Not so junior minister

It’s not a great time to be part of the Fianna Fail government – with the party at its lowest ever ebb in the opinion polls after suffering a bloodbath in the recent local, European and by-elections.

Unfortunately for him, Minister of State Martin Mansergh only became a TD for the first time two years ago – which allowed him but a mere glimpse of a government at the height of popularity before the recession. As Mansergh readily admits in this candid Hot Press interview, it’s not easy being in his particular shoes, as a Minister working in the Department of Finance. But Mansergh – like his Taoiseach Brian Cowen stated in Hot Press last month – is far from downbeat; in fact, he is adamant that any “true politician relishes challenges even in the most difficult of situations”,
While Mansergh might have only been elected to the Dail for the first time back in 2007, it must be stressed that he is far from a novice politician. In fact, the 62-year-old’s political resume is an impressive one. After graduating from Oxford with an M.A., D Phil. degree in politics, philosophy and economics, Mansergh soon afterwards entered the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs as a civil servant, rising to the position of First Secretary by 1977. By 1981, he’d come to the attention of Charlie Haughey, who recruited him to work for Fianna Fail as a special advisor and speech writer. During the next 20 years, Mansergh went on to work as a political advisor for the party’s next two Taoisigh, Albert Reynolds and Bertie Ahern.
He authored the paper that formed the basis of negotiations for the Fianna Fáil-Labour Coalition (1992-94). But perhaps his most notable achievement was his invaluable work in helping to advance the peace process in Northern Ireland. The English-born Mansergh was responsible for the Irish government’s initial dialogue with the Republican movement, using Father Alex Reid as an intermediary, as well as having contact with intermediates in touch with Unionists and Loyalists. He worked on the Hume-Adams statement, which ultimately lead to the Downing Street Declaration. He was also a key member of the Irish government’s delegation during the Good Friday Agreement negotiations.
After failing to win a seat in the 2002 General Election, Mansergh was elected to the Seanad’s Agricultural Panel. Following his winning of a Dail seat in the 2002 General Election in his hometown constituency of Tipperary, he was appointed by Bertie Ahern as a junior minister. His full title is: Minister of State at the Departments of Finance, including special responsibility for the Office of Public Works, and Arts, Sport and Tourism, with special responsibility for the Arts.

JASON O’TOOLE: I’m curious to hear your thoughts on George Lee’s decision to enter politics?
MARTIN MANSERGH: I was rather pleased. I don’t cast reflections (sic) on his abilities as an economics correspondent, but certainly his strong distaste for the government and its handling of the economy had been coming through loud and clear for a long time. Personally, he came across to me as almost an old-style redemptorist preacher!

Do you think he can do a good job as a TD?
It’s not enough to be a good economist, a good industrialist, or a good banker. Twenty years ago people thought it was just the thing to have bankers in government – nobody is suggesting that these days! Actually, what you need is to have good politicians. Because one is good at something else doesn’t necessarily mean you will automatically be a good politician. Those who come into politics have to accept the need for some apprenticeship as an elected politician. You don’t just immediately float effortlessly into a top position. I’m sure his colleagues in Dublin South – Alan Shatter and Olivia Mitchell – would have views on that (laughs). As Minister of State at the Department of Finance, I’m looking forward to crossing swords with him in the Dail (laughs).

Wasn’t it a strategically bad idea to bring in the 1% levy only days before an election? Surely that lost Fianna Fail votes?
The government has taken the view for some time now that you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb! The situation is simply too pressing to be taking a lot of short-term considerations into account. You hear people saying at party meetings, ‘Why didn’t you leave the announcement about the Christmas bonus until July?’ The answer to that – and I would have quite a strong view on this – is you should not hold up bad news, as there’s few more certain ways of destroying trust. We do deserve some credit – even if we’re punished for it – for doing to the best of our ability what needs to be done in what is a fairly horrendous economic situation, which almost nobody really foresaw.

But wasn’t the scrapping of the Christmas bonus for the unemployed just mean?
You’ve got a large and growing social welfare budget. The alternative was to cut rates. If the choice was between cutting rates and cutting the Christmas bonus, then it was probably better to do the latter. I would naturally much prefer that it wouldn’t be necessary to do it. The Christmas bonus was cut for two or three years in the 1980s. Certainly, I would see it as something that would be restored in the future.

There’s an attitude that the government was spending like there was no tomorrow during the boom times.
We did actually put aside the €20-plus billion – I know it’s a bit reduced now. We would be in a far direr situation if we hadn’t got that fund to call on, to deal with the banking situation at the same time as we have to deal with a very difficult budget deficit. Every interest group in the country sought – and probably in most cases got – their slice of the cake [during the boom]. There are very few people who didn’t – look at the rise of pensions and social welfare payments well above the rate of inflation, the way the minimum wage went up and so on. Very few people didn’t have a stake in it. The cheerleaders for the boom – and those participating in the benefits – were everywhere. I think for the best part of 20 years we had statistically the best performing economy in Europe. Even with a fall of say 8% or 9% in growth – instead of being where we were 20 years ago which was roughly two-thirds European average living standards, we are certainly at the average or even a bit above that.

What do you make of Bertie Ahern harping on recently about how the downturn in the economy has nothing to do with him?
I’ve great affection for Bertie Ahern. I think he was fortunate in a sense to have made an exit when – broadly speaking – the economic sphere still seemed to be, more or less, intact. He was very fortunate to have 11 exceptionally good years – as good as we’re ever likely to get. Now, after that you’re in to counterfactual hypothesis of a not very plausible kind (laughs).

Some would argue that it was Ahern who got us into this financial mess.
I don’t subscribe to the theory that the situation we’re in is all his fault. That’s not only unfair, it’s nonsense. Many of the factors of the situation we’re in are heavily compounded by international developments, which we had no control whatsoever over. We can be criticised in the sense that, as a nation, we became overconfident and not sufficiently conscious of the risks. If anyone was under any illusions about those risks before, they will not be now. There will always be economic cycles. Maybe you can damp them down and smooth them out to some extent, but it will never be ever onward and upwards. Nor do I believe it will be ever onwards and downwards (laughs).

But the shenanigans we’re only learning about now – particularly in the banking sector – happened during Bertie’s watch. Surely some of the blame falls on his shoulders?
Yes, of course, in hindsight it wasn’t rigorous enough. Mind you, any sort of rigour in those times would have been highly unpopular. That is a criticism that can be made. I’ll just make the point: with the benefit of hindsight some people might say – and correctly – that we were not rigorous enough in dampening down the construction boom, even to some extent. But I don’t accept the idea that the government were the only players in that. Look at all those property supplements. We are being criticised by newspapers which are now in many incidences in considerable financial difficulties because they are no longer getting the income from the heightening of property that took place. The guide prices were very often way off the mark and, so I am told, the results of the prices were quite often manipulated. The print media played a very big part in the unsustainable property boom.

Shouldn’t these bankers – the likes of Sean Fitzpatrick at the Anglo Irish Bank – be facing the music now?
They have already faced the music, in the sense that most of them are gone and, in some cases, subject to considerable public obloquy. I would certainly favour rigorous application of the law. In a sense, there is now a spotlight on various practises, particularly through the Office of Corporate Enforcement. If there are criminal offences, they should be pursued. But I’m not going to second guess that. I’m a bit ambivalent, partly because I sometimes feel it [public outrage] myself, and other times I’m more critical of the attitude of looking for scapegoats, people who you can fasten all the blame on. At the same time, if people have behaved in outrageous manners, then they should certainly be pursued.

Getting back to Bertie Ahern, you were very vocal in your support of him prior to his resignation. In retrospect, do you stand over your previous position? He resigned because things kept trickling out...
He did. In the overall perspective of things, the entire saga related to a period before he was Taoiseach. A period where, if you like, his personal life in the time of separation had become messy. I’m afraid I regard all the complications of his personal finances as very unimportant compared to what he did as Taoiseach.

What’s your assessment of Cowen’s tenure as Taoiseach so far?
He’s obviously had to face extraordinary challenges, which couldn’t have been legitimately foreseen. My view is – and this mightn’t be universally held – that actually he has measured up to the challenge. He is taking – and the government is taking – the necessary measures. Alright, you can say we didn’t do all the remedial action that we’re talking about. But neither has any other government. We’ve been talking about a fast-moving situation and we had to take a series of measures. As a Fine Gael TD said to one of my council colleagues, ‘In this situation, a Fine Gael/Labour coalition wouldn’t have lasted 18 months!’ They are pointed in fairly different directions. But we’ve taken it on ourselves to do a lot of very unpopular things. So be it! I would far rather that we would do the necessary and,if needs be, go out of office having done the necessary rather than fail to measure up to the situation. But whatever else we’ll be accused of now, I don’t think it’s dithering!

It sounds like you feel sorry for Cowen.
I have huge sympathy for him. It isn’t easy. I feel the same sympathy for Brian Lenihan too. No one could have foreseen the avalanche of difficulties that would come upon us so quickly. He is measuring up to the situation. He can be proud of that. He is in far better form than most journalists and others would credit him with. Far better. He is a little bit like myself – would I choose this period in which to be Minister for State in the Department of Finance? Probably not. But any true politician relishes challenges even in the most difficult of situations.

John McGuinness’s decision to criticise the government after not being reappointed to his Junior Minister position seemed rather childish.
Certainly, if I had been selected to go I would not have been making the sort of statements or giving the interviews that John McGuinness gave. I do take the view that to achieve things you have to be able to work as a team. Now, that doesn’t mean you can only be a parrot or a puppet and you’re robbed of all individuality. There is great scope for individual expression without breaching team loyalty. I don’t agree with his views on civil servants. He seems to have serious difficulty in working constructively and productively with them. It’s sometimes the case that politicians, who have no direct experience of the Civil Services and of how public administration works maybe have unrealistic expectations. But then, if you are a Minister of State, you have to accept that there are limitations on your role. It was a correct decision to reduce the number of Ministers of State from 20 to 15. I appreciate that with the costs you are talking about something largely symbolic but symbolism does matter.

Some of the Opposition have described you as insulting and condescending in Dail debates.
I don’t think so. I actually engage in fewer anti-opposition polemics than most of my colleagues. I respect fellow politicians. I don’t always respect their arguments. That’s a different issue. I do not tend to be strongly derogatory in debates, particularly not in any sort of personality sense. I get on very well with my political colleagues – regardless of party – in the constituency.

You appear to have a love-hate relationship with Vincent Browne. What’s the story there?
Well, the producer said to a third party: ‘They are great friends before the programme; they are great friends after the programme (laughs)!’

So, what happens in between?
I was recently on the show and he began by saying, ‘This Minister of State was spared the chop by Brian Cowen – will he escape our chop (laughs)!’ I’m not frightened of him or intimated, even when he’s tearing his hair out.

It’s part of political folklore that during one election campaign the Fianna Fail press office gave you a TV remote control, telling you it was a mobile phone. The story goes that you returned it a week later in disgust, saying it didn’t work…
No. That rings no bell at all. I suspect that’s invented. I wouldn’t be technologically very advanced but I can operate a mobile phone and a fax machine and things like that (laughs).

Coming from an Anglo-Irish background, did you ever feel discriminated against in Irish politics?
Yes, of course, I’ve had my share of sticks and stones. Yes, people can sometimes make derogatory remarks about one’s background. But look at Bertie – was he ever discriminated against because of his background and accent? Perhaps yes. If you look at everybody’s situation, your political opponents will make the maximum of your weak points and vulnerabilities. And you try to make the most of your positives. Of course, there may have been whispers on the campaign trail about being an absentee English landlord or something! Incidentally, you can’t be a member of the Oireachtas without being an Irish citizen. I remember once going into Charlie Haughey and there was a serious calumny circulating about me and I mentioned it to him. He just looked at me and smiled and said, ‘Join the club!’

Can you recall any particular hurtful incident?
I actually received abusive phone calls – a couple of them – when I was elected. It was somebody with a very cultured voice, calling me an ‘Orange bastard’! I said immediately, ‘You’re a right bigot, aren’t you?’ And he put down the phone. There would be a small number of people around who might take the view because of one’s religious and class background or accent that you’re not part of the national community. But look – I have been well accepted by Fianna Fail (laughs)!

Some people describe you as eccentric, while others say you have a wicked sense of humour.
I have no difficulty accepting that I might be mildly eccentric. I think most people are (laughs)! As Charlie Haughey once said to me, ‘There’s no such thing as an ordinary person!’

Did you have any vices growing up?
I don’t know! I married relatively young. At the age of 22. I met my wife during a German Society reading of a Brecht play (laughs).

Have you ever tried marijuana?
I’m not saying there weren’t drugs around in the late ‘60s when I was a student. But I’ve never in my life been offered a drug! If I had been, I wouldn’t have taken one.

What about legalising marijuana?
I wouldn’t be in favour of it.

What are your thoughts on abortion?
I remember what Albert Reynolds once said to me in ’93. He was coming from what would have been initially a very conservative position. But then he was launched into the X-Case almost as soon as he became Taoiseach. After a few months of grappling with this on an almost daily basis, he said to myself and Sean Duignan: ‘The Irish people are determined to be hypocrites on this issue and the government has no intention of standing in their way!’ So, in a sense, there is a compromise that was decided in the three referendums in 1992 – freedom to travel; freedom of information; but the ban on abortion except in lifesaving situations when it wouldn’t be described as that. That is the compromise and I don’t see it changing. It’s one of those issues on which there is such strong feeling that I wouldn’t wish to see its introduction even attempted. I think it would be far too divisive.

Why do you say that?
I’m not talking about divisive talk in a referendum campaign – I’m talking about it leading to direct action of types that you’ve seen in America. I think there’s a compromise there since 1992 and I don’t see a change coming anytime in the near future.

But would you personally be pro-choice or pro-life?
I do regard the late abortions as absolutely obscene. In Britain, I think, “late abortion” is 24 or 26 weeks. In other words, kids are viable. You are effectively into – in a very obvious way – infanticide. I respect the views of the majority here – many of whom feel strongly about it. And for those who have a pro-choice position, a Ryanair flight doesn’t cost much!

Your father wrote a book on the Commonwealth. What are your thoughts on Ireland rejoining it?
I regard the Commonwealth as being history, as far as Ireland’s concerned. If Ireland were – outside of any context of the united Ireland – to seek re-entry to the Commonwealth it would be seen by European partners as realigning ourselves strongly with Britain. The Commonwealth is an organisation that a lot of British Prime Ministers have become very impatient with – it doesn’t any longer do very much for Britain (laughs). It’s fairly Third World orientated. I wouldn’t be amongst those that think it’s practical for Ireland to rejoin. It was something briefly explored by Bertie Ahern in the late ‘90s. He put out a feeler in a Sunday Times interview at the same time as Partnership for Peace. The negative reaction was such that he didn’t want to pursue it. It does also raise issues about the Queen as head of the Commonwealth. There’s a whole lot of emotional stuff. And there is absolutely no public demand for it.

You played a significant role in the Peace Process. Is it true that there was some surprise amongst Unionists at your arrival as part of Fianna Fail’s delegation?
I think they may have been. You see, people who don’t fit into stereotypes can make life more (pauses)... I have to say that my bigger role in the Peace Process would have been in the dialogue with Republicans, rather than the dialogue with the Unionists. People have – not just Unionists but also quite a few journalists in this city – stereotyped views about where politically one might ought to be. In other words, they deduce your politics from your background. Just to come back to Unionism – I had a great, great uncle who was a Colonel Mansergh, from Cork, who served in the British Army. He retired to Warrenpoint where he became secretary of the Ulster Unionists Association back in the early years of the 20th Century. He’d get up on platforms and say Home Rule would be disastrous for Ireland. For which my comment is: we’ll never really know (laughs) because we never had Home Rule. The one place that did have it – Northern Ireland – was, certainly in its first 50 years, undoubtedly a bit of a disaster (laughs).

Do you think your background – and your education – helped to give you a better insight into British diplomacy?
I would have some understanding through education but also through history. Remember my father was a historian, both of Ireland and the Commonwealth. The possibility that I was brought up and educated outside the country meant that perhaps I was less subject to potentially claustrophobic prejudices of the class to which my paternal ancestors belonged (pauses)... My father travelled a lot – and my mother with him. I had a nanny and she was from the North of Ireland. She was from a Presbyterian background and she gave out a fair bit about the Pope – and I actually think she inoculated me against some of that sort of thing from a young age. I was very fond of her, but I didn’t necessarily agree with her (laughs).

Father Alex Reid who you closely worked alongside in the Peace Process once remarked that the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland were treated “almost like animals by the Unionist community. They were not treated like human beings. They were treated like the Nazis treated the Jews”. Would you agree with that outlook?
I am very fond of Father Reid. He played a key role. Charlie Haughey actually thought he was the key person in the entire Peace Process. He was the vital intermediary between John Hume, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, ourselves and so on. He made a huge contribution. I’m convinced that someday he will be a Saint! If you’re looking for a miracle (laughs) it’s the Irish Peace Process. But even saints have faults. I personally – not just in relation to Father Reid but in any context – deprecate Nazi comparisons. Nazism was – I won’t say absolutely unique evil because there have been appalling genocides in other contexts – but certainly in a Western European context it is something uniquely evil. People who make comparisons – people who chuck Goebbels across the floor and so on – have no concept of the reality. Ireland was relatively insulated from all of that. There isn’t any comparison whatsoever. There was discrimination. Unionists were trying to keep Nationalists down, but that is not the same as trying to exterminate them – very far from it. It’s not comparable to Nazism.

Father Reid also claimed that the IRA were “a violent response to the suppression of human rights.”
I wouldn’t be using that language myself. That expresses a gut reaction. It’s an emotional reaction rather than a rational analysis. The Provisional IRA campaign was not just a defensive mechanism – it was actually a very aggressive campaign.

Gerry Adams would never admit to being a member of the IRA. But everybody says he must have been, so why – if it’s true – do you think he wouldn’t admit to membership?
I’m assuming that he makes that remark, which has had some impact on the way people view it, because of the potential legal consequences. Unfortunately, you have to be quite careful what you admit to and in what terms you admit something if you’re a public figure because of the use that may be made of it by others. This is why sometimes politicians seem to be in denial – things can be distorted, caricatured and carried far beyond what you actually mean to say. I think that’s the explanation. You see, if you were convicted and imprisoned, in a sense you don’t have to deny anything. Whether it’s right or wrong of him to do that is a separate question.

What are your thoughts on his role?
Obviously, to bring the provisional movement with him intact was a very difficult and tricky exercise involving a lot of diplomacy. Unfortunately, diplomats – and I was once a diplomat myself – do tend, when talking to different groups, to emphasise the aspects of things which will appeal to whoever you’re talking to. His criticism of De Valera in the 1920s would be: ‘Yes, we went into constitutional politics, but he didn’t bring all of the IRA with him’. Probably, it’s fair to say that – despite their best efforts – Adams and McGuinness haven’t brought all of the IRA with them. They brought the mainstream Provisional IRA but there are splinter groups out there trying to, if you like, challenge that. Maybe that was a virtually impossible task. But I’m strongly of the view – notwithstanding all of the frustrations felt with long drawn up negotiations – that Ireland is very fortunate in the leadership it had of what, as they call themselves, the Republican Movement. If you look around the world – Sri Lanka, the Palestinian situation, the Basque country – there are very few leaderships of the calibre of Adams and McGuinness.

Did you ever receive any death threats during the Peace Process period?
Not directly. I did have what you might call some indirect ones the week before the Good Friday Agreement. I was told the LVF was interested in me and a couple of other people. For anyone involved in Northern Ireland politics – from the early ‘80s on – there would have been some risk attached, mostly political rather than in terms of security. There are always paranoid fanatics around. I don’t think I have ever received written, or orally, a direct threat.

Can you ever envisage a day when there will be a united Ireland?
I think that, as a united Germany taught us, the circumstances in how these things happen are mostly unforeseeable. I would still like to see it happen. I personally regret the decision of the majority of people from a Protestant and Unionist background to effectively turn their back on the rest of the island. But, at the same time, one has to recognise that the rules of engagement are agreed and clearly set out in the Good Friday Agreement – if a majority have a different, preferred constitutional future then that’s their right as long as they can persuade a majority to remain with that. I can’t foresee the precise circumstances in which a united Ireland will come about, or if it will come about. But then, back in 1987, there were very few people who believed that there was likely to ever be a united Germany in their lifetime.