Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
15:00:01
Dear colleagues,
I hope you enjoyed this break in our extremely busy schedule. On our own behalf, I think, I would once more like to thank the Italian Parliament for the excellent lunch and the moment of conviviality.
Let us now return to theme 1 of our Conference, which we started this morning.
And I call, as the next speaker, Mr Amir OHANA. He is the Speaker of the Knesset from Israel, followed by Mr Carles ENSENYAT REIG.
Please, you have the floor.
Fellow Speakers and Presidents,
Distinguished delegations,
We meet today in Rome, where one of the world's first parliaments convened, but I come representing an even more ancient cradle of civilisation: Jerusalem. Jerusalem, which inspired generations of human souls and gave rise to the Judeo-Christian values that guide our societies, calling us to greatness through moral courage. It is that lesson that I bring today from Jerusalem.
Because today, we face a severe crisis of courage on the international stage. Many world leaders proclaim the importance of their values. Yet, when the moment of truth arrives, only a few are willing to defend them. Worse still are those who knowingly lie and cynically feed on false propaganda, all to buy fleeting electoral applause in their simmering streets.
Everyone in this hall knows the truth: Israel is not committing genocide. Enough with this despicable lie! Last week, we marked three years since October 7, the day thousands of bloodthirsty terrorists shattered the quiet along the border between the Gaza Strip and the nearby Israeli communities. They unleashed a rampage of murder, rape and mutilation, burning people alive with medieval brutality.
On October 7, the deadliest day for the Jews since the Holocaust, there was no nezek agavi (NAZA), no "collateral damage". Innocent civilians, women, children – babies even – were not caught in the crossfire, they were the targets. In this book, which always sits on my desk and which I have brought with me, there are no words but one: Jew. Jew, Jew, Jew. Six million times. Each one represents an entire human life. Each line, a classroom full of children. Every few lines, a whole school. Each page, a town.
When you hold this enormous book, when you feel its weight, you begin to grasp the scale of what we lost here, on European soil. This is what real genocide looks like. I keep this book on my desk so that I never forget. So that "never again" will not be an empty slogan.
And that has been the mission of the State of Israel before and since October 7: preventing genocide. To ensure that the axis of evil, which calls for the murder of every Jew, never again has the power to attempt it. So the cycle of violence is over, once and for all, for the benefit of children from both sides of the border. Israel extends its hand in peace to all our neighbors. But we must do so without illusions or naivety, understanding, just as the ancient Romans did, that si vis pacem, para bellum, "he who wants peace must prepare for war."
This war is far from being just a local conflict. It is a global clash of civilisations – a battle between the forces of darkness, radicalism and extremism, and those of freedom, liberty and democracy.
Some of the member states represented here have a deeply dark place in the history books.
I urge you, this time, to stand on the right side of history, fighting for freedom, with us.
Thank you.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
15:05:42
"Thank you very much." [Spoken in Hebrew]
The next speaker is Mr Carles ENSENYAT REIG. He is the Speaker of the General Council of Andorra.
And after him, we'll hear Mr António Pedro ROQUE DA VISITAÇÃO OLIVEIRA. Please.
Syndic général du Conseil général, Andorre
15:06:02
Thank you, Madam President of the Parliamentary Assembly,
Madam Secretary General,
Presidents,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Resilience is often confused with resistance, but they are not the same. To resist is to withstand the impact of a threat. To be resilient is to know how to change without losing what defines us. This is one of the keys to understanding the continuity of our institutions. They have endured, not because they have remained untouched by change, but because they have adapted while staying true to the principles that give them legitimacy.
Allow me to illustrate this through the experience of the Principality of Andorra. The Paréage of 1278 established a system of shared governorship that has endured for more than seven centuries, through the end of feudalism, the French Revolution and the birth of modern states. The co-principality is not merely a legal or political construct. It is rooted in a historic reality that presents itself to us.
With the Constitution of 1993, this long evolution culminated in Andorra becoming a modern democratic state governed by the rule of law. Andorra became the 184th member state of the United Nations and joined the Council of Europe a year later.
Seven and a half centuries of history remind us that those institutions endure, not by standing still, but by knowing how to adapt. In the 18th century, Andorran Jurist Antoni FITER I ROSSELL wrote in the Manual Digest de les Valls Neutres d'Andorra that institutions should be preserved with prudence and that we must understand their purpose before changing them. This principle was not a call for immobility, but for good governance. Institutions can only be reformed well when we understand their value and their purpose.
This lesson is as relevant as ever. Across the world, societies we once believed immune to authoritarianism are now facing troubling developments. The foundations of liberal democracy are being challenged everywhere. We cannot assume that what is fragile elsewhere will be, by itself, strong at home.
Hybrid threats take many forms: disinformation that confuses and divides, cyberattacks that disrupt essential services and actions intended to influence public debate. They can all serve the same purpose: to weaken public trust in institutions. When that trust is lost, democracy as a whole is exposed. In this context, parliament has a central role. It is where society's diversity becomes debate and political decision, where differences can be expressed and resolved through democratic means, where the government is held to account, and public decisions are openly debated so that citizens can recognise their legitimacy.
A vibrant parliament is therefore an essential part of democracy defence. Resilience depends not only on our technology or our ability to protect our systems. It also depends on strong representative institutions, on the trust they inspire and on their ability to listen to citizens. In the face of hybrid threats, parliaments' centrality is more than an institutional principle; it is a democratic safeguard.
This Conference and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe are helping to shape a shared response. The Resolution and Recommendations adopted last year on foreign interference have placed this threat at the head of the European debate. The Special Committee on the New Democratic Pact also provides a forum for parliaments to contribute their perspectives.
Andorra has also taken steps to protect its digital society, working with organisations in France and Spain. In March 2026, the General Council amended the Law on the Rights of Children and Adolescents to restrict access to social media platforms that may harm the development of children under the age of 16. This measure is part of a broader effort to promote digital well-being. The General Council is now considering a reform to bring this law into line with emerging threats. It strengthens the protection of essential services, improves the detection of and response to incidents, and deepens international co-operation. This is a political institutional decision that brings our historic resilience to the challenges of the 21st century.
I am finishing. But democracy's strength is measured not only by the laws it adopts or the systems it protects. It is also measured by the trust it maintains, the voice it gives to citizens and the ability of its institutions to act together. Our history reminds us that it is possible to preserve an identity while also transforming. Parliaments' central role is part of that continuity. It enables us to deliberate, adapt and face changes together.
Thank you so much.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
15:11:23
Thank you very much.
We will now hear Mr António Pedro ROQUE DA VISITAÇÃO OLIVEIRA. He is Vice-President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean and will be followed by Mr Carmelo ABELA.
Vice-Président de l'Assemblée parlementaire de la Méditerranée
15:11:41
Thank you so much, Madam President.
Madam President,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Allow me to start by saying that on behalf of PAM, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, I extend our deepest respect to the Chairman of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, honourable Mr Ruslan STEFANCHUK, representing the unwavering bravery of the Ukrainian people and their military. In standing resilient against the aggression of the Russian Federation, Ukraine serves as Europe's shield against tyranny, heroically defending the shared democratic values that unite us all.
Madam President,
Hybrid threats no longer rely only on direct conflict. Instead, they seek to undermine democracies from within by exploiting social fractures, spreading disinformation, interfering in political processes and weaponising emerging technologies. Today, these tactics are deeply interconnected: cyberattacks, economic coercion and AI-driven mass manipulation are deployed together to make subversion faster and harder to detect.
Protecting the integrity of electoral processes remains our top priority. When citizens lose faith in the information surrounding an election or in the fairness of the vote itself, all the foundations of democracy weaken.
We are also confronting the rise of deepfakes, hate speech and AI-driven deception. Through our campaign against disinformation, PAM bridges research and legislative action, providing parliamentarians with practical tools while safeguarding human rights and fundamental freedoms. Furthermore, following our collaboration with NATO on disinformation in Africa, we published a report on safeguarding democratic systems against the misuse of AI and emerging technologies.
Because these risks respect no borders, they demand a co-ordinated international response. PAM highlighted this at the 81st UN General Assembly, examining how state actors, such as the Russian Federation and terrorist networks misuse advanced technology to radicalise populations. This reality underscores the urgent need for harmonised governance across Europe and beyond.
As parliamentarians, our duty is two-fold. We must ensure that all measures to protect democracy remain firmly rooted in the rule of law, while providing our security and intelligence agencies with the resources needed to counter modern threats effectively.
Ultimately, democratic resilience rests on strong institutions, an informed public and robust international co-operation. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean remains fully committed to advancing all three.
Thank you so much.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
15:15:10
Thank you very much.
And I now call Mr Carmelo ABELA. He is the Speaker of the Parliament of Malta, followed by Mr Athanasios BOURAS.
Madam President,
Excellencies,
Colleagues,
Democracy is strongest when citizens have confidence that their institutions are capable of protecting them, listening to them and responding to the challenges of their time.
Today, that confidence is being tested by hybrid threats which deliberately exploit the openness of our democratic societies. Disinformation, foreign interference, cyberattacks, economic coercion, manipulation of social media and attempts to undermine electoral processes are no longer separate challenges. Increasingly, they form part of a broader effort to weaken democratic resilience from within.
Our response must therefore be equally comprehensive.
First, we must strengthen the resilience of our institutions. Parliaments have a particular responsibility in this regard. We must ensure that our electoral systems, parliamentary processes and communications infrastructure are protected from cyber threats and foreign interference. At the same time, we must preserve the openness and accessibility that are fundamental to democratic governments.
Second, resilience begins with citizens. A population that can distinguish between reliable information and manipulation is less vulnerable to those who seek to divide us. Media literacy, digital literacy and critical thinking should therefore be regarded not simply as educational objectives, but as essential components of democratic security.
Third, democratic resilience requires co-operation. No European state, particularly a smaller state, can address sophisticated hybrid threats alone. Information sharing, co-operation between national parliaments, co-ordination with European institutions and closer engagement with international partners are indispensable.
But there is also a deeper lesson.
We should not allow the fight against disinformation and foreign interference to become a justification for restricting legitimate political debate. The answer to manipulation cannot be less democracy. It must be better democracy. More transparency, greater accountability and stronger public trust.
For Malta, as for other European countries, our geographical size does not diminish our commitment to democratic values. On the contrary, our experience reminds us that sovereignty and resilience are strengthened through co-operation.
Our societies will inevitably remain open, pluralistic and interconnected. That is our strength, not our weakness.
The task before us is to ensure that our openness cannot be exploited to destroy the very freedoms that make our democracies worth defending.
Madam President,
A resilient democracy is not a democracy without challenges. It is a democracy capable of confronting those challenges while remaining faithful to its principles.
And that is a responsibility we share – as governments, as parliaments, and ultimately as representatives of the citizens who entrust us with their democracy.
Thank you.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
15:19:17
Thank you very much.
The next speaker on the list is Mr Athanasios BOURAS. He's the Vice-President of the Hellenic Parliament and will be followed by Mr Masud GHARAHKHANI.
Vice-Président du Parlement hellénique, Grèce
15:19:44
Madam President,
Colleagues,
Greece remains committed to upholding the three statutory pillars of the Organisation. In other words, human rights, the rule of law and democracy.
Our theme, "Resilient democracies: united against hybrid threats", constitutes an urgent European political priority. Against this backdrop, protecting our elections is at the heart of our defence. Electoral processes must be proactively protected, not only on polling day, but right across the public information landscape, and at the same time, we must also protect candidates, elected representatives, as well as journalists, against online abuse, intimidation and co-ordinated harassment campaigns. And thereby ensuring an open, pluralistic democratic dialogue.
We need to quickly implement the European regulatory framework following early detection and with constitutional awareness. Obviously, we are talking in Europe about the Digital Services Act, the Artificial Intelligence Act and the European Media Freedom Act.
Now, as far as artificial intelligence is concerned, the use of fake videos and images, as well as manipulation by algorithms, is a serious challenge, and we have to make this technology a tool for democratic defence, rather than for opaque communication.
Greece strongly supports the European Democracy Shield as a strategic framework for safeguarding the European Union, as well as the European Centre for Democratic Resilience as its operational pillar. Also, technological adaptation isn't enough unless we also invest in the cognitive and intellectual resilience of our societies. We have to mobilise the entire state and society, involving citizens, civil society, the academic community and, first and foremost, young people.
Now, in the field of the media, democracy requires free, independent journalism. A Greek experience where we set up an interministerial working group on the protection and safety of journalists and an observatory against abusive lawsuits and the decriminalisation of simple defamation shows our commitment to protecting the freedom of the press and democratic accountability.
We need to have a clear communications strategy, which is focused on the needs of citizens, as well as close co-operation with partners at the regional and international level alike, such as NATO and the United Nations.
Greece is a pillar of stability in the Mediterranean and stands ready to contribute actively to the transfer of expertise and the strengthening of cybersecurity capabilities across the wider region.
Ladies and gentlemen, addressing hybrid threats requires determination, but it also requires restraint. We must ensure that protective measures do not undermine those very democratic principles and rights we are called upon to defend. The strength of our democracies stems from transparency, trust and the active participation of our citizens.
Thank you very much.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
15:23:55
Thank you very much.
I now call Mr Masud GHARAHKHANI. He's the President of the Parliament of Norway. Please.
And next, after you, is Mr Gian Carlo VENTURINI.
President,
Dear colleagues,
This summer, Norwegians all over the country, and in many corners of the world, sat down together to row. You might have seen them, many in red T-shirts, rowing to support our national team in the World Cup. Why mention this, except the obvious fact that I am very proud of the team and their performance? The key word is unity.
What we witnessed in Norway this summer, was a sense of togetherness that we seldom see: uniting generations and people from different backgrounds and political viewpoints. Hybrid threats are designed to disturb and destroy our unity. They blur the line between true and false, peace and conflict. They seek to undermine trust between people, and between the citizens and the state.
We still see high levels of trust in Norwegian society. Trust in the police and the courts is around 80%. In the government and parliament, around 60%. And the trust between people, social trust, stands at about 70%. This is very reassuring, but we cannot take it for granted. As parliamentarians, we hold a position of public trust. We are also representatives of a political culture, revealed through how we debate and relate. As presidents of parliaments, we share a duty to nurture a political culture of respect, not polarisation. How we act in political debates sets the standard for the public debate.
We have nine different political parties in the Norwegian Parliament. Our debates can be heated, as they should be in a vibrant democracy. But I take pride in how we have managed to unite all parties on major issues.
The Parliament has unanimously endorsed the military and financial support for Ukraine's brave fight for democracy and freedom. We have reached full consensus on major investments in our own defence.
Dear colleagues,
2026 is the "Total Defence Year" in Norway.
Last month, the Parliament practised how to conduct a sitting and a press conference in a different location from the parliament building. The fictional scenario was a hybrid threat which made it impossible to convene in the Storting, our parliament. The lessons learned fed into our heightened efforts on security and preparedness. In this work, our close partnership with the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has been essential. Their experiences of how to run a parliament during times of war have provided us with crucial lessons.
Dear colleagues,
As presidents of parliaments, we share a special responsibility for the institutions we are elected to represent. Parliaments are the heart of democracy. Let us unite in the struggle to protect our democracies and the values they are founded on. Let us unite in support of Ukraine's fight for democracy and freedom for us all.
Thank you for your attention.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
15:27:40
Thank you very much.
The next speaker is Mr Gian Carlo VENTURINI. He is the Vice-President of the Parliament of San Marino, and after him, we will hear Mr Igor GROSU.
Vice-Président du Parlement, Saint-Marin
15:27:57
Madam Chair,
Dear colleagues,
Distinguished guests and authorities,
First of all, I would like to thank the Italian Parliament for its hospitality and the Council of Europe for organising this important forum for discussion on a topic that directly concerns the present and future of our democracies.
We're living through a particularly complex historical moment marked by international tensions, conflicts and profound technological and social transformations. In this context, threats to democracy are taking on new forms, often less visible, but no less dangerous for that.
Disinformation, cyberattacks, external interference and the manipulation of public opinion represent real challenges to the stability of our institutions. These are threats that know no borders, which can strike indiscriminately against both large and small states, and which require joint responses based on co-operation and the sharing of responsibilities.
The Republic of San Marino, whilst being a small country, is fully aware of these challenges. Our history, characterised by over 17 centuries of independence and a long tradition of freedom and autonomy, teaches us that democracy is never a definitive achievement, but rather a legacy that every generation has a duty to safeguard and strengthen.
The continuity of our institutions is a source of strength, but even a democracy with a history stretching back a millennium must be able to renew itself and address new vulnerabilities.
For small states, such as San Marino, the close relationship between citizens and institutions is a key feature of the democratic system, fostering participation and dialogue. At the same time, we are aware that disinformation, the polarisation of public debate, and the erosion of trust can have particularly significant consequences, even in a small community.
For this reason, I believe that the primary form of democratic resilience lies in the protection and credibility of our institutions. This credibility must be earned every day through transparency, compliance with the rules, consistent behaviour and the ability to respond effectively to citizens' needs.
In this endeavour, parliaments play a fundamental role. They're not merely the places where laws are passed and oversight of government action is exercised. Above all, they are forums for democratic debate and the search for solutions in the public interest.
Pluralism, repect for minorities, freedom of expression and dialogue are not signs of weakness but constitute the true strength of our democracies. Defending democracy does not mean restricting dissent but ensuring that debate takes place with respect for people, facts and common roles.
The fight against disinformation must therefore go hand in hand with the protection of freedom of information whilst upholding the truth of the facts. Similarly, the development of digital technologies and artificial intelligence requires us to pay greater attention to information security and to the protection of democratic processes.
But the response to these challenges cannot be purely technological. We must invest in training, civic education and a democratic culture, especially among the younger generations. An informed, aware and engaged society represents the best defence against any attempt at manipulation. Alongside the responsibility of each state, there's also an indispensable international dimension. Hybrid threats transcend international borders and demonstrate just how interdependent our democracies are today.
For San Marino, international co-operation and multilateralism have always been essential tools for safeguarding its independence and contributing to the construction of an international order founded on law and dialogue. Our experience shows that even small states can make a significant contribution to the international community, through the pursuit of ongoing dialogue, mediation and mutual respect.
In this context, the Council of Europe is a key reference point for the defence of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We must strengthen co-operation between our parliaments, share experiences and best practices and develop common tools for prevention and response.
Above all, we must remember that democratic resilience doesn't consist only of the ability to withstand threats but also of the ability to preserve our values in times of greatest difficulty. Security and freedom are not conflicting values; lasting security can only be based on solid institutions, respect for fundamental rights and the trust of citizens.
Presidents, ladies and gentlemen, I shall conclude by referring once again to the experience of the Republic of San Marino, and with this I conclude. Throughout its long history, our country has managed to preserve its freedom and independence, not through force but thanks to the continuity of its institutions and its capacity for dialogue and its peaceful relations with other states. It's an experience that reminds us that the strength of a democracy does not depend on its size but on the solidity of its values and the trust of citizens and their institutions.
Thank you.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
15:33:32
Thank you.
We will now hear Mr Igor GROSU. He is the President of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova and will be followed by Mr Claude WISELER.
Président du Parlement, République de Moldova
15:33:46
Dear colleagues,
Allow me to contribute to this discussion by sharing Moldova’s experience in defending its democracy. While Russia was waging war against Ukraine on the battlefield, it waged a different kind of war against Moldova through disinformation, illegal financing, vote-buying and intimidation.
It sought to determine who would govern our country and to reverse our European course. Elections became the main entry point for this interference, offering the Kremlin an opportunity to turn money and manipulation into political power. Moldova resisted. But the experience showed us how much work is needed to keep democratic choice free.
Let me share three lessons.
First, prevention must begin long before election day. By the time a vote is bought or a cyberattack disrupts electoral infrastructure, our options are already narrower. We need to identify vulnerabilities early and prepare institutions to respond properly. For parliaments, this means adopting clear rules on political financing, giving institutions the resources to enforce them and holding those institutions accountable. We cannot wait until an election is under attack to start organising its defence.
Second, exposure helps citizens to defend themselves. Institutions must explain threats clearly and present evidence. Their work becomes more credible when independent journalists and civil society can investigate and verify it. In Moldova, journalists had a very important role to play as well. They went undercover to expose a vote-buying network. They showed how people were recruited and how money was used to influence their vote. Together with investigations by state institutions, this helped citizens understand what was happening around them.
Third, democracy cannot be taken for granted, it must be protected. Russia exploits the freedoms and openness of democratic societies to interfere in their political life, then accuses them of undermining democracy when they respond. We cannot allow these accusations to paralyse our institutions. Respecting the rule of law does not mean standing by while our democracy is attacked. In a democracy, citizens have the right to challenge their government and to choose new leaders. That right belongs to them. No foreign power is entitled to corrupt it and no democratic state should be expected to tolerate attempts to do so.
Dear colleagues,
No democracy should have to confront these threats alone. The networks targeting us are cross-border and our co-operation must be the same. Democratic states need to share information, act together against illicit political financing, protect electoral systems and respond faster to attempts at foreign interference. And Moldova is ready to do its part, because the freedom we defended at home is the same freedom that brings us together here today.
Thank you.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
15:37:42
Thank you very much.
And let me comment: I think Moldova already does its part, as we know that you are really the ones who are most experienced in how to combat interference.
Next on the list is Mr Claude WISELER. He is the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies in Luxembourg.
And afterwards, we will hear Mr Shalva PAPUASHVILI.
Président de la Chambre des députés, Luxembourg
15:38:10
Thank you Madam President.
Dear colleagues,
Ladies and gentlemen,
This past century has shown the strong desire for democracy and for people to have a voice and be heard. It has also shown that this form of government cannot be taken for granted. It depends on continued commitment to and respect for the ideals on which it is built.
The international institutions and structures which are meant to protect these values, do so against dangers they can see. Yet today, we face hybrid threats whose attacks are often hidden. Their actions seek to weaken our democracies through anonymous strikes on infrastructure, disinformation campaigns, cyberattacks, economic pressure or political interference.
They erode democracy by undermining trust in our institutions, casting doubt on our safeguards and weakening the accountability that allows us to identify failures and correct them.
This constantly evolving threat can exploit cracks in our democracies, sometimes quietly and sometimes openly, as we have seen, among other places, in Germany and Luxembourg and in the North Sea. To counter it, we must ensure that our democratic systems remain strong, resilient and effective, and ready to respond when a crisis arises.
Indeed, our democratic institutions and the respect for the rule of law are part of our critical infrastructure.
Therefore, the Chamber of Deputies in Luxembourg has decided to test the robustness of its democracy. To ensure that our institutions can withstand attempts to undermine public trust and the democratic values they are meant to protect. We do this now when our institutions are still functioning, now that power is not yet concentrated, now that we can still repair any chinks in its armour.
The stress test asks the question: what if an authoritarian force came to power through democratic elections? Can our institutions resist a gradual concentration of power? Can Parliament continue to exercise effective oversight? Can we protect the independence of our judiciary? Can the constitutional safeguards withstand authoritarian pressure? Can the other balancing forces like the media, civil society, or academia continue to operate without restraint?
Testing our democratic structures is not a sign of weakness. It is an expression of confidence in our values and our determination to uphold them.
A living democracy goes beyond elections. It depends on continuous engagement with the people it represents. And that engagement depends on strong institutions that retain the public’s trust, even under pressure.
By strengthening that trust, we encourage public engagement and, ultimately, safeguard democracy itself, for this generation and for the one to come.
Thank you very much.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
15:41:05
Thank you.
The next speaker is Mr Shalva PAPUASHVILI. He is the Chairman of the Parliament of Georgia, followed by our last speaker on the list, Mr Pere Joan PONS SAMPIETRO. Please.
Président du Parlement, Géorgie
15:41:24
Dear colleagues,
Democratic resilience begins with a simple truth. A democracy unable to answer to its own citizens or act in its own national interest is already compromised before any threat arrives.
Hybrid threats, including disinformation, cyber intrusion, covert funding, and foreign interference, rarely act alone. They reinforce one another, targeting the same thing: the integrity of our democratic institutions and decisions. Among these tools, foreign information manipulation and interference is the most widespread and consequential, typically taking the form of co-ordinated disinformation campaigns timed to strike, especially during elections or political unrest.
In Georgia, two years ago, even with the most advanced technical safeguards for elections in place, disinformation and false allegations of election irregularities enhanced polarisation and fuelled unrest around the votes. Some groups funded from abroad worked to weaken public trust in the fairness and legitimacy of the electoral process itself. This is a clear reminder that resilience in the information space may prove crucial in safeguarding the state's sovereignty and thus democratic practices.
Covert foreign funding deserves particular scrutiny because it is often the least visible and most corrosive means of undermining democracy and sovereignty. When outside actors fund specific domestic political forces, they harden division, turning ordinary political debate into a vehicle for enforcing their preferred line of thinking and deepening political polarisation.
A growing number of states, some that once condemned this kind of legislation elsewhere, now confront this risk at home. Australia, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and many others are tightening their own transparency and foreign funding legislation. This body of legislation has become an important tool for ensuring defensive democracy and strengthening democratic resilience. Safeguarding transparency of foreign funding is not a departure from democratic values, but, on the contrary, is a means of their defence. The principle is that a government answerable to its people needs visibility over the money and influence moving through its political space.
Interference is rarely one-directional. Many states that decry the erosion of the international order are at the same time trying to shape the internal affairs of others. National parliaments should not face this challenge in isolation. The Council of Europe's recent work, from the resolution on foreign interference to ongoing discussions on safeguarding democracy and elections, already provides a foundation.
Dear colleagues, foreign interference is dangerous for sovereignty and democracy irrespective of whether it comes from a hostile or non-hostile actor. Foreign interference in itself is a hostile act because its purpose is the restriction of the people's freedom and democracy. Therefore, it is hostile whether it comes from enemies or frenemies.
Therefore, a common international standard is the only way out of this cycle. The time has come to create a standard on transparency and regulation of foreign interference and funding grounded in sovereignty, accountability and consent. Only resilient, accountable democracies relying on shared rules can stand firm together against hybrid threats.
Thank you very much.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
15:45:10
Thank you.
And as the very last speaker, I call Mr Pere Joan PONS SAMPIETRO. He's the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Pere, please.
Président de Assemblée parlementaire de l'Organisation pour la sécurité et la coopération en Europe
15:45:22
Thank you very much, dear President.
And I think, on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, it's an honour to be here today in this lovely parliament. And of course, thank you to the Italian authorities, first of all, for hosting us. And thank you to the Council of Europe.
And I would like to start by saying that at the Parliamentary Assembly, we are a bunch of states from Canada to Mongolia, and we represent more than 1 billion people. And the first thing that I would like to say is that our Parliamentary Assembly is underrepresented as far as gender balance is concerned; we are at less than 35%. And also, I think today is also an expression of this lack of women in parliamentary assemblies. And I think more women are also helping to build more resilient democracies. This is the first thing that I would like to say.
The second thing that I would like to say is that I would like to answer Chairman Ruslan STEFANCHUK and to react to what he said this morning. I think we are talking about resilience but I think the message of the Parliamentary Assembly is very clear. What we cannot accept is normalisation. We cannot accept a resolution of this aggression without Ukraine. And Ukraine has to be at the table of the negotiations and has to be part of the solution, of course, for a fair and lasting peace.
But, and I would like to go now to the second thing, in our last Autumn Session, not the one in Andorra, last year, in Türkiye, in Istanbul, we had a long conversation about threats and also about the future of democracy and elections in Ukraine. And one of the things that the parliamentarians of Ukraine said is that after the day we have peace, if we are not capable of guaranteeing that there is peace for democracy, for the elections, and all that, there will be a second war: a hybrid war. So this is what we have to prevent.
And with that, I move to the third point. We need to invest in electoral observation. And I would like to say that I think, with the Council of Europe, with the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), with the European Parliament, we are facing the same typology of threats, internally and also externally, in every election observation.
So I think we all agree on the diagnosis, and I think this is internal and also external. And my recommendation as President of the Parliamentary Assembly is that, if we want to make democracies more resilient, one of the things that we have to do is invest more. We have to invest more in these parliamentary assemblies that we are observing. So when I listen to some parliamentarians say that we have to be more efficient, I think that there is nothing more important and more, let's say, delivery-oriented than investing in election observation.
So again, dear Chairman, let me simply end by saying thank you. And the last point is that I think if we want to make democracies resilient, we don't have to play with double standards. If we say that we are with the people of Ukraine, we can also condemn the 7 October attacks. I watched the videos of the 7 October attacks when I was in Israel. But I also condemn what is going on in Gaza, which is a shame.
Thank you very much.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
15:48:53
So that brings us to the end of our list of speakers.
To the 29 people who took the floor, thank you very much. And I also understand that our keynote speakers appreciate the debate but do not see any need to reply. Is this correct? Yes, it seems to be correct.
That concludes our very interesting debate on this theme. Thank you all for your contributions. This theme is of direct concern to all of us, as representatives of our people. National parliaments have a key role to play in responding to the crisis of representative democracy and to support emerging models of public participation and deliberation that complement and enrich parliamentary and representative democracy.
Dear colleagues, we shall take a short 10-minute break. That means that we will meet again, let's say at 4:05 p.m. sharp here, before we start the discussion on the second theme of the Conference. So enjoy a short break.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
16:04:47
Dear colleagues,
May I invite you to take your seats? We are going to start again.
So we shall now continue our proceedings with the second theme, which is Artificial Intelligence and the labour market.
To introduce our debate, I have the pleasure to give the floor to Mr Lauri HUSSAR, President of the Riigikogu of Estonia.
He will be followed by Ms Mei Li VOS, President of the Dutch Senate.
I first invite our Estonian colleague, Mr Lauri HUSSAR, President of the Riigikogu, to take the floor.
And sorry for my mispronunciation, please.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Honourable speakers,
Distinguished colleagues,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Let me begin with two films that have shaped our imagination on artificial intelligence.
The first is Stanley KUBRICK’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, with its unforgettable confrontation between a spaceship’s crew and HAL 9000, a supercomputer designed to assist humans, but which ultimately turns against them. The second is A.I. Artificial Intelligence, conceived by Stanley KUBRICK and brought to the screen by Steven SPIELBERG. It tells the story of an artificial being searching for something no machine can guarantee: human love.
Both films raise a fundamental question. What happens when the systems we create no longer behave as we expected? And who is responsible when they fail?
Today, these are no longer questions confined to science fiction. They concern our societies, our labour markets and our democracies. AI is already changing how we work, the skills we need and the way our institutions operate. The fundamental question is not how powerful AI will become, but whether we will remain in control of the direction this transformation takes.
Technological progress has always required rules and responsibility. AI should be no exception. As the speakers of the national parliaments, we have a particular duty to ensure that innovation serves people, protects their rights and strengthens democracy. For Estonia, with its relatively small workforce, ageing population and strong dependence on productivity, AI offers considerable opportunities. But these opportunities will materialise only if technology serves people, rather than people becoming servants of technology.
The question is, therefore, not simply how many jobs AI will replace, but how it will transform professions and whether workers will have the skills to adapt. Estonia brings more than 30 years of experience in digital government to this challenge. We are now moving towards the systematic use of AI across our economy and public sector. In January this year, Estonia launched the "Eesti AI" initiative to increase the value of human work through wider AI adoption, with priorities including education, healthcare and security. The principle is simple. Instead of asking how an algorithm can replace an employee, we should ask how AI can help that employee become more capable.
AI can already support machine translation, speech recognition, fraud detection, personalised learning and public services. Automatic transcription, for example, can reduce repetitive administrative work and give professionals more time for analysis and decision making. The best use of AI is often not to remove the human being from the process, but to remove unnecessary work from the human being.
However, if productivity becomes our only objective, we risk creating workplaces where employees are increasingly monitored, lose autonomy and are assessed by algorithms they cannot understand. This is not inevitable. It depends on the choices we make. Workers must, therefore, be consulted when AI is introduced into the workplace. Employees should not discover after the fact that an algorithm determines their workload, evaluates their performance or influences their career.
The Nordic experience, referred to in the background document, reminds us that participation is not an obstacle to innovation, it makes innovation more responsible, trusted and sustainable.
The second major challenge is skills. In Estonia, 22% of enterprises reported using at least one AI technology in 2025, up from 14% in 2024. This illustrates how quickly AI is entering our economy. AI literacy can no longer be the exclusive domain of technology specialists. Lawyers must verify AI-generated legal analyses, doctors must critically assess AI recommendations and civil servants must protect confidential information. Every worker should understand when and how to challenge an automated decision affecting them. We must preserve our critical and creative thinking. Our role is not to step away from the process, but to remain capable of questioning, directing and correcting it.
Education must begin at school, but it cannot end there. Estonia’s AI Leap initiative is introducing AI tools and literacy into schools, helping teachers and young people prepare for an AI-enabled working life. Lifelong learning is equally important. We cannot tell someone aged 45 or 55 that their profession has changed and that they should have learned AI ten years ago. We must enable people to retrain, develop new skills and adapt before their existing skills become obsolete. We should invest in people before we will have to compensate them for losing their jobs.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Let's return briefly to Stanley KUBRICK and Steven SPIELBERG. Their films remind us that the challenge is not simply to develop intelligent machines, but to take responsibility for the systems we create and to understand what must remain uniquely human. We cannot predict every consequence of AI, but we can decide which principles guide its development and use.
Let us build workplaces together where AI takes over tasks, not human dignity; where technology enhances people's capabilities rather than diminishes their autonomy and where everyone, regardless of age, profession or education, has a genuine opportunity to participate in the AI economy. The future of work will undoubtedly be shaped by artificial intelligence, but the future of people must continue to be shaped by human rights, democracy and the rule of law. And that responsibility belongs to us.
Thank you.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
16:13:19
Thank you very much.
And that's also exactly what our Framework Convention foresees.
But thank you very much for your comprehensive introduction and reminding us that innovation must always come with responsibility and dignity.
It's now my pleasure to give the floor to Ms Mei Li VOS, President of the Dutch Senate.
Thank you dear Chair, dear colleagues, and dear Mr Lauri HUSSAR for your comments.
And thank you also on behalf of my colleague Mr Thom VAN CAMPEN, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Dutch Parliament, for this wonderful welcome here in Rome.
And thank you to the Italian Parliament for organising this meeting.
Dear colleagues,
Before I became a member of parliament, I founded a labour union for young people in the Netherlands. In my view, traditional unions did not have the interests of flexworkers, freelancers and young people in mind. And ever since, my interest, both politically and personally, has focused on developments in the labour market, so I guess that's why they asked me to deliver this speech.
At the time, I was writing a book on the workers’ paradise. And because my mother was an offset printer – yes, my mother did not fit in the traditional role of women at the time –, I was particularly interested in the changes in publishing and printing.
And I read a heartbreaking story about an elderly man who spoke wistfully about his time at a newspaper’s printing works. He produced the newspaper using typesetting machines. And with the arrival of offset printing, his skills and the skills of his mates became redundant. He’d even gone on strike with the printers’ union to try to halt the changes, but he knew full well that it was a lost cause. The innovations could not be stopped. And he still missed his mates from the print shop and the union.
Dear colleagues,
We are all familiar with examples of jobs that have disappeared as a result of innovation, and the new forms of work that have emerged thanks to technology. But the developments of the past five years, especially in AI, have tumbled over one another at dazzling speed.
We must address, as politicians, the implications of these developments for the labour market, as my colleague also mentioned.
So, for me, the main question is: which jobs will disappear and who will benefit from AI?
And I would like to share with you some positive thoughts on the implications and the possibilities of AI for the entire labour market.
We’ve all heard a great deal about the frightening scenarios this summer. We don’t have even the beginnings of an answer to the question of whether and how a "kill switch" might be introduced. But meanwhile, AI is charging ahead, most visibly in the labour market. And to keep that story hopeful, action is needed from politicians. Because, left to their own devices, markets and AI can become monsters. My colleague on the right also mentioned this.
Politicians must set the direction.
After all, they are elected and they can be held to account. Machines cannot. So I think we can have AI improve our lives and societies if we want to, like many innovations did in the past actually. The employee at the printing works I just mentioned, he lost his job. But his job was becoming very dangerous because of the ink. But for carpenters, construction workers and bakers, the inventions have made their work easier and better. No carpenter drills a screw into wood by hand any more, he does it with a machine. Workers in the harbours and construction workers no longer have to ruin their backs due to heavy labour. Bakers let the dough be kneaded in a kneading machine. On top of that, because we are so prosperous, we can even buy bread that is made by hand. Most other bread isn't.
AI can also make work easier in education.
In the Netherlands, I don't know if you know this, membership of the Senate is a part-time job and all our members combine their parliamentary work with professional careers.
And for two days a week, I work as a primary school teacher. My students may be too young to write their own prompts – they are 8 years old –, but my colleagues and I use several applications to our advantage. We use AI to make tailor-made assignments for our students. You can't teach children something new by machines. It's not possible. You can't learn a language by computer, but they can use the devices for practice.
And in that way we have more time, for instance, to invest in children that need extra attention from me as the teacher, if I put the other children to work with a tailor-made AI practice. So we choose to use AI to work for us, so that we have more time for human interaction.
Therefore, whether you work with your head, your hands or both, AI can make the work easier, more efficient and tailored to your needs.
Some jobs will disappear.
AI is currently taking over many cognitive tasks, even creative work, such as writing or composing music. I don't know if you heard AI-composed music, but it does exist already. Simple communication tasks, legal work and administrative work can be carried out by AI.
It is not inconceivable that management and policy work could also be carried out more effectively by AI.
But I don’t see that happening yet for people doing work that only humans can do, for example in healthcare, education, restaurants and cleaning.
Have you had any experience with robot vacuum cleaners? I have. It doesn't work. It takes me just as much time to clean all the bits that the robot didn't use. So that doesn't work. But my message is that the people that can do things that AI cannot do, like offer comfort, make a nice cup of coffee, reach into the corners and onto the shelves. That is work that will not disappear and it might even be rewarded more. It's work that we used to call low-skilled labour, but perhaps in a time of AI, it's not going to be low-skilled.
The value will be that it's human work and we might even, if we want...
I'm trying to cut off some of my text. Where is this wonderful sentence I had? Oh, here I have it.
In the age of AI, low-skilled work stands for human value and we as politicians should promote that and should address that.
So, I think we have work to do and I think if we have capital and labour talking together like we have in the Netherlands, in Austria, in Germany, in Belgium, we can make AI work for us and turn the tables for low-skilled work.
Thank you very much.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
16:21:18
I thank you very much for your very practical insights and also for reminding us that both the value of human work and the human value of work, which is not the same, are necessary to count.
Thank you very much. We will start with the debate now and I remind you that speakers have 5 minutes.
The first on our list is Mr Carles ENSENYAT REIG. He's speaker of the General Council of Andorra. We heard him already in the morning and he will be followed by Lord PONSONBY.
Syndic général du Conseil général, Andorre
16:21:56
Thank you, Madam President.
Ladies and gentlemen,
No technological revolution has ever left human work untouched. Artificial intelligence presents us with a far-reaching change, one that will probably transform the labour market more profoundly than any other technology in several generations. Reducing it to a tool for getting more work done in less time would be a mistake. Artificial intelligence can change what we do, how we do it and the skills we need. If properly guided, it can free up time and create new opportunities. Without sound governance, however, it can deepen inequalities, weaken rights that have taken us decades to secure and make it harder to know who is responsible for a decision.
That is why the Council of Europe has played a leading role. On 17 May 2024, in Strasbourg, the Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law was adopted. It is the first legally binding international treaty in this field.
Andorra took an active part in drafting it and was one of the first states to sign it at the Ministerial Conference in Vilnius on 5 September 2024.
To help put this framework into practice, the Andorran delegation to the Assembly organised a conference in Strasbourg in September 2025 on the Convention and HUDERIA, the Council of Europe's methodology for assessing the risks and impacts of artificial intelligence systems. The shared conviction that emerged was clear: people must always remain at the centre.
Last September, Mr Jordi ASCENSI, a senior adviser on AI, spoke in Andorra at the Conference of Presidents of Parliaments of Small European States. He posed a question that goes beyond parliaments: when a decision is made with the help of artificial intelligence, who is accountable for it?
He explained that, in parliaments, these systems can assist with repetitive, low-risk tasks such as reviewing texts, comparing legislation or summarising documents.
But they do not engage in politics, they generate responses based on what already exists. He therefore stressed three principles: decide when these systems are used, define the tasks entrusted to them and ensure that human responsibility remains meaningful. Anyone who approves a decision must know what they are verifying and be able to answer for it.
This question is even more urgent in the labour market, where workers' rights, collective agreements and social protection are at stake.
Automation no longer affects only the most repetitive jobs, it is also transforming skilled professions and entire sectors. The tasks that make up an occupation are changing, new ones are emerging and the way work is organised is evolving. The challenge is therefore not only to understand which jobs will change, but also how we will support people through this transformation.
No state, large or small, can face alone the challenges artificial intelligence poses to the world of work. We need shared frameworks, such as the Convention we are reaffirming today; practical tools, such as HUDERIA; and forums where parliaments can share experiences and agree on common principles. Small states must make their voices heard so that technology takes our realities into account too. Above all, however, we need the political will to put human dignity ahead of every other interest.
Artificial intelligence can help us work in new ways. But it must not determine the value of anyone's work or dilute responsibility for its consequences. Behind every decision that affects someone's work, there must be someone able to explain it and answer for it.
Progress should not be measured solely by our capacity to innovate, but also by our ability to do so without leaving anyone behind.
Thank you so much.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
16:26:14
Thank you so much.
We now hear Lord PONSONBY. He's Senior Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, followed by Mr Szymon HOŁOWNIA.
Vice-président sénior de la Chambre des lords, Royaume-Uni
16:26:29
Thank you, Madam President.
And I would also like to thank the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for organising this event and the Italian authorities and the Italian Government for their excellent provisions which they have made. It will be a truly memorable event.
In the morning session, my friend Mr Ruslan STEFANCHUK reminded us about the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which founded this Organisation. And, of course, the United Kingdom was one of the founder members of this Organisation. And we are reimagining this Organisation to deal with the challenges which we are now facing. And we heard about the depth of those challenges this morning, with hybrid wars which are on the borders of Europe, and we need to contain them.
This afternoon's debate is about AI and how that affects our work and how it affects employment. And I wanted to give two specific examples, one from the House of Lords and one beyond.
In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, just a couple of days ago, one of our members, Baroness CAMPBELL of Surbiton, gave a speech. The speech was generated by AI. Jane CAMPBELL is severely disabled. She's in a wheelchair, she needs a constant supply of oxygen and it tires her to speak for too long. So the AI used previous speeches of hers to put her own words together so it could speak to the House. And she contributed to the Bill, the Health Bill, which was being debated two days ago.
It was an innovation. As far as I know, it's the first time this has been done. But as one of her friends said to me yesterday, it was very nice to hear her voice, fresh and young, giving an impassioned plea to the health matters which she was dealing with. So there is an example of the House of Lords using new innovation.
The second example I wanted to give was to quote from an essay by Mr Bill GATES, the entrepreneur and Microsoft inventor. He gave a very moving example of when his father was dying. His father was dying in a home. He was well looked after by assistants and nurses. And there came a time when one of the assistants came to him and said, your father is going to die in the next few hours. It was completely appropriate. His father died. It was absolutely fine.
But the point that Mr Bill GATES made is it would be morally wrong for AI to give him that message. AI could have given him that message, but it was decided that it was a human that needs to do that. And the point that Mr Bill GATES made is we need to decide now what are the moral limits of what AI should be involved with. And we need to think about that, and we need to decide it early, otherwise we will find ourselves retreating and losing some of the empathy and skills which we all have as human beings.
In the House of Lords, we use AI in many different ways. I'm sure you all do in your parliaments as well. I'm also active in the court system within the UK. I sit as a low-level judge called a magistrate, and we use AI in the courts as well. However, what we do say is that anything a human produces, he or she is responsible for what they produce.
So, Madam President, when you opened the session, you asked us to write a letter to ourselves about what we are going to do. And my letter to myself will be to maximise the use of the institutions we have now to address this very profound issue which affects us all.
Thank you.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
16:31:00
Thanks a lot.
We now hear Mr Szymon HOŁOWNIA, he is Vice-Marshal of the Sejm of Poland, followed by Ms Sylvie VERMEILLET.
Vice-Président de la Diète, Pologne
16:31:15
Madam President,
Dear colleagues,
When we speak about AI, of course it's very tempting to go into these academic debates on singularity or when it will be the moment when the robots who are now like five or ten years behind the pace of development of artificial intelligence, will catch up with AI agents.
But here, of course, there is one more ultimate question: who will change the diapers for the programmers and AI operators eventually, during the last phases of their lives, if the whole world will be AI-generated or managed?
But right now, right here, we have our own responsibilities. We are accustomed with it in Poland as well. We are developing the institutional readiness of our state to face these challenges. But there are still a lot of processes at the table. The first is one of the most important: to promote upskilling and reskilling amongst workers, to show people that it is something natural, to build up new competencies, new capabilities in this changing world. Because change is not always something bad. It's much more a mental thing we should promote and we should show people profits of these processes.
The second thing is that, of course, all the changes in the labour market caused by AI should be transparent. It shouldn't be like the quiet wave of redundancies and we will wake up to notice that something is happening after 10 years or 20 years, and it will be too late, because we will have this or the other kind of revolution. So we have to be open, we have to be transparent, we have to share all the information we have with the people. We should be in it together.
The third thing is, of course, to do our job as legislators, to adopt AI acts in our countries, to decide when is the proper moment for our kids to be exposed to AI tools. Should it be, as it was said, in elementary school? Or maybe we should limit it a little bit and make it possible in our process of education in the higher education, in the high schools? How could we operationalise it? This is a very important question.
And as for the parliaments, Lord PONSONBY who spoke before me mentioned an amazing example of good use of AI during our parliamentary work. But I'm a chairing marshal, you are chairing speakers, you know that right now a big number of speeches of our parliamentarians are already AI-generated. They are reading it with their own voices, they are signing it, but they are AI-generated.
Should there be kind of a filter to it? Should we make it like on the internet, that there should be a disclaimer that this speech was not AI-generated and you can trust that it was my own work when I'm trying to fulfil the mandate you gave me?
And the last thing, I think that we should change our mental state. We are so defensive, we are so reactive when it comes to debates on the role of Europe in this whole AI race. Hey guys, we have ASML in the Netherlands. It's one of the most important company in the world when it comes to AI chips because it's the mother company which produces the machines to produce chips for AI. And we can control it.
So we have our safeguards, we have possibilities. The thing is that we should raise our heads up and really be in this process, proud and ready for the things to come.
Thank you so much.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
16:36:11
Thank you very much.
Next is Ms Sylvie VERMEILLET. She is Vice-President of the French Senate and will be followed by Ms Þórunn SVEINBJARNARDÓTTIR.
Vice-Présidente du Sénat, France
16:36:31
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My dear colleagues,
Artificial intelligence is transforming the world of work. According to the International Monetary Fund, 60% of jobs in advanced economies are affected.
We must support this transformation through training. We must also set a clear limit. AI can assist an employer with recruitment, organising work or assessing skills, but it must not be the sole decision maker regarding an employee’s recruitment, career or dismissal. A decision that affects a person's life must remain comprehensible, open to challenge and taken by a human being.
The legal profession is undergoing the same revolution. AI helps to analyse contracts, search for case law and draft legal documents. But it cannot replace a lawyer's reasoning or a judge's judgment. Speed does not guarantee accuracy or nuance.
And what about us, as parliamentarians? We, too, are involved in shaping the law. Why not apply to our own work the principles we wish to see upheld in the world of work?
In the French Senate, we have chosen not to view AI solely as a risk to be regulated, but also as a tool for better lawmaking. Our departments use a tool that helps to categorise amendments, group together those that are identical and identify those that amend the same provisions. This is a particularly valuable tool when several thousand amendments need to be examined and that number continues to rise during the finance bills, for example. The classification is still checked, amendment by amendment, by our civil servants. We also have a legislative assistant who facilitates the preparation of amendments and checks, for example, that the provision in question is indeed in force. Other tools help to transcribe or rephrase our debates in order to draw up the minutes.
In future, we could go further: assessing the financial implications of each amendment, carrying out these assessments ourselves, identifying inconsistencies between provisions, measuring the impact of a change on existing law, comparing European legislation and making better use of the information gathered to scrutinise public policy. That is the aim: to spend less time on repetitive tasks, and more on listening, analysing and debating.
But unregulated use can also disrupt our institutions. Our Italian hosts are well aware of this. In 2015, an Italian senator tabled more than 82 million amendments – generated by software – on a constitutional reform. Imagine what the latest technologies will make possible in the future. The freedom to table amendments must be protected, but it must not become a means of paralysing debate through automated submissions. That is why, following work I led, the French Senate has enshrined in its rules of procedure a ban on tabling amendments via an automated system. It has also adopted a charter governing the use of AI within its administration, based on transparency, protection and human oversight.
Our approach is in line with the spirit of the Council of Europe’s work: to use innovation in the service of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Let us therefore ensure that artificial intelligence is not an intelligence that replaces us, but one that serves us, to strengthen parliamentary work and, with it, our democracies.
Thank you.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
16:41:12
Thank you.
I now call to Ms Þórunn SVEINBJARNARDÓTTIR. She is speaker of the Althing from Iceland.
Présidente de l'Althing, Islande
16:41:27
Thank you, Madam President.
Dear colleagues,
I am grateful to the Italian Parliament for welcoming us here. And it is a good thing that we are here in Italy, where the European Convention on Human Rights was signed in 1950. The Convention protects the right to form and join trade unions, which makes Rome a fitting place for this debate. When Pope Leo XIV chose his name last year, he took up the name from Leo XIII, who addressed the social questions that arose during the first industrial revolution. Pope Leo has, again, raised these questions for the age of artificial intelligence, insisting that technology must serve humanity rather than concentrate power.
As we all know, this revolution is changing how we work faster than any technology before it in history. Yet many decisions that will shape working life for decades are taken far from parliaments and citizens, and by a handful of companies and to tell the truth, by a handful of men. When a public authority or an employer adopts AI systems, it is often treated as a simple purchase. In reality, it sets the terms of how people work, how they are assessed and what is remembered about them, and once in place, such systems are hard to change. Our task as parliaments is to bring democratic judgement into these choices before they are made for us.
The Parliamentary Assembly has shown us in Resolution 2680, adopted earlier this month. It called for workers and their representatives to be involved before AI systems that significantly affect them are introduced, including assessing the risks of discrimination and how decisions can be challenged. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has found that where workers are consulted in advance, algorithmic management does not undermine autonomy, trust or job satisfaction.
But we must also ask a larger question. What kind of working life are we building, and for whom? In Icelandic, we say that work gives life dignity and purpose. And we should keep that in mind for all of us. The routine office work that AI is now performing has often been the entry jobs for young people into the labour market. If that entry disappears, we have to create new ones and we must equip young people with AI literacy, so that they learn not only to use AI, but also to question it.
At the same time, some work will not disappear, as has been mentioned here by other speakers. Healthcare, care for the elderly and for the disabled are sectors least exposed to automation. The human work is needed. And as our populations age, the need for them will only grow. In many of our countries, including Iceland, a growing share of this work is done by people who have come from other countries. Their contribution is too rarely valued and they are too often met with suspicion rather than recognition. The Assembly also warned that migrants face particular risks of discrimination when AI is used in recruitment or in decisions on work permits.
If machines take over much of the routine work and our populations grow older, who will care for us? We need to think about that today. And we need to make sure that it's not the technology that decides the future, but we who decide what kind of jobs we want to create and what kind of social dialogue we need to create and invest in for a fair sharing and the productivity of gains and values from this work.
Many of these choices are still open to us. Let's make sure that these decisions are made democratically, so that the technology serves the people and not the other way around.
Thank you.
Présidente de l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe
16:46:22
Now Mr Gian Carlo VENTURINI will take the floor. He's Vice-President of the Parliament from San Marino and he will be followed by Mr Carmelo ABELA.
Vice-Président du Parlement, Saint-Marin
16:46:37
Madam President,
Dear colleagues,
I would first of all like to thank the Italian Parliament for its hospitality and the Council of Europe for this important opportunity to discuss a topic said to have a profound impact on the future of our society.
Artificial intelligence represents one of the most significant transformations of our time, a transformation that is already changing the way we produce, work, communicate and more generally live our lives. We are faced with extraordinary opportunities that can help to boost productivity, improve services, support research and foster new prospects for economic and social development.
However, alongside these opportunities, questions are emerging that politicians and democratic institutions cannot ignore. What will the future of work look like? Which professions will change or disappear? How can we ensure that the benefits of this technological revolution are distributed fairly and don't become a further factor in inequality? I believe that the real challenge isn't merely to support innovation, but above all to manage it, so that technological progress goes hand in hand with genuine human progress.
For the Republic of San Marino, a small state with a long tradition of independence and an economic system characterised predominantly by small- and medium-sized enterprises, this challenge takes on particular significance. Our size allows us to maintain a direct relationship between institutions, businesses and workers, but it also makes us particularly sensitive to the economic and technological changes taking place beyond our borders. Artificial intelligence can be a valuable tool for strengthening the competitiveness of our businesses, improving the efficiency of public administration and creating new opportunities for skilled employment. At the same time, we must ensure that this transformation does not widen the gap between businesses that have the resources to innovate and those that risk being left behind, as well as between workers who possess new skills and those who may find it harder to adapt.
That is why I consider it essential to invest in lifelong learning, professional development, and above all, in the younger generations. We cannot ask workers to face such a profound transformation on their own. The institutions must support them, creating the conditions to ensure that no one is excluded from the opportunities offered by new technologies. In this context, I find the words of Pope Leo XIV particularly significant. He placed at the heart of his reflection on new technologies, the dignity of the human person, and the need for artificial intelligence to remain at the service of humankind.
It's a call with which I agree and which I believe must also directly challenge our political responsibility. Work is not merely a source of income, but rather it represents a fundamental aspect of the individual's fulfilment, their dignity and their participation in community life. We cannot measure the success of innovation solely in terms of increased productivity or reduced costs. We must also measure it in terms of the quality of work and the opportunities offered to young people and the ability to guarantee security and dignity for families.
Technological progress cannot be considered as such if it produces new forms of exclusion or reduces the individual to a mere cog in the production process. On the contrary, artificial intelligence must help us to free up resources, enhance human capabilities and build up an economy that is not only more efficient, but also fairer and more inclusive. In this endeavour, parliaments bear fundamental responsibility. Politics cannot merely play catch-up with technological change, but must have the capacity to anticipate and manage it. We cannot allow market forces or technological developments alone to determine the future of work and with it the social balance of our societies.
It is up to us to strike a balance between the freedom to innovate and the need to safeguard rights, between the competitiveness requirements of businesses and the protection of workers. We must promote clear rules, support training and education, foster dialogue between the social partners and ensure that decisions affecting people's lives are always underpinned by human responsibility.
No state can tackle these challenges in isolation. For San Marino, international co-operation and engagement with the European institutions are essential tools for participating in this transformation, helping to define shared principles and benefiting from the experiences of other countries. The Council of Europe can play an important role in ensuring that the development of AI remains anchored to the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
I would like to conclude with a reflection that also stems from the experience of our Republic. San Marino has come through the centuries preserving its identities and its institutions, but has also been able to adapt to the changes of history. Today, we're called upon to demonstrate the same ability to look to the future without sacrificing the values that have guided us. We must not be afraid of innovation, but we must have the responsibility and the courage to steer it. For the future of work cannot be determined solely by algorithms or by market forces, but must remain the result of informed choices in which the individual, their dignity and the common good always take precedence.
The real challenge will not be to build ever more intelligent machines, but to prove that we are a society capable of putting them at the service of our citizens to improve everyone's quality of life.
Thank you.
Présidente de la Chambre des représentants, Chypre
16:52:27
Thank you so much, Mr Gian Carlo VENTURINI. Thank you, San Marino.
And move ahead to Mr Carmelo ABELA from Malta, please, for 5 minutes precisely. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
I wish to thank both keynote speakers for their remarks.
Artificial intelligence is already transforming the way we work, produce and communicate. This is already a reality. The question before us is no longer whether AI will change our labour markets, it is how we ensure that this transformation creates opportunity without leaving people behind.
AI has enormous potential. I think there is consensus among us here today that we need to manage it and the issue of governance of AI. It can increase productivity, support innovation, improve public services and create new forms of employment. For Europe, it can also help address some of the structural challenges facing our economies, including demographic change and skills shortages. But technological progress does not automatically translate into social progress. The transition will inevitably affect jobs and professions, with some tasks being automated, others transformed, and entirely new occupations emerging. Our responsibility as legislators is to ensure that workers are equipped to navigate this transition with confidence rather than fear. This requires investment in lifelong learning and reskilling.
So, we'll have to look at education in a different way; not just the formal education process, but education in lifelong learning, especially for certain ages and certain types of work.
We must also pay particular attention to young people entering the labour market and to workers whose occupations are most exposed to technological disruption. At the same time, we must ensure that AI remains human-centred in the workplace, that important decisions about human beings are taken by human beings and not by automated systems. This can apply to a number of workplaces. And I listened to our colleague with attention, when he mentioned examples of how parliaments can also do certain work in this regard as well.
Madam Chairperson,
The rights and dignity of workers must remain at the centre of the digital transition.
This is also an area where parliaments have a crucial role. We must establish the appropriate legal framework, but we must avoid legislating technology according to today's understanding of it. Our regulatory systems need to be sufficiently robust to protect fundamental rights, while sufficiently flexible to accommodate innovation.
Ultimately, the debate about AI and employment should not be reduced to a choice between technology and jobs. The real objective should be to build labour markets in which technology works for people.
If we invest in skills, protect workers' rights, encourage responsible innovation and ensure that the benefits of increased productivity are broadly shared, AI can become not merely a force of disruption, but an instrument of greater prosperity. I conclude by saying that the transition will require political courage, social dialogue and European co-operation.
Therefore, our responsibility is to ensure that nobody is asked to choose between technological progress and human dignity.
Thank you.
Présidente de la Chambre des représentants, Chypre
16:56:40
Thank you, thank you so much.
And act responsively and collectively: let's keep that very important message. And thank you so much for keeping the time.
So we're moving ahead to Mr Martin HOJSÍK, Vice-President of the European Parliament. Apologies if I didn't pronounce that correctly.
Yes, there you are.
Vice-Président du Parlement européen
16:57:05
It was almost correct. Thank you.
Présidente de la Chambre des représentants, Chypre
16:57:07
You have the floor for 5 minutes precisely. Thank you.
Vice-Président du Parlement européen
16:57:11
Or less... Thank you.
Présidente de la Chambre des représentants, Chypre
16:57:13
Less is better, thank you.
Vice-Président du Parlement européen
16:57:16
Always, almost.
Distinguished Presidents,
Dear colleagues,
Honestly, this is one very important part of the debate about AI. But we also have to recognise the interconnection that we have because yes, AI is a major part of the previous topic, the whole disinformation, hybrid attacks. AI is challenging our democratic governance. AI is a very broad, cross-cutting topic. And let's not forget it when talking about the specific impact on employment.
Why I'm mentioning it is that the advances in generative AI, the stuff that we see now, are really fast and are basically in a matter of few months when another model is coming out. And this is what we are starting to see, the damage to the white collar workforce, damage to the junior positions which are being hired less and less. But how can one become senior without getting the experience and gaining the skills of being a junior? This is the question that the young generation, current university students like my son, are facing daily. What is going to be their future in the workforce?
And yes, we have been too slow to adapt our educational system. We are still too slow to react to these massive challenges in the workforce, because it's not only about gaining the experience, it's about who owns the knowledge. What we have to be aware of is that we are becoming dependent on a handful of corporations who own the models, who are therefore going to control the knowledge that, in a number of our sectors, is crucial. And yet, despite the bleak outlook, in some ways there is a lot of potential in utilising AI. Yes, a number of repetitive tasks can be performed by AI. There are workflows that can be simplified, where, you know, AI can bring really beneficial results for society.
As Europe, I think we really need to look at it from a perspective of a continent that's been lagging behind. We are lacking our own models, we are lacking, you know, the models built on our values, not, on one side, the American corporate centring model, and on the other side, the state-party-focused Chinese models. And I think this is going to be also very important given what I said about the ownership of knowledge and data. And I think this is where we will have to catch up.
We have legislated, yes, that's what we do. But I think we have to be also much better in enforcement, in action, because one of the things that we are facing when it comes to the workforce is a massive change as regards to AI when it compares to the previous changes. Before, development was affecting affecting manual skills. I don't know how to fix a horseshoe and I don't think most of us do. But the current changes are really about replacing cognitive functions, they are about the analytical skills that we have, the abilities we have as humans.
When I let AI do the analysis for me and present the solutions and I don't do the analytical work myself and I don't do it repeatedly, I'm starting to lose some of the cognitive actions, skills that I have as a human. And I think this is one of the threats, one of the threats that we need to address in our work: how do we build the educational system, the whole workforce system in a way that we don't lose the cognitive functions as humans and leave them to the machines?
At the end of the day, it's really going to be down to a very simple thing: will AI be just like fire? Will AI be the good servant or the nasty master?
Thank you.
Présidente de la Chambre des représentants, Chypre
17:01:34
Thank you so much. It is a challenge. Let's see if we will move more quickly than we were acting for the moment.
Let's move ahead now to Mr Vincent BLONDEL, the President of the Senate of Belgium.
There you are. For 5 minutes please.
Madam Chairperson,
Dear colleagues and ladies and gentlemen,
I am a mathematician and a former university professor. A few weeks ago, one of my former students, now a professor at Princeton in the US gave me quite a shock. He told me that a mathematical problem on which I had personally spent many months working without success, had been solved using a simple prompt submitted to ChatGPT.
A few days later, on 6 October, OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, published more than 700 scientific manuscripts announcing solutions to numerous longstanding open problems in mathematics. These included 16 problems on which Mr Hugo DUMINIL COPIN, a French winner of the 2022 Fields Medal, the Nobel Prize in Mathematics, had been working. "They have annihilated my field of research", he declared.
For many researchers, this event marks a turning point, perhaps one of the most significant moments in the history of mathematics. That was two weeks ago. I have devoted much of my life to mathematical research. Research meant asking a question to which nobody knew the answer, exploring different approaches, making mistakes, starting again, and sometimes after weeks, months, or years, understanding, finally something that nobody had understood before, and then sharing the discovery.
What becomes of this experience when problems that have resisted solutions for years can be solved in just a few minutes by artificial intelligence? What happens to our relationship with work when skills that have taken us years to develop can be replicated by a machine in a matter of seconds? Because mathematicians are not the only ones affected, we know that the artificial intelligence revolution is already transforming the work of programmers, translators, journalists, lawyers, accountants, and many other professionals. No mathematician ever thought that the discipline would be transformed as early as in 2026. It is directly affecting activities we once believed were the exclusive preserve of human intelligence.
And what makes this revolution particularly difficult to manage is its speed. Technological change is now advancing at a pace that our education system, legislation and social protection mechanisms struggle to keep up with. Yet it is our responsibility to ensure that technological progress continues to serve human dignity, fundamental rights and social justice. And I'm very pleased that in the previous speaker's talk, I heard the word dignity in the talks from Estonia, from Andorra, from Iceland, from Malta and from many others.
AI offers tremendous opportunities. It can increase productivity, support workers, facilitate access to knowledge and create new forms of employment. It can also take over certain repetitive or dangerous tasks, allowing workers to focus more on activities that require creativity, judgment, empathy and human interaction. But this transformation also raises important questions. AI can play a role in recruitment, task allocation, performance assessment and decisions that affect peoples' careers. AI can reproduce or even amplify discrimination. Automated AI decisions can be difficult to understand and challenge. AI can also increase workspace surveillance and intensify workloads, potentially blurring the boundary between professional and private life.
Workers must not become invisible behind algorithms: our parliaments should not be the place where we react to technological changes. There are places where our societies debate and decide what kind of future they wish to build. We must establish a legal framework that protects rights, scrutinises the use of AI by public authorities, listens to those affected and ensures that citizens remain actively involved in the debate.
Artificial intelligence may profoundly transform the way we work, but it must not change our fundamental understanding of the purpose of work. To enable everyone to live with dignity – and I'm not sure that was the case of my Fields Medal prizewinner – to participate in society and contribute to their community. The future of work may be shaped by technology, but the values that guide it must remain human.
Thank you.
Présidente de la Chambre des représentants, Chypre
17:07:25
Thank you so much. Let's see if we can solve that mathematical exercise, because we are already in front of a very peculiar and difficult puzzle we need to sort out.
And last but not least, Ms Yaël BRAUN-PIVET, President of the National Assembly of France. You too have the floor.
Présidente de l'Assemblée nationale, France
17:07:51
Dear colleagues,
I shall devote my speech to the 120 million young Europeans, as they are on the front line of this disruption.
A study published last week by the Banque de France has confirmed this concern: since 2022, recruitment of 21–29-year-olds has fallen by 28.3% in the occupations most exposed to artificial intelligence, compared with 7.5% in those least exposed.
Yet, at the same time, a quarter of 18–24-year-olds still lack basic digital skills. This is the challenge we face. In addressing it, I shall be neither a techno-optimist nor a techno-pessimist. I shall remain a techno-realist, offering a balanced perspective.
Studies by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) are clear: whilst one in three jobs is at risk, these occupations will be transformed – or even enhanced – far more than they will be lost.
This is the essence of the resolution adopted by our Joint Assembly: "Technology alone does not determine whether AI will lead to job losses or job creation." It is our policy choices, particularly regarding training, that will make the difference.
So, in the face of this urgent challenge, I see several clear priorities.
The first: to make proficiency in artificial intelligence a fundamental part of pupils' knowledge by the end of secondary education. France has already begun to take steps in this direction. From the start of the 2027 school year, 15-year-old French secondary school pupils will receive a dedicated lesson on artificial intelligence, amounting to one hour per week.
Beyond initial training, we must also strengthen continuing professional development. That is why France has launched the "Impulsion IA 2027" plan to train three target groups: young people, jobseekers and employees of small and medium-sized enterprises.
The second priority is to review and adapt all our training programmes to the realities of the labour market. With artificial intelligence, 39% of the skills required will have changed by 2030, just four years away!
We must therefore revise our university curricula without delay, and do so on a regular basis. Some countries have already embarked on this path, such as China, which has just abruptly scrapped 12 000 degree programmes whilst simultaneously launching 10 000 new ones.
Our approach is obviously different, but our responsibility remains the same: to prepare our young people for the labour market they will face, not the one of yesterday. This means developing our range of courses, breaking down barriers between disciplines, creating pathways and, where necessary, combining different programmes. We must also build this transformation collectively, together with universities, teachers, students, businesses and social partners.
Finally, our third priority must be to reconcile innovation, social dialogue and the protection of workers' fundamental rights.
AI does indeed raise real issues: algorithmic surveillance, automated recruitment, the protection of personal data… These issues must be the subject of a genuine European social dialogue and concrete obligations.
This is the purpose of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence. It sets out standards regarding human oversight, accountability and transparency. Article 10 also requires, in particular, respect for gender equality – an absolute necessity in the face of gender bias in language models.
So, my dear colleagues,
As Presidents of Parliaments, it is our political responsibility to take action. To act on behalf of our 120 million young people. To act to give them the confidence, skills and freedom to take their place in the world to come. To act to ensure that technological progress remains social and human progress.
Présidente de la Chambre des représentants, Chypre
17:12:05
Thank you so much.
Let's act. Let's keep that and imagine listening to those numbers. I'm thinking how exposed they are – our children – to threats, to populism, to propaganda. This is why I believe it's so important for this thematic to be proceeded to a legislative framework. But the specialists who end up with the conclusions are two main keynote speakers.
And I'm passing right through the floor to Mr Lauri HUSSAR for 3 minutes for your final remarks. You too have the floor.
And thank you for all of your remarks. I think we reached the second level here, as we are talking about how we see AI, how we should manage AI and how we will live together with AI.
And I think one of my takeaways from the discussions today is that we can't leave human life to machines, but we can make the decisions which will take our existence to a new level using technology and AI possibilities.
And I think this is what innovation also is: we really have to focus on this, which allows us to develop in a way that lets us give the stupid work to robots and machines and lets us educate our people to do the smart work, and really build it in a way where people can do the job they really want and which really gives them a possibility to develop not only themselves, but the whole society.
So, therefore, there is a huge potential in AI. There are a lot of threats; we have to admit it. But I think it's never too late to focus not only on the threats, but also on the challenges. And there are a lot of challenges we are facing. What we are facing with AI today is probably one of the biggest changes in our information and digital world.
Présidente de la Chambre des représentants, Chypre
17:15:23
Thank you, President. Thank you, Mr Lauri HUSSAR.
Now I will pass the floor to Ms Mei Li VOS for exactly 3 minutes for your final remarks.
Well, thank you so much.
As with this morning, I found that many of us have the same analysis and we have the same calls to action. And I think we are still kind of feeling around in the dark because we all say, "Well, we need to protect workers' rights", but what if you don't have work anymore? You also don't have workers' rights.
I'm think about the comment made by my French colleague about how one-third of jobs are in danger. So it's not just about reskilling workers, because I was listening to my Belgian colleague, and as a mathematician, his job will become redundant because all the accounting work is done by AI. And it's not only mathematicians: it's people who write prompts, it's people who programme, it's policy makers. Because if we want something, we can ask ChatGPT to make the policy, to write the things. It's bank employees, it's compliance officers. So many jobs that we are trained for, that we went to university for, are going to become redundant. And if we then say we must retrain and reskill people, to what?
And I was thinking of Mr John MAYNARD KEYNES, because I think 100 years ago he thought that, with the technological developments, he thought that maybe there would come a time that only with 15 hours of work a week we could pay our rent and pay for food, etc., because that was what innovation would bring us. And I think we must get back to Mr John MAYNARD KEYNES, because it might be that AI is indeed doing a lot of work that we are doing now – the repetitive work, but also the headwork – but not, as I mentioned and as the member of the UK mentioned with his example of Mr Bill GATES – the human work cannot and will not and we don't want to be replaced. There's no market, that won't happen.
So we must reskill. But maybe we must reskill not to become smarter, but reskill to become more human. I have reskilled to become a teacher and I teach children. I was university-trained, and it's a lot of joy to work with my hands and to work with people. So if we think about reskilling, think of doing work that maybe the nurse of Mr Bill GATES's father was doing.
And we also must rethink the way we think about work. If Mr John MAYNARD KEYNES is right, maybe we must think about a basic income, if we don't have to work that hard anymore. And so, all the old discussions that we used to have when I was in the labour union, and the discussion that Mr John MAYNARD KEYNES started, I think that is work for us to do and makes all the things that we said today more concrete.
So thank you very much, and I'm still very hopeful. Thank you.
Présidente de la Chambre des représentants, Chypre
17:18:47
Allow me just to say thank you so much, to both presidents and to all of you who participated. At the end of the day, dear colleagues, we are the elected ones, responsible for moving things ahead in a wise, appropriate way, in accordance with our principles.
The truth is that the legal framework is not enough or sufficient, and this is where we need to act, my dear friends.
So thank you all. This closes our second session for today. We will resume our discussions tomorrow on the third theme of this Conference: Renewing the rules-based international order: the role of parliaments in addressing and responding to contemporary crises.
And we are looking forward to an inspiring debate. I remind you all that we are cordially invited to a dinner reception offered by our hosts to be held in the Palazzo Venezia, if I said that correctly. We need to be there at 7 p.m., and it's already almost 6 p.m., so we should hurry up. We wish you an enjoyable evening and see you all tomorrow.
Thank you.