On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After I spoke in the British Steel debate when the House was recalled on a Saturday back in April, three newspapers from the Mirror Group published false, inaccurate and, frankly, libellous statements about me that weekend, which were retweeted by a number of Labour MPs. I am pleased to report that the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the press regulator, has found in my favour against the Mirror Group, forcing it to apologise and to permanently delete those articles and all the social media posts. I am most grateful to those Labour MPs who deleted their posts when they were so informed.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of what is not really a point of order. He has most definitely made his point.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have had any notification of a statement from the Ministry of Justice, and in particular from the Justice Secretary, about our interaction earlier and the very serious case that it now relates to. I have strong reason to believe that the Deputy prime minister was aware of the case when I asked him very clearly five times about whether he knew about these sorts of cases and he did not answer the question. This is about Ministers being transparent with the House, and I seek your guidance.

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of that point of order. I have received no notice that the Secretary of State intends to make a statement, but those on the Treasury front bench will have heard that point of order and, I am sure, will take the hon. Member’s views into account.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The recent Cabinet Office annual accounts show that the departed Cabinet Secretary and the permanent Secretary collectively received a quarter of a million pounds in golden goodbyes. I asked the Minister for the Cabinet Office the rationale for such a use of taxpayers’ money, and the Minister without Portfolio replied that it was the Government’s policy not to comment on individuals. That is clearly nonsensical. There is a clear expectation of accountability and transparency on payments to the most public senior officials, so do you agree that this approach is in keeping with the House’s resolution on ministerial accountability to Parliament?

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Ministers are responsible for their responses to Members’ questions, so that is not a matter for the Chair, but no doubt those on the Government front bench will have noted his question.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the early hours of Monday morning there was a serious derailment at Shap in my Constituency, on the Glasgow to London line. It is now Wednesday, but the Secretary of State for Transport has chosen not to make a statement to the House on the matter. The derailment shines a worrying light on the failure to invest in the modernisation of the railway line north of Warrington up to Lockerbie, putting passengers at risk on the busiest line in the whole of western Europe. Can you give us some guidance on how we can make our representations on that failure, and also voice our respect and admiration for the emergency services, the Network Rail staff, the Avanti crew, including the train driver, and the people at the Shap Wells hotel who looked after the stricken passengers on that terrible Monday morning?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. As an experienced Member, he knows that while statements are made on the initiative of Ministers, there are other ways for Members to raise matters in this House.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to ask whether my letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, dated 23 October—on whether the deeply offensive comments she made to me and my independent alliance colleagues in the Chamber on 20 October were in breach of the Nolan principles of public life—will receive a reply. The football game is being held tomorrow and the police assessment found that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were experienced fighters who were highly organised and intent on causing serious violence. The Secretary of State has not, to date, clarified whether she had seen that advice before she decided to label me and those who welcomed the ban on safety grounds as antisemitic. Can you advise me on what steps I can take to seek redress with an apology or resignation?

Can the hon. Member confirm that he has actually notified the Secretary of State that he intended to raise this matter?

I am not sure.

Well, that would be good protocol. All correspondence from Members to Ministers should be dealt with promptly, and no doubt those on the Treasury front bench will have noted this and will ensure that Back Benchers get answers to their correspondence in good time.