This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
M559 – Motion on the Thomas Cook Group plc., the Conservative and Unionist Party This House notes that:
- Thomas Cook Group plc. and its related subsidiaries including but not limited to Thomas Cook Tour Operations Limited and Thomas Cook Airlines Limited, were privately owned and operated companies registered in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
- Following talks with 'key stakeholders over the weekend in order to secure final terms on the recapitalisation and reorganisation' of the Group, no agreement was concluded between the Group's stakeholders, and as such, the Group, in its entirety, entered into compulsory liquidation in the early hours of September 23, 2019.

This House thereby moves that:
- Her Majesty's Government - in the exercise of the Cabinet Office, Department for Transport, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or related agents including but not limited to the Civil Aviation Authority - shall not assume or otherwise bear the financial burden of the repatriation mission undertaken in the aftermath of the Group's liquidation, insofar as the Government may not assume costs that could not otherwise be reasonably retrieved or reclaimed, by the Government directly or customers of the Group, under:
-- Air Travel Organiser's Licence (ATOL) Scheme,
-- any internal airline levy or duty,
-- private insurance held on a part of the Group,
-- revenues accruing from the liquidation of the Group's assets,
-- private insurance held on a part of the Group's customers under force majeure clauses,
-- 'charge back' schemes through the VISA and MasterCard interchanges,
-- Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
- Any support offered by the Government to customers must be in keeping with the above stipulation and be on a 'least-cost' principle; the Government shall, within reason, reject requests for support - even if costs may be retrieved at a later date - if said requests are deemed to be vexatious or not in keeping with the circumstances: that is to say, the Government must, if a repatriation package is offered on the same date as the booked return to London Gatwick, reject requests to 'wait' or otherwise provide a package to London Heathrow, if the customer fails to provide good reason.
- Nothing in this motion may otherwise hinder the Government providing necessary logistical support and management.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
Because the Conservative Party is allergic to hyperlinks:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by 04MR17)
Because the Conservative Party is allergic to hyperlinks:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/75
Section 75 is a consumer protection that everyone should, ideally, be aware of anyway...
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by ns_2)
Section 75 is a consumer protection that everyone should, ideally, be aware of anyway...
And the ability to hyperlink is a basic computer skill that anyone should, ideally, be able to use...
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by 04MR17)
And the ability to hyperlink is a basic computer skill that anyone should, ideally, be able to use...
Unless you're the Speaker. 😉😛


Let’s pretend I knew the hyperlink was buggered when I wrote this and I wasn’t told by my deputy a couple of hours later.
Last edited by Andrew97; 3 weeks ago
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
I feel for those who have lost their jobs as a result of this business closing. The impact would have been much greater had this occurred say in August or over the Christmas holidays. The proposals that this motion makes miss two possible sources of funds that could be used to reduce the cost to the public purse of the repatriation.

There will be airlines that will make extra profit in the short-term from the reduced capacity, in particular the four largest airlines in terms of travel to holiday resorts- Jet 2, Ryanair, Easyjet and British Airways. A one-off levy for say 50% of the excess income that they get as a result over the next 6 months would probably cover much of the costs.

Secondly, the large bonuses paid to directors of the Company over the last few years should be recovered.

I think as this is not the first holiday company with aeroplanes to close in recent years, there should perhaps be powers to use the grounded planes for any future such instance.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
Who is going to repatriate if not the government? Surely this isn’t forcing people to stay out longer than they planned.

I’m not an expert here so would appreciate intervention from other members but it seems to me that the government should bring people back first and then claim money back from assets from liquidation.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by barnetlad)
I feel for those who have lost their jobs as a result of this business closing. The impact would have been much greater had this occurred say in August or over the Christmas holidays. The proposals that this motion makes miss two possible sources of funds that could be used to reduce the cost to the public purse of the repatriation.

There will be airlines that will make extra profit in the short-term from the reduced capacity, in particular the four largest airlines in terms of travel to holiday resorts- Jet 2, Ryanair, Easyjet and British Airways. A one-off levy for say 50% of the excess income that they get as a result over the next 6 months would probably cover much of the costs.

Secondly, the large bonuses paid to directors of the Company over the last few years should be recovered.

I think as this is not the first holiday company with aeroplanes to close in recent years, there should perhaps be powers to use the grounded planes for any future such instance.
1. This should increase the ATOL levy anyway.
2. The legality of this is questionable.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by barnetlad)
I feel for those who have lost their jobs as a result of this business closing. The impact would have been much greater had this occurred say in August or over the Christmas holidays. The proposals that this motion makes miss two possible sources of funds that could be used to reduce the cost to the public purse of the repatriation.

There will be airlines that will make extra profit in the short-term from the reduced capacity, in particular the four largest airlines in terms of travel to holiday resorts- Jet 2, Ryanair, Easyjet and British Airways. A one-off levy for say 50% of the excess income that they get as a result over the next 6 months would probably cover much of the costs.

Secondly, the large bonuses paid to directors of the Company over the last few years should be recovered.

I think as this is not the first holiday company with aeroplanes to close in recent years, there should perhaps be powers to use the grounded planes for any future such instance.
With regards to your last point if the business cannot be sold in part then the assets are sold to try recoup the liabilities. There are not aeroplanes sat around from Monarch ect..
(Original post by Aph)
Who is going to repatriate if not the government? Surely this isn’t forcing people to stay out longer than they planned.

I’m not an expert here so would appreciate intervention from other members but it seems to me that the government should bring people back first and then claim money back from assets from liquidation.
As I think the governments repatriation efforts are unilateral the administrators will already have a priority list for liabilities to be paid first. Since full liabilities are rarely recouped from a failed firm it is unlikely that the taxpayer will ever be repaid.

If it were put in law that the cost of repatriating must be treated as an interest free loan then it could possibly be through law put at the top of the list.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by barnetlad)
Secondly, the large bonuses paid to directors of the Company over the last few years should be recovered.
I agree with Ns in that I am pretty sure you cannot do that.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Andrew97)
Unless you're the Speaker. 😉😛
This comment is made more ironic by the fact i muffed the hyperlink to this item in the update. 😂😂
0
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Andrew97)
This comment is made more ironic by the fact i muffed the hyperlink to this item in the update. 😂😂
You're just showing off your speakership power...You're the speaker, you don't need to hyperlink properly, you can do whatever you want
0
abucha3
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
Aye, and to note that this motion has come from the Opposition, and not the Government. The end of Thomas Cook has serious implications not only for its former employees, and what work can be done to assist them, but also the biggest repatriation job since the Second World War to get tourists safely home to the UK, and I think it is worth commenting that it is the Conservatives that are bringing this motion to the House with serious and thought out ideas, whilst we have had nothing from the Government.

No official statement. Nothing from the Minister. No motion brought to the House. Instead, the Government are running around seeking to hand over swathes of power to trade unions, rather than spending their time looking to address the crisis with Thomas Cook.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
I agree with Ns in that I am pretty sure you cannot do that.
At present you cannot, but I think the law should be changed.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
This strikes me as unnecessary
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
This also strikes me as unncessary.

Nice to see the Conservative Party care for the common folk by washing their hands of any financial burdens. They'd probably care more if the airline was British Airways because that's used on average by people with more money.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by abucha3)
No official statement. Nothing from the Minister. No motion brought to the House. Instead, the Government are running around seeking to hand over swathes of power to trade unions, rather than spending their time looking to address the crisis with Thomas Cook.
I assume because the Government is happy to let arrangements in TSRland be the same as in real life, but I agree that a statement would be desirable.
(Original post by barnetlad)
At present you cannot, but I think the law should be changed.
I heartily disagree.
0
filletofish
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Andrew97)
M559 – Motion on the Thomas Cook Group plc., the Conservative and Unionist Party This House notes that:
- Thomas Cook Group plc. and its related subsidiaries including but not limited to Thomas Cook Tour Operations Limited and Thomas Cook Airlines Limited, were privately owned and operated companies registered in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
- Following talks with 'key stakeholders over the weekend in order to secure final terms on the recapitalisation and reorganisation' of the Group, no agreement was concluded between the Group's stakeholders, and as such, the Group, in its entirety, entered into compulsory liquidation in the early hours of September 23, 2019.

This House thereby moves that:
- Her Majesty's Government - in the exercise of the Cabinet Office, Department for Transport, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or related agents including but not limited to the Civil Aviation Authority - shall not assume or otherwise bear the financial burden of the repatriation mission undertaken in the aftermath of the Group's liquidation, insofar as the Government may not assume costs that could not otherwise be reasonably retrieved or reclaimed, by the Government directly or customers of the Group, under:
-- Air Travel Organiser's Licence (ATOL) Scheme,
-- any internal airline levy or duty,
-- private insurance held on a part of the Group,
-- revenues accruing from the liquidation of the Group's assets,
-- private insurance held on a part of the Group's customers under force majeure clauses,
-- 'charge back' schemes through the VISA and MasterCard interchanges,
-- Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
- Any support offered by the Government to customers must be in keeping with the above stipulation and be on a 'least-cost' principle; the Government shall, within reason, reject requests for support - even if costs may be retrieved at a later date - if said requests are deemed to be vexatious or not in keeping with the circumstances: that is to say, the Government must, if a repatriation package is offered on the same date as the booked return to London Gatwick, reject requests to 'wait' or otherwise provide a package to London Heathrow, if the customer fails to provide good reason.
- Nothing in this motion may otherwise hinder the Government providing necessary logistical support and management.
Mr Speaker, I believe this motion presented by my Right Honourable friend is the most appropriate response to this occasion of market failure not only does it strike the perfect balance between consumer protection and astute spending but it provides a long-term scheme to assist to mitigate the cost to public finances. In light of these reasons Mr Speaker, I commend this motion to the House!
Last edited by filletofish; 2 weeks ago
0
yaseen1000
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 weeks ago
#19
Nay
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#20
This item has entered cessation.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (138)
17.72%
It's just nice to be back! (210)
26.96%
Not great so far... (280)
35.94%
I want to drop out! (151)
19.38%

Watched Threads

View All