Latest news with #superjuniorMinisters
Irish Times
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Super-juniors treated ‘identically' to senior Ministers, ex-cabinet member Shane Ross tells High Court
Super-junior Ministers are treated 'identically' to senior Ministers at Government meetings and can influence decision-making, former cabinet member Shane Ross has told the High Court. Mr Ross, who served as minister for transport, tourism and sport from 2016 to 2020, on Wednesday gave evidence at the hearing of People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Paul Murphy 's High Court action challenging the attendance of super-junior Ministers at Cabinet meetings. Cross-examinating Mr Ross, Attorney General Rossa Fanning suggested Mr Ross breached a constitutional obligation to respect cabinet confidentiality by publishing a book with accounts of discussions at cabinet meetings. Mr Ross denied any illegality, and said the book pertained to political matters of public interest. 'I thought it was justifiable, there was plenty of precedent for it,' he said. READ MORE Mr Murphy's case alleges super-junior Ministers' presence at Cabinet breaches this Cabinet confidentiality provision and several other sections of the Constitution. [ Government accepts 'super junior' Ministers are involved in decision-making at Cabinet with no constitutional basis, court hears Opens in new window ] Mr Murphy wants an injunction restraining super-juniors from going to Government meetings. '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 Ross told the court super-junior ministers were treated 'identically' to senior ministers in the context of cabinet meetings during his tenure in government. Giving evidence, he agreed they were never 'curtailed' from participating by virtue of their 'nominally lower status'. On one occasion, Finian McGrath, a super-junior minister between 2016 and 2020, 'changed the government's mind' on a specific cabinet decision after threatening to resign, Mr Ross said. Put to him by Mr Fanning that there is a difference between having political influence and being a member of government, and that many people can exercise political influence, Mr Ross said being present at cabinet is 'not just a matter of political influence'. Super-juniors' presence at meetings gives them a 'special influence' over legislation, Mr Ross said. 'I saw it; they have a much greater influence than other ministers of state.' Taking to the witness box, Mr Murphy said super-junior Ministers are acting as de facto members of Government but are not accountable to or approved by the Dáil. Similar to Mr Daly's case, Mr Murphy'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. Mr Murphy's senior counsel, John Rogers, said there is 'no law whatsoever to say that a minister of state is permitted to be in the government'. He said the Taoiseach and the Government have 'usurped a power they don't have' to bring strangers – in a constitutional sense – into the Government room. Mr Rogers submitted that a 'democratic principle' underpins the process by which deputies are nominated to Government by the Taoiseach and approved by the Dáil. Counsel submitted that super-juniors attend participate in Government deliberations and decisions without any process of approval in the Dáil – unlike the 15 members of Government. The case, sitting before three High Court judges, continues.
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.
