On Thursday, Caroline Lucas initiated a debate in Westminster Hall on ways in which parliament’s working practices might be modernised. She highlighted the unhealthy working hours, the impact on family life, the way in which the ability for members to promote and debate important issues can be stifled by parliamentary process. While recognising some progress in recent years, and the range of views that exist on matters such as hours, formalities of behaviour (do we really need to address one another by the names of our constituencies?) and electronic voting, she nonetheless made an important and serious point when she said that parliament should seek to be in the vanguard of best practice, not lagging behind in the name of tradition.

There’s undoubtedly growing pressure for reform, and not all of it’s coming from new members. And neither is it simply self-serving. Of course MPs with young children would like more opportunity to spend time with their families, and of course one pattern of working hours may not suit everyone. But it can’t be in the interests of our constituents to think we make our best decisions late at night (some after hours spent in the bar), it can’t be right that time’s too short for members to have the chance to participate in debates on such important matters as the reform of the NHS (the second reading debate last week was heavily oversubscribed, and many more of us, expecting there would be little chance of getting to speak, did not even attempt to take part), and it can’t be right for MPs to be voting on a succession of obscure amendments without necessarily knowing even the basics of what they’re about.

Caroline (and other members) made a number of sensible suggestions about how some of these matters might be addressed, though there was resistance too. But let’s hope the debate at least can lead to an open-minded examination of the issues, driven by the clear and overriding objective of ensuring that parliament works to enable MPs to do the best job we can in representing our constituents.

But procedure isn’t the only aspect of parliamentary life that needs to come under scrutiny. Over the weekend, standards of MPs’ behaviour came under the microscope too. Paul Maynard, Conservative MP for Blackpool North, has mild cerebral palsy, and he revealed in the Times newspaper that he felt he’d been the object of some deeply unpleasant personal mockery in the chamber about his disability. Meanwhile, on Saturday, I participated in a BBC debate about behaviour in the Commons, and in particular towards women MPs.

While I don’t for a moment suggest bad behaviour is prevalent, I can certainly vouch for incidents I’ve observed which demeaned or belittled colleagues. In the course of the BBC debate, it was suggested that this was ‘heckling’, part and parcel of parliamentary life. But I’d use the term ‘bullying’, and in no way do I regard it as acceptable – in parliament, or anywhere else.

It isn’t right either just to deny that it happens and brush off the problem, as some colleagues have sought to do. In no other workplace would such behaviour be tolerated, and in no other workplace would it be acceptable for senior colleagues to ignore or dismiss such allegations – parliament should be no exception.

It’s courageous of Paul Maynard to raise the issue, and all MPs must treat it with the greatest seriousness. As holders of public office, our standards of behaviour must be of the very highest. There is no excuse for less.