High Court hears challenge over 'super junior' ministers
Mr Daly has been joined at the High Court by party leader, Mary Lou McDonald and the party's finance spokesperson, Pearse Doherty who described the case as "very important".
Mr Daly got permission from the court to pursue the challenge in January, arguing that the Constitution limited the number of Government ministers to 15 and bound them to confidentiality about their discussions.
He is arguing that the appointment of ministers of state with rights to attend Cabinet is unconstitutional and that the Taoiseach and the Government have failed to act in accordance with the democratic process.
The super juniors who have been appointed to cabinet are Fine Gael's Hildegarde Naughton, Independents Seán Canney and Noel Grealish as well as Fianna Fáil's Mary Butler, who is also Government chief whip.
The Government is opposing his action and is being represented by a team led by Attorney General Rossa Fanning.
Three-judge divisions of the High Court are convened to hear matters of constitutional importance.
People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Paul Murphy, who has taken a similar action seeking an injunction stopping the junior ministers from attending Cabinet, is also in court.
His action is due to start later in the week.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
an hour ago
- Irish Examiner
TD's super junior ministers challenge seeks 'unprecedented' intervention of judiciary, court told
A Kerry 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 Sinn Féin 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. Mr Daly, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald and Sinn Féin finance spokesman Pearse Doherty were present in court on Monday morning. '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. Pa Daly, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald and Pearse Doherty outside the Four Courts in Dublin this morning. Picture: Collins Courts Opening Mr Daly's case 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. Pa Daly. His case claims the appointment of super junior ministers is 'completely anti-democratic'. Photo: Leah Farrell/© Rossa Fanning, for the State respondents, said the court should resist Mr Daly's case, which attempts to have the judiciary 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 a matter exclusively for the Government itself. Mr Fanning submitted that 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 is expected to run until Wednesday at the latest.
Irish Times
an hour ago
- 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.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Ireland should hold another referendum on women in the home, UN committee says
The Government should assess the reasons the referendum on deleting Article 41.2 on the importance of women's role in the home failed and find alternative wording in order to run another vote on it, according to a United Nations' panel that deals with the issue of discrimination. In a report published on Monday, the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) expressed disappointment with the failure of the referendum to pass and suggested the Government should not give up on the issue. 'The committee recommends that the State party conduct an independent evaluation of the referendum, carry out information campaigns on the negative reinforcement by article 41.2 of gender stereotypes about women's roles in the home and undertake inclusive public consultations to find alternative wording with a view to holding another constitutional referendum on amending article 41.2 of the Constitution to remove the stereotypical language on the role of women in the home,' it said. The article says 'the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. READ MORE 'The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.' The amendment proposed to replace the clause with a more gender neutral one on care but it was heavily defeated, with more than 70 per cent of those voting opposing the move. The recommendation is one of a long list from the committee in its latest assessment of Ireland's progress on the issue of discrimination against women. It bases these on submissions and hearings with Minister of State Colm Brophy, having led a delegation that included officials from several Government departments which appeared before the committee last month. The committee welcomes the progress made in a range of areas and a number of the pieces of legislation passed by the Oireachtas in recent years. These include legalisation intended to address issues around human trafficking, domestic violence, online harassment and gender pay gaps. However, the committee suggests there are more areas in which significant work needs to be done. It says what it describes as 'arbitrary barriers' to redress for survivors of historic abuse in Mother and Baby Institutions should be removed. It also says access to legal services for women facing domestic violence or employment cases should be improved and backs reform of the primary education curriculum 'to systematically incorporate gender equality and eliminate gender stereotypes' [ Greater Traveller representation needed in Irish politics, says UN committee Opens in new window ] It said particular supports needed to be provided to marginalised women including those with disabilities and from Roma, Traveller, migrant or rural communities. It says more needs to be done to address the gender pay gap in employment and to take more single adult families headed by women, out of poverty. Reacting to the paper on Monday, the Department of Children, Disability and Equality welcomed the recognition expressed of progress on a range of issues since the last such report in 2017. It also recognised the suggestion more needed to be done. Director of the National Women's Council Orla O'Connor said: 'These recommendations are a clear call to action for the Irish Government. They highlight the urgent need for systemic change to tackle the deep rooted and intersecting inequalities faced by women and girls- particularly in relation to childcare, women's health, political representation, and responses to gender-based violence.'
