News

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

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

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.  

Five things about IPEN #2 – Terranova

by
To the left is a cake with five candles and the words five things about IPEN. To the left is Terra Nova

In the second in our five-part series looking back at some of the great things that have come about since IPEN began in 2020, we’re taking a look at an interactive game hosted on the IPEN website.

Following the creation of the Public Engagement Toolkit in 2021, the IPEN Executive Team came up with a new way of using it – a virtual escape room game called Terranova.

Using the principles in the toolkit – and working with escape room builder Sacha Coward and Digital Creative Agency Code & Wander – we created an exciting online environment where players work together to solve several challenges. These challenges all have different elements of the toolkit embedded in an interactive way.

Hosted on the IPEN website, this virtual game can be used for team-building exercises, as an icebreaker on a team away day or as part of a workshop. It is there for any team that wishes to develop an activity to enhance awareness of effective public engagement – you simply need a minimum of four people to play the game.

We created this for parliamentary teams around the world to engage with ideas of public engagement in an innovative and exciting way. You may notice some familiar faces from the IPEN Executive team throughout the game!

Try out our virtual escape room game, Terranova.

The game was developed thanks to the support from an Impact Acceleration Account grant from the Leeds Institute for Societal Futures (previously known as Leeds Social Sciences Institute) and funding from Research England’s Policy Support Funding.

Your feedback

We’d love to hear what you think of the game if you try it out. Please let us know any feedback by emailing us at [email protected].

Image

‘Five years of IPEN’ logo by Fiona Blair.

Article published on 30 March 2026.

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.”