Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 28 of 38.
“All the spaces, such as that in Westmeath and the theatre in Manorhamilton, play an incredibly important role in making creativity and cultural practice visible and possible in local communities. It was a revolutionary thing that they were introduced and that they began to flourish. These spaces also play a vital role in facilitating arts performers and artists across Ireland who do not have the option others might have in New York or London, where a production can run for a year. Instead, they may have two weeks here and one week there. They build a circuit around the country that allows them to fund the development of their theatre, art and performances. The organisations have received only €1 million. The visual artists workplace scheme gets a maximum of €6 million, provided by the Department, for the development of projects.”
“Since 2023, only €996,876, or less than €1 million, has been allocated to the 32 arts and cultural organisations across the country for their capital stock, or their buildings, resources and facilities. This year, there has been an announcement of €271,400 for eight institutions, including Garter Lane Arts Centre in Waterford and the Town Hall Theatre in Galway city. Previous recipients have included the Seanchaí Kerry Literary and Cultural Centre, Tuar Ard arts centre in Westmeath, and South Tipperary Arts Centre. I am listing some of these names because these spaces, art centres and small theatres play an incredibly important role in their communities.”
“I am here to speak about a couple of the schemes that receive extraordinarily small amounts of funding, yet do an incredible amount of heavy lifting in terms of arts and culture. We hear a lot of discussion about the importance of Ireland's cultural heritage, how much that is part of the identity we have internationally, how essential it is to our internal identity and the role it plays in society. However, the funding that allows people to engage with culture and allows actual creativity to flourish within our communities is still deeply inadequate. I am going to highlight a couple of the areas, two schemes that are of particular concern. Under the cultural capital stream E, the stated aim is the enhancement of the existing stock of the arts and cultural centres throughout the country.”
“If we are getting that level of breach with that small number of owners, then we have to say the industry does not really show that it has changed.”
“Is the €7,000 to save the blushes of the industry or is somebody making a very large profit from a measure that was introduced in section 29 and meant to be a matter of welfare for the dogs? The Minister has the power to regulate under section 29 and to strengthen and improve the regulations under that section. I would like to see how that is done and how that specific issue is addressed. I am sure there are individual owners who are responsible, but there were 5,000 enforcement notices and 10,000 potential breaches from 6,000 owners. The figures for breaches, set alongside the relatively small number of owners, points to not a few bad apples - I say this with absolute respect to my colleague - but to cultural problems within the industry.”
“Back in 2022, I spoke about my concern that the situation was moving backwards and that reminders and notes were sent out by the Irish Greyhound Owners and Breeders Federation to greyhound owners telling them not to use the rescue or rehoming services that were critical of the industry. Likewise, the Irish Retired Greyhound Trust was told it should only engage with rehoming services that refrain from criticising the industry. Again, we have a completely different agenda being imposed and we placed it alongside what we have heard in regard to the figures Senator Stephenson gave us. The cost of rehoming through the trust is €8,000, with its preferred partners. The cost of rehoming a dog through the animal welfare organisations that have been pushed to the side is between €100 and €1,000.”
“I hope next year we will have separate debates on horse racing and greyhound racing. I also hope we are not in a situation where the same bad practices are being carried forward because they are indefensible - ethically, economically or on any basis. I feel strongly about section 29. This is based on the amendment on rehoming that we put forward and that was accepted by the House because it made sense. I acknowledge that. Section 29 requires rehoming. We see greyhounds and lurchers everywhere, but these are a tiny fraction of the numbers that are being overbred because so many of them die before they get anywhere near a rehoming practice.”
“Yes, and I acknowledged that. They were important in the sense that it was recognised politically that the industry did have to be told. I will come back to section 29 in a moment. The piece that did not move forward then was the overbreeding practices, about which we heard absolutely gruelling and awful information. There was a 50% death rate in five years, or four years for some, as we have heard from Senator Stephenson. That is bad. Mass euthanisation was exposed. At one point, 6,000 greyhounds were euthanised in one year. Surgical artificial insemination is a terrible and grotesque animal welfare practice. We should not need a consultation to tell us. It is very evident and clear. The issue was not addressed back in 2019 and it needs to be addressed now. I do not want us to come in next year.”
“It was not a spontaneous attempt by people who want to care for their greyhounds and make sure they are well. Rehoming is a legal requirement that was placed on them in section 29 of that Act. Those are the concessions we won. I will come back to how they have been diluted by the industry.”
“It was a consultation on the new strategy. Again, the timing is interesting as it comes just at this moment. I am very curious to see how animal welfare for greyhounds will be addressed. I saw people shaking their heads, but these were burning issues in the discussion that we had on the Greyhound Racing Act in 2019. I refer to issues such as surgical artificial insemination, overbreeding and the effective large-scale mass euthanisation of greyhounds. During the debate on the Greyhound Racing Act 2019, let us be clear, these improvements were imposed on the industry. Senator Ruane and I won two amendments. We won the requirement, for the first time, that a vet be anywhere near the board of the greyhound racing industry. We won, and they were made to rehome. It is section 29 in that Act.”
“I know there is employment, which is great to see, but we also know that, for example, the betting industry profits very significantly from the activities that are subsidised and supported by the State through Horse Racing Ireland. We also know there are issues in relation to welfare, but also in terms of how other horse practices in Ireland are supported or not. In the time I have today, I am going to focus, as others have and as I have here year after year, on the greyhound industry. The greyhound industry is not popular. It is not widely supported by the public. It is not an inherently profitable industry. It is an industry riddled with flaws and poor practices that we have failed to address again and again. The Minister launched a new animal welfare strategy yesterday.”
“It actually does a great disservice to Horse Racing Ireland and the horse racing industry that every year the debate about it ends up focusing largely on the issue of animal welfare abuses and poor practices in the greyhound industry, which is effectively hiding within the same fund. Let us separate them out and have honest discussions on both. Let us look at this funding in a separate way and have it as two separate funds that have to be tested and debated and, where necessary, challenged on their own merits. There are questions, issues and areas for improvement within the horse racing funding we have in Ireland. The Minister outlined the significant profit and the major wins, but how much of that profit is going to smaller numbers at the top?”
“After years and years of similar discussion and similar points that have been made again and again, this year I did not put in the amendments I usually put in, which are usually blocked. The concerns are in fact deepening, however. I was looking back at all the times we have spoken on this and all the times we have raised it. I was looking at the deterioration in some of the areas where we should have seen improvements. I want to first briefly say that the fundamental piece, something we have called for year after year, is that what needs to happen is a separation. We need to be having separate discussions about Horse Racing Ireland and the greyhound industry.”
“Let us be clear: that is the Rwanda plan, or the El Salvador model we are seeing in the US. Please let Ireland not go down that road. Let us have Ireland stand up for decency and reflect on our own culture, history and understanding of what it is to be in the world together.”
“The remark was disgraceful and was not acceptable language coming from Ireland, given its history. I understand the genuine perspectives of many of those in government who are putting forward concrete ideas within this motion, but we cannot tolerate that language. When we do, we feed the negativity and a narrative that is not truly reflective of Irish culture or of what migration is. One crucial point that we must fight, and it is not addressed in the motion, is a proposal within the EU migration pact that Ireland has not yet signed up to, namely, the idea of deporting people to countries they have nothing to do with. That is one of the problems. Thank goodness, Ireland has not yet agreed to that component. I am referring to the idea that the EU would deport somebody to another country because it had a deal with it.”
“With regard to our culture and history, one of the lines that made me embarrassed to be Irish was one from the Minister for justice, who said he was committed to ensuring the island would not be viewed more favourably than the UK by those seeking to claim asylum. Therefore, we do not want Ireland viewed more favourably than what was one of the largest empires, an empire that spread colonialism and misery across populations right across the world. Is that what we want to look like rather than a country that understands what it is to survive famine and have that imposed on it and that knows what it is to have war imposed on it? We want to emulate a country that wants to pull the earrings out of asylum seekers’ ears as they come in, to pay for the sandwiches they might get.”
“I refer to that idea of creating a culture of differentiation and driving a culture of fear that is absolutely not matched by any of the facts in relation to crime and issues such as abuse. I say that in the context of the fact that we need to address the real problem we have here, right now, in Ireland, which is the rise and facilitation of racism. It is something that we recognised as a problem 15 years ago. We actually had a national body, the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism, that recognised the importance of positive narratives of integration, planning for integration, supporting intercultural communication and tackling racism where it appeared. Instead, what we are getting now - this is the core issue that must be challenged - are implicit dog whistles.”
“That was not part of the housing strategy but it should have been part of it. Other genuine concerns include the fact, for example, that not only are there 9,000 children accommodated in international protection accommodation centres, there are 7,000 in emergency IPAS centres that are not even subject to basic HIQA inspection. There are real human rights issues to be addressed in that system. However, what are not legitimate concerns are those expressed by people, sometimes in emails that I receive, who say that they do not want to have migrants near them; that they live in a small village and are worried the Government is going to bring 30 people into it.”
“Our culture, history and spirit of welcome, the céad míle fáilte - that is what is under attack from those who are gathering outside reception centres and threatening families. They are threatening Ireland's culture and Ireland's sense of itself. I want to speak to a few of the key pieces of concern. I share the view that there are genuine concerns in local communities but let us be clear, there are some genuine concerns and there are some which have been created and manufactured. Genuine concerns relate to the way that the international protection system has been handed over to private, for-profit actors for far too long; the failure of the State to step up and deliver as it should; and the fact that the Housing for All strategy did not include a section on housing the migrant population.”
“When we talk about what is threatening our culture, perhaps we need to talk about one of the actual threats, which is the space occupied by social media algorithms, by companies owned by a very small number of oligarchs that are often driven by direct algorithmic logics of racism and in the interests of billionaires, many of whom are not based here in Ireland. They are influencing public dialogue and purporting to speak to the public while driving misinformation, hostility and division. That online space is a real threat to our collective communities and our culture because when we look to real communities on the ground and how people engage with each other, we see a decency there but that decency is being attacked. That is what is being attacked.”
“Culture is an evolving thing and it speaks to the truth of human experience, of what it is to be human, to grow, to have a family, to hope and what we hope for, of places that matter and what it is to try to forge a life on this planet. That is part of culture and Ireland's voice and strength in culture is that we have spoken to the human experience and from the experience of our place. Sharing it makes that culture stronger. We see what is happening now in culture very much strengthened by those migrants who contribute to and participate in that culture.”
“I will begin by echoing what has been said about migration as a positive, a reality, as part of the human experience and a very particular part of the Irish experience. As acknowledged at the very beginning of the debate, we have emigrated for years. Part of Ireland's culture has been the experience of emigration and of those who were forced abroad in times of famine, poverty, political oppression and economic difficulty and for many other reasons. Emigrants have taken Ireland's songs and stories around the world and that has strengthened our culture. Our participation in the world has strengthened our culture and the world's participation in Ireland has strengthened our culture.”
“I hope the Minister will consider these amendments. I would like him to consider taking them on board. If he feels there is another way to approach them, I hope he will at least agree and recognise there are concerns that need to be addressed.”
“They would have to demonstrate they are acting in good faith, taking this defamation case for demonstrable reasons that are not around the limiting of public participation and are doing so in good faith because they believe they have a credible case. That is a more reasonable place to place the burden of proof. That is not being put in every defamation case. It is put on every defamation case against which a claim of abusive practice has been made, which is not something people do lightly either. I urge the Minister to consider somewhat of a reversal in relation to that burden of proof so that we have anti-SLAPP legislation that actually works and has the desired effect, we move away from the intimidation, silencing and imbalance of power we have seen in SLAPP, and we address the fundamental problem identified in the EU directive.”
“Will they be confident that they can go ahead with that public information they believe to be important and in the public interest and they are not going to have to prove something almost impossible in terms of proving the intent of a large actor, whose private minutes and correspondences they do not have access to, when they can see the effect? Is it not more appropriate, as the directive called for, to say that, if you are taking a defamation case and somebody says they believe you are taking this defamation case in an abusive manner in order to limit public participation, you would be able to demonstrate that you are not taking this case in an abusive manner in order to limit public participation and that the burden of proof would be on the claimant? That is what Article 12 of the directive wanted.”
“We are not talking hypotheticals; we are talking about a real, noted and definite problem. The challenge we have is to say whether the provisions in the Bill are sufficiently fit for purpose to address that problem. This is not the position with every defamation case. Where there is a SLAPP and where there is an abuse of power – the Minister pointed out that defamation cases can be between all kinds of parties – and of the legal process in order to curtail, intimidate or prevent public participation, will the provisions currently contained in the Bill actually work? Will people be confident enough that a manifestly unfounded case against them will be dismissed quickly, that they will not be disadvantaged and that the process will not drag on, even the process of a dismissal?”
“In many instances, we are talking about project funding. Those who may want to blow the whistle or highlight something for the public or who see the effect an action on the part of, for example, large corporation may be having on the ground face a difficult decision about going public with that information and they are in a particularly vulnerable situation at times. There is a reason the EU directive tries to shift the burden of proof and tries to state that we have to have anti-SLAPP legislation. Let us be really clear about this. The legislation is not just about defamation; it also refers to SLAPPs. Furthermore, it refers to the abuse of the legal process to limit public participation. The latter has been so clearly recognised as a genuine problem in society that the EU directive sets out an obligation to address it.”
“Many who have contributed to the debate in this House have done so from a legal perspective. I am coming at this from the perspective of 15 years of involvement in civil society before I entered these Houses and on the basis of an awareness of the chilling effect on very poorly resourced organisations, including watchdog organisations and those who some of the most vulnerable groups in society, that face a situation where even the existence of a court case can means they cannot get insurance or continue with their operations. I have given these examples before. I have worked for organisations that have been €2,000, €3,000 or €4,000 away from a project falling. The moneys involved are very small and are very tightly administered. There is not usually a huge contingency fund available.”
“Article 12 of the EU directive, which required that this legislation be brought forward in the first place, states that where there is a claim against public participation "The burden of proving that the claim is well founded rests on the claimant who brings the action." This means that the directive envisages that he burden of proof should sit with the claimant rather than the defendant. Despite this clearly indicated by the directive, we do not see the same burden on the claimant in the Bill before us. We mainly see a set of difficult things for the defendant of the defamation action to prove. This is another example of how the legislation, as drafted, fails to address the potential abuse of the power imbalance in defamation proceedings. There is a risk to be examined.”
“This is a different approach but it is an attempt to address the question of an excessive burden of proof being placed upon the party who has already potentially been subjected to pressure and a chilling effect. I am aware that this is not true of all defamation cases but it is when it comes to SLAPPs. It would, as stated, reverse the burden of proof. Those who are taking defamation cases in good faith should be able to demonstrate they the latter is, in fact, the position and that they have credible grounds for doing so, with a reasonable possibility of the court finding in their favour. Amendment No. 19 would lay the responsibility with the claimant rather than the defendant when it comes to the burden of proof and in terms of demonstrating that a defamation case is credible and is not unfounded or abusive in nature.”
“19 would place the burden of proof on the claimant to show that their claim is likely to prevail at trial. Rather than the person who is being subjected to the defamation case and who is claiming that it is an abusive case having the burden of proving that the party taking the case against them is acting in a manner that is abusive and that is designed to curtail their public participation, under the amendment, the burden of proof would be reversed. As a result, the party taking the defamation case would be required to show that they are acting in good faith and are not taking the case for the purposes of creating a chilling effect but, rather, because they believe they have reasonable grounds. Their argument may or may not be successful on the basis of those grounds.”
“19 seeks to insert the following into the Bill: Where an application for declaration has been made before or during a trial of action and costs, a judge must not strike out a claim and appeal under section 34E if the claimant satisfies the judge that— (a) the claim is likely to prevail at trail, and (b) the harm suffered or likely to be suffered by the claimant as a result of the defendant’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in dismissing the case before trial.”. This is complicated. Where there is a defamation action that is considered to be a claim against public participation and an application is made by the defendant to have the case dismissed, amendment No.”
“Other jurisdictions which have implemented poorly designed anti-SLAPP laws have shown that those laws can end up doing more harm than good because they give an illusion of protection while failing to protect against abuse in practice. This results in a loss of trust in the system’s capacity to protect those who are acting in good faith and in the public interest. Amendment No.”
“It could be a matter that not only will people feel, before they even get to a substantive court hearing where they can push back, that they are going to face a series of challenges in relation simply to a request to dismiss. I come to the second part, which I really urge the Minister to consider, whereby a defamation case is taken and somebody states that it is an abusive case. It is very important that there is no capacity – perhaps the Minister can reassure me that this will not be the case – for a claimant to amend their pleadings when they know it is likely that they will be challenged on the question that it is, potentially, an abusive defamation case. That is important.”
“During that period, the fees for court proceedings can build up for the defendant and, again, this effectively gives the claimant a different mechanism to weaponise the costs of retaining representation within the legal system against the defendant. The lack of safeguards is something that could continue to chill public participation. Far from being a solution, the process to strike out a claim could end up extending matters. It is an important mechanism but unless it includes a stay on proceedings, it could exacerbate the problem. Again, there are layers of procedural complexity added in the sections 34F, 34G and 34H that could mean exercising these sections under the process could become counterproductive in that it could become more complex and involve either more time or more legal representation.”
“18 proposes a stay on court proceedings where the application has been made by a defendant in a defamation case to strike out a claim as an abusive lawsuit against public participation. The Council of Europe's recommendations included instituting an automatic stay on proceedings while an early dismissal motion is being heard. This is designed to protect against abusive litigation. Article 11 of Directive (EU) 2024/1069 indicates that member states shall ensure courts may grant dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims at the earliest possible stage. This is reflected in the proposed section 34E. It is still concerning, and abundantly possible, that such decisions may take time, however.”
“If, for example, in an initial pleading, it is made clear that one of the purposes, or, indeed, the main purpose according to the high standard and bar set by this Bill, of the case is to discourage public participation, it is important that the claimants are not able to change their pleadings or change the grounds on which they are making their claim in order to avoid a dismissal on the grounds of the claim being manifestly unfounded or, indeed, a rejection on the basis of the intent being the ending or chilling of public participation where that is demonstrated in those pleadings. It is really just to ensure loopholes do not develop whereby the intended provisions of this Bill can be dodged. Amendment No.”
“It provides that: Unless a judge orders otherwise, the claimant is not permitted to amend his or her pleadings in the proceeding— (a) in order to prevent an order under this Act dismissing the proceeding, or (b) if the proceeding is dismissed under the Act, in order to continue the proceeding. We will come back to the question of intent or purpose.”
“The negative impacts of inadequate anti-SLAPP provisions come in the chilling effect on those who, because they are not certain they will be protected from abusive lawsuits, withdraw from or fail to pursue the sharing in the public domain of information they believe is of public interest and important. Amendment No. 13 is an attempt to move away from that unnecessary complexity. A number of amendments to this section have been proposed but I will only speak to my own. Amendment No. 18 seeks to insert a new section in page 16, between lines 20 and 21, that provides that, upon an application being made under section 34E by a defendant to a proceeding, no further step may be taken in the proceeding until the application, including any appeal against the application, has been finally disposed of.”
“According to whom and to what standards is a claim manifestly unfounded? Again, we are doing this rather than looking to the effect. This means that all you need is one or two cases in which the grounds on which something is considered manifestly unfounded are questioned and where demonstrable ambiguity as to how it is interpreted arises to go back to a point where there is that chilling effect and somebody who is putting important information in the public domain for the purposes of the public interest will not be confident that a case taken against them, even though it may be an abusive case, will be dismissed as manifestly unfounded. It should be borne in mind that the negative effect of having inadequate anti-SLAPP provisions is not contained in the courtroom. It does not happen in the courtroom.”
“The term "manifestly unfounded" in the newly inserted section 34E, which sets out the details of an application to strike out a claim or appeal, would be replaced with “an abusive lawsuit against public participation”. The definition of "manifestly unfounded" in the Act does not give a clear indication to the court and is somewhat overcomplicated. This is a clear example of the unnecessary complexity of the anti-SLAPP provisions of this Bill. It could lead to layers of litigation, allowing powerful and wealthy figures further mechanisms by which they may abuse the legal system to silence critical thought and to create a fear and uncertainty for those faced with these lawsuits that, even in their attempts to have the case dismissed, they may face matters of interpretation.”
“If one of the purposes of the case being taken is to prevent, restrict or penalise public participation, that should be significant enough for us not to support or allow it to have its desired effect. Amendment No. 12 simply requires that the legal action would have the effect of preventing public participation. It would ensure that abusive court proceedings against public participation are defined by consideration of the consequences of the legal action, something that can be seen, demonstrated and proven, rather than the intention of the litigant taking the action, which can be ambiguous and difficult to prove. The intent of that person should be given a particular weighting in terms of it being the main purpose. Amendment No. 13 seeks to delete “manifestly unfounded” and substitute “an abusive lawsuit against public participation”.”
“The Minister indicated in previous responses to others that he is concerned about cases that simply have this effect but even meeting the burden of proof to show that it was a purpose is not enough. You must miraculously find an email or get evidence of someone saying they will take a case to shut you up. You have to show that is the main purpose and that, among the balance of all other reasons, this is the primary purpose. That is a high bar. I suggest that, even if the Minister is not accepting these amendments at this point, he think about the question of the main purpose. Perhaps it should be required that this be one of the purposes of the case being taken.”
“This is what the directive was pointing to and what the anti-SLAPP provisions are meant to address. We are not talking about every defamation case. We are talking about tackling the problem of SLAPP cases. These provisions require persons to prove intent rather than to prove something had the effect of preventing, silencing, restricting or penalising or that this was one of its purposes, which is something that might be looked at on Report Stage. Proving that this was the main purpose is a high bar. It is difficult to prove. It is about inferring and demonstrating intent, which is, in many cases, internal and subjective, on the part of the actor taking the potentially aggressive action in what may be a SLAPP case. It is something to be examined again.”
“I know that is not always the case but in many cases - and this is the concern we are acting from - the vulnerable party who is facing a potential defamation action may not have the same level of resources and we are placing upon them the burden of proving a particular intent on the part of those taking the case. That is quite a difficult thing to prove. It is quite subjective and requires insight into and access to the internal decision-making processes. The Minister has been very clear that defamation cases are used by a wide range of actors in a wide range of circumstances but our concerns and the concerns the EU anti-SLAPP directive was trying to address in looking for anti-SLAPP laws relate to cases where very large, well-resourced and well-equipped actors misuse our legal system to intimidate and silence individuals.”
“12 seeks to delete the line that has “but that have as their main purpose the prevention, restriction or penalisation of” and substitute “have the effect of preventing, restricting or penalising”. Amendment No. 12 changes the definition of abuse of court proceedings against public participation so that the prevention or restriction of public participation is not required to be shown to be the main purpose of the Defamation Act. The need to prove that the main purpose of the proceedings is to restrict public participation requires an understanding of the intention of the litigant. It is very vague and subjective and it is open to abuse.”
“They affect all of us who may have benefited from the public service of somebody who has relevant information to place in the public realm. The Government could and should have drawn on established international best practices, including the Council of Europe's recommendations, to provide clear, practical guidance for safeguarding free expression and democratic accountability. It is important to note in this context that this Bill only applies to defamation proceedings, even though SLAPP frequently exploits other causes of action, including privacy, copyright and data protection to intimidate and silence matters of public interest. I will go to my specific amendments in this grouping. Amendment No.”
“SLAPP targets could risk being drawn into further layers of costly and time-consuming litigation, rather than being offered protection. This is not only costly to the individual but to all of us who deserve to be made aware of public interest information. I refer to the chilling effect on those who may be wishing to share information. If a case were taken, it may indeed emerge that they have a potential defence or may well have a case, but in many cases they will not be able to take the risk and will be uncertain of the protections that are going to be available to them under the SLAPP application. I raise the chilling effect that happens if we have anti-SLAPP provisions that do not work. It is important to say that they do not just affect the individuals.”
“I thank the Minister. We have a series of amendments under this section. I look forward to the Minister's engagement with them. Effectively, the concern in this whole group of amendments relates to the anti-SLAPP provisions in the Bill, which are required, under EU Directive 2024/1069, to be implemented by March of next year. We have concerns that the provisions contained in the Bill put to the House are weak and overly complex and that, as a result, they are likely to be unused or underused by defendants. Without clear and reliable mechanisms for early dismissal and cost protection, which I will come to in some later amendments, defendants will not have certainty that invoking these provisions will result in their case being thrown out.”
“These are crucial amendments and a crucial signal to send that will, I believe, strengthen ESB’s hand when it engages with lenders who will often come with quite aggressive conditionalities and a recipe of where they would like it to spend the money. They are to make sure that money is not going in an inappropriate way and counteracting or working against other agreed State objectives in terms of climate and divestment from fossil fuels. I would appreciate if the Minister of State could take very due cognisance of these amendments and I hope he will be able to accept some of them.”