Dear Editor,

I write with genuine and mounting concern over the state of procedural discipline within our national Parliament. The events of recent months ought to alarm every citizen who cares about the integrity of our democratic institutions, and they compel a serious national conversation about the need for our Members of Parliament (MP) to respect and uphold the procedures of the House they are elected to serve.

In April, the nation watched as a sitting of a committee of the whole House descended into open disorder when a member physically interfered with the ceremonial mace during debate on a contentious piece of legislation. The mace is not a decorative object, it is the constitutional symbol of the authority of the House itself, and interference with it is universally understood across Westminster-style Parliaments as one of the gravest breaches of order a member can commit.

That such an act could occur at all, and that it was followed by further defiance of the chair and a refusal by other members to allow the marshal to carry out a lawful instruction suggests that a troubling number of our representatives are not consistently holding themselves to the standard of respect for the chair, the Standing Orders, and the institution of Parliament that public office demands. And the mace incident was far from the only such breach observed within that same short span of time.

Sittings in recent months have been marked repeatedly by members ignoring direct rulings from the chair, disruptive crosstalk, desk-banging that halted the business of the House, and open challenges to the Speaker’s authority — each one a further sign that our elected representatives cannot yet be relied upon to internalise and respect the rules that govern the chamber.

It is against this backdrop that I propose a measure I believe is both overdue and eminently practical: the introduction of mandatory parliamentary education for all MPs prior to their swearing in. Newly elected members should not be permitted to take the oath of office without first completing a structured programme of instruction that goes well beyond a cursory orientation.

Such training should not be limited to the Standing Orders and general parliamentary procedure, important as those are. It should also encompass parliamentary privilege and its limits, the constitutional role and symbolic authority of the mace and other instruments of the House, the ethical and financial obligations attached to public office, procurement and public financial management compliance, committee procedure and the conduct of legislative scrutiny, as well as appropriate decorum and communication both within the chamber and in public-facing conduct as a representative of the people.

At the heart of any such programme must sit three competencies that are too often assumed rather than deliberately cultivated: diplomacy, emotional intelligence, and a thorough command of the Standing Orders and procedures of the House. When these three qualities are lacking, even well-intentioned members can find themselves, as recent events have shown, at the centre of the very disorder they might otherwise have avoided.

I would further submit that this training ought not to be entrusted solely to internal administrative staff, however capable, but should draw on individuals with the standing and depth of experience to command genuine respect and attention. A retired Parliamentarian, one who has sat in the chamber, weathered its debates, and understood the weight of its traditions, would bring a credibility that no manual can replicate. Equally, a university lecturer in government, political science, or public administration could ground this training in the comparative and theoretical foundations that help new members understand why these rules exist and what they protect. A partnership between such individuals, working alongside the Standing Orders Committee and the Office of the Clerk, could produce a programme of real substance.

The alternative, continuing to swear in members with only a passing familiarity with the rules that bind them, is no longer tenable. Each fresh breach chips away at public confidence in an institution that depends, more than almost any other, on the discipline and self-restraint of those who sit within it. I urge the leadership of both Houses and the relevant standing orders and procedures committees to give this proposal the serious and urgent consideration it deserves.

Santana N Morris

Education, leadership and research consultant

santanamorrisjm@gmail.com