Court must avoid judiciary being dragged into super juniors ‘political contest'
On Monday afternoon, the Attorney General (AG) Rossa Fanning told the court that the Constitution does not forbid the attendance of super junior ministers while simultaneously allowing the attendance of the Secretary General and the AG.
Mr Fanning, SC for the Government, said Mr Daly is asking the court to write in a new constitutional provisional that is 'simply not contained' in the text.
He claimed that Mr Daly is asking the court to enter the 'political thicket' and to intervene in the inner workings of Government.
He said that the court ought to resist the applicant's attempt to have the judiciary involved in a political contest being 'played as an away fixture down in the Four Courts'.
'These proceedings are misconceived in a number of respects but there is one fundamental error on which they are premised,' Mr Fanning added.
'The error that affects this case is that he wrongfully conflates the attendance of government meetings with being a government minister on the other.
'The two concepts are entirely distinct. There is a significant difference in legal statutory powers and functions of government ministers on one hand and ministers of state on the other.'
He added that statutory powers are delegated to ministers of state, and that the delegation is subject to the government ministers, which means, he added, that ministers of state remain under the supervision of senior ministers.
He added that the invitation of super junior ministers to Cabinet meetings is underpinned by legislation, and that Cabinet meetings are one element of government decision making.
He added that government policy is not formed at Cabinet in any 'real sense' .
'It is the last stop in the government chain,' he added.
Earlier the court was told that super junior ministers are acting as a 'collective authority' with ministers at Cabinet, in breach of the constitution.
Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald and Donegal TD Pearse Doherty were in court on Monday alongside Mr Daly.
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 added that there is no legal basis for the appointment for 'ministers of state who regularly attend Cabinet'.
'That creature simply does not exist under legislation,' he added.
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 a super minister is.
'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: '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
Times
26 minutes ago
- Times
Rising food prices mean hefty obesity costs
Stung by the price of olive oil? Burnt by the cost of your coffee? You are not alone. The cost of food and drink is increasing fast, faster than prices in general. This is a bigger problem, politically, socially and economically, than any politician has yet noticed. The government in particular should be paying attention to food bills, and taking action. The Office for National Statistics this week put the annual inflation rate at 3.8 per cent, but also showed that food and drink prices are rising at 4.9 per cent. The average household spends a bit more than £5,000 annually on food, so those numbers add up to about £250 a year. ONS tracking of public opinion shows that the cost of living remains the number one concern for the public, with more than 90 per cent of people citing rising food bills as a reason — well above the share who cite energy bills as an inflationary worry. Being reminded that things are getting more expensive — meaning that you feel poorer — every time you fill your shopping basket is not a happy experience. Food prices rising faster than the cost of other purchases has been a dismally common feature of the UK economy since 2022, for several reasons: war in Ukraine; too much rain; not enough rain; higher energy costs; not enough migrant workers to pick fruit and veg; higher taxes. The public's daily dismay at food prices, I'd bet, is a bigger reason for Britain feeling generally dissatisfied than noisier issues like immigration or crime. Yet it gets curiously little political attention, given how much it matters to voters' lives and outlook. Labour's spin team should give more thought to finding someone else to blame for rising food bills, not least because the problem is going to get worse. The Bank of England reckons food inflation will hit 5.5 per cent by the end of the year, while the British Retail Consortium says 6 per cent. Get ready for a winter of headlines about the painful cost of your Christmas lunch. Looking further ahead, the problem is even worse, reaching beyond simple political unease into questions of fairness, public health and economic performance. Rising food prices affect some groups more than others, with the poorest facing both the greatest financial pain but also the worst long-term consequences. The worst of these is rising obesity levels. Perhaps that will surprise some readers. How do rising food prices make poor people fat? Surely if it's getting harder to buy food, people will eat less of it and get thinner? In fact, a wealth of evidence shows that when low-income households face rising food prices, they trade quality for quantity, buying more cheap foods that are high in calories but low in nutrients. Social scientists grandly call this the 'food insecurity obesity paradox' but it's arguably just the human version of a common animal instinct to put on fat when times are tough and a hard winter is coming. • From peanuts to pomegranates — the 19 foods that will keep you young Almost a third of UK adults are obese, with rates highest among the poorest. There are many links between obesity and poverty but raw economics is a significant factor. According to the Food Foundation, a campaigning charity founded by former Tory MP Laura Sandys, recent years of inflation have made it almost impossible for poorer people to eat healthily. The foundation reckons that the poorest households would need to spend almost half of their disposable income on food to afford a healthy diet high in fruit and veg with limited sugars and fats. For poor parents, a healthy grocery shop could cost 70 per cent of disposable income. Healthier foods are just more expensive per calorie than stuff that's full of sugar and fat. Government calculations show that cauliflower and broccoli might cost almost 2p per calorie; for cheap biscuits it's less than half as much. Obesity means more sickness — diabetes and heart disease, in particular — and shorter lives. It means misery for individuals and mounting costs to taxpayers. My back-of-an-envelope calculations suggest that just a one percentage point increase in the obesity rate (roughly 550,000 more people getting too fat) costs the state more than £3 billion over ten years in higher NHS and care costs. We must make good food cheaper for poorer people, but that's far easier said than done. Continuing education to overcome ignorance about nutrition helps but new ideas are needed. What about Nutrition Impact Bonds? Building on NHS 'social prescribing' models, public and private investors could pay upfront for subsidised or even free healthy food for poorer households, then be paid back from the savings the state makes from lower obesity spending. The causes of higher food prices are big, complicated and long-term. Likewise the public health challenge of obesity and poor diets. It follows that fixing them will be a long-term project, the sort of job that no government, especially an unpopular one worrying about its next election, rushes to tackle. • Eating home-cooked food 'helps you lose twice as much weight' But Labour should lift food prices and obesity up its agenda, because they interact with the government's emerging economic focus. Ministers are planning an autumn drive on productivity, correctly identifying Britain's basic economic effectiveness — how much stuff do we generate from each hour of work we do? — as a national priority. Helping business to finance and deploy technology and training to make workers more effective is a key part of productivity, but so too is ensuring the availability of a healthy workforce. And our fatter, sicker population is emerging as a drag on productivity, as more and more people go off sick or leave work outright. Last month a paper by Nesta, a think tank, and Frontier Economics put the cost of productivity lost to obesity at £31 billion a year. The study shows that obesity doesn't just drag on the economy by taking people out of the workforce through sickness. Boldly, it says that obese people just aren't as effective at work as healthy colleagues and cost the economy almost £10 billion a year, it estimates. The government rightly wants to increase productivity but the fact is that Britain is simply too fat and ill to be fully productive. And in large part that's because of bad and increasingly expensive diets. Sadly, the cost of food is even higher than you think. James Kirkup is a senior fellow of the Social Market Foundation
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Farming Today 20/08/2025 Funding for rural councils, spinach, bioethanol
County councils say major changes to the way the government calculates funding for local authorities will penalise rural areas. The government says the new system will mean fairer funding and more stability which will help deliver better public services. However the County Councils Network says rural council tax payers will 'shoulder the burden' of redistributing hundreds of millions of pounds to urban areas and warn some councils will face deep cuts to their services. Growing spinach in the soaring heat - a seasonal look at producing salad. The Vivergo bioethanol plant on the Humber near Hull has now stopped production and started laying off staff after the government said it wouldn't provide support for the plant. The future of the business had been in doubt since tariffs were removed on bioethanol imports from the US in the recent trade agreement with Donald Trump. The company, owned by Associated British Foods, bought in locally grown wheat, around a million tonnes a year, and distilled it into bioethanol which is added to petrol to reduce emissions, and also produced large quantities of cattle feed. It's one of two plants in the UK. We speak to a renewable energy expert Dr Michael Short from the University of Surrey. Presenter = Caz Graham Producer = Rebecca Rooney
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Record number of asylum claims submitted in Labour's first year
The number of asylum seekers housed temporarily in government hotels has risen by eight per cent in Labour 's first year, reaching 32,059 by June, though this figure is significantly lower than the peak under the previous government. A record 111,084 people submitted asylum claims in the year ending June 2025, the highest number since 2001, with 39 per cent arriving via small boats. Labour claims progress in managing the asylum system, including an 11 per cent reduction in asylum costs and a significant cut in the backlog of unprocessed claims, now at 70,532. Enforced removals of asylum seekers have increased by 25 per cent, with 9,100 people returned to their country of origin, contributing to over 35,000 total removals in the past year. Despite progress, concerns remain over the high cost of hotel accommodation, ongoing legal challenges from councils, and the need to improve the quality of initial asylum decisions.
