The project to set up a Ministry of Technology and Artificial Intelligence returns to the joint parliamentary committees on Monday 9 November 2026 at 1 p.m. The summons published by Parliament confirms this timetable and the text number: the draft transmitted by Decree 1286. This meeting should continue its consideration. It does not constitute a final vote or the announcement of an already established ministry.
Nabih Berri convened four commissions: Finance and Budget, Administration and Justice, Public Works and Transport, and Information Technology. Their meeting puts the case at the crossroads of several responsibilities. Digital refers to the organisation of services, their financing and the rules governing public decisions.
Ministry of AI: a specific parliamentary step
The choice of words in the agenda is important. Members must « continue » the study of the project. The 9 November meeting is therefore part of a procedure already initiated. It is not enough to establish the content of the text that could eventually be adopted.
A sub-committee chaired by Tony Frangié met on 5 October to discuss the same draft. Fadi Makki, Minister of State for Administrative Reform, and Kamal Shehadeh, in charge of information technology and artificial intelligence, attended the meeting. This presence underlines the link to be built between digital transformation and the functioning of the administration.
Committees may discuss the provisions, propose amendments and prepare further parliamentary work. To know the final competences of the future structure, it will be necessary to have the adopted text, not only its title. No budget, strength or deployment schedule is included in the November 6 convocation.
The name of the department does not define its powers
The creation of a portfolio dedicated to artificial intelligence poses a concrete question: who will be responsible for public digital projects? An administration may need a central contact to coordinate its systems. It also retains its own obligations, depending on the services it provides and the information it holds.
The issue is to clarify this distribution in the texts. The design of an online service, the management of an administrative file and the purchase of software do not cover the same responsibilities. Their possible reunification must enable the citizen to identify the competent service when a procedure fails or when a data is incorrect.
Coordination and implementation should also be distinguished. A department can define common priorities without directly managing each application. It may also receive operational missions. At this stage, assigning one or another model to the Lebanese project would exceed the information confirmed by the agenda.
This distinction counts for existing administrations. The transfer of competence presupposes who decides, who finances and who responds to results. Without this reading, the debate may be limited to the creation of a new structure, while its usefulness will depend on its relations with the services already in place.
The means and responsibilities at the centre of the debate
The monitoring of the project must cover several identifiable points. The first concerns resources: appropriations, teams and technical capacities. The second relates to data: access conditions, inter-jurisdictional exchanges and responsibilities in the event of an incident. The third concerns public procurement and supplier control.
These are review criteria, not provisions already attributable to the project. They will assess choices when the text and its amendments are available. A modernisation objective alone does not inform the cost of a reform or the means available to implement it.
Artificial intelligence adds a control requirement. When a tool is involved in the processing of a file, the administration must be able to explain its place in the decision. For the legislator, therefore, the issue is not only the adoption of new technologies. It also concerns the responsibility of the public service which uses them.
One session, two separate files
The meeting on 9 November included another point: an amendment to Article 19 of Law 319 of 2019 on the regularization of construction offences. This subject has its own path and its own effects. His presence on the same agenda does not relate to the future digital ministry.
The result to follow on Monday will be precise: will the committees have completed the review, amended the draft or decided to continue the discussions? The answer will determine the next step. Until this meeting, the Ministry of Technology and Artificial Intelligence remains the subject of a bill currently under consideration.
Comments