Working together to rebuild trust in politics

Speech in Senedd on 2nd July 2024

I think the debates we've had on this issue have been a good example of the parliamentary process in action and the consensual way that we can work across party lines in this Senedd. There is now a consensus across the Chamber that deliberate lying undermines public trust in politics and is a danger that needs to be firmly addressed. 

I think the outstanding point of difference has been whether dealing with lying is best done by a standards-led process within this Parliament, or whether, in addition, a criminal sanction for the most egregious cases of deliberate deception is justified in order to rebuild trust in politics.

Now, I acknowledge the view of many of my colleagues on these benches that this should not be a matter for the courts, but one for the ballot box. I think that's where, now, the focus of our arguments should be. 

I was elected here in 2016, before the Brexit referendum, before Donald Trump became President, before Boris Johnson lied his way to Downing Street and lied his way out again, and there is no doubt that politics in this country has become darker in those eight years. 

I worry that we're adjusting to it.

I've seen it at first hand in the last 12 months in Llanelli: lying, manipulation, racist abuse, arson, mobs whipped up by the visiting far right descending on the homes of those who put their heads above the parapet. It has been an awful, upsetting experience seeing this ugliness becoming quietly normalised. 

It's had a profound impact on my community and is something that I've personally found very, very difficult.

On Thursday, one of the ringleaders of the misinformation campaign in Llanelli is standing for Parliament in our town with the support of the far-right leader, Tommy Robinson. 

It's naïve to think our democratic traditions are sacred—they're not. We have to stand up for them; we have to fight for them. 

We've had a glimpse of the ugliness, but there could be worse to come. 

I've spoken here before about the erosion of normal standards of behaviour and the perils of letting them slide, and, by default, accepting a lower standard, and how we mustn't allow this dilution—this norm spoiling—in any form.

Later this week, we may well have Members of Parliament from the radical right in the House of Commons. Just 250 miles from here, the far right stand at the gates of power. In just a few months, a norm-spoiling President could well be back in the White House. I've seen the future, and it's worse. 

We need to get out in front of it to clearly say that corroding our democratic values is not okay and we will not stand for it. 

The public needs to know that they can trust what's being said, and that's what the amendment to this Bill passed in committee, section 64, is about: not just the standards of those who get elected to the Senedd, but those who seek to get elected too. That, for me, is the key point of the debates that we've been having. 

It's simply not okay to tell blatant untruths, and there should be consequences if you do it. Lying cannot become the norm.

The Counsel General has set out his arguments and concerns in letters and in articles, and Adam Price and I have responded. There are differences, and people can judge those, but I'm pleased to say that we've worked really well and hard over the last 24 hours with a number of Ministers, and we've tried to focus on what we do agree on. 

There is agreement that lying should be sanctioned, and the question that remains is: should the sanction come from fellow Senedd Members? I don't think it should. Alun Davies has made a cogent argument that a Parliament should govern its own affairs. In my view, it should be for our independent institutions to uphold the norms and standards of democracy, because what are we trying to do here? If we're trying to rebuild trust, well, people don't trust politicians to regulate themselves.

We've had recall petitions in Westminster where people who are bad eggs get resubmitted to the electorate and that has not rebuilt public trust. 

The public should have confidence that these breaches have been tested by an independent tribunal, underpinned by the safeguards and fair processes of the justice system, and subject to the high bar of the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt', not the lowest civil test. 

I know the Government and colleagues have concerns about that, and particularly about the fact that not enough consultation and thought has been given to understanding the potential unintended consequences of this, and I understand that. I do think a number of the concerns can be allayed. I think a number of the things that James Evans has said, when worked through, are not as he fears, and can be addressed. But, as he said, this has come fairly late on in the parliamentary process—as is proper, and I think that's a good thing. We should be able to amend legislation, not just take what is given to us by the Government and told, 'It's too late to change it.

But, people do feel the scrutiny has been rushed, and I respect that, so I do accept the need to decouple the detailed implementation of prosecution of deception from this Bill. I think we've had very constructive discussions about how to do that, and I'd love to hear more from the Counsel General. And I thank him for the spirit of compromise that he's been willing to engage into, to Vikki Howells as the Chair of standards who's been willing to align with us the work the Standards Committee are doing with the objectives here, and of course to Adam Price who's led the argument on this, and the team at the campaigning group Compassion in Politics for their advice and experience in supporting these efforts.

I think it is important for there to be a consensus on things of such gravity. I don't think the normal ways of doing things meets the level of the challenge that we already face to our democracy, a challenge that is going to get more fierce and more perilous. Simply thinking we want the 'good chaps' to obey the 'good chaps' approach is not fit for the danger of our times. 

I think the criminal standard, far from meeting the fears that many here have, actually provides more protection than is commonly thought, because it sets the bar very high. There are significant get outs, if you like, from the legislation, where people who are genuinely caught up in this are able to find a way out. So, I don't share the concern about large moneyed interests trying to dominate this and to shut down debate. But, the point is, these things need to be tested further in a way that builds the confidence of colleagues, and I don't think that has happened from this process. So, I think it's right that we step back and we take it into the Standards Committee. The commitment that Government have given is to work in good faith with that effort, and I look forward to being part of that.

Just in closing, Llywydd, as we have this debate, we need to recognise the darkness that is there before our eyes. I've seen a particularly ugly side of it in my constituency, but let's not kid ourselves that this is not going to become more widespread. 

We should act now while we can to get in front of that and build safeguards for our democracy and the fabric of our political culture.

You can watch here