You will be aware of the two recently published Parliamentary committee’s reports into the matter, which highlight the Government’s determination to tackle corporate irresponsibility. I was very concerned about the content of the Reports, and am glad that the Insolvency Service is now carrying out an accelerated investigation and that jobcentres are standing by to provide support and advice to those who were affected by the closure of BHS.
You suggest that Sir Philip Green should as result of the BHS collapse and his role in it be stripped of his knighthood. As a general rule, something of that sort can only occur 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.
The possibility of ‘forfeiture’ as this is known is 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 If the Committee recommends an honour is withdrawn, the decision is sent to the Queen by the Prime Minister.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 was a vote on an amendment to the motion being debated, which addressed BHS more widely. Motions passed in ‘backbench business debates' of this kind are not binding on the Government, but do represent the view of the House of Commons. Nonetheless the question of whether an honour should be taken away is exclusively for the Honours Forfeiture Committee to consider.
I would rather focus on what we can do to support the people affected by the collapse of BHS rather than on a punishment of this kind for Sir Philip Green, which will be considered in due time by others.