Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

I thank the Minister for his remarks. Most people will welcome the clarification that these amendments bring. However, we need to be very clear as a House in terms of setting out precisely the need for this, if you want simplification of the defence of public interest. My position on this matter is fairly straightforward: media organisations or anybody who is publishing information pertaining to individuals and entities should not tell lies about them. They should not publish things that are not true.

If they do, then people have a right to vindicate their good name through the courts, I would argue, adjudicated by a jury of their peers. I absolutely agree with the provisions in this Bill. If people maliciously use the court system to intimidate people from speaking truth to power, so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPP, it is absolutely right that they would be held to account. That is why we will be supporting the provisions in that regard.

I also think we should reflect on the reason the public interest defence has not been used or cited too often. Usually if there is a very strong argument for a public interest defence, the case would not come to trial in the first place. As I mentioned previously, I have a concern around the narrative of this whole issue. The Minister acknowledged on Committee Stage that Ireland does not have a big issue with SLAPP. We have had an issue in the past in respect of high awards. The awards were substantially too high. This sense that newspapers or other media organisations are living in fear because of defamation laws has been exaggerated. I do not think that the media sector does itself many favours. I cited earlier the recent Adams case in the High Court. Clearly, what was published and broadcast about Gerry Adams was not true. Anybody could see it was not true and was highly defamatory, yet it went to the High Court at obscene cost to the BBC, a public body. Immediately afterwards, the loser in the case, the BBC, doubled down on what in my view was an unsustainable position. Other media organisations and representatives talked about a chilling effect. I will put on the record that there should be a chilling effect on media outlets to stop them publishing things about people that are not true. If that is the case and it is one of the reasons the public interest defence has not been used regularly, so be it.

Everybody acknowledges that every organisation and person can make mistakes for the right reasons. That is why this particular section of the Bill is important. There should be no get-out-of-jail-free card for people who cite the public interest but are really on witch-hunts or following their own agendas, whether political, personal or financial. We need to be very clear in that respect.

It is always a bit archaic to consider that a decision of the British House of Lords became de facto common law that is applicable in Ireland. As I say, I welcome the clarification of that issue in this legislation.

Above all, we need to be clear that truth matters, particularly in the modern world. There is now a broad array of broadcasting vehicles, including anonymous Facebook pages, personal TikTok accounts and multibillion euro media enterprises. There is an obligation that if you are publishing something to the world at large, you make due effort to ensure you are publishing the truth and facts, and are not demeaning somebody's good name or character.

In all of this debate, we must acknowledge why defamation laws exist in the first place. It is a legitimate reason. It provides the balance between free speech and the right of a person to vindicate his or her good name. There is also the public interest provision that needs to be there and that is why I will not be opposing these amendments.

See this speech in context