The Speaker needs to be impartial for Parliament to function properly

sir – Since the Victorian era, it has been the function of the Speaker and deputy Speakers to be impartial. How else could Parliament – both government and opposition – have any confidence in the chair, particularly with regard to controversial legislation?

I have experience of this, because, as Michael Morris, I had the task as deputy Speaker of chairing the controversial stages of the Maastricht Bill for 23 long days, which involved three all-night sittings and rulings on over 600 amendments.

When Parliament meets on September 3, all MPS – including the Speaker and deputies – would do well to reflect on history, remember the people who elected them and think hard about the future of all British citizens.

Lord Naseby (Con) London SW1

sir – Parliamentarians and observers alike remember with affection previous Speakers: Thomas, Weatherill, Boothroyd. They had respect for Parliament, its history, its rules, its quirks. Above all, they were universally admired for that sine qua non of the job: impartiality.

Must we watch helplessly while the office is tarnished by the current incumbent?

Tony Jones London SW7

SIR – MPS plotting a temporary caretaker government cannot have read the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. This specifies that, should the Government lose a confidence vote, then a general election must take place, unless the Government can win another such vote within 14 days.

If the Government loses the first vote, then Parliament may dream of whatever fantasy government it likes but it still cannot choose one: Boris Johnson and the Conservatives will continue in office.

If the Government fails to win a second vote, the Act requires an election on a date specified by the Queen as advised by the Prime Minister, and that date could very well be after October 31.

Peter Sharp Sherborne, Dorset

SIR – It is not possible to have a “national unity government” if it is made up solely of Remainers and some soft Brexiteers.

Tim Reid Dunblane, Perthshire

sir – Harriet Harman claims a no-deal Brexit would be “catastrophic”. What evidence is there to support this?

In reality, no deal means no Withdrawal Agreement – a document likened to treaties historically presented to countries defeated in war. It is time the Government emphasised this point to the electorate.

If Remainers want to continue their fight for membership of the EU, then they should at least have the courage to do it honestly.

Eddie Hooper