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 29 of 38.
“Very often, those who are lending the money will come with a wish list of their own conditions and suggestions of how the money should be spent, so this is effectively a protection for the ESB so that, when potential lenders tell it they would like it to invest in something and that they want a mixed portfolio with fossil fuels, the ESB can say it is constrained because the enabling Act for the additional funding it is seeking makes it clear the ESB would need to be cognisant of and consistent with Ireland’s national climate objective, and also makes it clear that, while the ESB may not be directly named in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act, the principles in the Act, which are that a very limited and small percentage of any investment relate to fossil fuels, must be consistently followed through with these moneys and how they are borrowed.”
“Public bodies have a clearly defined duty and the State has a clearly defined duty, but there is sometimes an ambiguity with semi-States. Therefore, I would like confirmation and clarity about whether ESB will be expected to ensure the moneys it has borrowed are used in a manner consistent with the national climate objective. I will speak of investors' money internationally.”
“4, which tries to explicitly exclude the use of ESB’s resources and the moneys for infrastructure that has been borrowed for commercial LNG, which is separate from this supposed public-owned emergency supply? Amendment No. 5 seeks to ensure that any moneys borrowed by the ESB would “be used in a manner that is consistent with the national climate objective and the Climate Action Plan.” Amendment No. 6 seeks to ensure that moneys borrowed by the ESB “shall not be used to invest, directly or indirectly, in a fossil fuel undertaking as defined in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018.”. This is about policy coherence. We have a national climate objective. We know there is a bit of a gap, which I have come up against in relation to Coillte, for example, and semi-State bodies.”
“We have seen investors who are moving their money away from renewables and going into another level of one of the dirtiest possible fossil fuels, liquified natural gas. In that context, I have two amendments. One says the ESB would not use any of these moneys to facilitate any of the infrastructure associated with LNG and its access to the grid, for example, but the other is specific around commercial. Amendment No. 4 says specifically it should "not be used for the construction of, or investment in, commercial energy infrastructure relating to a terminal used for" the liquefaction of natural gas, its importation, offloading, sale and distribution. If the Minister of State is going to tell us about the special public temporary emergency LNG terminal, surely he can at least accept amendment No.”
“It is because we know the environmental damage, not just of fracking, but of liquified natural gas and its use. I have two amendments here. I am conscious that the Minister of State may come back and say the Government has said we will have a public terminal and it will be temporary and only there for the emergencies and everything. However, we know when the planning Act came through that there were no constraints placed on commercial liquified natural gas development and we know there is a big push from the United States and others to try to have the liquified natural gas expand in Europe. Let us be clear and honest - that push for liquified natural gas and its expansion is directly in competition with investment in green and renewable energy. It is a doubling down on fossil fuels and we have seen that happening across the board.”
“I am not opposing an increase in investment in our electricity infrastructure but I am concerned about how it may be co-opted. My other amendments in this section are on related concerns. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 relate to my seeking assurances that “Moneys borrowed by the Board and the subsidiaries shall not be used for the construction of, or investment in, energy infrastructure relating to a terminal used for the liquefaction of natural gas or the importation, offloading, and re-gasification of liquefied natural gas”. This is the gas that we know is an accelerant in relation to climate change. We know its devastating impact. That is why we banned fracking in Ireland on the initiative of someone who was a Fine Gael backbencher at the time.”
“Conor O'Connell of the Construction Industry Federation has said house builders are reporting significant and ongoing delays in securing electricity connections for housing, with particular capacity constraints at substations in the east of the country. These are serious concerns. It is not an elephant in the room, but a whole series of elephants. It is 89 elephants in the room and 130 is what we are heading towards. Therefore, I would like to know, as we authorise the borrowing of money by the State and the ESB, whether that borrowing and the infrastructure facilitated by that additional borrowing will be used up by data centres and large energy users rather than facilitating the upgrading, fast-tracking and delivery of housing and public infrastructure, which we need upgrades to.”
“The Minister of State will be aware of the serious concerns EirGrid has raised with the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment at the saturation of Dublin's electricity network by data centres. Indeed, EirGrid has stated that the new bulk supply point in west Dublin was exhausted by data centres before the construction was even completed. Before the whole new energy infrastructure was even completed, data centres had already mopped up the additional capacity. According to EirGrid, the supply point was completely swamped by the sheer volume and energy density of data centre applications. Dr. Paul Cuffe of UCD has warned that the fear now is that EirGrid may soon be forced to decline or delay requests from ESB Networks for housing or other purposes. Mr.”
“While the corporations that own them may be employers, although that is not true in all cases, the infrastructure of data centres, which Ireland carries so disproportionately to other EU countries, does not, of itself, generate very much employment. Electricity demand grew six times faster than renewable energy projects financed between 2020 and 2023. Dozens of data centres have secured or are seeking connections to the natural gas network to overcome local power network constraints. That is where the concern arises. The moneys borrowed by the ESB should not be contributing to or supporting electricity connections solely designed to facilitate data centres. If all the data centres with a connection to the natural gas network were operating, they potentially would account for 38% of total natural gas consumed in Ireland.”
“If those new data centres are built, there will be close to 130 across the country and it is estimated we could move to an even larger proportion of our electricity being used by these large energy users, which are predominantly owned and controlled by some of the wealthiest corporations in the world. Between 2017 and 2023, all the additional wind energy in Ireland - the result of all the work we are hearing about on the need to drive forward wind energy and other green energy - was absorbed by data centres. Every additional piece of energy we managed to get from renewable sources rather than fossil fuels was immediately absorbed by the large users, which make up a very large sector of the economy.”
“Very serious diligence should be directed to exactly how the plans for the recouping of the money will unfold to ensure it is not the case, yet again, that we see public subsidisation of large companies. As a way of protecting against that, my amendment No. 2 seeks to ensure the additional moneys borrowed by the board of the ESB and its subsidiaries are not to be used for the construction of, or investment in, energy infrastructure that relates to data centres. In 2024, data centres accounted for 22% of all electricity consumption in the State. This was more than all urban dwellings, that is, all homes in towns and cities right across Ireland, which accounted for 18%. As of June 2025, there were 89 operational data centres in Ireland, with 11 more under development and more than 30 granted planning permission.”
“I have several amendments in this grouping. It was interesting to hear the Minister of State describe the recouping of money by the ESB. I do not have an amendment on this issue but it is very important that in the recouping of those moneys over long periods, we do not see situations such as we have seen in the past whereby domestic and household energy users have, in effect, ended up subsidising large energy users. We saw that in measures that were rolled back disgracefully late, having been brought in during the recession. For a long time, households in Ireland were paying more in order that very large corporations, including data centres, could pay less. That policy was changed but it is a policy and a lesson of significant concern.”
“Supporting that kind of connected, joined-up thinking from those in higher education is a real opportunity. IDEA's report includes a list of ideas from youth work focus to research funding and educating higher education policymakers. I know the Minister will look with interest at the report and its strategic plan. Crucially, this is an area whereby we can help to create the ideas people for the future. This applies not just in higher education but also in further education. Those who come back from life experience to re-enter education need to acquire skills but they do not necessarily come just to be trained for specific jobs. They come in with life experience, which can be absolutely transformative for particular disciplines.”
“Will it be used to further our collective humanity, by addressing issues like climate and others, or will it be used to inflict misery on our fellow humans? It is still possible to suspend for the 2028 to 2034 period and it is possible to shape the next Horizon Europe programme in a way that is really effective. My final point is one I promised I would mention. I was very happy to be at the launch today of the global citizenship education report from the Irish Development Education Association, IDEA. The Minister will be aware that there is huge potential for global citizen education in higher education, not simply for those who study international affairs but in terms of global citizenship as a perspective right across many disciplines from the sciences through to the arts.”
“A sum of €2.7 million was given to Israel Aerospace Industries, a major defence, intelligence and weapons systems manufacturer that advertises combat-proven technology. It is advertising weaponry and technologies of war that have been used in Gaza in breach of international law and basic humanitarian decency. Consultations for the next round of Horizon Europe funding are ongoing. The consultation began in September and the deadline for inputs is February 2026. I urge the Minister to be a strong voice on this issue. We need the majority in relation to suspension from the existing programme, but the negotiating of the new programme must start from a presumption that we do not enter that programme in a context where we cannot be sure of how the research into these technologies will be used.”
“There were many positive things within it, including the drive for gender equality. The Athena SWAN programme came from Horizon. However, I am very concerned that, as the successor to Horizon is being negotiated, there needs to be a strong voice for the ethical in that conversation. We know that, in July, the European Commission proposed suspending Israel from the Horizon programme due to the increasing humanitarian disaster but it failed to reach a majority at that time. Israel has been one of the largest beneficiaries of Horizon research funding. A total €1.3 billion came from the EU Horizon research programme 2014 to 2020 and a further €1.1 billion has come since 2021. Some of that funding has gone, for example, to the Israeli Ministry of Defense.”
“For public-private partnerships, there are memorandums of understanding, MOUs, and all of this discussion. Public-public partnerships are crucial, especially when we look to things such as climate change and consider what we have seen in, for example, south-south exchanges. A delegation from South Africa, including the higher education minister, was here last week. There is huge scope for collective work with public investment. If the Covid-19 pandemic taught us anything, it was the crucial role of public research, and so much research is funded publicly, being available for public benefit and for the public good. The partnerships we can have across the world, not just within the European Union, are crucial in that regard. I will talk about partnerships within the European Union. I have long been a champion of Horizon funding.”
“Those who do not have the safety net of family or other money, those who are coming from diverse backgrounds and those who have children, particularly women, are more likely to leave higher education and go elsewhere. We lose wonderful people. This is an appeal to the Minister to address these areas, which should have been addressed, frankly, when the HEA Bill and the research Bill went through, but can still be and should be addressed. I will move to some other areas of that role and make another appeal. I will discuss public-public partnerships. I met the former Minister of State, Mary Mitchell O'Connor. There are all these rules around public-private partnerships. I once submitted a parliamentary question asking about public-public partnerships and was asked if I meant public-private partnerships.”
“They are kind of disappearing out of the system and not getting that continuity. Another 31% work on an if-and-when basis. When you are in that level of insecurity, it does not just stop you making plans for your life or make it impossible for you to get a mortgage or make it hard event to rent, it also means that you are not secure enough to do long-form or frontier thinking, which forms the building blocks of new ideas. Innovation is often framed as something that lands as quick ideas with start-ups. Innovation often comes from years and years of expanding what we understand, which creates the space for what new things might be possible. Building relationships in research is much harder when people are going year to year on contracts. It also affects diversity.”
“The Minister will be aware that, back in 2023, the Seanad unanimously passed a motion that I put forward calling on the Government to engage specifically with the Higher Education Authority, universities, higher education institutions, trade unions and other organisations to look at regulations around the use of fixed-term and part-time contracts and contacts of indefinite duration, and to consider legislation to ensure that those employed to teach earn a living wage and there is minimal use of the hourly contract approach. The statistics from the Irish Federation of University Teachers show that 36% of workers consider themselves precariously employed. Of those who are on these short-term, nine-month contracts, 61% are not getting paid for the periods between terms.”
“We must also ensure that we have the diversity we need in higher education and that those in higher education have the security to be able to do the work and to think about challenging and creative ideas. Many years ago, I launched a report called Living with Uncertainty. It looked to some of the key areas in precarious work, right across Irish society. This was approximately eight years ago. I was surprised that higher education emerged as one of the main areas of precarity. Since then, I have learned an awful lot more.”
“I welcome the Minister to the House and look forward to engaging with him. I know he will bring a lot of thought to one of the most exciting briefs we have. I am going to go into a couple of issues. I will start with a piece the Minister knows, which is that higher education plays a crucial role in shaping not just the careers of the individuals who move through it and the economy, but also the society. It is one of the ways we engage. It is the space for the ideas we need for the future, which will be challenging and where we will face hugely difficult global questions, as well as national questions. Ireland can and should be playing a key role in that regard. One of the important things in terms of getting the best from higher education is investment. The Minister will be aware how far behind our European peers we lag in that regard.”
“Right now, however, we know there is a huge push from the tech sector for the deregulation of technology. What has driven some of the attacks we have seen on democracy has been a failure to regulate the tech sector. On weapons, Europe is proposing €800 billion in loans. Some €150 billion of those loans relate to Security Action for Europe. To be clear, these loans can be used to buy battle-tested weapons from Israel and cluster bombs. Ireland negotiated the ban on cluster bombs. A total of €16 billion has been given to Hungary, which has authoritarian tendencies in its government. I ask and implore that we have leadership. Let us have leadership on Palestine, on the environment and climate and on peace.”
“Of those, 98% were to do with climate change. This is literally the world burning. The comments to which I refer were made during a discussion about the competitiveness and simplification agenda, which is being pushed in Europe, and which I am disturbed to see Ireland allowing for and supporting. There were references to discussions with Keir Starmer and others and about not tying ourselves in knots. Let us be clear - some of the regulations that people are trying to remove, and successfully removing at European level, are environmental and human rights regulations and things like due diligence. That is the world we create if we pander to deregulation. There have been conversations about deregulation in the tech sector at a time when we are hearing about cyber threats and hybrid threats and how concerned we have to be about them.”
“The Taoiseach is quoted as stating: I don’t think we can mitigate for climate change ... if we get into a position where we are going to challenge every single thing, saying it is against the climate, we are going to divide society fairly fast. The Taoiseach spoke about progressiveness. He did not mention climate earlier, but I look forward to him speaking more on it. He stated previously that if this generation does not step up, future generations will not forgive us. They will not forgive us. Right now, people across the world will not forgive us. Not only will Ireland face €26 billion in fines, but, as we know, it is projected that by 2050 there are going to be 1.2 billion people displaced around the world due to climate change and related disasters. Some 53% of all displacements in 2022 were driven by disasters.”
“The Taoiseach referred to implementation and putting companies in a difficult position. Companies should not be trading with illegally occupied territories or profiting from the theft of land and human rights abuses. For us to simply hold that standard is the least we can do. In the context of leadership, we have also seen attempts to lessen our expectations on climate change. The Taoiseach stated last week that he does not think we can mitigate for climate change and how it is going to divide society. Let us be clear-----”
“Indeed, similar bans on goods and services from occupied territories in Crimea are already being implemented. Crucially, this is something that is legally necessary in terms of international law. If we want another example, it is already being done in other countries. We have the Government's diluted version. Spain implemented a ban last week. It is law there already. The Spanish banned the import of goods and the advertisement of services provided in settlements. For some, that does not go far enough. If Ireland wants to lead in this area or if it wants to provide any leadership or reclaim a voice of leadership, it has to include services in the legislation. It must also provide a template for real legislation that fully implements the International Court of Justice’s ruling and that follows through.”
“When the Taoiseach is addressing the Seanad, I usually take the opportunity to speak about Seanad reform. I have usually referred to Seanad reform when I speaking to taoisigh over the past eight years. I am waiting for progress on Seanad reform. On this occasion, there is a need to talk about leadership. That word gets thrown around a lot, but, sadly, what we have heard in recent months is not representative of leadership. What we have heard are reasons why Ireland cannot lead. We have heard excuses for Ireland failing to do so. In the context of the occupied territories Bill, we have heard excuse after excuse since 2018. I am a cosponsor of the original Bill. We are now hearing yet another round of attempts to undermine something that the public wants and that the foreign affairs committee was unanimously clear is implementable.”
“I ask him to review the language of "is likely" and consider whether it could become "or is probable". Can we define that in some way in order that there is some pressure and a burden of proof in terms of them being able to show they genuinely thought there was a high probability of damage. That would at least do something rather than leaving this as a very wide phrase that can be used without evidence, potentially multiple times, by the same actors.”
“I come at it having worked with persons who have engaged on issues of due diligence internationally - this is of personal importance to me - on issues such as child labour, environmental damage and so forth. I know that side of it. I know that in that side of it, there is a chilling effect from the threat of legal action and the fact that most NGOs do not have a massive legal sink fund ready to take cases. They are operating on €1,000, €2,000 and €4,000 grants that allow them to do small, specific projects and investigative work in those contexts. The threat of even one case like that can cripple the action they might be doing. There is an inequality of arms here that needs to be addressed. I know the Minister goes some way towards addressing it in this legislation but I ask him to consider and review that language.”
“We know there are corporations who will be willing to take a number of cases or exercise a chilling effect through an example or two of cases. I am sorry to come at it and I know I am not coming at it from the point of view of playing out defamation cases in court, which maybe the Minister and others in the Chamber have done, but I come at it from the point of view of having worked in civil society for 15 years. I come at it from the experience of those who have tried to pursue information and highlight information in the public interest. I come at it on behalf of people who have worked on very serious issues of health and safety and have tried to highlight issues of serious public interest.”
“I am concerned about how these will be used but, going back to the question of "is likely to", there is a burden of proof piece there. The case may pan out and no substantial financial harm can be demonstrated but there is no consequence for the company because it can say it thought it was likely but did not say it was definite. If a company takes multiple cases on the grounds it is likely to cause serious harm but it does not produce any actual instances of the serious harm, it still fulfils the language within the Bill. There is no pressure from the legislation against this kind of case being taken even if, time after time, the company fails to demonstrate the actual consequence in terms of financial harm. I am thinking of those who take multiple cases.”
“I worry it would not throw those cases out at an early point and it would wait for the case to play out before reaching the defence of truth. I am not talking about every case and I do not think rotten meat is a good example. It could be a company that had been shut down by the Health and Safety Authority on five occasions in the past ten years. That is just a fact if you say it. Should that company then be able to take a case claiming there is a potential financial impact on the company as a result of those facts being highlighted? That is what I am trying to get at. We will come to it later when we discuss the question of "manifestly unfounded" and some of that later in the SLAPP pieces. It is one I am concerned about.”
“There is a whole question of whether the injury is done by the fact or by the fact being stated. That all has to be argued out in the courts. Truth is available as a defence but that is far down the line and some of these cases have been hanging around for years. The Minister talked about the vexatious piece and he might elaborate on how exactly he sees that playing out in way at an earlier point because I am very concerned it would not be found to be vexatious because, according to the legislation, it is an utterance which potentially has an impact on the reputation of a company. It meets the definition of defamation that is in the Bill and I worry that the court would say that has to play out and you have to use the defence of truth.”
“Let us say I am giving a fact, such as that a particular company failed 20 safety tests last year or another company has been indicted in three other countries for breaches of child labour regulations or whatever it may be. If I am giving a piece with a factual basis, it can be said that is likely to have an effect on the reputation but the question is whether my making the utterance is what is having an impact on the reputation or is it the fact the company used child labour that has impacted on its reputation and customers' willingness to engage with the company that has been using and found to use child labour. Does the Minister know what I mean?”
“I am worried the legislation as it stands does not do enough to narrow those consequences and address them. As I say, "likely to" is still wide enough. I am not talking about somebody having immunity. It is not about saying who is immune from prosecution. Nobody is creating a 007 designation whereby people can go without prosecution. Nobody should have immunity but my point is that cases have to be taken on relevant grounds. I can sue people on grounds but where it could get caught as being vexatious and inaccurate. At the moment, the legislation does not really capture it because it goes back to the definition the Minister read out. Defamation is defined as being likely to cause harm to a person's reputation, or likely to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable people and so forth.”
“I acknowledged in my opening remarks that it is an improvement on what was there. I have acknowledged that. It is clear that it narrows it into this area of financial harm. However, the language is still ambiguous and "likely to cause" can be parsed in different ways. Those who are in a large body corporate will be very willing to take multiple case examples until they get the precedent they want in that regard, whereas individuals will be daunted. I gave multiple examples of individuals who have been financially impacted, those who have stopped highlighting issues of considerable public interest because they were intimidated by a legal case, and circumstances where organisations have been unable to get insurance because of a pending lawsuit which effectively inhibits them from operating. Those are significant consequences.”
“In the multiple examples I gave, a lot of the cases taken by corporations were in fact taken against individuals, NGOs, whistleblowers, civil society organisations, health and safety experts and journalists who report matters. There is a balance with all of this.”
“One of the concerns I have relating to what we have heard from Senator McDowell is that the word "likely" is very amorphous. The language is still not clear. I suggest that even if the legislation used the word "probable" that would be the case. I know we are using these hypothetical examples of a large corporation suing a small corporation and that perhaps speaks to a different issue. These are questions about whether cases are being caught early enough. If cases are being brought by a competitor, that is a different issue that may need to be addressed. In that case, there may be mal intent in the defamation that is tied into intent about a competitor acting.”
“I hope the Minister will accept these two amendments on "likely to cause" because they are in line with what he himself has stated should be the case. Separate to the amendments, perhaps we could have a discussion about the issue of truth and fact and where it sits within the piece. It should be wider than a defence; it should be a bar to cases being taken. Cases that are taken in the face of incontrovertible fact, claiming financial harm because of the sharing of facts, are effectively vexatious cases and should not be coming through in the first place. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I hope he might be able to accept amendments Nos. 6 and 7.”
“Where there are matters that are interpretable, fair enough, but where there are matters that are based on hard fact and the individual is simply sharing that hard, known and verifiable fact, then rather than saying that is a defence for the individual who may or may not even have the capacity to employ proper legal representation, it should be a bar to the case being taken in the first place. We need to stem the abuse of defamatory lawsuits at the earlier point. If a very large corporation takes multiple cases, it is nothing to it that they get knocked back or that only one in five of them even makes it through the courts. The point is that, based on the possibility of future financial harm, it can afford to intimidate those with legitimate, fact-based criticism.”
“If a company is engaged in child labour, an international report on child labour states that it has been using child labour and somebody says it is using child labour and that is terrible, the truth may be a defence for that body, but the very fact that a case is taken may stop people feeling that they can make comments in relation to a corporate's use of child labour and the corporate being included on a child labour index and so forth. It should not be in a position where it can threaten a legal suit, because that information is both factually accurate and in the public interest. We should not be wasting the court's time, or even hypothetical time, on a discussion.”
“Instead, the criteria under which they can take a case has to be sufficiently clear and narrow. For example, the grounds on which a case may be taken are actual financial loss - this may be where we should move to a discussion on Report Stage - where the commentary is not based on an indisputable and known fact. It would not be a matter of opinion on whether the meat was rotten. Rather, HIQA had shut a business down over rotten meat, which would be there on the public record. The case should not be taken in the first place where there are clear and incontrovertible facts. I am not referring to disputed facts or opinion, but facts that are simply being stated.”
“One refers to an example given by the Minister when he spoke about the rotten meat. As he said himself, if there is no financial loss, there should not be a defamation case. However, the legislation allows there to be a defamation case. There is a second level to this that I wish to signal because I may come back to it further on Report Stage, which is, if there is rotten meat, there should be no defamation case either. Within the legislation, truth is a defence, but what I have outlined to the Minister are the consequences of the cases being taken. What is or should be a legitimate basis for taking a defamation case? Cost itself is not going to be a disincentive for some of the very large actors, including corporations and companies. It is not an object to them to take these cases.”
“That is why it is very important that we not have a situation whereby, without any evidence of any actual harm having been accrued, a case may be taken on the hypothetical possibility of harm, including financial harm, being done. One employee at an NGO reported being told that the case was taken "to mess with us" rather than to succeed in court and to take part of the organisation's very limited resources to deal with court proceedings rather than to set out delivery of its core functions. A small publisher shared images of solicitors' letters it had received "warning of defamation proceedings in response to their coverage of the housing crisis" being taken by organisations with commercial interests in the housing sector. These are real, very serious consequences. I wish to highlight two points.”
“[...] One civil society organisation working on accountability was threatened with defamation proceedings by a commercial interest over a report they had published [and this case continued for years] That organisation has now lost its professional indemnity insurance as a result of this case hanging over it on a long-term basis. These are very real consequences from cases that never even reached the courtroom. The simple fact of these cases being taken often has very serious consequences for the choices made by individuals, civil society organisations or reporters, along with very real financial and viability consequences for such.”
“The journalist stated: "This is typical – you issue proceedings and you let the thing sit there, with the hope the newspaper will settle, and you can claim a victory one way or another." The article continued: In one case, a civil society organisation was threatened with a defamation suit for highlighting privatisation in medical care by a business with interests in the sector. It never went to court and the complaints were considered legally doubtful, but due to the threat of the costs involved ... the organisation ... [deleted all relevant] communications, shut down campaigning on this issue ... [...] A political party was said to have sent defamation threats to two different media organisations in response to their press office being contacted with a request for comment about a story.”
“Exactly. I wanted to provide a few of the examples of how the abuse of defamation cases can happen - sometimes even before a case comes to court. The threat of legal action has a chilling effect that suppresses the publication of information that may be in the public interest. Examples published by the International Press Institute in a story in 2023, entitled “Ireland: How the wealthy and powerful abuse legal system to silence reporting”, described a reporter telling how they were sued by a property developer for reporting on safety defects in buildings.”
“I tabled them to illustrate the power imbalance in defamation proceedings and how the system can be used to censor information published in good faith about powerful bodies or corporations and their actions and commercial interests. I welcome the replacement of the previous section because it was entirely inadequate. It stated that a claim might be defamatory whether or not it has incurred or is likely to incur financial loss as a result of the publication. The previous phrasing was extraordinarily wide. It was whether or not it had any impact in terms of loss. That is still too wide. To be in line with what the Minister suggested, it should be limited to situations where there is demonstrated financial loss. In the context of another part of the, Senator McDowell referred to a demonstrated and sustained impact.”
“It gives scope to what we will discuss in the context of some of the later amendments, namely the kinds of cases that are designed to intimidate those engaging in rightful and, in many cases, accurate criticism. It brings about a situation whereby the defamation is simply the possibility or likely possibility that it may cause financial loss. This weak definition of what constitutes a defamatory statement, which others such as Senator McDowell are seeking to have amended, could allow companies to weaponise defamation proceedings against individuals or groups that might organise to outline these companies' harmful or destructive practices. Ireland already has a reputation for libel tourism. The aim behind my amendments Nos. 6 and 7 is to delete the phrases "or is likely to cause" and "or likely to cause" from the Bill.”