Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation Bill 2026: Report and Final Stages

I move amendment No. 30: In page 13, lines 11 and 12, to delete “where relevant to defamation proceedings coming within the scope of Directive (EU) 2024/1069,”. Amendment No. 30 proposes the deletion of the reference to defamation proceedings coming within the scope of the anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPP, directive and paragraph (e) of the definition of "a matter of public interest" in section 15 of the Bill. It is intended to address the points raised in relation to potential inconsistent definitions in the Bill regarding defamation proceedings and other forms of civil and commercial proceedings. A definition of "a matter of public interest" is provided in both section 2 of the Bill, and section 15, which inserts section 34A in the Defamation Act 2009. These definitions are based on the definition contained in the directive. In both cases, a matter of public interest is defined generally as any matter that affects the public to such an extent that the public may legitimately take an interest in it and includes a non-exhaustive list of subjects, which may involve matters of public interest, including fundamental rights or certain activities of public figures. The difference between the two definitions is that paragraphs (d) and (e) of the definition of defamation proceedings include a reference to defamation proceedings coming within the scope of the anti-SLAPP directive. This means that, when outlining that an administrative offence in a place other than in the State may constitute a matter of public interest, the definition in the defamation context specifically refers to, where relevant, defamation proceedings coming within the scope of the Act. The same reference to defamation proceedings within the scope of the directive is contained in paragraph (e), which notes that activities aimed at protecting the values enshrined in the treaty of the European Union may constitute matters of public interest where they are relevant to defamation proceedings within the scope of the directive. To address the concerns raised, it is important to clarify in the first instance what type of defamation proceedings will come within the scope of the directive. The anti-SLAPP directive applies to cross-border proceedings, but the concept of "cross-border" is broadly defined. Proceedings are considered to be cross-border within the meaning of the directive, unless all elements relevant to the situation concerned are located in the same member state. With regard to paragraph (e), where defamation proceedings are brought on the basis of public participation concerning activities aimed at protecting the values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, such proceedings are likely to concern elements located outside the State, as the public participation in question will concern matters of relevance at EU level. Where an issue is not a matter of relevance at EU level, it is likely to be captured by the fundamental rights example listed in paragraph (a) of the definition. Therefore, in practice, it is not believed the definition as currently drafted will result in a narrow interpretation. However, the recent decision of the Court of Justice in the European Commission v. Hungary has broken new ground in the application of Article 2 of the TEU and confirmed it contains legally binding obligations which could potentially form the basis of infringement proceedings against member states, making it potentially more likely to arise in a domestic context. For this reason, and for the avoidance of doubt, amendment No. 30 will delete the reference to defamation proceedings coming within the scope of the anti-SLAPP directive from paragraph (e) of the definition. However, it is not necessary to amend the reference in the context of administrative offences as referred to in paragraph (d), as amendment No. 29 proposes. Paragraph (d) provides that the allegations of administrative offence in a place other than the State may be considered to be matters of public interest. If defamation proceedings relate to an allegation of an offence outside the State, all elements relevant to the situation concerned will not be located in the same members state and therefore, the proceedings will be considered to be cross-border proceedings within the scope of the directive. In addition, it is not necessary to define the concept of administrative offences. They are not defined in the directive and introducing a definition of administrative offences at national level risks conflicts with the directive. The court will be able to determine what constitutes an administrative offence without the need for a domestic definition, which could inadvertently exclude certain administrative offences or create divergent interpretations in member states. For that reason, I have moved this amendment.

I have just a brief couple of points on this amendment. I did not table any amendments on this Stage. I support amendment No. 30, which the Minister of State spoke about. It seems to be an amendment that could have been made to the Defamation Act when we discussed it previously. Mine is a broad point about the Oireachtas committee on justice. Deputy Gannon and I are members of it and we are having huge difficulty at the moment with the amount of work required of us in pre-legislative scrutiny, Committee Stage of legislation, Estimates, which are coming up, and the elective work the committee wants to deal with. We have not been able to get the capacity for additional meetings. Likewise, there is a lot of pressure on the Dáil agenda. Everyone is opposed to strategic lawsuits against public participation. Everyone wants to see anyone engaged in it to be dealt with, but the senior Minister told the House that they are not a significant issue in Ireland. It should be put on the record that the only reason we are dealing with this is to comply with an EU regulation the Government signed us up to previously. That is a long way of saying we have more important things to be doing. There are important issues in the criminal justice system that are live and that need to be acted on. The criminal legal aid system is in complete disarray. The Minister has been completely embarrassed by a High Court judgment. It should not have had to come to that point. It is my view, had the Minister-----

Is there any relevance to the legislation or is this just a diatribe by the Deputy about anything that comes to mind?

When I was suggesting that we have important things to be doing, I was also suggesting that the Minister of State do his job and not try to do the job of the Chair of the House.

I was just helping the Chair. I am sure the Chair was just about to remind the Deputy to address the legislation.

The Minister of State can hardly help himself. The point I am making is relevant and it is important. The Minister of State might not like to hear it.

The Minister always likes to hear the Deputy - always.

I am sure his party colleagues have told him that he needs to tell the senior Minister to wise up and sort out the criminal legal aid dispute. He needs to engage constructively and find a solution to it. That is what his colleagues are saying in the justice committee. That needs to be prioritised, and the fact that-----

I refer to my previous point, Chair. This is not relevant to this legislation.

It is not for the Minister of State to determine that.

I am asking the Chair for a ruling. It would be nice if the Deputy were speaking-----

I have only three and a half minutes. Others who put forward amendments were not here. Previous Bills went quicker than the time allocated. I do not know whether they intended to be here.

Sorry, Chair. I learned my best interrupting tactics from the Deputy opposite. Will you please try to get him to address the legislation?

It does relate to amendment No. 30 because I am saying there are more important things than what is in amendment No. 30.

That is stretching it beyond all credulity.

I do not know what is frustrating the Minister of State so much. He has only been here for about ten minutes to deal with the Bill. People tell me I have an annoying voice, but I did not think it would be that hard for the Minister of State to endure it for four minutes.

I want to put on the record that I never said Deputy Carthy had an annoying voice. I think he has a lovely voice. I think that is important.

Thank you. I repeat the points I made. In respect of justice, home affairs and migration, there are important things. That is not to say this is not an important issue, but there are more important ones and I encourage the Minister to deal with and address them, because at the moment we have a criminal justice system that is in absolute chaos from top to bottom. In many respects, it is getting worse. Today, we heard about private companies policing Dublin city.

We are off again on another little rant. Chair, the Deputy must on this Stage, Report Stage, speak to the amendment.

We have a court system that is in convulsions-----

-----a prison system that is overcrowded-----

It appears the Chief Whip just came in to interrupt me.

I am just copying the Deputy.

This is an important point. I was in the Minister of State's constituency on Friday where I met senior gardaí who are doing a tough job right now. They need all eyes on that issue providing them with the support they need and the resources necessary to do their job. I will leave it there. I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach for his indulgence.

I moved my amendment. It is the next element up.

Am I late?

We are on amendment No. 33 now.

Deputy Kelly is not here to move the amendment, so it cannot be moved. He has to be here to move it.

An bhfuil an Cathaoirleach Gníomhach ag cur na ceiste os comhair an Dála ar an staid seo? Is he putting the question to the Dáil?

He is putting the question at this point that he-----

He has to put the question to conclude the passage of the Bill.

The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach is giving me a chance to speak.

How does he have a chance to speak?

He is speaking to the question.

We are proposing that the Bill do now pass.

I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to speak at this moment. I apologise in relation to my tardiness on this subject. There is one issue I want to raise. I will raise a couple of points in generality at this moment. A number of people across the country have suffered significantly from SLAPP actions by companies, organisations, etc. They are individuals who may be involved in protecting the environment oe who stand up to big corporations, etc. A large number of those people become targets of litigation, which has the objective not to ever reach a conclusion or judgment, but has the objective to reach a situation where it ties the individual up so much that they cannot function. Issues such as looking for disclosure of large elements of information, running a number of cases at a similar stage. My concern in all of this is that sometimes the legal system can participate in this practice. It is not the example of the majority of solicitors. Individuals, however, will participate in a process that does not have the objective of reaching a conclusion or a judgment but has the objective of destroying individuals for commercial reasons. There needs to be a system whereby those individuals are protected. Those who are doing the damage need to be punished. The manner in which we sought for that to happen was that they would be referred to the associations that they are part of and therefore receive a certain level of punishment, or the State would introduce fines or difficulties in relation to them as well. If there is no cost to a solicitor who gets involved in a negative SLAPP action, knowingly bringing information that is not true, we are never going to get to a situation that this practice reduces in future. It is a mistake that we do not have that element strongly enough within the legislation to make sure solicitors do not get involved in this. Without this, there will be a situation whereby many individuals are going to be broken financially. They could be broken in terms of the time that it takes to manage all of the charges or cases brought against them. That was a reason we looked to bring forward amendments to strengthen this. Some of the amendments that we suggested were taken from other jurisdictions that had similar controls and similar punishments for individuals who are committing wrongdoing in this case.