:00:09. > :00:35.Tonight - politics and policing, two uncomfortable bed flower lows. It is
:00:36. > :00:39.unsurprising there is a row over what experience the Chief Constable
:00:40. > :00:46.needs to have. The chief justice has his say.
:00:47. > :00:50.I will be talking to Paul given and Alex Attwood.
:00:51. > :00:55.Should we let the young lead the way to a better economic future? Yes
:00:56. > :01:03.says the well-known commentator, Bonnie Greer. Four days of devil
:01:04. > :01:10.drinking, drugs and abortion rate. After the arm, off, on again antics
:01:11. > :01:15.of a comic lay in Newtownabbey, politicians insist on trying to
:01:16. > :01:24.influence the arts. You can join the debate on Twitter.
:01:25. > :01:29.So, who will be responsible for deciding the criteria for the new
:01:30. > :01:33.Chief Constable? After the meeting today, it seems the power rests in
:01:34. > :01:38.the hands of the executive. Three days ago the Justice Minister made
:01:39. > :01:44.it clear it was his decision. David Forde is with me now. Thanks the
:01:45. > :01:49.joining us. Have you conceded after the executive meeting, the decision
:01:50. > :01:54.is not yours to make? The key decision is made by the policing
:01:55. > :01:59.board. They decide the criteria. The role of the Minister is to determine
:02:00. > :02:05.the minimum criteria, but it is up to the board to decide what criteria
:02:06. > :02:12.they will apply. The executive has sent you a way to consult further? I
:02:13. > :02:15.am going ahead with what I was doing anyway which is the formal
:02:16. > :02:18.consultation with the relevant bodies as described in the
:02:19. > :02:24.legislation. The decision this afternoon is that I should return to
:02:25. > :02:29.the executive. That is where we run into difficult issues. The executive
:02:30. > :02:32.needs to be careful that it does not seem to be interfering in sensitive
:02:33. > :02:37.issues around justice and policing. That is why we have specific
:02:38. > :02:44.arrangements. Monday you said the decision was yours to take. Tonight,
:02:45. > :02:47.that is not the case. Your department issued a press release
:02:48. > :02:51.and it talks about the Minister has changed the criteria felt --
:02:52. > :02:57.criteria. The Minister has communicated his decision. You are
:02:58. > :03:02.not saying that night? Monday the legislation gave power to the First
:03:03. > :03:08.Minister and Deputy First Minister. They could call in the powers. You
:03:09. > :03:13.did not think they would do that? Given the criteria rests with the
:03:14. > :03:16.policing board, the fact the policing and justice minister is
:03:17. > :03:21.giving away some of his authority to enhance the policing board, I did
:03:22. > :03:26.not think it merited being forwarded on. Some of the other things decided
:03:27. > :03:30.by ministers recently, the way hospitals are being reorganised has
:03:31. > :03:37.never been taken to the executive. Apparently that is not a significant
:03:38. > :03:40.point. But this has been called in, that is the point? It looks as if it
:03:41. > :03:45.is more to do with the party the minister comes from, who makes the
:03:46. > :03:49.decisions than the significance of the decision. So they have got it in
:03:50. > :03:56.for the Alliance party? You could believe that. Is that what you are
:03:57. > :04:02.telling me tonight? Funding for schools taken by a minister, not
:04:03. > :04:09.called in, care decisions by the DP, not called in. And then a minor
:04:10. > :04:13.change in the role the Minister has two make it easier for the policing
:04:14. > :04:18.board which represents all five parties. What do you do about it
:04:19. > :04:25.now? You have gone off to consult and come back with a recommendation.
:04:26. > :04:29.Presumably the recommendation will be on Monday. What if your fellow
:04:30. > :04:34.executive colleagues around the table don't agree and say, we're not
:04:35. > :04:42.going down that road. Is it back me or sack me time? If they go in that
:04:43. > :04:48.direction it is dangerous territory because it could be seen as
:04:49. > :04:52.political interference. We have the special arrangements about justice,
:04:53. > :04:54.are we then expected to assume it could become the basis of a
:04:55. > :04:59.political wrangle around the executive table? Rather than
:05:00. > :05:04.removing that responsibility to the point where it really lies with the
:05:05. > :05:09.policing board. Does that mean that if there is, what you regard as,
:05:10. > :05:13.political interference on the part of the other members of the
:05:14. > :05:17.executive, you will walk? You are two weeks ahead of things. I
:05:18. > :05:22.answered questions from fellow ministers and the decision was
:05:23. > :05:28.taken, which effectively confirms, I will continue what I was doing. I
:05:29. > :05:31.will report back to the executive. It is up to the executive to decide
:05:32. > :05:35.if the executive will reciprocate the crisis around it or accept the
:05:36. > :05:40.Justice Minister should take these issues. Today they did not back
:05:41. > :05:46.you, they said we are calling this in and we want you to do what we
:05:47. > :05:49.want you to do. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister took the
:05:50. > :05:56.decision to call it in. The executive said I was going to be
:05:57. > :06:00.doing anyway. You now stand accused of challenging the authority of the
:06:01. > :06:04.policing board by raising this issue. A lot of other people thought
:06:05. > :06:09.the previous consultation that had taken place before Christmas had
:06:10. > :06:13.been parked. This issue of changing the criteria would be brought up
:06:14. > :06:16.again after Matt Baggott's success had been appointed. You blindsided
:06:17. > :06:24.everybody by raising the issue on Monday. Why did you do that? I don't
:06:25. > :06:29.know why anybody thought it had been parked because there was an ongoing
:06:30. > :06:35.discussion which started in May last year. It was with reference to the
:06:36. > :06:39.Justice committee in October and the policing bodies which are specified
:06:40. > :06:46.in the legislation. The expectation was, six months from the deadline,
:06:47. > :06:49.which is September, when the Chief Constable either has to be seeking
:06:50. > :06:53.an extension or formally retire, the expectation was about March, six
:06:54. > :07:00.months before he would be making this decision. We were on track...
:07:01. > :07:03.You say you are planning to make this decision in the next few weeks?
:07:04. > :07:08.This was the process which would give the police board the
:07:09. > :07:13.opportunity when the decision came, if the Chief Constable was going,
:07:14. > :07:18.they would determine the criteria based on the new minimum. Why is it
:07:19. > :07:23.that members of the policing board and members of the Justice committee
:07:24. > :07:27.have indicated to the BBC that they believe the process of consultation
:07:28. > :07:30.had come to an end. That had been parked and it would be picked up
:07:31. > :07:35.after the appointment of the successor, that is white they are
:07:36. > :07:39.telling us? Faced with that consultation, and the stronger
:07:40. > :07:45.quality guidance that the current role about two years service at a
:07:46. > :07:51.senior level outside the PSNI is discriminatory against women and
:07:52. > :07:55.others, faced with that it was prudent to make the same decisions
:07:56. > :08:00.that were made over the water. That was give the power to the policing
:08:01. > :08:04.board. They can keep that criteria if we want, it is now over to them.
:08:05. > :08:11.We have to leave it there at the moment. With me tonight are our two
:08:12. > :08:16.other guests, a former Mende -- member of the policing board. How do
:08:17. > :08:22.you respond to the Minister's statement that he could come to the
:08:23. > :08:29.conclusion that this is all about having a go at the Alliance party. I
:08:30. > :08:34.think David needs to start talking down this rather than talking it up
:08:35. > :08:39.into a crisis. This has not been handled well by him as a minister.
:08:40. > :08:43.It has been clumsy. It has undermined the policing board.
:08:44. > :08:46.Policing and politics has been a toxic mix for many years in Northern
:08:47. > :08:53.Ireland. Even if you agree with his view this two-year rule should be
:08:54. > :08:54.disposed of, to do it in the midst of people considering their
:08:55. > :09:02.positions, the Chief Constable having announced his resignation, is
:09:03. > :09:06.an inappropriate time? Why is it inappropriate, the process for
:09:07. > :09:11.recruiting has not started yet. He is not intervening in a recruitment
:09:12. > :09:17.process? As far as I understand it, the board was in the middle of
:09:18. > :09:21.putting a panel for it. So they were doing that before Matt Baggott had
:09:22. > :09:28.announced he was leaving? No, once he was announced his indications.
:09:29. > :09:32.That was only a couple of days ago. Obviously they are a and want to get
:09:33. > :09:37.on with their work. That does not add up? Once Matt Baggott decided to
:09:38. > :09:43.go, people started indicating these are the individuals serving who are
:09:44. > :09:47.applicable, these are the individuals who are not. The Justice
:09:48. > :09:52.Minister then intervenes. What does that intervention say to those under
:09:53. > :09:57.the existing rules? It says the minister does not think the two-year
:09:58. > :10:02.rule is not applicable. It is a message we need to be careful about
:10:03. > :10:08.sending to those officers. Alex, you have said the Minister needs to back
:10:09. > :10:13.off at the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister need to back.
:10:14. > :10:17.They all got it wrong? They are creating a problem that could become
:10:18. > :10:20.a serious problem. Not just a political problem but one that
:10:21. > :10:25.compromises the independence of the policing board. It is a new
:10:26. > :10:29.beginning to policing and a pattern of reforms. Earlier this week, David
:10:30. > :10:35.Forde opened a door that should have been kept firmly closed. Once he
:10:36. > :10:40.open that door a little bit, the D U P and Sinn Fein came charging
:10:41. > :10:47.through it by calling an issue that is responsible for the policing
:10:48. > :10:52.board into the heart of the executive. It is the responsibility
:10:53. > :10:59.of the minister, clearly. If you look at the relevant act it is
:11:00. > :11:03.there. The Minister needs to be careful because if he wants to take
:11:04. > :11:08.action on this matter he is watertight with the policing board.
:11:09. > :11:12.On this issue, for what ever reason, at the very last minute,
:11:13. > :11:17.after two people indicated they were going to step down, decided this was
:11:18. > :11:20.the time and circumstances to make this decision. Not at the very last
:11:21. > :11:25.minute, at the appropriate moment given what was happening elsewhere
:11:26. > :11:32.with Matt Baggott and the timescale? David Forde needs to
:11:33. > :11:37.recognise now that making that decision at this time, in the
:11:38. > :11:42.context of a deputy chief on is to and a Chief Constable stepping down,
:11:43. > :11:47.was bound to be controversial. The problem is, the policing board had
:11:48. > :11:49.not come to a view on this matter. In no circumstances when the
:11:50. > :11:54.authority should be with the board, the Minister should make sure he is
:11:55. > :11:58.on the right side of the board, in this instance he wasn't. But what
:11:59. > :12:04.ever the error of David Forde in the last number of days, it has been
:12:05. > :12:07.multiplied and compounded by the D U P and Sinn Fein thinking that an
:12:08. > :12:12.issue that is the responsibility of the policing board should become an
:12:13. > :12:19.issue that is a responsibility of the executive. It is dangerous
:12:20. > :12:25.territory. The new beginning to policing as a consequence, could be
:12:26. > :12:28.put in jeopardy. So that is the politicisation policing, to Alice is
:12:29. > :12:35.Atwood. And you tread very warily? We have to react to the political
:12:36. > :12:40.interference. If he is guilty of political interference, so are you?
:12:41. > :12:44.We are having to react to what the justice minister has done. In this
:12:45. > :12:51.instance he has put the cart before the horse. He has to formally
:12:52. > :12:59.consult with the police board, with... He did that? No, there were
:13:00. > :13:05.discussions. The regulations say he has to formally consult. There was
:13:06. > :13:13.due process to be followed. On this occasion the Minister needs to be
:13:14. > :13:16.saved from himself. No minister is allowed to take solo runs within the
:13:17. > :13:21.executive. St Andrews change that and this is an issue we need to deal
:13:22. > :13:26.with and the justice minister has to yield to the executive's wishes on
:13:27. > :13:30.this. How do you respond to that? The chairman of your committee at
:13:31. > :13:36.Stormont taking issue with what you have done in the past 72 hours? I
:13:37. > :13:41.had an early consultation, deeper than wider than I was obliged to do.
:13:42. > :13:46.I was not obliged to talk to the justice committee, but I did. The
:13:47. > :13:50.same as I talked to the quality committee. Now you have my statement
:13:51. > :13:56.in a draft determination which goes to the formal consultation with the
:13:57. > :13:59.relevant bodies, the policing board and the Chief Constable. We know
:14:00. > :14:04.what your conclusions will be because you told us on Monday. Yes,
:14:05. > :14:08.the whole point was we had a consultation to see how we were
:14:09. > :14:13.designed the draft consultation. This consultation is meaningless? It
:14:14. > :14:20.is not meaningless, but others now have had the opportunity to state
:14:21. > :14:22.their opinion, it is a relatively straightforward matter. I would
:14:23. > :14:25.assume people would continue to make the views they have previously made
:14:26. > :14:32.known. On that basis I continue with my responsibilities. You are at odds
:14:33. > :14:35.with him, talk me through what you think happens? You have stated your
:14:36. > :14:39.position clearly, others have stated there is. It seems that you are on
:14:40. > :14:45.other sides of the fans, what happens when you bring it back to
:14:46. > :14:50.the executive table? What I have done is not what Alex said - I am
:14:51. > :14:55.giving greater power to the Policing Board to give them the opportunity
:14:56. > :15:01.to set the criteria they want. The point is your timing, David. Even if
:15:02. > :15:05.I accepted completely your good faith, the timing of this has
:15:06. > :15:09.created an opportunity for those who don't believe in the independence of
:15:10. > :15:13.the Policing Board, who want to concentrate more and more power in
:15:14. > :15:17.the hands of the centre of Government and FM and DFM in
:15:18. > :15:21.particular. You have created that opportunity. What they are trying to
:15:22. > :15:26.do now is put you in your box, when what you and what Martin and what
:15:27. > :15:29.Peter should do is say, we respect a new beginning to policing, we
:15:30. > :15:33.respect the independence of the board and all-of-you are going to
:15:34. > :15:38.back -- and all of you are going to back off, because if we don't then
:15:39. > :15:43.we are in danger of repeating the lessons, of repeating the errors of
:15:44. > :15:47.the past when it comes to policing and politics. You keep them separate
:15:48. > :15:51.and at this moment, you David, I would say to you David, tonight,
:15:52. > :15:55.that you should now sit down with Peter and Martin in a quiet moment,
:15:56. > :15:59.over the next couple of days, and both of you and all three of you
:16:00. > :16:03.say, we have got on the wrong side of the gates, let's get back on the
:16:04. > :16:08.right side of policing. I will put that to the minister in a second. Is
:16:09. > :16:13.that, as Alex Attwood would say, is what your party is at - trying to
:16:14. > :16:17.put David Ford back in his box? We are trying to take the political
:16:18. > :16:21.interference that the Justice Minister initiated out of this
:16:22. > :16:30.system. You have upped the anti- your party colleague a-- upped the
:16:31. > :16:39.an, terks, your party colleague a-- up anty, your party colleague
:16:40. > :16:45.accused of being a little Nero. It is not the first time he sought to
:16:46. > :16:49.deal with the royal in sig insignia... It is not true and you
:16:50. > :16:56.know it is not true. You know #w457d in the FOI -- you know it was in the
:16:57. > :17:00.FOI. Let's not go back over that again. A final point on how you
:17:01. > :17:06.think this issue needs to be resolved over the next couple of
:17:07. > :17:11.weeks. It is a matter for the Executive. It will be for the
:17:12. > :17:14.Executive. And that is the absolute wrong place for this to be. Because
:17:15. > :17:20.it should be with the Policing Board? It should be with the
:17:21. > :17:25.Policing Board. Everybody... Look at what you have done - you have opened
:17:26. > :17:31.a hor net's nest. You have -- hornet's nest. You have done the
:17:32. > :17:35.thing - which you didn't want to do - politicise policing. I was on the
:17:36. > :17:40.job, that was being done from the summer of last year, including a
:17:41. > :17:46.wide-spread consultation during the latter part of last year. When the
:17:47. > :17:50.issue arose, Alex wants me to have a quiet chat... . Will you do that? I
:17:51. > :17:55.would be happy. They started knit the public domain by the -- they
:17:56. > :17:58.started it, in the public dough main, in the way -- in the public
:17:59. > :18:02.domain. If you had the chance to wind back
:18:03. > :18:07.the clock and do things differently over the last week, would you do
:18:08. > :18:10.them differently? I believe I have done things right over the past
:18:11. > :18:14.couple of months. I have been doing what I can to defend the integrity
:18:15. > :18:18.of the justice system and the independence of the Policing Board.
:18:19. > :18:21.OK, we need to leave it there. Thank you very much for joining us. A
:18:22. > :18:27.short time ago the curtain came down on the play they tried to band in
:18:28. > :18:34.Newtownabbey, some councillors said it was blas fem nows. It was
:18:35. > :18:39.cancelled, but was reinstated. It is not the first time that politicians
:18:40. > :18:46.have medaled in the arts here. Jesus. Jesus Christ... The play that
:18:47. > :18:52.wouldn't go away. Cancelled by councillors over concerns raised by
:18:53. > :18:57.some Christians that it mocked God. People do have standards. Nobody
:18:58. > :19:03.talks about that as being a censorship or a banning. It is a
:19:04. > :19:09.recognition that people are offended... After a public outcry at
:19:10. > :19:13.home and abroad and a real life political drama over artistic
:19:14. > :19:17.freedom, the play went ahead. It is no politician's business to tell the
:19:18. > :19:21.public what they can or can't see or what piece of art can or can't be
:19:22. > :19:26.made. I am very pleased the decision was reversed. I am embarrassed that
:19:27. > :19:32.the world got to see us in that light again.
:19:33. > :19:37.Indeed there is a history here of some Christians clashing with
:19:38. > :19:46.cultural events and politicians opting for censorship. ELO was
:19:47. > :19:53.banned by councillors in 1993. It is mainly known by the four Ds, devil,
:19:54. > :19:58.drinking, drugs... In 1979 there were objections to a photo
:19:59. > :20:03.exhibition. There is one nude photograph standing at the front -
:20:04. > :20:08.very visible - only with a hat on. A woman with a hat on. You cannot see
:20:09. > :20:12.anything - her arms are crossed. From head to toe there is a naked
:20:13. > :20:19.figure. It is not the size that I object to. This is the thin edge of
:20:20. > :20:25.the wedge. A close associate of the former DUP leader, Ian Paisley, has
:20:26. > :20:32.also been at the forefront of protests, objects to films like the
:20:33. > :20:38.Life of Brian, Jesus Christ Superstar and the Last Temptation of
:20:39. > :20:47.Christ. T.. It is unbiblical. It has to be strongly opposed too. There
:20:48. > :20:58.has been -- there was opposition to The Show in 1989. Further protests
:20:59. > :21:11.followed in 2005 against the BBC Broadcasting Jerry Springer: The
:21:12. > :21:15.Opera. There are expleetives... Despite the controversy, no-one
:21:16. > :21:19.turned up on opening night to protest the Reduced Shakespeare's
:21:20. > :21:24.Company production. It is not over yet. Now there is to be a review of
:21:25. > :21:28.how the artistic board operates. There is concern that councillors on
:21:29. > :21:36.that board will sensor by the back door. That is quite terrifying.
:21:37. > :21:44.The thought that local authorities are now going to take it upon
:21:45. > :21:49.themselves to act as, essentially sensors of artistic activity is very
:21:50. > :21:55.disrespectful to the arts community. Can they not back off and let
:21:56. > :22:00.theatres do what they do? It makes me angry - you don't want a Health
:22:01. > :22:05.Minister telling to tell a surgeon doing what he's doing. Shol
:22:06. > :22:16.politicians interfere with the arts? If so, how and when? I asked for an
:22:17. > :22:21.interview. Neither were available. The minister
:22:22. > :22:26.did issue a statement echoing concerns from the Arts Council when
:22:27. > :22:30.the play was cancelled. One member of Stormont's Art Committee said
:22:31. > :22:36.politicians should tread carefully as we have laws to limit free speech
:22:37. > :22:42.to protect the vulnerable. I am not in favour of censorship. There was a
:22:43. > :22:49.quote by Winston church hill when they said we should cut the arts for
:22:50. > :22:55.the war effort and then he said, "What will we be fighting for? " We
:22:56. > :22:59.live in a democracy. People should be allowed to express their opinion.
:23:00. > :23:04.If you don't want to go, don't go. What about those who do go to the
:23:05. > :23:09.theatre? What can they expect in future there are fears among artists
:23:10. > :23:14.that our politicians are not interested in art for arts sake, but
:23:15. > :23:21.in using it to promote their own agendas.
:23:22. > :23:28.I fear that becomes more of a sense of, that the arts is becoming more
:23:29. > :23:32.from the politician's point of view about social engineering and aspects
:23:33. > :23:35.of equality or even worse the reconciliation industry that we are
:23:36. > :23:39.surrounded by. That is not what the arts is for, or what the arts can
:23:40. > :23:42.do. It does not operate to a Government agenda. It has to be its
:23:43. > :23:48.own thing. It has to have independence. While some in the arts
:23:49. > :23:52.may stay silent when public funding comes with strings, others are
:23:53. > :24:00.determined to speak out when art is not to their taste. Expecting
:24:01. > :24:10.results from the review and row in Newtownabbey. Lessons can be learned
:24:11. > :24:13.from every side. Martina Purdy reporting. There's an
:24:14. > :24:17.old proverb that says praise youth and it will prospect. Is the
:24:18. > :24:21.authority Bonnie Greer taking it too far when she argues young people
:24:22. > :24:27.should be given leadership positions in business, industry and the arts?
:24:28. > :24:31.She will present her message to a conference in Belfast tomorrow.
:24:32. > :24:36.Bonnie Greer joins me now along with Newton Emerson. Welcome to the
:24:37. > :24:40.programme. Some might say this is a risky strategy. Where is the
:24:41. > :24:44.evidence it would work? There isn't any because we don't have the
:24:45. > :24:47.definition of how to do this. I cannot give you any proof. What I
:24:48. > :24:54.can tell you is that we do now that we're in the middle of what is a
:24:55. > :24:59.strong as the revolution was in the 15th century in relation to digital
:25:00. > :25:02.technology. The brain is being affected because of this. Young
:25:03. > :25:07.people live in a different world. Media is starting to converge - new
:25:08. > :25:11.definitions, languages and so forth. We need to capture that. I don't
:25:12. > :25:14.know how we do, but we do. It is changing business. It is changing
:25:15. > :25:22.the way that business is acting radio ith now. It is putting all --
:25:23. > :25:25.is acting right now. It is putting eggs all in the same business,
:25:26. > :25:32.saying young people under 30 will dig us out of this mess? They will
:25:33. > :25:37.not dig us out of this mess - we need young people in positions of
:25:38. > :25:43.more leadership than they are now. If you cannot read or write well -
:25:44. > :25:49.there needs to be a space in a company like IBM where they can
:25:50. > :25:54.affect progress and growth. It is about capturing young people's
:25:55. > :25:59.potential as much as letting it go. You cited IBM, and said that the
:26:00. > :26:05.Government should people on the board of companies like that. I
:26:06. > :26:11.think IBM should, actually. Young people set up rival companies, in
:26:12. > :26:16.their garages, their basements and started this technical revolution.
:26:17. > :26:23.For all we know they could be out there doing things that would do the
:26:24. > :26:26.same to banking. I am giving it as a crude example of how our businesses
:26:27. > :26:32.noo ed this young input. We need to find a way to get -- businesses need
:26:33. > :26:37.this young input. Because they are in this new digital revolution and
:26:38. > :26:43.revolution in terms of thinking, doing, make pg them think about --
:26:44. > :26:49.making them think about start-ups which are entrepreneurial. Would you
:26:50. > :26:52.put young people under 30 in charge of multinational corporations? If
:26:53. > :26:56.you talk about listening to young people - fine. If you talk about
:26:57. > :27:01.putting them in chance at the expense of people with experience -
:27:02. > :27:08.a lot of us might be uncomfortable. I don't know if they can do balance
:27:09. > :27:12.sheets and I would put them in the boardroom and give them boardroom
:27:13. > :27:16.salaries as well. I think that is exactly the wrong thing to do. What
:27:17. > :27:23.those young people should do is set up rival companies, not being sucked
:27:24. > :27:26.into the system. There'll never been a better time in history for young
:27:27. > :27:32.people to start up these rivals themselveses. I agree with you. I
:27:33. > :27:39.think we can do both. My theory, my point is, wherever this happens,
:27:40. > :27:45.they need to be at the forefront as Newton says in rival companies - the
:27:46. > :27:50.point is, let the young people lead. Here is the issue. This is fine for
:27:51. > :27:56.the high flyers, under 30, who can step up to the plate - what about -
:27:57. > :28:02.you are here to talk about young people who are not in education,
:28:03. > :28:10.training or employment - they don't have bright prospects for the future
:28:11. > :28:15.they will not set up companies for IBM? There are intelligence tests A
:28:16. > :28:20.young person who cannot read or write - that is a serious situation.
:28:21. > :28:24.Someone who cannot read actually needs to go inside a company or make
:28:25. > :28:28.a company. We need to begin to look at different ways of defining
:28:29. > :28:33.intelligence and that's what I'm talking about. We need to get people
:28:34. > :28:38.to be literate. We need to look at intelligence in another way. That
:28:39. > :28:41.will happen organically. There's nothing the Government can do,
:28:42. > :28:47.organisations can do to make this work. It will happen naturally. You
:28:48. > :28:52.would not have quotas? The thing to do is get out of the way and let
:28:53. > :28:56.them get on with it themselves. We want them to realise their potential
:28:57. > :29:00.and take over the world. We would only obstruct them and get in their
:29:01. > :29:05.way if we were to say, go and sit in the boardroom of this company or go
:29:06. > :29:10.down this path. I agree with you - get out of the way. Get out of the
:29:11. > :29:13.way is not what you do. You have to build, I don't know, a kind of
:29:14. > :29:17.system as well to capture the information you have, to capture the
:29:18. > :29:21.nj that's -- knowledge that's going to be coming out of these young
:29:22. > :29:25.people. I don't have the way to do that. Getting out of the way
:29:26. > :29:30.involves, how do you capture? We need to use some of this to advance
:29:31. > :29:33.sot as well. This has happened throughout human history. Don't
:29:34. > :29:36.people who have been doing jobs for a very long time need to understand
:29:37. > :29:40.there is another way? Sometimes they need to be persuaded just, not to
:29:41. > :29:44.listen to their peers, but to listen to a new generation who might
:29:45. > :29:46.actually think about things differently and have something to
:29:47. > :30:05.teach them? You cannot create a system for young
:30:06. > :30:11.people to go into companies and say, do it my way. It does happen in
:30:12. > :30:18.parts of the USA, it does happen. My generation, baby boomers, that was
:30:19. > :30:23.the whole government plan was about. It did happen. It is not perfect,
:30:24. > :30:29.but there are precedents for it, and we need to look at those, see what
:30:30. > :30:39.we can use. We need to ask in Northern Ireland if we want American
:30:40. > :30:44.politics here. It is just an idea I like to throw out. We have got to
:30:45. > :30:50.leave it there. It is great to see you in Belfast, Danny Graham. We
:30:51. > :30:56.will continue this discussion afterwards. -- Bonnie Greer. Let's
:30:57. > :30:59.hear the thoughts of tonight's commentators, Professors Deirdre
:31:00. > :31:04.Heenan and Rick Wilford. And as ever, we've plenty to talk about.
:31:05. > :31:09.Let's talk about the debate over choosing the next Chief Constable.
:31:10. > :31:13.Where you persuaded David Ford played this right or has he got
:31:14. > :31:22.himself into difficulty? I think the public were confused before tonight
:31:23. > :31:26.and are more confused. It was described as clumsy. It is an
:31:27. > :31:31.understatement. It is a big -- debacle. When is a decision not a
:31:32. > :31:37.decision, where does the ultimate power lie here? There is a feeling
:31:38. > :31:43.this is about political interference and do the executive not trust the
:31:44. > :31:47.integrity of the justice minister? He said this process was already
:31:48. > :31:54.under way, do they not believe him? In any other region of the UK this
:31:55. > :32:00.with the pedestrian, here it is headline news. The charges of
:32:01. > :32:05.elliptical interference are being fired in every direction? They have
:32:06. > :32:15.come to something of a head on this issue. I thought at one moment I
:32:16. > :32:23.thought David was going to be in a position where he said back me or
:32:24. > :32:29.sack me when he thought the Alliance was being targeted. He does have a
:32:30. > :32:34.point, there have been assaults on the Alliance by the DUP. The
:32:35. > :32:40.decision by McGuinness and others to abolish one of the Alliance'
:32:41. > :32:44.departments. Do you think it could precipitate a crisis when he brings
:32:45. > :32:48.the consultation results back to the consultation table? I think it will
:32:49. > :32:52.end up as a score draw, because there are only two ways this can go.
:32:53. > :32:57.Either the executive or the policing board eventually will endorse what
:32:58. > :33:04.he has proposed, and he seemed to go back from it was a decision to a
:33:05. > :33:10.draft or a recommendation. In those circumstances, what is his position
:33:11. > :33:16.going to be if they don't back him? How do you put a lid on it? The
:33:17. > :33:20.executive can call in something that is public concern. But that is
:33:21. > :33:26.subject. For Alex to suggest policing in Northern Ireland is not
:33:27. > :33:30.political! Seriously? Of course it is political. That's it from The
:33:31. > :33:33.View for this week. Join me for Sunday Politics at 11.35am here on
:33:34. > :33:40.BBCOne. For now, though, bye-bye.