Latest news with #superjuniorministers
BreakingNews.ie
09-07-2025
- Politics
- BreakingNews.ie
Super junior ministers treated 'identically' to senior ministers, court told
Super-junior ministers are treated 'identically' to senior ministers at meetings of Government and have the ability to influence Government decision-making, former Cabinet member Shane Ross has said. Mr Ross, who served as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport from 2016 to 2020, was on Wednesday giving 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. Advertisement During his cross-examination of Mr Ross, the Attorney General Rossa Fanning claimed Mr Ross illegally breached a Constitutional obligation to respect the confidentiality of Cabinet meetings by publishing a book with accounts of discussion at such meetings. Mr Ross denied any illegality. The Cabinet confidentiality provision is one of several sections of the Constitution Mr Murphy's case claims is breached by the attendance of super-junior Ministers at Cabinet. Among the reliefs sought by Mr Murphy is an injunction restraining super-junior Ministers from going to Government meetings. Minister of State attending Cabinet, or super-junior ministers, are appointed by the government on the nomination of the Taoiseach. Advertisement 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 defence to the proceedings brought against the Taoiseach, the Government, Ireland and the Attorney General. The hearing into Mr Murphy's action began on Wednesday, immediately following the conclusion of submissions in a similar case brought by Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly. Advertisement Led in his evidence by John Rogers SC, Mr Ross said super-junior ministers were treated 'identically' to senior ministers in the context of Cabinet meetings during his tenure in Government. Mr Ross said they participated fully in discussions at meetings, and agreed that they were never 'curtailed' from participating by virtue of their 'nominally lower status'. Mr Ross agreed that super-junior ministers were able to influence Government decision-making. On one occasion, Finian McGrath, a super-junior minister between 2016 and 2020, 'changed the Government's mind' on a specific Cabinet decision after he threatened 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'. Advertisement Super-junior ministers' presence at meetings gives them a 'special influence' on legislation, Mr Ross said. 'I saw it – they have a much greater influence than other ministers of state.' Closing his cross-examination, Mr Fanning put to Mr Ross that he breached the Constitutional obligation to respect the confidentiality of Cabinet meetings in a book he wrote containing accurate descriptions of such meetings. The book, his 2020 title In Bed with the Blueshirts, was 'an act of calculated and deliberate illegality', Mr Fanning put to him. The book, Mr Fanning claimed, was in contemptuous disregard of the Constitution. 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. Advertisement In the witness box, Mr Murphy said super-junior ministers are acting as de facto members of Government, not accountable or approved by the Dáil. Earlier, opening Mr Murphy's case, Mr Rogers said the people of Ireland have a Constitutional right to choose their 'rulers', and the Constitution only provides for 15 members of Government to act as those 'rulers'. 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 Rogers said their case is challenging the arrangement whereby super-junior ministers attend meetings of government consistently and participate in Cabinet discussions as though they are members of government. 'There is no law whatsoever to say that a Minister of State is permitted to be in the government,' Mr Rogers said. He said the Taoiseach and the Government had 'usurped a power they don't have' to bring strangers – in a constitutional sense – into the Government room, into the council chamber. 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, describing it an indirect election or approval on behalf of the people. Counsel submitted that super-junior ministers attend at Cabinet and participate in Government deliberations and decisions without any process of approval in the Dáil – unlike the 15 members of Government. 'The Taoiseach nor the Government, cannot hollow out, empty, give away, the expansive powers given to them by the people in article 28,' he said. The case, sitting before a three-judge divisional court, continues, with historian Diarmaid Ferriter and former super-junior minister Finian McGrath expected to give evidence.
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.
Irish Times
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Legal challenge to ‘super junior' ministers seeks judges' intervention in inner workings of Government, AG tells court
A Sinn Féin TD's High Court action challenging the constitutionality of super junior minister appointments seeks the judiciary's 'unprecedented' intervention in the inner workings of the Government's executive branch, the Attorney General has said. Rossa Fanning made the argument in presenting the State's defence to Pa Daly's case, which opened before a three-judge divisional court on Monday. Mr Fanning said the court should resist the Kerry TD's attempt to have the judiciary involve itself in a 'political contest being played as an away fixture down at the Four Courts'. Mr Daly's case claims the appointment of super-junior ministers is 'completely anti-democratic', and is a breach of various provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann. READ MORE '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. 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. Opening Mr Daly's case on Monday, Feichín McDonagh SC said super junior ministers meet and act as a 'collective authority' with other senior government members, in breach of the constitution. Counsel opened to the court 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. Under the current scenario, there are 'extra individuals' – super junior ministers – who are present in the Cabinet room taking a full role in the formulation of Government policy, Mr McDonagh said. Every decision taken by the Government with these extra individuals in attendance has been formulated in breach of Article 28 of the Constitution, Mr McDonagh said. He said their case is not challenging a particular Government decision based on the legal points raised – but some other litigant could, which is a danger and possible problem, Mr McDonagh said. Their case is trying to ensure the Government complies with the Constitution, Mr McDonagh said . Counsel said the Attorney General attends Cabinet meetings to provide legal advice, and the secretary general takes meeting minutes, but they do not act collectively with the members of Government. Rossa Fanning, representing the State respondents in the case, said the court should resist Mr Daly's case to conscript the judiciary to involve itself in a 'political contest being played as an away fixture down at the Four Courts'. Mr Fanning said the case's key question was whether the Constitution forbids the regular attendance by ministers of state at Government meetings, whilst simultaneously allowing the attendance of the secretary general, attorney general, and limited attendance of other ministers. 'Plainly, the answer to that question is the Constitution does nothing of the kind,' he said. Mr Fanning said their case is because there is no Constitutional regulation of who attends Cabinet meetings, who attends is matter exclusively for the Government itself. Mr Fanning submitted this even if the court disagrees with this, for Mr Daly's case to succeed, he must prove the Government's 'clear disregard' of the Constitution. Mr Fanning said the practice of ministers of state attending Cabinet meetings has been ratified and recognised multiple times by members of the Oireachtas. This arises from legislation passed, initially in 2001, providing for allowances to be paid to those ministers. Earlier, Mr McDonagh said this allowance 'is neither here nor there' when addressing the legal issues raised by their case. Mr Fanning 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. He noted the role of Cabinet Committees in the process, and other people and organisations that can influence a decision. The idea that ministers of state must be hermetically sealed away from the formation of policy is completely unreal, he said. Mr Fanning said Mr McDonagh was advancing an 'unprecedented' argument, by positing that the attendance of additional people at a Cabinet meeting invalidates a consensus decision of the 15 senior government ministers. Mr Fanning said Mr Daly's side were seeking to reverse engineer an interpretation of the Constitution to suit their case. The case continues, and expected to run until Wednesday at the latest. Mr Daly, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald and Sinn Féin finance spokesman Pearse Doherty were present in court on Monday morning. A similar case, brought by People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Paul Murphy , will open following the conclusion of Mr Daly's case.
BreakingNews.ie
07-07-2025
- Politics
- BreakingNews.ie
Super junior ministers ‘acting as a collective authority in Cabinet meetings'
The High Court in Dublin has been told that so-called super junior ministers are taking part in Cabinet meetings and acting as a 'collective authority' with the Government, in breach of the constitution. The High Court is hearing a challenge by Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly about the attendance of super junior ministers at Cabinet meetings. Advertisement Also attending court on Monday was Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald and Donegal TD Pearse Doherty. 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… — 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 said he has queried with the respondents about what exactly is a minister of state who regularly attends government meetings. Advertisement '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 is a super minister. '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. Advertisement 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.' Advertisement 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: '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 hEireann with which Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Lowry-led Independents are playing fast and loose.'
The Independent
07-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Super junior ministers ‘acting as a collective authority in Cabinet meetings'
The High Court in Dublin has been told that so-called super junior ministers are taking part in Cabinet meetings and acting as a 'collective authority' with the Government, in breach of the constitution. The High Court is hearing a challenge by Sinn Fein TD Pa Daly about the attendance of super junior ministers at Cabinet meetings. Also attending court on Monday was Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald and Donegal TD Pearse Doherty. 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 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 is a super minister. '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: '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 hEireann with which Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Lowry-led Independents are playing fast and loose.'
