Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Bill 2026: Second Stage
Dail Éireann — 2026-09-29
============================================================

Cormac Devlin (FF), Dún Laoghaire

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill, which supports a free press. I thank the Minister of State and her officials for their work.
Informed public debate and a free press are fundamental in a modern democratic republic. Our democracy was hard won and it should never be taken for granted. A strategic lawsuit against public participation is not a genuine attempt to vindicate a right; it is an attempt to silence. The person who brings it often does not expect to win. They expect the journalist, the campaigner or the community group on the other side to run out of money, time or nerves long before the case reaches the courtroom.
The process is the punishment and the cost is not only theirs. When a journalist drops a story, a community group withdraws an objection or a citizen deletes a post, the public loses. The problem is growing. The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe has now documented 1,303 of these cases across Europe since 2010, with 167 new cases added in 2024 alone. It has recorded 33 cases in Ireland and that figure probably only scratches the surface. The same research tells us that only 8.5% of these cases are cross-border. The vast majority are domestic. That is why I particularly welcome the Minister's decision to apply these protections to domestic proceedings, and not only to the cross-border cases the EU directive requires. Anything less would have left the people most at risk with the least protection.
The Bill gives defendants real tools. Under section 6, for example, the court can allow others to make submissions or to assist a defendant, so no one has to stand alone. Under section 7, the court can require the plaintiff to lodge security for costs and damages. Under section 8 also, a defendant can seek early dismissal of proceedings that are manifestly unfounded and the plaintiff must then substantiate the claim. Under sections 9 to 11, inclusive, a court can declare proceedings abusive, award more generous costs and order the plaintiff to pay damages. Section 12 means those findings will be published on the Courts Service website, so the practice carries a reputational cost as well as a financial one. Sections 13 and 14 mean Irish courts will not enforce abusive judgments from outside the EU, and people here targeted by such cases can recover their losses.
I welcome Part 3. By repealing Part 7 of the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026 and inserting a new Part 4A that mirrors the rest of the Bill, we will have one set of safeguards, in one place, whether a case is framed as defamation or anything else. That is simpler for the courts and far clearer for the people this Bill is meant to protect.
In my own constituency of Dún Laoghaire, the people most exposed to this kind of threat are not the major broadcasters with in-house legal teams. They are the local and regional papers, residents' association making a planning submission and the volunteer who runs a community page and asks a hard question. For them, a solicitor's letter can be enough to end that conversation. This Bill gives them somewhere to stand.
The research is also clear about who brings these cases. Across Europe, the most common litigants are those in positions of power, namely businesses and politicians. It is disappointing that even here, some elected representatives have appeared to engage in this practice. Every citizen, including every politician, has a constitutional right to their good name and nothing in this Bill takes from that, but those of us who ask the public for its trust should be the last people to use the courts to silence those who question us. Scrutiny is part of the job. Criticism, even unfair criticism, is also part of the job.
That tells us something about the wider state of our public discourse, and that is what I want to turn to now. The space for political debate in this country and across Europe is shrinking, and it is shrinking in strange ways. Since October of last year, Meta and Google have stopped accepting political adverts everywhere in the EU, blaming the complexity of new EU rules. That includes any advert placed for or by a politician. A TD can no longer pay to tell constituents about a clinic or a public meeting. Meanwhile, scam adverts are everywhere. The Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Jack Chambers, have both had their images used in them and almost daily a new public figure has been implicated. Last November, Reuters reported that Meta's own internal documents projected that around 10% of its 2024 revenue, some $16 billion, would come from adverts for scams and banned goods.
Mark Little, in his new book The Last Good Day on the Internet , charts how the relentless pursuit of attention and scale fuelled toxic algorithms, hate, misinformation and division. Platforms profit from reaction, and nothing drives reaction like the most extreme position. The clinic notice is blocked, the scam advert is served and the outrage is amplified. That is not a healthy information space.
It is a similar story with political funding. A party or candidate here can only accept limited donations or support. Foreign donations are banned and the rules have recently been tightened again. Yet, some parties have used the gap between this jurisdiction and others, particularly the UK, to take in donations no party could accept here in the Republic, including a single bequest of more than £2 million. None of us wants a UK-style system where crypto money buys a platform, but some reform is necessary so that our rules are proportionate and cannot be sidestepped by crossing a border.
Corporate interests and the NGOs press their agendas in this House and around the country every week. In a liberal democracy that is a good thing. We must hear ideas, including new ones and the ones we disagree with. However, set that against the growing web of declarations, returns and compliance rules elected representatives and parties must follow in the course of their ordinary work. Transparency is correct and right but when the heaviest burden falls on those who must face the electorate, the treatment is inconsistent, and it is having an impact.
Add the toxicity of so much online debate and you can see why people are stepping back from public life. A UCD survey for the Oireachtas task force on safe participation in political life found 94% TDs and Senators who responded had experienced threats, harassment, abuse or violence. Some 45% had avoided a particular policy area as a result and 43% said it made them less likely to run for office again. We saw the consequences at the last general election. Thirty outgoing TDs did not seek re-election, compared with just 19 in 2020. Many of them were good, hardworking representatives. When he announced his decision, Ciarán Cannon said, "There’s a coarseness, a toxicity in politics now that was barely palpable twenty years ago". The next local elections are due in 2029 and parties across this House are already looking for candidates. If the young parent, the small business owner or the carer decides public life is not worth the abuse, the ballot paper will not reflect the community those people could serve. Last of all, most TDs from all sides of this House welcome the dedicated channels Departments and agencies have set up for Members' representations but the service is very inconsistent and in some cases it has reduced in recent times. We must be vigilant these channels do not become a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise pushing more work on TDs and our offices. A reference number is not an answer, an acknowledgement is not a resolution of a query and a closed file is not a problem solved.
I raise these issues so Ministers - and I understand the Minister of State is aware of these issues - colleagues and the public might consider how we promote healthy public debate and systems that let elected representatives advocate effectively for their constituents. Politics should always be about ideas and policies that improve the nation for all. I have two specific asks of the Minister of State. The first is that the Courts Service publish annual figures on applications made and granted under this Act so this House can see whether it works or not. The second is that the Minister raise with the Minister for housing and local government the need for a review by An Coimisiún Toghcháin of how the rules on political advertising, funding and compliance work in practice and implement the reforms well in advance of the 2029 local elections and potential general election. Democracy must not just work; it must be seen to work.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/2026-09-29/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-10-05T01:00:59+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-09-29