Constituents have contacted me about the collapse of BHS and the status of Sir Philip Green.

You may be aware that two Parliamentary committees recently published a joint report into the collapse of BHS. The Government is determined to tackle corporate irresponsibility, something the Prime Minister has directly referenced when discussing reform of the economy.

The joint report was very concerning, and the Insolvency Service is now carrying out an accelerated investigation. Jobcentres were put on standby to provide support and advice to those who were affected by the closure of BHS. In the long run, we need to do more to prevent this kind of irresponsible and reckless behaviour.

On the question of honours being taken away, you may be interested to know that someone's honour can be taken away if they are, for example, sentenced to prison for at least three months for a criminal offence, or censured or struck off by a professional or regulatory body for something directly relevant to their honour. Other reasons for 'forfeiture', as this is known, can also be considered.

Cases are considered by the Honours Forfeiture Committee. If the Committee recommends an honour is withdrawn, the decision is sent to the Queen by the Prime Minister. The Queen decides if the honour should be forfeited. I understand that it has been reported that Sir Philip Green's knighthood is being 'kept under review'.

The vote you refer to is a vote on an amendment to the motion being debated, which addressed BHS more widely. You may be interested to know that motions passed in such 'backbench business debates' are not binding on the Government. While the House of Commons may express its opinion in this way, the question of whether an honour should be taken away is exclusively for the Honours Forfeiture Committee to consider.

I will be unable to attend the backbench debate because I am attending to a bill committee which is legislating on the Misuse of Drugs Act.