Opposition TDs lose High Court challenge over super junior ministers attending Cabinet

LAST UPDATE | 2 hrs ago

THE HIGH COURT has dismissed cases taken by two opposition TDs who had sought to quash the appointment of so-called ‘super junior ministers’.

Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly and People Before Profit TD Paul Murphy brought separate legal cases against the government to ask the High Court to declare that the attendance of four Ministers of State at government meetings was unconstitutional.

The TDs argued that the constitution is clear in its description of government and places a limit on the number of ministers who can attend and vote at cabinet meetings.

In response, the government argued that the cases lack coherence and rely on “obscure” distinctions of what a super junior minister is considered to be.

Ministers are appointed by the President of Ireland to sit as the country’s government. Ministers of State, however, are appointed by the Taoiseach and can be nominated by the cabinet.

There are currently 15 senior ministers at cabinet level, but Ministers of State, often referred to as junior ministers, can be selected to attend weekly government meetings. The practice has been frequent since the early 2000s.

Reading out the judgment this afternoon, High Court President Mr Justice David Barniville said he and his two colleagues had rejected the arguments made by Daly and Murphy “in their entirety”.

He said that just 15 ministers from the present Government were appointed by the president, despite the attendance of four junior ministers at the Áras in January.

He said the suggestion by Murphy that super junior ministers are not subject to Dáil scrutiny in the same way as senior ministers was “justiciable”.

‘No decision-making role’

He said it was accepted by Murphy that if there was a vote on a decision at Cabinet, super junior ministers would not take part and so their attendance would “not undermine the decisions taken by the members of the Government”.

He also said that at incorporeal meetings of government, only the 15 members of Government are telephoned.

He said: “Ministers of State (including super junior ministers) are never telephoned and asked their views at an incorporeal meeting because they are not members of the Government and have no decision-making role.”

In relation to the Cabinet confidentiality issue challenged by Daly, the judges said there was no limit to who can attend Cabinet meetings of 15 ministers.

Advertisement

They said: “We are satisfied that there is no constitutional provision, express or implied, which limits the attendance at meetings of the Government to the 15 ministers who were appointed by the president (including the Taoiseach).”

The judges said there was “no constitutional provision, express or implied”, and so no “disregard” of any constitutional provision by the regular attendance at Cabinet by ministers of state or super junior ministers.

“As no disregard – and certainly no clear disregard – of the constitutional parameters to the exercise of government power or breach of the constitutional provisions concerning the Government has been established, we are satisfied that deputy Daly’s claim must fail and he is not entitled to the declaratory relief which he seeks in these proceedings,” they said.

Considering appeal

Speaking outside the Four Courts after the judgment, Murphy was asked whether the judgment meant even more junior ministers could attend Cabinet meetings.

He said “respectfully to the court, that does seem to be the case”.

“It seems to be saying that there is no limit, that effectively – we were talking inside – that every member of the Dáil and Seanad could be invited to participate in Cabinet discussions. I think that’s problematic,” he said.

“But again, we need to read the full decision and study the judgment.”

He and Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald said they would consider whether to appeal the case to the Supreme Court over the Christmas break.

McDonald said that when “a record number” of super junior ministers had been appointed in January, they knew “we had to seek clarity on this question”.

“It remains our firm position that nobody in political life should have the opportunity to play fast and loose with the Constitution and with its rules in order to secure political outcomes that they desire, and that’s the reason we brought this case,” she said.

Murphy said: “The central issue here is whether the Constitution can simply be got around, as Leo Varadkar suggested successive governments have been doing.

“We’ll read the judgment over Christmas. Obviously, we have a decision to make in the coming period about whether we pursue this and appeal this to the Supreme Court, and we’ll make that decision in the cold light of day, having fully considered all that’s in the judgment.”

The case is back before the courts on 15 January.

With reporting from  Muiris O’Cearbhaill and Press Association

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More Support The Journal