Latest news with #PaDaly
Irish Times
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
High Court reserves judgment in TDs' cases taken over super-junior ministers
The High Court has reserved its judgments in two similar cases brought by Opposition TDs alleging the attendance of super-junior ministers at meetings of Government is unconstitutional. The cases brought by Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly and People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Paul Murphy point to article 28 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, which limits the number of Government members to 15 – including the taoiseach – and provides that they meet and act as a collective authority. Senior Government ministers are appointed by the President of Ireland on the advice of the taoiseach and with the prior approval of Dáil Éireann. 'Ministers of State attending Cabinet', or super-junior ministers, are appointed by the Government on the nomination of the taoiseach. Super-junior ministers participate at Government meetings but do not vote. READ MORE At present there are four super-junior Ministers attending Cabinet: Fianna Fáil's Mary Butler (who is also chief whip), Hildegarde Naughton of Fine Gael, and Noel Grealish and Seán Canney of the Regional Independent Group. They are not parties to the cases. Following the conclusion of submissions in both cases on Friday, High Court president Mr Justice David Barniville, on behalf of the three-judge divisional court, reserved judgment in the actions. Closing the State's defence to Mr Murphy's action, Catherine Donnelly SC said aspects of the case were uncertain and incoherent, and said the case 'rests entirely' on a series of 'obscure distinctions'. One of these distinctions, Ms Donnelly said, was drawn between the attendance of the chief whip, attorney general and secretary general at Cabinet, and the attendance of ministers of state. The first group, Mr Murphy's side contends, assists in Government deliberations in accordance with the Constitution, while the ministers of state participate in deliberations in breach of the Constitution, Ms Donnelly said. Ms Donnelly submitted this was an 'unsustainable distinction'. Counsel also said Mr Murphy's side was asking the court to distinguish between political influence exercised by ministers of state outside the Cabinet room, and same exercised within the Cabinet room. Political influence outside the Cabinet room, however far-reaching, is constitutional, but inside the room, political influence is unconstitutional, according to Mr Murphy's side, Ms Donnelly said. Ms Donnelly said the court was being asked by Mr Murphy to make a ruling based on the subjective experience of how a Minister of State 'might feel', referencing former super-junior minister Finian McGrath's evidence in the case. Mr McGrath, who served as Minister of State for Disability in 2016-2020, told the court this week he was treated as a 'full minister' while attending Government meetings and that he on occasion succeeded in blocking or amending Cabinet decisions. Ms Donnelly said the case turned on whether or not participation in Government meetings outweighed other clear, uncontested and definitive distinctions between super-junior ministers and senior Government ministers. Closing Mr Murphy's case, John Rogers SC, appearing with barristers Paul Gunning and Mollie Higgins and instructed by KM solicitors, said super-junior ministers' participation in the 'unit' of Government 'offends' the Constitution. Mr Rogers said there was clear evidence of active participation by ministers of state in the government of taoisigh Enda Kenny and Leo Varadkar in 2016-2020. He said it was their case that this practice was continuing in the current Government. He rejected Ms Donnelly's labelling of Mr McGrath's evidence as subjective, asserting Mr McGrath engaged in 'participation of a high order' during his time as a super-junior minister. Mr Rogers said John Callinan, the secretary general to the Government, was unable to point to an authority stipulating super-junior ministers attend Government. 'There is no source, authority – the only authority for the Government is in article 28,' he said. Attorney General Rossa Fanning led the State's defence of the cases. Mr Daly's case was presented by Feichín McDonagh SC, appearing with barristers Brendan Hennessy and John Biggins and instructed by Rogers solicitors.
BreakingNews.ie
11-07-2025
- Politics
- BreakingNews.ie
High Court reserves judgment in cases taken over super-junior ministers
Judgements have been reserved by the High Court in two similar cases brought by Opposition TDs alleging the attendance of super-junior ministers at meetings of Government is unconstitutional. The cases brought by Kerry Sinn Féin TD, Pa Daly and People Before Profit-Solidarity TD, Paul Murphy point to a section of the Irish Constitution which limits the number of government members to 15 – including the taoiseach – and provides that they meet and act as a collective authority. Advertisement Following the conclusion of submissions in both cases on Friday, High Court president Mr Justice David Barniville, on behalf of the three-judge divisional court, reserved judgment in the actions. 'Ministers of State attending Cabinet', or super-junior ministers, are appointed by the government on the nomination of the taoiseach. Super-junior ministers participate at government meetings but do not vote. At present, there are four super-junior ministers attending Cabinet: Fianna Fáil's Mary Butler (who is also chief whip), Hildegarde Naughton of Fine Gael, and Noel Grealish and Seán Canney of the Regional Independent Group. They are not parties to the cases. Closing the State's defence to Mr Murphy's action in the High Court on Friday Catherine Donnelly SC said aspects of the case were uncertain and incoherent, and said the case 'rests entirely' on a series of 'obscure distinctions'. Advertisement One of these distinctions, Ms Donnelly said, was one drawn between the attendance of the chief whip, attorney general and secretary general at Cabinet, and the attendance of ministers of state, Mr Donnelly said. The first group, Mr Murphy's side contends, assists in Government deliberations in accordance with the Constitution, while the ministers of state participate in deliberations in breach of the Constitution, Ms Donnelly said. Ms Donnelly submitted this was an 'unsustainable distinction'. Counsel also said Mr Murphy's side was asking the court to distinguish between political influence exercised by ministers of state outside the Cabinet room, and same exercised within the Cabinet room. Advertisement Political influence outside the Cabinet room, however far-reaching, is constitutional, but inside the room, political influence is unconstitutional, according to Mr Murphy's side, Ms Donnelly said. Ms Donnelly said the court was being asked by Mr Murphy to make a ruling based on the subjective experience of how a minister of state 'might feel', referencing former super-junior minister Finian McGrath's evidence in the case. Mr McGrath, who served as Minister of State for Disability between 2016 and 2020, told the court this week he was treated as a 'full minister' while attending government meetings and that he on occasion succeeded in blocking or amending Cabinet decisions. Ms Donnelly said the case turned on whether or not participation in Government meetings outweighed other clear, uncontested and definitive distinctions between super-junior ministers and senior Government ministers. Advertisement Closing Mr Murphy's case, John Rogers SC, appearing with barristers Paul Gunning and Mollie Higgins and instructed by KM solicitors, said super-junior ministers' participation in the 'unit' of Government 'offends' the Constitution. Mr Rogers said there was clear evidence of active participation by ministers of state in the Government of taoisigh Enda Kenny and Leo Varadkar between 2016 and 2020. He said it was their case that this practice was continuing in the current Government. He said the State did not produce any evidence challenging the assertion of ministers of state's participation at Cabinet. Mr Rogers said their side approached the case on the basis that a Government needs a chief whip, a secretary general, and attorney general to attend Government meetings. '[It's a] matter of practicality that these officers are in the [Cabinet] room until they're asked to leave,' he said. Advertisement The participation of super-junior ministers 'fractures' the collective authority of the Government, a clearly defined unit, he submitted. 'It's only the Government that should attend where there are actions of collective responsibility ... there should not be participation in that process by junior ministers – they're not the Government,' he said. He rejected Ms Donnelly's labelling of Mr McGrath's evidence as subjective, asserting Mr McGrath engaged in 'participation of a high order' during his time as a super-junior minister. Mr Rogers said John Callinan, the secretary general to the Government, was unable to point to an authority stipulating super-junior ministers attend Government. He said the process by which the Taoiseach and senior Government ministers are nominated and approved by Dáil Éireann, in accordance with the Constitution, constituted a unique value for the people that should be protected. He said it seemed the State's case came down to an entitlement of the taoiseach to invite who he wishes to attend and participate in Government. Mr Murphy's case challenges this, Mr Rogers submitted.
Irish Times
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Government accepts ‘super junior' Ministers are involved in decision-making despite Constitution, court hears
The Government accepts super-junior Ministers are involved in decision-making at Cabinet meetings, despite there being no constitutional basis for this involvement, the High Court has been told. Eileen Barrington SC made the argument at the hearing of Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly 's action, which claims the appointment of Ministers of State attending Cabinet – or super-junior Ministers – is unconstitutional. The action is against the Taoiseach, the Government, Ireland and the Attorney General . The Attorney General, who is leading the State parties' defence of the case, told the court on Tuesday Mr Daly's proceedings are a 'political challenge to the integrity of the Government'. Rossa Fanning previously submitted that Mr Daly's case seeks the judiciary's 'unprecedented' intervention in the inner workings of the Government's executive branch. READ MORE 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 . At present, there are four super-junior Ministers attending Cabinet: Fianna Fáil 's Mary Butler , Hildegarde Naughton of Fine Gael and Noel Grealish and Seán Canney of the Regional Independent group . They are not parties to the case. Mr Daly's case points to 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. On Tuesday, Ms Barrington, for Mr Daly, said article 28 outlines who can attend meetings of government, what their role is and how they should act. She said their case is that super-junior ministers are not supposed to be at meetings of government, because the Constitution doesn't provide for their attendance. Deciding what article 28 means is the 'real issue' of this case, Ms Barrington said. She said that if the court accepted their interpretation of the article, their case must succeed. She said the Attorney General accepted super-junior Ministers are involved in discussion and decision-making at Government meetings. 'That's the key fact. They're involved in the drive to consensus. And our case is a simple one – they shouldn't be doing that,' she said. Ms Barrington said meetings of government were the 'final, vital executive act of the State, governed and circumscribed by the Constitution itself'. On Monday, the Attorney General submitted that because there is no constitutional regulation of who attends cabinet meetings, who attends is a matter exclusively for the government itself. Mr Fanning said Mr Daly's case wrongly conflated attending meetings of cabinet with being a senior government minister. Mr Fanning also submitted that cabinet meetings are only one element of government decision-making, and cannot be looked at artificially in isolation of the other parts of that process. On Tuesday, Mr Fanning reiterated his side's contention that Mr Daly's case was politically motivated. Mr Fanning said Mr Daly's case was seeking the courts' engagement in an 'extraordinary incursion in the autonomy and independence of the executive branch' by regulating who attends cabinet meetings. 'There is no way to characterise these proceedings other than a political challenge to the integrity of the Government from the very outset of its existence,' Mr Fanning said. Mr Fanning said the case should not be decided on hypothetical scenarios put forward by Mr Daly's side – rather, the case should be decided on facts. In response, Ms Barrington said their side was entitled to bring arguments to their logical end points. Feichín McDonagh SC, for Mr Daly, on Monday submitted that under the current scenario there is no limit to the number of people who can attend meetings of government. Further to this, those invited to attend cabinet by the taoiseach do not necessarily have to be politicians, he said. 'You could have 10 lay people, or prominent businessmen or women ... or anyone at all,' Mr McDonagh submitted. 'That is the consequence of the scenario we're in.' In response, Mr Fanning noted the number of people attending cabinet has grown from 16 to 19 since 1994. He said this was not an 'apocalyptic level' of growth in the size of government meetings. The case, sitting before a three-judge divisional court, continues. A similar case, brought by People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Paul Murphy , will open following the conclusion of Mr Daly's case.
BreakingNews.ie
08-07-2025
- Politics
- BreakingNews.ie
Government accepts super juniors are involved in Cabinet decision-making, court told
The Government accepts super junior ministers are involved in decision-making at Cabinet meetings, despite there being no Constitutional basis for this involvement, the High Court has been told. Eileen Barrington SC made the argument at the hearing of Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly's action, which claims the appointment of Ministers of State attending Cabinet – or super junior ministers – is unconstitutional. The action is against the Taoiseach, the Government, Ireland and the Attorney General. Advertisement The Attorney General, who is leading the State parties' defence of the case, told the court on Tuesday that Mr Daly's proceedings are a 'political challenge to the integrity of the Government'. Rossa Fanning previously submitted that Mr Daly's case seeks the judiciary's 'unprecedented' intervention in the inner workings of the Government's executive branch. 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. Advertisement At present, there are four super-junior ministers attending Cabinet: Fianna Fáil's Mary Butler, Hildegarde Naughton of Fine Gael, and Noel Grealish and Seán Canney of the Regional Independent Group. They are not parties to the case. Mr Daly's case points to 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. On Tuesday, Ms Barrington, for Mr Daly, said Article 28 outlines who can attend meetings of Government, what their role is, and how they should act. She said their case is that super-junior ministers are not supposed to be at meetings of Government, because the Constitution doesn't provide for their attendance. Advertisement Deciding what Article 28 means is the 'real issue' of this case, Ms Barrington said. She said that if the court accepts their interpretation of the article, their case must succeed. She said the Attorney General accepted super-junior ministers are involved in discussion and decision-making at Government meetings. 'That's the key fact. They're involved in the drive to consensus. And our case is a simple one – they shouldn't be doing that,' she said. Ms Barrington said meetings of Government were the 'final, vital executive act of the State, governed and circumscribed by the Constitution itself'. On Monday, the Attorney General submitted that because there is no Constitutional regulation of who attends Cabinet meetings, who attends is matter exclusively for the Government itself. Advertisement Mr Fanning said Mr Daly's case wrongly conflated attending meetings of Cabinet with being a senior government minister. Mr Fanning also submitted that Cabinet meetings are only one element of Government decision-making, and cannot be looked at artificially in isolation of the other parts of that process. On Tuesday, Mr Fanning reiterated his side's contention that Mr Daly's case was politically motivated. Mr Fanning said Mr Daly's case was seeking the courts' engagement in an extraordinary incursion in the autonomy and independence of the executive branch' by regulating who attends Cabinet meetings. Advertisement 'There is no way to characterise these proceedings other than a political challenge to the integrity of the Government from the very outset of its existence,' Mr Fanning said. Mr Fanning said the case should not be decided on hypothetical scenarios put forward Mr Daly's side – rather, the case should be decided on facts. In response, Ms Barrington said their side was entitled to bring arguments to their logical end points. Feichín McDonagh SC, for Mr Daly, on Monday submitted that under the current scenario, there is no limit to the amount of people that can attend meetings of Government. Further to this, those invited to attend Cabinet by the Taoiseach do not necessarily have to be politicians, he said. Ireland Court orders extradition of former priest and seri... Read More 'You could have 10 lay people, or prominent businessmen or women ... or anyone at all,' Mr McDonagh submitted. 'That is the consequence of the scenario we're in.' In response, Mr Fanning noted the number of people attending Cabinet has grown from 16 to 19 since 1994. He said this was not an 'apocalyptic level' of growth in the size of Government meetings. The case, sitting before a three-judge divisional court, continues. A similar case, brought by People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Paul Murphy, will open following the conclusion of Mr Daly's case.
The Independent
07-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Court must avoid judiciary being dragged into super juniors ‘political contest'
The High Court ought to resist any attempt to bring the judiciary into a political contest being 'played as an away fixture', the court was told as it hears a challenge over the constitutionality of super junior appointments. The three-judge division of the High Court is hearing the case, brought by Sinn Fein TD Pa Daly, who is challenging the attendance of the so-called super junior ministers at Cabinet meetings. 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. 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'. '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. 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. Sinn Fein 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. The super junior ministers appointed include Fine Gael's Hildegarde Naughton, as well as Independents Sean Canney and Noel Grealish. Fianna Fail's Mary Butler is also a minister of state attending Cabinet. 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 Dail. 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 Fail, Fine Gael and the Lowry-led Independents are playing fast and loose.'
