Parliaments and public trust: what parliamentary integrity initiatives can and cannot achieve 

by
Room with participants listening to a speaker at the front of the room, at a public event at the National Assembly on Public Debt Management, Nigeria.

By Alex Scales, Westminster Foundation for Democracy

Many parliaments around the world are operating in an environment of declining trust, growing political polarisation and heightened public scrutiny of political conduct. In response, parliamentary integrity initiatives such as codes of conduct, registers of interests, lobbying regulations, transparency measures and ethics oversight bodies have become increasingly prominent tools for safeguarding democratic governance.  

Yet, as a recent joint seminar between the International Parliament Engagement Network (IPEN) and Westminster Foundation for Democracy explored, the relationship between integrity initiatives and public trust is far from straightforward. Bringing together perspectives from research, civic technology and democracy support, the discussion examined how integrity initiatives fit within wider efforts to strengthen public engagement, accountability and democratic resilience.  

A central theme throughout was that integrity initiatives and reforms do not automatically generate trust, challenging the assumption that more transparency necessarily leads to greater public confidence. In fact, in some circumstances integrity initiatives may even reduce trust by exposing misconduct without demonstrating accountability or change. 

Public trust itself is complex and fluid, shaped by a much wider set of factors including political performance and responsiveness, lived experiences of government, and citizens’ perceptions of whether institutions act in the public interest. Many citizens often do not distinguish clearly between parliament and government, meaning that efforts to improve trust in parliament may have limited impact if wider frustrations with politics, public services and governance remain unaddressed. 

Three key lessons emerged from the discussion: 

  • Transparency only builds trust when it is accompanied by accountability. Transparency remains essential, but publishing information alone will not strengthen trust. Where transparency reveals misconduct but accountability mechanisms fail to respond, it can reinforce perceptions that corruption is widespread and tolerated. Participants reflected on the paradox that more transparent institutions can sometimes appear less trustworthy than less transparent ones simply because problems are more visible. A key implication is that transparency must be accompanied by credible enforcement, independent scrutiny and visible accountability if it is to strengthen rather than weaken public confidence.  
  • Citizens want evidence that integrity reforms change behaviour and improve outcomes. The discussion repeatedly returned to the importance of moving beyond procedural achievements and demonstrating real-world impact. Citizens are unlikely to gain confidence in parliaments simply because a code of conduct, ethics framework or register of interests has been introduced. Instead, institutions need to show how these reforms have influenced behaviour, improved decision-making and strengthened accountability. The same principle applies to public engagement: repeated consultation without visible results can contribute to engagement fatigue, whereas trust is more likely to grow when citizens can see how their contributions have shaped parliamentary business or led to meaningful change. In short, citizens are interested less in the existence of reforms or consultations, than in whether those efforts make democratic institutions more responsive to their concerns.  
  • Trust is collective, shaped by political culture and easily damaged by misconduct. Public expectations of integrity are influenced by local political cultures and cannot be separated from wider political realities. The discussion highlighted how practices considered inappropriate in one context may be viewed differently in another, requiring integrity reforms to be grounded in local contexts rather than treated as technical imports. At the same time, trust operates collectively: citizens often see politicians, parties, governments and parliaments as part of the same system, meaning misconduct by one actor can damage confidence across the board. This contagion effect helps to explain why trust is difficult to build and easy to lose, requiring a collective commitment to accountability and integrity across the wider political system, rather than focusing solely on individual politicians or parliamentary rules. 

Overall, the discussion found that transparency, engagement and integrity reforms alone are rarely sufficient to build public confidence. Instead, trust depends on various other factors and actors, presenting a significant challenge for parliaments operating in increasingly polarised and sceptical environments. Despite these complexities, the discussion pointed towards a clear conclusion: integrity initiatives strengthen public trust only when citizens can see that they change behaviour, produce accountability and improve democratic responsiveness.  

Ultimately, trust is not built through rules alone. It is built when institutions and political actors demonstrate, consistently, collectively and visibly, that they are worthy of it. 

IPEN members are encouraged to share their thoughts and continue the discussion in Microsoft Teams: 📢New seminar recording: When do parliamentary integrity initiatives strengthen public trust? Lessons for public engagement and democratic resilience. 

Featured Image: Public event at the National Assembly on Public Debt Management, Nigeria. Image credit: Westminster Foundation for Democracy. All rights reserved

Citizens, Parliament and Democratic Renewal: IPEN at the Democracy Innovation Festival in Adelaide, South Australia

by
Room with participants at one of the sessions of the Democracy Festival, Adelaide, Australia

On 17-18 August 2026, Adelaide University (located in South Australia) hosted the inaugural Democracy Innovation Festival, bringing together academics, parliamentarians, policymakers, civil society organisations, educators and community members to explore practical ways of strengthening democracy and public participation.

Designed as a space for learning, collaboration and democratic innovation, the Festival featured a diverse program of workshops, panels and skills-based sessions focused on renewing democratic institutions and empowering citizens.  It was attended by over 300 individuals, and attracted guests from afar afield as New York, as well as local Aboriginal contributors including an Kauna Elders panel on Aboriginal Governance.

The Democracy Innovation Festival was built around the idea that healthy democracies depend on strong relationships between institutions and the communities they serve.

A highlight of the Festival was Active Citizen Lab #1: Engaging with Parliament, an interactive online session delivered in partnership with the International Parliament Engagement Network (IPEN). The Lab was led by Associate Professor Sarah Moulds (Adelaide University and IPEN) and featured contributions from outgoing IPEN Chair Professor Cristina Leston-Bandeira (University of Leeds) and IPEN Deputy Chair Elise Uberoi (UK House of Commons Library).

The session explored the question: what does meaningful engagement with parliament look like from a citizen’s perspective? Participants examined a range of common engagement mechanisms used by Australian parliaments, including petitions, committee inquiries, parliamentary visits, community forums and public consultation processes. Discussions highlighted both the opportunities these mechanisms provide and the barriers that can prevent people from participating effectively.

Drawing on IPEN’s work and international research, Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Elise Uberoi introduced participants to IPEN’s Guides on Citizen Engagement for Parliaments, a suite of resources developed through collaboration between parliamentary practitioners and researchers from around the world, showcasing practical examples of parliamentary engagement and identify principles that underpin successful initiatives, including inclusion, collaboration and empowerment.  The workshop also provided space for participants to share their own experiences of engaging with parliament. Through facilitated discussions and collaborative activities, attendees identified practical reforms that could make parliamentary engagement more accessible, inclusive and responsive.

The Festival also explored how democratic participation can be strengthened for people facing significant barriers to engagement. The Active Citizen Lab: Participating When Life Is Hard, facilitated by The Australian Centre for Social Innovation (TACSI), brought together community organisations, people with lived experience, and members of the public to examine how democratic processes can be designed to work for those navigating poverty, discrimination, social exclusion, and other life challenges. Through table discussions hosted by organisations including the Anti-Poverty Network SA, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement and the Multicultural Communities Council of South Australia, participants shared practical examples of what helps people feel heard, valued and able to influence decisions that affect their lives.

This focus on “doing democracy together” was reflected across the Festival program. Sessions such as Putting People Back in Our Democracy and the Youth Democracy Lab emphasised the importance of creating opportunities for citizens to contribute between elections, build civic capability, and work collectively to solve public problems. Together, these conversations highlighted a common theme: democratic renewal depends not only on improving institutions, but also on ensuring that participation is accessible, inclusive and meaningful for people from all walks of life.

It is hoped that the Democracy Innovation Festival will help spark innovations in research and practice within Australia and across the world, and open the door to new connections across disciplines and jurisdictions. To find out more about the Festival please contact Sarah Moulds [email protected] (Adelaide University) or Matt Ryan [email protected] (Democracy 2036).

Photo: Putting people back in our democracy – workshop at Democracy Festival

Photo credit: Nelson da Silva Pereira

Deliberating on difficult issues: immigration in the UK

by
Group of people stanging in front of a brightly coloured building. The people include participants of the deliberative workshops organised by the Home Affairs select committee of the UK House of Commons, and staff involved delivering the workshops

Date and time: Wednesday 14 October, 15:00-16:00 GMT + 1 / UK time; 16:00-17:00 CET  

Speakers: Hana Kapetanovic (Lead Researcher, Demos); Chris Shaw (Clerk, Home Affairs Committee, UK House of Commons & IPEN Executive Team)  

Chair: Matt Ringer (Director of Participation, Chamber and Participation Team, UK House of Commons and IPEN Executive Team) 

Details: This IPEN seminar will report back on a 2 year project which was originally shared with IPEN members as an idea at a Deliberative Check-in back in December 2024. 

In the context of a very polarised debate in the UK on immigration the Home Affairs Committee sought to sponsor an informed and honest public debate on the subject using a deliberative process – the first of its kind.  

The result was Your Voice on Immigration: three carefully choreographed and facilitated deliberative workshops, in different parts of the country, involving 90 people, who met to discuss some key questions posed by the Committee on preferences and principles governing work-based immigration.  

This seminar will explain how this was done; explore the difficulties of doing deliberation on an emotive and polarising subject; and set out how the results might influence policy making. It will also cover how parliaments can partner with external organisations – in this case, Demos – to deliver high quality deliberative processes.  

This will be followed by a Q&A and further discussion on any aspect of the process itself and the politics behind it.  

For advance information, the summary report and technical report can be found at Your Voice on Immigration – Committees – UK Parliament .  

Photo credit: UK House of Commons

When do parliamentary integrity initiatives strengthen public trust? Lessons for public engagement and democratic resilience

by
Room with participants listening to a speaker at the front of the room, at a public event at the National Assembly on Public Debt Management, Nigeria.

Date and time: Thursday 10th September, 09.30 – 10.30 GMT+1 / UK time; 10.30 – 11.30 CET

Speakers: Lily Gibbs (Political Anthropologist), Damir Neziri (WFD Deputy Regional Director, Europe and Central Asia), Alex Parsons (Democracy Lead, mySociety)

Chair: Alex Scales (WFD Evidence & Learning Manager)

Details: Welcome to the second joint webinar between the International Parliament Engagement Network (IPEN) and Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD)

Parliamentary integrity initiatives often include measures like standards regimes, codes of conduct, registers of interests, lobbying regulations, transparency measures, ethics oversight bodies, and mechanisms designed to prevent undue influence and abuse of power. While these initiatives play an important role in safeguarding democratic governance, their relationship with public confidence is relatively under-examined. So, how can we be sure of when they enhance or undermine public confidence in politics and parliaments?

This webinar will discuss different perspectives on how parliamentary integrity initiatives contribute to public confidence in parliament and how they fit within broader efforts to strengthen public engagement, accountability and democratic resilience. A key question running through the session and the open Q&A will be: how should parliaments engage the public on issues of integrity, ethics and accountability? We will examine how the design of integrity standards and processes, as well as how parliaments communicate and discuss them, can strengthen or undermine public confidence. We will also discuss how they compare with other approaches to building stronger relationships between parliaments and citizens, and what this means for how parliaments engage with citizens. 

The discussion will consider how integrity initiatives sit alongside broader efforts to improve parliamentary openness, responsiveness, representation and public participation. We will end with an open discussion and space for Q&A.

Please note: the webinar is for IPEN members and WFD staff and associates only. For any questions, please contact [email protected]

Featured Image: Public event at the National Assembly on Public Debt Management, Nigeria. Image credit: Westminster Foundation for Democracy. All rights reserved

Changing of the Guard: Acknowledging Professor Cristina Leston-Bandeira

by
University portrait photo of Cristina Leston-Bandeira, Professor of Politics and the University of Leeds and Chair of IPEN

By Dr Sarah Moulds (University of Adelaide and Vice-Chair of IPEN)

Leadership transitions provide an opportunity not only to look ahead, but also to reflect on the people whose vision, dedication and leadership have shaped an organisation’s success. As IPEN prepares for a new chapter, it is fitting that we pause to recognise the extraordinary contribution of our outgoing Chair and co-founder, Professor Cristina Leston-Bandeira, whose influence can be seen across every aspect of the network’s development and achievements.

I am thrilled (and slightly daunted by the very large shoes to fill!) to be elected as IPEN’s Vice Chair and, in accordance with IPEN’s governance arrangements, will assume the role of Chair in September 2026. More information about my vision for the future of IPEN is available on our website.

This transition also marks the end of an important chapter in IPEN’s history. Founded in 2020 as a collaboration between the Centre for Democratic Politics at the University of Leeds and the UK House of Commons Service, IPEN was established to create an international community focused on strengthening understanding and practice of parliamentary public engagement. From the outset, Cristina was a driving force behind this vision, helping to build a network that connected academics, parliamentary officials, engagement practitioners and democratic innovators in ways that had rarely been achieved before.

Picture of a globe with diverse people standing on it and the logo of the International Parliament Engagement Network; light blue background.
The International Parliament Engagement Network – a global network

Over the past six years, Cristina has guided IPEN from a promising idea into a thriving international network with a growing global membership and an increasingly influential voice in debates about parliamentary engagement and democratic renewal. Under her leadership, IPEN has expanded its reach across continents, developed a vibrant programme of events and knowledge exchange activities, and created valuable opportunities for collaboration between research and practice.

One of Cristina’s most significant achievements has been her commitment to ensuring that IPEN delivers practical resources that support parliaments around the world. A particularly notable example is the publication of IPEN’s Guides on Citizen Engagement for Parliaments, developed in partnership with Inter Pares (and funded by the European Union) which bring together international evidence, expertise and practical lessons to help legislatures strengthen their engagement with citizens. These guides exemplify Cristina’s long-standing belief that research should not simply analyse democratic institutions, but actively contribute to improving them.

Reproduction of the eight Guides on Citizen Engagement developed by IPEN in partnership with Inter Pares.Visual shows covers of each of the eight guides, which are, briefly, on: Principles of engagement; Petitions; Youth engagement; Education programmes; Consultaitons; Deliberative engagement; Spaces and Places; Underrepresented groups
Guides on Citizen Engagement for Parliaments – Design by ResearchRetold

Cristina has also played a central role in establishing and nurturing strategic partnerships that have enhanced IPEN’s international profile and impact. Between 2022 and 2025, IPEN co-hosted the Public Engagement Hub of the Inter-Parliamentary Union‘s Centre for Innovation in Parliament, creating an important global platform for sharing knowledge and best practice in parliamentary engagement. The Inter-Parliamentary Union remains a valued partner of the network, reflecting the strong relationships that Cristina helped to cultivate. More recently, IPEN welcomed the Westminster Foundation for Democracy as a key partner, opening new opportunities for collaboration and extending the network’s reach even further.

Beyond these tangible achievements, Cristina’s greatest legacy may be the culture she has built within IPEN. Members consistently speak of her generosity, enthusiasm and ability to bring people together around a shared purpose. Whether supporting early-career researchers, connecting practitioners across jurisdictions, or championing innovative ideas, Cristina has fostered a collaborative and inclusive community that has become one of IPEN’s defining strengths.

Screen shot of an online seminar, IPEN's first ever, with four speakers: Kevin Davies (Senedd), Cristina Leston-Bandeira (IPEN), Emma McIntosh (Petitions Committee, UK Parliament), Steven Williams (Outreach, UK Parliament)
Cristina chairing IPEN’s first seminar ever, July 2020

Her influence extends beyond the network itself. As a leading scholar of parliamentary studies and public engagement, Cristina’s research and public-facing work have contributed to important conversations about the future of democratic institutions. The growing recognition of both her work and IPEN’s contributions, including references in discussions around parliamentary modernisation and democratic innovation, is testament to the impact of her leadership.

While Cristina is stepping down as Chair from September 2026, the foundations she has created will continue to shape IPEN for many years to come. The network’s growth, reputation, partnerships, practical resources and strong sense of community all reflect her vision and commitment. It is no exaggeration to say that IPEN would not be the organisation it is today without her leadership.

I would like to extend my deepest thanks to Cristina for her outstanding service, leadership and friendship. I look forward to the next chapter of IPEN’s journey, building on the remarkable foundations that Cristina has helped create.

Keep an eye out on Microsoft Teams and LinkedIn for information about how to continue to acknowledge and celebrate Cristina’s contribution.

Spotlight on Public Engagement Practice: How the Oireachtas Education and Youth Committee Engages Young People

by
A-level student presenting her findings to the Joint Committee on Education and Youth at the Houses of Oireachtas in Ireland

By Conor Reale (Parliamentary Education Officer, Oireachtas) and Tara Kelly (Clerk of the Joint Committee on Education and Youth, Oireachtas)

Engaging young people in parliamentary democracy is a core priority for the Houses of the Oireachtas, and nowhere is this more evident than in the work of the Joint Committee on Education and Youth. In recent years, the Committee has developed a distinctive and meaningful approach to involving young people directly in parliamentary scrutiny, ensuring that their lived experiences and perspectives inform national policy discussions.

This spotlight highlights how the Education Committee embeds youth voice in its work, the principles guiding this approach, and the positive impact it has had on both Members and young participants. The practice is also referenced as an example of meaningful engagement in the IPEN Guide on Youth Engagement in Parliaments (p. 12).

Why Youth Engagement Matters

Education policy has a uniquely direct impact on young people’s daily lives. Decisions made in this space affect their learning environments, wellbeing, future opportunities, and sense of belonging in society. Recognising this, the Education Committee has embraced a core principle: those most affected by policy should have opportunities to share their experience with policymakers.

By opening its deliberations to students, learners, and youth organisations, the Committee aims to:

  • Bring lived experience into Parliamentary discourse
  • Model transparency and accessibility
  • Support civic literacy and participation
  • Enrich Members’ understanding of emerging issues in education

How the Committee Engages Young People

1. Inviting Young Experts to Committee Hearings

One of the most impactful approaches is the Committee’s practice of inviting young people to speak directly at public hearings. A recent example has seen young people presenting their views on the topic of Hot School Meals. These sessions follow the same format as any expert witness appearance, signalling that the Committee values youth input as evidence, not tokenism. Members frequently refer back to young people’s testimonies during debates, questions to Ministers, and report drafting, often including their recommendations. See for example the recent report on the provision of school meals: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/caighdeanOifigiul/2026/2026-03-26_report-on-evaluating-the-impacts-of-the-school-meals-programme_en.pdf

Overview of the Joint Committee on Education and Youth, showing a committee rom with Members and public sat to give evidence, at the Oireachtas in Ireland
Overview of the Joint Committee on Education and Youth at the Oireachtas – Photo Credit: Houses of Oireachtas

2. Collaboration with Youth Organisations

The Committee works closely with organisations such the Irish Second-Level Students’ Union (ISSU), youth advocacy networks, and school communities. These partnerships help:

  • Identify young people interested in contributing
  • Ensure accessibility and safeguarding
  • Provide preparation and support
  • Amplify the outcomes of engagement

These relationships ensure young participants feel informed, prepared, and confident when stepping into the parliamentary environment.

3. Integrating Education Committee Engagement into Civic Education

Beyond the hearings themselves, the Committee’s youth engagement model reinforces broader Parliamentary education efforts. Teachers, youth workers, and students increasingly view Committee engagement as an extension of active learning: a real‑world opportunity to see democracy in action.

This aligns closely with the Oireachtas Education Programme’s goal of helping young people understand:

  • How laws are made
  • How Committees hold Government to account
  • How individuals and groups can participate in democracy
Four people holding a document, the report evaluating the impacts of the school meals programme, in front of the Oireachtas in Ireland.
Launch of Report Evaluating the Impacts of the School Meals Programme – Photo credit: Houses of Oireachtas

What We’ve Learned

Across these engagements, several key lessons have emerged:

  • Young people are articulate, informed, and highly capable contributors to policy debate.
  • Preparation and support are essential for meaningful participation.
  • Committee members benefit from insights that may not surface through traditional submissions.
  • Youth engagement can reshape how parliaments think about evidence, expertise, and representation.

Perhaps most importantly, youth witnesses consistently express that they feel heard, respected, and valued—often citing the experience as transformative in shaping their confidence and sense of agency.

Looking Ahead

As parliaments worldwide explore new models for involving young people, the Education Committee’s approach demonstrates that authentic engagement is not only possible, but deeply enriching for legislative work. The Houses of the Oireachtas remain committed to evolving this practice, continuing to embed youth voice at the heart of Irish parliamentary democracy.

You can read more out about meaningful youth engagement by parliaments in the guide IPEN developed in partnership with Inter Pares: Guide on Youth Engagement. The Guide includes this case study from the Oireachtas plus others from around the world. The Guide is part of a series of eight different Guides on Citizen Engagement for Parliaments.

Featured photo credit: Houses of Oireachtas

“More Power to You” – Raising awareness and inspiring participation in the Senedd Election

by
Brand logo of the campaign led by Senedd Cymru (Welsh Parliament). A three dimensions design in purple pink of a ballot box with captions on the side.

Date and time: Tuesday 22 September 14:00-15:00 GMT+1 / UK time; 15:00-16:00 CET  

Speakers: Laurian Hubbard (Head of Engagement Services, Welsh Parliament); Laura Williams (Head of Communications, Welsh Parliament)   

Chair: Cristina Leston-Bandeira (University of Leeds and Deputy Chair of IPEN)  

Details: This seminar will explore how the Senedd (Welsh Parliament) has developed a shared communications and engagement strategy to strengthen awareness, understanding and participation in Welsh democracy.

By bringing together communications and engagement expertise, the Senedd has adopted a more integrated approach to reaching and connecting with citizens across Wales, with a focus on making democratic participation more accessible, relevant and meaningful. 

As an extension of this wider strategy, the seminar will examine the dynamic and innovative participation campaign delivered ahead of the May 2026 Senedd election. The presentation will explore how the campaign was developed and delivered, the impact of a joined-up communications and engagement approach, and the lessons learned.  

The seminar will then open up for questions and comments from the audience, an opportunity to share practices from other parliaments.

Photo credit: Senedd Cymru

Bringing children’s voices into parliament: the Lundy model in action

by
Children participating in an activity

Date and time: Tuesday 30 June, 10:00-11:00 GMT+1 / UK time; 11:00-12:00 CET 

Speakers: Professor Laura Lundy (Queen’s University Belfast) and Marta Kuljon (European Commission). 

Chair: Elise Uberoi (UK House of Commons Library and IPEN Executive Team) 

Details: Many parliaments have programmes focusing on children’s education, and some have youth parliaments, but fewer have developed systematic ways to gather the views of children on policy issues and feed these into their debates, legislation and scrutiny work. This seminar is designed as an opportunity to think through the benefits of using children’s views better, as well as potential risks, and practical ways of engaging with children to get the most from these interactions.

Professor Lundy’s model of child participation has been adopted by national and international governments and organisations. This model offers a way of practically embedding children’s right to participate, focusing both on helping children to express their views, and ensuring these have an impact. Professor Lundy will introduce her model and highlight its relevance to parliaments.

Marta Kuljon will talk about her experience of working with Professor Lundy to embed this model in the processes of the EU Children’s Participation Platform set up by the European Commission. She will comment on how it works in practice, including any challenges and outcomes so far.

This will be followed by a Q&A.

The seminar will take place in IPEN’s MS Team. If you are a member of IPEN, you will receive a calendar invite for it.

Photo credit: BDKJ Diözesanverband Paderborn, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

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