A woman in the House

The first female solicitor to sit in cabinet since the foundation of the state, Fine Gael Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Josepha Madigan is highly conscious of the responsibility that goes with being a role model.

Her wish is that more solicitors will follow her into politics. As she says, she remains only the 19^th woman at the cabinet table.

“Law is an incredible background for politics because you are dealing with legislation all of the time. All  of the skills that you use as a solicitor really transfer into politics.

“I would love to see more solicitors in politics,” she says.

“I was a practising solicitor and a TD for about a year and then I stopped in June 2017, when I was appointed chair of the budgetary oversight committee. Then I was made a minister six months ago.

“It was really difficult for me to let go of my profession, because one’s identity is caught up for so long with being a solicitor. 

Terrified

“I was terrified not renewing my practising certificate. It was like jumping off a precipice. I’m at peace with it now though. 

“I hope I stay as long as I can here but if I have to go back to practice, I will.

Solicitors have the correct skillset for politics and they can really effect change, she believes, in a way that isn’t possible in any other profession. Madigan gives the example of her private members’ bill to reduce the waiting time for divorce from four to two years.

“I know it’s  an uncertain profession and it’s difficult and challenging. But you can achieve so much good. If any solicitor gets the opportunity, they should go forward. They will find their niche, based on their experience in whatever firm they’ve been with.

“There is huge fulfilment in this role, despite all the long hours and all the pressure that goes with it. It is hugely rewarding and fulfilling to be able to deliver on things.”

She quotes Carl Jung that the first part of one’s life is about ambition, the second is about meaning. And Josepha has clearly found meaning and a sense of fulfilment in successfully leading the campaign to repeal the eighth amendment. 

Just months into her ministry, she took a phone call from the Taoiseach, asking her to be the front woman for the campaign.

“I was only four months a minister when I was asked to be campaign co-ordinator, which even the Taoiseach said when he rang, was a big ask…the biggest ask of my career to date. It was such a public, difficult topic. It was a huge privilege to do it, obviously.

After the vote, she confirms that she was very relieved. 

“The joy has come later. I feel more joyous now,” she says.

“In a sense I was holding my breath for the eight weeks. It was so intense, there was so much work around the campaign and organising my own team [of 16]. There were many different moving parts so it was more relief that we actually achieved what we set out to achieve.

“It’s not a celebratory topic… even though it has very positive ramifications for future generations, in terms of allowing women a choice. The subject matter itself is upsetting really, so I understand how people wouldn’t feel celebratory about it.

“But I have no issue with women celebrating. Everybody deals with a result like that in different ways.”

Asked  whether legislation on assisted dying might be next on the agenda, Josepha acknowledges that while this is a progressive government she still cautions that the all of wishes of  the Irish people have to be taken into account.

“Whether we are at that point remains to be seen. We need to take each topic as it comes along.

“The no voters felt as passionately about a no vote as we felt about a yes vote. And I understand that, particularly as a Catholic.

“The irony didn’t escape me. At the same time, there 70 per cent who voted in favour of this and we have to reflect that in the legislation. And I do think that we are a more compassionate and kinder Irish society than we were and it’s really about time that issues like this were dealt with.”

And Josepha is adamant that a pro-choice position is reconcilable with Catholic belief.

Does she believe that human life is sacred? 

“Human life is sacred, of course, absolutely it is. 

“For me it’s about respecting the choice of somebody else and not standing in judgment of them. It is their decision. 

“And ultimately, God gave us free will and that is the main tenet as far as I’m concerned and that’s how I reached my own decision.

“That’s how I made peace with it because ultimately it’s up to each woman to decide for herself, rightly or wrongly, what she wants to do. It’s not for me to impose my views on someone else.”

On the question of whether laws lead human behaviour, Josepha is firmly of the opposite view, that societal behaviour changes and that the law must follow. Legislators are reactive rather than proactive.

“Society changes, and our laws are constantly trying to reflect that change.

“Change is happening at a really fast pace and our laws need to reflect that and often governments, and even opposition parties, come under pressure from society if there is an issue strong enough, and they need to change the legislation.

“For example, when I was a backbencher, which is only six months ago, I brought in a private members’ bill in relation to contempt of court, dealing with trial by social media in criminal trials and the outcome of those.

“It’s very important that laws, particularly in the areas of technology, are kept up to date. 

“After a period of time sometimes laws become archaic and they need to be updated and modernised and clarified. 

“Society changes but ultimately people stay the same,” she believes.

As technological change accelerates, the minister wants to ensure there is no social media influence on the outcome of a criminal trial, with her updates to contempt of court law.

She points out that mainstream media cannot write anything that would influence a jury in any way, during the course of a trial. The same constraints should apply to social media, Madigan believes.

But the bill needs a co-sponsor to progress since it cannot be proposed by a minister. 

Waiting time for divorce

Madigan found little cross-party support for lowering the waiting period for divorce to one year, when she initiated a private members’ bill. Having taken soundings from different Oireachtas members her original proposal has now been amended to a two-year wait. Madigan believes the bill is achievable and will move forward next summer.

“I think we should consider taking the divorce clause out of the constitution entirely,” she says. “I think there is now an appetite for that, that heretofore wasn’t there.

“Originally, I brought my private members’ bill because of my background of twenty years practising family law. The four-year rule was just too difficult for people to countenance and too long a period of time.

“When I spoke to Oireachtas members they felt that two years was a balanced approach, that it reduced the acrimony and the costs from an emotional as well as a financial perspective.

“But ultimately now, when we see the result of repealing the eighth, I think we need to consider quite strongly removing the divorce clause from the constitution,” she says.

Madigan’s instincts on this are anecdotal thus far but she will be researching more on the topic.

“If it’s something that I think is achievable by way of referendum, to take the whole divorce clause out of the constitution in its entirety, as we have with repealing the eighth, then I think we should do that, rather than what I was doing, which is the incremental approach, because divorce after four years has been there for twenty years.

“Definitely, something has to change in that regard,” she says.

Women in the home

Madigan reveals that an October referendum  to remove the constitutional clause on women in the home is high on the cabinet agenda. She cautions that a lot of groundwork needs to be done first.

Article 41.1.2 reads: “In particular, 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.

“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 clause should be made gender-neutral,”  says Madigan. “Particularly as a woman who works outside the home myself, I think the way it’s phrased is anachronistic. 

“It’s actually insulting to working women. It’s outdated and outmoded and I believe the majority of women will agree with me on that.

“My reading of it is that it doesn’t speak to women inside the home. It speaks more to women outside the home that they are neglecting their duties in some way, that they are not being a good role model as a mother. 

“They feel guilt and shame reading it, which they shouldn’t, and that has to be changed.

“If our constitution is saying that, it’s a really powerful symbol to Irish society. I think Irish women are ready for that change. 

“A woman’s place is in the house - by that I mean Leinster House, and not in the home.

“While before people may have been of the view of ‘leave it as it is’ but after repealing the eighth amendment, it’s a pivotal moment in time for women.

“There are a lot of men now doing the child-rearing, just as much as women, and I think that should be reflected.

“There may be concern about carers in the home and we need to look at that.

“If we bring a referendum we want to make sure that we win it and get the outcome that we want.

“So we need a proper educative conversation about it so that people engage with it and understand what we are saying about it.

“There are women who remain in the home and mind their children and they need to be respected as well. I certainly don’t want to be in any way demeaning their work.

“What they do is important as well but the way that particular clause is phrased to me smacks of a bygone era and should be radically changed, in my view.

“As it stands, it has to change. I think it’s insulting to women who work outside the home. This is about inclusivity and respecting people’s views. I don’t think you should have a constitution that sounds prejudicial to any particular sector of society. As is stands, when I read it, I don’t like it,” she says.

What about the fear that changing the clause, which acknowledges the value of women’s work in the home, will undermine those women who choose to rear their own children?  Will this change, inadvertently or otherwise, push all parents to become tax-paying economic units, however small or numerous their children?

“You have to respect people’s choices. The work of a mother is probably the hardest job, dealing with children all day long and getting no acknowledgement of that,” says the minister.

Referring to the female majority among newly-qualified solicitors, the minister says that these women shouldn’t feel in any way under-valued by working outside the home.

She mentions cross-departmental gender equality initiatives to help women get into the workforce though also accepts that there are women who would rather be at home but have no choice but to work because of economic reasons.

“The reason I joined Fine Gael over Fianna Fáil, though my late father was a Fianna Fáil councillor, and a solicitor, was because I felt it was a progressive party. 

 “That doesn’t mean that there is an absence of family values. It’s just less prejudicial, in my view, about moving forward.

“Fine Gael isn’t afraid of dealing with really contentious, difficult issues and I respect that and that’s one of the reasons I joined the party.

“Enda  Kenny brought the issue of repealing the eighth to the Citizens’ Assembly and took it to the programme for government and delivered on it. Would another party do that? I don’t know,” she says.

Was it difficult to join Fine Gael, coming from a  Fianna Fáil background?

“Some of my family are still Fianna Fáil, my mother and my brother…a few of them.

“My father died two weeks before the local election so he didn’t actually see me elected. But I did have a conversation with him and he knew obviously, that I was running as a candidate.

“He was ok about it. He may have preferred that I was Fianna Fáil. But what he liked was that I had my own mind, that I didn’t follow, and that  I decided myself what I wanted to do. I think he respected that ultimately.