Super junior ministers ‘acting as a collective authority in Cabinet meetings'
The High Court is hearing a challenge by Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly about the attendance of super junior ministers at Cabinet meetings.
Advertisement
Also attending court on Monday was Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald and Donegal TD Pearse Doherty.
Mr Daly argues that Article 28 of the Constitution of Ireland limits the number of government members to 15.
Sinn Féin are here today to challenge Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael blatant stroke politics. We believe they are playing fast and loose with the Constitution to grease the wheels of their grubby deal with Michael Lowry and load the Cabinet with so-called 'Super Junior' Ministers. Pa…
pic.twitter.com/JYTGyWUzGJ
— Mary Lou McDonald (@MaryLouMcDonald)
July 7, 2025
The super junior ministers appointed include Fine Gael's Hildegarde Naughton, as well as Independents Sean Canney and Noel Grealish.
Fianna Fáil's Mary Butler is also a minister of state attending Cabinet.
Advertisement
Senior government ministers are appointed by the President of Ireland on the advice of the Taoiseach of the day, and with the approval of the Dáil.
Super junior ministers are appointed by the government on the nomination of the taoiseach.
Feichin McDonagh SC told the three judges that the legal basis of their appointment was exactly the same as the other ministers of state who do not attend Cabinet.
He said he has queried with the respondents about what exactly is a minister of state who regularly attends government meetings.
Advertisement
'One would have thought following exchange of meetings there might be some consensus, but there does not appear to be a consensus,' Mr McDonagh said.
He told the court it was not possible to address the issues unless the court knows what is a super minister.
'The designation of super junior by taoiseach was in some way an exercise of executive power of the state,' he added.
He said it is suggested in the respondent's affidavit that there is an office called minister of state who regularly attends government, which Mr McDonagh said does not exist.
Advertisement
He added that a decision to pay an allowance to super juniors does not change that position.
'Four super juniors now get an allowance and we challenge the provisions in that legislation to allow that,' he added.
'There is minister of state who is told by Taoiseach they can regularly attend government (meetings) and if they come into that category they get 16,000 euro a year.
'But it is not an office, not enacted under the constitution and there is no underpinning to suggest that the office is being created.'
Advertisement
He also queried the meaning behind the words under Article 4.1, in which it states that the Government shall meet and act as a collective authority.
'What does collective authority do? They meet and with the others (ministers) they collectively act. Who is acting collectively? It is the government along with the super junior ministers,' Mr McDonagh added.
'There will be government decisions taken and government acting collectively.
'In that scenario there are extra individuals who are there present in the counsel of chamber. They are taking a full role in the formulation and formation of government policy, thereby acting as a collective authority and there is no dispute between the parties as to that being what is happening.
'The government is formulating policy and taking countless decisions and undoubtedly purporting to act as a collective authority.
'You cannot unscramble that egg. If you have government meeting with super juniors speaking to perspective government decisions and a consensus is arrived at, that decision is no less than a government decision than one that has been voted on.
'That decision is arrived at following a process of mixing yolks to getting into scramble egg and that cannot be unscrambled.'
Earlier, Ms McDonald said the Government has broken the rules.
Speaking outside court, Ms McDonald said: 'This is a challenge to a government who we believe have played fast and loose with the Constitution in a bid to secure a grubby deal with Michael Lowry and to retain office, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, we believe are acting in defiance of the Constitution.
'There are four so called super junior ministers who attend cabinet. The Constitution, in our view, is very clear. The Cabinet amounts to 15 members, and we believe that the government is breaking the rules.
'They've broken the rules because at all costs, Micheal Martin and Simon Harris wish to remain in government, so they cut this deal, as you know, with Michael Lowry, and we are here now to challenge that action and to seek clarity.'
Mr Daly brought the constitutional challenge against the Government in the High Court regarding the appointment of super junior ministers.
The case challenges what Mr Daly says is a 'deeply problematic and unconstitutional practice that has taken root in recent decades'.
He said: 'The attendance and participation of so-called 'super junior' ministers at meetings of the Government.
'This case is a constitutional challenge aimed at protecting the integrity of our system of government under Bunreacht na hEireann with which Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Lowry-led Independents are playing fast and loose.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
9 minutes ago
- Reuters
World Court is poised to mark the future course of climate litigation
THE HAGUE, July 23 (Reuters) - The United Nations' highest court will deliver an opinion on Wednesday that is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. Known as an advisory opinion, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague is legally non-binding. It nevertheless carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. 'The advisory opinion is probably the most consequential in the history of the court because it clarifies international law obligations to avoid catastrophic harm that would imperil the survival of humankind," said Payam Akhavan, an international law professor. In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, also known as the World Court, Akhavan represented low-lying, small island states that face an existential threat from rising sea levels. In all, over a hundred states and international organisations gave their views on the two questions the U.N. General Assembly had asked the judges to consider. They were: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system? Wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. In 2015, at the conclusion of U.N. talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the U.N said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100. As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate‑related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE ( opens new tab, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was a still victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate, opens new tab to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point and that, even if the ruling itself is advisory, it should provide for the determination that U.N. member states have broken the international law they have signed up to uphold. "The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law," said Fijian Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so. "This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to. National and regional courts will be looking to this opinion as a persuasive authority and this will inform judgments with binding consequences under their own legal systems," Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, said. The court will start reading out its opinion at 3 p.m. (1300 GMT).
Telegraph
9 minutes ago
- Telegraph
French Mirage fighter jet crashes in Ukraine
No casualties were reported on the ground, and an investigation into the cause of the crash is underway. President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed the incident on Wednesday morning. 'The pilot managed to escape and it was not shot down by the Russians,' he said. 'Unfortunately, we lost our combat aircraft. A French aircraft, very effective, one of our Mirage.' The loss is another setback for Ukraine's air defence capability, which has been under mounting pressure amid increasing Russian missile and drone attacks. Ukraine began receiving the Mirage 2000-5 aircraft this year as part of a French initiative to strengthen its air force. In June last year, President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would transfer the Mirage 2000-5s and train Ukrainian pilots in France for up to six months. The program was intended to bolster Ukraine's efforts to deploy U.S.-made F-16s later this year. The Mirage is a single-engine, multi-role fighter jet, which first entered into service in the 1970s, and shares many similarities with the American F-16.
Sky News
39 minutes ago
- Sky News
Goldman Sachs boss sounds warning to Reeves on tax and regulation
London and the UK's leading status in the global financial system is "fragile", the boss of Goldman Sachs has warned, as the government grapples with a tough economy. Speaking ahead of a meeting with the prime minister, David Solomon - chairman and chief executive of the huge US investment bank - told Sky News presenter Wilfred Frost's The Master Investor Podcast of several concerns related to tax and regulation. He urged the government not to push people and business away through poor policy that would damage its primary aim of securing improved economic growth, arguing that European rivals were currently proving more attractive. He said: "The financial industry is still driven by talent and capital formation. And those things are much more mobile than they were 25 years ago. "London continues to be an important financial centre. But because of Brexit, because of the way the world's evolving, the talent that was more centred here is more mobile. "We as a firm have many more people on the continent. Policy matters, incentives matter. "I'm encouraged by some of what the current government is talking about in terms of supporting business and trying to support a more growth oriented agenda. "But if you don't set a policy that keeps talent here, that encourages capital formation here, I think over time you risk that." He had a stark warning about the recent reversal of the "Non Dom" tax policy, which occurred across both the prior Conservative government and the current Labour government, which has played a part in some senior Goldman partners relocating away from London. 1:16 Richard Gnodde, one of the bank's vice-chairs, left for Milan earlier this year. "Incentives matter if you create tax policy or incentives that push people away, you harm your economy," Mr Solomon continued. "If you go back, you know, ten years ago, I think we probably had 80 people in Paris. You know, we have 400 people in Paris now... And so in Goldman Sachs today, if you're in Europe, you can live in London, you can live in Paris, you can live in Germany, in Frankfurt or Munich, you can live in Italy, you can live in Switzerland. "And we've got, you know, real offices. You just have to recognise talent is more mobile." Goldman is understood to have about 6,000 employees in the UK. Rachel Reeves is currently seeking ways to fill a black hole in the public finances and has refused to rule out wealth taxes at the next budget. Mr Solomon expressed sympathy for her as her tears in parliament earlier this month led to speculation about the pressure of the job. "I have sympathy, I have empathy not just for the chancellor, but for anyone who's serving in one of these governments," he said, referring to the turbulent political landscape globally. Commenting on the chancellor's Mansion House speech last week, he added: "The chancellor spoke here about regulation, she's talking about regulation not just for safety and soundness, but also for growth. 1:54 "And now we have to see the action steps that actually follow through and encourage that." One area he was particularly keen to see follow through from her Mansion House speech was ringfencing - the post financial crisis regulation that requires banks to separate their retail activities from their investment banking activities. "It's a place where the UK is an outlier, and by being an outlier, it prevents capital formation and growth. "What's the justification for being an outlier? Why is this so difficult to change? It's hard to make a substantive policy argument that this is like a great policy for the UK. So why is it so hard to change?"
