Time for a recap:

The former executives of Thomas Cook have faced heavy criticism from MPs today, over the collapse of the world’s oldest travel company.

The BEIS committee criticised the company for failing to cut its debt pile faster, failing to update its business model, failing to provide accounts that clearly showed its financial position, and failing to write off goodwill on its books sooner.

Former CEO Peter Fankhauser was urged to do the right thing and return some of the bonuses he received during his time at the company. Clawback rules mean that £558,000 of his 2017 bonus could be seized by the insolvency service.

Ex-chairman Frank Meysman came in for particular criticism; he was labeled deluded, and urged to show some humility over the collapse

Meysman tried to pin some of the blame on the UK government, saying that the £900m rescue deal could have been revived if ministers had provided a backstop. It emerged during the hearing that Thomas Cook spoke to ministers from Germany, Spain, Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece in its final days, but no-one from Westminster.

Thomas Cook’s former leadership team also tried to blame the 2018 heatwave, and Brexit uncertainty, for undermining its recovery plan.

But chair Rachel Reeves dismissed the idea that Thomas Cook’s collapse was a tragedy:

A tragedy, though, speaks of something that is out of your hands.

I don’t think this was out of the hands of the company. On the contrary, I would say that that the collapse of Thomas Cook was due to the decisions of the board, including you, Mr Meysman.

Business secretary Andrea Leadsom has defended the government’s refusal to provide financial help last month, saying it would have “thrown good money after bad”.

The opposition Labour party, though, say ministers neglected their duty - at a time when thousands of jobs were at stake. They want a public inquiry.

In other news....

Optimism that a last-minute draft Brexit deal could be agreed tonight has driven the pound to its highest level since May, at nearly $1.28. But some sources are urging caution, as any UK concessions on the Irish border might not be approved by parliament.

The IMF has cut its growth forecasts:

Royal Mail is facing a strike over the Christmas period.

Bank of England governor Mark Carney has warned the global investors are fuelling the climate crisis.

Investors in Neil Woodford’s troubled Equity Income fund have been told the fund is being liquidated, rather than unfrozen. That means they won’t receive any money until January, and could suffer substantial losses.

That’s probably all for today. Thanks for reading and commenting. GW

Andrea Leadsom’s top civil servant, permanent secretary Alex Chisholm, takes the controls.

He tells Rachel Reeves that contingency plans were drawn up across Whitehall with a co-ordinated plan, in case Thomas Cook collapsed.

Q: But was there any planning to avoid the collapse of the company?!

Chisholm says there were various meeting about Thomas Cook’s funding needs, which changed substantially over the months.

There were talks with the government about what they could do to help.

The government decided not to intervene with a financial bailout. It felt it was not a situation that was viable and sustainable....

Q: Who made that decision?

“The lead cabinet minister responsible”, Chisholm replies, “in consultation with colleagues”.

[That appears to put the blame on Grant Shapps.....]

Q: Why would the transport secretary make that decision, rather than the business secretary?

Leadsom intervenes, and attempts to bat the blame over to the Treasury!

The Treasury took a very close look at the situation, the business secretary says, and concluded it would be “throwing good money after bad”. It wouldn’t be possible to restore the company to health, she insists.

With excellent timing, Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom is in front of the BEIS committee, to discuss her department’s work.

Thomas Cook isn’t officially on the agenda, but chair Rachel Reeves makes it the first order of business!

Q: When were you first made aware that Thomas Cook was seeking government help?

Leadsom says he was first aware of its significant problems “probably a month before Thomas Cook finally went into liquidation” [so mid-August?].

At that time, she was also being briefed on a huge number of other issues, including other companies in trouble and various policy briefs.

[Leadsom was appointed on 24 July 2019, so this would be early in her tenure].

Q: Who told you?

Leadsom can’t quite remember, but suspects it was a policy update in her ministerial box.

Q: What discussions did you have with transport secretary Grant Shapps?

Leadsom says she sees Shapps most days at various committee meetings, so they’d had a number of conversations.

The week before Thomas Cook went into liquidation, there was a cabinet office meeting on the contingency plans, she adds.

Q: Peter Fankhauser told us that he was told to only deal with the Department for Transport. Why?

Leadsom says there is a ‘lead department’ for all major companies. The DfT is responsible for Thomas Cook, while BEIS officials were working closely with it.

The Press Association have spoken to some of Thomas Cook’s former staff, and it’s fair to say they’re not impressed by this morning’s performance.

George, who spent four-and-a-half years as cabin crew for Thomas Cook, said CEO Peter Fankhauser, chairman Frank Meysman sounded “deluded”.

“We were consistently told that everything was okay - ‘everything was going to be fine, it’s all going through, everything’s going to be fine’.”

Lynn McKeller, who spent 31 years as Thomas Cook cabin crew, was very disappointed that the company didn’t seek UK government help.

“The fact Peter Fankhauser didn’t do anything to contact any government minister, that’s hard.

Elaine Coxhall, 48, from East Grinstead, West Sussex, who worked for three years as air crew from Gatwick, said:

“[Thomas Cook executives] should never be on the board of any company again.”

“Even on the Saturday before it went under we got an email saying ‘It’s going to be fine, business as usual, there’s going to be a little bit of noise in the media but it’s going to be fine’.”

Rebecca Long Bailey MP, Labour’s Shadow Business Secretary, has accused the government of dereliction of duty, over the collapse of Thomas Cook last month.

She’s appalled to hear today that no ministers spoke directly with the company in its final days, although tourism ministers from Spain, Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey were all in touch (as explained earlier in this blog).

Long Bailey says:

“There has been a clear dereliction of duty by the government.

“It is shameful that ministers failed to make contact with Thomas Cook at such a vital time when other international governments were stepping in, and failed to examine the excessive bonus culture when it was very publicly facing difficulties.

“There must be a full public inquiry into the government’s handling of this scandal.”

While the BEIS committee was eviscerating Thomas Cook’s failures, Bank of England governor Mark Carney was being quizzed about climate change.

This continued from his comments in our exclusive interview at the weekend.

In stark analysis of the world’s financing of carbon-intensive assets, he says the global capital markets - where companies sell their bonds and shares to investors to fund their activities - are on a track to lift the temperature of the planet by more than 4 degrees C above pre-industrial levels.

That’s double the target of the Paris climate agreement is to keep temperature rises well below 2c to avert catastrophe.

Carney says he based the assessment on fund management firms that have analysed the climate-linked assets in their portfolios, including the massive $1.6tn Japan Pension Fund, which he says holds assets consistent with a 3.7 degrees rise. The fund is attempting to manage that down, he says.

Axa, another investment manager, prices US government debt at “5.4C”, he says, reflecting the carbon intensive nature of the US economy. The UK is much lower, he says.

Some companies are ahead of the game, Carney says, but many others are waiting for policies to change:

“Policy is not yet consistent with stabilising temperatures below 2c. There are some companies out ahead, either because of their stakeholders, or because they’re anticipating that that will change. But there are others that are waiting for the policies to adjust”

Finally, Rachel Reeves MP chastises the former Thomas Cook bosses for their failure to run the company properly, or to show dignity at today’s inquiry.

A travel company is a simple business at heart, the BEIS committee chair says.

You send people on holiday, make sure they have a good time, and bring them back. Thomas Cook couldn’t get that right, so it failed - and that failure touched a lot of people a lot harder than it touched the five well-paid executives in front of the committee.

You’ve all given your apologies, Reeves continues. But frankly, as seen time and time again on this committee, apologies are the easy bit. The hard bit is to resign from other other directorships, and recognised you have a lot to learn.

And... to:

Give back some of the huge rewards that you have not earned, Mr Peter Fankhauser, but you have received.

And with a final flourish, she urges Peter Fankhauser, Frank Meysman, Martine Verluyten, Sten Daugaard and Warren Tucker to reflect on the dignity which other Thomas Cook workers have shown, but which the committee has not seen today.

And with that, they’re dismissed...

Rachel Reeves rounds the session up, with a scathing, magisterial dismissal of some of the excuses we’ve heard this morning.

She begins by dismissing former chairman Frank Meysman claim that a “tragedy” occurred one Saturday in September, when Thomas Cook went under.

Reeves says:

A tragedy, though, speaks of something that is out of your hands.

I don’t think this was out of the hands of the company. On the contrary, I would say that that the collapse of Thomas Cook was due to the decisions of the board, including you, Mr Meysman.

Reeves says “a series of misjudgements made by management” led to the inevitable collapse of the world’s oldest travel firm, namely:

• A failure to deal with the debt, not accumulated by Peter Fankhauser, but not dealt with in the five years he was in charge, or under Meysman’s chairmanship
• A failure to write down goodwill. It “can’t be true” that goodwill was worth £2.5bn one minute and £1.5bn the next -- and now worth nothing.
• The use of special disclosed items in the financial accounts seem to be “anything but special, as they occurred year after year.”
• All of the special events -- good weather, terrorism, volcanic ash -- every year there was some special item that helped to hide the underlying problems, rather than reveal the underlying state of the company.
• Failure to sell parts of the business that could have saved other parts; including the failure to sell the airline, failure to sell the travel agencies, the failure to raise the extra £200m needed.

She then dismisses Meysman’s claim that Thomas Cook was “almost there” with its rescue plan.

Then looking to the back of the room, Reeves points out that former Thomas Cook staff have attending the hearing, in their uniforms, showing their commitment to the company.

They do your company proud, and you should reflect, Mr Fankhauser, what you can do to put something back and say sorry to the people whose jobs you have taken and whose holidays you have ruined.

I hope you will go away and reflect on the huge salaries you have earned, and what you can do to put right what you’ve done wrong, she adds.

BEIS committee chair Rachel Reeves circles back to the pay question -- how much of the £20m of board bonuses paid out in the last five years be clawed back?

Warren Tucker says that Peter Fankhauser received £1.7m in bonuses. One third has been lost, and the clawback procedures means the rest of the 2017 bonus could be clawed back, if the liquidator decides it is appropriate.

It could be £558,000.

Fankhauser’s £4m of shares has already been lost.

Q: What about other bonuses?

Tucker says the finance director received a £400k bonus in 2017 - and it could also be clawed back.

Q: So should they be clawed back?

That’s up to the people running the business now, says Tucker.

There are four criteria that have to be met -- Statement of the accounts, reputational damage, gross misconduct and financial failure.

Well, the financial failures and reputational damage boxes have been “absolutely ticked” says Reeves triumphantly.

Q: So shouldn’t the bonuses be clawed back, in your view?

Tucker argues that Fankhauser worked “exhaustively” to save the company.....

Reeves (who doesn’t appear very impressed by the witnesses) lets rip again:

Q: What’s the point of clawback policies if you can’t claw back a bonus when a company collapses, taking jobs, taxpayers money and the hopes and dreams of your customers. You put those facilities in place!

Tucker says the bonuses can be clawed back - it’s up to the liquidator.

Catherine McKinnell, the temporary chair of the Treasury committee, asks Mark Carney about financial firms betting on the outcome of Brexit on the currency markets.

It’s a politically-charged question for the governor - given Boris Johnson has received political donations from hedge fund bosses who back Brexit.

Carny reels through the (relatively new) rules for the $6tn global currency market, which was found to be a hotbed of insider trading and manipulation a few years back in a major scandal.

Under the Bank’s “senior managers regime,” finance industry managers have direct personal responsibility for conduct up and down their organisations, he says.

The governor says Brexit developments are driving movements in the currency at the moment, and that the pound will certainly move up or down over the coming days and weeks.

While financial stability can be maintained, he adds:

“There will be some financial institutions and maybe some individuals associated with those institutions who have correctly predicted, or got lucky, on which direction sterling ends up going. And they will potentially make a lot of money.”

Elsewhere in Westminster Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England is answering questions from the Treasury Select Committee.

The MPs have taken questions from the public, including on Twitter, to quiz the governor. First up: When will your successor be recruited and hired?

Carney highlights two things: Sajid Javid’s recent comment that the process is on track, but that parliament is “quite occupied with some urgent affairs of state”.

He says there is however ample time for the government to hire his successor and that a wide range of qualified candidates are there to pick from.

“Whereas I was appointed several months before I took office, there are examples, including of the ECB, where the most recent president, Mario Draghi was appointed a few weeks in advance of taking office.”

“[Britain] will have a highly qualified governor, a more highly qualified governor, in the new year.”

Carney says there will be an orderly transition, adding:

“The government and this process has encouraged a very wide range of high quality people to apply. It’s afforded a good set of options for the government to consider.”

Peter Kyle MP asks how the board addressed the rising crisis that subsumed Thomas Cook.

Former chair Frank Meysman says board members discussed how to cut its debt levels, and devised a plan to cut the pile by £100m per year.

Q: But your plans didn’t work, so was the crisis ‘normalised’?

Meysman says Thomas Cook did raise £400m through a rights issue, sold £350m of assets. Steps were taken, he insists.

Q: But that just shows you were reacting to the crisis!

Meysman says the company had a strategic plan - managing more of its own hotels, a new tie-up in China with Fosun, and a focus on Russia. But the overriding priority was to lower debts, thus the restructuring plan.

Q: But you’re travelling around the world, asking people to lend you more money. You look like a gambling addict, trying to open more credit cards to keep your addiction running.

Meysman tried to sweep this aside. He says the £900 rescue plan was a “great plan”, saving employees and hoteliers, and not costing the government anything (he claims) - until it collapsed on 22 September when the government refused to provide help.

Q: But you wanted £200m of support, and that would have been swallowed up by your £150m debt servicing costs, postponing the inevitable.

Meysman says those debt repayments were a “heavy heavy load”.

Fankhauser adds that Thomas Cook engaged intensively with the government, at the highest level, in the days before its collapse.

We were “pretty confident”, he says, but then on Sunday 22nd September the company realised that it faced a cliff-edge - without government support, the game was up.

Fankhauser says that at 5pm that day he realised he “had to throw in the towel” when he spoke to a “high official” on the phone, and learned that the government wouldn’t support the plan.

Q: Did you speak to any ministers on that Sunday?

No, Fankhauser replies. We were clearly told earlier that week that the point of contact was the officials who were sitting in our meetings.

The committee look astonished.

Q: Didn’t you try to challenge this?

Fankhauser says no, but adds that the company did have contact with officials in Number 10 Downing Street.

The other Thomas Cook executives confirm that they didn’t speak to a minister either!

Q: Do you regret that, Mr Meysman? (former TC chair).

Meysman suggests that with hindsight, things could have been different (not the first time he’s cited hindsight).

Q: Who did you speak to at Fosun?

The chairman.

Q: But when it comes to the government, you only spoke to an official?

Yes.

Q: Would it have been in the taxpayers’ interest to rescue Thomas Cook?

Former chair Frank Meysman says that this is a matter for governments, but points out that other governments have taken a different view. Germany, for example, has bailed out the Condor airline (which is profitable).

He then throws an elbow at the government for simply sending an email on Sunday 22nd September (the day before the collapse) saying it wouldn’t provide support.

I wish someone from the government would have come and sat down with us, and the chairs of its banks - who were in the country - Meysman says.

Former CEO Peter Fankhauser agrees that government support on that Sunday would have been vital. He says Thomas Cook had worked out that the cost of its collapse to the taxpayer was higher than the amount of extra money it needed to keep going.

Q: But wouldn’t a bailout have simply delayed the inevitable?

We would have been one of the best funded travel companies in Europe if the recapitalision plan had gone ahead, Fankhauser insists, waving his hands in the air as he insists the company could have had a bright future.

Q: But what would have changed?

Fankhauser says Thomas Cook would have had a new rolling credit facility, money from the bondholders, maybe new investment from elsewhere (if Fosun allowed it).

Plus, enough money to get through the winter, expand in China, expand its online business, because the debt burden would have been lifted.

Frank Field MP, Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, has urged Thomas Cook’s former top brass to do the right thing, and hand their bonuses to the firm’s pension fund.

Field says:

“Thomas Cook workers now face a long wait to find out exactly how much they’ve lost from their life savings, and while their former bosses might argue that this isn’t another BHS, Carillion or British Steel, they will have a hard time justifying the millions they pocketed, one eye on the door, while the company collapsed around them.

“If they’ve had a chance to check how their own pensions are affected, perhaps the high-paid executives responsible would like to bolster the retirement of some of the workers they left behind, and give some of it back?”

Former chairman Frank Meysman blames the UK government’s lack of support for driving Thomas Cook to the wall three weeks ago.

He claims that all the parties were still committed to the £900m rescue deal at 4pm on “that famous, tragic Sunday” [the day before the company failed].

But only if the government would step in with a backstop to underwrite the rescue plan on the table.

The representatives of the banks and Fosun (the Chinese investors) told us that “we are still supporting this deal, providing the government has a role to play in the project”, Meysman insists.

Rachel Reeves (an opposition Labour MP) isn’t impressed by this argument -- the government didn’t build up Thomas Cook’s debt pile!

Q: What did Fosun and the banks want the government to do?

Meysman says Thomas Cook had three requests:

• Either £150m-£250m,
• or exert power to bring the parties together,
• or allow it to use the current infrastructure to bring holidaymakers back, if the company collapsed

Reeves says the demand for a backstop shows that Fosun and the banks didn’t believe in the rescue plan at all. Why wouldn’t they provide this extra £200m of support?

Meysman says he doesn’t know, expect that the banks and Fosun believed they were already making an appropriate contribution to the plan.

[Explainer: Under this plan, Fosun was paying £450m for a majority stake in Thomas Cook’s tour-operating business and a stake in its airline. Banks and bondholders provided the other £450m, taking the remaining stake in the tour operator and a 75% stake in the airline. The banks had also agreed to write off more than £1.7bn of debt in return for a stake in the business.]

The former Thomas Cook executives are claiming that their business was complicated, needed turning around, so it was right to class some losses as ‘one-off’ items on its balance sheet.

Chair Rachel Reeves dispute the argument -- she argues that Thomas Cook used exceptional items to burnish its balance sheet, and give a rosier picture.

Q: In the end, this focus on underlying profits caught up with you, didn’t it?

Chairman Frank Meysman denies it -- saying there was “a lot of effort” underway to reduce debts, offer exciting new holidays.

He tries to paint a picture of success....saying the firm had 20 million happy customers, exciting new routes, a joint venture in China was looking good. There was a lot of restructuring underway, he insists....

Reeves has heard enough!

She reminds Meysman that he has been summoned to the committee because 9,000 people have lost their jobs, and 150,000 holidaymakers had to be brought home at a cost to the taxpayer.

With all respect, Mr Meysman, you can point to as many successes as you like, but you have brought down a 178 year old business with huge repercussions for customers, staff, and taxpayers.

So you can point to the successes, but I’ll point to the failures and they hugely outweigh the successes.

Reeves points out that Meysman and his former colleagues began the session by apologising, but was that contrition genuine?....

I think you’re deluded about the business you ran.

You chaired a business that has gone under because of the decisions made collectively by your management team. When you point to your successes, maybe show a little more humility.

Ouch!

Former chairman Frank Meysman is now challenged -- why did Thomas Cook not write down its goodwill earlier?

Meysman argues that trading looked strong, so there was no need to.

But wasn’t it a serious mistake to wait until May 2019 to booking a £1.1bn goodwill impairment relating to the merger with MyTravel, a decade ago?

Meysman denies it -- he claims that it wasn’t clear in 2018 that Thomas Cook couldn’t hit the growth targets it aimed for.

He insists that Thomas Cook’s £1.2bn debt pile was the ultimate cause of its demise.

Once “the heatwave” in 2018 came, and “the anxiety of Brexit”, the company realised it needed a new business plan, Meysman adds. That led to the profit warning in November 2018.

Committee chair Rachel Reeves turns to the issue of bonuses.

Q: Some £20m was paid to executives in the last five years -- so will Peter Fankhauser repay his bonuses?

Fankhauser says he worked “extremely hard and exhaustively” to earn his basic pay, and didn’t get any bonus in 2018 and 2019.

Half of my pay was in shares, he adds, and he’s never sold a single one (they’re now worthless).

He also confirms that board rules mean that only bonuses from the last two years could be clawed back.

Q: What was your bonus in 2017?

Fankhauser says he received around £750,000 - 30% in shares. He won’t say whether he’ll hand it back.

Although he “fully understands” the sentiment, and the views of the public, he also argues that he “worked tirelessly” to try to save the company during his five years as CEO.

Reeves presses him hard on this -- the company went into the rocks on his watch, so how can he justify a bonus? Saying sorry is one thing, but we’re not seeing much practical contrition.

Fankhauser, sensing the mood in the room, says he will “take it back, and consider what is right, but I will not decide today”.

Former CEO Peter Fankhauser speaks first.

He tells the committee that he is “deeply sorry that we couldn’t save this iconic brand, and this company with a long, long history.”

I’m deeply sorry about this failure, and deeply sorry for the distress to customers, and suppliers, he says, adding:

I’m especially sorry to all my colleagues who worked tirelessly to make Thomas Cook a better company.

He adds that he’s grateful for the professional work that the CAA has done to bring holidays home, and especially proud of the 2,000 colleagues who helped -- showing the company’s commitment to its customers.

Q: But what are you actually sorry for, Mr Fankhauser?

Not not being able to turn around the company “at pace”, and to reduce Thomas Cook’s debt pile, Fankhauser replies.

He says the debt pile made the job much harder -- saying £1.2bn was paid in interest and refinancing costs.

Imagine what a better place Thomas Cook would be in, if only half of it had been re-invested, he adds.

Q: What would you have done differently?

Fankhauser says he would have pushed the transformation faster.

The business committee’s inquiry is underway.

MPs will hear from Peter Fankhauser (former CEO); Frank Meysman (former chairman); Sten Daugaard (former CFO); Martine Verluyten (former chair of the audit committee); and Warren Tucker (former chair of the remuneration committee).

Several former Thomas Cook cabin crew are in the room.

You can watch it live, here (right-click to open in a new tab).

Big investment news this morning: Neil Woodford’s £3.5bn flagship fund is being wound up and the cash (what’s left of it) returned to investors.

The former star fund manager has effectively been sacked by the administrators of the fund, Link Asset Services.

The fund has been frozen since 3 June; it was suspended after investors scrambled to get their money out after a series of Woodford investments performed badly.

Woodford had been trying to rebalance the fund, out of illiquid assets and into more easily traded ones, so that it could be reopened -- and charging £65,000 per day in management fees.

Link, though, has concluded that it’s better to wind the whole thing up -- another blow to Woodford’s reputation.

Good morning, and welcome to our rolling coverage of the world economy, the financial markets, the eurozone and business.

Why did the world’s oldest travel company collapse? Why didn’t a rescue plan work? Who is to blame?

A committee of MPs will seek answers to these questions today when they grill some of the former top executives from Thomas Cook, which lurched into liquidation three weeks ago.

The business committee will hear from five senior figures today including Peter Fankhauser, who was running Thomas Cook when it collapsed on 23 September, triggering the largest repatriation of UK holidaymakers ever.

The committee say:

Tuesday morning’s evidence hearing is expected to focus on questions around Thomas Cook’s rescue plan, corporate governance and the role of the Thomas Cook board, the debt taken on by the company, accounting practices, and the setting of CEO pay.

Fankhauser has already said he’s “devastated” and “deeply sorry” for the demise of the company – and we may hear fresh contrition this morning.

But Thomas Cook’s former top brass may also blame the government for not providing vital financial help. A £1.1bn rescue deal has been on the table, but vanished when the company couldn’t raise another £200m

Thomas Cook’s executives are already facing calls to return some of the large pay and bonus packages they received in recent years.

Fankhauser, and his two predecessors Manny Fontenla-Novoa and Harriet Green, received more than £35m in pay and bonuses between them over the last 12 years. Surely this money should be returned?

But this may not happen – due to a two-year limit on the “clawback” powers written into the contract of directors, if they are deemed responsible for the firm’s financial downturn.

My colleague Rob Davies explains:

Peter Fankhauser was paid £8.4m during his tenure as chief executive at Thomas Cook, including £4.6m in bonuses, but the majority was paid in shares that he did not sell and are now worthless. Of the remainder, only one year’s cash bonus falls within the two-year clawback limit, meaning the maximum he could be forced to return is £558,000.

The same applies to former finance director Michael Healy, who could only be forced to give back £465,000, a combined total of just over £1m.

That is less than the £1.5m than the Civil Aviation Authority is understood to have collected from Thomas Cook for providing advisors in the year leading up to its failure.

Here’s the details of the hearing, in the Grimond Room at Portcullis House, Westminster:

Witnesses:

• Peter Fankhauser, former Thomas Cook CEO
• Frank Meysman, former Chairman
• Sten Daugaard, former Chief Financial Officer
• Martine Verluyten, former Chair of Audit Committee
• Warren Tucker, former Chair of Remuneration Committee

The committee are planning to hear from Thomas Cook’s auditors next week, with Fontenla-Novoa and Green also expected to be questioned soon.

Also coming up today

Bank of England governor Mark Carney is appearing before the Treasury committee to discuss financial stability this morning, and can expect plenty of questions about Brexit and trade wars. That session clashes with the Thomas Cook one, but we’ll keep an eye on both.

New UK unemployment data is expected to show the jobless rate remained at 3.8% in the last quarter, very low by historic standards. But basic pay growth may have slowed to 3.7%, from 3.8% a month ago.

The International Monetary Fund publishes its latest World Economic Outlook later today. Its new boss, Kristalina Georgieva, has already said growth forecasts will be cut.

The agenda

• 9am BST: BEIS Committee hearing into the collapse of Thomas Cook
• 9.30am BST: Treasury Committee hearing with the Bank of England
• 9.30am BST: UK unemployment report.
• 2pm BST: IMF to publish its World Economic Outlook