Court must avoid judiciary being dragged into super juniors ‘political contest'
The three-judge division of the High Court is hearing the case, brought by Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly, who is challenging the attendance of the so-called super junior ministers at Cabinet meetings.
Advertisement
On Monday afternoon, the Attorney General (AG) Rossa Fanning told the court that the Constitution does not forbid the attendance of super junior ministers while simultaneously allowing the attendance of the Secretary General and the AG.
Attorney General Rossa Fanning. Photo: Niall Carson/PA.
Mr Fanning, SC for the Government, said Mr Daly is asking the court to write in a new constitutional provisional that is 'simply not contained' in the text.
He claimed that Mr Daly is asking the court to enter the 'political thicket' and to intervene in the inner workings of Government.
He said that the court ought to resist the applicant's attempt to have the judiciary involved in a political contest being 'played as an away fixture down in the Four Courts'.
Advertisement
'These proceedings are misconceived in a number of respects but there is one fundamental error on which they are premised,' Mr Fanning added.
'The error that affects this case is that he wrongfully conflates the attendance of government meetings with being a government minister on the other.
'The two concepts are entirely distinct. There is a significant difference in legal statutory powers and functions of government ministers on one hand and ministers of state on the other.'
He added that statutory powers are delegated to ministers of state, and that the delegation is subject to the government ministers, which means, he added, that ministers of state remain under the supervision of senior ministers.
Advertisement
He added that the invitation of super junior ministers to Cabinet meetings is underpinned by legislation, and that Cabinet meetings are one element of government decision making.
He added that government policy is not formed at Cabinet in any 'real sense' .
'It is the last stop in the government chain,' he added.
Earlier the court was told that super junior ministers are acting as a 'collective authority' with ministers at Cabinet, in breach of the constitution.
Advertisement
Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald and Donegal TD Pearse Doherty were in court on Monday alongside Mr Daly.
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 added that there is no legal basis for the appointment for 'ministers of state who regularly attend Cabinet'.
'That creature simply does not exist under legislation,' he added.
He said he has queried with the respondents about what exactly is a minister of state who regularly attends government meetings.
'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 a super minister is.
'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.
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.'
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: 'This case is a constitutional challenge aimed at protecting the integrity of our system of government under Bunreacht na hEireann with which Fianna Fáil, 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
BBC News
4 hours ago
- BBC News
Julian Smith says David Cameron was 'cavalier' in handling of Brexit
Former Northern Ireland Secretary Julian Smith has accused ex-Prime Minister David Cameron of treating the 2016 Brexit referendum as "some sort of Eton game".Smith was the government's chief whip from 2016 until 2019 under Theresa May's premiership, which was fraught with tension over how the UK should leave the Tory MP was highly critical of Lord Cameron, who made the decision to hold the referendum after pressure from Eurosceptics, saying he had been "extremely cavalier"."There should have been a proposition which outlined how both answers would be addressed," he said. 'Some sort of Eton game' "I joined the Conservative Party because of David Cameron, because he was dynamic... but looking back on it, it was unforgiveable that this fundamental question was put to the British people when you have a whole range of issues, not least the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland," he told the BBC's Red Lines podcast."It was put to the British people as if it was some sort of Eton game." Brexit referendum in 2016 Lord Cameron is among a number of former British politicians who were educated privately at Eton College in a majority voted to leave the EU, Lord Cameron resigned as prime in 2016, after leaving office, he defended his decision to call the referendum. "I believe and still believe that the fact that we hadn't had a referendum on this issue for 40 years, despite the fact that the European Union was changing ... was actually beginning to poison British politics - it was certainly poisoning politics in my own party. "And I think, more broadly, people felt 'well, we have been promised referendums and they haven't been delivered' and people were beginning to feel very frustrated about this issue." When Lord Cameron quit as prime minister others in the Conservative Party were left to handle the Brexit was part of that government under Theresa May, which struggled to get agreement on how it should be done. 'Pretty disastrous' The former cabinet minister said issues such as how to maintain an open border between Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK and therefore would leave the EU, and the Republic of Ireland, which remains in the EU, should have been foreseen during the campaign."Instead the UK was led into years of contemplating an answer to that question."As time went on moderates turned into purists on either side, it was a pretty disastrous period." After Theresa May resigned as prime minister due to an inability to pass Brexit legislation, Boris Johnson took over and appointed Smith as Northern Ireland Secretary in July was a key player in getting devolution at Stormont restored the following January, after three years of deadlock, but he was sacked from the job a month later due to disagreements with said he "loved" the job, but was not surprised to lose it given he had been an ardent supporter of Theresa remained an observer of Northern Ireland issues after moving to the Commons' backbenches, and called on the Stormont Executive to take "tough decisions" on public services. Border poll Asked about the potential for a border poll, Smith said he did not think the conditions were "right" for one."Look at all the other things that need to be done."Don't let politicians in Northern Ireland off the hook on dealing with social mobility, dealing with the health service, revenue raising - this constitutional discussion is basically an excuse for not dealing with these priority issues," he added."I cannot in any world see a border poll with interest from Ireland, acceptance from the UK... I just don't see that happening at the current time so we're better focusing on making people's lives better."You can listen to Smith's interview on Red Lines on BBC Sounds from 06:00 BST.
Glasgow Times
4 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Former defence secretary makes ‘no apology' for Afghan injunction
Thousands of people are being relocated to the UK as part of a secret £850 million scheme set up in the wake of the breach. Sir Ben Wallace has said that the decision to apply for the gagging order was 'not as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover up' and that he believed that if the leak had been reported it would have 'put in peril those we needed to help out'. It came as Defence Secretary John Healey said that the person involved was 'no longer doing the same job'. A dataset containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) was released 'in error' in February 2022 by a defence official. The Ministry of Defence only became aware of the breach when excerpts from the dataset were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023, and a superinjunction was made at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban finding out about the leak. Writing in the Telegraph, Sir Ben said that when he was informed of the 'error' he was 'determined that the first priority was to protect all those that might be at risk'. 'I make no apology for applying to the court for an injunction at the time. It was not, as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover up,' he said. 'I took the view that if this leak was reported at the time, the existence of the list would put in peril those we needed to help out. 'Some may disagree but imagine if the Taliban had been alerted to the existence of this list. I would dread to think what would have happened.' Sir Ben left office shortly after the then-government became aware of the breach, having announced some time earlier that he intended to step down as defence secretary. The leak led to the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route – in April 2024. The scheme is understood to have cost around £400 million so far, with a projected cost once completed of around £850 million. A total of around 6,900 people expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme. It is understood that the unnamed official had emailed the dataset outside of a secure government system while attempting to verify information, believing the dataset to only have around 150 rows. However, there were more than 33,000 rows of information which were inadvertently sent. Downing Street declined to say on Tuesday whether the official involved had faced disciplinary action or was still employed by the Government. Mr Healey later told the News Agents podcast that 'they are no longer doing the same job on the Afghan brief' and that 'this is bigger than the actions of a single individual'. Pushed on whether anybody had lost their job, Mr Healey said: 'I'm actually not going to get into the personnel matters.' The injunction was in place for almost two years – covering Labour and Conservative governments. Mr Healey offered a 'sincere apology' on behalf of the Government in the Commons on Tuesday, and said he had been 'deeply uncomfortable' in being unable to speak about it in Parliament. Kemi Badenoch also said sorry on behalf of the Conservatives. Speaking to LBC on Tuesday evening, the Tory leader was asked whether she would apologise on behalf of the Conservatives who were in office at the time of the breach. She said: 'On behalf of the government and on behalf of the British people yes, because somebody made a terrible mistake and names were put out there… and we are sorry for that. 'That should not happen. And this is one of the tough things about, you know, being a minister, which is why even the Government – the Labour Government, now this didn't happen when they were in power – they are apologising as well.'
North Wales Chronicle
5 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Former defence secretary makes ‘no apology' for Afghan injunction
Thousands of people are being relocated to the UK as part of a secret £850 million scheme set up in the wake of the breach. Sir Ben Wallace has said that the decision to apply for the gagging order was 'not as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover up' and that he believed that if the leak had been reported it would have 'put in peril those we needed to help out'. It came as Defence Secretary John Healey said that the person involved was 'no longer doing the same job'. A dataset containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) was released 'in error' in February 2022 by a defence official. The Ministry of Defence only became aware of the breach when excerpts from the dataset were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023, and a superinjunction was made at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban finding out about the leak. Writing in the Telegraph, Sir Ben said that when he was informed of the 'error' he was 'determined that the first priority was to protect all those that might be at risk'. 'I make no apology for applying to the court for an injunction at the time. It was not, as some are childishly trying to claim, a cover up,' he said. 'I took the view that if this leak was reported at the time, the existence of the list would put in peril those we needed to help out. 'Some may disagree but imagine if the Taliban had been alerted to the existence of this list. I would dread to think what would have happened.' Sir Ben left office shortly after the then-government became aware of the breach, having announced some time earlier that he intended to step down as defence secretary. The leak led to the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route – in April 2024. The scheme is understood to have cost around £400 million so far, with a projected cost once completed of around £850 million. A total of around 6,900 people expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme. It is understood that the unnamed official had emailed the dataset outside of a secure government system while attempting to verify information, believing the dataset to only have around 150 rows. However, there were more than 33,000 rows of information which were inadvertently sent. Downing Street declined to say on Tuesday whether the official involved had faced disciplinary action or was still employed by the Government. Mr Healey later told the News Agents podcast that 'they are no longer doing the same job on the Afghan brief' and that 'this is bigger than the actions of a single individual'. Pushed on whether anybody had lost their job, Mr Healey said: 'I'm actually not going to get into the personnel matters.' The injunction was in place for almost two years – covering Labour and Conservative governments. Mr Healey offered a 'sincere apology' on behalf of the Government in the Commons on Tuesday, and said he had been 'deeply uncomfortable' in being unable to speak about it in Parliament. Kemi Badenoch also said sorry on behalf of the Conservatives. Speaking to LBC on Tuesday evening, the Tory leader was asked whether she would apologise on behalf of the Conservatives who were in office at the time of the breach. She said: 'On behalf of the government and on behalf of the British people yes, because somebody made a terrible mistake and names were put out there… and we are sorry for that. 'That should not happen. And this is one of the tough things about, you know, being a minister, which is why even the Government – the Labour Government, now this didn't happen when they were in power – they are apologising as well.'
