Sword lengths and Surveillance – Tackling Fisticuffs in Parliament

This blog examines the need for comprehensive policies on Parliamentary security, assessing security risks and examining the different tools that can be employed.

It also examines the development of the new CPA handbook on Parliamentary Security.

This blog article was written by Matthew Salik, Head of Programmes at the CPA and the views and opinions expressed in this article are his own.

Article posted on 29/01/2025.

In my capacity as Head of Programmes at the CPA, I often edit our latest commissioned toolkits, handbooks or guidelines. It’s an interesting opportunity to learn about a subject new to me.

Most recently I have had the pleasure of working with Dr Paul Martin CBE in developing ‘Parliamentary Security: An Introductory Guide’, which I encourage everybody to take a look at. The Guide is designed to provide a short yet insightful aide-memoire to Parliaments in assessing security risk, examining the different threats and tools that can be employed to mitigate the risks.

I have now been working on the UK Parliamentary Estate, for close to twenty years, and I have experienced first-hand the day-to-day frontline security measures in place, from airport-style security screenings to being ‘told off’ by the police for mistakenly entering a restricted area.

In all that time, I have never really thought of the complexities involved. For example, the risk assessments, specialist knowledge, technology and political implications needed to secure a Parliament. Sadly though, I, like many of my current and former colleagues, have been present during some extremely violent incidents when that cloak of security is so important and frankly lifesaving.

What I found especially interesting about the information in this latest Guide was the concept of ‘insider threats.’ These threats come from within and tend to be trusted individuals who have access to people, buildings, infrastructure and information, and who, for whatever reason, abuse that trust by behaving maliciously or potentially causing harm. It conjures spies and anarchists, like characters out of Joseph Conrad or John le Carré novels.  

However, what happens when that insider risk is from a Parliamentarian? I have been struck (if you’ll pardon the pun) by the number of violent outbursts by Parliamentarians in legislative chambers.

Most recently, the incident in the Parliament of The Bahamas where (for the second time in its history – the first being in 1965) a Member of Parliament flung the parliamentary mace out a window. Although nobody was injured, there are more extreme examples in recent years across the Commonwealth from Sierra Leone to Guyana. If you are a fan of schadenfreude, check out a website dedicated to fighting in Parliament. 

It is certainly not a phenomenon contained to one country or region. Although not quite old enough, even I am aware of the famous incident in 1976 in the UK House of Commons when Rt Hon. Lord Heseltine – then MP (alias 'Tarzan') swung the parliamentary mace at the government frontbench.

As part of a study conducted by my CPA colleague Charlotte Corby, approximately twenty-six incidents were reported concerning violent outbursts by Parliamentarians within Commonwealth legislative chambers (and Members’ Lobbies and Division Lobbies) since 2023.

However what causes such incidents to occur? What can drive a Parliamentarian to commit such extreme and unusual acts? In the case of Michael Heseltine, it was because an informal agreement on pairing was reneged upon (or perceived to be).

With the recent case in The Bahamas, the Opposition Member felt that he was being silenced by the Speaker during a heated debate on corruption in the police force.

The study found that there are other factors at play, namely: 

• Political tensions: Political parties and individual Parliamentarians may have strong ideological differences and disagree on key issues. This can lead to heated debates and tempers flaring.
• Personal animosity: It is not uncommon for Parliamentarians to have personal grudges or conflicts with one another. These personal issues can spill over into parliamentary proceedings and lead to physical altercations.
• Disruptive behaviour: Some politicians may intentionally try to disrupt and obstruct parliamentary proceedings by shouting, interrupting or engaging in other disruptive behaviour. This can lead to scuffles as other Members and officials try to restore order.
• Provocation: In some cases, Parliamentarians may try to provoke their colleagues in order to get a reaction or gain an advantage. This can lead to physical altercations.
• Cultural differences: Parliaments can be made up of politicians from a variety of cultural backgrounds, and these differences can sometimes lead to misunderstandings or tensions.
• Emotions running high: Parliamentary debates can be passionate affairs, and it is not uncommon for politicians to become emotionally charged during debates. This can lead to poor decision-making and potentially physical confrontations.
• Media attention: The live broadcasting of parliamentary debates can increase public awareness of the political frustrations of certain Parliamentarians or political groups.

In his latest book, ‘Inside the Political Mind’, Greg Power observes that

“the vast majority of fights start with differences over policy. But what makes them combustible is when they turn into arguments over process. It is the belief that the rules are being abused, distorted or ignored in order to gain political advantage that creates such anger.”

In a way that is right. There can be a perception that governments or other influential actors are playing a winner-takes-all, zero-sum game - stifling debate, and opportunities for effective questioning and accountability. This in turn creates frustration and anger.

In the CPA’s new toolkit, Parliamentary Security: An Introductory Guide, negative human behaviour is highlighted as a central factor behind insider threats.

Numerous studies have suggested that human behaviour is negatively influenced by working in a toxic environment. A place where bullying, pressure and physical stressors are rife.

Sound familiar? Far too many of the Parliamentarians I have worked with over the years would say that Parliaments can be some of the most toxic workplaces, especially when a divisive political environment exists. The ‘Bear Pit’ (the unfortunate moniker given to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly) and the Legislative Council commissioned the Broderick Review which highlighted that

“Bullying is a significant issue across Parliamentary workplaces in NSW. It is systemic and multi-directional…” Click here for the report

The Review mirrors many other inquiries, both within and outside Australia, and are positive initiatives intended to identify failures, and establish an agenda for changing the political culture for the better.

In conclusion, it must be stated that violence in any form is unacceptable. Political leaders within Parliament and outside have a responsibility to prevent such violence from occurring. However, if the root of the problem is an embedded political culture, comprising toxic masculinity, violence, division and historic tensions, these cannot be overcome by one person through one-off actions. It requires commitment and process changes led by Parliament as a whole, but also involving political parties and wider stakeholders.

Some of those levers of change are:

• Open dialogue: whereby Members and other parliamentary stakeholders have opportunities to air grievances without fear of reprisals. Speakers or other leaders organise a stocktake on mood and morale through surveys, one-to-one conversations, or in an extreme way, independent commissions and inquiries.
• Training and development: give importance and implement robust systematic approaches to training, especially for newer Members whereby ethics, standards, behaviour and conduct are embedded into good practice.
• Mental health and well-being: Parliaments should be committed to providing mental health support through training, guidance, openness and anti-stigma campaigns, services and schemes and work-life balance (see the CPA’s Mental Health Toolkit for Commonwealth Parliaments).    
• Practices and Procedures: Parliaments should ensure that Standing Orders and rules of procedure are up to date, emphasise conduct and behaviour and provide clarity on its application and punishments.
• Codes of Conduct: a code or codes should be in place for Members, Ministers and parliamentary staff to abide by and there should be ethical advisors, Commissioners of Standards and Committees to uphold and police such codes (see the CPA’s Standards for Codes of Conduct for Members of Parliament and the Parliamentary Workplace).
• Keeping Order: the important role of the Speaker, Presiding Officers, party leaders, whips and senior officials in maintaining order and encouraging a positive working environment and inter-parliamentary relationships.
• Intelligence, mediation and conflict resolution: investigations are proactively undertaken to identify where and when a violent outburst may occur, and sufficient security or mediation is utilised to minimise risks and consequences. Outside agencies are called in to support political mediation to secure a better political working environment for the medium to long-term.  
• Duty of Care: Parliamentarians have a clear understanding of their duty of care towards everyone who works or visits the parliamentary precinct and/or associated parliamentary offices.

To download a copy of the new CPA toolkit, ‘Parliamentary Security: An Introductory Guide’, please click here.