The next group of amendments is group 3. They relate to disqualification of persons convicted of the offence of deception within the previous four years from being a Member of the Senedd or a candidate. Amendment 43 is the lead amendment, and the only amendment in this group, and I call on Adam Price to move the amendment.

Amendment 43 (Adam Price, supported by Jane Dodds and Lee Waters) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. This is the second opportunity for us to discuss this proposal to make deliberate deception by candidates or Members of the Senedd a specific criminal offence, which, if people are convicted, would result in disqualification from the Senedd. Can I, first of all, thank all of those Members who have engaged in very constructive discussions with me in shaping this new version of the Amendment, and, indeed, the constructive discussions that we've had with the Government as well? We now have got to a place where we have Members from all parties supporting the amendment, and an increasing consensus, I think, across the Senedd that this is an area where we want to act, recognising that the backdrop to this in democracies worldwide is falling public trust in politics, in politicians and in our democratic institutions, and we need to do something about that.

In a sense, politics has always had a credibility gap with citizens, but I think what I would say is that in the last few decades that existing gap has become an accountability chasm, and now we're staring into an abyss. We're looking at a future world of deepfakes, post-truth politics and wave after wave of disinformation, so we need to do something and we need to do something urgently. Wales could really lead democracy worldwide in this. If we passed this proposal in some shape or form, using some vehicle—we'll come on to that, I'm sure, in our discussions—we would be a world first.

In the research that we have conducted in the process of developing this amendment, we identified, I think, about half a dozen Parliaments around the world—Austria and about five Commonwealth Parliaments—that do actually make it a criminal offence for politicians to lie to Parliament, but, actually, what you say outside Parliament then is fair game. There are a few other Parliaments: South Australia for 20 years, for example, has made it a criminal offence for you to make false statements during an election campaign, and, actually, that law has functioned very, very effectively. So, there are bits of learning—there are some precedents—that we can draw upon, and we've used a lot of that language in this amendment, so we're not completely starting from scratch. But this amendment brings all of those elements together, and where it does really break new ground is that it's a comprehensive prohibition on deception, not just during election periods but throughout the year, in every year; not just inside Parliament, but outside Parliament as well, online and offline. 

Just to run through very, very quickly some of the key elements, its focus at its heart, of course, is false and deceptive statements 'in a material particular'. What does that mean? Well, it means that if you get something wrong, a trivial element, et cetera, then that isn't really what we're addressing here. It's about making a significant or substantial false statement, and doing it, crucially, knowingly. It's not that you made an inadvertent error—we all get things wrong and need to correct ourselves, that's natural—but it's doing it in a deliberate way—that's the key—and with an intent to mislead the Senedd or the public.

And it's about statements of fact. We say explicitly that it's not about statements of opinion or belief; we're not about actually preventing there from being legitimate disagreements that even could constitute different interpretations of the facts. Also, it excludes future intention. There are legitimate reasons, sometimes, where you can sincerely promise something and circumstances beyond your control mean that you haven't been able to deliver that. So, it's not about that; it's about statements of fact that are provable, and it's about those situations where politicians know that what they're saying is false and they're doing it anyway for cynical and opportunistic reasons.

We've tried to set the bar high here, because what we don't want, of course—. The sign of success of this initiative is not a whole series of prosecutions. What we want to do is to create a cultural norm in our politics where we all accept that deliberate deception is never acceptable. Any time a politician then thinks they might be getting close to the line, they just have second thoughts and they step back from that line. And that's the experience, I think, in South Australia with the truth in political advertising law that I referred to.

We allow in the amendment opportunity for people to retract and apologise. So, either after you realise, 'Oh, hang on, I said something and that wasn't correct', or it's pointed out to you, there's a reasonable period of time, 14 days, where you can say, 'Look, I hold my hand up, I got that wrong, and I just want to set the record straight.' This is a reasonable amendment. It doesn't, in any way, inhibit free debate. It's not about opinion, belief, et cetera; it's about actually setting a core principle that I think unites us all—that we want to say in Wales that our democratic culture will have honesty at its heart. With those words of introduction, I look forward to Members' responses.

Can I thank Adam Price for tabling this Amendment today and for listening to the feedback from Senedd Members in the debate at Stage 2 on a similar amendment? He agreed, of course, to withdraw that amendment and have some cross-party discussions, which I've been involved with, and I'm very grateful that he's reached out in order to do so. Those discussions were very productive and were held in a very good spirit.

I'm very pleased that we found a consensus on the text in the amendment that is before us, because, as Adam Price has quite eloquently outlined, we have a problem in politics globally about untruths and misinformation, and that is a blight, I'm afraid, on political discourse, and has been particularly an increasing blight in recent years, and it's undermining confidence in our democracies. It's leading to a toxic political discourse and environment that we, unfortunately, all get swamped in.

I recently undertook a visit with the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly's committee B to the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats in Helsinki, and it was fascinating to listen to some of the trends in hybrid threats that are undermining democracies around the world. One of them is the challenge of politicians, sometimes unwittingly, picking up inaccurate, untruthful statements and running with them, and those things proliferating themselves in things like social media. That, then, undermines the trust in democracy and plays into the hands of our international enemies, frankly, in terms of those authoritarian regimes that want to do a disservice to democracy.

It's incumbent upon us all in this Chamber to ensure that honesty and integrity are at the heart of everything that we do, and I know that everyone in this Parliament tries to do what they can to make sure that they uphold those values. We've got a duty to set an example to the public. It's only right, therefore, that we promote, in our own ranks, the values that we want to see flourishing across society, and make it clear that failing to uphold those values by seeking to deliberately mislead people, either in this Senedd or elsewhere, has clear consequences.

We know that legislating on this issue has widespread public support. I understand that a similar piece of legislation was proposed in a Member's Bill in Westminster, and that there was some polling done around that, and that the overwhelming Majority—I think it was 75 per cent of people around the whole of the UK—wanted to see some legislation on this front. In fact, in Wales, over 90 per cent of people supported the need for some legislation on this front. So, we're going in step with the public here in terms of them wanting this issue dealt with.

The amendment is proportionate, it is reasonable, it's got those safeguards to prevent people from abusing it if this were made a criminal issue, and, of course, very importantly, it would level the playing field between politics as a profession and the many other professions that politicians have regulated for in the past. It's illegal for a doctor to tell you a lie, and we’ve legislated as politicians, as a whole, to prevent a doctor from misleading a patient. Why should it be any different for us? That’s why I’m proud to be able to support this amendment today. I do hope that Wales is the first nation in the world to be able to lead on this particular issue.

I think we have an opportunity with this Bill that we ought to seize in order to get this deception issue dealt with and addressed. I don’t want us to see the can kicked down the road for another six months, nine months, five years or 10 years. In fact, remember, it has taken 25 years for this Senedd reform Bill to come forward. Can we wait that long to deal with this issue? I don’t think so, and that’s why I hope that Members will support this amendment today.

I thank Adam Price for bringing this forward, and Jane Dodds as well for adding her support. I must say, when I heard Adam Price make the arguments the last time we debated this, I was sceptical, but I agreed to debate it with him further and to speak to the team at Compassion in Politics who sponsored the report, and tested the arguments, and I must say I was persuaded that this is a sensible and reasonable step to take. It draws on work done on a cross-party basis on a Westminster private Member’s Bill three years ago. It has public support, and there is precedent, as Darren Millar has just said, from other professions who are also subject to rules about deliberately misleading.

Just to be clear, and to reassure those who might be concerned, this is not about censuring political knockabout, nor is it about preventing people expressing their opinions or their values. That’s already protected in human rights Laws. And you can read in the standards commissioner’s most recent report on the complaint on the way the description of the blanket ban of 20 mph has been used that there’s a debate about the interpretation of human rights laws, and a defence of that can be made in practice. It shows that the tools already there and the precedent already there are not used bluntly. There is nuance. This is not something I think we should fear.

The Amendment is explicitly about preventing someone presenting as fact something they know to be false and deceptive, and it would bring politics in line, as I said, with other professions where deliberate misrepresentation is prohibited. And I don’t really see a strong argument against it, to be honest.

Let me just try and test this with one contemporary example that I think would fall within scope. At the moment, there is a claim that our road-building policy represents a ban on road building. That’s not an interpretation of a fact. It’s not legitimate opinion. It’s simply untrue. And it can be shown to be so, which is the test that has been mentioned. And yes, of course, there has been a change in criteria. There’s a policy debate to be had around that, but new roads are being developed and will be delivered, so there is not a ban. The Conservatives know that, they persist in saying it, but it is false, deceptive and is wilfully and knowingly intended to mislead.

The bar for prosecution would rightly be high, and there are defences listed in the amendment that can be legitimately made against the charge. It’s also clear that individuals cannot bring charges against other individuals. And as Adam Price has said, a Member can withdraw the statement and apologise within 14 days of making it as a safety valve.

I know the Government has some technical concerns about the amendment, and it’s unlikely to move forward today, but it’s important to note the bipartisan support for bringing politics in line with the other professions, and the Counsel General’s interest in working together to develop something that could be brought forward. Diolch.

I wish to add my support so that we have cross-party representatives who are supporting this Amendment. And thank you to Adam Price as well for bringing this amendment forward.

While numerous amendments have been proposed in prior stages in an attempt to enhance the Senedd and further the objectives of the reform Bill, this amendment in particular goes to the very heart of preserving the rule of law and upholding the integrity of the Welsh democratic system going forwards. As has been said, we cannot deny the reality that truth and transparency are facing significant challenges in our current times. The proliferation of misinformation, fake news and deceptive narratives has become increasingly prevalent, and that has eroded public trust in the political sphere. Whilst as a Welsh liberal Democrat I believe we must remain vigilant in protecting the principles of free speech and open discourse, we also bear a clear responsibility to uphold the highest standards of honesty when it comes to facts in our conduct as public servants. 

This amendment seeks to establish a clear framework for holding those who hold public office accountable for intentionally misleading statements made in their official capacity. It recognises the importance of deterring the deliberate dissemination of falsehoods while providing safeguards against frivolous claims or overreach. By supporting this measure, we have an opportunity to send a powerful message to the people of Wales and the world—a message that confirms our commitment to conducting ourselves with dignity, integrity and transparency. This amendment can serve as a step towards restoring public trust in the political process, and setting an example for others to follow. 

It is no secret that there has been a concerning rise in public scepticism regarding politicians' ability to act with honesty and competence. We need not delve into the numerous scandals and instances of deception that have contributed to this erosion of trust over time, but the numbers do speak for themselves. A 2021 Institute for Public Policy Research study found that 63 per cent of voters now view politicians as being out for themselves, a stark contrast to the statistic seven years earlier, which was 48 per cent. 

A survey by Compassion in Politics at a national level in Wales found cross-party support for new Laws to prevent lying in politics, with 71 per cent of Conservative voters and 79 per cent of Labour supporters backing the idea. This amendment therefore represents a balanced approach, ensuring that legitimate discourse and freedom of expression are not unduly curtailed. It provides robust safeguards against frivolous or vexatious claims, and ensuring only public authorities can prosecute the offence.

With this amendment, Wales can once again take a pioneering stance, setting an example for ethical governance not just within the United Kingdom, but on the global stage as well. Ultimately, our goal should be to strengthen the bonds of trust between the people of Wales and their elected representatives, fostering a political culture that values honesty, integrity and an unwavering commitment to serving the best interests of our constituents. I very much hope that this amendment will be accepted by the Senedd today. Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd.

The Counsel General. 

Diolch, Llywydd. As I indicated at Stage 2, I support the general principle underpinning the proposals to increase the accountability of Members. Honesty is an overarching principle in the code of conduct for Members, and the truthfulness of Members sits at the heart of the standards by which I think we must be held. Trust is fundamental to the proper functioning of democracy in Wales. 

The issue of what's true, what isn't true, what is a fact and what isn't, of course, isn't something new. It was Aneurin Bevan all those years ago who said, 'I'll tell you my truth, you tell me yours'. However, it is important that a detailed analysis of the policy and legal implications of a disqualifying offence of wilful deception is undertaken prior to any legislation or implementation.  

I remain of the view that consideration of this issue is best done by the Standards of Conduct Committee. That committee has agreed to undertake such an inquiry in response to a recommendation from the Reform Bill Committee. I have also written to the Standards of Conduct Committee in support of its proposed work on accountability, and, indeed, the First Minister has written to the leader of Plaid Cymru, copying in other parties as well. Therefore, whilst I am unable to support this Amendment today, I do look forward to engaging with the committee in relation to its work in this area.

Now, for a system such as the one introduced by this amendment, I am cautious in jumping to a conclusion before the Standards of Conduct Committee has had a chance to consider the wider issue and also to consult with the standards commissioner. The need for trust in our politics is vital, but we must be careful about potential unintended consequences, including in relation to Members' ability to speak freely on matters that concern their constituents in this Senedd. Careful consideration would also need to be given to potential competence risks in respect of this amendment. The Senedd cannot legislate to create offences of a kind dealt with by the Perjury Act 1911, which includes knowingly and wilfully making false statements.

Now, throughout the development of this legislation, I've taken great care to ensure that any potential risk to the Bill are minimised, particularly in the light of the extremely short implementation timescales, in advance of the 2026 election. Including this amendment at this stage could risk delivery of the package as a whole. Now, this is an important area for further discussion, and I certainly support the ambition to improve our politics. More work is essential and, as such, I urge Members to oppose—

Would you take an Intervention—

Certainly.

—if that's all right, Llywydd? Thank you for allowing the Intervention. You talk about more work needing to be done, but you've heard that we've waited a long time to get to this stage, and I wondered if you had in your head an idea of how long you would be looking at, in terms of bringing forward further legislation in this area. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Well, can I say the first thing is, I think, legislate at haste—? And this is a matter that does need very, very careful attention, and we do need to protect the privilege that exists in this Senedd, in terms of being able to speak freely and openly, so we need to be very careful about how we do legislate in this particular area. I have spoken to the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, not just in relation to this, but also in relation to another Amendment that's coming, and that is the issue of recall, and I think these things are actually connected, in a way. There was an interreaction between them that is really important to understand. Certainly, as far as Welsh Government is concerned, we will work with a committee that might be appointed—and I think the Standards of Conduct Committee is probably the appropriate one, because of the importance of the role of the standards commissioner in being engaged as well—and I believe that a committee that works at pace and takes this seriously and puts the work into it, we will engage and support in that, in order to achieve the drafting of legislation that would be workable and, I think, also, acceptable, but also legislation that also protects the freedoms that are important within the operation of this Parliament as well.

Adam—

I think I'd finished there, Llywydd.

Good, and thank you for clarifying that.

Adam Price to reply.

I think it's been a very constructive debate on this Stage 3, and we, I think, have witnessed a growing consensus now, haven't we, across the whole of the Senedd, across all parties, and a willingness for us to move forward and to legislate. I should say—and I welcome the support from all sides—I should say, in relation to some of the competence issues and legal issues that the Counsel General raised, the legal analysis that I received suggests that they wouldn't raise any competence issues. But I can understand the Government's position that further detail, legal and policy analysis needs to be done, but the important thing, I think, from my perspective, is that we cannot wait until the next Senedd. I mean, the wave of populist, unscrupulous politicians, the purveyors of post-truth politics—you know, we're not immune from that. That's coming in our direction, and it would be too late to act by the next Senedd; we need to act in this Senedd.

So, I think it is important for us to move forward, wherever possible, on a cross-party and all-party basis. Democracy is best defended when all democrats work together. And I think that we've made progress—important progress, I think, significant progress—in the emerging consensus, and having heard what has been said across the Siambr, I don't want to fracture that consensus, I want to actually get us to work together, but on the basis that we legislate in this Senedd, working with all parties. And I think that it's possible that we could do that at pace through the conduct committee, but I could also see an argument for the Reform Bill Committee. If the Standards of Conduct Committee, because it has a lot of capacity issues, says, 'Well, we can't look at this', then maybe there's an alternative with the Reform Bill Committee to bring a committee Bill forward. We're one of only, I think, five Parliaments in Europe that have the capacity to bring committee Bills forward. We've done it once, let's do it with this, bringing everyone together. And if that doesn't work, then I've checked, Counsel General, and an Amendment on this would be within the scope of—. You don't want to hear this, Mick, probably: it would be within the scope of the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill, so it could be groundhog day three and four. There are different ways that we could do it.

But with the political will across this Chamber, let's get it done together. On that basis, in that spirit, then based on what I've heard, I won't be pressing this to a vote now, but we need the opportunity to legislate in this Senedd, and we will find it because there is consensus across all sides of the Siambr. I won't be pressing to the vote. I would ask, respectfully, all supporters, at this stage—. I don't want to put—. I know there are many Labour Members that actually want to vote with this amendment, but they can't, for understandable reasons. I don't want to put them in a position whereby they are conflicted; I want us all to work together. So, at this stage, I won't be pressing it to a vote, I ask that other supporters don't, but let's get this legislated now, in this Senedd, so we can create that new chapter for our democracy. 

If I've understood that correctly, Adam Price is seeking to withdraw the Amendment, and it not be voted upon. As the amendment has been moved, I would need all Members to support not having a vote on this amendment. Does any Member object to that? No. 

Therefore, no objections, and therefore the Amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment 43 withdrawn in accordance with Standing Order 12.27.