30/01/2014 The View

Tonight - politics and policing, two uncomfortable bed flower lows. It is

unsurprising there is a row over what experience the Chief Constable

needs to have. The chief justice has his say.

I will be talking to Paul given and Alex Attwood.

Should we let the young lead the way to a better economic future? Yes

says the well-known commentator, Bonnie Greer. Four days of devil

drinking, drugs and abortion rate. After the arm, off, on again antics

of a comic lay in Newtownabbey, politicians insist on trying to

influence the arts. You can join the debate on Twitter.

So, who will be responsible for deciding the criteria for the new

Chief Constable? After the meeting today, it seems the power rests in

the hands of the executive. Three days ago the Justice Minister made

it clear it was his decision. David Forde is with me now. Thanks the

joining us. Have you conceded after the executive meeting, the decision

is not yours to make? The key decision is made by the policing

board. They decide the criteria. The role of the Minister is to determine

the minimum criteria, but it is up to the board to decide what criteria

they will apply. The executive has sent you a way to consult further? I

am going ahead with what I was doing anyway which is the formal

consultation with the relevant bodies as described in the

legislation. The decision this afternoon is that I should return to

the executive. That is where we run into difficult issues. The executive

needs to be careful that it does not seem to be interfering in sensitive

issues around justice and policing. That is why we have specific

arrangements. Monday you said the decision was yours to take. Tonight,

that is not the case. Your department issued a press release

and it talks about the Minister has changed the criteria felt --

criteria. The Minister has communicated his decision. You are

not saying that night? Monday the legislation gave power to the First

Minister and Deputy First Minister. They could call in the powers. You

did not think they would do that? Given the criteria rests with the

policing board, the fact the policing and justice minister is

giving away some of his authority to enhance the policing board, I did

not think it merited being forwarded on. Some of the other things decided

by ministers recently, the way hospitals are being reorganised has

never been taken to the executive. Apparently that is not a significant

point. But this has been called in, that is the point? It looks as if it

is more to do with the party the minister comes from, who makes the

decisions than the significance of the decision. So they have got it in

for the Alliance party? You could believe that. Is that what you are

telling me tonight? Funding for schools taken by a minister, not

called in, care decisions by the DP, not called in. And then a minor

change in the role the Minister has two make it easier for the policing

board which represents all five parties. What do you do about it

now? You have gone off to consult and come back with a recommendation.

Presumably the recommendation will be on Monday. What if your fellow

executive colleagues around the table don't agree and say, we're not

going down that road. Is it back me or sack me time? If they go in that

direction it is dangerous territory because it could be seen as

political interference. We have the special arrangements about justice,

are we then expected to assume it could become the basis of a

political wrangle around the executive table? Rather than

removing that responsibility to the point where it really lies with the

policing board. Does that mean that if there is, what you regard as,

political interference on the part of the other members of the

executive, you will walk? You are two weeks ahead of things. I

answered questions from fellow ministers and the decision was

taken, which effectively confirms, I will continue what I was doing. I

will report back to the executive. It is up to the executive to decide

if the executive will reciprocate the crisis around it or accept the

Justice Minister should take these issues. Today they did not back

you, they said we are calling this in and we want you to do what we

want you to do. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister took the

decision to call it in. The executive said I was going to be

doing anyway. You now stand accused of challenging the authority of the

policing board by raising this issue. A lot of other people thought

the previous consultation that had taken place before Christmas had

been parked. This issue of changing the criteria would be brought up

again after Matt Baggott's success had been appointed. You blindsided

everybody by raising the issue on Monday. Why did you do that? I don't

know why anybody thought it had been parked because there was an ongoing

discussion which started in May last year. It was with reference to the

Justice committee in October and the policing bodies which are specified

in the legislation. The expectation was, six months from the deadline,

which is September, when the Chief Constable either has to be seeking

an extension or formally retire, the expectation was about March, six

months before he would be making this decision. We were on track...

You say you are planning to make this decision in the next few weeks?

This was the process which would give the police board the

opportunity when the decision came, if the Chief Constable was going,

they would determine the criteria based on the new minimum. Why is it

that members of the policing board and members of the Justice committee

have indicated to the BBC that they believe the process of consultation

had come to an end. That had been parked and it would be picked up

after the appointment of the successor, that is white they are

telling us? Faced with that consultation, and the stronger

quality guidance that the current role about two years service at a

senior level outside the PSNI is discriminatory against women and

others, faced with that it was prudent to make the same decisions

that were made over the water. That was give the power to the policing

board. They can keep that criteria if we want, it is now over to them.

We have to leave it there at the moment. With me tonight are our two

other guests, a former Mende -- member of the policing board. How do

you respond to the Minister's statement that he could come to the

conclusion that this is all about having a go at the Alliance party. I

think David needs to start talking down this rather than talking it up

into a crisis. This has not been handled well by him as a minister.

It has been clumsy. It has undermined the policing board.

Policing and politics has been a toxic mix for many years in Northern

Ireland. Even if you agree with his view this two-year rule should be

disposed of, to do it in the midst of people considering their

positions, the Chief Constable having announced his resignation, is

an inappropriate time? Why is it inappropriate, the process for

recruiting has not started yet. He is not intervening in a recruitment

process? As far as I understand it, the board was in the middle of

putting a panel for it. So they were doing that before Matt Baggott had

announced he was leaving? No, once he was announced his indications.

That was only a couple of days ago. Obviously they are a and want to get

on with their work. That does not add up? Once Matt Baggott decided to

go, people started indicating these are the individuals serving who are

applicable, these are the individuals who are not. The Justice

Minister then intervenes. What does that intervention say to those under

the existing rules? It says the minister does not think the two-year

rule is not applicable. It is a message we need to be careful about

sending to those officers. Alex, you have said the Minister needs to back

off at the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister need to back.

They all got it wrong? They are creating a problem that could become

a serious problem. Not just a political problem but one that

compromises the independence of the policing board. It is a new

beginning to policing and a pattern of reforms. Earlier this week, David

Forde opened a door that should have been kept firmly closed. Once he

open that door a little bit, the D U P and Sinn Fein came charging

through it by calling an issue that is responsible for the policing

board into the heart of the executive. It is the responsibility

of the minister, clearly. If you look at the relevant act it is

there. The Minister needs to be careful because if he wants to take

action on this matter he is watertight with the policing board.

On this issue, for what ever reason, at the very last minute,

after two people indicated they were going to step down, decided this was

the time and circumstances to make this decision. Not at the very last

minute, at the appropriate moment given what was happening elsewhere

with Matt Baggott and the timescale? David Forde needs to

recognise now that making that decision at this time, in the

context of a deputy chief on is to and a Chief Constable stepping down,

was bound to be controversial. The problem is, the policing board had

not come to a view on this matter. In no circumstances when the

authority should be with the board, the Minister should make sure he is

on the right side of the board, in this instance he wasn't. But what

ever the error of David Forde in the last number of days, it has been

multiplied and compounded by the D U P and Sinn Fein thinking that an

issue that is the responsibility of the policing board should become an

issue that is a responsibility of the executive. It is dangerous

territory. The new beginning to policing as a consequence, could be

put in jeopardy. So that is the politicisation policing, to Alice is

Atwood. And you tread very warily? We have to react to the political

interference. If he is guilty of political interference, so are you?

We are having to react to what the justice minister has done. In this

instance he has put the cart before the horse. He has to formally

consult with the police board, with... He did that? No, there were

discussions. The regulations say he has to formally consult. There was

due process to be followed. On this occasion the Minister needs to be

saved from himself. No minister is allowed to take solo runs within the

executive. St Andrews change that and this is an issue we need to deal

with and the justice minister has to yield to the executive's wishes on

this. How do you respond to that? The chairman of your committee at

Stormont taking issue with what you have done in the past 72 hours? I

had an early consultation, deeper than wider than I was obliged to do.

I was not obliged to talk to the justice committee, but I did. The

same as I talked to the quality committee. Now you have my statement

in a draft determination which goes to the formal consultation with the

relevant bodies, the policing board and the Chief Constable. We know

what your conclusions will be because you told us on Monday. Yes,

the whole point was we had a consultation to see how we were

designed the draft consultation. This consultation is meaningless? It

is not meaningless, but others now have had the opportunity to state

their opinion, it is a relatively straightforward matter. I would

assume people would continue to make the views they have previously made

known. On that basis I continue with my responsibilities. You are at odds

with him, talk me through what you think happens? You have stated your

position clearly, others have stated there is. It seems that you are on

other sides of the fans, what happens when you bring it back to

the executive table? What I have done is not what Alex said - I am

giving greater power to the Policing Board to give them the opportunity

to set the criteria they want. The point is your timing, David. Even if

I accepted completely your good faith, the timing of this has

created an opportunity for those who don't believe in the independence of

the Policing Board, who want to concentrate more and more power in

the hands of the centre of Government and FM and DFM in

particular. You have created that opportunity. What they are trying to

do now is put you in your box, when what you and what Martin and what

Peter should do is say, we respect a new beginning to policing, we

respect the independence of the board and all-of-you are going to

back -- and all of you are going to back off, because if we don't then

we are in danger of repeating the lessons, of repeating the errors of

the past when it comes to policing and politics. You keep them separate

and at this moment, you David, I would say to you David, tonight,

that you should now sit down with Peter and Martin in a quiet moment,

over the next couple of days, and both of you and all three of you

say, we have got on the wrong side of the gates, let's get back on the

right side of policing. I will put that to the minister in a second. Is

that, as Alex Attwood would say, is what your party is at - trying to

put David Ford back in his box? We are trying to take the political

interference that the Justice Minister initiated out of this

system. You have upped the anti- your party colleague a-- upped the

an, terks, your party colleague a-- up anty, your party colleague

accused of being a little Nero. It is not the first time he sought to

deal with the royal in sig insignia... It is not true and you

know it is not true. You know #w457d in the FOI -- you know it was in the

FOI. Let's not go back over that again. A final point on how you

think this issue needs to be resolved over the next couple of

weeks. It is a matter for the Executive. It will be for the

Executive. And that is the absolute wrong place for this to be. Because

it should be with the Policing Board? It should be with the

Policing Board. Everybody... Look at what you have done - you have opened

a hor net's nest. You have -- hornet's nest. You have done the

thing - which you didn't want to do - politicise policing. I was on the

job, that was being done from the summer of last year, including a

wide-spread consultation during the latter part of last year. When the

issue arose, Alex wants me to have a quiet chat... . Will you do that? I

would be happy. They started knit the public domain by the -- they

started it, in the public dough main, in the way -- in the public

domain. If you had the chance to wind back

the clock and do things differently over the last week, would you do

them differently? I believe I have done things right over the past

couple of months. I have been doing what I can to defend the integrity

of the justice system and the independence of the Policing Board.

OK, we need to leave it there. Thank you very much for joining us. A

short time ago the curtain came down on the play they tried to band in

Newtownabbey, some councillors said it was blas fem nows. It was

cancelled, but was reinstated. It is not the first time that politicians

have medaled in the arts here. Jesus. Jesus Christ... The play that

wouldn't go away. Cancelled by councillors over concerns raised by

some Christians that it mocked God. People do have standards. Nobody

talks about that as being a censorship or a banning. It is a

recognition that people are offended... After a public outcry at

home and abroad and a real life political drama over artistic

freedom, the play went ahead. It is no politician's business to tell the

public what they can or can't see or what piece of art can or can't be

made. I am very pleased the decision was reversed. I am embarrassed that

the world got to see us in that light again.

Indeed there is a history here of some Christians clashing with

cultural events and politicians opting for censorship. ELO was

banned by councillors in 1993. It is mainly known by the four Ds, devil,

drinking, drugs... In 1979 there were objections to a photo

exhibition. There is one nude photograph standing at the front -

very visible - only with a hat on. A woman with a hat on. You cannot see

anything - her arms are crossed. From head to toe there is a naked

figure. It is not the size that I object to. This is the thin edge of

the wedge. A close associate of the former DUP leader, Ian Paisley, has

also been at the forefront of protests, objects to films like the

Life of Brian, Jesus Christ Superstar and the Last Temptation of

Christ. T.. It is unbiblical. It has to be strongly opposed too. There

has been -- there was opposition to The Show in 1989. Further protests

followed in 2005 against the BBC Broadcasting Jerry Springer: The

Opera. There are expleetives... Despite the controversy, no-one

turned up on opening night to protest the Reduced Shakespeare's

Company production. It is not over yet. Now there is to be a review of

how the artistic board operates. There is concern that councillors on

that board will sensor by the back door. That is quite terrifying.

The thought that local authorities are now going to take it upon

themselves to act as, essentially sensors of artistic activity is very

disrespectful to the arts community. Can they not back off and let

theatres do what they do? It makes me angry - you don't want a Health

Minister telling to tell a surgeon doing what he's doing. Shol

politicians interfere with the arts? If so, how and when? I asked for an

interview. Neither were available. The minister

did issue a statement echoing concerns from the Arts Council when

the play was cancelled. One member of Stormont's Art Committee said

politicians should tread carefully as we have laws to limit free speech

to protect the vulnerable. I am not in favour of censorship. There was a

quote by Winston church hill when they said we should cut the arts for

the war effort and then he said, "What will we be fighting for? " We

live in a democracy. People should be allowed to express their opinion.

If you don't want to go, don't go. What about those who do go to the

theatre? What can they expect in future there are fears among artists

that our politicians are not interested in art for arts sake, but

in using it to promote their own agendas.

I fear that becomes more of a sense of, that the arts is becoming more

from the politician's point of view about social engineering and aspects

of equality or even worse the reconciliation industry that we are

surrounded by. That is not what the arts is for, or what the arts can

do. It does not operate to a Government agenda. It has to be its

own thing. It has to have independence. While some in the arts

may stay silent when public funding comes with strings, others are

determined to speak out when art is not to their taste. Expecting

results from the review and row in Newtownabbey. Lessons can be learned

from every side. Martina Purdy reporting. There's an

old proverb that says praise youth and it will prospect. Is the

authority Bonnie Greer taking it too far when she argues young people

should be given leadership positions in business, industry and the arts?

She will present her message to a conference in Belfast tomorrow.

Bonnie Greer joins me now along with Newton Emerson. Welcome to the

programme. Some might say this is a risky strategy. Where is the

evidence it would work? There isn't any because we don't have the

definition of how to do this. I cannot give you any proof. What I

can tell you is that we do now that we're in the middle of what is a

strong as the revolution was in the 15th century in relation to digital

technology. The brain is being affected because of this. Young

people live in a different world. Media is starting to converge - new

definitions, languages and so forth. We need to capture that. I don't

know how we do, but we do. It is changing business. It is changing

the way that business is acting radio ith now. It is putting all --

is acting right now. It is putting eggs all in the same business,

saying young people under 30 will dig us out of this mess? They will

not dig us out of this mess - we need young people in positions of

more leadership than they are now. If you cannot read or write well -

there needs to be a space in a company like IBM where they can

affect progress and growth. It is about capturing young people's

potential as much as letting it go. You cited IBM, and said that the

Government should people on the board of companies like that. I

think IBM should, actually. Young people set up rival companies, in

their garages, their basements and started this technical revolution.

For all we know they could be out there doing things that would do the

same to banking. I am giving it as a crude example of how our businesses

noo ed this young input. We need to find a way to get -- businesses need

this young input. Because they are in this new digital revolution and

revolution in terms of thinking, doing, make pg them think about --

making them think about start-ups which are entrepreneurial. Would you

put young people under 30 in charge of multinational corporations? If

you talk about listening to young people - fine. If you talk about

putting them in chance at the expense of people with experience -

a lot of us might be uncomfortable. I don't know if they can do balance

sheets and I would put them in the boardroom and give them boardroom

salaries as well. I think that is exactly the wrong thing to do. What

those young people should do is set up rival companies, not being sucked

into the system. There'll never been a better time in history for young

people to start up these rivals themselveses. I agree with you. I

think we can do both. My theory, my point is, wherever this happens,

they need to be at the forefront as Newton says in rival companies - the

point is, let the young people lead. Here is the issue. This is fine for

the high flyers, under 30, who can step up to the plate - what about -

you are here to talk about young people who are not in education,

training or employment - they don't have bright prospects for the future

they will not set up companies for IBM? There are intelligence tests A

young person who cannot read or write - that is a serious situation.

Someone who cannot read actually needs to go inside a company or make

a company. We need to begin to look at different ways of defining

intelligence and that's what I'm talking about. We need to get people

to be literate. We need to look at intelligence in another way. That

will happen organically. There's nothing the Government can do,

organisations can do to make this work. It will happen naturally. You

would not have quotas? The thing to do is get out of the way and let

them get on with it themselves. We want them to realise their potential

and take over the world. We would only obstruct them and get in their

way if we were to say, go and sit in the boardroom of this company or go

down this path. I agree with you - get out of the way. Get out of the

way is not what you do. You have to build, I don't know, a kind of

system as well to capture the information you have, to capture the

nj that's -- knowledge that's going to be coming out of these young

people. I don't have the way to do that. Getting out of the way

involves, how do you capture? We need to use some of this to advance

sot as well. This has happened throughout human history. Don't

people who have been doing jobs for a very long time need to understand

there is another way? Sometimes they need to be persuaded just, not to

listen to their peers, but to listen to a new generation who might

actually think about things differently and have something to

teach them? You cannot create a system for young

people to go into companies and say, do it my way. It does happen in

parts of the USA, it does happen. My generation, baby boomers, that was

the whole government plan was about. It did happen. It is not perfect,

but there are precedents for it, and we need to look at those, see what

we can use. We need to ask in Northern Ireland if we want American

politics here. It is just an idea I like to throw out. We have got to

leave it there. It is great to see you in Belfast, Danny Graham. We

will continue this discussion afterwards. -- Bonnie Greer. Let's

hear the thoughts of tonight's commentators, Professors Deirdre

Heenan and Rick Wilford. And as ever, we've plenty to talk about.

Let's talk about the debate over choosing the next Chief Constable.

Where you persuaded David Ford played this right or has he got

himself into difficulty? I think the public were confused before tonight

and are more confused. It was described as clumsy. It is an

understatement. It is a big -- debacle. When is a decision not a

decision, where does the ultimate power lie here? There is a feeling

this is about political interference and do the executive not trust the

integrity of the justice minister? He said this process was already

under way, do they not believe him? In any other region of the UK this

with the pedestrian, here it is headline news. The charges of

elliptical interference are being fired in every direction? They have

come to something of a head on this issue. I thought at one moment I

thought David was going to be in a position where he said back me or

sack me when he thought the Alliance was being targeted. He does have a

point, there have been assaults on the Alliance by the DUP. The

decision by McGuinness and others to abolish one of the Alliance'

departments. Do you think it could precipitate a crisis when he brings

the consultation results back to the consultation table? I think it will

end up as a score draw, because there are only two ways this can go.

Either the executive or the policing board eventually will endorse what

he has proposed, and he seemed to go back from it was a decision to a

draft or a recommendation. In those circumstances, what is his position

going to be if they don't back him? How do you put a lid on it? The

executive can call in something that is public concern. But that is

subject. For Alex to suggest policing in Northern Ireland is not

political! Seriously? Of course it is political. That's it from The

View for this week. Join me for Sunday Politics at 11.35am here on

BBCOne. For now, though, bye-bye.