the public domain.

The decision by the tribunal to partially allow Bis’s appeal means that the documents in question remain heavily redacted. However, it is still possible to piece together bits of information, helping to build a picture of not only what Cook went through at the time but also how concerned it still is about any negative press.

Lowest point

At the time that the disputed documents were produced, Cook was in big trouble. Over the course of 2010 and 2011 it had issued three separate profit warnings and in November it took the unusual step of postponing its results.

A syndicate of banks, including taxpayer-controlled RBS, eventually stepped in to rescue the beleaguered company, providing a £200 million facility to tide it over during the lean winter months

Alongside RBS’s exposure, a subsidiary of publicly owned Lloyds Banking Group also owned a minority stake and there was the small matter of Cook’s commitments as a sponsor of the 2012 London Olympics - any of which could have made the government nervous.

In his witness statement for the tribunal Duncan Budd, deputy director in the Industrial Development, Devolution and Economic Shocks team at Bis, revealed that although he wasn’t in the role at the time, he understood the office of the prime minister had requested a “report on the financial situation of Thomas Cook” in or around November 2011.

Budd said part of Bis’s role now and in 2011 was to “look out for businesses that show signs of contracting/appear to be at risk”, which could involve “sharing commercial and often confidential information with internal and external colleagues”.

Both before and during the hearing, representatives from Cook were at pains to stress that the release of some of the information contained, could, even now, hurt the company.

“TCG [Thomas Cook Group] also continues to be scrutinised by suppliers and customers, given the aftermath of decisions taken in 2011 and 2012 when the company was in financial crisis,” added Craig Stoehr, Cook’s chief corporate officer and general counsel, who was originally due to give evidence but was called away on business.

Sensitive analysis

While some of the disputed information was factual and covered by definite exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act, some of it concerned non-factual commentary of a judgemental nature - probably written by the civil service.

Rebecca Symondson, Cook’s senior legal counsel and Stoher’s replacement as a witness, emphasised the “sensitivity of the company’s fortunes to publicity”.

This information was contested by the counsel for the Information Commissioner’s Office, Laura John, who argued that the evidence of this sort of damage was “hypothetical”.

The tribunal, however, sided with Bis, stating: “We have considered all the evidence and have come to the conclusion that the disclosure of the commentary information would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of Thomas Cook.”

Interestingly, an accompanying document released during the hearing also reveals just how close the government and Thomas Cook remained after the near collapse in 2011. An internal communication sent to Michael Fallon, the then minister for state for business and enterprise last Janaury, indicates that almost a year later Bis and Cook were still in contact.

In October 2012, “Bis was monitoring the Thomas Cook restructuring programme” and information was provided concerning “sensitive details relating to their [Thomas Cook’s] internal redundancy plans”, the communication stated.

“This was only shared after Bis agreed to respect the confidentiality of this information.”

This snippet of information indicates that for whatever reason Bis was keen to keep a close eye on Cook but because of the tribunal’s decision, the reasons for this are unlikely to ever be known.

A Cook spokesperson told TTG: “As a responsible holiday company, Thomas Cook is committed to full openness and transparency with regards to its operation and corporate finances. As with any business operating in the private sector, we often provide highly sensitive information to regulatory bodies and trade partners.

“In this case, the tribunal supported our view that the publication of certain commercially sensitive information we provided to the CAA in confidence was not in the public interest.”