Elected politicians and candidates in Wales who deliberately lie could face serious consequences, including being removed from office, under proposals aimed at restoring trust in politics.
The Senedd’s (Welsh parliament) standards of conduct committee has recommended legally defining political deception, and strengthening existing rules to explicitly ban misleading statements. Proposed potential penalties range from a formal retraction to suspension or, in extreme cases, recall by voters.
But the committee stopped short of recommending that deliberate deception be made a criminal offence. The idea that politicians who lie could be investigated by the police and courts had previously been mooted. The option of a civil offence with a lower burden of proof being introduced was also rejected.
The committee has been working on the proposals as a way of restoring faith in politics, and trust in politicians, in the lead up to the next Senedd elections in 2026. While the report sets out options for change, the Welsh government has already promised to introduce a legal ban (in some form) before the next election.
These efforts see Wales become the first UK nation to attempt to tackle the problem of dwindling trust in politics by modern day legislative force.
Those championing the changes refer to how the deliberate rise in campaigns of misinformation, by those of all political persuasions, have in some instances led to electoral victories overseas.
The need to act is also reflected in the public’s perception. Surveys have consistently found that trust in politicians to tell the truth has declined. A survey in 2023 placed politicians as the least trusted profession in the UK. Just 9% of the public said they trusted elected officials to tell the truth.
More recently, findings from the British social attitudes report in 2024 revealed that the public is as critical now of how the UK is governed as it has ever been. A record high of 45% of respondents said they now “almost never” trust governments of any party to place the needs of the nation above the interests of their own political party.
Restoring trust
The Senedd committee had considered three different options for restoring trust.
First, to create a criminal offence of deception. Second, to use an existing investigative body such as the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, and to bring in a civil sanction such as a fine. And third, to strengthen the code of conduct for Senedd members with enhanced sanctions. In other words, it would be dealt with through the Senedd’s own disciplinary procedures.
To a certain degree there are some mechanisms already in place for dealing with deception in Welsh politics. For example, politicians are already expected to adhere to the seven principles of public life, which include honesty and integrity.
Generally speaking, opposition Senedd members will hold the Welsh government to account by questioning and scrutinising their work. It is also possible to stage votes of no confidence as an accountability mechanism.
Although as seen in the case of former first minister Vaughan Gething, it is questionable as to the extent to which they can be enforced. Gething initially refused to step down after losing such a vote.
The electorate also has an important role to play in holding politicians to account. Ultimately an untrustworthy politician should, in theory at least, be unlikely to win any election. But Senedd elections only take place every five years.
The standards of conduct committee already has the power to review complaints referred to it. It also has responsibility for reviewing the code of conduct for members of the Senedd, guidance on the code and complaints procedures, and rules for lobbying.
Part of the perceived problem with this is that the committee is made up of Senedd members and are, therefore, responsible for setting the rules for themselves. Or alternatively, as Plaid Cymru MS Adam Price (who has campaigned on this issue for many years) put it, it’s like marking your own homework. The committee’s report offers a potential of recommending appointing lay members to sit alongside them.
Some may be concerned about the practical complexities of disqualifying candidates and Senedd members, and where that may, in turn, leave democracy and democratic processes. If sanctions were to be introduced, questions could also be raised about the potential for vexatious complaints to discredit electoral candidates.
In respect of making “deception” a criminal offence, concerns may have been raised about the constitutional principle of separation of powers, and whether it should truly be for unelected judges to take decisions about the democratically elected arm of the state. Or whether that could lead to the politicisation of the judiciary.
While, research had found that more than two-thirds of Welsh voters supported a law criminalising political lying, judicial adjudication for serving Senedd members has been ruled out. The report also details concerns from the legal professions that existing resource pressures on the courts would have lead to long disputes, rather than the swift resolutions.
But in reality, we are talking about strengthening safeguards for maintaining standards in public offices. In particular addressing deliberate mistruths by politicians to secure deceitful advantages during an election.
In that sense, the new legislation is essentially bringing the political profession in line with others such as lawyers, doctors, journalistic and financial institutions, by having clearer repercussions when they lie and fail to maintain professional standards.
Given the need for something to change in order to restore trust, and the extensive powers that politicians have to affect the lives of citizens, it is clear why Wales is trying a different approach towards restoring trust.
