NEXT month marks the 20th anniversary of Michael McDowell's entry into Dail Eireann, and the intervening two decades have rarely been boring for one of the most colourful and controversial characters in Irish politics. But five elections on . . . three victories, two defeats . . . he arguably faces his most challenging year and general election yet. In his first major interview since his elevation to the roles of Tanaiste and leader of the Progressive Democrats, he talks about his hopes for his party, the battle against organised crime, his views on the media and why the days of people standing drinking in a crowded bar are coming to an end.

Sunday Tribune: 2007 is a general election year and we have the usual forecasts of the demise of the PDs Michael McDowell: Well curiously, I just want to say, the other day I was looking at the edition of Magill, you remember, the one that was put into the bin. And I saw in it the predictions for the 2002 general election, including the line that I couldn't be elected, even though I subsequently headed the poll. And the PDs would be down to two seats from four. I met nobody, no serious commentator, who predicted that general election right.

The political commentating class has a chronic habit of writing off the Progressive Democrats, which is very, very strange given that if you asked the Irish people what combination of parties they want to run Ireland for the next five years in any poll, in any newspaper, the Progressive Democrats feature in the majority choice across every poll that has ever been done.

So as far as I'm concerned a desire to write us off among some people who'd like to go back to the politics of failure is wishful thinking.

ST: Will you contest the next election as a stand-alone party or would you consider an election pact?

MMcD: No, we're not in the business of election pacts and we've always made that clear. That's been our consistent position over a number of elections and the reason being, that if you stood on a common platform, you effectively submerge your own identity. And that's the absolutely catastrophic error that Enda Kenny has made with Pat Rabbitte, that you can't vote for Labour without Fine Gael and vice versa. This has damaged them very seriously. This is really what the opinion polls in September and October were all about . . . the electorate took a look at what was on offer from the alternative and said 'no'. The other thing is that, by merging your political position, you alienate people who support you but wouldn't be so comfortable about the partner in government. It's bad politics and an elementary mistake made by both Pat Rabbitte and Enda Kenny which has damaged both of them.

I think it's written off the slump coalition.

ST: Obviously going into government with Fianna Fail would be your first choice, but if the numbers don't stack up, would you consider coalescing with Fine Gael, Labour and the Greens?

MMcD: No, the answer to that is very simple. Fine Gael and Labour are going to contest this election on a joint policy document which is designed, and stated to be designed, to exclude the Progressive Democrats and to get us out of office.

And I am not now going to even entertain the notion before an election of doing a deal with them after the election. I think they've made their bed, let them lie on it. They handcuffed themselves together. And I'm not going to offer any Fine Gael voter the solace that while they have a pact with Labour I'm going to try and rescue them from the folly of the decision that Enda Kenny has made for them.

ST: That position is very different from your predecessor Mary Harney who said before that she would be open to the idea if the numbers stack up that way?

MMcD: The simple fact is that the numbers aren't going to stack up that way . . . that's the first thing.

And I'm not going to now speculate in a way which would only help Fine Gael and Labour and retrieve some of their credibility. As far as I'm concerned Pat Rabbitte and Enda Kenny have formed a coalition. They've indicated that they would prefer to have the Greens as supporters than the Progressive Democrats. That degree of ideological and political hostility carries with it certain consequences. The great majority of Fine Gael voters, by the way, I know would prefer the Progressive Democrats to the Greens. This choice has been made for them.

Actions have consequences. Pat Rabbitte and Enda Kenny and Trevor Sargent as a combination is what they are offering the electorate and as far as I'm concerned let the electorate make their choice on it.

I'm very confident that they'll be decisively rejected; that they will be really hammered by the electorate.

ST: Is it fair to sum up that you are saying you are not going to give publicity to the option [of coalescing with FG, Labour and the Greens] but you obviously can't rule anything out after the election?

MMcD: It's not a foreseeable option. I want to be very clear.

ST: Are you actually ruling that out?

MMcD: I am ruling that out. I'm not interested in joining a rainbow coalition.

ST: So it's Fianna Fail or bust for the PDs?

MMcD: I wouldn't use that phrase but what I'm saying is: we're standing on our own and we are not going to prop up a failed slump coalition. And we don't think that our presence in it would rescue it from being a failed slump coalition. It would be a disaster for the Irish people . . . a Labour/Fine Gael/Green arrangement . . . and we're not going to hold out to the Irish people the prospect that it could be improved by adding us in. That would be politically two-faced to do that.

ST: So you don't see any circumstances in which after the election [you would coalesce with the Rainbow parties]?

MMcD: I don't.

ST: What do you make of Fine Gael's proposed poster ads targeting you?

MMcD: They don't worry me. I was listening to the radio the other day and I discovered that they're not even sure that they're going to use them. They don't worry me at all. It doesn't surprise me that if you're very light in policy as they are, that you resort to negative politics. I think they were about to do it in September in relation to the Taoiseach and Mary Harney. They had a poster campaign designed to underline the 'need for change' issue and I think that their spin doctors told them that there is an appetite in American politics for negative campaigning.

But to be honest with you, I think they're wrong about that. I've had my own picture on Fine Gael posters in my own constituency, I think, twice or three times in the last couple of years and it hasn't affected me at all. So I'm not worried about that. It's a sign of an absence of a positive credible agenda on their part. If they had policies that they thought would attract people, you'd think they'd zero in on that. What they're really doing is peddling dissatisfaction and they're hoping that there'll be a tide for change, for change's sake, and that's a pretty bankrupt position. But that is what I believe; in the end, [it] will be the battle line between the present partners in government and the slump coalition. It will eventually come down to a more and more insistent message that it's time for change, regardless of the consequences.

ST: Moving to issues concerning your department, you got a lot of publicity for your comments on mandatory sentencing and the bail laws. Do you stand over those comments?

MMcD: I made all these comments [before] in King's Inns at a seminar where the previous Chief Justice was, and indeed a number of other judges. That was three years ago. You'll find that what I said substantially in relation to mandatory sentencing is what I said at that time. I very strongly believe that drugs and gun crime are as much a threat to our way of life today as paramilitarism was 10 to 15 years ago. I think every institution of the state . . . legislative, executive and judicial . . . has to be harnessed within the constitutional framework to deliver on the state's obligations under Article 40 of the constitution, which is to vindicate people's rights. The fight against crime isn't only to look after Article 38 of the constitution, dealing with due process and the like. It's also to be found in Article 40 where the state has a positive duty to protect people from criminality in all its forms.

And my strong view is there's a huge threat to our way of life and we have to use every means to oppose it and the criminal justice system is one of the chief Article 40 agents for protecting people's rights.

ST: Do you think the judges are failing in that duty?

MMcD: No, I don't. I don't think they're failing in that duty and I've never made generalised comments of that kind. We are blessed with an independent judiciary and I strongly believe in their independence and, at every occasion when the issue arises, I actually make strong speeches in support for their independent status.

ST: So what is your issue with them then?

MMcD: I don't have an issue, in that sense, with them. I am going to be bringing before the Dail fairly soon a package of measures to ensure that the bail law and the drugs law and the firearms law is as effective as it possibly can be.

And that any weaknesses in it are addressed.

ST: Will we see anti-racketeering measures as were brought in in the US?

MMcD: We're looking at that.

ST: Are you also looking at the right to silence?

MMcD: Yes, in the sense that there is a constitutional right to silence that people are entitled to remain silent and nobody is going to change that. We're not going to introduce some kind of position where people are forced to speak. But under the European Convention of Human Rights jurisprudence, there is nothing wrong, in the case of serious offences that threaten the fabric of society, in drawing inferences in certain circumstances from a failure to give an account in the course of formal interrogation. That's already the case in the post-Omagh legislation for certain offences and I believe it should apply to drug trafficking offences as well and other cognate offences.

ST: To paraphrase Gay Mitchell, did you enjoy a glass of fine claret with [Supreme Court judge] Adrian Hardiman over Christmas?

MMcD: I'm not going to talk about my social life over Christmas but I will say the following: I know and I'm on good terms with many members of the judiciary and have very good relations with them and am on Christian name terms with most of them.

ST: Were you surprised then at the boycott of senior judges of your drinks reception before Christmas?

MMcD: I'm not aware of any boycott and I've read two conflicting accounts in the newspapers as to whether there was one or not and I don't want to get involved in that. Suffice it to say that I was pleased that, at the reception the Department of Justice gave at the King's Inns, that there were judges from all three levels of the superior courts.

ST: (Former judge) Feargus Flood said before Christmas that you had a tendency to speak first and think later.

Do you think that was unfair?

MMcD: I'm not going to comment on Judge Flood's abuse about me [laughter]. I'm not going to get involved in a debate about his attributes or mine.

ST: But what about that comment that you speak first and think later?

MMcD: I've no comment on that, except to ask did he think about it before he said it!

ST: What about your comment 15 months ago about "the sting of a dying wasp" [in respect of gangland crime]?

MMcD: On a number of occasions, I've said that was a mistaken view on my part. It was in the context of, in particular, the end of the Westies gang and a particular act of violence relating to it. It was over-optimistic and it was wrong.

ST: Are you confident, though, that the threat to the state from these gangs can be overcome?

MMcD: I said in a different context that you can't beat City Hall. You can't beat democracy. This country is not going to succumb to a group of thugs. And whatever has to be done will be done. We can't have the thugs reduce our society to their level and that's why when we deal with them through the processes of the law, we have to uphold the integrity of the legal process as well as deal effectively with them. And that's a balancing act.

ST: How concerned are you about the perception that people involved in gangland crime are often operating while out on bail for serious crimes?

MMcD: If there's a problem with bail, and I've said this, by the way, on every occasion that I've spoken about it, then we have to study what the problem is and deal with it. Recrimination isn't the way to deal with it. Just look at the problem. And I've said that the people changed the law in 1997 and it's up to the legislators to ensure that change is fully reflected in our statute law and then it's up to the various institutions of the state to ensure it operates in the way that the people want. Because the people's wishes in this matter are supreme. We live in a constitutional democracy in which the people are the final arbiters and if they wanted the law to be changed in a particular way, it's up to people like myself and others to ensure that their wishes are given effect.

ST: On a different issue, your cafe-bars proposal was rejected by Fianna Fail. Do you still feel strongly about it? Will it be part of the PDs' election manifesto?

MMcD: I very strongly believe in the fundamental policy which underlies it, which is that binge drinking is especially bad for kids and for antisocial behaviour. And that food and drink in combination is much preferable. That's why, when it became clear that the cafe-bar idea would not command majority support in government or indeed in parliament . . . since both Fine Gael and Labour attacked it as well, which was a disappointment to me that they were so opportunistic . . . I decided that the right way therefore was to look at the law for restaurants and to arrive at the same destination by a different approach. What I would say is, I'm very sympathetic to people in the licensed trade. I don't regard their trade as wrong. I like a drink myself; I like a good pub. And I think that most licensees are decent, hard-working people. But I think they are beginning to see a very changing market . . . you know, home drinking, food and wine. People's social appetite for their services is changing dramatically. And, particularly because of the clamp-down on drink-driving, rural publicans are under a lot of pressure at the moment. What I feel is that regardless of whether you have the restaurant way or the cafe-bar way, that the whole of the licensed trade is undergoing a major transformation.

The crowded pub model is a dying one. It's on the down escalator. I've spoken to a number of really innovative people in the licensed trade and they say they have a problem and they're going to have to reinvent themselves to overcome that problem. I just hold a strong view that a group of teenagers, girls and fellas, 18-, 19-, 20-year olds, they should go out and have a pizza together and if they want wine and beer with it, have it. I think that the notion that everyone has to stand in a crowded bar, just drinking, hardly able to hear each other, is a dying social pattern; it won't last long; people won't be able to make big money out of it.

ST: Do you ever get fed up with how you are covered in the media? Do you think politicians like yourself get fair and balanced coverage?

MMcD: It's not the duty of the media to be fair. The media don't have to be fair. As distinct from broadcasting, which is licensed . . .

and by the way, they have an obligation to be fair and I think broadly speaking they are . . . the print media on the other hand have the right to be unfair and to be prejudiced if they want to be. So you have to live in a world where that's the case. I distinguish between what I consider old-fashioned ethical journalism, which I think is under pressure at the moment in Ireland. I think a lot of people are under huge pressure not to give both sides of the story and not to balance their story. And they're under pressure to write 'shock, anger, outrage!' articles from their editors and I think that's regrettable. But generally speaking we have a free set of media and generally speaking they work very well. And I'm not resentful of the media at all. I'm very relaxed about the capacity of the media to be opinionated. They're entitled to be opinionated. They always have been opinionated. And in virtually every western society, they always have a left bias. We don't have a significant non-left biased set of media in Ireland. That's a fact but that is a pattern right across the western world, there's nothing special about Ireland. I mean, I have to put up with cartoons of me in Nazi uniform and the dog collars around my neck [laughs]. You'll find in my house quite a few framed versions of me in the canine mode, so I can live with it.

ST: But how difficult is it for your family?

MMcD: They're very relaxed about it.

ST: You recently had some comments to make about the Moriarty tribunal report, but is there a better way of carrying out such inquiries?

MMcD: There is. I mean, I have huge reservations about the length of time that the tribunals are taking. Hopefully, this is not taken as a criticism of them, it's a criticism of the system. And I know that the members of the tribunals won't take offence at me saying it. I mean, if it took four years to look at Abbeylara and it's taken God knows how long to look at planning corruption and we're still at . . . what is it? . . . 10 years with Moriarty. It's a long, long time. By the way, it's not a peculiarly Irish thing. The Australian tribunals seem to go on forever. And likewise, even the Saville inquiry in Derry is going on interminably long. It was for that exact reason that we brought in the Commission of Inquiry Bill. And George Bermingham, using that legislation, effectively dealt with the Dean Lyons situation in six months.

And I don't believe it would have been a different outcome if we'd gone the tribunal of inquiry route, and at a tiny fraction of the cost. There must be a better way to inquire into these issues and I think as a society we have to reflect on these things. And you see one of the difficulties is that, while the Moriarty tribunal and Flood/Mahon tribunal have been to do with political issues, it's very, very difficult for politicians to utter their fundamental conviction about the process without being seen to be in some way trying to shut up or close down the tribunals. The cost of all these tribunals is going to run to hundreds of millions and could reach up to a billion in the end and that's an awful lot of money. And that's why the commission of inquiry legislation which had its first outing, if you like, under George Bermingham and it's having another outing under Patrick McEntee, which should come to a decision fairly soon as well, those two ways of doing business, I think, are immensely better.

ST: What are your views on the age of consent issue?

MMcD: Well, I brought in legislation in the middle of the CC case and A case 'crisis'. I put it through both houses of the Oireachtas within a week. And at the time there was a lot of criticism levelled at that legislation. I had to deal with really serious issues very rapidly. More rapidly than I would have preferred. But the curious thing was that at the recent committee at which I, among others, participated, I think to the surprise of some members, the robustness of what I had done, warts and all, was apparent to everybody.

It wasn't a bad job and it does keep the law operational in the short term. But what the committee decided was that fundamentally there was a strong value in having a zone of absolute protection where the knowledge of the perpetrator was a matter entirely for the perpetrator, and all the risk was on him. And that's why they suggested reversing the notion that there was some kind of constitutional requirement that there should be proof, in these cases, of knowledge. . . If we are going to change the law that way, the advice of that committee and its independent advisers, and I've no doubt the Attorney General's advice, would be the same when the government comes to consider it . . .

that a referendum would be necessary; so be it.

ST: And specifically on the age of consent, do you have a view on what age it should be?

MMcD: What I found slightly difficult about the media coverage of the report was that that came into sharp focus as the only issue. But what the committee actually did was that the age of 17 should be split in two. It should be brought up to 18 for authority figures and down to 16 for nonauthority figures which would cover most age peers. And the reason they went down to 16 was because they were proposing that up to the age of 15 inclusive, there should be a zone of absolute protection and that there shouldn't be a limbo between a zone of absolute protection and criminality. It's hands off kids up to and including the age of 15 and at the age of 16 young people can consent. That was the view they took. And it's a package. I worry about creating some twilight zone between the zone of absolute protection and the age of consent, in which girls particularly . . . because it would be normally girls, but young boys could come into it as well . . . would be the subject of massive attacks on their character, their behaviour, their demeanour, their clothing, their drinking habits and all the rest of it, by counsel trying to establish that their client was mistaken as to that zone. I just think that people should think about it long and hard. It is a matter for personal decision. But what I would ask people to consider is if they really do believe in the zone of absolute protection, do they believe there should be an intermediate zone between legal consent and the absolute protection in which kids would be fair game for that kind of cross-examination. I don't think that ever emerged in the public debate.

ST: Finally, in the context of the upcoming general election, five years ago you targeted eight seats . . . what is the aim this time around?

MMcD: I would like to get us definitely into double figures.

ST: Is that attainable?

MMcD: It is, yeah. We've eight at the moment. But what I want to say to you is that I do believe we will get into double figures and the reason I believe we will get into double figures is that I think there will be, some time around April, May, in the run-up to the election, the Irish people will decide something that they already signalled very clearly in the September/October opinion polls, that they do not want a Rainbow slump coalition and they will vote against it.

And very heavily against it. And then they will do what they did in 2002 and say 'what do we want?' I think they'll take a long hard look and they'll say Enda Kenny and Pat Rabbitte are not going to be Taoiseach and Tanaiste. . . There will be a lot of flak and background noise in the election and competitive shouting and roaring and scandals and all the rest of it and negative campaigning. But in the end, I'm absolutely confident that the central, clear issue is what kind of government do we want and I believe that there are at least 100,000 people in Ireland, who, when they go to the polls, will say 'I want the Progressive Democrats there and I will put No1 beside the Progressive Democrats name.'

ST: Is this realistically your last election?

MMcD: No, I don't think so.

ST: You can see yourself contesting in five years' time?

MMcD: I think I can. It's potentially my last election in that I could lose my seat [laughs]. No, assuming I'm elected at the next Dail, if that happens, I'm certainly not of a mind to say that's the end of it.

McDOWELL on. . . .

. . . coalescing with FG, Labour and the Greens:

"I'm not interested in joining a rainbow coalition."

. . . crime:

"Drugs and gun crime are as much a threat to our way of life today as paramilitarism was ten to 15 years ago."

. . . his reportedly rocky relationship with the judiciary:

"I'm on good terms with many members of the judiciary . . . and am on Christian name terms with most of them."

. . . his infamous "sting of a dying wasp" description of gangland crime:

"It was over-optimistic and it was wrong."

. . . his rejected 'cafe bars' proposal:

"The notion that everyone has to stand in a crowded bar, just drinking, hardly able to hear each other, is a dying social pattern."

. . . his 'rottweiler' reputation:

"You'll find in my house quite a few framed versions of me in the canine mode."

. . . the efficacy of the tribunals:

"I have huge reservations about the length of time that the tribunals are taking."

. . . the number of PD TDs after the next general election:

"I would like to get us definitely into double figures."