I appreciate there are strongly held views on both sides about this issue and the funding of the Royal Family more generally. While I understand that the wedding itself will be funded by the families of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank, I recognise that the cost of security and extra policing for the event will be met by taxpayers.

Thames Valley Police has said that, at this stage, it is not possible to know what the exact cost of policing the event will be. Indeed, that information is unlikely to be known until the wedding has taken place. I note that Police and Crime Commissioners are able to apply for extra funding from the Home Office to cover the cost of ‘unexpected and exceptional events’ within their area.

As you may know, the Sovereign Grant Act provides a mechanism for the accounts of the Royal Household to be inspected and audited by the National Audit Office. These accounts are laid before Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee is able to hold hearings on the accounts and question the way that the Royal Household uses public money.

There are no plans from the current Government for further reform of the way in which the Monarchy is funded. However, I will certainly bear in mind the points you have raised if and when this issue is next debated in Parliament.

The Civil Liability Bill will soon be debated for the first time in the House of Commons. The Government says this Bill will crack down on fraudulent whiplash claims and ban the settling of claims without medical evidence, while introducing a new system of fixed tariffs for compensation payments for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in whiplash claims with a duration of up to two years.

Current proposals mean that the Lord Chancellor will be able to set the level of these tariffs, but I believe these should be determined by the judiciary – based on Judicial College guidelines rather than by the levels proposed by the Government. If there is to be a tariff, the Judicial College should be involved in determining these.

The Government is also bringing a package of other measures by secondary legislation alongside the Bill. The limit for claims on the small claims track in civil courts would be raised from £1,000 to £5,000 for road traffic accident-related personal injury claims, and from £1,000 to £2,000 for other personal injury claims.

I will oppose this move as I believe people who are injured should be able to get compensation, and they need proper legal advice to do so.

There is disagreement about the extent of fraudulent claims, but the insurance industry’s own estimates showed the amount paid out for whiplash claims falling by 17% between 2007 and 2016, while premiums rose by 71% on average. I do not want to see victims left unfairly liable for greater legal costs while insurance companies pocket the savings.

I also note the Justice Committee, in its report earlier this year, stated regret that the Government has not considered it relevant during consultation to consider the “potentially substantial” impact of the proposals on the personal injury legal sector.

I hope the Government will now listen to the concerns that have been raised and make substantial changes to the Bill to protect injured people. We should not be punishing genuine claimants for the misdemeanours of the fraudulent. If the real concern is the prevention of fraud, I think we should be looking at other measures.

As you know, a number of pension reforms were introduced in 2015 which gave people aged 55 and over more flexibility about when and how to draw their pension savings. Previously, most people with defined contribution (DC) pension schemes had to use them to buy an annuity – an insurance product which provides a guaranteed income for life.

Following these reforms, the Government consulted on plans to create secondary market for pension annuities, which would have allowed pensioners to sell the income they receive from their annuity in return for a lump sum of money. However, these plans were cancelled as the Government said it was unwilling to allow an annuity market to develop which could produce poor outcomes for consumers. I understand that this reversal may have caused confusion among pensioners who are already worried about their long-term future.

I appreciate that the Government looked at this issue in detail during its consultation period and I am concerned about the significant complexities and costs in creating a secondary market. In light of this, I am not convinced that a secondary market for annuities should be resurrected at this time.

However, I would like to reassure you that I am committed to ensuring that older people have dignity and security in retirement. For example, at the 2017 general election, I pledged to guarantee the state pension triple lock, so it will rise by at least 2.5% a year or be increased to keep pace with inflation or earnings, whichever is higher. In addition, I also believe that more work needs to be done to improve the adequacy of returns on DC savings, including by looking in more depth at costs and charges.

Tommy Robinson was sentenced to 13 months in prison for contempt of court after live streaming on Facebook outside an active trial at Leeds Crown Court on 25 May.

In the video, Mr Robinson discussed the case and attempted to film defendants arriving at court. The judge had placed a reporting restriction on the trial, meaning details could not be published until it concludes later this year. This is to ensure that the trial is fair. Breaching this restriction can amount to contempt of court. It is also illegal to take photographs or film in a courtroom or its precincts.

Mr Robinson had previously been convicted of contempt of court after attempting to film and talk to defendants outside a rape trial at Canterbury Crown Court in 2017. On that occasion, he was sentenced to three months imprisonment suspended for 18 months.

Mr Robinson was told that if he broke the law again by filming outside a court during a live trial, he would go prison for the three months of his suspended sentence on top of anything else given by any other court.

At his sentencing on 25 May, the judge said that if the jurors had seen the video the jury may have needed to be discharged and the case re-tried, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds. The judge also said that a retrial would mean witnesses in the case would have to give evidence again before a jury.

I agree that freedom of speech is vital and is a cornerstone of our democracy. However, the right to a fair trial is also extremely important.

In Robinson’s case, the judge emphasised that our rights, including freedom of speech, come with responsibilities to exercise them within the law. He concluded that Mr Robinson’s actions were highly prejudicial to the defendants’ in the trial and therefore interfered with the administration of justice.

The Tier 1 (General) visa allowed highly skilled migrants to come to work in the UK without the requirement of a job offer in advance. This visa category was closed to new applicants in December 2010. Paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules is one of the general grounds for refusal of leave to remain and – according to Home Office policy guidance – should be used for cases of criminality, threat to national security, war crimes or travel bans.

Roughly 1,000 highly skilled migrants seeking indefinite leave to remain are wrongly facing deportation due to paragraph 322(5), with a large number of refusals made on the basis of minor tax errors which many individuals corrected themselves. This is while our country needs many of these people as NHS doctors, teachers and engineers.

I believe the Government’s treatment of highly skilled migrants has been shortsighted. These migrants have made legitimate and lawful changes to their tax returns but are being put in the same category as serious criminals. The effect of a refusal can be devastating and long-lasting for those concerned – who could become ineligible for another visa and banned from returning to the UK for 10 years, refused the right to employment or to access NHS services.

I am aware that the Immigration Minister is conducting a review of Tier 1 (General) migrant cases who were refused due to discrepancies with their HMRC records. I look forward to scrutinising this review when it is reported to Parliament.