THIS week, MP for Beaconsfield Dominic Grieve writes exclusively to readers:

We often demand yes/no answers to questions.

But we all know that most choices are not that simple and that behind every problem or question there needs to be a complex chain of reasoning to resolve it, even if some or all of it is unspoken.

Sadly, so many of the ways in which we communicate can echo that wish for simplicity.

Social media can put us instantly in touch with others who think along similar lines to us.

This then creates an echo chamber to validate particular views but can also create division.

The culture of “like” or “dislike” can be problematic as it doesn’t foster dialogue, encourage debate or facilitate the exchange of views which can bring about change through understanding the views of others and through compromise.

It thus hinders the process of learning and discovering fresh ideas.

I think that all of us who were present in the House of Commons last week would have to agree that the vituperative use of language, from wherever it came, did not help improve understanding of anything.

It reflected badly on all of us.

The physical design of the House of Commons has always made for robust debate and a deterrence to contentless set-piece speeches.

It is, in reality, a “safe space” because the passions shown within rarely get translated outside.

But we have a responsibility to use temperate language because intemperate language can impel others into intemperate, dangerous or, in the worst of circumstances, violent or murderous actions – particularly when the passionate views being expressed in the Chamber are reflected by deep division outside.