Ex-super junior treated as a ‘full minister' despite status, High Court hears
High Court
he was treated as a 'full minister' while attending government meetings and that he on occasion succeeded in blocking or amending cabinet decisions.
Mr McGrath, who served as minister of State for disability between 2016 and 2020, on Thursday gave evidence at the hearing of
People Before Profit-Solidarity
TD
Paul Murphy
's action challenging the attendance of super junior Ministers at Cabinet meetings.
Cross-examining Mr McGrath, Attorney General
Rossa Fanning
suggested he was confusing his political influence within government with the role he actually held: that of a super junior minister with lesser powers than a senior government minister.
Mr Murphy's case alleges super juniors' presence at Cabinet is unconstitutional. He wants an injunction restraining super juniors from going to Government meetings.
READ MORE
Mr Murphy's case cites article 28 of the Constitution, which limits the number of government members to 15, including the taoiseach, and provides that they meet and act as a collective authority.
'Ministers of State attending cabinet', or super junior ministers, are appointed by the government on the nomination of the taoiseach. They participate at government meetings but do not vote.
Senior government ministers are appointed by the President of Ireland on the advice of the taoiseach and with the prior approval of Dáil Éireann.
Mr Fanning is leading the State's defence.
The hearing of Mr Murphy's case immediately followed the conclusion of submissions in a similar case brought by Sinn Féin TD
Pa Daly
.
Mr McGrath told the court on Thursday that, as a super junior minister, he was treated with respect, and welcomed to the cabinet meeting as 'a full minister', with every person in the room 'treated exactly the same'.
He said he was encouraged by both taoisigh he served under – Enda Kenny and Leo Varadkar – to participate in cabinet debates and decision-making.
Mr McGrath said he on occasion blocked decisions being taken at cabinet and amendments he suggested were sometimes adopted before certain proposals were approved.
Cross-examined by Mr Fanning, Mr McGrath said he did not accept that super juniors are perceived as being lower in the 'political order' than senior government ministers.
Mr Fanning put it to Mr McGrath that he had no legal entitlement to attend cabinet, unlike senior government ministers.
Mr McGrath agreed that his attendance arose from a 'political arrangement'. He also agreed he had no legal power to block a decision of government, as he had no entitlement to vote at cabinet.
Mr Fanning put to Mr McGrath that his presentation to the court confused the strategic, political influence he had within the government and any reasonable analysis of his actual role within government – a super junior with lesser powers than a senior minister. Mr McGrath disagreed.
'You're diminishing the office of the super junior minister and I don't like that,' he said.
John Callinan, the secretary general to the Government, reiterated to the court that in his experience, super junior ministers cannot submit or present memorandums to Cabinet. He qualified that it was not unusual for a memorandum to refer to the name of a Minister of State who may have an interest in the memorandum's subject.
However, he said memorandums are always brought under the name of a senior Minister.
Under cross-examination, Mr Callinan told Mr Murphy's senior counsel, John Rogers, that super juniors' attendance at Cabinet was essentially a 'political decision as part of the government formation process'.
Mr Callanan said the 15 members of Government have a right to attend Cabinet. He said it was a matter for the Government and the Taoiseach whether anyone else can attend and on what terms.
Asked what his source for this was, Mr Callanan said he believed it arose from the absence of a prohibition of such attendances.
Several expert witnesses gave historical evidence on Thursday. Prof
Diarmaid Feritter
spoke on the 'evolution of thinking' behind the Constitution, with reference to the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State, and the adoption of the modern Constitution in 1937.
The case, sitting before three judges, continues, with parties expected to make their closing submissions on Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Irish Sun
22 minutes ago
- The Irish Sun
Probe launched into Trump prosecutor Jack Smith for ‘illegal political activity' after Don charged 41 times
FEDERAL officials have opened an investigation into Jack Smith, the former special counsel who investigated then-candidate Donald Trump before his reelection to a second term. The Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency, on Saturday confirmed the investigation. 3 Special counsel Jack Smith speaks to members of the media at the US Department of Justice building in Washington, DC Credit: AFP 3 Donald Trump has ripped prosecutor Jack Smith after his election interference report was released Credit: AP 3 Smith believes Trump would've been convicted had he lost the 2024 election Credit: AFP Trump was slapped with a federal indictment in 2023 over allegations he tried to It was one of four indictments leveled against the president-elect after he left office in 2021. Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the US, obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct, and conspiracy against rights. The case never made it to trial before the presidential election and was subsequently dropped following Trump's victory. However, Smith's findings were published just one week before Trump's inauguration, when he will be sworn in as the 47th president. Smith's report claimed Trump tried to retain power after losing to Biden by "using fraud and deceit." He also claimed Trump pressured election officials at the state level in a desperate bid to try and change the results. Trump was also said to have pressured then vice-president Mike Pence, who was President of the Senate, to change the election result, according to the report. Most read in The US Sun Smith revealed that his team had "admissible evidence," which he believes would've helped them get a conviction against Trump - had he not won the 2024 election. "The department's view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government's proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the office stands fully behind," the report said. Trump vehemently denied any allegations of election interference following his indictment. More to follow... For the latest news on this story, keep checking back at The U.S. Sun, your go-to destination for the best celebrity news, sports news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures, and must-see videos . Like us on Facebook at
Irish Times
14 hours ago
- Irish Times
Discriminations by AC Grayling: A simple take on the culture wars
Discriminations: Making Peace in the Culture Wars Author : AC Grayling ISBN-13 : 978-0861549962 Publisher : Oneworld Guideline Price : £12.99 In Discriminations, AC Grayling essentially suggests that respect for human rights and commitment to reasoned debate are the antidotes to the poisonous state of politics. A simple solution. The title, Discriminations, plays with two meanings. Firstly, there is discrimination in the sense of sexism, racism and other prejudices which Grayling positions himself as firmly against, taking the side of social justice and defending those pilloried as 'woke'. Secondly, there is discrimination in the sense of making subtle distinctions – between rights and interests, between free-speech and hate-speech, for instance. Grayling offers a historical perspective on cancel culture, stretching the term to include collective cancelling, for example the crusade against Albigensian heretics in 13th century France, or individual cancelling, such as the pillory of Oscar Wilde. He argues that tactics such as 'no-platforming' or 'cancelling' are rarely justified, and that abandoning the principle of free speech to the right is a mistake by the left, feminists or the 'woke'. READ MORE Aside from how far-fetched these historical comparisons appear, the main thrust of the book is that the current poisonous state of the culture wars is created by all participants, left, right or otherwise. Grayling suggests that the left must examine its tactics and respect free speech, and that the right must respect human rights as distinct from interests – the maintenance of advantages. Along the way, he drifts into 'both-sides' style equations of the hard left and hard right. The extremes are the problem; those in the centre hold the answers. Supposedly rising above the 'culture war', Grayling proposes liberal solutions: rights, debate, freedom. These are hard to disagree with but obviously these are widespread, even dominant ideas of the last century. Grayling admonishes everyone to return to these principles, which should deliver a harmonious political debate – full of difference and disagreement but civil. Today, when authoritarian populists and neoliberals are the champions of free speech, this is insufficient. With a schoolmasterly tone – though often implausible, ' ... reflection will suggest, fundamentally, morality is a matter of good manners ...' – Grayling's book is almost endearingly nostalgic. The simple solution of reasonable arguments countering problematic views is alluring, but hardly tenable now. Effectively, the culture wars means that what counts as problematic or reasonable is now essentially contested. Even where his diagnosis is apt, his solutions seem implausible.
Irish Times
14 hours ago
- Irish Times
There's one scenario in which tariffs won't be a disaster for Ireland
I have enough grey hairs to remember trade deals being done in the past, notably the massive Uruguay round of talks which concluded in 1994 and was – though we didn't know it at the time – the high point of a long postwar drive to free world trade and reduce tariffs. The media spent many hours outside meeting rooms as negotiators from more than 120 countries went through complex line-by-line negotiations to cut tariffs and trade barriers. For Ireland, it was always a case of trading off the potential gains for industry with the threat to farmers. But over time, the State was a huge winner. The world had already started to move away from the relentless globalisation drive which had lasted well into this century. And now we have Trump's new world order and trade 'deals' which are a mix of reality, spin and fudge. We still do not know the full details of the deal between the United States and the European Union – before we even start to worry about how Trump might try to rewrite it. Ibec chief economist Gerard Brady calculates that exporters accounting for about 10 per cent of our export value to the US now know their tariff and another 10-15 per cent await news on exemptions from tariffs being negotiated between the US and the EU. The remaining 75 per cent or so of pharma and semiconductor exporters will have to wait for separate investigations now under way in the Trump administration. READ MORE There is a potential outcome from all this which, while damaging, would not be disastrous for Ireland in the short term. There will be problems, but the economy could adjust and adapt. While the Department of Finance estimates that the tariffs could lead to employment being 70,000 lower in five years' time and the economy 1.5 per cent smaller are, at best, a rough guesstimate, they do look to be in the right direction. On current trends, this would mean growth continuing, just not as quickly as it would have. We can assess the potential damage for Ireland only when we know the full details. The spirits and whiskey sectors look exposed, for example, as the US says it is a target for the 15 per cent tariffs. As this is a big issue in France, there will be an EU push in the week ahead, before final details of the deal with the US are published, to try to lower the burden here. As well as the impact on Ireland, this is one to watch at political level in the EU, as France puts pressure on Ursula von der Leyen 's European Commission , which negotiates on behalf of the EU. As butter, another vital Irish export, was already subject to a tariff of about 16-17 per cent (which will remain), things will at least not get any worse here. If we want to identify problem areas, smaller companies reliant on the US in a range of sectors is one. Small may no longer be beautiful in a complex and politically-driven world market. And it is also worth focusing on the risks to parts of rural Ireland – as highlighted by Chambers Ireland chief executive Ian Talbot – particularly those reliant on sectors such as food and also pharma and medical products. Towns such as Westport and Kinsale will anxiously await details on the pharma tariffs. [ EU-US trade deal analysis: Tariffs have a price for both sides. Trump was willing to pay it Opens in new window ] And here things remain a bit woolly, largely because the US president is undertaking study of this sector under a so-called section 232 process – referring to a section of a 1960s US act. This is separate from the big so-called reciprocal tariffs announced on Friday. The EU view is that its deal caps tariffs on pharma at 15 per cent – including any outcome from this separate process. If this holds, the sector at least knows its maximum charge. A big report – due shortly – has been drawn up for Trump under section 232, which looks at national security issues from trade and how more of the supply chain of key products can be brought back to the US from countries such as Ireland. Let's hope Trump does not revisit the 15 per cent maximum tariff figure as part of this. Tariffs are only one of Trump's policies options. On Thursday, he issued a letter to 17 of the big pharma companies demanding they cut prices in the US to the lowest level applying elsewhere. As a big buyer of pharma, the US state machinery has a lot of power here. Imposing high tariffs appears to run counter to the drive for lower prices. So the interaction between Trump and big pharma is another key thing to watch in the weeks ahead. What we do know is that the US president is determined to return pharma investment to the US and get better prices for American consumers. For Ireland, the initial impact may be slow enough to emerge. But this is likely to mean somewhat lower investment by pharma here in the years ahead and a sector which may be more focused on EU and other markets rather than exporting back to the US. Changes in the pricing and accounting practices of the multinationals – now designed to report massive profits in low-tax Ireland – are also likely to cut corporate tax revenue here. Like the rest of the economy, the Irish pharma sector will adjust. But there will be a cost, the scale of which depends on the extent of US policy action. The longer-term strategic questions will take time to clarify themselves. A major issue is whether Trump's policy direction will stick. If you are, say, a big pharma company, do you base your investments on an expectation that this is now the new world, or that Trump's policies will, in time, be rolled back either by him or by his successor? US court challenges to his powers to impose wide-scale tariffs are only now playing out. US consumer prices are surely set to rise – the only question is how much and whether there will be a cost in jobs. And the financial market calm could be upset at any time, given the crazy and risky course on which Trump has embarked. On Friday, they were already looking jumpy. So the uncertainty will roll on. Ireland should get through the first wave of this, albeit with some collateral damage. But the big question is our place in a world which seems to be breaking up into new trading blocs and alliances. And whether the valuable certainty which a final, agreed trade deal might bring can last - Ireland and Europe now needs Trump to direct his attention elsewhere.
