Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
LIBE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsCristina Guarda
We know how difficult it is. This is not just a procedural step. It's a very clear step of civil mobilization and citizen participation, seeing the number of people involved in this issue. The citizens' initiative is one of the key features of participative democracy across Europe. It allows citizens to send proposals to the commission and ask them to respond when it comes to areas settled under Union competency.
So, it enhances the link between the institutions and citizens, and it means that the EU has to be more conscious and aware of citizens' desires. Today is an important step in this procedure because it ensures that citizens' voices will be heard within the institutional framework. This citizens' initiative, Ban on Conversion Practices, means that the signatories of the petition will ask the Commission to look at legislation or acts to ban conversion therapy based on a person's sexuality or gender identity. It also means that we have to look at possible legislative tools, as well as legislation on equality, and strengthening recourse for victims. Any action that's taken at the European level will have to be looked at in view of subsidiarity and proportionality.
The Petitions Committee regularly receives petitions on fundamental rights, nondiscrimination, and the protection of LGBTQ+ people. The significant number of signatories to this initiative shows how issues of dignity and equality are so important to many European citizens, and these should be discussed in a dignified and attentive manner. I'd like to thank all of the participants for the correct term with which they will participate in all the contributions they are going to make today. And now, on behalf of the Commissioner for Equality and Crisis Management, Heja Lapib, I'll give the floor to her representative. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, honorable chairs, honorable members, and also dear organizers of the Citizens' Initiative. Let me, first of all, apologize, Commissioner Labib. She has unfortunately been called by the president of the commission, Ursula, on the line for the extraordinary meeting of the security council due to the events in the Middle East. But I hope to be able to deliver the message that has been prepared for her. So I'm, in a way, also using her words because she wanted to warmly thank and congratulate everyone who organized and supported this initiative.
Because, as has already been said, you gathered over 1,000,000 statements of support across the European Union, and reaching this required threshold in 11 member states is really something. This is already a big achievement on its own. And by bringing this initiative forward, you have also shone a light on conversion practices, those that really harm the course. Addressing this is a clear priority in our LGBTIQ+ equality strategy for the next 5 years, which we adopted in October. But you have also shown the power of the European Citizens' Initiative itself because it is a really unique tool.
It allows people to put the issue they care about directly on the European agenda, to start a debate and to ensure institutions respond. Successful European citizen initiatives have already triggered public debate and a number of actions. They have also prompted legislation such as the revised Drinking Water Directive and the Regulation on Transparency and Sustainability of the European Union Risk Assessment in the Food Chain. And very recently, they also prompted funding for safe abortion. When an initiative reaches the required support, the commission has six months within which to decide what action, if any, it will take.
An initiative like yours reflects the voices of many people across our European Union. And when we assess how to respond, we must look carefully at all the interests and viewpoints. And this is why today matters so much to us. Our assessment is ongoing within the scope set out when the initiative was registered in January 2024, and also within the European Union competencies. And we have not yet taken a position.
Today is about listening carefully to you and also to the debate. Honourable Chair, honorable members, the organizers, the World Health Organization removed homosexuality and the so-called gender identity disorder from its classification of diseases. There is nothing to cure. Conversion practices are based on the false idea that LGBTIQ+ people are somehow sick. They are not.
These practices cause real harm. They can lead to deep psychological trauma. They can cause physical damage. And, above all, they attack a person's dignity. One in four LGBTIQ+ people and almost half of transgender people report having been subjected to these practices.
Many have faced violence, abuse, and humiliation. In the commission lobby permission letter, President von der Leyen entrusted her with combating these practices. She takes this responsibility very seriously. In our LGBTIQ+ strategy, we announced a study to better understand the scale and impact of conversion practices. That study was already launched last month because we need facts.
We need clarity, and we need to base our actions on evidence. We are also stepping up coordination. We will use our expert group on LGBTIQ+ equality, bringing together member states and the Commission to support dialogue and cooperation. In April, the commission organized a dedicated discussion on conversion practices with representatives from member states, civil society organizations, academics, and other stakeholders. On that occasion, Belgium's authorities presented their legislation banning it.
Previously, we invited Spain and Malta to present their member states' legislations. We will listen closely to civil society experts, and above all, to those directly affected. As we develop our approach to combating conversion practices, we will take this citizens' initiative into account. As set out in our LGBTIQ+ strategy, we will consider the most effective way forward. The European Union has the power to adopt incentive measures designed to protect and improve human health.
At the same time, we must respect member states' responsibilities for drawing up their own health policies. We will consider how we can support member states, who play a crucial role in preventing and banning these practices. Eight member states have already done so; that shows change is possible. I count on your continued support to protect people from practices that harm, stigmatize, and demonize them. Dear organizers, today is an important milestone for your initiative.
Other institutions and stakeholders, we hear directly from you. You will be better understood in your initiative. Sorry. We will better understand your initiative, and also, you will share its use. I'm here to listen, and I'm looking forward to an open and thoughtful discussion. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, miss. We'll hear from the organizers about their initiative, including the reasons and objectives behind it. First, I will give the floor to Mr. Stocco on behalf of ACT Against Conversion Therapy for five minutes. Mister Stocco, the floor is yours.
Speaker 5
Honorable Chairs, honorable members of the European Parliament, thank you for being here. My name is Francisco Stocco. I am co-president of ACT and the Italian representative of the European Citizens' Initiative to ban conversion practices. I'm here with my co-president, Matteo Garilo. Garilo.
Today, we are in this room to talk about our campaign against conversion practices, our campaign which gathered 1,100,000 statements of support. It is an honor to be heard by you, and it warms my heart to know that all across the EU, our representatives are listening to citizens and working for a more equal European Union. Firstly, I believe it is important to define what conversion practices are to avoid any kind of confusion. We consider conversion practices to be all interventions in changing, repressing, or suppressing the sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression of LGBTI+ people. To give you a concrete example, I identify as a gay man, and conversion practices would be any attempt to make me heterosexual or present in a less gay manner, whatever that means.
These practices usually fall under one of three categories. Commercial practices can be societal. They can be pushed by parents and friends. Okay. They can be pushed by parents.
They can be pushed by friends or relatives. It is verbal and physical abuse in these cases. Conversion practices can sometimes be medical. So, pseudo-psychotherapy, which is based on no actual medical facts or forced injections of hormones, for example, to make men more manly. They can also be faith-related, and this happens in both mainstream and smaller religious groups.
It's praying the gateway, the usual phrase. It can be group talk or, in some more extreme cases, as we will see, exorcisms. Let me be clear. These are barbaric attempts to deny LGBTI+ people our fundamental rights. The UN considers conversion practices torture because this is the issue at hand today: torture.
Since 1990, homosexuality has been removed from the WHO's list of illnesses. In 2019, trans identity was also removed from this very same list. Conversion practices are based on the misguided idea that there is something wrong with us, something to be fixed. This is not true. There is nothing to cure.
This should not be a divisive issue. We're talking about basic human rights and human dignity. Currently, conversion practices are banned in eight countries and in member states to varying degrees. We do not think this is enough, but the situation is changing, and we hope that the European Parliament can be part of this positive push. Just last month, the Council of Europe adopted a resolution asking for a ban on conversion practices.
And just like last week, the European Economic and Social Committee in the SOX section unanimously adopted a positive draft own-initiative opinion on RECI. In December, we had the honor to speak to Commissioner Labib about RECI and what 1,100,000 citizens want, and we hope that our request will be heard. Today, we hope that we can answer all of your questions and work together. Before starting, we have a statement from our friend Benoit Bert, who is a spokesperson for a French organization you might have heard of, Nothing to Cure. He is connecting from the US, and he woke up very early to tell us his story. So, I will leave the floor to him.
It is remotely connected.
Javier Zarzalejos
Yeah. I know. Yeah. I know. Thank you, Mr. Stockton.
Now we have, I'll give the floor to Mr. Bert Seward on behalf of ACT Against Conversion Therapy and to the organization Rian Hagarir, who will intervene remotely for five minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Seward. Can you see us, and can you hear us?
Javier Zarzalejos
Well, yes. Welcome to the session. We can hear you, and we can see you. So, the floor is yours for 5 minutes.
Speaker 10
Thank you so much. Dear Chair and honorable members of the European Parliament, I grew up in a loving and caring French Catholic family, and when I told my parents I felt attracted to men, they said, "Don't worry, we will help you." They generally believed they were doing the right thing, and I was young and trusted them. So, for three years, they brought me into so-called healing retreats, often in close religious communities. I was isolated, forbidden to speak, subjected to deprivation, and forced into intrusive and abusive one-to-one sessions where, even as a minor, I had to discuss my most intimate sexual thoughts with a priest and pseudo-experts.
In those sessions, homosexuality was portrayed as depravity, something dirty and dangerous. I was told that being gay would lead me to loneliness, hell, HIV, or death. I was young and terrified. I thought my life would be over. This was repeated by adults in institutions claiming authority, morality, and care.
I internalized it. I learned to hate myself. And very quickly, seeing that none of my feelings were changing, I became desperate and started having thoughts of ending my life. And trust me, my story is far from the most violent. Many survivors in our collective endure much worse things, such as exorcism, physical abuse, public shaming, corrective rape, and many other things.
Some of them describe their lives as totally ruined, and too many are still unable to speak publicly today, like I am doing now. At 18, I escaped, and years after, I rebuilt myself, and my parents understood their mistake. They realized that, instead of protecting me, they had put my life at risk. Today, they have apologized and are now helping and speaking within their community to prevent such harm. And yet, almost 20 years later, I still live with severe PTSD.
Conversion practices do not end when the session ends. They stay with you. In France, after our stories became public, we created a survivors' collective called Rien à Guerre. Nothing to cure. Other victims have contacted us.
We document, sorry. We documented many cases, exposed ongoing practices with the help of hidden cameras and journalists, and worked with MPs to help build a comprehensive ban on conversion practices. What may surprise you is that many religious survivors kept their faith in our collective, while others were subjected to conversion practices in psychomedical settings. So, we choose dialogue over confrontation. We work with institutions, including religious ones.
We work with them to find common ground to ban unacceptable practices within certain religious groups and psychomedical institutions. And it worked. In France, major institutions publicly supported the ban of conversion practices. The French Conference of Catholic Bishops, the highest Catholic authority in the country, formally endorsed the prohibition, including practices targeting gay and transgender people. This proves something essential.
It is possible to disagree on beliefs or interpretations of religious texts and still agree on one fundamental principle: that abuse is unacceptable. Because deep down, conversion therapies have nothing to do with faith. They are not a moral debate. They are a form of abuse that causes real and lasting harm. I do insist on this today because we often hear misleading arguments about freedom of opinion and religion, and they must clearly be debunked.
And even though I personally hope our society will progress, citizens remain free to believe that homosexuality is a sin or that trans identity is wrong. That is our freedom of conscience. But no one is free to harm our bodies and our minds in the name of that belief. That is the line the law must draw clearly. So, banning corrupt practices does not restrict freedom of religion or freedom of opinion.
Those freedoms remain protected, but they cannot be used as a shield to commit abuse. This applies equally to conversion practices targeting trans people. I am well aware that these topics and realities are the subject of intense debates nowadays. We may have different perspectives; some may still have doubts or questions about it, but none of that can ever justify exposing trans people to electroshocks, violence, rape, exorcism, or psychological abuse. Debating coercion practices bans should not become a new excuse or a new battlefield to reopen trans debates that divide and create conflict, as we have seen too many times.
Because whatever we may believe, trans people deserve dignity, safety, and protection under the law like any other human being on this earth, whether you understand or agree with their experience and how we decide to thrive, blossom, and live our lives. Well-being must be our compass, and I love that word: well-being. It is impossible to serve well-being if we do not listen to the concerned people or experience their trauma. It is impossible to access well-being if we ignore the studies, figures, and overwhelming evidence of the harm of conversion practices.
Speaker 10
Yeah. I have just one more paragraph. It is impossible to access well-being if we use anti-LGBT ideology as a compass because lesbian, gay, bi, and trans people exist whether some people like it or not. LGBTQ+ isn't just a long acronym; behind those letters, there is meaning. They are real people, real lives.
It is a fact, and everyone deserves dignity and respect. And finally, I deeply believe that the European Union exists also to protect human dignity and fundamental rights, alongside all member states that are committed to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Today, I hope we will be able to talk altogether about our differences, and we'll be able to draw a clear line where beliefs cannot be used to abuse others. No one should ever be subjected to coercion, violence, and psychological harm in the name of an ideology. Human dignity is not negotiable.
Individuals' well-being must be our compass, and there is quite simply nothing to cure about being yourself.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you very much, Mister Seward. Let me remind you of the time allocated. So, I now give the floor to Mr. Gargillo on behalf of ACT Against Conversion Therapy for five minutes.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Benoit. Thanks a lot for your testimonial today. This is exactly because of stories like the story of Benoit that we need to fight against conversion practices, and this is exactly why we launched a European Citizens' Initiative calling for a ban on conversion practices. I have been working on this campaign since I was in high school because I was moved by the stories of others and felt the need, as a citizen, to bring this topic to the table of decision makers and ask for these practices to be banned in our Europe of equality. When I drafted the proposal of the ECI as a 19-year-old student with very little knowledge of EU law in general back then, I still found three possible ways to ban conversion practices according to our treaties.
Speaker 12
As you know, of these possibilities, I will still say them again. The first possibility in our ECI was adding conversion practices to the list of EU crimes in the TFEU. The second possibility was amending the ongoing equality directive that had been stuck since 2008. And the last proposal was to propose a proper directive tackling the ban on conversion practices. And back then, I was already aware that adopting legislation might take time.
Speaker 11
And so we immediately ask in the ECI that we need to fight against conversion practices now, and that is why we asked the European Commission to issue recommendations encouraging member states to take measures to end conversion practices within their national context. Since the launch of our ECI in January 2024, we gathered 250,000 signatures between 05/17/2024 and 05/10/2025. And then we gathered 1,000,000 signatures in just seven days between May 10 and May 17, the International Day Against LGBTI+ Phobia, showing how strong the support to ban conversion therapy is. This has never been seen in the history of the ECI: 1,000,000 signatures in seven days. And that is why 1,245,000 EU citizens are urging the EU to put an end to these practices.
When we went to the European Commission in December 2025, we presented, of course, the signatures to the Equality Commissioner, Ms. Labib, but we also gave her a joint statement signed by over 160 organizations from civil society urging the Commission to take action. These organizations were Amnesty International, Ilgari Europe, Iglio, TGU, OII, and many more. But overall, during this campaign, we gathered the support of over 300 organizations from all corners of our union, as well as from many public figures. In Belgium, the singer Angel publicly supported us. But also in France, we had President Macron who supported us.
In Slovenia, Prime Minister Golob. In The Netherlands, the newly elected prime minister is Rob Jettin. In conclusion, I just want to say that the CCI, for me, represents what direct democracy is at its best. Regular citizens were 22 years old, uniting in what they believe and fighting to make decision-makers create change in our societies. And from experience in our campaign, of course, but also from other stories from activists who fought for a ban in other countries like Spain, Malta, and Cyprus.
People may have different views and feelings toward the LGBTI+ community, but at the end of the day, everyone agrees that we remain human and that no human should be tortured for who they are or who they love. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thanks so much, Mr. Gargillo. I now give the floor to the chair of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, Ms. Lina Galvez Munoz, to intervene on behalf of the FEM committee. Miss Galvez, you have the floor for 2 minutes.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair, dear colleagues. I would first like to thank the organizers of this European Citizens' Initiative for bringing such an important topic to the European Parliament. Congratulations for collecting over a million signatures for your initiative. As the chair has said, here on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, with equality being the funding value of the European Union.
And, obviously, gender equality can be achieved if it applies to all human beings. So, according to the Fundamental Rights Agency's third LGBTQI+ survey, trans women and men face the highest level of discrimination among LGBTQI+ people and are twice as likely as other LGBTQI+ people to have experienced conversion practices, including physical and sexual violence, verbal abuse, and humiliation. This discrimination seems to have only intensified with a growing spread of anti-gender, anti-feminism, anti-women, and anti-LGBTIQ narratives. This kind of rhetoric is the breeding ground for the false premise that people belonging to sexual and gender minorities are sick, as you were just mentioning, and need to be healed with so-called conversion therapies. These practices are deeply harmful and discriminatory.
They constitute a violation of rights to bodily autonomy, health, and free expression of one's social orientation and gender expression, which have been proven to result in adverse mental health outcomes, as we've been hearing just a moment ago. At the European Parliament resolution of 16 June 2021, with recommendations to the Commission on identifying gender-based violence as a new area of crime listed in Articles 2a to 2c of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on which we worked jointly with the LIBE Committee, we have noted that gender-based violence includes conversion therapy and record that Parliament has previously strongly encouraged member states to adopt laws and policies banning conversion therapies. If we want to protect a union based on common values and fundamental human rights, including personal autonomy, privacy, identity, nondiscrimination, bodily integrity, and protection from violence, this right must be protected for every single citizen regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression. Indeed, as you have said, human dignity is not negotiable, and no human being should be tortured for any purpose. So, thank you.
Thank you very much again, and I hope this initiative will reach the end. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mrs. Galvez. Now, we come to our question and answer session. I put a request to all the speakers for your cooperation and the management of the time available to make the most of it.
There are three different committees involved, so please stay within the allocated time and be as specific as possible in your questions to the organizers, as there will be a limited amount of time available. In the first round, we will take questions from members from Liebe for two minutes and Petty for one and a half minutes each, starting with the groups EPP, S&D, PPE, and ECR. All the questions will be grouped together, and then I will give back the floor to the organizers for their replies. So we start with EPP, Liebe, for two minutes.
Lena Düpont
Thanks, Chair. And allow me to first share a word of appreciation for the citizens' initiative here, and also for the very strong, encouraging, and actually very respectful statements that you had sent here in person, but also connected digitally. And I can only applaud the courage that you actually had to take, not only to organize the Citizens' Initiative, but also to be here, speak about it, and demand actions from various levels. At the same time, allow me to be a bit, let's say, focused on the practical terms of the initiative. And as you rightly said in your intervention, you identified three categories or reactions that could possibly be.
And the first, of course, is the addition to the definition of euro crimes, which is, of course, a treaty change. And I guess we all have a bit of a feeling about how long that might take and actually how to go forward on that. Second point: you also mentioned legal initiatives. But as well, legal initiatives are connected to Member States being willing to participate not only in the negotiations but also in aligning on the political purposes of that. And that is a bit of a question both to the organizers, actually, but also to the Commission at a certain point on how they see the, I assume, and as far as I know, very diverse picture within Member States.
So, are there things that we can actually learn from your initiative, but also from the campaign around it, when it comes to the debates in some member states? To the commission, of course, the question on the timetable of the study that you started last month on the scale and the impact of conversion practices. And I know that it can be frustrating from time to time, but I think just overskipping member states and the competencies at the European level, and the division between them, might also be a bit short in the end if we want to actually achieve something at the European level, which is why the second question, and then I'll quit. Second question, specifically also to the organizers again: it is not only what we can learn from your initiative and the campaign, but what actually can be learned from the Member States that have already banned conversion practices, and how we can foster dialogue between those Member States and the others who have not done so far. Thanks.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mrs. Deppon. I understand you're the only speaker for the ABB Group.
The right to do so, then.
Lena Düpont
Thanks a lot. And, Adhes, a third question: knowing that legislation and political debates usually take a bit of time, and I guess this house is very much aware of this, are there any, let's say, alternative measures, instruments, or projects that we can do in the meantime? And then, also connected to the digital intervention, is the health system fit for the purpose, or is there anything else that we can do? Thanks.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Missus Epon. Now I'll give the floor to the S and D group. Who will be taking the floor? Missus Sipple, two minutes.
Birgit Sippel
We will try to share our time between my colleague Chloe Reedel and Juan Fernando.
Okay.
I start. Okay.
Merci beaucoup.
Chloé Ridel
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. There are 300 NGOs that have supported this citizens' initiative. It's a huge movement for freedom, which we have heard from survivors. And I think that we should repeat the words that we heard from our speakers.
These are human beings, and the victims of this therapy suffer terrible psychological consequences, including suicide. This is a form of torture. They are being forced to take hormones. They go through humiliations and exorcisms. They are forced to watch poor-quality pornography.
They are basically being tortured, and it's an attack on human dignity that we cannot accept in the European Union. We have a Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU. It says that human dignity is inviolable. It has to be respected and protected, and nobody can be subjected to torture. So, we can't prevent people from having bad opinions about gay or trans people, but we cannot allow them to torture people who are the way they are and have a right to be that way.
So, I have a question for the European Commission. Well, yes, we should ban these practices. What legal options would you prefer to pursue, and what are you going to do in practice to monitor the situation and flag those involved in these procedures?
Mr. Hilar?
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
Yes. If I may, just a word of respect and full support and endorsement from many of us here in the European Parliament for the compelling testimonies we have heard from you, bringing the case to this gathering of the European Parliament, this format of European Parliament activities. Having said this, it is obvious that for some member states, conversion practices are against the law, exemplary so. Some member states have made it explicit that they should be banned because they constitute a gross violation of human rights. They are against the United Nations' resolutions.
They are against the Council of Europe standards, and they are against, of course, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is binding for the member states and for all the institutions. And when implementing EU law, it should be secured by the European Court of Justice. But having said this, I have two questions. One, we can actually make sure that the commission can enhance the implementation and obligations in this regard by criminal law, civil law, and administrative law. Second, the commission should also make sure that the directive on the protection of victims includes those situations that we have been discussing here: legal, medical, and psychological assistance to the victims of conversion practices.
And third, the commission should also make sure—this is my question to you—what are you going to do about it? It should also ensure that no conversion practices-related activities, even by NGOs or by some associations, medical associations, psychological associations, or whatever kind, receive any funding from the EU budget, making sure that no money is allocated to any foundation, institution, or society of whatever kind that justifies or implements conversion practices.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Lopez Hagler. Now, for the group of the PFE, Mrs. Della Pisa.
Thank you.
You.
Margarita de la Pisa Carrión
I'd also like to thank the signatories of this citizens' action. When we look at the psychological or physical abuse of a person, we're not the only ones to replace this, and I would like to know whether you've assessed the risk that a wide band of this concept could dissuade medical health operators from looking at severe sanctions, limiting their clinical activities and negatively impacting access to pension and accompanying supporters. Now, a common policy in countries that do have these practices is to see whether it is possible to have a sort of personal assessment and maybe psychological support. Now, if we're talking about children, it would be better, or it would be a good idea, to help a child who wants a possible agenda declaration, and the parents or the teachers should be able to contribute to this, when experience tells us that maturity is important and it is possible to live with this type of activity. You have to live with other problems, such as anorexia, for instance.
These statements imply pharmacological treatments and the possibility of irreversible results. And these could be considered psychological and physical damage. We know that people were later sorry about this situation. As you're looking at children, there can be some sort of interest in recognizing this conflict and ensuring that it does not take place in daily medical practice or when there is a citizen's initiative. So, which are the bodies that have taken part in the presentation of this?
Javier Zarzalejos
And we would like to know how their neutrality was actually verified. Thank you, Madam de la Pisa. So, you're the only one speaking for the Patriots group.
I give the floor to the group of ECR, Mrs. Kanko. The floor is yours. I also have Mister Salvini on my list. Is this correct? Okay.
Yes. After twelve, then.
Assita Kanko
Yeah. Thank you. I will speak in Dutch. Colleagues,
Conversion therapy is forbidden in Flanders and Belgium, and rightly so. It came with a proposal from my party in 2019 from Darius Abai and Zoe Demay. In Belgium, conversion therapy is now explicitly punishable by law. This is a full ban on any practices that try to change or put pressure on someone's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. And there is a full ban on this.
But we can't criminalize parents for talking to their children. Everyone, including LGBTI people, has inherent value. They have to be able to protect it against unfair treatment or discrimination. No one should be subject to violence, either. This compels us to take responsibility, including through a European initiative.
There are a number of questions that we have to have answered in this domain. The organizers have said that there is very little data about conversion practices. In fact, only one EU member state appears in the report where there is.
A clear example.
Assita Kanko
Examples of this. We have a lot of work to do; however, We have to really look at how widespread this practice is and what the current legislative and regulatory framework is in member states. We do this in Belgium. We also have to pay attention to children who may be misinformed.
It's no longer fashionable to be heterosexual, and this also needs to be protected. Thank you.
Thank you.
Paolo Inselvini
You, Chairman. At the beginning, we quite frankly mentioned human dignity, freedom, and the fact that no one should be obliged to do anything with any type of coercion or violence. However, we all know that in the legislation of all European countries, everything done with violence is already punished. And that's why we have certain doubts about this proposal. I read it very carefully.
And now I have some questions to ask about this because it very well could be that when we're looking at certain points, there might be some limitations on freedom of expression. First of all, I'd like you to specify clearly what you mean by gender identity, because it's quite obvious that if a person has to advise a friend that a male body feels female, well, he should try to be at peace with himself. Would this be a coercive attempt to convert, and also, any action by the parents? Aren't they the ones who have the primary responsibility for educating their children? Then, you're talking about religion. This is something that I really feel is close to my heart because I think that freedom of religion and of conscience is something that should be maintained.
We've talked about the French bishops' conference. They said that spiritual accompaniment, having a spiritual director, and the moral teaching of the church should be considered legitimate. Do you think they are legitimate or not?
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Niselvini. And now I give the floor back to the organizers of the European Commission. I will start by giving the floor to the European Commission to address the questions that have been addressed to you directly. Yes, please. Two minutes.
It's my last intervention. Right?
Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With great interest, I have been listening to the debate. Let me thank all the intervening, honorable No.
No. The questions.
Ah, the questions are from me. Okay.
Not the closing remarks.
Speaker 2
Not the closing remarks. Sorry. Let me thank very much all the honorable members for the floor. So I think there have been, in principle, two questions and one commentary to me. First of all, the timetable for the study.
So the study has been launched, as I already said. It is a rather complex study. We need to have good and solid evidence, and we will be able to publish the results of the study at the beginning of 2027. Then there was the question from Madame Honoré, member DuPont. Then, there was a question on Honorable Riddell about the legal options that the European Commission has.
I think that, in terms of the legal options, many of them have already been considered in the citizens' initiative. And since we have to analyze them from the legal point of view, I'm afraid that I will not be able to speak about them right now. And then there was a question also from the honorable member Lopez Aguilar on the funding and also the laws and the victim rights directive. So, in principle, I take it.
Speaker 2
The suggestion is that those are the elements we are supposed to look at. As I said, we are here today to listen, and these are very important elements to be taken into account, as you kindly express your views. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. And now I'll give the floor back to the organizers: Mr. Stocco, Mr. Seaward, and Mr. Gargillo. You have 6 minutes. You can split your time, or one of you can act as a spokesperson for the rest and address the points that have been written by the members. The floor is yours for 6 minutes.
Speaker 5
Thank you so much. I will answer 2 questions. We were asked what can be learned from member states that have already banned conversion practices. I think that, firstly, we can learn that it is possible to ban conversion practices on a national level in various ways, even criminally. We can learn that this ban can and should be comprehensive, covering gay people, bisexual people, lesbian women, and transgender people.
We learned that it can safeguard minors and adults alike, but we also learned that certain bans are imperfect, which is why we're urging the EU to take action. In Germany, for example, it only covered minors, and we really do not think that an adult can consent to being tortured. I think that we can all agree that such acts are not something to which we consent. So, we can learn that we can and should do better; let's say that we should harmonize and that we need more cross-border action. Sometimes certain associations might operate in our country and then advertise in another.
And then I will switch to Italian to answer another question.
I'm going to speak straight from my heart. I think that, as far as freedom of expression and freedom of religion are concerned, these are things that come from a starting point of love. You gave an example of a friend who asks his friend to help. And friendship also means helping. It means to support.
It means to reaffirm. Of course, there are some people who don't believe in this point of community. If you are asking your friend, you are asking religion not to oppose someone's existence but to support and accompany that person. Thank you. I'll speak French, and I'll answer two questions.
Speaker 12
First of all, I'd like to answer Madam de la Pisa and her questions on accompanying persons, health, operators, and parents. And I think it's very important to talk about this. That's why we have this audition today. I wanted to reassure you that, in those cases in Malta, there have been actions for many years. There's also a tradition in Spain that has lasted for a long time.
Now, those situations, though, have never happened. I don't think one should fear that this law is being abused, because it isn't. It's never been like that. It has never been like that in other countries either. And I'm sure that if a law at the European level or in our individual countries has passed, then it won't be abused.
And I think in France, it was trying to stop these practices which have an impact on the psychophysical health of the person who is supposed to be held. That's why I'm saying we should not be too afraid. That type of law does not harm anyone. Now, to answer Madam Concord, she mentioned the absence of data. I would say that, yes, it's true that at the European level and at the level of the member states, there is a lack of data, but one can base oneself on the data from the institution for gender equality and LGBTQ rights.
It gives us figures that are very reliable. So we are in Belgium, and in Belgium, there is this refuge, which is an association that helps LGBTQ people and welcomes them. There have also been activities. There are figures, and there's a documentary where you can hear the opinions of various Belgian victims about what they've experienced. And I would like to ask for a commission for their work, so we should be able to have more figures and more data on this type of conversion.
And we did, but numbers don't really matter because one victim is one too many. It's accepted. It's illogical. So, it doesn't matter how many victims there are. Even if the figures are there, there should not be even one victim.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. There's still some time available in case any of the organizers would like to step in. Yes. Mister Seward?
Thank you.
Speaker 10
You. I will speak in French. Many things have already been said, but I'd like to go back to what was said at the French bishops' conference and their cooperation with the LGBTQ community. With religion, often, yes, there are abuses. There are also six parts as well.
We must say that it is good. We must recognize the good in these religions when they are trying to combat this type of thing, and that is what is happening to the church in France. And you consider everything that has happened in the Catholic Church and other religions too. So, the law in France is very well written. In this sense, we're looking at any alteration to psychophysical health.
And we are well aware of the fact that these types of treatments don't work. You can't recover from homosexuality. And conversion treatments are harmful to everyone, and it's the same everywhere. And any type of medical institution that sees this kind of abuse. And this is not good either for the churches or for the hospitals and medical practitioners.
Javier Zarzalejos
Now we resume the Q&A session, starting with the group of Renu, Madam Keller, or okay.
Fabienne Keller
I will share it with Great. Achal.
I would sincerely like to thank the people who have described and submitted the situation. First of all, representative of the commissioner who could not come, thank you for your work. The fact that there should be no discrimination on the basis of one's sexual orientation is in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. So, in the European treaties, we have been working on this. We're trying to quantify it.
We're trying to understand how many people are affected by these terrifying conversion treatments. So, thank you. It's really an honor for Europe that the Commission is carrying out this type of work. And I'd also like to welcome all the people who speak and all the militants, but you are more than militants. You're lobbyists.
And for us, this is a complementary term in Europe. But you are people who are convinced and committed to what you're saying. You can hear that this summit is your experience too. You've spoken about this, and you've created this energy over a thousand, over a million signatories. So, I want to say that you have all our support.
A few years ago, France wrote some laws on this, but other EU countries have too. These are good practices, and we have to be able to give some response and protect our youth, both girls and boys, whatever gender they are and whatever their sexual orientation is. We must ban any type of violence, conversion therapy, or any type of aggression. We should welcome and support them in their personal journey. I now give the floor to my colleague, Raquel.
Thank you for the initiative.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
To the people behind the initiative. I would like to start just by saying that please be reassured that there are enough people in this parliament who would never dare to mention gender identity and your choice in the same breath as a real mental disorder, such as anorexia. And I want you to hear that from me because it is important that you know this. And then, I have a question. Something that is usually said about the fact that some countries are moving faster on this matter than others is that there are waterbed effects, where practitioners could move to another country.
So, I was wondering if you could expand a little bit more on how this initiative and the action that we expect from the Commission could help counter those waterbed effects and make protection effective for all EU citizens, regardless of their gender identity. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mrs. Garcia Armida. I give the floor to the group of Queens. Madame Brigmont, will you be the only speaker of your course? Okay.
Saskia Bricmont
I'll speak French, too. First of all, many thanks and bravo for this initiative, to these young students who are presenting here for the European Parliament. It's an extremely strong political action to come here and speak at the European level about these conversion treatments. You've managed to have over a million signatures, and it is great because you're seeing that Europeans refuse to not commit to the respect of human rights. And this is also thanks to these actions.
And also, I'd like to thank the European Commission. We, the institutions, can't respond only halfway. Now the question here is about the practices that want to suppress or repress the identity of gender and its expression. And when I'd like to remind our extreme right that 40 years ago, remember, homosexuality has no longer been considered a disease since 1990. And it has been for transgender people since 2019.
These actions have been considered torture. Now, the consequences have been documented. We've heard from a direct survivor. Depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. So here, we have to consider these actions that do have negative effects.
And then, there's a strong mobilization of citizens. These are financial and often transnational entities who are supporting these practices that are not marginal and are part of an ideological system. And unfortunately, European fragmentation takes advantage of this. And this is unacceptable. We forbid these practices on the national level in most countries, and these definitions, though, are not harmonized, which means that in Europe, protection unfortunately still depends on the border.
A European citizen action is based on Article 2 of the treaty, which guarantees the rights from Article 21 of the fundamental charter against discrimination, but we know that there are still gray areas. LGBTQ+ 2026 and 2030 require the need to act on this. The policies are in place. I've heard about it today. Often, the laws exist.
Ban violent crime, qualify it as discrimination, and adopt a specific European instrument today, but this depends exclusively on a political choice. Now, you've already pointed out three things, but I'd like to hear more on this. The importance of a harmonized definition of peer level. Second, this idea of consent is used as a justification when family or social pressure is being brought to bear. And thirdly, how can we have a real ban that is truly applied and not just symbolic?
These initiatives and these colleagues here leave us with a certain responsibility. No one must be corrupted for who they are. They must be protected, and this should not just be proclaimed. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
And now, I give the floor to the group on the left. Yeah. Yeah. But this was, yeah. Madam took all the available time.
I'm sorry. Now I give the floor to the group on the left. I have on my list, Mrs. Catarina Martins. Mrs. Martins?
I'll speak in Portuguese.
Catarina Martins
I wanted to start by thanking the organizers of this extraordinary citizens' initiative. I'd like to thank you for all the work that you've done collecting signatures. That's an incredible job you've done to try and combat this aggression, which is conversion therapy. I'd like to thank you for your personal commitment and the strength you have shown in coming to speak to us today. In Portugal, conversion therapy has been prohibited and criminalized since 2024.
It's legislation in my own party seen as a priority. This is a real achievement that we cannot take for granted. So, first of all, it's obvious to me that if we consider that in the European Union, human dignity has to be respected, then conversion therapy is discriminatory. So, they are not acceptable from that point of view in any member state. And secondly, they are simply cruel.
And when it comes to effectiveness, they simply don't work. So let's not use terms like "choice" when it comes to sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. The questions we've heard about how the European Union can help to criminalize conversion therapy in practice and encourage the exchange of information between member states where the bans already exist—well, I could add two notes to those questions. First of all, we need to be careful not to indirectly finance associations or institutions that carry out conversion therapy in the European Union. And also, at the European level, we need to explain what conversion therapy is and why it cannot be allowed.
There's a lot of lack of awareness in families about these issues. It's quite a complicated subject. Certainly, in the European Union, we can do better to fight conversion therapy in the field of ideas and explain why it has to be criminalized.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Miss Martins. Are you the only speaker on behalf of your group? Okay. Then I'll give the floor to the ESN group in Liebe or in Petit if there's a speaker here. It's not the case.
Any non-attached member in Liebe wishing to take the floor or in Petit. That is not the case. Then I give the floor back to the organizers for six minutes, according to the rules we previously applied on splitting your time. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Thank you. I would like to answer the question about this cross-border effect. Once conversion practices are banned in a country, a practitioner might move somewhere else where they are legal. And this is one of the many reasons why we started this. Right?
I mean, this is not just a series of national issues. These perpetrators do not really respect borders, as was said, and they also use the Internet to market these so-called cures. They spread misinformation. They reach vulnerable individuals across the Union. So, it's definitely a cross-border problem that requires European action and a European solution.
As we said earlier, harmonizing our laws with an EU directive would provide a clear legal basis to finally act against these perpetrators, no matter where they are in the EU. There are certain organizations, such as Coalition International and Desertreams, which are financed by the US, for example, and organize conversion therapy in many member states such as Spain, Poland, Italy, and more. This means that they have a bigger international capacity, and they can coordinate to move their capacity from one country to another, which means that the EU needs to ban this fully. Thank you.
I will speak in French.
Speaker 10
Well, as far as consent is concerned, I think it's important to talk about this because people who find themselves in this situation often have to submit to the conversion treatment. It's very complicated. Often, these people are vulnerable individuals under certain types of authority who are lost and who really feel that if they follow this type of conversion therapy, they might recover from the GADEM. But it doesn't work, of course. That was my case.
I was vulnerable. They put me in a situation of total distress because you do everything necessary or what they tell you to do, and it doesn't help. So, the question of consent is rather complicated. It should not be in the text. It's very difficult to define this, and you are not giving consent to be tortured at the end of the day.
And these practices are dreadful, an aggression. Now, I'd like to stress that we've seen with this prohibition in France already, when you go across the borders of other countries, there are organizations that follow this closely.
Javier Zarzalejos
Are you finished, mister? Yeah. Apparently, it is finished. Then, we can have a second round on the CAHTA basis. I have a few members wishing to take the floor, starting with Mr. Gordon Bosanac.
The floor is yours for one minute.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you, chair and colleagues. I would like to remind us all how sexual and gender minorities entered the twentieth century characterized as mentally ill people, as criminals, and as sinners. And it took us 100 years to change this story. So we entered the 21st century as those who are no longer mentally ill because homosexuality is not an illness. We are not criminals anymore.
On the contrary, there is a lot of legislation that now protects sexual orientation and gender expression. So for me, this initiative is a no-brainer. We have to keep going further and not allow anyone to bring us back to the past. So my appeal to the commission is, you know, to ban conversion therapies. Because what we have here is that therapy is a form of torture.
And torture is forbidden not only in all the member states but also all around the world. And my question to the organizer: could we also maybe not only call to ban this horrible practice, but also call for more free, accessible medical and psychological support in our public health system to heal homophobia, so that people can really access our mental health institutions and get well? Thank you. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
You, Mr. Bosanac. Now, for one minute, I've also given the floor to Mr. Moritz Garner.
Moritz Körner
Yes. I also think that's a good idea. But I also want to congratulate the organizers. And also, I want to say that, actually, your answers were more convincing than some of the questions from our colleagues. And I think that shows how courageous you are in this issue.
And I think it's also a sign that it's a youth movement, I see. Can you maybe also say something? Do you know the age of most of the signatories and how your campaign was conducted there? And thanks a lot again for your crucial engagement there. And, really, I think it's a very important issue that we discussed today.
Speaker 45
Any other requests for the floor from members present? Yes, please. Miss Hag.
Marc Angel
I would also like to thank the authors for the courage and the good proposals you had. And I hope that the commission will really come up with a solution that will satisfy the authors, but also the whole civil society. But my question is directed to the Commission. We know that these attacks come from a special movement: the anti-gender movement. And I think if we really believe in the union of equality, and President von der Leyen really talks a lot about the union of equality, so does Commissioner Labib.
In the Union of Equality, you produce a lot of equality strategies. The LGBTI equality strategy and the gender equality strategy will be presented next week. Do you think these strategies would need to have a chapter on how to counter this anti-rights movement? Because the anti-rights movement talks about freedom of speech, etc., as if it were an attack on freedom of speech. But this movement is about disinformation and misinformation, and I think also the commission, and we have a responsibility to debunk and to counter this movement. And the question of my colleague Aguilar was very important, also to make sure that there's no funding going to such NGOs, knowing that President Trump and a lot of the American money will come to think tanks and newly created organizations to really talk about something that doesn't exist: a gender ideology.
There is no gender ideology. There are just human rights, fundamental rights, and dignity. Thank you.
Birgit Sippel
Thank you very much, and I think I can make it very short. I would have hoped that after many years, in the year 2026, no debate would be needed to declare that conversion therapy should not take place. We have decades where some actors try to say this needs to be healed, but it never worked. And I really wonder what people are afraid of when talking about this and accepting that we are different. Sexual orientation, identity, and the differences that we see and are talking about in this meeting are not a fashion show.
Sorry to say, it's something that we could realize throughout all the centuries. It was always there for some people, and I think it's really time for a ban. It's time not to spend money, be it European money or national money, on those who are working with conversion therapy. And we also should make sure that there is public awareness that this is a crime against human beings, to their health, and to their dignity. Thank you very much.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mrs. Sippel. Now I give back the floor to the organizers for reacting to the last remarks by members and also for your closing remarks. You have 4 minutes. Yeah.
Okay.
Speaker 12
Concluez en français. First of all, I'd like to thank all the MEPs present, and also the Commission for this audition. I think it has been really interesting. And we really want to thank you sincerely. We understand.
We've got a lot of support here, and we can be proud of it. As Madam Sippelle said clearly, it's sad to be here in 2026 and still discussing banning types of treatment that are recognized as torture. So, yet, we're here. We're here to fight to ensure that these treatments are prohibited in our countries, not only in France and Italy but throughout Europe. I would like to thank you for these points.
It's very difficult as a citizen to come here to the European Parliament and, at 22, organize this type of discussion. But yes, we are lobbyists. I have been accredited as a lobbyist. They've given me a badge, but I'm really just a 22-year-old student. So, I'm sorry that I'm failing my English course, but come here and talk about these policies.
But we want to ensure that everyone is supported and that these conversion practices are prohibited. 1,285,000 people have signed this petition. A million in one week. It was a massive movement. And the European questions are often very difficult to explain to our citizens.
And there, we saw rail mobilizing. We saw this. It goes to show to what extent democracy interests European citizens. I can't really see the name of the gentleman who spoke earlier, but you summarized the question: how many young people were involved in this petition? Well, that is something else: we can say that European youth are not really very interested in politics, but they are interested in democracy and in conversion treatment.
And this is the first time that we've managed to get 1,000,000 signatures without spending €1. We don't have any money. We had no budget. We could just go on Instagram. Every time I come to Brussels, I go to the youth hospital, and it's only thanks to the mobilization of young people on Instagram.
Two thirds of our supporters are between 18 and 24, and they follow us on Instagram. And that's how you mobilize young people, business citizens, to see that the only tool in here, the end of democracy, is failing. And yet we've seen that the mechanism doesn't work. And that's why we are counting on you. We're counting on your parliament, on the commission, and on the economic and social committee to support this prohibition.
Because here, we have doubts. We have problems. You're here to answer your questions, but we'd like to say that, at the end of the day, there's nothing to cure an LGBTQ person, and we need your support against these conversion practices. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you. Well, if you need a note to excuse you from missing your English lesson, the chair will be delighted to issue that. Okay? Then, I give the floor to the commission representative for her final statement and closing remarks.
Okay.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mister Chair, for letting me speak again. And let me first answer the question. It was not necessarily the question, but the statement by Marc Angel, because indeed, we are observing these days a very difficult situation in many member states, and we are very much aware. We do produce strategies, but most of our strategy, including the LGBTIQ+ plus, anti-racism, and upcoming gender equality, unfortunately also has to focus on protection and the fight against violence. We are very much aware, and we are looking into the old truths we have at our disposal.
Should it be, for example, through the common project that we have launched together with the Council of Europe, exactly on this issue that you have mentioned, or our recently adopted new proposal on Democracy Shield, which is looking into the aspects of this information? But I would like to also say that this exchange today has been, for me, extremely inspiring because your contributions are the key here. It shows that there are many different views on this initiative. And the initiative like yours reflects the voices of many people across the Union, and we have heard the different stances on that. When we assess how to respond, we must look carefully at all interests and all viewpoints, of course.
Now, there is one thing that I would like to state clearly: LGBTIQ people do not need to be cured. They need to be protected, and this is something I would like to state clearly. And, as stated in the LGBTIQ strategy, the commission will carefully consider the best way forward to combat these practices. We will, of course, base our work on the findings of the study and all the data which are already available, and take fully into account the suggestions as enshrined in the citizens' initiative. We will look, among other things, at how to support member states while, as I said, already fully respecting the division of competencies as enshrined in the treaties, as stated already in the registration decision by the commission.
But today's hearing gave us a lot of foresight because we can also base our evaluation on the views expressed here today, on the ideas of what should be taken into account in terms of the legal instrument, the tools, and also concerns on the funding. And as I stated in the opening, the Commission will present its reply to the citizens' initiative by May 18 of this year. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Missus Musova. And now I'll give the floor to the presidency of the council and to the representative of the European Economic and Social Council, who is the rapporteur of the opinion on this initiative, the ban on conversion practices. But first, I invite Miss Elena Ioannou from the permanent representation of Cyprus and the Council Presidency of the European Union to take the floor for three minutes. Missus Ioannou, the floor is yours.
Speaker 48
Thank you very much, Chair, honorable members of the Parliament, dear participants. Thank you for this invitation to these very important initiatives today. The Cyprus presidency acknowledged the importance of this public hearing on the European Citizens' Initiative ban on conversion practices in the European Union. The initiative reflects the active engagement of European citizens on matters related to fundamental rights and human dignity, and it is important for the EU to give due consideration to such expression of civic participation. I would like to congratulate the organizers today for this important job, for sharing your experiences here, and for giving answers to the questions.
Speaker 49
There is nothing to cure in the LGBTIQ community. We agree on that, community. They're here today to provide a valuable opportunity to exchange views and reflect on the policy dimensions of the issue, and contribute to the discussion on the European level. The Cyprus presidency approaches this debate with respect for the diversity of views expressed and with the commitment to the Union's core values of equality, nondiscrimination, and human dignity. In relation to the development at the national level, I'm happy to say that in May 2023, Cyprus adopted a law addressing practices aimed at changing, suppressing, and eliminating a person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
This legislation forms part of Cyprus' broader framework for the protection of fundamental rights and human dignity. Cyprus President Secundis considers this public hearing an important element of the democratic process and an opportunity to reaffirm the union's commitment to fundamental rights, equality, and respect for human dignity in a constructive and inclusive manner. Thank you very much.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mrs. Ioannou. And now, I invite Mr. Pascal Devay of the European Economic and Social Committee to intervene for three minutes.
Thank you.
Speaker 51
Thank you very much, members of parliament. I'm here representing the Economic and Social Committee. On February 24, last week, the Employment and Social Affairs section in the EESC unanimously adopted our opinion on banning conversion practices. And this is a significant stance. It means that workers, employees, employers, and civil society organizations have put aside their differences to focus on fundamental rights.
Speaker 52
Conversion practices should be banned across the EU. Our plenary will confirm this position next month, in April. I want to be clear on this topic, in light of the work that has been done. This is not an abstract debate, as we heard before. Conversion practices are not theoretical; they are not because of ideology.
They're not a lifestyle. These are actual concrete actions that lead to depression, anxiety, and, in too many cases, even suicidal thoughts or attempts. They directly undermine human dignity and have no place in the European Union. That's why we unequivocally demand that the Commission take a legally binding position on this, which will aim at completely banning all conversion practices across the EU. They should be qualified as hate crimes and be punishable under Article 83, paragraph 4, of the TFEU.
If we recognize the severity of the harm, then we have to have legal tools that reflect how serious the situation is. We need to send out a clear message. These actions are unacceptable on European territory. So, we want to have a clear ban that will apply to any attempt to change or suppress sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, and that will protect both children and adults. And I would just like to take the opportunity to remind you all of the rights of the child.
Conversion practices target nonbinary or transgender people, meaning that they have to express their gender in line with their birth sex. These should also be sanctioned. I'll speed up because I don't have enough time. We also believe that this ban should include all public and private actors, which is very important. Prevent any type of publicity, including outside of the EU, to ensure that people are not subjected to these practices outside of the EU, and that is very important to us.
We want to see a total ban on any type of mutilation of intersex people. We also believe that victimhood status should be recognized for those who have undergone these practices. I'm talking about survivors who deserve adequate support. Therefore, we would urge the Commission to carry out annual evaluations together with civil society organizations in order to scrutinize the proper implementation of this throughout all member states. And last but definitely not least, we think we need specialized training for professionals working in social work, medicine, and so forth across member states in order to ensure that we have people who are properly trained, can understand these practices, and know how to apply them to minors and adults.
We also think there should be a proper awareness campaign, one that is educational and informative. You said this, and we see it. This subject is not properly understood. It's seen as a taboo. It can be misinterpreted.
Sometimes, there is a desire to misinform. So, we want to have clear, transparent, and scientifically based information. We think that is necessary. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Mister Deve, as we are moving now to the conclusion, I would like to invite Missus Guarda, the petty committee, to make her closing remarks. Missus Guarda?
Cristina Guarda
Thanks a lot for this meaningful debate, and thank you for the suggestions and for making clear the necessities that you are putting forward. Thanks to these democratic initiatives. So I will continue in Italian. Not.
I would not only like to thank the representatives of the citizens' initiative, but I would also like to thank all colleagues who have participated in this debate. And also, thank you to the representatives of the other European institutions who have made valuable contributions that can help to feed into the Commission's work and, hopefully, into some kind of legislative follow-up, along with financial support, in order to respond to this urgent need. Regardless of the positions expressed, today's discussion has shown how European citizens' initiatives can lead to serious, transparent inter-institutional dialogue on complex topics and also enhance the democratic legitimacy of the EU. And I'm saying this on behalf of my whole committee. The ECIs are one of the clearest expressions of participatory democracy within the EU, and any civic mobilization should help to feed into public debate and strengthen the European project, one that will involve all generations, particularly those who will build Europe in the future, and they are requesting that from us in Europe.
And if I may, Chair, I would just like to add a personal note. I would like to thank you for teaching us about democracy and values, as you have done today. I'm saying that as a woman, as a mother, and also because it's very important that we hear messages from the new generation and that they help us to understand that we all have a responsibility to respect dignity, young generations, and those values that are all too easy to forget sometimes: values of respect, mutual respect, and dignity in this house. Anyone who embraces European democratic values is someone who has to fight for the rights of everyone in their own countries and everywhere, and they should not feel disrespected or estranged from their society. If people's rights aren't respected, it should be recognized as an act of torture, and we need to have proper tools to respond to it.
Thank you very much.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Missus Guarra. I would like to clearly thank all participants for having made this event an important moment of democracy and citizens' participation in the European Union. I would like to thank my MEP colleagues and the chairs of the PETI and FEM committees for their contributions, as well as Ms. Musova of the Commission for being here and listening to citizens' requests. And finally, I would like to thank the organizers of this initiative, the rapporteur of the Economic and Social Council, Miss De Bey, and Miss Ioannou for having intervened in this ECI public hearing. Thank you all.
Thank you very much. And now we move to our next item on our agenda. Thanks for coming. Please, dear colleagues, we have to resume our session. So, take your seats after this important debate we have had.
And then we start to discuss item number six on our agenda. In the next exchange of views, we will examine the threats posed by AI systems to media diversity, editorial independence, and democratic debate, especially against the backdrop of recent advancements in AI-driven search and content curation. For this exchange of views, we have also invited members of the Cult and Inco Commune committees, as the subject is relevant to their respective areas of work. I would therefore like to warmly welcome our colleagues from both committees and thank them for joining us today. We have with us speakers from the European Commission, civil society, industry, and a media audience measurement company.
Would you be interested in hearing the views of our speakers on the increasing reliance on AI systems in shaping access to information? And what are the consequences, for example, with regard to the fundamental right to freedom of expression, the right to receive and impart information, and the right to democratic participation? We would also welcome your views on these aspects within the Union's broader efforts to safeguard democratic resilience and uphold media freedom in the digital age. We will first hear from the representative of the European Commission, Ms. Anna Herold, who is Head of Unit for Audiovisual and Media Services Policy at DG Connect. Then we will hear from civil society by Mr. Joe McNamee, senior policy expert at EU Disinfo Lab.
And thereafter, we'll have our speaker representing industry joining us remotely: Simon Boltz, external adviser on AI in politics and political communication at Cosmarth and Kings. And last but not least, we'll have with us Mr. David Sanchez, Director at GFK Media Division. So, each of the speakers I just mentioned will have five minutes for their opening remarks and their interventions, and then we will proceed with the Q&A session with the Liebe members. So I now give the floor to Miss Anna Herdl for 5 minutes. The floor is yours, Miss Herdl.
Welcome.
Speaker 54
Thank you. Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the committee for having us in this important debate. So I think there is no doubt, and probably everybody in this room would agree, that the rapid advances in artificial intelligence are indeed not only changing how news and media content in general is produced, but in particular, how it is distributed and how it reaches citizens. And, of course, this has a profound impact, as you said, Chair, on the democratic discourse and how we continue to be informed citizens in this increasingly digital media environment. So, I think that these, of course, bring some opportunities, but probably today, we would want to zoom a little bit more on the challenges.
And I think it's quite revealing what the European Commission said in its communication on the European Democracy Shield about the role of AI-driven information in terms of those challenges. And it looked at it on three levels. First, it may certainly lead to reduced diversity of sources. We just talked about it. It also brings threats to the business models, to the media revenue models.
And what I think is probably the main focus of today's debate contributes to shrinking this shared space for democratic discourse even more. You know? So it's a kind of ongoing trend, the platformization of the media environment that we are all living in. So, we have seen it, of course, already in the more traditional social media environment. The algorithmic systems have been designed to maximize engagement and monetization, and they often prioritize sensationalist or polarizing content.
This leads, obviously, to all the issues that are causing problems in the democratic space: echo chambers, bias amplification, reinforcing preexisting views, and preferring those over exposure to more diversity, which is what we care about in the democratic space. And, of course, this leads to fragmentation and even more polarization in our societies. This media platformization also weakens financial sustainability. You know? The investment in the production of quality media content, which only media companies do, is not, unfortunately, translated into more revenues from that content online.
Online platforms dominate access, so there are gateways for access to audiences and also advertising revenues, without necessarily sharing those revenues with those who produce content. And then this leads to a vicious circle because, of course, with less revenue, newsrooms face job cuts. At the same time, producing AI-generated content is, of course, much faster and cheaper. And that risks overall replacing, if you want, investigative journalism, critical analysis, and source verification, all of which require investment in time and money. So, what are we doing at the EU level to, if you want, break this vicious circle? I think the action can certainly happen at the financial support and regulatory levels.
Briefly, because you have invited the colleagues from the Cold Committee, we do think that there is a case to intervene with financial support at arm's length and increase the financial support to news media. This is what we have proposed with the new Agora EU program, and we are also trying to actively find bridging solutions before the new MFF is in place, with the media resilience program that our president announced in her State of the Union speech. So that's, let's say, for the financial elements. But, of course, a lot has to be done on the regulatory front as well. The existing instruments already provide some tools.
Unsurprisingly, I will start with the Digital Services Act that, as you know, already requires large platforms and search engines to assess and mitigate systemic risks, including those we are discussing today. So those two are freedom of expression, civic discourse, and media pluralism. And there are certainly issues related to the spread of AI-generated content, such as inaccurate or deceptive AI output, that do pose a risk to civic discourse. Just to give you two examples, you have probably heard about the spread of AI-generated content advocating Poland's exit from the EU on TikTok recently. No.
No. So that's certainly something that can sway and have an enormous and destructive impact on citizens. Another recent signal comes from the Dutch Data Protection Authority regarding the inaccuracy of AI chatbots in providing election-related information. So, what has the commission done? I mean, at the outset of the DSA application, we have produced guidelines on election integrity and are trying to assist member states, if they wish, in protecting elections through dedicated discussions, channels, and roundtables.
Of course, this is all in parallel with the ongoing DSA enforcement work. The AI Act also has mechanisms for the very models. So, for the providers of the AI models to do this systemic risk mitigation. The code of practice that we released also identifies freedom of expression, risks to freedom of expression, and information as examples of potential systemic risks. What the AI Act also does, and hopefully will have a true impact in practice, is that it obliges the providers to watermark the AI output in a machine-readable format.
So far, for the horizontal framework, that may become relevant in the context of what we are discussing today. But, of course, we are discussing media pluralism, so I want to focus now, in the remaining minutes I have, on the two specific media laws that we have at the EU. One is the European Media Freedom Act, and the other is the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which is currently under review. So, as regards the Media Freedom Act, I would highlight two of its provisions that I think might at least contribute to finding remedies to the issues we are discussing. One protection it gives to professional media service providers is safeguarding the integrity of the content when it is distributed by large platforms.
We have taken this conscious decision, together with the legislators in the parliament, that professional media content requires or deserves particular protections from arbitrary content moderation practices by those platforms. And we have just issued guidelines that, hopefully, will make these safeguards more operational and will also help media companies to keep their valuable quality journalistic reporting online. It also takes into account the role of these digital players in the assessments that member states will have to make under the new rules of media concentration. So the AMFA looks at media market concentrations not only from the very narrow viewpoint that what matters for media pluralism is when media companies merge, but it also obliges member states to look at concentrations between media companies and online platforms that have become very important in terms of their impact on media pluralism and citizens. And finally, I want to highlight two elements of the ongoing review of the audiovisual media rules that we have in place through this Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which I think deserve debating and certainly reinforcing in the context we are discussing.
And these are the rules on the prominence of general interest, services of general interest, media services of general interest, and also the advertising framework that we have in place today at the EU level. And why do they matter? I think we all agree, probably in this room, that in order to keep the democratic discourse alive, citizens need to have access to the quality journalistic content that only media companies can provide. And if that is going to happen in this new digital environment, we have to make sure that this content remains findable and discoverable by these audiences. And this online means that you have to reserve and give prominence to these sources of information in all the user interfaces and potentially also on the platforms wherever citizens are informing themselves.
And in the ongoing public consultation, we are asking questions about this. Should we reinforce these rules, and should we also apply them more in the digital environment?
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, mister. I'll now give the floor to Mr. Joe McNamee, senior policy expert at the EU. Mister McNamee, the floor is yours for 5 minutes.
Speaker 55
Thank you. And thank you to the committee for inviting me. I often find it difficult to be on a panel with somebody from the commission with whom I disagree a lot. Anna, I tend to agree with a lot. So, it's a different challenge.
So, it's difficult to speak about policy on media pluralism without speaking about the history of big tech and media pluralism more broadly, because we've got a lot of experience in the EU on this. And to paraphrase a saying, if we do what we've always done with big tech, we'll get what we've always got with big tech. So, the first thing that we know about big tech is that big tech has made billions out of surveillance-based advertising. And what did we have before surveillance-based advertising online? We had media outlets that sold their own advertising and competed on a relatively level playing field with each other.
Some focused on being quality outlets, some focused on being tabloid news, and some focused on being sports. Anyone could walk into a newsagent shop and buy a quality paper today, a tabloid tomorrow. Then, everything became free, and free has proven remarkably expensive for our society. News is consumed online. It's not funded by traditional types of competition or by the equivalent of buying a newspaper. It's funded by clicks.
It's funded by clicks that are governed by a big tech duopoly of Meta and Google, grabbing the lion's share of revenue. It's hard to find exact data, but some statistics from the UK indicate that about half of all advertising spending in the UK goes to the advertising duopoly. So, the situation is probably similar across the EU. As Anat pointed out, the weakened media have to generate clicks in order to gain revenue in this environment. Sensation and conflict drive clicks more than quality and compromise, and that incentivizes lower quality in an environment where there is less money anyway.
So it's a vicious circle. Free gives us the quality that we pay for. It gives lower revenue for the media. And to add salt to the wound, due to the need to be on social media, negotiations about revenue sharing are not negotiations between equals. And we also have the problem of arbitrary content moderation.
So, this is the background to what we now have with AI. Most immediately, we see AI summaries cutting the link between the media and their audiences. But it also further separates the journalists from their readers. As they are predominantly advertising companies, any clicks on AI summaries allow big tech to redefine and refine the profiling of individuals even more. This allows them to profit from the training data a second time.
I believe the Legal Affairs Committee was invited to this meeting. They have a draft resolution on AI and copyright, and they've suggested an opt-out for media to oppose their data being automatically used for training AI systems. This is something, but it seems to be a weak compromise because a purveyor of disinformation would not want to opt out. A journalist whose distinctive style could be replicated by AI forever, because his newspaper chose to take whatever deal was on the table, may have reservations about the deal that was done as well. And if big tech and its personalization of ads have got us into this mess, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Big tech's generative AI is being fed people's likes, dislikes, fears, weaknesses, medical histories, and political beliefs. Added on top of the surveillance that has already fed billions of dollars to big tech, we have this new treasure trove of personal data that can fuel manipulation. This creates unheard-of potential for hyper-personalization of not just ads, but also of personal and political content. Why not give everyone their own personalized AI summary designed to generate the maximum amount of outrage from them personally, bringing more clicks from the individuals, more data, more individualization, and less shared reality? If we imagine a dystopian future where an entire counterfeit news website could be generated by AI in order to trick people into believing that they are reading a legitimate news site.
The problem with that dystopian future is that it is not a dystopian future. It's a dystopian present. If you haven't read about the doppelganger disinformation campaign, I recommend that you do. Ultimately, it is a fact that personalization has driven revenue away from the media. It is a fact that personalization has made untold billions for big tech companies.
It is a fact that our failure to implement legislation designed to protect our fundamental rights to privacy and data protection could have prevented this. It is a fact that our failure to implement legislation to protect our safety and security online could have prevented this. It is a fact that our failure to implement legislation to protect us from the worst excesses of AI could have caused this. So, what do we need? Firstly, we need discussions like this.
We need to stop legislation for yesterday and start regulating for tomorrow. We need to urgently start rigorously enforcing our democratically legitimate laws: the GDPR, the DSA, and the AI Act, and not to deregulate under the guise of simplification. Content moderation may not be arbitrary under the DSA. So why do we have Article 18 of the MFA protecting news media already prohibited by European law? And finally, we have, as raised last week in the joint Libbey Cult discussions on the multi-annual funding framework in Agora EU.
The news ecosystem, news outlets, academia, and civil society need sustainable, predictable funding that preserves their independence. Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McNamee. And now, we have our speaker representing the industry joining us remotely, Mr. Simon Boltz. Are you there?
Yes. Hello, everyone. Can.
Do you see us?
Perfectly well.
Javier Zarzalejos
Okay. Then, Boltz, you have five minutes for your opening remarks.
Speaker 57
Thank you very much, and thank you to everyone for having me. It's a pleasure to speak here in front of the committee. I brought you an idea, and I want to start with the idea of pluralism by design and kind of follow the ideas that we've already heard. So, if you click on the next slide, please, we see that in 1970, if you wanted to share public opinion in Europe, you needed to own a newspaper. In 2010, you needed to have an algorithm.
Speaker 56
You need to own it, or you need to write it. And by now, you need a system prompt. So, the basic fundamental prompts or instructions that are given to a large language model are. The difference is that the newspapers had editors. Algorithms had engineers with actual job titles and audit trails.
And now system prompts have terms of service, terms and conditions, and commercial deals that we potentially never see and never read. So, the conclusion of that is—next slide, please—that media pluralism is under attack. It's not dying, but it's optimized out of the full system, one product decision at a time. So there is a product team that decides on simplicity, engagement, output, and clicks. It's nothing new.
We saw that in social media as well, and now we have a new medium coming up. And that is even more subtle, even more invisible. And we can already see that happening. Next slide, please. When a citizen in Paris or Madrid opens the AI assistant, and I'm mainly speaking now not about generative AI in the way of videos or whatsoever.
I'm talking about AI assistants such as ChatGPT or Gemini that you use as a supplement for googling or accessing your social media. So, you open those as AI assistants and ask, "What's happening in the world?" They don't get a news feed anymore. They're not looking at a newspaper anymore. They get a single synthesized answer.
No byline, no editorial note, no competing perspective is visible. So, we are shifting from something that I call the blue link era, where you could see each source when you searched online. You saw what was sponsored. You had the chance, as an official institution, to be organically pushed a little bit higher or ranked a little bit higher, and the individual was able to choose the source, which is actually supply-side optimization. So I can always choose what I want to read.
I can read a very highly political paper today, tomorrow just a sports page, or whatsoever. Now, in the synthesized answer area, we get an immediate answer to the question we had. We see a few sources, and the biggest step is that no click is necessary anymore. Zero-click economy is a term or wording that has been used quite often. The sources for that synthesized answer were selected beforehand.
So the user itself, him or herself, is not selecting it, but it was selected beforehand. So, another example: when a student researches a contested political topic, they don't browse sources. They read a summary. A very confident, clear, and authoritative summary. And when that summary is shaped by training data, bought or obtained however, entered into that system by rules written into the system prompt and by sources that paid for visibility or by any agenda, then we haven't solved the filter bubble problem that we already saw in social media.
We've just made it invisible. So, I have worked at the intersection of political communication, AI, and democracy for the past decade. I ran campaigns. I advised political institutions on how to communicate. I've been operating media systems, actively using AI to test what is possible in political communication and what is not.
And I would like to share with you today what I already see happening and how AI, specifically LLMs, engine AI in the form of AI assistance, changes user behavior and media consumption, thus affecting media pluralism. And here's what I see. On the next slide, please. For decades, we have talked about gatekeepers. Who owns the channel?
Who controls the narrative? And we built frameworks for that. Great policies from the past: press freedom, media ownership rules, public broadcasters—everything to make sure no single voice dominates. But the gatekeeper has changed its shape. So, the old keeper was visible.
It had a name, a headquarters, and a legal address. You could regulate it, audit it, and hold it accountable. The new gatekeepers are technical infrastructure. It has no editorial board, no press charter, and no public interest obligation. It has a product team, a revenue model, and a system prompt.
And right now, that technical infrastructure is being rebuilt from the ground up, not for citizens, but actually for machines. So, if you go to the next slide, we see that these are the two aspects that I want to point out here. On the one hand, it's the data or the sources that are being used to train large language models and AI. So there are publishers that have signed private content licensing deals with AI companies. The deals exist; the terms don't.
We don't know what is in there. We don't know who pays for what, or if they pay for anything. Other sources and publishers are crawled with our content. We have already seen some legal steps from bigger publishers to actually sue OpenAI and so on. And the ultimate alternative is that publishers or opinions are locked out entirely.
And that is a big issue, and here is why. Meanwhile, a new industry is emerging. Content is engineered for AI rankings, not for the readers themselves. It's called AIO or GEO, so answer engine optimization or generative engine optimization. So the content is designed to be cited by JGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity.
That means what remains accessible to large language models becomes the default reality for anyone using AI assistance. So, what does that mean for media pluralism? We spend years worrying about who owns the printing press. Later, we worried a lot about the way social media algorithms work and how they push disinformation and hate speech. We're optimized for engagement.
Javier Zarzalejos
Mister Boltz, you should be concluding. Then we will have the Q&A session, and it will probably be super easy. Able to explain your statements. Thank you.
Speaker 56
Super fast. So, what we have is that we are not facing a disinformation problem. We are facing a technological problem. If you click on the next slide, you can see that. And we can skip that one. Next slide, please, because I want to give you one thing.
We used to talk about supply-side pluralism. So public broadcasters, subsidiaries, and ownership rules are all built to make media diverse and give people choices. But that's not happening anymore at all, neither in social media nor in large language models. And the new opportunity here lies in demand-side design. So large language models can structurally be used to show multiple perspectives in a single answer.
That's the first time in the history of media that this is technically possible, and that's what I mean by pluralism by design. So, next slide, please. I'm closing this by telling you that media pluralism is not dying unless we design it back in. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bolt. And now, last but obviously not least, I'll give the floor to Mr. David Sanchez.
The floor is yours for 5 minutes. Please try to stay within the time allocated.
Speaker 58
Okay. Thank you very much for the invitation. It's such an honor to be here. I think I'm going to move to Spain.
Speaker 59
I've had a presentation I wanted to show you, but I think I'll set it aside. It's better if I look at the data we're going to offer because if we use the other presentation, we'll get lost here. Now, the figures I'm going to tell you about, where do they come from? Well, in Spain, there's an official online point that monitors in real time the traffic that Spanish users generate, and this allows us to get these results and the impact of AI on the consumption of information. So I think that, basically, we're going to see what we are going to do with AI at the moment.
At the moment, more than half of the sessions we carry out on AI are just to ask it questions, just as we do with Google, and the rest of the activity with AI is to speak to it as if it were a psychologist or an adviser. And this is so, and we're going to carry on by giving it data to set up a context. We're no longer constantly surfing on the Internet. We're always connected. We keep looking at our mobile phones.
So Spaniards, at the moment, have more than 3.5 hours per day online. That's even more than on television. We look at our mobile phones every 21 minutes. That's often the interval between different checks of our information, which is even less. Now, what is the consumption of information?
Well, 76% is daily, but only 4% of the time in a day of these three and a half hours is for reading news in the media. Now, if we put this in certain contents, is it increasing? Is it less? Well, it has grown by 4%. That's the time for the consumption of the news.
Now, is it a lot? Is it not too much? Well, AI tools such as Google, for instance, are among the tools we use. It is considering 30; it has grown by 36% in the last year. Now, if we put it in the right context, the total of these three hours, which is similar throughout our countries, 80% of these three hours is basically for two things: social networks, Google, and now AI tools. Well, it's a growth of 10% over the last four years in cases of publishers.
So, basically, it's not a very favorable environment for the consumption of news. Now, what is the question here with AI? If we look at this curve, I don't know whether you know the Rogers curve, which looks at the development of technology. When you reach 40% of the population adopting this technology, it means it will be something you can test. So, it is part of society.
Now, in the case of AI in Spain, 53% of Spanish society. Now, what does this mean? Well, to put it in a certain context, it means that the Internet took 15 years to reach 40% of consumption. Now social networks, 8 years of smartphones, 5 years of AI, 2 and a half years. So the speed, I mean, 2026, is a technology that is totally in use to such an extent that it's not just exclusive to millennials or Gen Z.
No. All the generations have gone beyond. And how much time does the consumption take? Well, it's these three hours. And when we look at the monthly use, the use of AI is increasing, and the media are being used less.
Now, there are two messages I want to leave here with you on the impact AI has on communication systems. It's important to study the monitoring of the consumption of Spaniards that we carried out. The first points, the first insights that we had in this work is that one of 474 sessions is looking at communication systems. So there's only one out of 474. One of the main sources of graphs for communication systems in Spain, and it is the same everywhere, is Google.
And when we're looking at Google, the incorporation of Gemini and AI mode with Google, we're looking at the zero-click percentage of individuals who go to Google and just stay there and don't go to others. This rate of zero clicks has increased by a fifth, from 58 to 70. So, there's been a great increase in the population that is satisfied with the information it gets from Google, but they don't intend to move on to other media. So the top five of the media have dropped in their positioning of Google itself. For instance, we look at elpais.com, which is one of the media outlets that has lost its position on Google from 30% to 41%.
Radio and television have dropped from 34 to 29, and there's something else important. I'm not just here to give you bad news. There's something else that is important. The main content is what is called evergreen. Basically, it's a question of time.
It's tough to access certain websites such as Wikipedia. Those are the ones that absorb AI and are used by AI users. Now, everything that has to do with news, local information, and everything—for instance, the type of information and context that is being informed about what's going on—are the more difficult ones to be well indexed, and users access it through AI to get the information. And finally,
Speaker 59
Lastly, the study we analyzed included 79 media outlets in Spain, and we looked at the percentage in the graph that they receive from AI at three levels. More than 10% comes through AI, then 5% of the graph is from AI, minus the 0.5% through the AI. So, 73 media received less than 0.5% of traffic, 6% between 0.5% and 3%, and none of them have more than 10% of traffic. Thank you, Mr. Sanchez.
Javier Zarzalejos
Start the Q&A session with members. I don't see any speaker from EPP, so then we move to S and D. Let's say one minute and a half, and then we will get the answers.
Sure. Yeah.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
Of course. Of course, I appreciate very much all the insights and inputs that we just received because one of the formats of our activity as members of the European Parliament is getting to hear about stakeholders, the players, who are essential for us to be certain when we do make laws, because this is a lawmaking body, and we have made laws. We have made a law on artificial intelligence. We have been the pioneering lawmakers on artificial intelligence. And it happens that just this mandate of the European Parliament starts with some omnibus artificial intelligence omnibus, which is meant precisely to send a message.
Somehow, we have overdone it. Somehow, we have aroused confusion or created difficulties for the stakeholders and the players, making it particularly difficult for small and medium enterprises. And for one thing, we are not to downgrade the digital literacy standards of artificial intelligence regulation. Second, we are to postpone the deadlines that were established in the regulation for it to be completely effective. What is your view on the matter?
Because you have provided us with information, but that information does not translate into a call for reviewing our legislation. You are simply raising awareness that it's absolutely vertigo-inducing, that it's a fast track, speedy implementation and endorsement of artificial intelligence by users all around us. But yes, we put legislation in place, and now we are downgrading that standard, and we are postponing ineffectiveness. What do you think about it? Because that is precisely the point of the artificial intelligence so-called omnibus.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
You. So, you're asking the question to Mr. Sanchez. Correct?
Anyone willing to react to the question that I just raised? Hmm. I mean, anyone willing to answer who feels like the question makes sense or not? Yeah. Thank you.
Speaker 55
There, I've tried to say that if you asked an AI system to come up with a good lobbying strategy that would work in Brussels, it would say mention SMEs, mention innovation, and mention simplification. And we have these magic words thrown into our system, and as a result, a loss of leadership, a loss of vision. And I hear the pain in your voice, and I feel it in my soul. Yes. You're right, I can only agree with your frustration, but maybe the commission can help solve the problem.
Very briefly.
Speaker 54
Being responsible, you will understand that all the decisions are taken at the commission level. At the same time, I think that it's very clear that the Commission is taking the implementation of the AI Act very seriously, and we have put in place everything for the AI Act to start becoming applicable, as it will be very soon. And I think you have been, as you said, Joe, extremely vocal, so it will be difficult for me to act with the same level of emotions. But I think the description of the digital omnibus that you have put forward probably goes a little bit too far in saying that it's a downgrading, because it's not a downgrading. It's just making sure that we can put in place the rules when everybody in the industry is ready.
So I just want to send a reassuring message that once we put legislation in place, we are also extremely conscious of the need to make sure it's complied with in practice.
Thank you.
Fabrice Leggeri
You. Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to thank the four speakers who gave us their point of view. I have a first question on the economic and financial model that the commission representative raised. Other speakers also mentioned that we should think about an economic model so that the press or traditional media could develop without becoming victims of AI.
So, I wanted to know which route you are considering? My second question regards what was said in English: this pluralism by design. Now, if I've understood correctly, there could be technological solutions to make the implicit choices transparent. Whatever is done when selecting sources, for instance, or eliminating certain sources. Is that what you were talking about?
So someone who wants to could find out the reasoning behind why that AI suppressed certain sources and why those sources were considered uninteresting. And then, this leads to my third question. Now, I'm a member of the Libbey Committee. I don't see many people from the Cult Committee present. However, this raises a question about education, about schools, about how to train young people who, I don't know, know the times before AI.
So, for instance, vocational training for all the generations who are present here, so that they can use AI in the best possible way because it does exist. We won't; we can't go back. It's there. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Legere.
Javier Zarzalejos
So, the questions by Mr. Legere. I think it was a direct question to Mister Boltz on pluralism by design. Mister Boltz, are you still there?
Speaker 56
Yeah. Thank you very much for the question. The point I'm making is very much technical or technological and should be implemented by the people who are offering the services of large language models. It's not so much about the explainability because the explainability already exists. It's more that the system prompts and how the answers are given should be in a way that is already diverse.
So the actual design of any answer should follow pluralism and democratic principles. And that means that there is not one synthesized answer with one frame, but actually different points of view within one answer for relevant topics. Imagine topics on war. Imagine topics on current political debates, like the one that the other colleague just raised about the digital omnibus. Right?
There are a lot of points of view, but now you only get one perspective that is synthesized. You don't get the specific shades of opinions in one answer, and that should be something that can be one of the biggest opportunities to show those and to make those who program it and program those system prompts put no restrictions, and they don't have to be transparent about their system prompts. It's their business. Right? That's their business model.
They do not have to be super transparent about it. But when we give guidelines to them, for example, in a way that we try to make other media aspects diverse and pluralistic, we can audit it again. And then we can see whether they are in line with our requirements and within our guidelines.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Volts. Missus Todorescu, would you like to take the floor for the ECR?
Georgiana Teodorescu
Thank you, Chair. I will speak in Romanian. As.
We are approaching the moment when AI regulation will have to be fully effective; our goal should be very clear. AI should be an instrument for human progress, not a weapon used to manipulate information. We already know of a historical precedent: the cancellation of the annulment of presidential elections in Romania based on declassified information that invoked an alleged hybrid war and an alleged coordinated manipulation using AI on platforms such as TikTok. Although reports spoke about tens of thousands of automated accounts and algorithmic abuse, the evidence is still to show up. However, the decision to annul the elections, which are the supreme expression of popular sovereignty, should have been based on irrefutable evidence of fraud, not just on the presence of AI-generated content or social network chatter.
According to the principles of the Venice Commission, the annulment of an election requires a clear connection between the irregularity and the result of the election. In other words, we cannot allow AI to become some sort of black box in which complex algorithms replace solid evidence that can be accepted by a court of law. Because artificial intelligence did not create political polarization. It merely amplified it. So, if we turn these AI risks into a mantra, into a pretext justifying extreme measures such as canceling an electoral process, we risk damaging democracy even more than any robot or any AI can.
My question is, what do you think about this issue? And how far can we go in this direction? Thank you.
Javier Zarzalejos
Any comments following the remarks by Torrescu? Yeah. Commissioner.
Thank you.
Speaker 59
You. My reply might be a little disappointing because it's not specifically on disinformation, but on an earlier step that affects information consumption. Including correct information, you need to have information from multiple different sources. But there's an earlier problem with that because those responsible for producing news, users are used to getting information, but they're used to that only being through AI. And before the issue that you've raised, which, of course, is something that we should discuss and that is desirable, we have to go a step earlier and ensure that users are using AI in a balanced manner, using a variety of different sources that can be backed up.
They have to get used to getting information from a whole range of different applications and so forth. But the way in which news is built has come under attack, as has journalism itself. AI is a kind of zombie that feeds off rotting flesh. It all feeds off the same information again and again. And so, the information that we're getting is basically rotting zombie flesh, and that's what the consumers use at the end of the day.
Speaker 54
Yes. Thank you. So, on the point just now raised about election integrity, of course, it is not up to European legislation to decide what the constitutional limits are regarding what can be done in terms of annulment of national elections in the member states. What the European rules can and do is help to preserve the elections' integrity, and this did happen in the context of the Romanian elections, as the social media and the very large online platforms in question were ordered to retain information related to the elections. So it showed that the instruments do work.
At the same time, what both the EA Act and the Digital Services Act ask from platforms is to assess and mitigate systemic risks that their systems pose, also to civic discourse, but they do not go as far as to intervene in the constitutional orders of the member states. So, certainly, proof, as you say, of direct manipulation can help in finding breaches of this obligation to effectively mitigate systemic risk. But, of course, they could never be a reason for annulling the elections themselves. So, these are two separate things. And then maybe just one sentence, because I found that it was left a little bit unanswered.
I think there was a question on the business models, no, before, of the media that, in all this, you know, I think needs preserving. An important element in this debate will be to see how, in this very hostile environment, we can still help reputable media providers preserve their business models, which are so far based on advertising. This is also one of the questions that we would like to debate with you in the ongoing evaluation of the media rules, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive.
Michael McNamara
Thank you very much, President. I very much welcome this discussion. I obviously, like many people here, lament the risk that this poses to media pluralism and, by extension, democracy. But I suppose, you know, when I was growing up, there was a band with an album called Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death. And isn't that really a large part of how social media, or media companies generally, tech companies have grown to the extent that they have?
People are willing to sacrifice almost anything for convenience, including privacy. They certainly want to get as much information as possible, with as much ease as possible. The idea of having to go to a news agency, buy papers, and actually go through them is now an anathema to an entire generation. And I just don't really know, philosophically, what you can do about that. I mean, that band that had the album Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death had a previous album called Bedtime for Democracy.
And I suppose I'm kind of wondering what we do about this. Or maybe there isn't a lot we can do about it, but it does seem that if you shrink media pluralism to one source of information, it is particularly dangerous when it comes to elections. And we're well accustomed to political parties courting the media and running in elections. It's nothing new. I mean, we have Tony Blair, for example, the Mandelson story about courting the media, and all of that.
But if there's only one media outlet or one source of information to court, then it becomes particularly acute. And I just wonder, are there rules that can be developed? Are those rules in developing them somehow undemocratic, as if you're telling the media what it should report? I mean, if you're saying that there has to be pluralism, does that mean pluralism between facts and what are not facts? Or is it legitimate for a company to have a preferred editorial line?
I mean, as it's been traditionally accepted for private media, it was entirely legitimate for them to have a bias or a favored political outcome. Where are we going with all this? I know it's rather philosophical, not very concrete, but I think this does pose real challenges to our society. I would like any of the panel, maybe Mr. McNamee, to take up the question. But I mean, anybody from the panel who would like to maybe propose something concrete, I would appreciate a response.
Thanks.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. McNamara. Who in the panel would like to take this question?
Speaker 55
Your knowledge of music exceeds mine, but you remind me of a quotation from a US Supreme Court justice who said, paraphrasing because I can't remember the exact words, that a constitution is written by John when he's sober to regulate John when he's drunk. And you, that's basically what we're trying to do; we should be doing it. We should be regulating principles. We know what we want. We know the Charter of Fundamental Rights gives us protection of our freedom of expression and our right to privacy.
And if we regulate our principles properly, everything else should follow behind. And I've been in these discussions for so long that I was here at the beginning of the GDPR discussions. I was here at the beginning of the DSA discussions. I was here at the beginning of the discussions for the e-commerce directive that preceded the Digital Services Act. And we sometimes risk thinking that laws are magic and that if we pass a law, it will immediately be perfectly implemented.
And that is not the case. And here, we've heard hopes that we can regulate things that require a lot of effort to regulate. Article 38 of the Digital Services Act is a beautiful piece of European legislation. It's one sentence long. It's completely clear.
Very large online platforms must provide a non-profiling-based version of their feed. That's it. We know why that was proposed. We know why it was adopted. Meta chose not to respect this.
The European Commission chose, forgive me, not to enforce that. A small NGO in the Netherlands took META to court in the Dutch courts in order to apply European law. And because it was good legislation, written well, they won. This shouldn't go down to a small NGO in the Netherlands achieving this. We need to pass the legislation, and we need to implement it effectively.
And thank you. Yeah. That's how we get where we're going.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Now, I have no speaker on my list from the Green group. If that is not the case, the floor goes to Mr. Avanites from the left. Yeah. Mister Avanites, the floor is yours.
Konstantinos Arvanitis
Thank you very much. It's a shame that we didn't have more time, but it's been really enjoyable to listen to you this afternoon. You've given us a lot of information and new perspectives too. But I could say the following: We're not machines.
We're not screens. What we need to know is how we can set up the right rules. We've got algorithms, fake news out there, and it seems as if they're trying to create polarization. How can we work against that? It seems that there is too much concentration. It seems that very few people are actually profiting from this.
And then we've got the big question out there. The media bosses and the platform managers, are they already in charge of the political narrative, or should it be the other way around at the end of the day? So, it seems to be a kind of chicken-and-egg debate. The speaker is asked to speak a little more slowly. But we do need rules.
And I could say the following on the subject of rules. I'm a bit worried about what I heard from the commission representative. If I've understood correctly, you're saying the market has to be ready, and then we will pass the rules. No. We need to pass the rules, and then the market will have to keep to them.
That's the way things work in the EU. It's a bit different from the situation in the US, perhaps, but I've been a journalist myself. The news is a kind of product, but it is also a public good like water. We want water at a low price, and we want it to be pure and drinkable. The same applies to information.
The role of public service media has to ensure that there is some kind of public scrutiny.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Mr. Arvanites. Who would you like to address your questions or your remarks to?
Speaker 54
Yes. No. I would certainly agree with you that it's important for us to drive what we want to see in the market and not to wait for the market to set the rules first and then continue. So this is certainly something that I think we have provided ample proof of being able to do because the EU has been a pioneer in regulating the digital sphere with the Digital Services Act, the Digital Market Act, and also with the AI Act, which has been passionately defended here. So on that, I think the commission is absolutely in agreement with this house.
What I would say in terms of media plurality, and also to respond to the previous speaker, is that probably the principles we have devised over the years, in particular those related to internal pluralism, focus on making sure there is a diversity of voices, not only a diversity of providers, which was the more classical way of looking at pluralism. So, also, the internal pluralism, the diversity of opinions, now becomes a little bit more, how should I put it, even more urgent because of the concentration of information powers, first in social media and now also in the AI environment by the AI providers. There, it's only about the translation of the same rules into a more actionable manner in this new environment. I think I would agree with you that it's about interpreting the rules and enforcing them concretely in that environment. So if we care about diversity of sources, if we care about diversity of viewpoints, and we have already provided principles on that, if we care about the brand identity, we have rules in the European Media Freedom Act that already regulate the brand identity.
We can have the same rules applicable also in the AI environment. So, yes, it's about creating the rules certainly ahead of the market, and then applying and enforcing them in practice.
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you. Thank you very much. Now, I think we end this extremely interesting and important discussion. So, yes, we have. I'm sorry.
We already have a floor there going to Missus Barley. Missus Barley, floor resource. Sorry for that.
Katarina Barley
Thank you so much. Thank you very much for all this very interesting insight. I would like to direct my question to Mister Boltz because he said, more or less, media pluralism will be dying if we don't design it back in. I thought that was a very alarming sentence. And my question was also a bit touched on by Mr. McNamara, I think.
My question is, is it enough that we just see that we don't have only one view? If we balance views and have pluralism, that does not mean quality journalism. It just means that we might have one superficially edited information and then another one introduced. Is there any chance to design quality journalism back in? And the second part, I mean, is the money aspect, of course.
AI could unleash such a great potential for humankind, but it is channeling obscene amounts of money into the hands of very few people. So, is there any way of tackling the problem if we don't address this enormous concentration of wealth, data, and, at the moment, also political influence?
Javier Zarzalejos
Thank you, Missus Bali. Mister Boltz, are you still there to answer Missus Bali's question?
Sure.
Yeah. Pleasure. Go ahead, please.
Speaker 57
Thank you for the question. Thank you very much. So the first one is: can we design quality back in? I'm sure this is a question that we should answer based on how the system is right now. There is very good journalism.
Speaker 56
There is not such good journalism. And I think we cannot agree on that. And all of them are valid positions in building a pluralistic view on topics. There are also comments from non-press representatives, from non-journalists, from people who are just commenting on topics. And we see already, if we look into the data, which sources are crawled by large language models into their synthesized answers, that there are a lot of just personal statements that are pushed through the way they are written, the way they are structured, and the way they are engaged with.
So, I think the quality question is not the correct one. I think it's more about how we can make sure that the intermediaries are validated and that we can audit them, and that we can basically steer a little bit with our policies without affecting free speech. How can we make them be shown in a pluralistic way in the results that are displayed when somebody asks something through their large language model or AI systems? And in regards to the money problem, I think, on one hand, of course, it's very obvious that a lot of capital is now allocated to a very few people. On the other side, we see new media popping up, new media houses working with this, and new approaches on how we can deliver faster and good quality media.
How can we actually build media houses and media systems that follow some guiding principles, compared to some codexes, like press codex-type things? So I think the question here would be: how can we support those rather independent, democratic perspective-supporting approaches to making media very pluralistic, instead of just thinking about how we can reallocate the money that is allocated to a few?
Michael McNamara
Very brief. Yeah. In the UK, a coalition of very divergent media has been established: BBC, Sky News, The Telegraph, The Guardian, and Financial Times, which would, you know, take a very different approach philosophically and certainly to political coverage. But they've called for technical standards to be developed and for licensing frameworks. So it echoes a little bit what the jury report that was mentioned earlier has suggested.
However, there's a bit of a debate, I think, even in the jury, as to whether that should be legislated for or should evolve in the market and be allowed to evolve in the market. In a yes or no scenario, do the panelists think that we need to legislate for this, or do we need to allow the market to develop this itself? Maybe from the commission, or maybe I put, and perhaps our civil society representatives. Thank you, Chair, for allowing me a second time.
Javier Zarzalejos
It will be the commission, the only one answering this question. Yeah.
Speaker 54
Yes. So I do want to take the entire floor. So I can certainly say that we are actively looking into those issues. So colleagues working on copyright, of course, are studying all the proposals coming from the parliament. And while we, of course, made some progress under the implementation of the AA Act, we certainly see the need for more licensing to happen in practice.
And we are certainly listening very carefully to the calls from the stakeholders to see if that would be enough, you know, if the market will self-regulate or if more will be needed in order to make that licensing actually happen in practice. So, we are certainly looking very seriously into the possibility of helping this happen in practice. I don't know whether you wanted to say something.
Javier Zarzalejos
You. Thank you to all our speakers, both here in the room and at a distance. And there's been an extremely interesting debate. So now, this item is closing our agenda, and we will proceed to the votes in three minutes, more or less. Thank you.
Well, dear colleagues, we're going to proceed to the votes. First, I would like to announce that the following Libre non Libre members will participate in today's vote. For the EPP, Mr. François-Xavier Bellamy is replaced by Antonio Lopez Historis. Mister Matos Cuna is replaced by Mister Sergio Humberto. Missus Morano is replaced by Mr. Delaoth Quintano.
Mister Radev is replaced by Andre Novakov. Not yet. And Mr. Thomas Tobey is replaced by Mrs. Isabel Benjumea. The S and D group, Missus Anna Katrina Mendes, is replaced by Isilda Gomez. Mr. Matthias Nemec is replaced by Jens Gayer.
On the PFE group, Mr. Jaros Lapiotis is replaced by Thomas Kubin. Andreas Laslo is replaced by Jean-Paul Garo. And Susana Ceccardi is replaced by Marie-Luce Brasier. And in the ECR group, Mr. Chiriani is replaced by Mr. Picaro. There's no replacement in the renewal group.
On the Queen's, Eric Markward is replaced by Miss Katherine Langasipen, and Mr. Tinek Yistric is replaced by David Corman. In the lead group, Fernando Varena is replaced by Sebastian Everthing. And in the ESN group, Missus Seva Sagiakovska is replaced by Alexander Jungbluth. Any other replacement that has not been notified yet? If that is not the case, what then?
Javier Zarzalejos
And there's another replacement that I might have skipped in the EPP group. Mister Bogdan is replaced by Mister Jimenez Laraf. So, we can now proceed to the vote. We understand there is a quorum, and the first file to vote on is the impact of social media and the online environment on young people. The rapporteur is Mrs. Catalina Barley.
The vote will be taken electronically. So, we vote on the block vote. The vote is open.
Javier Zarzalejos
Yeah. Block vote on all compromise amendments except compromise amendment seven. The vote is open. Hopefully. Yeah.
It works. And now, the bodies are closed, and it is adopted. So, we move to compromise amendment 7. The vote is open. The vote is closed, and it is adopted.
And then the final vote on the text as amended. It's a roll-call vote. The vote is open. Now it is closed, and it has been adopted. And now we move to our second file, our second vote, which is the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Amendment Regulation 2021/1232 as regards the extension of its period of application, whose report is Mr. Brigitte Sipel.
We are starting the vote with amendments 19 and 20. The vote was open, but it is now closed, and the proposals have been rejected. Then, we move to compromise amendment 1. Bout is open. It is closed.
And so, it is rejected. There's a draw. It is rejected. Then, we have to vote on the amendments.
Javier Zarzalejos
Yeah. We start with amendment 13. The vote is open. Amendment 13: the vote is open. It is closed, and it has been adopted.
We then move to amendment 14; the vote is open. And now it's closed, and it has been adopted. Amendment 15: the vote is open. The boat is closed, and it is adopted. Now, amendment 46.
The boat is open. Bote is now closed, and it has been rejected. Amendment 48: the vote is open. Bote is closed, and it has been adopted. Amendment 49: the vote is open.
The vote is closed, and it is adopted. Amendment 50: the vote is open. The vote is now closed, and it is adopted. Vote on amendment 51, vote is open. The vote is closed, and it is adopted.
Amendment 452, vote is open. The vote is now closed, and it is adopted. Amendment 25. The vote is open. 25.
The vote is open. Now closed. And it is adopted. Amendment 29: the vote is open. The vote is closed.
And it is adopted. Amendment number 2?
Javier Zarzalejos
I'm sorry? 35. 35. Amendment 35, then. Yes.
I'm sorry. The vote is open. Folks, 35. 5. Yes.
The bot is open. Bodies are closed. And it is rejected. Amendment 36. Bodies open.
Now the vote is closed, and it is adopted. Now, amendment 37: the vote is open. It is now closed, and it has been rejected. Amendment six: the vote is open. The vote is closed, and it is adopted.
Amendment 7b, vote is open. It's now closed, and it is adopted. Amendment Eight. 8. The vote is open.
And it is now closed, and it is adopted. Amendment 40. The vote is open. It is now closed and rejected. Amendment 43b.
Bode is open. Bode is closed. Bode is closing. Bode is closing. The vote is now closed, and it has been rejected.
Then, amendment 11: the vote is open. Bote is closed, and it has been adopted. Then, amendment 12: the vote is open. The vote is closed, and it is rejected. So now, we vote on compromise amendment 2.
The vote is open. The vote is closed, and it has been adopted. Then, we move to compromise amendment 3. The vote is open. The vote is closed, and it is rejected.
So, we vote on the amendments. Amendments 44. That should be 44. Yeah. 44.
Yes. 44. So, we vote on amendment 44. The vote is open. The vote is closed, and it has been rejected.
Amendment 18: the vote is open. The vote is closed, and it is rejected. Amendment 45: the vote is open. The bot is now closed, and it has been rejected. Amendment, and now we move to compromise amendment four.
The vote is open. It's now closed, and it has been adopted. Then, we move to the final vote. It's a roll-call vote. The vote is open, and it is now closed.
And it has been rejected. And it has been rejected. So, I mean, there can be no vote on that. Well, we will inform the members of the next steps to follow. We will inform members of the next steps to follow on this file. And then, if there is no other business, I just have to announce the date of our next meeting, which will be in March.
The session is concluded.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.