Support quality, independent, local journalism…that matters

From just £1 a month you can help fund our work – and use our website without adverts. Become a member today

Senedd members took evidence about proposals to ban lying politicians, with academic experts warning that misleading the public can have catastrophic consequences.

The standards committee heard from academics following a Welsh Government promise to bring forward a law by 2026 to disqualify politicians found guilty of deliberate deception.

Andrew Blick, director of the Constitution Society, an educational charity, said misleading the public is as old as politics but the nature of the problem has morphed due to technology.

He raised the example of misinformation proliferating online fuelling riots in the UK over the summer, saying it showed how misleading the public can have catastrophic consequences.

Prof Blick said: “I think we are seeing a movement towards harder regulation.”

‘Path breaking’

Giving evidence on November 4, the politics professor at King’s College London described the proposals as “path breaking” in the UK and potentially internationally.

“We welcome the fact that this subject’s being taken seriously,” he said. “The misleading of the public is clearly a problem constitutionally and democratically.”

Labour’s Hannah Blythyn, who chairs the committee, questioned whether deception would be best dealt with by creating an offence or strengthening existing arrangements.

Dexter Govan, director of research at the Constitution Society, suggested a criminal offence could act as a deterrent but he cautioned against overly severe penalties.

Dr Govan told the committee his primary concern would be around timeframes, saying: “If it takes two years to action such an offence, there are real issues there.”

‘Rap on the knuckles’

Prof Blick added: “We don’t have a specific position but I think making it a criminal offence … it does signify … that this is a serious matter.”

He contrasted this with a “rap on the knuckles from a committee”, with people in the outside world seeing it as politicians sitting in judgement of themselves.

Prof Blick pointed to evidence that trust in politicians is at an all-time low in the “veracity index” poll which has been published since 1983.

“This could be part of a package of measures that might help…,” he said.

“It could raise the stakes in terms of the possible negative consequences for not telling the truth  … so it could contribute to a cultural change.”

‘Politicisation’

Pressed about a need to distinguish between politicians’ public and private lives, Prof Blick said a court would be capable of addressing the issue case by case.

The Conservatives’ James Evans raised concerns about politicisation of the courts.

Prof Blick pointed out the courts are not excluded from political matters, raising the example of the successful 2019 case against Boris Johnson’s decision to “prorogue” Parliament.

He told the committee it is regrettable if the courts have to get involved but he suggested this backstop is often preferable to self-regulation.

Labour’s Mick Antoniw raised concerns about the potential impact on the principle of privilege, which provides certain legal protections for what’s said in parliament.

‘Kangaroo court’

He pointed to Labour’s plans to extend parliamentary privilege across the UK, with Dr Govan replying: “I do think there’s a world in which the two things can co-exist.”

Mr Antoniw, who was formerly counsel general, the Welsh Government’s chief legal adviser, said: “The creation of a criminal offence effectively removes parliamentary privilege… it means anything you say can potentially be reported as a criminal offence.”

Prof Blick called for an overhaul of parliamentary privilege which dates to the 17th century.

He pointed out Boris Johnson could have been removed from office if he did not stand down, with the former Prime Minister describing standards processes as a “kangaroo court”.

Prof Blick told the committee: “We are actually moving – potentially, if we go down the path we’re talking about today – to a full judicial proceeding, so in that sense it could be helpful.”

‘Is self-regulation enough?’

Plaid Cymru’s Adam Price has spearheaded calls for a ban on deliberate deception, striking a last-minute deal with the Welsh Government in July to bring forward legislation.

Mr Price, a former MP who was once ejected from the House of Commons for accusing Tony Blair of lying, warned: “In a self-regulating parliament, politics will always win.”

Prof Blick agreed the central question must be: “Is self-regulation enough in this area?”

Asked whether the courts intervening could be used as a “badge of honour” by those on the far left and right, Prof Blick hoped to see a longer-term cultural shift.

He told committee members: “I can see an even bigger problem with saying, ‘It’s all hopeless, so why are we trying?’.”