A country has tried to ban political lies without restricting freedom of speech.
The Welsh Parliament, or Senedd, has struggled for the last two years with the issue of deliberate lies by politicians.
Although there are differences between the parties, most agree that dishonesty is not punished in Wales. One Senedd member said: “Liars flourish in politics, because they can get away without consequences”.
Now, frustration is being translated into legislation. The first phase of a bill to ban false and misleading claims during the Welsh elections campaign has been passed by the Senedd. The principle of the bill is well-supported, but the details and speed with which the legislation has been pushed through have caused growing concern.
It is unlikely that the proposed ban would be in place in time for May’s next Welsh elections. The legislation would only come into effect at the 2020 election, even if it survives the remaining stages. Even that timeline may not be realistic, according to ministers.
Some Senedd Members, such as those from the ruling Labour Party, have warned that Wales could rush through laws that are not only legally flawed but also feel symbolically satisfying. A member warned against “passing bad law in an unprofessional way” just to make people “feel good about themselves”. Some have expressed concern that this bill may unintentionally limit free speech. Wales will be the first nation in the world that bans political lies if the bill is passed.
The question is: How can you banish political lies while maintaining democratic debate?
What is the actual purpose of this bill?
This bill is a result of recommendations from the Senedd Standards Committee in February 2025. The bill called for reforms to be implemented by 2026 and longer-term steps to prevent deliberate deception of Senedd candidates as well as Senedd members.
The bill, though, does not ban politicians from lying once they are elected. It focuses on only statements made in election campaigns. The Welsh Ministers are also empowered to introduce a criminal offense for making false or misleading claims to try to influence the outcome of an election.
Some safeguards are already in place. False statements made during elections about the character of a candidate or their conduct are already prohibited. This new proposal takes it a step further. The new proposal could potentially cover a wider spectrum of political expression, but the exact extent is unclear.
The committee suggested that criminal sanctions should not be introduced for conduct occurring outside of election times, but rather strengthening the system currently in place by the Senedd Standards Commissioner.
How can you banish political lying without weakening the democratic process itself?
Layne Harris/Shutterstock
Free speech: Why it is a hot topic today
They aren’t against the goal of political honesty. They are concerned that, in its current form, the bill does not clearly define “false” or “misleading” statements.
Some Senedd members are concerned that politicians will avoid controversial issues or refrain from speaking if there are no clear boundaries. The concern is particularly acute when there is a need for political judgment, where statistics and evidence are in flux, or when the evolution of facts is at stake.
In a political debate, it is often necessary to think on your feet, interpret incomplete information or present one side of an argument. This is not the same thing as telling deliberate lies. Critics argue, however, that the law may struggle if it lacks precision to differentiate between deliberate deception and legitimate differences.
Senedd’s Standards Committee – which had been asked to review the proposal by the Welsh Government – went even further. The committee said that it “was not convinced” that a criminal offense would help restore trust in the public.
The pressure that already exists on the justice system is one of them. It is difficult to prove that a claim is objectively untrue, and the right to freedom of speech may be compromised.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights gives people, including politicians, a right of freedom of speech, especially in political discussion. This right, while not absolute, must be defined clearly, and any restrictions made should also be proportionate, necessary, and justified. A vaguely written offence that targets political speech may be susceptible to legal challenges on this basis.
This tension is accepted by those who are in favor of a more strict standard for Welsh politics. The debate may cool if politicians are afraid that their honest mistakes, strong opinions presented as facts or campaign strategies could be later deemed criminally incorrect. It may actually weaken the democracy, rather than strengthen it.
Click here to read more
Wales’ democracy is being reformed – what will it look like?
Legal enforcement advocates argue that risks like these can be controlled, but with much stricter safeguards and a more precise definition. The emphasis is on the factual, deliberate deception of voters and not rhetoric, opinion or political forecasting.
It is not easy to draw the line. Could competing economic interpretations be criminalised? How about making optimistic predictions based on unreliable forecasts? Such speech could be criminalized, which would limit the room for political debate.
Some experts and groups of policy makers have proposed alternative models. Some of these include independent oversight rather than criminal court systems, and sanctions that focus on transparency or correction rather than punishment.
Senedd faces a difficult challenge. The Senedd must determine whether or not it is capable of crafting a law narrowly focused on intentional deception and robust enough to stand up to legal scrutiny while still being flexible enough for democratic debate.
If this balance is achieved, and if the bill passes its next stage, Wales will either be a leader in political integrity or an example of rushed legislation.
