Super junior ministers ‘acting as a collective authority in 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.
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… pic.twitter.com/JYTGyWUzGJ
— 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 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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
20 hours ago
- Daily Mail
This is how much taxpayer money the Government wastes ferrying empty red despatch boxes in chauffeured cars
Red despatch boxes. You'll have seen them exiting Number 10 and featuring in TV shows like The Crown and they are an iconic part of the British political landscape. But now it's been revealed that they cost the taxpayer thousands of pounds a year because they're being ferried around in empty Ministerial cars. A freedom of information by EV outlet Fast Charge has found that the Cabinet Office made 83 red despatch box journeys between 18 June 2024 and 31 March 2025 using the Government Car Service (GCS). This came at a total cost of £14,095.02 using taxpayer money. The trips, known as 'despatch box movements', involve chauffeuring government documents securely between locations, even though no Minister is present. If the trend continues in this way, red box movements could end up costing almost £18,000 annually, at the same time Chancellor Rachel Reeves has pledged to 'cut the costs of running the government by 15 per cent'. The expense is seen as an entirely unnecessary one in today's technology-focused world, with these empty car journeys being criticised by politicians on all sides for many years. In 2011, them Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude, who was leading calls to reduce cost by using technology, suggested using hard copies in Red Boxes was not needed, commenting: 'Security is often an alibi.' Fast Charge looked into the cost of each empty chauffeur car trips for the sake of official documents and worked out that the average cost per journey, based on the most recent data, is £169.82. The data suggests that the government would hit 106 journeys by the end of the year, costing £17,600. But this is a reduction on the number of empty-car journeys compared to the same period the previous year, when 120 trips were made costing £21,932.21 under the Conservative Government. However, despite the overall cost declining compared to last year, the cost per journey is up on previous years. In 2016, the Huffington Post found the average cost per journey for such movements was £125 on average. In the year 2015-16, the Cameron Government were reported as spending £41,520 on despatch movements. In March, Reeves said cutting running costs by the stated 15 per cent was 'more than possible' given advances in technology and artificial intelligence, which would add weight to the notion that the practice of driving empty cars around in the name of paperwork is out-of-date. Responding to the FOI the Cabinet Office told the Daily Mail: 'Over the last year, we have saved thousands of pounds by reducing the number of journeys booked through the Government Car Service. 'Official documents will still need to be transported in the safest way possible in the interests of national security.' Even as far back as 2009, before coming into power, David Cameron called for an end to red box car journeys. The pledge didn't stick and 2011 saw a bumper year of red box movement costs with a total of £110,865 spent. Daily Mail columnist Sarah Vine joked in 2010 that her then husband's papers were moved around in 'air-conditioned splendour' despite Cabinet Officer Michael Gove himself using public transport. She wrote: '[The Red Box] arrives unannounced at all hours in a chauffeur-driven car, the engine purring deferentially as her handler walks her to the front door... she deposits herself on the sofa to await her master. 'My husband is free to travel home by Tube, taxi, bicycle or carrier pigeon, but the (box) must arrive in air-conditioned splendour, snug and secure in the back of a locked car'. Tom Riley, founder of Fast Charge, commented: 'It's not only paperwork being taken for a ride, clearly us taxpayers are too. At a time when the Chancellor is looking to balance Britain's books, potentially with new tax rises, it's astonishing that the government is burning cash like this. 'Cheaper, safer, and greener options must surely now exist for Ministers to access their official documents. At the very least, they should review and reverse this practice.' In April the Government pledged that all central government cars and vans (except for the Prime Minister's gas-guzzling Range Rovers) will be zero emissions by the end of 2027 Not just a waste of money, it could be adding to government produced transport pollution as the Daily Mail recently revealed that the Government has not met its own EV targets despite pushing motorists towards electric cars by increasing taxes and running costs of hybrid, petrol and diesel. It pledged to electrify 25 per cent of the central government car fleet by 2022 and then in April the Government further pledged all central government cars and vans will be zero emissions by the end of 2027. This does not include the Prime Minister's gas guzzling Range Rovers, though. But WhatCar? found that the Government is falling short of its targets to electrify its fleets, with only 15 per cent of its cars and vans being pure electric.
The Herald Scotland
21 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump shows his '4 more years' hat after meeting with Zelenskyy
Under the Constitution, Trump is barred from running for a third term. Nevertheless, he's repeatedly toyed openly about the idea of running again in 2028. "Probably not," Trump said in an Aug. 5 interview on CNBC when asked if he will run again in 2028. "I'd like to run. I have the best poll numbers I've ever had." More: Trump calls Putin to arrange meeting with Zelenskyy: Recap President @realDonaldTrump showing President Zelenskyy and President Macron his 4 More Years hat ???????????? — Margo Martin (@MargoMartin47) August 19, 2025 During his Aug. 18 Oval Office meeting with Zelenskyy, Trump remarked to the Ukrainian leader how Zelenskyy has postponed Ukrainian elections amid its war with Russia. "So you say, during the war you can't have elections?" Trump said to Zelenskyy. "So let me just see: Three and a half years from now, so you mean, if we (the United States) happen to be in a war with somebody, no more elections." Trump added: "I wonder what the fake news would say of that." More: MAGA's next leader? Trump says Vance is 'most likely' to lead in 2028 Trump previously took Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev to see his hat collection when the Azerbaijan leader was at the White House on Aug. 8, according to video released at the time. "You're not allowed to run," Trump said with a smile as he showed Aliyev a "Trump 2028" hat. "I'm 28 points higher than anybody else. Everybody wants me to run." Trump then pointed to the "Four more years hat," drawing laughs from Aliyev. More: Trump says he can't run again in 2028: 5 takeaways from 'Meet the Press' interview Serving a third presidential term is explicitly barred by the 22nd Amendment, which states, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." Trump has said his vice president, JD Vance, is his "most likely" heir apparent to win the 2028 Republican nomination. "It's too early, obviously, to talk about it, but, certainly, he's doing a great job, and he would be probably favored at this point," Trump said on Aug. 5. The president has also pointed to Secretary of State Marco Rubio among other possible contenders. Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.
The Herald Scotland
21 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump goal to abolish mail-in voting sparks debate for next elections
"The Constitution gives states and Congress the power to run elections," said Michael Waldman, CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. "Presidents have no lawful role." But White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Aug. 19 that Trump would work with lawmakers to end mail-in voting because "this is a priority for the president." Here's what you need to know: How popular is mail-in voting? Mail-in voting is widespread and popular. Out of 155 million votes cast in 2024, nearly 47 million were mailed in, according to the Election Assistance Commission. Most states allow absentee voting for no reason, but some states require an excuse to avoid showing up in person. Eight states and Washington, DC, allow elections to be conducted entirely by mail, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state mail ballots to all registered voters. Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read said vote-by-mail elections are secure, accurate and honest. "If he actually understood or cared about the American people, he'd know mail-in-voting is the best way to protect everyone's right to vote, especially rural folks, elderly people and hourly workers," Read said. "Mail-in-voting meets citizens exactly where they are: in their living rooms and around their kitchen tables." Trump seeks to end mail-in voting Trump said Aug. 18 he would sign an executive order to abolish mail-in voting, which he slammed as vulnerable to fraud. Trump has long complained about absentee voting, since before the COVID-19 pandemic that shut down many in-person events. "We're going to end mail-in voting," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "It's a fraud." Trump's announcement came while special House races are pending in Arizona and Tennessee; New Jersey and Virginia will be choosing governors in November this year; and some big-city mayors will be chosen in New York and elsewhere. The whole country will be voting on House races and one-third of the Senate 2026, and for president in 2028. Despite Trump's claims, election experts said voting is the most secure in history. "As we have said repeatedly, our election infrastructure has never been more secure and the election community never better prepared to deliver safe, secure, free and fair elections for the American people," Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said after the 2024 election. David Becker, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research, which works with election officials of both parties to ensure secure elections, said ballots are the most verifiable and recountable in history with only Louisiana not voting on paper. Audits confirm the results, he said. And Congress approved ID requirements to register to vote in the 2002 Help America Vote Act, which followed the razor-thin victory of President George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000. Trump, Democrats expect political fight over mail-in ballots Trump argued the 2020 presidential result was rigged after what his aides called a "red mirage" of an Election Day lead disappeared as mail-in ballots were counted and Joe Biden won the White House. "I, AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WILL FIGHT LIKE HELL TO BRING HONESTY AND INTEGRITY BACK TO OUR ELECTIONS," Trump said in a social media post Aug. 18 advocating an end to mail-in voting. During the 2024 campaign, Republicans supported mail-in voting to avoid handing Democrats an advantage even as Trump occasionally criticized them. But the GOP sought an Election Day deadline for mailed ballots to be counted. Leavitt said the White House will work with lawmakers at federal and state levels to change the law. "When the Congress comes back to Washington, I'm sure there will be many discussions with our friends on Capitol Hill and also our friends in state Legislatures across the country to ensure we're protecting the integrity of the vote for the American people," Leavitt said. But Democrats vowed to fight Trump efforts to undermine mail-in voting. While Republicans in the House could potentially approve a bill, it would face a steep challenge in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster and where the GOP holds a 53-47 majority. "Senate Democrats will make sure that any and every measure that would make it even more difficult for Americans to vote will be dead on arrival in the Senate and will continue to fight to protect our democracy," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York. Experts: States control election rules, not presidents The Constitution unambiguously says states regulate elections and only Congress can change that, Becker said. "Getting rid of mail voting, which has been around since at least the U.S. Civil War, and which is offered by the vast majority of states, red and blue, is an incredibly bad idea that would make our elections much less secure and vulnerable to interference," said Becker, a former election lawyer at the Justice Department. "He has zero power to change election policy with the swipe of the pen, as the founders expressly stated." Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said Trump "has no constitutional authority to end mail voting by executive order." "The Framers of the U.S. Constitution took care to keep the main responsibility for administering elections with the states and localities, which are in no way mere 'agents' of federal authorities," Olson said. Advocacy groups expect lawsuits if Trump moves against mail-in voting Federal courts have repeatedly recognized the state role in elections, including when a judge largley blocked Trump's March executive order dealing with elections. In Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, an appointee of President Barack Obama, blocked parts of Trump's order that sought to require voters to prove they are citizens and to prevent states from counting mail-in ballots after Election Day. Trump is appealing. "The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections," Casper wrote. Advocacy groups said getting rid of mail-in voting could discourage millions of people who appreciate the flexiblity of avoiding voting in person on Election Day. "Many veterans, grappling with service-related disabilities like mobility impairments or PTSD, rely on this accessible method to vote independently and privately from home, avoiding the physical and emotional toll of in-person polling," said Naveed Shah, political director for Common Defense, a group representing military veterans and their families. Advocates from several groups expected lawsuits to challenge any Trump order seeking to abolish mail-in voting. "We are prepared to protect mail-in voting in court against unfounded and unconstitutional attacks, as we have in Pennsylvania, Mississippi and other states," said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project. "Access to mail-in voting is necessary to a fair and inclusive electoral process."
