Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)

I commend Deputy Carthy on managing to talk on to allow Deputy Gannon to get time to come here. I share his objective that we ensure that better protections are provided for those who are targeted by SLAPPs. Fortunately, however, in Ireland we do not experience SLAPPs in the same way as I think other, more populous jurisdictions have experienced them in recent years.

Notwithstanding that, it is important we have in place legislation to respond to them and also it is part of our obligation to transpose the EU directive.

Deputy Gannon's first amendment seeks to substitute the term that the main purpose of the proceedings will "have the effect". He is trying to change intention to "effect". My concern is the amendment proposed would cast a net too widely and risks including claims that are brought genuinely by people in good faith to vindicate their right to a good name but may have the effect of restricting public participation. Sometimes that can happen. Simply because litigation may result in reducing public participation or engagement by the media does not necessarily mean the individual taking the claim does not have a legitimate claim. Again, it comes back to the balancing act. On the one hand we must balance the right of an individual to vindicate their good name and on the other we have to reflect the freedom of expression that exists.

The EU directive very specifically defines "... abusive court proceedings against public participation" as proceedings that "... have as their main purpose the prevention, restriction or penalisation of public participation ...". That is the reason that language has been used in the section the Deputy is seeking to amend. The Bill's definition uses almost exactly that wording. Adopting a different definition that focuses on the effect rather than the purpose risks causing legal confusion and uncertainty and may not correctly transpose the directive. Regrettably, I cannot therefore accept that amendment. The section as drafted achieves the purpose of what is within the directive. It also achieves the legislative purpose of trying to ensure there is a balance between the right of the individual to vindicate their good name and the right of an entity to publish and to publicly participate in a debate.

See this speech in context