Super junior ministers ‘acting as a collective authority in Cabinet meetings'
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.
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
The Herald Scotland
32 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
'We are not alone in our disappointment' for Glasgow
Here is a practical example of both national governments supporting a local partnership of business, academia and city council to encourage regional economic growth. It would have been even more cheering if we had arrived home to find that Glasgow and its city region were benefitting from a similar approach in the comprehensive spending review. All it would have taken was a single sentence saying that the UK and Scottish governments would be working together to establish long-term flexible funding deals for Scottish cities to match those already sorted out for Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. No such sentence appeared. Read more: Instead, I found myself reading Chief Secretary of the Treasury, Darren Jones, arguing that in Scotland the decision to "empower the city regions rests firmly with the Scottish Government". If he really believes that, we are at risk of stepping back a decade in time. Eleven years ago, it was the UK and Scottish governments that together announced the £1.3 billion Glasgow City Region Deal. That deal was the first of many in Scotland, each designed in collaboration with local stakeholders to demonstrate how joint working between both governments can initiate real empowerment on the ground. The chamber, senior business leaders and leading academics have all invested time and energy to help create the structures and capabilities of the Glasgow City Region. We did so in the belief that there was good faith in their value being demonstrated by both the UK and Scottish governments. We were encouraged by decisions made by the last UK Government to allocate over £300 million in additional resources to help the city region grow. Read more: The most recent was the announcement of £160m for a 10-year investment zone supporting the growth of advanced manufacturing. The chamber was involved in the process for project selection and there were so many more exciting projects - and in many other industry sectors - that could have been funded had the money been available. We can see the region's growth potential and how it can be unlocked. Over time, we have become a vigorous advocate for regional devolution deals. We believe that many of the projects our members want to see - particularly in skills, infrastructure, and innovation - are best delivered at the regional level. Projects like the Clyde Metro transport system, our three university-led innovation districts for emerging industries, our city centre renewal plan and investment help to grow our airport and our conference centre, all demonstrate the kind of ambition that regional empowerment can unlock. We shouldn't really need to argue the importance of regional devolution deals with the UK Government. It sets out all the reasons in several papers, including its English Devolution White Paper: the UK's low productivity trap, the stagnation of living standards and the unusual economic underperformance of all the UK major cities outside London. The chamber had therefore asked for a devolution deal with long-term funding and greater flexibility, but there is no such deal being proposed for Glasgow – or for any other region in Scotland. Read more: Instead, Glasgow is offered confirmation of the investment zone announced by the previous government, a share in a new UK-wide local growth fund, and support from the National Wealth Fund. These are all welcome but the investment zone had already been announced and the local growth fund looks set to be small once funds have been allocated across the country. It is also unclear if those funds are expected to deliver on old commitments such as that for Greenock town centre. The National Wealth Fund's commitment to a strategic partnership with Glasgow City Region could be more promising, but it is unclear whether there will be any new funds under the control of the regional partnership. If it helps the region attract private finance for projects, it could still prove valuable. However, it appears from the outside to be more like working with a body such as the Scottish National Investment Bank than a genuine devolution deal. Read more: We are not alone in our disappointment. The London-based thinktank the Centre for Cities issued its own report describing Glasgow as the "missing piece in the big cities' jigsaw". Especially worrying is their assessment that the lack of a devolution deal "places Glasgow at risk of falling behind its comparators south of the border". And yes, of course the Scottish Government has a poor track record on regional devolution. So much of the momentum building behind Glasgow City Region has come from UK Government funding programmes. One notable exception was the Clyde Mission - a Scottish Government initiative that promised much but ultimately fizzled out and ended up being passed to the city region with approaching £30m in funding. Otherwise the Scottish Government has undoubtedly been slow to devolve. As one example, the announcement in the programme for government of £2m towards a Glasgow City Region response to maritime industry skills shortages was welcome, but there is a much bigger prize. Passing apprenticeship funding from Skills Development Scotland direct to the regions instead of to the Scottish Funding Council would be much a better long-term aim. Regional devolution has not been the Scottish Government's natural default, so all eyes have tended to fall on the UK Government. If Darren Jones is signalling that momentum on regional devolution is to be stalled until the Scottish Parliamentary elections next May, then sadly, so too the growth potential of Scotland's largest city region may be stalled as well. Stuart Patrick is chief executive of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Albanese condemns antisemitism after receiving special envoy Jillian Segal's report
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, appeared alongside the special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, who delivered her report to the government. 'There is no place in Australia for antisemitism. The kind of hatred and violence that we have seen on our streets recently is despicable and it won't be tolerated and I want those responsible to face the full force of the law,' Albanese said
South Wales Argus
3 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Long road ahead to improve children's social care, MPs warn
The Education Committee noted a steep increase in the number of looked-after children in England in the past decade, up by a fifth since 2014 to 83,630 in 2024. Shortages of care placements led to 45% of looked-after children being placed outside of their local authority last year, and 22% moved more than 20 miles from home, MPs said, with 'distressing impacts' felt as a result. The committee's report also noted almost four in 10 (39%) care leavers aged 19–21 are not in education, training or employment, compared to 13% of all young people in that age group, while a third of care leavers become homeless within two years of leaving care. Committee chairwoman Helen Hayes branded the situation a 'moral failure'. She said: 'It is unacceptable that thousands of young people leaving care are being left to face homelessness, unemployment or barriers to education – it is a moral failure. 'The system that should be supporting our most vulnerable children is far too often abandoning them at a critical moment in their lives. Urgent action is needed to fix this broken system and give all of our young people the futures they deserve. 'Throughout this inquiry we heard that a false economy of cuts over the past decade has led to postcode lotteries in provision across different areas of the country, and has instead caused some parts of the system to become more expensive.' The report called for Government funding to be directed back into early intervention services, which Ms Hayes said 'reduce both children's suffering and costs in the long run', and to provide a so-called National Care Offer covering a guaranteed level of support for those leaving care as opposed to a 'cliff edge as they approach adulthood'. She added: 'There is a long road ahead to improve the children's social care sector, but doing so will reduce children's suffering and produce a system that helps give young people the best chance to live happily and independently.' The report's publication on Thursday coincided with changes coming into effect which the Government said will give care leavers greater access to social housing. The requirement for vulnerable groups including care leavers to have a connection to the local area has been lifted, meaning they will 'no longer be unfairly penalised', the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said. Also on Thursday, the Department for Education (DfE) announced more than £53 million would be invested in creating 200 new placements in high-quality council-run homes for the most vulnerable children including those who need to be prevented from running away or from harming themselves and others. The Government said this was the first time it had specifically targeted funding at children with complex needs who are at risk of being deprived of their liberty. The DfE said the investment is part of its reform plan for the sector, moving away from a crisis intervention approach to earlier prevention help, with more than £2 billion investment over the course of this parliament. The committee cited a number of reasons for the rise in the number of looked-after children, including less support for early intervention, greater poverty and cost-of-living pressures and an increase in the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The MPs said: 'The Government must address the factors outside the care system which are contributing to the rise in need and take action in its forthcoming Child Poverty Strategy to significantly reduce the number of children growing up in financial hardship.' The strategy is expected to be published in autumn, having been initially expected in spring. Among the committee's other recommendations were development of a new strategy to recruit foster carers and offer more support to kinship carers, and improved availability and quality of residential placements. The MPs also called for the DfE to issue a 'comprehensive response' to the 2022 Independent Review of Children's Social Care, which called for a 'radical reset' to improve the lives of children in care and their families by breaking the 'cycle of escalating need and crisis intervention'. The committee said national eligibility criteria for disabled children's social care should be introduced, noting there is currently a 'confusing 'postcode lottery' of support between local authorities'. Stephen Kingdom, campaign manager for the Disabled Children's Partnership, said the report shows disabled children, young people and their families 'are being failed by children's social care'. He added: 'Too often, families find that a system that should be supporting them is instead treating parents with suspicion. As a result, their needs are de-prioritised; they find themselves blamed and stigmatised; and what little help they do get only comes when they hit crisis point.' Care charity Become welcomed the committee's 'commitment to driving meaningful change' and putting young people's voices 'at the heart of these recommendations'. Harriet Edwards, from national disability charity Sense, backed the report's recommendations 'so all disabled children are treated fairly, no matter where they live', stating that 'for too long disabled children have been failed by a confusing social care system that is not fit for purpose'. Children and families minister Janet Daby said the children's social care system had 'faced years of drift and neglect, leading to a vicious cycle of late intervention and children falling through the cracks'. The Government had previously announced a pledge from Government for a 'backstop' law, which would limit the profit children's social care providers can make, to be brought in if providers do not voluntarily put an end to profiteering. Ms Daby: 'Through our Plan for Change and our Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, this Government is enabling every child to achieve and thrive by investing in the places children need, cracking down on profiteering with new laws, and rebuilding family support services so parents and carers get the help they need to keep their children happy and safe in loving homes.'
