Norm spoiling

Speech in Senedd on May 1st 2024

Llywydd, I’ve been struggling to process my feelings about the issues before us today. And this is a speech I would rather have avoided.

Immediately on news of the donation coming out I said I thought it was unjustifiable and wrong. That’s a matter of record, and I have not changed my view. 

 

£200,000 is a staggering amount of money, unprecedented in Welsh politics; and over four times larger than the £45,000 spending cap the Labour Party set to ensure a fair contest.

 

And the fact it came from a waste company with a conviction for damaging the Gwent Levels, at a time some of us were fighting hard to protect this sensitive area, really shocked me - genuinely.

 

The First Minister has said the donations to his campaign were checked and filed properly with the Electoral Commission and declared to the Senedd. And that there is no case to answer. 

 

But the issue is not whether the paperwork was correct, it’s whether the judgement was correct.

 

Now I welcome the appointment of Carwyn Jones to look at rules for future elections. The suggestion in Plaid’s motion of a spending cap for each of us is worthy of consideration, but to agree it today would prejudge the review.

 

I suspect he may come up with something similar, but I want to give that process time to test the arguments properly. And so I won’t support the Plaid motion.

 

Nor will I support the Conservative motion.

 

As a former Minister in the economy department I know that decisions on loans from the Development Bank are made at arms-length - precisely to avoid conflicts of interest. 

 

The First Minister is absolutely right about that. So I don’t accept the premise of their motion.

 

And the Tories would have more credibility if they had stood up when the the last two Home Secretaries, the Chancellor and even the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson were not just accused of breaking the Ministerial code, but were judged to have actually broken it.

 

What did Rishi Sunak and the Welsh Conservatives have to say then? Not a Dickie bird.

 

So, we can all see through their double standards.

 

But the reason I am speaking this afternoon is because we are meant to be better than that.

 

The point about devolution, this place, a Parliament we have created from scratch, is that we set higher standards.

 

25 years ago we talked of devolution as the beginning of a new politics; but the reputation of politics, and politicians, seems to be lower than ever.

 

The First Minister told a Senedd committee last week that his approval ratings haven’t been affected by the controversy. I must say that surprised me, and troubled me.

 

Whether the polls bear that out or not, it really isn’t the point. Surely the question isn’t what any of us can get away with, it’s what is right?

 

The fact that some voters just shrug their shoulders is what should worry us. Far from being an endorsement, I fear it’s a reflection that we are all tarred with the same brush. 

 

And we all get it - you’re all the same; you’re in it for yourselves; you’re on the make.

 

Not only is it really demoralising for many of us who see politics as a genuine public service, a sacrifice; but it’s also dangerous to the fabric of our democracy at a time when it’s already under huge strain.

 

Academics call it ‘norm spoiling’.

 

They say that when accepted standards of behaviour, norms, are undermined, it lowers expectations. And that lays the ground for a new set of weaker standards to take hold.

 

That is why we need to confront this situation. 

 

And I’m deeply uncomfortable with the way I am now in effect being expected to endorse something I think is just wrong.

 

I haven’t spoken out since the donation came to light ten weeks ago. I wanted to give time for the issue to be addressed. 

 

But it hasn’t been.

 

For me this is not an issue of confidence, but it is an issue of conscience. 

 

We look to our leaders to model the behaviour we want to see, to reflect our nation. It is an awesome responsibility, and it‘s especially important in a democracy as young as ours.

 

The Ministerial Code says, and I quote, ‘Ministers remain personally responsible for adhering to the Code and the decisions they take’.

 

It doesn’t need an independent arbiter to uphold; It is a code of honour.

 

Nor is the Ministerial code a legal contract. The test isn’t how to find a loophole. It is a code of ethics.

 

This situation can be put right. But the first step to solving any problem is to acknowledge that there is a problem.

 

It would not be a sign of weakness to say it was a mistake to take the donation and now all the facts are known to give it back.

 

It can still be done, and in my view should be done. 

Sometimes doing the right thing is the hardest thing, but you rarely regret it in the end.