Education, legislation, corrections and cybersecurity: parliamentary responses to misinformation

by
Road sign saying 'Fake News' on it, with a background of blue sky and clouds.

By Elise Uberoi and Anne-Lise Harding, UK House of Commons Library

Misinformation is a critical challenge for modern democracies: it has the potential to damage the relationship between citizens and their parliament, undermining trust and democratic legitimacy. Improving these relationships between parliaments and their citizens is central to the activities of members of IPEN (International Parliament Engagement Network). Here, we consider how different parliaments have responded to the challenge of misinformation.

Data and methods

We submitted a request for information to the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (ECPRD), asking parliaments if they see misinformation as a threat and why, how they address it, and how involved politicians have been in shaping these initiatives. We received responses from Austria, Estonia, the European Parliament, France, Georgia, Germany, Poland, and Portugal. We also asked IPEN members for their views and interviewed officials from the New Zealand and Irish Parliaments and the Canadian Library of Parliament.

We are keen to learn how other parliaments conceive and address misinformation, so please do get in touch if you have any thoughts. But for now, here is what we have found.

What is misinformation?

We use misinformation loosely here to capture intentionally spreading false information (disinformation), unintentionally spreading false information (misinformation), and information that misrepresents some truth to generate false inferences with malicious intent (malinformation). This is because intent can be difficult to establish, and because the effects of false information may be felt regardless of its intentionality.

Scholars note that social and digital media have increased the speed at which misinformation spreads and point out that hostile actors – including foreign states – have used these platforms to manipulate publics and politicians, polarise debates and interfere in elections.[1]

How do parliaments understand the threat of misinformation?

Very dark and menacing looking clouds in a wide landscape
Storm, Credit: texaus1, CC BY 2.0

The parliaments we heard from all agreed that misinformation poses a threat.

Some emphasised how misinformation entails security risks, notably when hostile foreign countries spread false information to manipulate parliamentarians and parliamentary staff, but also public opinion, to increase confusion and polarisation. This could undermine public trust in democratic institutions, influence voter behaviour and interfere with democratic processes, including reasoned, evidence-based debate and scrutiny (Estonia, European Parliament, France, Germany (Bundesrat)). The German Bundestag groups the security threat posed by disinformation with those posed by espionage, cyberattacks and sabotage.

Box: Misinformation as a security threat

In New Zealand, misinformation about vaccines during the coronavirus pandemic contributed to protests that resulted in an occupation of Parliament’s grounds in January 2022. The protest turned violent before it was ended in March.

The above also already points to a second way of thinking about misinformation, as an epistemic threat that can interfere with the need for political decision-making to be based on facts, and for political reporting to be factually accurate (Austria). Canadian officials noted how the advent of generative AI makes it harder to distinguish fact from fake, including for images and videos. Meanwhile, Oireachtas officials noted the historical link between partisan politics and misinformation, with misinformation previously spreading through face-to-face interactions.

The importance of facts for political decisions is well captured in this quote from a speech by the Speaker of the French National Assembly to the Speakers of the G7 Parliaments (September 2025): “Our duty, as legislators, is to give truth the means to defend itself. This is a condition for the survival of our parliamentary democracies.”  

How do parliaments respond to misinformation?

Parliaments consider misinformation in committee activity and plenary debates, with particular attention to misinformation relating to elections. In many cases, responses to misinformation are delivered through government ministries and associated bodies.

For example, the Service de vigilance et protection contre les ingérences numériques étrangères (VIGINUM) in France aims to analyse foreign disinformation campaigns, and alert authorities and the public to these. In Germany, the Federal Ministry of the Interior hosts a working group and a task force that coordinate relevant activity across ministries. And in Ireland, there is a national counter disinformation strategy prepared and implemented under the auspices of the Department of Culture, Communication and Sport. Meanwhile in Austria, the parliamentary administration initiated relevant activities themselves, including a strong focus on providing accurate information and explaining the dangers of misinformation.  

The main components of responses to misinformation in most parliaments were education and legislation, while some also emphasised correcting false information and cyber security measures.

Education

Parliaments highlighted that education plays a key role in countering misinformation. This includes educating MPs, parliamentary staff and the public about topical issues.

This is done by providing accurate and freely accessible information, written by experts and subject to proportionate quality assurance processes (Austria, France, Canadian Library of Parliament). This entails having robust research processes that assess methodologies and sources, to maintain accuracy and impartiality (Ireland). Having accurate information readily available, they hope, means misinformation is less likely to take hold.

Some parliaments also produce briefings and other resources on misinformation to help raise awareness of key issues (Austria, Estonia, Germany, Ireland).

Moreover, many parliaments provide training to MPs, their staff, and in some cases the public, on information literacy, helping them recognise the characteristics of false information, including deepfakes (Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Poland). Parliaments are also developing training and guidelines for their staff on the responsible use of AI (Canadian Library of Parliament, New Zealand).

In New Zealand, researchers responding to requests for information by parliamentarians include information on the methods and sources they use, effectively teaching their customers about the characteristics of good information. They present an overview of the facts, include alternative views and, when requested, trace the origins of false information.

Legislation

Parliaments have also introduced legislation to counter misinformation. This has mostly focused on regulating digital markets and the media.

The EU has introduced legislation covering various aspects of misinformation, including most significantly the Digital Services Act. This act aims to combat the viral spread of false content, including by requiring social media companies to offer transparency about their algorithms and requiring very large online platforms to develop some mitigations against key misinformation risks.

In France, the creation of deepfakes is banned, and media can be stopped from airing foreign propaganda. In Poland, regulation has focused on blocking access to illegal content.

Portugal has taken a more direct approach to legislating against misinformation. Individuals were granted protection from disinformation under the Portuguese Human Rights Charter in the Digital Era, with opportunities for redress through a regulator. However, following a Constitutional Court ruling, this act was amended to provide protection from disinformation to society, rather than individuals.

Some countries note how some forms of misinformation are covered by criminal law, for example the offence of foreign agents spreading false information with the aim of harming Poland or its allies in the Polish Penal Code (Poland), and more generally, libel and defamation offences (Poland, Georgia).

Corrections

Most parliaments do not actively monitor and correct misinformation. However, Austria and Estonia attempt to refute misinformation on the work of parliament and government in media and social media where possible. In France, the Sénat launched a website that dispels common myths about the senate and its senators.

Cyber security

In addition to training related to cyber security, some parliaments are taking steps to enhance their IT systems. For example, Austria is developing digital watermarks to avoid the use of their video archive for deepfakes. In Germany (Bundesrat), documents are only archived after they are signed so they cannot be manipulated. Poland is taking additional measures to protect parliamentary IT systems. Meanwhile in Ireland, the cyber security team is proactively providing information to staff through information and update emails and training.

A large water damn, with a background of mountains.
Hoover Dam. Credit: Bureau of Reclamation, CC BY-SA 2.0

Conclusions

Parliaments recognise the threat misinformation poses to democracy and its processes. Their responses cover different dimensions, emphasising education, regulating digital communications, correcting false information and improving cyber security. These approaches aim to make it harder for false information to be created, spread and believed, and to provide reliable information to take its place.

Better information about parliaments should help citizens gain greater awareness of their roles and work, which is often seen as a first step towards greater engagement and participation. And it seems plausible that citizens who are knowledgeable and engaged would be less likely to believe false information about their parliaments.

Given this link between awareness and engagement, it is worth noting that none of the people we heard from in our study mentioned their parliaments’ wider public engagement work. It is this work that IPEN celebrates and promotes: the different ways parliaments try to help citizens understand what they are about, but also bringing the voices of their citizens into their processes, giving people opportunities to be heard, ensuring democracy is not only about evidence-based decision making but also about reflecting the views of the people. Parliaments’ public engagement activities and misinformation work overlap in aiming to build trust in parliamentary democracy and maintaining democratic legitimacy. Recognising this shared aim may help to further align and improve activities and outcomes.

[1]  See also: Sander van der Linden, Ullrich Ecker & Stephan Lewandowsky, ‘Misinformation is a threat to society – let’s not pretend otherwise’, LSE blog, 8 October 2024 [accessed 2 February 2026]; Gilad Abiri & Johannes Buchheim, Beyond True and False: Fake News and the Digital Epistemic Divide, 29 Mich. Tech. L. Rev. 59 (2022), pp59-109

Politicising Deliberation? Media coverage of Climate Assemblies in France and the UK

by
People at tables engaging in activities for UK Climate Assembly

IPEN hosted a seminar last month on the topic of politicisation of deliberative democracy initiatives. The seminar explored arguments around the institutionalisation and the politicisation of deliberative mini-publics, and the relationship between the two.

Our speakers, Professor Alice Moseley and Dr Lise Herman from Exeter University, showed that how the media portrayed the French and UK climate assemblies helped to frame the focus and nature of public discussion of their results.

Alice and Lise set out different perspectives around the presentation of deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) as politicised processes. Whilst many commissioners of DMPs sought to frame them as apolitical, the presenters supported the view that politicisation – more public debate and contestation around DMPs – was actually crucial to increasing their effectiveness, not least in allowing the public to challenge existing policies and the status quo. They argued that oppositional media coverage was helpful to increasing public engagement and securing a bigger impact than they currently appeared to achieve. This under-achievement was partly due to their largely ad hoc, rather than institutionalised, nature.       In comparing the French and UK climate-based citizens’ assemblies, the presenters set out the differences in media coverage in the context of the more political origins of the French Assembly – established by President Macron’s government – against those of the UK Climate Assembly, which was established by cross-party committees of Parliament.

The speakers summarised the key differences between the two assemblies in Table 1.

Table 1: Explaining differences in politicisation

The seminar covered how politicisation was measured and set out how the French Assembly secured more engagement from political actors and more diverse media coverage. The more politicised coverage in the French media focussed more on impact, whilst the UK coverage tended to centre on the process itself.

Ultimately, they argued, if DMPs were properly institutionalised, through law or codification, debate could focus on outputs and citizens might secure more of an agenda-setting role in the choice of subject to be considered.

During a rich subsequent discussion, the importance of the commissioning body was emphasised: only the Government could provide the mandate which could link DMP outcomes to actual decision making. Full transparency with regard to how the outputs would be used was vital for both legitimacy and public confidence.

There was a good discussion around the use of the term “politicisation”, which had a slightly different nuance in a parliamentary than an academic context, but the overall sense was that public debate around DMPs was vital to increase their legitimacy, provided that this didn’t put greater institutionalisation at risk. The cross-party approach to institutionalisation in Scotland was mentioned.     

Finally, there was discussion on how regulatory bodies may use DMPs for different purposes, such as evidence gathering, in order to bolster accountability. The seminar was chaired by Chris Shaw, member of the IPEN Executive Board and a clerk in the UK Parliament, and attended by 26 participants, from a range of countries and organisations.  

Overcoming public engagement challenges in post‑legislative scrutiny (PLS): lessons from wartime Ukraine and remote consultation in Nepal

by
The dome and a flag at the Ukrainian parliament at dusk.

Date and time: Wednesday 29 April 2026, 09.00-10.00 UK / GMT+1 ; 10.00-11.00 CET

Speakers: Maria Mousmouti (Associate Research Fellow, Sir William Dale Center for Legislative Studies, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London), Halyna Shevchuk (WFD Country Director, Ukraine), Dinesh Wagle (WFD Country Director, Nepal); Ukrainian parliamentary staffer (TBC).

Chair: Alex Scales (Evidence and Learning Manager, WFD)

Registration: This webinar is open to all IPEN members and members of WFD’s Global Community of Practice for PLS

Details: Join the first joint webinar between Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) and IPEN!

Post‑legislative scrutiny (PLS) is the process by which parliaments review how a law is working in practice after it has been adopted, including whether it is being implemented as intended and whether it is achieving its policy objectives. Effective public engagement is a core part of PLS, helping parliaments understand lived experience, unintended consequences, and implementation gaps that may not be visible through formal reporting alone.

This seminar will explore two challenging but contrasting examples of public engagement within the PLS process, including in wartime Ukraine and across geographically remote provinces in Nepal. The panel will reflect on why PLS was prioritised in their context and what objectives public engagement was expected to serve. Our discussion will then explore the practical design choices, trade‑offs, and constraints that shaped public engagement in these contexts.

From Ukraine, the discussion will consider how PLS and public engagement have been pursued under conditions of war and martial law, including constraints on time, security, and participation, as well as the importance of maintaining parliamentary accountability and citizen trust during crisis. From Nepal, we will examine the challenges of engaging citizens in PLS processes across remote and hard‑to‑reach communities, where geography, infrastructure, and uneven access to technology shape who can participate and how.

This will be followed by a Q&A and further discussion on what makes for a credible and inclusive public engagement process within PLS. Together, we’ll try to identify what design choices support effective consultation, even in difficult operating environments. 

Featured image credit: G.Evgenij/Shutterstock.com

Revitalising the right to petition in Spain: international lessons

by
Statue of a lion in front of the building of the Spanish Congress

More than 30 million people have signed at least one petition addressed to the UK Parliament, representing over a third of the country’s population. This figure illustrates the potential of electronic petition platforms to expand citizen participation in the parliamentary agenda. 

This point was highlighted by Cristina Leston-Bandeira, Professor at the University of Leeds and Chair of the International Parliament Engagement Network, during the webinar “Right to petition: international experiences to revitalise citizen power in digital democracy”, organised by Political Watch Spain on 3 February. The event brought together specialists, institutional representatives, and international experts to discuss how the right to petition can be strengthened in the context of digital democracy. 

During her intervention, Leston-Bandeira presented the UK Parliament’s e-petitions system, developed to link citizen petitions to parliamentary activity. As she explained, these tools have significantly broadened opportunities for citizen participation, although they also pose challenges in managing large volumes of petitions and ensuring that diverse groups of citizens engage in the participatory process. 

The discussion took place alongside the presentation of a report by Miguel Ángel Gonzalo, Director of Documentation at the Congreso de los Diputados (Spain) and Professor at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. According to Gonzalo, the main challenge is to connect citizen petitions with parliamentary decision-making, as otherwise “the right to petition becomes merely decorative”. 

The data presented highlight the limitations of the current system in Spain. During the current legislature, the Congress of Deputies has received 386 citizen petitions, of which 380 were referred to other institutions without generating direct parliamentary consequences. In the Senate, 53% of petitions are archived outright. Moreover, the Congress Petitions Committee meets very infrequently—around one and a half hours per legislature—far less than other parliamentary committees. 

Print screen of the website for petitions at the Spanish Congress.
Website of the Petitions Committee of the Spanish Congress

The event also featured other international experts, including Maarja-Leena Saar, responsible for Estonia’s petition portal Rahvaalgatus.ee, who emphasised the importance of institutional independence in petition platforms to build public trust. Likewise, Alberto Alemanno, founder of The Good Lobby, warned of the persistence of an institutional culture that often resists translating citizen petitions into concrete action. 

Among the main conclusions of the discussion was the need to modernise the Spanish petitions system through accessible digital tools, clear mechanisms of accountability and procedures that connect citizen demands with the parliamentary agenda. As participants noted, the success of petitions lies not solely in solving specific problems but also in their ability to bring neglected issues onto the public agenda and open spaces for democratic deliberation. 

Image credit: By Epaminondas Pantulis – Flickr, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=341871 

Newly elected Vice-Chair of IPEN: Dr Sarah Moulds

by
Dr Sarah Moulds

The IPEN Executive Team is pleased to announce that long-time Deputy Chair Dr Sarah Moulds has been elected as IPEN’s Vice Chair.

In line with IPEN’s governance statement, Sarah will take over as Chair in September 2026. We would like to express our heartfelt congratulations to Sarah and look forward to continue working with her in this new role.

We also would like to express our deep gratitude for all that IPEN’s outgoing Chair and co-founder Professor Cristina Leston-Bandeira has done for the network. It is hard to overestimate the role Cristina has played in making IPEN into the force it is today.

We will mark the transition of chairs with a special event in September, expect more on this in the coming months.

Sarah Moulds said:

Dr Sarah Moulds, holding a book and a jacket

“I’m delighted to have been elected Vice Chair of the International Parliament Engagement Network (IPEN). I look forward to taking on this role and taking over as Chair later in the year.

A few words about my work on parliamentary public engagement

For those of you who do not know me, I am an Associate Professor in Law at Adelaide University and co‑founder of the Rights Resource Network South Australia. I have been teaching and researching in the area of public parliament engagement for many years. My work is driven by a simple idea: parliaments work best when they are genuinely connected to the communities they serve.

My training has always been grounded in how rules, institutions, and human experience intersect—particularly where public engagement shapes (and is shaped by) the legislative and law reform process. In my research, teaching, and policy work, I focus on building practical pathways for participation that inform drafting, committee scrutiny, human rights compatibility assessment, and post‑legislative review. This includes working alongside practitioners and community partners to design engagement that genuinely improves the quality and impact of lawmaking.

In 2022, I was honoured to receive a Churchill Fellowship exploring ways to empower young people to engage effectively with Australian parliaments. The resulting report, Connected Parliaments, continues to inform my contributions to IPEN and my broader program of research on democratic renewal and inclusive participation.

My involvement with IPEN

My involvement with IPEN goes back to its beginnings in 2020 and has been one of the most energising parts of my professional life. I’ve learned so much by broadening IPEN’s reach in the Australasian and Pacific regions, including through the Australia–New Zealand–Pacific Islands Community of Practice and in my role as Editor of the Australasian Parliamentary Review, and it has been a privilege to support colleagues to share practice, co‑create resources, and collaborate across jurisdictions.

I’ve seen the powerful, practical impact of the IPEN’s collaborative Guides on Citizen Engagement for Parliaments initiative developed in partnership with Inter Pares, and I am very keen to continue to nurture strategic relationships with organisations such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

A key strand of my professional practice is capacity‑building for parliamentary professionals. I have coordinated and delivered the Parliamentary Law, Practice and Procedure course for colleagues across Australia and New Zealand, helping to translate comparative doctrine and institutional history into practical tools for scrutiny, engagement, and reform. These experiences keep me closely connected to the realities of legislative work and the opportunities to embed meaningful public engagement at every stage of the lawmaking cycle.

Looking ahead

I’m grateful for the leadership, generosity, and mentorship of the IPEN Executive, and in particular, Professor Cristina Leston‑Bandeira. Her example—combining scholarly rigour with inclusivity, curiosity, and collaboration—has shaped IPEN’s culture and my own approach to network leadership.

As Vice Chair of IPEN, I’m excited about the opportunities ahead. I’m committed to supporting IPEN’s members, nurturing new partnerships, and helping the network continue to flourish as a global leader in public engagement. Most of all, I’m looking forward to working collaboratively with colleagues around the world to champion approaches to engagement that are innovative, inclusive, and grounded in real‑world democratic experience.”

The future of IPEN is in good hands

As she steps into the role of Deputy Chair from September onwards, current Chair and co-founder of IPEN, Cristina Leston-Bandeira spoke of her delight of Sarah Moulds’ election as Vice-Chair:

“The International Parliament Engagement Network (IPEN) has been a labour of love to many of us. As I step back from academic roles and the IPEN Chair position, I am delighted with the election of Sarah Moulds as our incoming Chair.

I know that IPEN will be in very good hands with Sarah at its helm. Sarah brings with her not only unique expertise in parliamentary public engagement but also a deep understanding of parliamentary practice – two key ingredients at the core of IPEN.

We are very lucky to have her as our future Chair and I look forward to working with Sarah in this transition to a new stage of IPEN.”

    Connecting Communities to Petitions

    by
    Two worksheets, each with the symbol of UK Parliament Week, and each with a large drawing of a hand which is coloured and commented on with ideas for petitions.

    Over the past year, the UK Parliament has celebrated the 10 year anniversary of its e-petitions platform. As part of this, its Education and Engagement Outreach team developed a bespoke programme on e-petitions for its annual UK Parliament Week programme to better establish connections between communities and petitions.

    UK Parliament Week 2025 with the Outreach Team

    The UK Parliament runs an annual outreach programme every November, which lasts about a week. Known as the UK Parliament Week, it consists of a series of events and activities across the UK that connects people with Parliament and democracy.

    For UK Parliament Week 2025, the Education and Engagement Outreach team delivered a bespoke programme exploring the Power of Petitions. The theme marked the 10‑year anniversary of e‑petitions, the digital tool that enables the public to raise issues with Parliament.

    In response, the team focused on educating classrooms and communities about how petitions work and how they can break down barriers to participation.

    Bespoke activities

    For school and college assemblies, the team developed interactive quizzes exploring e‑petitions, their rules, and the role of signatories, using real‑life examples from the past decade and linking directly to the e‑petitions website.

    They also created a card sort game inspired by historic petitions from the Parliamentary Archives, highlighting the long‑standing relationship between public voices and social change.

    Worksheet listing photos and titles of historical and more recent petitions, with adjacent dates, and post stick notes
    Using historical petitions to connect with petitions – Copyright UK Parliament

    The final part of the programme featured a creative activity for workshops, SEND groups, and community organisations, through which participants illustrated their own petition ideas on an outline of their hand (see feature image). This encouraged creative self‑expression and reinforced the historic link between signatures and democratic participation.

    Reaching audiences nationwide

    In one week, the team reached 11,248 young people through 81 interactive school and college sessions. Beyond education settings, they engaged 239 community participants, working with organisations including The King’s Trust, Mencap, and the Third Age Trust to make petitioning Parliament accessible to all.

    “It was great using the new Petitions resources during November as they brought a different focus to my sessions and really showed the groups I worked with how they could directly engage with Parliament in a meaningful way. Many of the groups signed petitions during the workshop and one even started to set their own up.”  – Rachael Dodgson, Outreach Officer for the North West

    Screen in a classroom featuring a visual representation of Mr Blobby and a thumbs down, next to a sentence proposing for Mr Blobby to be crowned the next King of the UK. Standing in front of the photo is an outreach officer enthusiastically showing with his hands thumbs up and thumbs down.
    Communicating about petitions through interactive quizzes – Copyright UK Parliament

    Linking to research

    These educational outreach activities align with Professor Leston‑Bandeira’s recommendations on reducing barriers to parliamentary engagement by “disseminating the value of petitioning to all citizens.” They also support deeper collaboration with classrooms and community networks nationwide, contributing to the development of a “citizen‑focused parliamentary petitions system” that helps communities to understand and engage with Parliament (Leston‑Bandeira, 2024).

    Learn more

    To learn more about where they went, what they delivered, and life as a UK Parliament Outreach Officer, explore the team’s visual story: Outreach’s Parliament Week 2025

    Feature image: Using creative approaches to connect communities to petitions – Copyright UK Parliament