I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to introduce the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Bill 2026. The Bill introduces protections for those targeted by strategic lawsuits against public participation, commonly known as SLAPPs.

SLAPPs are abusive court proceedings which are not taken to assert a right or seek genuine redress but to prevent, restrict or penalise public participation by threatening and intimidating people or organisations engaged in public criticism or debate. Common targets of SLAPPs include journalists, media outlets, and human rights defenders. SLAPP proceedings are often characterised by an imbalance of power with one party using the significant resources at their disposal to place financial and psychological pressure on the other. SLAPPs create a chilling effect on public interest reporting and debate and pose a significant danger to press freedom, public access to information and to democracy itself. The consequences of SLAPPs have been recognised at EU level. An anti-SLAPP recommendation was adopted by the European Commission in 2022 followed by the anti-SLAPP directive which came into force in 2024.

The directive requires member states to introduce minimum procedural safeguards to combat abusive proceedings against public participation in civil and commercial cases which have a cross-border dimension. Those protections include the early dismissal of proceedings which are clearly or manifestly unfounded and the ability for targets of SLAPPs to seek more generous costs and damages as well as security for those costs and damages.

The Bill transposes the directive and takes account of provisions contained in the anti-SLAPP recommendation. For example, as I have mentioned, the directive applies only to cross-border proceedings. However, in recognition of the need to also address in a domestic context, this Bill goes beyond the scope of the directive and provides safeguards for all civil and commercial proceedings, both cross-border and domestic, ensuring that the same level of protection exists for targets of SLAPPs across all civil and commercial matters.

Many of the safeguards referred to in the directive were included in Part 7 of the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026 which was enacted by the Oireachtas in February of this year. Part 7 amended the Defamation Act 2009 to provide for safeguards in respect of defamation proceedings, which are a common vehicle for SLAPPs. This Bill draws heavily on the approach taken in Part 7 of the Defamation (Amendment) Act. It builds on the protections contained in Part 7 and introduces further protections in line with the directive. For example, it provides for interventions by third parties to support targets of SLAPP proceedings. It also makes provision for SLAPP proceedings taken in non-EU countries.

To ensure consistency across all forms of civil and commercial proceedings, the Bill repeals Part 7 of the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026 and instead directly amends the Defamation Act 2009 to include SLAPP protections. This means that all SLAPP protections are referred to in the same legislation.

I will now address the main provisions of the Bill. Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, provide for the Short Title and commencement of the Bill, definitions and the repeal of Part 7 of the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026. Section 4 outlines that Part 2 applies to proceedings brought against a person on account of his or her engagement in public participation. Section 5 of the Bill outlines that a defendant who considers proceedings taken against them to be initiated on account of his or her engagement in public participation, must inform the court.

Section 6 enables a court at its discretion to allow a person or body with a legitimate interest in safeguarding or promoting the rights of persons engaged in public participation, to make submissions to the court and to assist the defendant in proceedings which are alleged to be a SLAPP. This seeks to ensure that SLAPP targets, can avail of assistance of persons or organisations with relevant experience and expertise throughout proceedings which may be lengthy, complex, and overwhelming.

Section 7 provides that a court may, on application by a defendant, require a plaintiff to provide security for the defendant’s costs and-or any damages claimed by the defendant if the court is satisfied, first, that there is a prima facie case that the proceedings are abusive court proceedings against public participation and, second, that the requirement is in the interests of justice. It will be for the courts to determine what is in the interests of justice based on the circumstances of the case but the Bill provides guiding factors for the court to consider. These include the impact of such an order on both parties, the economic situation of the parties, the conduct of the proceedings and any difficulty likely to be faced by a defendant in enforcing an order for costs or damages.

Section 8 allows a defendant to seek early dismissal of proceedings relating to their engagement in public participation on the basis that those proceedings are manifestly unfounded. Where an application for early dismissal is made, the plaintiff is obliged to substantiate their claim so that the court can determine whether or not it is manifestly unfounded. The term "manifestly unfounded" is not defined prescriptively by the legislation but instead guidance is provided to the courts as to the circumstances in which a claim might be considered manifestly unfounded. This includes claims which have no reasonable chance of succeeding or are an abuse of process or interim or interlocutory proceedings which might unreasonably prejudice or delay the trial of a claim. The court is required to consider applications for early dismissal as expeditiously as possible consistent with the administration of justice. The striking out of SLAPP proceedings at an early stage will ensure that SLAPP targets are not forced to endure the lengthy and costly extent of a full trial. At the same time, the requirement that proceedings be manifestly unfounded mitigates the risk that those with genuine claims will be denied access to the courts.

Sections 9 and 10 of the Bill allow a defendant to apply to the court, at any stage of proceedings, including where early dismissal is sought, for a declaration that proceedings taken against them are SLAPP proceedings. Where a court issues such a declaration the court must take that declaration into consideration when making orders for costs. The Bill requires the court to consider the issue of costs as expeditiously as possible and allows the court to order the plaintiff to pay costs to the defendant on the more generous legal practitioner client or legal practitioner own-client basis if it considers this to be appropriate.

Section 11 enables a target of SLAPP proceedings to seek damages for any injury, loss or harm suffered as a result of those proceedings. Damages may be sought at the time an application for a declaration is made under section 9 or 10 or following the making of a declaration. This is a significant provision which recognises the extraordinary and abusive nature of SLAPP proceedings. Its effect is two-fold. It will allow a defendant to obtain compensation for material and non-material damages resulting from the bringing of the proceedings, undercutting the frequent goal of SLAPP litigants to use financial pressure to silence public debate. SLAPP defendants will, therefore, be able to fully defend against a claim, secure in the knowledge that they will be able to seek compensation for their losses. These remedies will also deter those contemplating or pursuing SLAPP proceedings, by increasing their potential losses where they are unsuccessful.

Section 12 requires a court which has made a finding that proceedings are a SLAPP to direct that its written judgment be published on the Courts Service website or, where there is no written judgment, that its order is published. In addition to having a deterrent effect, this will give greater clarity in relation to the frequency of SLAPPs in Ireland and the types of proceedings used as vehicles for SLAPPs, data on which is currently quite limited.

The Bill also contains provisions to protect public participants domiciled in Ireland from SLAPP proceedings taken against them in non-EU countries. Section 13 prohibits the recognition or enforcement of judgments made in third-country proceedings that would have been considered abusive court proceedings against public participation, or manifestly unfounded if they had been initiated in the State.

Section 14 allows targets of third-country SLAPP proceedings domiciled in Ireland to seek a declaration that those proceedings are abusive proceedings against public participation within the meaning of the legislation. Where such a declaration is made, a defendant may also seek compensation for damages and costs incurred in the third-country proceedings.

Section 15 of the Bill inserts a new Part 4A into the Defamation Act 2009. It replaces section 19 of the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026 which is repealed by section 3 of the Bill. Part 4A consists of 12 provisions to be inserted in the Defamation Act 2009. Section 34A is an interpretation provision which is similar to that contained in section 2 of the Bill. Section 34B clarifies that Part 4A applies to defamation proceedings. Sections 34C, 34CA, 34D to 34I and 34IA and 34IB mirror the provisions contained in sections 5 to 14, inclusive, of the Bill, which I have outlined. The distinction is that these provisions will apply specifically to defamation proceedings.

The Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Bill 2026 will provide important and effective protection for those who engage in public participation, while maintaining access to the courts for those who genuinely seek to assert their rights. I am hopeful that with Members co-operation, we can facilitate its swift passage through the House with a view to early enactment and completion of the transposition requirements and I commend the Bill to the House.

I thank the Minister of State. Sinn Féin welcomes legislation that will provide greater protections against strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPPs. The judicial system is a foundational pillar of the State and society. As with any such pillar, that there is faith and confidence in its fairness as to how it operates, but also that it operates consistently and without favour, is of paramount importance. There is much we can and should do to support such faith.

One such area is access to justice. Sinn Féin has brought forward proposals in this regard in relation to jury service and other areas. We welcome the Ministers' and Government's constructive engagement on this. Of course, another such area is the right to legal counsel and while I will not dwell on it today, I appeal to the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, to engage in mediation in good faith with the Law Society to address that crisis, the outworkings of which I do not believe we have even begun to see.

The other side of access to justice as it relates to fairness and this Bill is that some large entities or even individuals have, in effect, endless resources in comparison with others and for some time, this has allowed them greater access to the justice system and to abuse the justice system and silence political opponents, environmental or human rights activists and others.

Sinn Féin welcomes this legislation, which will provide new protections against SLAPPs across commercial and civil law while enhancing those recently passed by the Oireachtas. People should be clear as to what a SLAPP is, or rather what it is not. It is not when elected representatives defend their good name from spurious attacks. Everybody should have that right. In particular, we welcome the provisions of this Bill that will facilitate third-party interventions in cases by human rights bodies and others with relevant expertise. However, if we expect organisations to assist in safeguarding rights for targets of SLAPPs, we must recognise that we are asking such organisations to involve themselves in cases in the public interest and at their own expense. The Minister of State might consider such in terms of future funding needs of any such body or maybe she can clarify whether, in such a case, third-party costs would also be covered by the guarantees contained in the Bill.

We also welcome further provisions such as those ensuring that defendants may seek that a plaintiff provide security for their costs or any potential damages if the court is satisfied that they can justifiably argue that SLAPP provisions may apply; allowing for defendants to seek early dismissal should a case be manifestly unfounded; and providing for allowance in relation to damages for abusive proceedings. In particular, we welcome the provision whereby Irish courts will not recognise or enforce judgments that are initiated in a third, or non-EU, country that are considered by courts to be SLAPPs, and whereby Irish residents can apply to Irish courts for a declaration of such a case to be a SLAPP when such a case originates in a third country. However, this does call to mind issues raised during the consideration of the criminal justice Act 2026 in terms of co-operation with the judicial systems of other European Union member states. Where are the protections in cases wherein there are fears as to the independence of the judicial systems of European member states that may be experiencing democratic backsliding and whose governments have attacked the independence of their domestic courts?

The approach of the Bill includes repealing a not-insignificant portion of the defamation Bill 2026, passed by the Oireachtas earlier this year, but then goes on to reintroduce it largely verbatim, albeit with additionality. It would be beneficial if the Minister of State could explain in her closing remarks the reasoning for the approach. Why was this additionality not simply considered as part of the previous Bill? Why take the legislative approach within this Bill of repealing what the Government only a few lines later relegislated for? Therefore, in advance of Committee Stage, for the benefit of members of the Oireachtas justice committee, of whom I am one, I ask that the Minister of State direct officials to provide the committee with a detailed briefing note outlining the changes contained therein.

As we discuss access to justice and its relation to SLAPPs, I ask the Minister of State to reflect on the Government's own approach to litigation. A SLAPP can take the form of a case being taken that an individual or entity plaintiff has little intention of seeing through or winning on the merits of the sole basis that they are confident their financial means greatly exceed those of the campaigner or activist defendant they have taken a case against. In spirit and in principle, what is the difference between a SLAPP and the manner in which the Government defends cases taken by children seeking to vindicate their right to an assessment of need? I raised this with the Minister with responsibility for disability only the other day. A total of €7.2 million has been spent by the Government over the last four years to defend itself in cases against families who were just trying to access their rights to an assessment of need. These are rights in respect of which, under this Bill, the Government has broken the law. It wears families down and can financially exhaust them. It sends a message to the vast majority of parents that they will never be able to outspend the Irish Government.

It may be worth examining whether this legislation can be amended to ensure that once we have pinned down and insofar as possible eradicated the scourge of SLAPPS, it will not be the case that the only SLAPP left is the slap in the face and wallet Irish families receive when they dare to call out the Irish Government on its failures.

In conclusion, Sinn Féin welcomes this Bill. We will be supporting its passage through Second Stage and look forward to working constructively with the Minister of State as to how it may be improved on even further, providing greater and even more enhanced and widespread protections.

The Social Democrats will be supporting the Bill. Before we get into the detail of it, it is worth reminding ourselves of what we are actually trying to protect here. Strategic lawsuits against public participation make the consequences of speaking out so expensive, stressful and prolonged that eventually people decide that it is simply safer not to speak at all. The people most exposed are often precisely the people who are integral to a functioning democracy, namely, journalists, whistleblowers, activists, NGOs and people attempting to expose wrongdoing.

That is why this legislation matters. We are fortunate in this country to have a robust and independent press. Those of us in politics may not always feel particularly fortunate when we open the newspaper in the morning. We might not like what has been written about us. We might think something is unfair. We might think a journalist has completely misunderstood something we have done. However, that is democracy. The test of whether we believe in a free press is not whether we support journalism that is favourable to us. It is whether we defend the right of journalists to scrutinise us, challenge us, irritate us and occasionally make our lives uncomfortable. Events elsewhere over the last number of weeks should remind us of how precious that is.

Earlier this month, Donald Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico were to be banned from the White House because of reporting he did not like. That was not just rhetoric. Journalists from those organisations subsequently arrived at the White House and were denied entry. Their press credentials were confiscated. A federal judge has since intervened and temporarily restored their access on finding that the ban was likely to be unconstitutional. Today, those news organisations still have to go before the courts to protect their access while that case continues. It is genuinely extraordinary that we have arrived at a point in 2026 when the President of the US has decided that because he does not approve of the journalism of a particular news organisation, those journalists should no longer have access to the seat of government. It is dystopian. It should concern democrats of every political persuasion because governments do not get to decide who is a legitimate journalist based on whether they like what that journalist writes about them. Governments do not get to determine what constitutes acceptable scrutiny of government. The moment journalists begin wondering whether asking a difficult question will cost them access, whether publishing an investigation will result in retaliation or whether reporting something uncomfortable will result in financial or legal consequences, democracy has already started to lose.

I criticise the Government regularly. I am going to continue to do so because that is my job. It is also worth acknowledging that, thankfully, there should be nearly cross-party agreement in the House for a law such as this. We have a functioning democracy. Journalists can stand outside this building and criticise the Taoiseach, the Minister, the Opposition or anybody in this House. They can investigate the Government, expose failures of the State and report information those in power would much rather never saw the light of day, and thank God for that. We should treasure that freedom rather than simply assume it is permanent, because those freedoms can be eroded. Intimidation can become normalised, scrutiny can become something to be punished and those who have considerably more power and considerably deeper pockets can make the cost of speaking simply too great.

Coming back to the Bill, I welcome the fact the Government is completing the transposition of the European anti-SLAPP directive and even extending these protections beyond defamation to other civil and commercial proceedings. I particularly welcome the decision to extend the protections to domestic cases rather than restricting them to cases with a cross-border dimension because it would make very little sense to recognise the chilling effect of this type of litigation where there is a cross-border element but not where exactly the same things happen entirely in this State.

There are good protections in here. There is a provision for security for costs and damages. There are provisions for organisations with a legitimate interest in protecting public participation to assist defendants, and there is provision for damages where proceedings are ultimately found to have been abusive. Section 8 also allows somebody to seek the early dismissal of a claim as manifestly unfounded and requires the person bringing the case to substantiate the claim.

These are meaningful protections, but there are areas where we can make this legislation stronger as it progresses. There needs to be a clearly identified focal point for people dealing with SLAPPs and it is my understanding that IHREC is willing to perform that role, but I do not believe it is named in the legislation as the focal point. That matters because if we expect an organisation to take on an additional function, we have to formally recognise that function and resource it accordingly. I ask the Minister of State to look at that as the Bill progresses.

An issue arose when we considered the anti-SLAPP provisions in the defamation legislation last year. The threshold for early dismissal remains that a claim is manifestly unfounded. I am not convinced that fully captures what makes SLAPPs so insidious. The point is not necessarily that every SLAPP is completely without a legal argument. It is that the legal process itself can become the punishment. If somebody has vastly greater resources than the journalist, campaigner or whistleblower they are pursuing, they do not necessarily need to win. They can drag proceedings out, increase the costs, consume everybody's time and resources and make that person's life miserable. Most importantly, they can make that next person think twice before speaking.

The Minister of State could look again at whether the underlying proceedings should be paused while an application for early dismissal is being determined. We raised this issue during the defamation legislation on this floor as well. The logic of it is fairly straightforward. If somebody comes before a court and says, "This case is being used to exhaust me financially and silence me", it somewhat defeats the purpose if the cost of that case continues to mount while we decide whether they are right. The amendments we previously considered sought precisely that kind of stay in order to prevent legal fees continuing to accrue while a strike-out application was being determined. The protection has to work in reality, not merely on paper.

None of these issues take away from the fact that this is good and necessary legislation, but we should never become complacent about having a free press. Whatever disagreements we have in the House, and they are plenty, I hope that is something we can find unanimity on.

Before I conclude, these will be the last weeks before the courts open fully. Next week, chaos will reign around the courts. Our press, even today, is filled with reports of court cases that have proceeded without legal representation. It is incumbent on the Minister of State's Department and the senior Minister to intervene, negotiate and come to an agreement to avoid the precipice of what is going to be a disaster next week.

When we talk about SLAPP legislation, we should also stop and remember other whistleblowers, such as the ones who have come forward and raised issues in relation to the protected disclosure departments. This legislation in regard to SLAPP is happening at the same time that continued penalisation is happening against Dr. Donal Corcoran and Detective Superintendent Brian O'Reilly. I ask the Minister of State to intervene and cease that because if we believe in protecting whistleblowers, and we talk about it often, that must exist across all the architecture of the State. The architecture for protected disclosures is failing and the continued penalisation of those Garda members, through simply making their pay packet, is not fair or acceptable. The Minister of State has a responsibility to intervene.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill, which supports a free press. I thank the Minister of State and her officials for their work.

Informed public debate and a free press are fundamental in a modern democratic republic. Our democracy was hard won and it should never be taken for granted. A strategic lawsuit against public participation is not a genuine attempt to vindicate a right; it is an attempt to silence. The person who brings it often does not expect to win. They expect the journalist, the campaigner or the community group on the other side to run out of money, time or nerves long before the case reaches the courtroom.

The process is the punishment and the cost is not only theirs. When a journalist drops a story, a community group withdraws an objection or a citizen deletes a post, the public loses. The problem is growing. The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe has now documented 1,303 of these cases across Europe since 2010, with 167 new cases added in 2024 alone. It has recorded 33 cases in Ireland and that figure probably only scratches the surface. The same research tells us that only 8.5% of these cases are cross-border. The vast majority are domestic. That is why I particularly welcome the Minister's decision to apply these protections to domestic proceedings, and not only to the cross-border cases the EU directive requires. Anything less would have left the people most at risk with the least protection.

The Bill gives defendants real tools. Under section 6, for example, the court can allow others to make submissions or to assist a defendant, so no one has to stand alone. Under section 7, the court can require the plaintiff to lodge security for costs and damages. Under section 8 also, a defendant can seek early dismissal of proceedings that are manifestly unfounded and the plaintiff must then substantiate the claim. Under sections 9 to 11, inclusive, a court can declare proceedings abusive, award more generous costs and order the plaintiff to pay damages. Section 12 means those findings will be published on the Courts Service website, so the practice carries a reputational cost as well as a financial one. Sections 13 and 14 mean Irish courts will not enforce abusive judgments from outside the EU, and people here targeted by such cases can recover their losses.

I welcome Part 3. By repealing Part 7 of the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026 and inserting a new Part 4A that mirrors the rest of the Bill, we will have one set of safeguards, in one place, whether a case is framed as defamation or anything else. That is simpler for the courts and far clearer for the people this Bill is meant to protect.

In my own constituency of Dún Laoghaire, the people most exposed to this kind of threat are not the major broadcasters with in-house legal teams. They are the local and regional papers, residents' association making a planning submission and the volunteer who runs a community page and asks a hard question. For them, a solicitor's letter can be enough to end that conversation. This Bill gives them somewhere to stand.

The research is also clear about who brings these cases. Across Europe, the most common litigants are those in positions of power, namely businesses and politicians. It is disappointing that even here, some elected representatives have appeared to engage in this practice. Every citizen, including every politician, has a constitutional right to their good name and nothing in this Bill takes from that, but those of us who ask the public for its trust should be the last people to use the courts to silence those who question us. Scrutiny is part of the job. Criticism, even unfair criticism, is also part of the job.

That tells us something about the wider state of our public discourse, and that is what I want to turn to now. The space for political debate in this country and across Europe is shrinking, and it is shrinking in strange ways. Since October of last year, Meta and Google have stopped accepting political adverts everywhere in the EU, blaming the complexity of new EU rules. That includes any advert placed for or by a politician. A TD can no longer pay to tell constituents about a clinic or a public meeting. Meanwhile, scam adverts are everywhere. The Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Jack Chambers, have both had their images used in them and almost daily a new public figure has been implicated. Last November, Reuters reported that Meta's own internal documents projected that around 10% of its 2024 revenue, some $16 billion, would come from adverts for scams and banned goods.

Mark Little, in his new book The Last Good Day on the Internet, charts how the relentless pursuit of attention and scale fuelled toxic algorithms, hate, misinformation and division. Platforms profit from reaction, and nothing drives reaction like the most extreme position. The clinic notice is blocked, the scam advert is served and the outrage is amplified. That is not a healthy information space.

It is a similar story with political funding. A party or candidate here can only accept limited donations or support. Foreign donations are banned and the rules have recently been tightened again. Yet, some parties have used the gap between this jurisdiction and others, particularly the UK, to take in donations no party could accept here in the Republic, including a single bequest of more than £2 million. None of us wants a UK-style system where crypto money buys a platform, but some reform is necessary so that our rules are proportionate and cannot be sidestepped by crossing a border.

Corporate interests and the NGOs press their agendas in this House and around the country every week. In a liberal democracy that is a good thing. We must hear ideas, including new ones and the ones we disagree with. However, set that against the growing web of declarations, returns and compliance rules elected representatives and parties must follow in the course of their ordinary work. Transparency is correct and right but when the heaviest burden falls on those who must face the electorate, the treatment is inconsistent, and it is having an impact.

Add the toxicity of so much online debate and you can see why people are stepping back from public life. A UCD survey for the Oireachtas task force on safe participation in political life found 94% TDs and Senators who responded had experienced threats, harassment, abuse or violence. Some 45% had avoided a particular policy area as a result and 43% said it made them less likely to run for office again. We saw the consequences at the last general election. Thirty outgoing TDs did not seek re-election, compared with just 19 in 2020. Many of them were good, hardworking representatives. When he announced his decision, Ciarán Cannon said, "There’s a coarseness, a toxicity in politics now that was barely palpable twenty years ago". The next local elections are due in 2029 and parties across this House are already looking for candidates. If the young parent, the small business owner or the carer decides public life is not worth the abuse, the ballot paper will not reflect the community those people could serve. Last of all, most TDs from all sides of this House welcome the dedicated channels Departments and agencies have set up for Members' representations but the service is very inconsistent and in some cases it has reduced in recent times. We must be vigilant these channels do not become a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise pushing more work on TDs and our offices. A reference number is not an answer, an acknowledgement is not a resolution of a query and a closed file is not a problem solved.

I raise these issues so Ministers - and I understand the Minister of State is aware of these issues - colleagues and the public might consider how we promote healthy public debate and systems that let elected representatives advocate effectively for their constituents. Politics should always be about ideas and policies that improve the nation for all. I have two specific asks of the Minister of State. The first is that the Courts Service publish annual figures on applications made and granted under this Act so this House can see whether it works or not. The second is that the Minister raise with the Minister for housing and local government the need for a review by An Coimisiún Toghcháin of how the rules on political advertising, funding and compliance work in practice and implement the reforms well in advance of the 2029 local elections and potential general election. Democracy must not just work; it must be seen to work.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this. It is quite an important matter and not the first time we have been addressing this in legislation. It is important we do so to ensure the well-resourced corporations can no longer use the threat of legal cases to prevent the disclosure or exposure of wrongdoing or criminal acts by those corporations or by their agents, and the like, and that there are protections here for other civil and consumer cases. We should be encouraging whistleblowers in particular and giving them all the protections. By given them protections we are standing with the logic behind this but we need to fully adhere to those protections so there is no undermining of the systems. We have seen some of that only recently with the discussion on the Garda Síochána whistleblower section resigning because they did not have faith in their own whistleblowing and how the disclosures were being treated by that organisation. We cannot just pass the legislation. We have to act accordingly and ensure the protections are there.

The free press and free debate have to be protected, as other Deputies have said, though a free press and free debate are not unfettered. We do and we must defend the free press, especially in the era we are living in and when there are moves to silence the press and to hamper it from publishing the truth. It is important for us in a democracy that we understand what the free press stands for, how it defends us in our democracy and how the truth needs to be what is published. We have seen big organisations using the threat of legal proceedings to threaten those who are intent on taking a court case. People are threatened with bankruptcy, their home being taken or whatever. We all know of people who have backed off and who have sometimes sought help in a different way to try to expose wrongdoing. The threat of bankrupting a person is something we need to stand up against and that is why this legislation is to be welcomed.

We also need to live up to it as a State because the State Claims Agency is one of the organisations that threatens people who are taking cases against the State and it has managed to force people. Even though that agency understands it is in the wrong its instructions are to fight cases that are unjust or where a wrong has been perpetrated against a citizen. The thalidomide survivors are an example. They still have not been granted the recognition and the financial compensation they deserve for the wrong done by the State. There are others. There is the Air Corps chemical poison group in which each individual had to take a case themselves rather than collectively. The threat, therefore, was that they would be bankrupted if they did not win the case. It was a question of being forced into silence or poverty. When we are passing legislation aimed at the private sector the State also has to take note of it.

I welcome the commentary about social media. At least journalists are known and their names are printed. In social media people hide and you cannot take cases against them.

This is the second time in seven months the Oireachtas has been asked to legislate against SLAPPs in defamation cases. The Defamation Act 2026 was signed into law on 19 February. Part 7 of that Act inserted anti-SLAPP provisions for defamation cases. On 25 February the Minister signed an order bringing most of the Act into force from 1 March. He did not bring Part 7 into force. The Department said Part 7 would be commenced to align with a separate SLAPP Bill. The general scheme of that separate Bill was published on 11 February 2026, which was eight days before the defamation Act was signed into law. The Government asked the Oireachtas to pass anti-SLAPP legislation it already knew it was going to replace very soon. There are questions there about timing. Is this a good use of the Department’s resources? These provisions have never been enforced and this Bill will repeal them. Section 15 in Part 3 inserts a new and longer version of Part 4A in their place. The Minister of State might explain why the Defamation Bill was not simply amended in its final Stages, rather than asking the Houses to legislate twice on the same subject. She should give the House a clear, ideally published, comparison of what the new Part 4A changes versus the version the Oireachtas passed in February.

The Bill is also late. The deadline for transposing the directive was 7 May 2026. We are not very good at transposing directives on time. In fairness, there are a lot of directives that are justice-orientated but it was not presented until 1 July of this year.

We do not have a good track record and the Minister of State should tell the House when she expects the Act to be brought into force.

The Bill promises a bit more than it delivers. The language in the Bill is very strong to be fair and is practical in its effect in most instances but there are issues regarding early dismissal. How Irish courts can already strike out a claim that discloses no reasonable cause of action is an abuse of the court process or is bound to fail. The Bill's definition of a manifestly unfounded claim largely lists those same existing grounds. The defendant's application must be made in accordance with law, which means under the existing rules of court. There is actually no new procedure in place in this Bill so how is it different? Regarding speed, the Bill directs the courts to act as expeditiously as possible consistent with the administration of justice. The final words of that phrase do all the work. The courts already control their own list. Delay in our court is caused by the number of judges we have and the resources available to the Courts Service and nothing in this Bill will change that.

The burden is on the plaintiff. The Bill says that it shall be for the plaintiff to substantiate his or her claims, which sounds significant, but in any application to strike out the claim, the plaintiff already has to show that there is a real case to answer so the practical change is minute, if at all.

On costs, where a court finds proceedings to be abusive, it may take that finding into account when awarding costs insofar as it considers appropriate and may if it thinks fit award costs on a higher basis. That is a discretion that is qualified twice over. The courts already have a discretion under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 to reflect the party's misconduct in the costs they award. A SLAPP harms its target through cost and delay not usually by winning at trial and this point is being lost. A Bill that does little about cost and delay actually does little about SLAPPs. That is the key point I want to get across here. Delay and cost are the tactics and if they are not addressed, the fundamentals of the Bill are not at the level we require.

What it could do, but does not, is bring in a way of pausing the main proceedings, so when a defendant applies to have a SLAPP struck out, the rest of the case keeps running and keeps costing money, exchange of pleadings, discovery of documents, other motions, etc. The Bill should pause the main proceedings while the anti-SLAPP application is decided.

Regarding full costs as a starting point, once a court has found the proceedings are abusive, the person targeted should recover his or her full legal costs as the default position unless the court decides otherwise for good reason. As regards paying for defence, while we are not saying that it should be paid for and are not arguing in favour of for-profit funding of litigation, has the Government considered a narrow statutory exception allowing the defence of a SLAPP to be funded in certain circumstances because it may be necessary?

On threatening letters, much of the damage is done before any case is even started by solicitors' letters threatening proceedings that may never be issued and are unlikely to be issued. Every prosecution in this Bill begins only once proceedings are started. The Minister of State should say what the Government proposes for the threat stage - not the initiation stage. For example, working with the Law Society on standards of professional conduct for such letters would be a good start.

Regarding judgments and publishing findings, judgments finding proceedings to be abusive are to be published on the court's website where practical and as soon as is so practical. It is genuinely hard to see when publishing a finding of abuse would ever be impractical. I cannot see how it could be, so why is the conditionality there? That should be taken out. The Minister of State might look at an amendment with regard to that. I will submit an amendment but it would be good if she could come forward with one as well.

Defamation is the most common vehicle for SLAPPs yet under this Bill people sued for defamation get narrower protection than people sued in any other civil case. Both sets of protections depend on whether the speech concerned a matter of public interest and the Bill gives examples of what that includes. For ordinary civil cases, the examples include activities aimed at protecting the values set out in Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union, namely, democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, including protecting democratic processes against disinformation. In the defamation provisions, that example applies only to cases within the scope of EU directives, which, in practice, means cross-border cases.

A journalist sued for defamation in an Irish court over reporting on disinformation seems to get less statutory recognition that a campaigner sued for anything other than defamation under what we are debating today. A similar restriction applies to allegations of administrative offences. The Minister of State should explain the policy reason for giving defamation defendants a narrower definition. If there is no good reason, the two definitions should be the same in our opinion.

What is the situation regarding people who are being sued right now as this legislation is being brought forward? What happens to pending cases? The February Act contained a transitional provision - section 20 - that stated the anti-SLAPP provisions would apply only to proceedings started after those provisions came into force. This Bill repeals that section and puts nothing in its place either for the defamation provisions or for the new general scheme, so the Bill is silent on the question that matters most to anyone being sued today, namely, whether this law will help them. The Minister of State might address that in her reply. Where are we as regards current cases and will the Bill help people who are being sued at the moment? Without an express provision, the courts will have to decide that question themselves applying general law presumptions provision by provision. Procedural protections such as direction to deal with applications quickly would probably apply to cases already under way.

On the new liability to pay damages for bringing abusive proceedings, perhaps it would not if the law presumes that new liabilities are not attached to things done before the law was passed. Security for costs and enhanced costs orders may perhaps fall somewhere in between. The uncertainty will be resolved by litigation at the expense of the people this Bill is meant to protect. We need absolute clarity on this issue and I presume the Minister of State's discussions with her officials there involve trying to get such clarity because certainly as regards the provisions of the Bill as currently constituted, we do not have that clarity.

It is welcome that the Irish courts will refuse to enforce abusive judgments obtained outside the European Union - that is universally welcome - and that people living in Ireland who are sued abusively abroad can seek a declaration and compensation here. However, the Bill does not say who has to prove the foreign proceedings would have been abusive had they been brought in Ireland or on what evidence. The Minister of State should clarify that. Compensation under these provisions would be ordered against a plaintiff based outside the European Union who will often have no assets here. This is obviously a very important point. The Minister of State should explain how the Government expects such orders to be enforced in practice. If the plaintiff has no assets or ties, how is it going to be enforced?

The Bill preserves agreements between the State and a third country concluded before 6 May 2024. Many agreements on recognising court judgments from non-EU countries are made by the European Union rather than by Ireland. The Minister of State should clarify how these provisions interact with those agreements.

Regarding constitutional balance, strong protections against SLAPPs are needed but the Constitution also protects every citizen's good name and every citizen's right of access to the courts. Anyone who has genuinely been defamed must be able to vindicate his or her reputation. Anti-SLAPP law must never become a shield for falsehood either. The Government may say that this Bill goes as far as the Constitution allows but it does not. This Bill goes as far as existing court powers allow. This is a much lower bar than the Constitution sets. None of the additional measures we are proposing decides any case against any plaintiff. On pausing the main proceedings while an anti-SLAPP application is heard, making full costs the starting point once a court is found abuse, allowing defence of a SLAPP to be funded and addressing threatening letters before proceedings are issued, none of those proposals denies anyone access to the courts or weakens the protection of anyone's good name. All are within the power of the Oireachtas and all of us to regulate court procedure.

There is, however, a genuine constitutional limit. Some other countries allow a court at an early stage to dismiss the claim that has some merit because the public interest in the speech outweighs the harm to the plaintiff. That would sit uneasily with our constitutional protection of a person's good name and the right of access to the courts and is not what is being proposed here but this Bill sits way below that line.

I have some questions for the Minister of State. Why did the Government ask the Oireachtas to pass anti-SLAPP provisions in February that it always intended to replace? What does the new Part 4A of the Defamation Act 2009 change compared with the version passed in February?

Will the Minister publish a comparison for us all to look at? Has the European Commission raised the missed transposition deadline of 7 May this year with the State? What did we say to it? When will the Act be brought into force? Will the defamation provisions and the general provisions come into force on the same day? Was the removal of the transitional provision in section 20 of the February Act deliberate? Will people who are already being sued benefit from this Bill? That is very confusing. Why do people who sue for defamation get a narrower definition of “matter of public interest” than people sued on any other basis? I cannot see why there is a difference. Which set of rules applies where a defamation claim is combined with another kind of claim? That is totally confusing.

Will the Government accept an amendment pausing the main proceedings while an anti-SLAPP application is decided? Will the Government accept an amendment making full costs the starting point once the court has found proceedings to be abusive? That would be a welcome amendment if the Minister would consider it. Will the Government consider a narrow exception to the rules against third-party funding so the defence of a SLAPP can be funded? What does the Government propose to address threatening solicitors’ letters sent before any proceedings are issued? It is an area that is completely left out at the moment and needs to be addressed.

The February Act allows a court to penalise with costs a party who unreasonably refuses to use the Press Council’s complaints process or the broadcasting right of reply. Will the Minister of State confirm in reply that a defendant will not be penalised for refusing on the grounds that the claim is a SLAPP where the court later finds that it was? How does the Government expect compensation orders against plaintiffs based outside the European Union to be enforced? It seems to be silent on that.

We will have a lot of amendments on Committee Stage, depending on how the Minister of State responds. I suggest there are a number of areas, which we have put a lot of thought into, that the Minister of State might consider. Certainly, we will be putting forward amendments should she not.

This legislation is critical in the grand scheme of things concerning what we talked about previously in relation to Garda whistleblowers. It is beyond my comprehension how the Government thinks that by putting its head in the sand, this is going to go away. This is not going to go away. Many of those who are brave enough to stick their heads above the parapet are on social welfare. Imagine being put through that after all the years of service they have given. It is ironic and something this House probably needs to look at. If they were charged with serious criminal offences, they would be suspended on full pay. These people have pointed out serious wrongdoing, yet they are on social welfare. It is a genuine comment that we need to look at that. I see the Minister of State nodding. It is a fair point to make.

I know these people. Some of them are in the Houses at the moment. What they are saying needs to be dealt with by the Government. This does not have to be a “gotcha” moment. These are real issues in relation to how whistleblowing was dealt with by An Garda Síochána and how it continues to be dealt with by An Garda Síochána. I do not think it is reasonable for us to accept that the people who point this out are being penalised to the level that they are on social welfare, while other people who may have committed serious offences are on full pay while suspended. It is a reasonable point that the Minister of State should reflect on, outside of the issue we are talking about. I also believe that, separately, all of the ongoing protected disclosures that have been made within An Garda Síochána for the last number of years need to be independently audited. No matter where this issue goes, they need to be independently audited. We also need a check on documentation to make sure it is preserved.

Whatever happens, one thing that is central in relation to how protected disclosures are dealt with in An Garda Síochána needs to be dealt with. There is no possible way that future protected disclosures and the process by which protected disclosures are made in An Garda Síochána can be under a directorate, a Commissioner or a deputy commissioner within that organisation. It has to be independent and separate, not answerable to a Commissioner or deputy commissioner for access, funding, legal advice or anything else. That has never been the case and the changes An Garda Síochána has now made, and the directions it has given out, mean it is still not the case. We will never ever get to a position of confidence in that process until it is independent. As has been said in the media, a Commissioner or deputy commissioner should not be in a position or have any capacity to know about what is going on in relation to that unit and the work it does. They should have no capacity to decide whether funding is given to that unit or not. They should have no capacity to decide whether legal advice is taken. They should have no capacity to even know what experts are brought in to give advice to that unit. They should have no capacity to decide whether people are allowed into the Phoenix Park or wherever the unit is based. It must be totally independent. It is the only way.

I have made three important points in relation to this separate from what I have said on it previously. First, these people deserve respect. They deserve not to be penalised. I am asking the Government to address that now. As I said, if they committed an offence or were on a serious charge, they would not be on social welfare but on full pay. Second, there is a need to preserve documentation and ensure there is an independent audit. Third, please, once and for all, make sure that this unit is independent from the other roles of An Garda Síochána.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill as it goes to the very heart of our democracy. It concerns freedom of expression, the right of citizens to speak out on matters of public interest and the ability of journalists, campaigners, whistleblowers and community activists to hold those with deep pockets to account without fear of being dragged into costly and intimidating legal proceedings.

We all recognise that every person has the right to their good name and reputation. Indeed, it is enshrined in our Constitution and must always be protected. However, we must also recognise that legal proceedings can sometimes be weaponised. They can be used not as a genuine means of seeking justice but as a tool to silence criticism, suppress scrutiny and discourage participation in public debate. For example, a journalist investigating corruption, a local resident raising environmental concerns, a survivor speaking out about wrongdoing or a community group challenging a powerful interest may ultimately win their case, but even when they are right, the mere threat of years of litigation, substantial legal costs and overwhelming stress can be enough to silence them.

In a healthy democracy, and thankfully Ireland is still a healthy democracy, the truth should never be drowned out by the deepest pockets. The purpose of this legislation is therefore straightforward. It seeks to identify cases that are abusive in nature and allow courts to deal with them in an efficient manner. This legislation introduces mechanisms for the early dismissal of manifestly unfounded proceedings and provides protections for people engaged in public participation. It also allows courts to make appropriate cost orders and other remedies where proceedings are found to be abusive.

Very importantly, and I welcome the fact, there is recognition that public participation is essential to democratic life. Public participation is not limited to newspapers or broadcasters. It includes community activists campaigning for safer neighbourhoods. It includes parents advocating for better services for their children. It includes environmental groups raising concerns about developments in their community. It includes victims, survivors and whistleblowers who speak out in the public interest. All of these people play an invaluable role in our society and, far from being discouraged, they should be encouraged and protected.

As legislators, we should be especially conscious of the pressures faced by local campaigners and ordinary citizens. Large corporations, wealthy individuals and powerful organisations often have access to significant legal resources. Ordinary citizens generally do not. This imbalance is obvious. Where one side can absorb years of legal costs, the other cannot. Access to justice therefore becomes unequal. Thankfully, this Bill seeks to restore that balance.

I also welcome the protection it provides for responsible journalism and, as we know, responsible journalism does not necessarily have a voice in some parts of this world. A free and independent press is one of the cornerstones of democratic accountability. Investigative journalism has exposed corruption, uncovered wrongdoing, highlighted failures in public services and given a voice to those who might otherwise have been silent. When journalists are threatened with meritless lawsuits simply because they are doing their jobs, democracy suffers, as do we.

That is why Ireland has been encouraged for a number of years by media organisations, civil society groups and international bodies to strengthen protections against SLAPPs. The Government has acknowledged that SLAPPs pose significant challenges to press freedom and democratic debate and that measures are required to prevent misuse of the legal system. Importantly, this legislation does not remove anyone's legitimate right to take legal action where they have genuinely been defamed or harmed. Genuine claims can and should continue to proceed through the courts.

The objective is not to weaken access to justice and to our courts but to prevent the abuse of the justice system. That distinction is absolutely critical. We must always strike an appropriate balance between protecting reputation and protection freedom of expression. Those rights are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they reinforce one another when supported by a fair legal framework. The challenge for legislators is to ensure the law cannot be manipulated as a means of intimidation. The safeguards provided in this legislation are, therefore, proportionate and necessary. They recognise the threat of litigation can itself become the punishment, even in cases where the underlying claims lack merit. By allowing courts to intervene earlier, the legislation reduces that risk that defendants are forced into lengthy and expensive legal battles simply to vindicate their right to speak on matters of public concern.

This strength of any democracy can be measured by how willing it is to tolerate scrutiny, criticism and debate. Democracies do not fear questions. They do not punish those who seek accountability. Democracies depend upon informed citizens engaging openly, freely and honestly in public life. The people we seek to protect through this legislation are often those who shine a light where others would prefer to stay in the darkness. They ask the difficult questions, challenge the established interests and advocate for transparency and accountability. They are not enemies of democracy. They are, in fact, its strongest defenders. For this reason, I believe the Bill represents an important and necessary reform. I, therefore, welcome this legislation and look forward to its implementation.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Bill 2026. At first glance, the Title of this Bill probably does not tell most people very much about what it actually does, but the principle behind it is relatively straightforward. People should be able to participate in public debate, report on matters of public interest, raise legitimate concerns and ask difficult questions without the legal system being used as a means of silencing them.

At the same time, people have a right to their good name and reputation and if somebody has genuinely been wronged, they must continue to have access to the courts. That balance is important and it is worth keeping it at the centre of our consideration of this Bill. What we are dealing with here are commonly called SLAPPs, strategic lawsuits against public participation. We are essentially talking about legal proceedings which can be used against somebody because their participation is a matter of public interest. The concern is not simply whether somebody ultimately wins or loses a particular case. The concern is that the legal process itself can become the punishment. A person may face the prospect of significant legal costs, considerable time, uncertainty and the pressure that comes with defending legal proceedings.

There can be a wider effect as well. Other people looking at what has happened may decide that they are better off saying nothing. That is where this becomes an issue not just for the individual involved but for public participation more generally. This issue has been recognised at European level already. In April 2024, the EU adopted its anti-SLAPP directive, which requires member states to provide minimum procedural safeguards for people targeted by manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings arising from their participation in matters of public interest. This Bill gives further effect to that directive in Irish law. Importantly, Ireland is proposing to go beyond the minimum requirements of the directive in one significant respect. The European requirements relate principally to cases with a cross-border dimension. This Bill proposes that the protections should apply to domestic proceedings in Ireland. This makes sense. If we accept the principle that the legal system should not be abused in order to suppress legitimate public participation, it would be difficult to justify protecting someone where a case has a cross-border element but not providing comparable protection where the entire case arises within Ireland.

We have also done some work in this area through the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026. That legislation contains protections relating to SLAPPs in defamation proceedings. The Bill essentially completes that work by dealing with other civil and commercial proceedings and completing Ireland's transposition of the EU directive.

What will actually change? There are a number of practical measures in the Bill, which I think are worth explaining. A defendant who believes that a claim brought against them because of their public participation is manifestly unfounded will be able to apply to have that claim struck out. Importantly, the legislation states that a court should deal with such an application as expeditiously as possible, consistent with the proper administration of justice. Once that application has been made it is for the plaintiff to substantiate the claim so that the court can assess whether it is manifestly unfounded. This matters because one of the problems we are trying to address is the burden that lengthy litigation itself can impose. If a case really is manifestly unfounded, then we should have a mechanism through which that can be identified at an early stage, rather than requiring somebody to go through a prolonged legal process before reaching that conclusion.

There are also provisions concerning security for costs and damages. Where a defendant can establish a prima facie case that proceedings are abusive, a court can, where it is in the interests of justice, require the plaintiff to provide security. There are safeguards built into that decision. The court has to consider matters, including the financial circumstances of both parties, whether requiring security would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff's ability to pursue a legitimate claim, and the effect of the defendant's ability to defend the proceedings if security is not provided. Again, this brings us back to balance.

We want to protect people against abusive litigation but we cannot replace one barrier to justice with another. A person who has a genuine legal grievance should not be prevented from pursuing it simply because they do not have substantial financial resources. I will be particularly interested in examining this when we get to Committee Stage.

There is another interesting provision in the Bill which allows a person or organisation with a legitimate interest in safeguarding public participation to make submissions to the court and, with the court's permission, assist the defendant. That does not extend to funding the proceedings but it recognises that some cases have implications which go beyond the two individual parties before the court.

The Bill also provides for the publication, where practicable, of judgments or court orders where a court has found that proceedings were abusive proceedings against public participation. This provides an additional degree of transparency around the operation of this legislation.

There are also provisions dealing with proceedings taken outside of Ireland and with certain judgments from third countries. This is important because public debate today does not stop at national borders. Journalism does not stop at national borders and information certainly does not stop at national borders, so our legislation has to recognise the international environment in which people now communicate and publish.

There is a broader point here too. When we talk about public participation we should not think only about national newspapers or prominent journalists. Of course, investigative journalism is an important part of this debate and journalists must be able to investigate and report responsibly on matters of genuine public interest. However, public participation is wider than journalism. It can be a community organisation raising an issue. It can be an NGO. It can be somebody involved in environmental or human rights work.

It can simply be an individual who has legitimate information or concerns that he or she believes should be put out into the public domain. Our democracy depends upon people being prepared to participate but rights come with responsibilities. Freedom of expression does not mean that somebody can say absolutely anything about another person without consequence. The right to participate in public debate does not remove another person's right to his or her reputation or to seek redress when he or she has genuinely been wronged. We should be careful not to create the impression that every legal action taken against a journalist, campaigner or public participant is automatically a SLAPP. It is not. There will be legitimate cases, disputes, and circumstances where somebody has every right to ask a court to vindicate his or her rights. The role of this legislation is to help the courts distinguish between those genuine cases and proceedings which are manifestly unfounded or abusive. That distinction is fundamental.

We also need to be conscious of access to justice on both sides. We quite rightly talk about the cost of somebody having to defend him or herself against abusive proceedings but access to justice also matters for someone who has suffered a genuine wrong and needs the court to remedy it. As this Bill progresses, I will be interested in whether we have got that balance right in practice. Can a manifestly unfounded case be dealt with early enough to make these protections meaningful? Are the tests clear enough for the courts to apply consistently? Are we ensuring that legitimate plaintiffs are not discouraged from accessing courts? Are the remedies sufficiently practical to make a real difference to someone who has been subjected to abusive proceedings? Those are exactly the kind of questions that Committee Stage allows us to examine in greater detail.

I also welcome the fact this Bill does not simply focus on one particular profession or category of person: the principle is broader. It is about protecting participation in matters of public interest. That is the correct approach. There is a tendency sometimes when we debate legislation to present competing rights as though one must choose one and disregard the other but I do not think we need to do that here. We can support freedom of expression and public participation while also protecting a person's good name. We can protect journalists and ordinary citizens from abusive litigation while maintaining access to the courts for people with genuine claims. We can give judges stronger and clearer tools to deal with abuse of the legal process while maintaining the independence of the courts to decide individual cases on their merits. That ultimately is the balance this legislation has to achieve.

I support the objective of the Bill on Second Stage. The principle behind it is sound. Nobody should be able to use their financial strength or the prospect of lengthy and expensive litigation simply to prevent another person from participating legitimately in a matter of public interest. Equally, nobody should lose their right to vindicate their reputation or other legal rights simply because the person on the other side of the case describes his or her activity as public participation. The challenge is to protect both.

As a member of the justice committee, I look forward to examining details of the legislation on Committee Stage, particularly how these safeguards will operate in practice and whether we have achieved the right balance between protecting public participation, people’s good name, and maintaining proper access to justice. On that basis, I am happy to support the Bill proceeding to the next Stage.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill because for me, this is not just a theoretical issue. I know what it is like as a sitting TD to be pursued with legal correspondence and to be threatened with legal action while simply trying to represent the people who elected me. When a constituent comes to my office with a serious concern, my job is to listen to them, investigate the matter, ask questions and where necessary, raise those questions with the relevant authorities. That is what I was elected to do. However, when solicitors’ letters start arriving because you have raised difficult questions, there is a chilling effect. You start to wonder what is the next letter you will see, what defending yourself could cost and how far somebody with deeper pockets might be prepared to take it.

If that pressure can be put on a TD, imagine what it is like for an ordinary citizen, local journalist, farmer, community activist or whistleblower. That is why I understand the principles behind this Bill. Nobody should be able to use their wealth, power, or access to expensive lawyers to frighten another person into silence. People have a right to their good name and to defend themselves where they have been genuinely wronged. This Bill cannot and should not give politicians, journalists or anybody else a licence to say whatever they want without consequences. However, there is a world of difference between going to court to vindicate a legitimate right and using the threat of the expense and stress of litigation as a weapon to silence legitimate public interest questions. Sometimes you do not even have to bring the case to conclusion; a threatening letter can be enough. The prospect of spending tens of thousands of euro to defend yourself can be enough. The legal process itself can become the punishment. That is where this legislation is important.

I particularly welcome the provisions allowing unfounded claims to be dealt with at an early stage, and allowing the court to take stronger action where proceedings are found to be abusive. However, I have serious concerns. Will an ordinary person actually be able to afford to use these protections? There is no point in passing legislation protecting people against expensive and abusive litigation if they need thousands of euro to get to court and prove the litigation is abusive. A person who receives a solicitor's letter may already be frightened out of his or her wits about what the case could cost. I want to know what practical assistance will be available to that person. How quickly will these applications be heard and will adequate resources be provided? Will legal aid - if the person can get it - or some other form of assistance be considered because these protections have to be quick, affordable and accessible, or they will mean very little to the ordinary person?

I also want the Minister to consider the position of elected representatives. A TD's job does not begin and end in this Chamber. We meet people in our clinics and we write to Departments, councils, State agencies and other organisations. We raise difficult cases because sometimes the people sitting across the desk from us have nowhere else to turn. I have been elected to represent those people and I will not be frightened out of representing them by the threat of a solicitor's letter. However, that does not put me or any TD above the law. In effect, representatives acting honestly and responsibly on a genuine matter of public interest must be able to do their job without wondering whether the price for asking an uncomfortable question will be another legal threat landing on the desk.

Our courts must always remain places where people can go to seek justice. They can never be allowed to become a weapon for those with the deepest pockets to silence those who ask difficult questions. The real test of this legislation will come when an ordinary person gets that solicitor’s letter. Will he or she be able to stand his or her ground and challenge abusive proceedings quickly? Most importantly, will he or she be able to afford to do it?

Freedom of expression and public participation cannot become rights that only belong to people wealthy enough to defend them. That is the challenge I put to the Minister and it is the standard by which this Bill should be ultimately judged.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. To simplify it for people, an investigative journalist should be protected. From an investigative point of view, a person may be in a Department, in government or in Revenue. I have two cases before Revenue. They are not for me but for my constituents. To tell the truth, from the couple of cases I have in different parts of Revenue, things are sitting on desks for 12 months and are not being looked at. The knock-on effect of this is the legal bills involved. If somebody is whistleblowing, they are up against the management in these places. People in that position are afraid to do anything because it might affect their jobs. People are actually shoved out in the cold. We can see what happened with the whistleblowers in An Garda Síochána and the Prison Service. They were cast out. Why were there no protections there?

It is the same thing when we talk about journalism. If a journalist is investigating something that is wrong and pressure comes on him or her from a legal perspective, he or she should 100% be protected.

It is the same thing for a sitting TD, Senator or councillor. If they see something wrong and highlight it, they should be protected.

We have seen how many years it took when we had people under investigation in the Garda. All those gardaí were acquitted of any wrongdoing. What stood in the way of that happening? How many years? How many people did not get to where they needed to get in their careers? It not only affected them but their families and extended families. The gardaí are our protectors. I have the utmost respect for the gardaí and I encourage people to join the Garda service. If you are in the Garda protecting people in your area, there should be the same protections for you if there is an internal matter in the service. In any walk of life, no matter where you work or what you work at, there is always a minority of people that do things for the wrong reasons, but the majority are there for the right reasons. We need to make sure the majority of people, those who are there for the right reasons and who want to make things better, are protected, while the ones there for the wrong reasons, even those in positions of power, are held accountable. That is what we need to do and what I would like to see happening.

Looking at criminals and reoffenders, some people are getting free legal aid who have been 25 or 30 times in front of the courts. It is fine if you have done something once or twice, something goes wrong and you get free legal aid, but when you are doing something 30 times, does it not show we have a problem? We are giving them free legal aid. It was brought up in our local authority in Limerick by Councillor John O'Donoghue that there should be a cap put on somebody who reoffends repeatedly. How are you going to learn from anything if you keep getting free legal aid? That is also an issue that needs to be discussed.

From the Garda Commissioner down, everyone should be treated as an equal, regardless of their position, when it comes to accountability. I hope this Bill, when it goes through, reflects that. The same goes for Departments. If our Departments, or certain parts of them, are not doing right, they should be held accountable. Everyone is entitled to legal aid, but I have an issue with it when people reoffend and need to be accountable.

I welcome this SLAPP Bill. Legislation on this issue is long overdue. I have been in the ear of a number of Ministers for justice for at least five or six years, looking for legislation in relation to this. I am glad the European Commission saw fit to begin infringement proceedings against Ireland last May for its failure to transpose the 2024 anti-SLAPP directive into Irish law.

SLAPP is among the worst forms of abuse anybody can suffer. It is not confined to defamation; it comes in many guises. I have seen trumped-up trespass cases, trumped-up pollution claims and so on. In addition to abusive litigation, I have seen victims subjected to other forms of abuse, such as malicious reports to a myriad of regulatory bodies with the intention of tying that person up in knots. I have seen first hand the distress caused to victims of SLAPP and their families. I have seen people receive nasty seven-day solicitor's letters on Christmas Eve and at other sensitive times of the year, such as Easter and the summer holidays.

What is particularly egregious is misuse of the discovery mechanisms of the State. I have seen solicitors misuse these to terrorise victims and keep dragging them back before the courts by disrupting everything they try to do to comply with discovery orders. A very worrying issue is the way the cost orders are racked up against vulnerable defendants. I have seen solicitors try to have defence of SLAPP struck out on various technicalities. Bad as it is to be subject to vexatious litigation, to seek to strike out defence of such litigations is a shocking form of abuse.

I welcome the section of the Bill that deals with forum shopping. It has been suggested by some that one could just ignore SLAPP. This is not possible as failure to file a defence allows an applicant to take out a judgment in default of defence. SLAPP-type litigation requires the victim to field a team of lawyers. This does not come cheap. Litigation typically gets drawn out with loads of court appearances, all the time clocking up a serious legal bill for the victim. The courts are already struggling to cope with the heavy caseload they deal with; to add vexatious litigation to it is unacceptable.

Having examined the Bill, I wish to raise a couple of concerns, which mean we will table a number of short amendments on the next Stage. The need for defendants to demonstrate a case is "manifestly unfounded" is an unduly high threshold that would preclude many SLAPPs from being subject to an early dismissal mechanism. We recognise the threshold was established by the EU anti-SLAPP directive but as the Bill has already gone beyond the minimum standards set out by the directive with respect to its inclusion of domestic cases, there is no reason this flawed threshold should be enacted. The "manifestly unfounded" test is far too high. The legislation should instead allow for abusive lawsuits to be subject to the dismissal mechanism in order to ensure the right to freedom of expression is duly protected.

A letter was written to the Minister for justice in February 2025 about this flawed text regarding the Defamation Act. Nevertheless, we are still seeing that within the system. This is hugely concerning. A defendant does not have cost protection in such proceedings. As such, a high bar will discourage victims from referring instances of egregious SLAPP-type cases. We will propose to substitute "abusive" for all mentions of "manifestly unfounded".

I am particularly concerned that the Bill is silent on those who enable litigation in certain situations, that is, solicitors and lawyers. The enablement of SLAPP is a major difficulty. There are numerous cases of abusive processes, such as serving seven-day solicitor's letters on Christmas Eve; hamming up vexatious cases; misuse of the discovery mechanism, which has been used as an instrument of persecution by enabling lawyers to harass and intimidate; and making false statements in court and knowingly misleading the court. There are scores of ethical provisions which are ignored by enablers. I have seen one person bring these to the attention of the Legal Services Regulatory Authority, LSRA, and it was completely ignored. Ethical provisions are actually part of the Law Society. A solicitor "Has an overriding duty to the court to ensure, in the public interest, that the proper and efficient administration of justice is achieved, and should assist the court in the administration of justice, and should not deceive, or knowingly or recklessly, mislead the court." That is not always put into place. There are similar provisions for barristers: "A Barrister shall not knowingly make, procure or countenance the making of any false or misleading statement of fact, whether express or implied [or] written... with regard to any matter in which that Barrister is engaged, to any Court, other body or to any other party or any representative thereof." That is not always put into place either.

It is worth noting the comments by Mr. Justice Seamus Noonan in the Court of Appeal judgment in Keating v. Mulligan, 2022. He described the litigation misconduct of the defendant, stating that his lawyers engaged in gratuitous and sustained impugning of the integrity of the plaintiff, which had to be deprecated in the strongest terms.

The High Court had determined that the defendant had improperly accused the plaintiff and her lawyers of fraud and awarded aggravated damages in addition to general damages. The allegations were completely improper and need to be resolved-----

The Deputy's time is up. I call Deputy Gogarty.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Is ceann an-tábhachtach atá ann. I welcome the Bill. It is important legislation that facilitates legitimate criticism of institutions and corporate interests. If it is done right, it balances the fear of legal threats and, on the other side, vexatious or potentially defamatory statements. We have heard that this Bill is a direct and necessary response to EU Directive 2024/1069, the anti-SLAPP directive. To be a little bit facetious, it is taking its time. The EU has had to give Ireland a little slap on the wrist to get the legislation moving. Throughout Europe, including here in Ireland, we have been very slow in implementing legislation to protect people. We have seen a disturbing rise in powerful corporations and wealthy individuals basically weaponising our legal system. They are not doing this for justice. Sometimes they are not even doing it to protect their good name but rather to chill debate and discourse and silence those who are speaking truth to power, especially investigative journalists, environmental activists, community groups and individuals who have legitimate concerns. This Bill, in the rightful way, targets those who threaten public interest advocates with some form of financial ruin. Looking at it from a non-expert point of view, it provides a good level of protection, for example offering early dismissal of groundless claims, moving the burden of proof back onto wealthy plaintiffs and forcing litigants to post security for costs.

However, the small person, such as a local campaigner, blogger or small community group, still has barriers because within the Irish defamation framework, groups such as the Law Society of Ireland say that we still lack a serious harm test. Damage to reputation is legally presumed here from day one. Plaintiffs can launch lawsuits without ever having to prove an actual or tangible financial loss, which means they can still - the Minister of State is going to elucidate on this later - intimidate defendants to some degree. We need more clarity on this. As my colleagues in the House have said, we possibly need related amendments on Committee Stage. Another angle is that if a defendant wants to get a case thrown out early, as Deputy Tóibín mentioned, he or she has to prove that a claim is manifestly unfounded. That is a very high legal hurdle because a well-funded corporate legal team can tie a case up for a long time and draft a claim that looks plausible on paper, but to the ordinary citizen, who has an information deficit in many cases, it basically forces them to face the prospect of a full trial and definitely makes them think it is going in that direction. That in itself has a chilling effect.

Regarding the costs, the very act of hiring a legal team to file the anti-SLAPP application costing thousands of euro is going to be prohibitive for some. Very small NGOs, community groups or individuals might not have these funds. It is still hard to get backing for legal cases in a proper manner. For small persons, therefore, there is still a risk that their home is going to be taken away from them if they raise this issue. When I was a councillor, for example, a pub wrote to me saying that when I had said that people crossing over a median to go to the pub were taking their lives into their hands, that was defamatory against the pub. I had to rephrase my remarks in a certain way because I did not have any means at the time. If we multiply that for people raising genuine public issues, we see that we have to get the legislation right.

I thank the 11 Deputies who contributed, namely, Deputies Ward, Gannon, Devlin, Ó Snodaigh, Kelly, Butterly, Callaghan, Collins, O'Donoghue, Tóibín and Gogarty. Many of the questions posed by the Deputies were answered by other Deputies, but I will do my best to go through many of the questions that were posed. Most of the Members raised the importance of the SLAPP legislation. The most recent data from the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe suggests that 34 SLAPP cases were filed in Ireland between 2010 and 2025. This is not a huge number, but we are also very conscious that collecting information on SLAPPs can be challenging for a number of reasons. Many Members outlined that some SLAPP-type cases might be started on a pre-litigation basis between the parties and before court proceedings are filed. The phenomenon of SLAPPs has only been defined at EU level since the adoption of the directive in 2024. Many SLAPP cases go unreported because those targeted or intimidated do not have the resources to compile and report information on their cases. We must, therefore, be careful not to confuse the lack of information on the issue with the lack of an issue, because there clearly is very much an issue there. A lot of Members raised the issue of attacks on democracy by litigation. A semi-related issue is the use of deepfakes and social engineering attacks on politicians. However, it is not just on politicians and Members of this House but also on local advocates and residents, where attacks online or by way of litigation have a chilling effect on their public participation.

Deputies Gannon, Kelly, Tóibín and Gogarty raised the issue regarding why a case has to be manifestly unfounded to be dismissed early and questioned whether that threshold is too high. There have been some suggestions that the requirement that the claim be manifestly unfounded to be dismissed at an early stage is too onerous. I understand the desire to provide protection for those targeted by abusive proceedings against public participation. However, the striking-out of proceedings represents a limitation on the right of access to the courts, and a balancing exercise is therefore necessary. The Bill outlines an indicative list of circumstances where proceedings might be considered manifestly unfounded, for example in cases where the endorsement, pleading or claim is an abuse of the court process. The list is expressed to be non-exhaustive and takes account of recommendations made by the justice committee in its pre-legislative scrutiny report on the SLAPP provisions contained in the Defamation (Amendment) Act. The wide definition aims to allow the court enough flexibility to balance those rights as fairly as possible in the circumstances in each case.

Deputy Ward asked why there is specific reference to defamation proceedings but not to other types of proceedings. It was Deputy Callaghan who answered that this legislation is not limited to defamation proceedings. It is the finality of legislation to incorporate all civil and commercial matters. On the issue of costs and why the provision of financial assistance is excluded from the supports that may be provided to a defendant, while this may be discussed on Committee Stage, third-party litigation funding and class actions are not permitted in Ireland. The Bill provides a number of other important supports to the targets of SLAPP proceedings, including the ability of a relevant person or organisation to make legal submissions to the court or provide it with information relevant to determining whether the proceedings are SLAPP proceedings, as well as other non-financial forms of assistance the court considers appropriate in the circumstances. It will also a person or entity targeted by SLAPP proceedings to recover more generous costs and damages to compensate for any loss, including financial loss, suffered by a defendant as a result of the proceedings.

On the general subject of costs, turning to a point mentioned by Deputies Gogarty and Kelly, the general scheme of the civil reform Bill was published earlier this year. It forms part of an holistic approach to the reform of the civil justice system in Ireland, together with other ongoing access to justice reforms, including the judicial planning working group and the Courts Service modernisation programme. These collective reform measures will deliver significant efficiencies across the court system, and we hope we will see a reduction in legal costs. The Bill is a key implementation measure for the legislative recommendations made by the review of the administration of civil justice, otherwise known as the Kelly report. In 2020, the Kelly report made over 90 recommendations regarding civil procedure in the courts, covering discovery, judicial review litigation, multiparty litigation, facilitative court users and technology and e-litigation. The recommendations are intended to take an holistic approach to reform of the civil justice system and require implementation amendments to legislation and the rules of court as well as operational provisions.

Other Members asked why we were introducing damages for SLAPP cases. That was raised by Deputies Ward and Gannon. Allowing targets of SLAPP cases to seek damages for injury, loss or harm suffered as a result of those proceedings is important. It recognises the extraordinary and abusive nature of SLAPP proceedings, which are brought, not to genuinely assert or exercise a right but rather to prevent, restrict and penalise public participation through pressure and intimidation. It also recognises that these proceeding frequently seek to exploit an imbalance of power between the parties, which often involves one party using its position to place significant financial and psychological pressure on the other. It is important not only that those targeted by SLAPPs are empowered to seek redress and acknowledgement of the harm they have suffered but also that there are significant consequences for those who initiate SLAPPs, which we hope will discourage the taking of these forms of proceedings.

Regarding legal aid, I think Deputy Collins raised the question as to why legal aid was not allowed in cases involving SLAPP. There are no specific legal aid provisions in the Bill as reform of legal aid is being considered more broadly by the Department. The Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 and associated regulations govern the provisions of civil legal aid by the Legal Aid Board. Section 28 (9)(a) of the 1995 Act provides that certain "designated matters" are excluded from the scope of civil legal aid. Defamation is one of those matters. Also, legal assistance is not generally available on foot of the legal aid scheme. There are some very limited exceptions to this. The future of civil legal aid generally is being considered by the Department in the context of the civil legal aid review. In June 2022, a civil legal aid review group chaired by former Chief Justice Mr. Frank Clarke was established to review the current operation of the civil legal aid scheme. The findings of the civil legal aid review group were published in July 2025 and they contain a number of recommendations relating to the scope and eligibility of the civil legal aid scheme.

A number of broader questions were posed by colleagues. One of the issues raised was in relation to the threatening letters to those who are considered public participants. It is hoped this matter can be addressed. I am sure it will be addressed on Committee Stage. There was also a question on whether the Courts Service will publish the figures of SLAPP cases. This is something on which we can engage with the Courts Service, and we will do so. Deputies Kelly and Gannon raised the issue of whether bringing a motion to assess the case as a SLAPP case should pause the proceedings. In some ways this would happen automatically. Like in any type of case, once an interim motion is brought the proceedings would be paused at that stage. Other Deputies mentioned they will put down amendments on Committee Stage. We look forward to seeing those amendments and discussing them with Deputies then.