Recently, the Leader of the Opposition, Pamela Gordon, introduced a motion in the House of Assembly calling for mandatory random drug testing of Members of Parliament. Undoubtedly, a bold motion. The motion was also symbolic and its intended effects equally symbolic. The motion was about integrity and credibility. It was as much about position as it was about action. Plainly speaking, it was introduced to test the resolve of the House concerning its ability to lead by example. It represented a unique opportunity for Members to be seen as positive role models for our young people.

Is taking symbolic steps that important to young people? Yes, absolutely.

As a parent and former Minister of Education, I know the important role adults play in shaping values, behaviours and opinions among children. Young people constantly look for symbols demonstrating personal responsibility. They listen intensely to the rationale expressed and decisions taken by adults. They observe our behaviours more acutely then we might want to believe.

The motion was clearly a sign -- or symbol -- used to represent a quality within the House of Assembly that was desirable. If passed, it effectively represented the first plank of a new House of Assembly "Drugs Don't Work Here'' policy.

Surely, Members would want the public to be assured that the standards we set for ourselves are the same or greater than what we expect of the public.

Essentially, if MPs were to insist that others within our community be tested, then we had to be sure to uphold the same standard for ourselves. Take for instance the powers already conferred on Government Ministers. A number of Ministers of Government can, by way of legislation or policy, cause ordinary members of the public to be tested for drugs. For example, the Minister of Education has powers within legislation to have students tested for drugs. Bus drivers who work for the Ministry of Transport can be tested. Similarly, the Minister of Works & Engineering can have operators of heavy machinery tested for drugs. The Minister responsible for our prisons can have prisoners tested.

The Ministry of Sport & Recreation endorses the drug free sport policy. The Minister of Health has the power to have patients within our hospitals tested.

Young people look for signs (symbols) constantly. To them, signs are markers.

They often indicate what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

The symbols help guide them through their developmental years where questioning and critical thought should be more prevalent than knowing the answers.

Equally, it is important that the signs our leaders erect and the symbols we represent are sufficiently clear and unambiguous. This way, young people know with certainty what is expected of them. Symbols assist young people in developing their own value systems.

There was unanimous support for our leader's motion among members of the UBP loyal Opposition. To us, support for the motion meant we wanted to lead by example. Support for the motion also reinforced the notion of integrity and credibility.

Mixed messages, unclear signs and the lack of symbolic decisions only cause confusion among young people. PLP MP Delaey Robinson lead the debate for the Government side. Unfortunately and strangely, he asked "How will the decision to test MPs have a bearing on our children?'' The answer is very clear.

Premier Smith then introduced a bizarre amendment that effectively made the historic motion unworkable. Dame Lois then offered the legal argument that the motion was unconstitutional on the grounds that it was an invasion of privacy.

Eye-opening for sure. Also surprisingly, no other member of the PLP government spoke to the motion. With such mixed messages isn't it any wonder that some of our young people are confused.

For the sake of our children, leaders must lead by example. Thankfully, the motion eventually passed. Hopefully, our young people acknowledge the importance of its passage. Obviously, some of the adult PLP MPs did not.