Pa Daly: Why Sinn Féin is challenging the Government on super junior ministers
The case challenges what I believe is a deeply problematic and unconstitutional practice that has taken root in recent decades - 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 hÉireann with which Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Lowry-led Independents are playing fast and loose.
The Constitution is clear. Article 28.1 states that 'the Government shall consist of not more than 15 members'. That is not a guideline, a suggestion, or an ideal. To me, this is a legal limit on the number who may be part of the Government.
The practice of allowing super junior ministers to attend Cabinet meetings, contribute to discussions and access all Cabinet documentation, amounts, in effect, to treating them as full members of Cabinet. That is, in our view, in clear breach of the Constitution.
While super junior ministers do not have a formal vote at Cabinet, that argument is largely academic. As former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar himself acknowledged earlier this year, votes at Cabinet happen rarely, if at all.
What matters is that super junior ministers are regularly present, bring memos for decision, and are deeply involved in the executive decision-making process. They are treated, in all meaningful respects, as equals to Cabinet ministers, without being bound by the same legal framework and without the constitutional permission to operate in that role.
This, we will argue, undermines the core principles of collective Cabinet responsibility and Cabinet confidentiality. The Constitution guarantees that the Government speaks with one voice and that its internal workings are conducted within a protected, confidential framework.
This is necessary to ensure stability, coherence, and accountability. When individuals who are not legally members of the Government are present, that principle is eroded. Cabinet confidentiality is diluted, and the chain of collective responsibility becomes blurred.
Let's be clear, this is not a historical anomaly. The attendance of a Minister of State at Cabinet first occurred in 1994 under the Rainbow Coalition. Every government since has perpetuated this arrangement.
But that doesn't make it right - nor does it make it legal, but we believe that it is time for the courts to adjudicate on the issue. We have reached a point now where four super junior ministers of State are incentivised, via public funds, to operate as Cabinet members in all but name.
I believe that this is incompatible with the Constitution. It effectively uses taxpayer money to encourage a practice that breaches the constitutional limits placed on the composition and function of Government. That should concern every citizen, regardless of party or politics.
We are told this is a matter of practicality or political expediency. We're told it helps the government run more smoothly or allows for more inclusive voices at the table.
Who is running the Government?
But when Michael Lowry TD - someone who brokered a deal between Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, and the Regional Independent Group - states publicly that super juniors 'will sit at the Cabinet table, have access to all Cabinet papers, contribute at Cabinet, and attend all leaders' meetings,' we must ask - who is really running the Government?
This arrangement isn't about good governance. It's about maintaining power through political horse-trading. It is about doing deals behind closed doors and bending constitutional norms to fit political convenience.
It is now time to get clarity from the courts on the constitutionality of the issue. The Constitution must mean what it says. If we allow these lines to be blurred, we invite further erosion of the democratic checks and balances that are essential to our system of government and to our democracy.
This case is not about party politics. It is not about those who currently serve as super junior ministers. But the constitutionality of their role at Cabinet I believe must be clarified.
A culture has developed where constitutional boundaries can be bent by political deal-making. The cost is the loss of public trust in politics and the weakening of our democratic institutions.
This case is about reasserting the rule of law, reaffirming the authority of Bunreacht na hÉireann, and ensuring that the Government operates as the Constitution demands. Anything less would be a disservice to the people of Ireland.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
40 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Senator shows Seanad picture of her seven-week scan as ‘only evidence' pregnancy existed
Holding up a picture of her seven-week scan in Seanad Éireann, Sinn Féin Senator Nicole Ryan said it was the 'only evidence' that her ' pregnancy ever existed'. The scan was taken after she began bleeding and she was relieved there was a heartbeat at the time, she said. However, two days before her 12-week scan she 'knew something was wrong' when she found her sheets covered in blood. She learned later in hospital that she had had a miscarriage. Ms Ryan was among a number of senators who spoke in the Seanad on Wednesday about their experience of miscarriage. They shared their experiences as part of a debate on Sinn Féin's proposal to introduce paid leave for pregnancy loss. READ MORE The Bill would entitle women to at least five days of paid leave and their partner to 2½ days. The proposed legislation would also lead to the establishment of a confidential opt-in register of pregnancy loss. [ Woman who suffered six miscarriages says employers' response ranged from empathy to pressure to return to work Opens in new window ] There was Opposition criticism of the Government's move to defer the Bill by a year while it develops similar legislative proposals of its own. Ms Ryan argued that to 'delay this Bill is to traumatise even more women'. She said the proposed pregnancy loss register is 'incredibly important' as the State does not recognise losses of pregnancies under 23 weeks' gestation. She said 'pregnancy loss is one of the most common forms of bereavement and yet one of the least recognised in both society and law'. Fine Gael Senator Linda Nelson Murray praised Ms Ryan for bringing the proposals, saying: 'As someone who has suffered miscarriages myself, including my eldest daughter's twin, I know what that ache is like for thousands of women across Ireland.' She said pregnancy loss is often treated as 'something that is silently endured'. However, she supported the Government's argument that Sinn Féin's plan to amend a working time law was not the best way to bring in the new leave entitlements. Amending family leave provisions or introducing standalone legislation 'would form a more suitable legal basis', she said. Labour Senator Nessa Cosgrove also commended Ms Ryan on the Bill, saying she too has suffered a miscarriage. Sinn Féin Senator Joanne Collins said she suffered a miscarriage when she was in a job that did not give her the option to leave her post. 'I miscarried while I worked, because there was no other option,' she said, adding that there was 'no system, no cover'. Minister for Enterprise Peter Burke said his officials believe there are 'significant policy challenges' to the operation of the Bill as drafted. The Seanad passed his motion that gives the Government 12 months to develop legislative proposals in line with the principles of the Sinn Féin Bill. 'I fully recognise the need to introduce leave for those who experience pregnancy loss,' he said.
Irish Examiner
2 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Government's appeal of fine over Public Services Card a 'waste of taxpayer's money', says expert
A data protection expert has claimed the Government's decision to take legal action against the Data Protection Commission over the Public Services Card will equate to a 'long drawn-out waste of taxpayer's money'. Daragh O'Brien, a data strategist and managing director of data protection consultancy Castlebridge, said the Government's challenge to the recent adverse decision by the commission regarding the public service card will in all likelihood end up before the Court of Justice of the EU, a process that will likely take several years and incur hundreds of thousands of euros in legal fees. Last month's decision by the DPC related to a four-year-long investigation into the alleged biometric nature of the PSC – the welfare benefits card used daily by millions of Irish citizens which can also be utilised to access separate State services. In addition to hitting the Department of Social Protection with a record €550,000 fine, the DPC ordered the department to cease processing biometric data — capturing the physical or behavioral characteristics of a person — with the card within nine months unless it could establish a valid legal basis for its doing so. Most experts had presumed the only way for the department to successfully comply with that order would be to pass legislation grounding the card's biometric nature within the law. Instead, the department on Monday lodged legal papers in the High Court objecting to the DPC's decision. 'It would seem that rather than take the time generously allowed by the DPC to cure the issues identified in their unpublished decision that gave rise to the fine and enforcement notice, the department has opted to fight,' Mr O'Brien said of the new legal action. It is not the first time the department has taken the legal route with the DPC in light of an adverse decision regarding the card. In 2019, the department appealed a previous decision by the commission ruling that the card could not be made mandatory for accessing public services, leading to a prolonged battle in the courts. 'I predict a long, drawn-out waste of taxpayer's money on a battle that will wind up in the CJEU with another loss for the State,' Mr O'Brien said. A spokesperson for the department said that the decision to appeal had been taken on consultation with the Attorney General. 'The department believes that its processing of biometric data is compliant with data protection law,' they said. Read More
The Journal
2 hours ago
- The Journal
Palestinian man challenges Garda decision not to investigate Israeli settlers renting out his land
A PALESTINIAN MAN who lives in the West Bank has taken an action against the Garda Commissioner for refusing to investigate a complaint alleging that Israeli settlers barred him from his land and used it to build cabins which were then advertised for rent on an Irish-registered website. The court ordered that the applicant cannot be named after he claimed his life would be under threat from the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). He is joined in the application by Palestinian rights group Sadaka, The Ireland Palestine Alliance Limited against the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána. The applicants allege that the actions of the Irish-registered website in allowing the property to be booked constitutes a crime. The initial complaint to gardaí in August 2024 alleged the website was 'an accessory to the crime of transfer, accessory to the crime of appropriation and money laundering'. The applicants seek a High Court order quashing an alleged February 2025 decision by gardaí to not proceed with an investigation into the matter. In papers lodged to the court by lawyers for the two applicants, it is claimed that the cabins located in the Occupied Territories on land owned by the man were still being advertised online for rent as of May 2025. In an affidavit dated 8 May 2025, Gerry Liston, a solicitor at KOD Lyons, representing the applicants, claims he himself booked a stay at one of the cabins and printed off the website booking as evidence. It is claimed by the applicants that in the late 1990s the man was barred from accessing his lands by the Israeli Defence Forces, and that this situation still exists. Papers lodged to the High Court claim that his inability to access the lands led to decay across various areas, a trend that persisted until 2004 when Israeli settlers began construction on the land. Advertisement It is claimed that the pace of construction increased in 2009 when two cabins were erected and advertised as rental properties online, which the applicants claim, led to 'settlers profiting from the illegal construction on privately-owned Palestinian land' without the consent of the applicant. In November 2024, gardaí wrote to the applicants saying that an assessment of the complaint had taken place and that 'following careful consideration, it has been determined that there are no offences disclosed within this jurisdiction and therefore a criminal investigation is not warranted'. Last February, gardaí responded to follow-up correspondence saying that the matter was closed but that 'the information, however, has been recorded for intelligence purposes by the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau'. A replying letter to gardaí from the plaintiffs said the suggestion that there was no evidence of a crime having been committed in Ireland was 'not a sound basis upon which to decline to investigate' and submitted that gardaí had made an error in law. It is submitted that the three allegations could be investigated under Section 3 of the Geneva Convention, Section 7 of the International Criminal Court Act and also under Ireland's Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act. The applicants claim that material submitted to gardaí 'clearly demonstrates offences which were committed in Ireland'. They accept that there are 'practical limitations' on gathering evidence outside of the jurisdiction, but add: 'The gardaí are not limited to gathering evidence of offences in Ireland and can gather evidence in Ireland relating to offences committed abroad prosecutable in Ireland'. At the High Court this week, James B Dwyer SC, for the plaintiffs, applied to Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger to have the man anonymised. In his affidavit outlining why the man should be anonymised, Mr Liston submitted that should his client be identified he 'would be in danger from the Israeli authorities'. 'The danger ranges from harassment, to physical harm and even death,' he states. Justice Bolger anonymised the man, adjourned the matter to October and said the Garda commissioner should be put on notice. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
