National Assembly for Wales

I've got one or two initial questions, based on our terms of reference as a committee. The first is: what principles do you believe should be followed by public authorities in deciding who should be remembered in public spaces? And how should they consider issues such as the historical significance of a person, the continued influence of the person, that person's national impact, the impact on his or her field, how they were viewed at the particular time, whether that person provides a good example for people today, the architectural significance of the monument, and the impact on minority groups and views of the act of commemoration? So, it's quite a list, but I'd be grateful for your thoughts. Who would like to begin?

There's silence, Chair. We're all reeling from that list. Can I kick off, if I may?

Of course. 

Just to ask the question—. I think there are some words here that I think sit comfortably with the idea of remembrance and others that may not. As you'll know, I chaired Cymru'n Cofio—Wales Remembers, and we spent a lot of time wondering what should we remember about the first world war. And the issue here is that times change—people thought that the empire was a great thing in those days; today, we have a rather different view. Can you rewrite history, can you actually say, 'Well, they were wrong, and we were right'? I think the important thing is what example do you give to present people, young people in particular. And, personally, I think you do that by explaining to people. And I take two examples of this, quickly. One is the Apartheid Museum in Johannesburg. It doesn't commemorate or celebrate apartheid, but explains it. And equally, the statue park in Budapest—where all the communist statues are there, with an explanation of what they were up to. I think, therefore, the important question is: what is the public space, and can we actually decide how to explain this properly?

But the final point I'd make is that I'm not so sure there is any kind of legislative framework or any Government intervention to decide this. It is, in my view, a community matter.

That's helpful. Merfyn, Bill—would one of you like to come in on this? Merfyn.

I tend to agree with Deian very much, I think, in the broad sweep of his argument. I think it would be very difficult to legislate in any meaningful way as to what kind of statues one puts up. Personally, I've always been rather dubious about the value of public statues in any case, because times do change, and today's hero becomes tomorrow's villain. I think there may be some principles, however, that we need to bear in mind. In particular, we are now, clearly, in times that have moved on from the class-based politics that many of us were used to to a much more identity-based politics, and we have to be cognisant of the impact that's had, especially through the Black Lives Matter movement and the impact on black, minority ethnic groups. And, clearly, they have been unrepresented in any kind of public commemoration or public demonstration of their significance. But then so have many other groups in our society. Our statutes tend to be very limited to one small group. So, we need to be conscious of that, we need to be conscious of the fact that virtually no women ever get commemorated for anything, and that surely should underline—.

And then, finally, I would say, we do need to be very careful—. I agree entirely with Deian; we cannot just allow the present to judge the past without explanation and context and consciousness raising in this matter. But there were people, who, even when they were alive, were highly dubious and were criticised by their contemporaries for either their cruelty or their venality or whatever, and I think we need to be very careful about what we do with statues of people of that kind, and there are at least two spectacular cases here in Wales.

Thank you, Merfyn. Bill.

Yes, I have a second question on whether or not there should be fixed criteria to assess the appropriateness of possible public commemoration, as with listed buildings, I think. We've already heard from Deian and Merfyn perhaps that they're not minded to support that, and I think Bill was perhaps a little bit more ambivalent, but, yes, I'd welcome clear views on that.

Deian, and then I'll bring Bill in.

It's the generosity of people in contributing to their communities that enables those communities to say, 'We'll name it after this person', not so much what they did. And that's an interesting question: can you retrieve your reputation by giving lots of money after you've done some terrible things? 

I think we've probably got a few current industrialists who we might put in that category, arguably. Bill. 

We have to take a holistic view, John, I think you might agree. In other words, we can't simply allocate something and say, 'Well, that's what they did.' We have to look at the rich tapestry of what people did. That's why I think individuals being commemorated is more dangerous, actually, than movements or events. Nobody says Peterloo didn't happen, but I'm not so sure we want to talk about some of the individuals involved, and I think that's the real issue. 

Final point: if you think of the number of names for people like Mrs Pankhurst, it's 32 streets in Britain; for Lord Curzon, who fought against women's rights, 131 streets, three in Wales. It's an interesting question, actually. As Merfyn said earlier, we've commemorated those who've opposed progress more than those who've advocated it.

Yes, I take the points about perhaps it's more dangerous to commemorate individuals, but when you think that we don't have a single statue of an individual woman in Wales, but we do have lots of statues of archetypal groups of women who are supposed to be representing, I think there's an interesting conversation to be had there. I will bring Bill in briefly, but we do need to move on to the next set of questions. Bill.

I didn't for a minute suggest that we shouldn't have statues of women along the lines of what Monumental Welsh Women are doing, et cetera. I fully support that. I did not, for one minute, think we should not have more. In fact, I am strongly—

Diolch yn fawr. Mick Antoniw.

Thank you for those comments. I was very interested in the comment about how we'd moved from class-based representations and statues to more personality based. I was a member of South Glamorgan council about 35 years ago when we decided to put the statue of Aneurin Bevan up in the centre of Cardiff. That was done specifically because there was concern that all you had actually mainly in Cardiff were royalty and coal owners. So, this debate has been around for quite a long time, and we've seen the controversy over, for example, the importance of the Newport Chartist mural and the representation there.

What I'm interested in, though, is this. We've heard today, obviously, the list of places and names and so on that Gaynor Legall has prepared, and we look forward with interest to see that. Councils and public bodies are, obviously, going to have to look at that list. We've talked about how we might present guidance as to how we deal with that, and that's the purpose of this inquiry. What do you think the role of councils should be? What do you think that sort of guidance might be, bearing in mind balancing the representation of community interest, the broader representation of some of these figures and how you deal with street names and building names? You mentioned Curzon. We've got a lot of Curzon clubs around Wales. How do you think councils should handle it? What would be helpful to public bodies that are going to have to look at these lists and decide what it is they're going to do with it?

Deian's showing to come in first. Thank you, Mick.

Thank you, Mick. I think that's an extremely interesting question, because, if you look around Wales, the number of streets named after local authority leaders is legion. That's the great thing. There's one war memorial, by the way, with no name of anybody who died, just the people, actually, who built it and people who were members of the council. So, I think there's an interesting question to be had there.

I think the problem there is, take, for example, Picton. There's something of the order of 110 Picton streets, and 46 in Wales, and Sir Thomas Picton, as you know, was a brutal governor of Trinidad and he actually ended up in court for cruelty. But then he died in Waterloo, which is why we remember him; so, in a sense, he rehabilitated himself. But if you changed all the names of Picton, you'd have to find 46 new names, and what's the Royal Mail going to do? I'm not being trivial here, but I think naming streets is a local authority issue—of course it is—and that is really for each local authority to come to a conclusion about it. But there is a practical issue attached to that, because that is an area where I do think local authorities and communities do have a major role to play, but, personally, I think they ought to name them after poets and animals and birds, and things, rather than—well, I was going to say politicians, but I wouldn't dare say that in this group of people.

I don't think anybody in this virtual room is particularly looking to have a street named after them. I think personally I'd be mortified. [Laughter.] Unless I was very long dead. Bill or Merfyn, do you want to come in on this? Merfyn.

Just a thought, really, that clearly local authorities should be critical in all of this. There really has to be local community involvement in discussions about all of this public commemoration. But just a thought, which is that at a very local level, of course, there are town and community councils, and I do wonder whether in fact perhaps they could be brought into this at that very local level, because at the end of the day, the statue or whatever it is, or plaque, is going to be—. I know they don't have the planning authorities and so on, that's at the county council level, but they should have, it seems to me, a critical local input into any of these decisions.

Can I follow on that and ask, do you think that there is an opportunity for a more open planning process with the naming of streets and naming of buildings, institutions and so on? In many ways, this has been something that's been left to a small group, as you say, of politicians—or planners, even—to decide what something should be called. But there are potential opportunities here for communities to have their mark on their community in planning processes, past and present and future.

I'll bring Bill in, and then I'll come back to Deian. Bill.

Yes. I would say the same about local authorities, but also of local and town councils as well, because as we know from the history of erecting plaques more recently in north-east Wales, there was a fair bit of contestation locally and controversy regarding that particular plaque. I would agree with that, but I think the ultimate thing is there has to be a general, as much as possible, consultation about this with the wider public, and with the possible minority groups that would be affected by these names. I think what I'm getting at, so as to not delay the time too much, is: we now call this 'public history', therefore, we need to consult the public, but we need to be sure that it is 'the' public in all its diversity, and not one group that pretends to speak for the public.

That's an interesting point. Deian.

I think the point I was trying to make in answer directly to Mick's question about streets and local authorities and the rest of it: it's easier to contemplate what you're going to call a street than actually what you're going to uncall a street, if you get my meaning. And I think that is really where you do need public consultation, even more than new streets. But my personal view, and I go back to what to what Merfyn said at the beginning: I'm rather agnostic, in fact, probably hostile to the idea of lots of commemorations, because of the dangers that are involved. And after all, let's face it: we now have other ways of finding out about these people. We've got the internet, we've got education. And goodness me, we need to look at the curriculum and make sure the curriculum actually reflects these things, because my goodness, the curriculum hasn't done a terribly good job in the past in recognising minorities or any of those things, so there's huge educational issue. But I would simply say: I think we've got to be very careful in actually deciding that we can't call something Picton or Kipling. Kipling—that's another one. He opposed women's rights as well. Or equally, if you want to add to the four Keir Hardie streets in Wales—only four, by the way, which is an interesting reflection.

Interestingly, I've been doing some work on Robert Owen and the idea of a Robert Owen day and, of course, he was opposed to universal suffrage as well, so there are challenges there. Could I just ask one question that just followed on from what Deian asked: what does this really say—this current debate we're having—about our education curriculum and the system in terms of our actual understanding of what some of these things represent, and is there a challenge there? Just to throw that one in.

I'll bring in Merfyn, and I can see Bill wants to come in as well.

It seems to me that the whole extraordinary explosion of protest and of discussion and debate that's happened on both sides of the Atlantic around Black Lives Matter show, for us in the countries of the United Kingdom, that we still, through education, through consciousness raising, through all the exercises and through politics, we still have not come to terms with the extraordinary impact of slavery and slave trading on the British economy, and the rise of Britain as a world power. We still can't quite swallow the fact of how critically important it was. If you look around—I'm sitting here in north Wales—if you look at the slate quarries in Penrhyn, they would not have been opened had Thomas Pennant not had a plantation in Jamaica. Jamaica was just critical to the rise of British economic power, and we still haven't quite come to terms with that, it seems to me. 

And the second—and equally important—is the empire, and how do we make sense of the fact that Britain, until very recently, was a huge world imperial power. Neither of those things, it seems to me, either in our politics or in our general discussion, have we really come to terms with. So, I think there is an important and critical point that Mick raises there.

Diolch. Bill.

Just to say briefly, then, I agree completely with that. I don't think we've come far enough yet in engaging with these uncomfortable and difficult issues, and I would—. I had written down to say at some point about the need that any discussion about statues and memorialisation should take place within the wider context of looking at what we say in the curriculum, and inclusivity in the curriculum as well. It sounds like some of this is starting to happen with the reviews as well, which is very welcome. But, I think, also, a consideration of—after all, for a younger generation coming through: what is the purpose of memorialisation? Who do they wish to have memorialised? 

Thank you. Mick, anything further from you?

No, I think I've explored that within the time we've got. Thank you.

Thank you. And we're doing pretty well for time, actually, so thank you, all, for your concise and very constructive evidence so far. David Melding.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I think, in the natural flow, the questions we were hoping to cover have been aptly discussed, but perhaps I can just probe on a couple of things. Most commemorations are contemporary decisions—not all, but the judgment of history, obviously, lies with austerity, and it then creates, often, this conflict. But we are kind of in this critical tension, I suppose, and I just wonder, if we were more used to considering our public spaces—and the major ones, I think, are particularly important for us to discuss, say, in Cardiff. But all settlements have prominent public spaces, and if we do use them in some form of commemoration, perhaps we should see that space as leasehold rather than freehold. I wonder if you think that might be a useful principle.

I can see Deian is amused by the thought. Would you like to respond to that?

Absolutely. I think you have a license to practise, so to speak, and you review it after so many years. Very useful for architects and sculptures—it keeps them in business totally because you would keep on coming back to them, saying, 'Can we have a new one?' I think of places like Lanzarote, where they have wonderful statues by one of their most famous artists, and they don't have anything else up, just these wonderful statues around the place. There is something to be said about public art, actually, replacing public statues, and actually that would be much, in my view, less contentious and much more creative than actually thinking of individuals, with all the risks attached.

George IV in Roman gear in central London—you know, I mean, what a ridiculous statue that is. I think David's idea of a licence, that should have been brought in a long time ago. But I thoroughly agree.

Just going to add to that, it hadn't occurred to me about the leasehold versus freehold idea, but I think it chimes in with something that I've been thinking along the lines of, which is the importance of having change and fluidity in sorts of public spaces. Again, it's a point I made earlier, and it's a pretty obvious one anyway, but many of these statues that we've inherited from the past are very large and very heavy, and they're immobile, and more importantly, they were meant to be so, which is part of the challenge that we have at the moment. But perhaps moving towards public spaces where a variety of different types of memorialisations could be used at various times, particularly using technology. After all, we have a range of technological ways of doing things now, which were never available to people in the past, and also that would give an opportunity to local community groups to offer their ideas of who should be commemorated at certain times. This is the sort of thing that's gone on by many local and social history museums, of course, and perhaps this is transferring this into the open air area, as opposed to inside. It is, as I said earlier, from what both Merfyn and Deian have said, now, about exploring public art as a way of commemorating, rather than life-size images of the people concerned—when we've rectified the imbalance, of course.

David, anything further?

Yes, I think, reflecting on Deian's outstanding work, I think we would all agree, in terms of the commemoration of the centenary of the first world war, and recently—well, this month—I think many of us watched the very moving footage of the unknown soldier, or warrior, as I think he's now referred to, being brought to Westminster abbey, and that centenary falls this year, I want to put a very specific case to you, really. Do you think, and how would you do it, that the South African war memorial in Cardiff should be contextualised? It's between the law courts and the city hall. It is, I think, one of the first memorials in Great Britain. I'm not sure if the Crimean war was commemorated in this way. But most people would probably classify that war as an imperial and aggressive war. It's a beautiful monument of real artistic merit, and it's integral to the whole concept of Cardiff's civic centre and what people were doing in that time. Would you, and how would you, contextualise that memorial?

Who would like to have a go at that? Deian, do you want to make a start, or Merfyn?

Can I thank you very much, David, for your very kind remarks and for your support, by the way, because Cymru'n Cofio was a community-based activity, as Carwyn will know? This was broadly based, and I think is an example of how you bring in different organisations to work together, with different standpoints, with different views, to actually collaborate together to produce something. I'm not so sure whether you can actually undo some of those things, to be honest, but I think it needs much more explanation.

Diolch. Merfyn.

Diolch yn fawr. Anything further from you, David?

Just one further point, and perhaps we could have quite a brief answer to this. I suppose we don't want to be iconoclastic either, and the one thing with most of these memorials is that they are in open spaces—not all; the statue of Picton, obviously isn't—and I presume that, if we do remove them, we should remove them somewhere. We don't lack open spaces to relocate them. Isn't that an important part of memorial—that we should remember the sort of figures and causes that past generations, or at least, the elite in those generations, wanted memorialised?

Would anyone like to respond to that? Bill.

That's what museums are for—put them in a museum.

We're running towards the end of time, but we've got a couple of questions that I'd like to bring Carwyn Jones in on, and if we go over by a few minutes, that's not too bad. Carwyn.

Deian.

Bill.

It's impact that actually is felt, and if it's a long-enduring impact, and people say, warts and all, this is actually the impact somebody had in society, and we explain it—that, I think, is a better test.

Mick wants to come in briefly, and then I'll come back to Carwyn, and we'll have to wrap the session up fairly soon. Mick.

It's following on from the international example. You mentioned eastern Europe and, of course, the statues of Lenin and so on. As a regular visitor to Ukraine, you can see how divisive statues were, because statues and these things were used very, very politically. So, you've got to be careful about taking the international examples that reflect those particular politics. It's the same with Spain; we see now, in terms of the legacy of the Spanish civil war, Franco's tomb and so on, and, interestingly, in Madrid a while back, the statues that were put up to commemorate Franco have had the markings taken away—so they're there, but it's almost as though they've been concealed. But I'm just wondering if you can help us on this. One of the things that seem to go to the core of this debate, rather than the complexities of it, is that what we all do seem to want to see is, within our public spaces, things that reflect diversity, justice, equality and community in some ways. So, do you think that perhaps the lesson we can learn, whether it be internationally or locally, is that the starting point is, really, some of those common principles that, probably, we would all buy into, and that's the basis of a sort of framework, or the start of a sort of framework that we might develop?

Would anyone like to respond to that? I can see some nods. Bill.

Just a brief comment; I'd agree with that.

I would agree with that as well, and I can't remember whether you included artistic value or art in that list or not, but I certainly think we ought to consider public art as having greater impact, perhaps, these days than statues.

As to lines, I'm not sure that there is a line to be drawn. Like Bill, I would agree that that is a line to be drawn by the community generally, holding a serious discussion about values. Virtually all heroes have feet of—is it of dust or of sand? They're very dangerous things to erect. And David Lloyd George, surely, he's there in Caernarfon and Cardiff because of his extraordinary contribution to British politics and to Wales, but, of course, there would be many, many people who would have disagreed not only with him over the South African war, which he opposed, but the first world war and, in particular, the partition of Ireland. So, there are all sorts of reasons why one should disagree with him, but that doesn't mean that you can't recognise the huge significance of this individual. But he is virtually on a different planet, in a sense, compared to most of the statues we have in Wales. 

I'm going to need to bring this to an end shortly. I'll give you a chance to come back in a moment, Deian, but I just want to see if Carwyn's got anything further to ask.

Just simply to say that I'm not suggesting that these statues, of course, should be removed. I'm just illustrating how difficult it is. In my household, my wife's from Belfast, so her view of Lloyd George would be less than favourable—don't start on Cromwell. I suspect, really, that when we look at the removal of statues—and Deian mentioned Nelson's column—we wouldn't want to adopt the statue removal process that was adopted for Nelson's column in Dublin. 

Deian, you wanted to come back in briefly before we—.

I simply wanted to say I think the lesson of all this—and can I thank you very much for enabling us to actually voice historical opinions, which is not often the case in modern society? They seem to regard us as largely marginal. I think the important thing is to recognise that, when we go forward as opposed to going backwards, going back and doing the past is one thing, but I think we should now learn to be extraordinarily careful, and maybe, given the kind of technology we have, we don't need statues at all.

Slightly controversially from the Chair, I think it's easy to say that if you're a white, middle-class man. It's a bit more difficult to say that if you're a woman in Wales when we haven't got even one of a named person yet. 

I'll make that exception.

I am teasing slightly. 

It's a fair point. 

If you'd like to introduce yourself. 

Good morning, all. My name is Abu-Bakr. I'm a historian, a social scientist and an educational consultant who works in and around Wales. 

Croeso. A very warm welcome. Simon John. 

Good morning. I'm a member of the history department at Swansea University. I'm currently working on a historical project on the creation of statues in the nineteenth century, focusing in particular on Belgium, and with that in mind, I've got an eye on the debates surrounding issues of colonialism and remembering colonialism and—[Inaudible.]—in Belgium today. 

Thank you. Martin Johnes.

Martin Johnes, I'm a professor of Welsh history at Swansea University. 

A really warm welcome to the three of you. We're very grateful indeed for your time this morning, and I'll bring in John Griffiths with the first set of questions. 

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. I wonder if I could begin by seeking your views as to what principles public authorities should use when deciding who should be commemorated in public spaces. In our terms of reference, we point to possible factors, such as the historical significance of the person; their continuing influence; their national impact; their impact on their particular field; how that person was viewed at the time; whether it's a good example to people today; and also the architectural significance of the monument and the impact on minority groups and views of the act of commemoration. So, those are the sorts of factors that we've set out for consultation responses, but I'd be very interested in your views as to what really should guide our public authorities. Who would like to get us under way with a response? Simon John. 

Sure. I think, probably, the points I'll raise will echo the ones that were made in the first session by the witnesses there, which is to say that, on the one hand, the wider framework that we're talking about here is one in which history is a narrative that's constantly changing. So, the heroes that were revered in the nineteenth century and who were the subject of statues created then are not necessarily going to inspire the same feelings today.

So, as complicated as those questions are and as complicated as the answers have to be as a result, what we have to recognise, I think, is that it's a constantly shifting process and we'll never reach a definitive permanent conclusion, but rather a temporary one that constantly needs refining and adjustment, in line with our own changing values, ideas and expectations. 

Thank you. Abu-Bakr. 

I think it's important for us to look at these things from a historical perspective. I feel if statues are going to be used within public spaces, they need to reflect the true reality of many of these individuals. So, with Picton, for instance, we're aware of the atrocities that he conducted in Trinidad. This was very much well known amongst the people of Trinidad, the black community. And, unfortunately, when this statute was erected, there were close relationships with the Caribbean islands, as an example, and, unfortunately, at the time, many of the colonisers and colonialists, or the merchants or the planters never believed that we were going to have full integration, not just in the Caribbean islands, but that we were actually going to be asked to come over here to labour and to try to be integrated into society. And I feel that if monuments are erected after our presence in this country, to rebuild the country or rebuild the mother country, then those sensitivities should have been ironed out first and foremost, in order to allow us to integrate more effectively with the dominant culture, in a way that less contention would take place over the years. 

Some of the principles that should be recognised for the future are to look at the moral compass that was used. Unfortunately, the moral compass that was used in the 1700s and 1800s was mainly the Spanish magistrates system and the British colonial system. But there was also a religious significance as well, because many of these people who were planters and merchants were religious, and they all memorised, to a large extent, the 10 commandments. And, unfortunately, if you're going to use that as the high standard of moral—'Thou shall not steal' and 'Thou shall not commit adultery'— which many of these individuals did, not only were they going against their religious beliefs, with the sanction of royalty because many of them were royal, many of them were given titles of 'Sir', they were knighted, et cetera.

So, it looked like the authorities of the country at the time, whether they were religious aristocracy, you know, the higher echelon, were trying to bypass the true atrocities in which these individuals were truly engaged, because, at that moment in time, we were referred to as 'contrabands' or 'merchandise'. And rather than calling them slave traders, you were calling them merchants. So, there's a sense of displacement within history.

So, I think we need to look at that, and look at the true narrative. If monuments and statutes are going to be erected, let's give a two-sided story aspect. It's unfortunate that history has an element of this shame, especially when we move from one era to another, especially with values, morals and customs and norms. And I feel that, if that is reflected within the construction of the statutes and they are contextualised, or if they're going to remain, they're recontextualised with a true narrative, and it is taught in school, and it's something that is remembered, I think that's displaying a fairer and more reasonable aspect of history. 

That's helpful. And we'll come back to some of these questions about contextualisation and whether we should remove monuments, or whether we should leave them where they are and give them context. We'll come on to some more of that in a bit. Martin. 

So, we're talking about public authorities and their responsibilities. And, in some ways, over this, that falls into two categories. There are future decisions about erecting new memorialisations of the past and there's dealing with the existing memorialisations that have been passed down to us, and they're very different things.

Personally, I think it would be very difficult to come up with any set criteria that could be applied across the board. If we're talking about historical significance, that's up for debate. And, actually, many people who did morally evil things are still historically significant, and, in many ways, their evilness is what makes them significant. So, whatever criteria you come up with, there's going to be debate, as we've said. Those terms are controversial and they're political and people will interpret them differently. 

But, ultimately, I don't think that this is really public authorities' responsibility to take the lead on this. Public authorities are there to serve communities. The Senedd is there to serve the people of Wales. And it's really up for the people of Wales to decide what they want remembering and who they want remembering. Personally, I would tackle this on a case-by-case basis. If there are individual statutes or the names of streets that offend people in those communities, then, absolutely, public authorities should take that into account, and act on what their communities want. But, if no-one's complaining about something, and often, people don't know what is being memorialised—. If you take something like the Picton memorial in Carmarthen, I saw that every week of my life and I had no idea what it was; I didn't know who Picton was. It was a great big obelisk. And for the people in that community, it's part of the landscape, it's not necessarily about Picton. So, removing things that might offend people can actually set back the cause, and actually, sometimes these things can be used as sparking debate and sparking knowledge, rather than having some blanket rule that ends up actually dividing society.

Thank you, that's helpful. John.

I'm interested in whether there might be fixed criteria to use as a guide in these matters, similar to those that apply—the concept that applies for listed buildings. From what Martin has just said, I take it that he wouldn't be largely in favour of that, but I wonder if any of the witnesses would support that sort of approach.

No, I agree with Martin. I think with each statue, monument, memorial, I think we're talking about a cultural artefact that needs to be dealt with on its own merits. We can talk about a broad framework that might be appropriate to apply, so a process where you identify the stakeholders, the people involved on the—[Inaudible.]—level, the community—the people to whom the monument is intended to speak, to whom it's directed. Then you've got the local authorities, and then, thirdly, the Senedd. And a dialogue between those three levels, perhaps with the Senedd directing, framing a conversation. But I totally agree with this point that, ultimately, monuments are directed towards the people, and it's the people they serve who should have the strongest voice in terms of how you deal with a monument that's controversial, problematic.

Abu-Bakr.

I think with—what do you call it now—what Simon was saying about a broad framework, that needs to be put in place to some degree. But Martin is right—I agree with Martin. I think each statue or street name or building, whatever the case may be, needs to have a separate discussion, with the public, and with people who may be against most of those things, to get a clearer picture.

There has to be an idiosyncratic method, with each and every individual thing. Because like—I think it was what Martin who was saying—looking at the individual merits and looking at the positives and negatives, and what we are trying to convey in each of those statues. Because the reality is, as Martin was saying earlier, a lot of the statues that are around, from his personal experience, the people who live in those areas or work in those areas don't even know what they're supposed to represent. And there's this sort of acceptance of this statue as being part of the public landscape, but not really looking at the different kinds of atrocities that may have occurred, which in today's society, would not be acceptable.

So there has to be a revision, some form of revisionism, when we're looking at these types of things, whether it's every two years or five years or 10 years. Because morals and values and customs do change—they're never fixed, they will always shift, depending on the change in social trends and social dynamics.

Thank you. Anything further from you, John?

No, that's fine, thank you, Cadeirydd.

Thank you. Mick Antoniw.

What I'd like to particularly ask about is the process for this. Because a comment was made in terms of what Wales wants to present, and so on, but in some cases, it's often what does it represent for a community, and so on. Now, one of the issues that I think emerged from the situation in Bristol—and again with Picton in Cardiff—is that people had raised it in the past, it had been the subject of discussion, but there seemed to be no mechanism for a response. So, it wasn't really until statues started being pulled down that people started saying, 'Well, hang on a second—[Inaudible.]—yes, perhaps we should be doing something, et cetera'. So, the fact is that the debate is there, and I think there's a greater realisation.

But how should—what do you think would be of benefit to a process? What sort of process should there be? How might it engage with communities, and so on? Because I think there'll probably be common agreement that the last thing you want is anyone or everyone going and deciding, 'I'm going to get rid of this statue, I'm going to get rid of that', or whatever. There needs to be some basis for these things being done, some principles, and so on. I wonder if you could give us any clear ideas as to how you think that might work, I suppose recognising the fact that the system up to now has failed, to some extent, and that what we're now looking at is addressing that failure and putting it within a—looking at a mechanism for trying to look to the future.

Martin, did you want to start?

The mechanisms do exist to remove things that are in public ownership. The law didn't change to allow Cardiff city council to remove that statue. They simply acted upon what was happening in current politics. They almost had their hands forced. What we maybe need to do is to look at how our local authorities and our national authorities engage with communities: are they open enough? Are they listening when people approach them? And, often, that's not the case. Often, people feel their voice won't be listened to—there's no point contacting their MS or their councillor. So, there's a cultural thing, I think, in our national institutions and in our local councils—that they need to listen to communities.

There's also an issue here: communities need to understand what's on their own doorstep and part of the problem is that people don't understand the history of their nation, the history of their communities or the history of the people being represented, and that comes down to education. And if we want people to learn about the history of slavery, we should put it in the national curriculum, and we should require every school in Wales to teach these things. And it's from that and from using education to encourage people to ask questions and to think about these things, and then you encourage them to talk to their local representatives about what to do about these things. But unless people understand the basic issue, nothing's actually going to happen.

Thank you. Abu-Bakr, do you want to come in on this one?

Yes. I do agree that there needs to be more engagement with communities. I know, especially within Wales or within Britain, there's a class distinction, so when the echelon or the aristocracy want to put something in a public space that they don't frequent or where they don't attend, it's literally forced upon the people to try to deal with that. And there's a sense of ignoring what has literally been said before it's been erected. Once it's erected and there's controversy to it being placed in a public place, the authorities that were behind it being situated or stationed in that public place seem to want to reject or deny what's actually coming out.

So, if you look at the Colston thing for instance as an example, with it being pulled down, we need to look at some contemporary issues. That was done mainly by white people. This is the first thing. So, they themselves felt a little bit, maybe ashamed in terms of a response. Because I do know, personally in Bristol, there have been debates with the local councils and with heritage—and all these other types of organisations in order for it to come down. And the local people of Bristol were not listened to. This is the thing—they were just not listened to. And many of the people in those seats of position were either voted in by them or whatever the case may be. So, there needs to be more moral responsibility taken by people who are put in those positions. And if they're in the position of responsibility, they need to be in the position of accountably as well, not brushing it to one side.

Listen to the voice of the people because we know that things always change—things are never fixed; they always shift. And we need to try to understand the modern or the contemporary narrative that has taken place amongst local communities, to listen attentively and to make those adjustments and changes where necessary, in order for vandalism, which took place with Colston, not to happen again, which was a global phenomenon—this was seen worldwide. So, it really embarrassed Britain, in a sense.

And I think that's part of why we're trying to have this conversation as a committee and trying to lead a national conversation about this, so that, instead of people getting so angry that they react, we try and have a discussion and try and have some sort of framework for that discussion. Simon, did you want to come in on this?

Thank you. So, with the point about engaging communities—speaking to communities—I think we can take that point and see it from the other side of the coin, so to speak. So, it's not just about speaking to communities to deal with problematic, controversial monuments; it's that same process to, as Martin put it, see who gets memorialised by us. So, it's actually correct—it's been pointed out several times—that Wales has very few statues of women and none, as yet, of a single named woman. That's about to change with the inauguration of the Betty Campbell statue in Cardiff, which, originally was due this year, but I think, thanks to coronavirus, has been delayed until next year. 

This is an opportunity. As far as I know, this statue is the result of a private campaign group that secured the funding, that organised the vote that ultimately saw Betty Campbell selected to be the subject. But there's an opportunity there for that statue to be a conduit of attention in the efforts that Wales is making to rectify some of these oversights—some of these inequalities of history. So, this was a campaign group. I think it was called 'Hidden Heroines' or the vote asked people to choose between five women, of which one got a statue. There are still four on that list, who could have a statue. So, I think it's about engaging people with what happened and moving forward as well. Speaking to this community, it's not just about what comes down, but what goes up, and how that might reflect what we want, as a society, to literally put on a pedestal and demonstrate about ourselves. 

Thank you. Mick. 

Yes, just to follow through, then, on that, because we've got to come up with some sort of viewpoint and recommendations at some stage, we have the past, of course, we have the future. Now, our planning processes—. I accept what is said, in terms of 'Well, powers are there', but, of course, it's how those powers actually get engaged within a whole plethora of things that people and representatives have to deal with. I remember there was a time within planning where, if there was a development, a certain percentage of the cost of that development, for example, had to go into works of art, and I think that was quite successful in the 1970s and 1980s. I'm just wondering whether there should be some clearer guidance in planning processes and so on that would require engagement with the community and perhaps the sort of principles it might reflect upon. And I wonder if you could take that and, then, just also take it in the context of changes that have taken place with the national curriculum, and the opportunity to really represent within our national curriculum the debate we've been having, which is about how we actually represent the history of communities and peoples, and how the two might actually work together. I'm just wondering what your thoughts might be on that. 

Abu-Bakr, do you want to make a start on this one for us?

Yes, well, clearer guidance. I think there needs to be a marrying or synthesis of the educational system reflecting these individuals. So, as an example, many of the statues or street names et cetera—what has basically come around within Wales over the last 100 years or so—they definitely need to be put into the curriculum. So, the local people know exactly what's happening, they can reflect on the historical legacy and they can see how that has some sort of  significance with who they are, what they are and where they are. That certainly needs to be done. And I think if heritage foundations and museums et cetera, who are a level of authority when it comes to these different things—. Then, the educational system needs to be a recipient of all these different narratives, in order for the youth or the children who become adults—that they're not ignorant about their past.

And this is one of the unfortunate things. The majority of the people didn't know what Picton did. They didn't even know about Picton. So, who was it really and truly representing? Was it representing the working class of this country, who were the majority when it came to the abolition of the slave trade and slavery, who did more for humanity than the aristocracy and the higher echelons of this country? I think their voices—the working class voices of this community who were looking for change or who felt an element of empathy with what was taking place in the Caribbean islands—need to be reflected before any decision making, and, obviously, if that additional narrative is put into the mix, then, that narrative is actually not just situated, but is also taught within the educational system throughout Wales. 

Thank you. Simon, do you want to come in on this? And, then, I'll bring in Martin. 

Very briefly, just to say that the statues and the memorials matter, but not to be reductive. A lump of bronze or a lump of stone in and of itself is not what matters, it's the ideas that it was created to represent, and it's the ability of onlookers to interpret those ideas that's the issue. So, just to really underline that I fully agree with what Abu-Bakr has said, and I think what Martin will say. In order to deal with this process as a whole, it's not just about dealing with the monuments, it's about dealing with what history is taught and the tools that people are given to make sense of them. 

Martin, you've already touched, briefly, on the curriculum points. Can I bring you in here?

Yes. I'm all for more public art, more public memorialisation, but what's holding that back is not planning law—what's holding it back is money. If the Senedd wants to see a statue, then it doesn't need to change the planning laws—it needs to pay for it.

But, ultimately, it does all come down to education and teaching people about things that happened and teaching people to ask questions and to think about the connections between the past and the present. We are in the middle of redesigning the national curriculum, but we're doing it in a way that empowers schools and individual teachers to essentially teach what they want within a very broad framework of principles, and one of those principles is about encouraging an understanding of diversity. But I am concerned that doesn't go far enough, and if there are certain things that happened in our collective past that we want every child in Wales to know, the only way to ensure that is to put it on the national curriculum, and we have shied away from doing that.

Thank you. Anything further from you, Mick?

No, no. I'm grateful for those comments. They're helpful in the perspective that we're trying to develop, I think.

Thank you. David Melding.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I think it's fair to infer from all the witnesses we've had in both sessions this morning that no-one is really in favour of destroying memorials and statues as some sort of great iconoclastic movement, and Abu-Bakr, I thought, was very interesting, what he said about the Colston statue in Bristol, which was vandalised for reasons, I think, most people would understand, but, obviously, it was a very uncontrolled process. When memorials are at least considered problematic, if not totally inappropriate, we're left with, I suppose, a decision to contextualise them and leave them where they are, or to move them somewhere. I just wonder what you think we should do in that respect. And I suppose here, although I think very relevant things have been said about education and the curriculum, that very apt side, but I suppose we've got to try to contextualise them in the immediate environment as well, and, obviously, most of us are well beyond school age. How do we do that?

Simon, do you want to start us on this?

Thank you, I will. This is where I can draw in what I've seen happening in Belgium as well to speak directly to this issue. So, I think—and this was something that was mentioned in the first panel as well—one solution that's been put forward in some instances is: okay, when you have a problematic monument, pack it up and move it to a museum. In the case of Picton, just across the road to the national museum, that's an option. What closer study, what closer critical analysis of this—particularly in the Belgian context—would show is that this just moves the problem to a different place. It doesn't solve it. So, museums themselves, they're not neutral, unreflective institutions; they have political agendas to fulfil as well.

A case in point is that, in central Brussels, there's a 100-year-old museum devoted to the Belgian colonialist experience in Africa, and for a long time, this was a museum intended to justify and legitimise that experience. It's only in the past few years that the authorities in Belgium have started to say, 'Well, actually, this museum in itself needs to be decolonised.' So, I sense the relocation-to-a-museum solution might seem, on the face of it, to be a good and appropriate proceeding. In fact, I think what you're doing is you're deferring the debate—you're parking it in a different location.

The same, to some extent, applies to contextualisation. Adding a plaque that explains who the person—if it's a controversial figure—was; what they did that might be considered positive; what might be considered negative—again, this is a subjective process where things are up for debate. Do you say that Picton was a heroic warrior first or do you say he was a slave trader first? It comes down to that level. So, just to flag up, I'm not offering any easy solutions for any particular monument, and again I'd emphasise each monument deserves to be considered on its own merits. But, just to emphasise that each step and each solution offers pitfalls in terms of how you actually apply this process of contextualisation.

Can I just clarify—? I think those are very new nuanced remarks and important ones. But, there is a criterion, isn't there, that someone is in a very prominent public space, and removing a memorial to a place like a sculpture park that contains many other sculptures or a place that's not in the central part of town or whatever—. It's not complete and it does remove your problem, but it does ensure that that commemoration is not in one of the most conspicuous public places.

Exactly. So, I think the statue draws its power, in part, from the historical traditions that it embodies and also its engagement with its physical surroundings, to say nothing of its cultural, political surroundings. So, actually, if, by moving a statue from the centre of the city to the outskirts, to a park, you're reducing that kind of dialogue that feeds into the offence that it might give to some groups, potentially, that would be one solution. And I think the example of Budapest and the elephant's graveyard of Stalins and Lenins was mentioned earlier this morning as an example of statues that have been rendered inoffensive because they've almost become quaint in a setting like that.

Thank you. Martin, and then I'll come to Abu-Bakr. Martin?

I think most historians are very easy about the concept of destroying things from the past. We knock down historical buildings all the time; we throw away a lot of things from the past. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with a statue being removed and destroyed—not kept, but just destroyed—if that is what the local community wants.

I think it's the right thing for Cardiff city council to take down the statue of Thomas Picton. If we're moving it, then you have to ask: why—what's the point of moving it? What's the point of putting it in a museum or another public place? Because you don't need to keep a statue to remember something, to memorialise something or to understand something. That's not how history works. The only kind of reason for maybe keeping a statue and moving it to a museum would be its kind of artistic merits. And museums struggle with finances, they struggle with space; most museum exhibits, most things that museums own are not on public display; they're in storage. So, for me, if we take down a statue because communities are offended by it, unless it has some great artistic merit in itself, is there anything wrong with just getting rid of it?

That's an interesting question. Abu-Bakr.

I think if we we're looking at monuments, whether to destroy or we're looking to save them, I think the story needs to be told, irrespective of whether it's positive or negative; it needs to be told. Does it need to be told physically? And if so, if it's told physically, what things can we do to enhance its visibility? And I really feel that from today, if things like booklets or pamphlets, if any other statues are going to be erected, in a sense, in order for this not to be a debate again in a hundred years' time, I think if we can actually put into motion, you know, books or pamphlets for children and for adults to explain the significance of them, what they did, and why they are there, I think that's being more honest. And I think when people—from an artistic perspective, if people are creating these statues, et cetera, as an aesthetic meaning, does that aesthetic meaning, which may be glamorising the individual, is it going to downplay the elements of atrocities that are taking place?

So, I think we have to come from all the different directions here, but I think more of a concentration on realistic narratives, because I think it needs to be taught. It's not a beautiful past, we have to acknowledge that. And if these individuals have done some positive things, we also need to bring into the narrative the negative things they did and the reason why we feel, as a community, or an ethnic group or a racial group, or a nation, why we feel that these people need to be represented, whether it's in public places, or public spaces, or in places like museums. And I think, probably, that's the way forward. But I think more of a debate with communities is probably the best way forward, I think. I'm a historian, yes; I don't have all the answers. And getting answers from other people in localities, et cetera, can actually synthesise a much better understanding, so that we're not repeating the errors of the past. 

Thank you. David.

I think that covers what I wanted. I combined the two points, really, in one. I think we had very lucid answers a good range of evidence and some difference of opinion, which is very helpful. 

Thank you, David. Carwyn Jones.

Thank you, Chair. I've just got one question, really. One of the issues that I'm trying to deal with is where do you draw the line, and what criteria do you use in deciding whether a statue should remain or not? Now, I know this is not an easy question, but I'd be interested in the views of our witnesses. There are some people who, by the judgment of any generation, should not have had a statue made of them, and that, perhaps, is one of the easier cases, but how do we judge people who, by the standards of their day, would have been seen as upright citizens, but wouldn't by the standards of today? So, there are some issues, such as involvement of the slave trade, which are wrong at any stage in history. But, what do you think we should be looking at in terms of deciding what sort of criteria should be used in order for a statue to remain or not?

Who'd like to start? Martin.

Across Wales, we have a couple of statues of a man who committed ethnic cleansing; there's a pub named after him in Cardiff; there's a university named after him in Wales. Owain Glyndŵr means lots of different things. Coming up with criteria is never going to be simple, because there will be people who are just up for debate, and you could easily see that Owain Glyndŵr would fall foul of any criteria about humanity or elements like that.

I just don't think you can come up with any criteria on this, full stop, and the best thing to do is respond to local communities. If there are local communities who feel uncomfortable by local representation, then councils and local authorities should listen to them. If nobody is complaining about a person or a street name or a statue, in a way, I would just leave it there, because the answers to these criteria will change over time. You can put something in writing now, but in 10 years' time, how people interpret those criteria will change. In a hundred years' time, we'll all be condemned for our stance, or about what we haven't done about global warming. And are they going to rip down every statue of us because we did nothing to save the planet, and passed on an ecological wreck to them? The point I'm trying to make is that these things are not straightforward, and if you create criteria, you create traps for yourself that will just lead down rabbit holes and will move away from the basic thing that we want to do, which is promote social justice and promote an understanding of the past.

Abu-Bakr.

About drawing a line, I really don't know how to answer that, you know, because I have to look at myself as an ethnic minority or minority group, et cetera. I'm a third generation, who was born in this country. So, for me, I'm not here to try to impose upon the dominant culture what they should do or shouldn't do. However, if it affects me, socially or historically, then I should have the say, but I'm not here to upset people of dominant culture, because they have produced heroes. Most of the heroes or sheroes they've produced have not been angels in the past, so that needs to be acknowledged and recognised.

I think that we need to carry out the debate; the debates need to be ongoing. That's one thing that needs to happen. But the other thing that we need to, maybe, predict is: do we need statues? This is the first thing. Do we really need them? And if not, maybe we can put the information of this within the curriculum or within another discursive circle. That might be another alternative. We may not need the statues, so that might be a way of trying to reduce tension amongst people.

The other thing is, if we are going to erect statues, et cetera, statues are known to be vandalised, and they're vandalised in public property et cetera. Whether these people are good or bad people, it is still vandalism. And, unfortunately, what took place, I was quite disgusted, as a minority group. Even though I'm a historian, I may not agree with what Colston did, but he is a figure in England or in Bristol. And the reality was—. I saw where people were roping up to to pull the statue of Colston down, and the people who were put in a position of authority, which were the police, were standing and watching what was happening, okay. We know that if this was a minority group that had done exactly the same thing, the narrative and the outcome would have been different. So, we're now looking at white privilege, et cetera.

So, the reality of what I want to emphasise about this, you know, is that we want to reduce vandalism, we want to reduce contention and tension amongst people, amongst the next generation, and to tell the truth, there's not a straightforward answer. Because like what Martin was saying, in 10 years' time or 100 years' time, we might be erected or whatever the case may be—what type of condemnation is going to come from that particular generation? So, it's not really a straight answer. It's not really a straight answer, so I hope I've answered your question.

Yes, thank you. Simon.

Just before I take the point about the possible set of criteria, I just want to build exactly on what Abu-Bakr said, and really emphasise that I think there is an opportunity for a process of education here. So, taking a particular monument, a particular statue, and using it as a test case for how can we contextualise this in a way that brings attention to a particular figure, or set of figures, because I think the city hall statues would be a good test case. So, we know that that includes Picton, but the other 10 figures—Martin's already mentioned Owain Glyndŵr—there are other figures who, when viewed from a certain perspective, give rise to questions about why they actually stand there. So, Gerald of Wales, a twelfth century churchman and writer, wrote a number of works and in many of them, he was very critical of Wales and its inhabitants, so you start to wonder why we have the statue of this figure. 

But to go back to the point about criteria, I agree: there's no obvious set of criteria that you can draw to work out a set moment when a particular monument needs to be taken away. All I would say is that when you look at something like what happened in Bristol in the summer, you know that in some scenarios, things have got too far. What can prevent that from happening, what can prevent that kind of pent-up frustration with a particular example from reaching such a point, is, I think, if a process is clearer to a community of people about how they register their discontent, their dissatisfaction, or the offence that they take from particular monuments.

So, making the process for starting a conversation clearer, I think, is one way to go, but also making people feel that that process can have meaningful results and that it won't be brushed under the carpet, which I think was the case in Bristol for many years. The local council there did have representations that never amounted to any intervention in any way. If you had this process, it could have the ultimate result of starting a meaningful conversation that questions why a statue of, let's say, Owain Glyndŵr, needs to stay where it is.

Martin, do you want to come in on that?

Just to add very quickly, what happened in Bristol happened because the local authority did not respond, over a whole series of years, to responses from the local community to do something about it and to reinterpret it. Maybe the best thing that can come out of this is instructions to local authorities that history is controversial and it is emotional, and people's daily lives are affected by the way that their history and our collective history is presented, and if a complaint is made to a local or national authority, it should be taken seriously and listened to. That doesn't mean that it has to be acted upon, because people will complain about all kinds of different things, but authorities have to listen.

That's an interesting point. Anything further from you, Carwyn?

Can I come back on that? That's an interesting point. I take Martin's point that authorities need to listen. I don't suppose this is a question you can really answer, but at what point do you get to a position where the numbers of complaints are at such a level that action has to be taken? I know that Martin's not saying that if one person complains then clearly there's an issue there or that something has to be done about it, but I suppose the difficulty is in trying to work out at which point the weight of complaints becomes such that there needs to be action.

Exactly, but isn't that the whole issue with democracy? Every time the Senedd receives a petition, it makes a decision on what to do about it, and there are thresholds about what creates debates et cetera. These are qualitative judgments, and sometimes, actually, just one person complaining might actually encourage others to think about these things. One of the best things that's come out of all of this is the debate about the past, and a growing understanding of Wales's relationship with, say, slavery. And just debating these things can actually encourage public education and public knowledge, and that in itself is surely a good thing.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you. I think that's a good point at which to bring this session to an end. We're only a little bit over time. So, thank you very much to the three witnesses for your contributions. If there's anything further that you want to add—. We will, of course, send you a transcript of the discussion so that you can ensure that we've recorded what you've said correctly, but if, for example, receiving that transcript makes you think, 'I wish I'd said that', or 'I'd have liked to have come back on that', then please, any further information that you want to give, any further—. Because these are such big complex issues and three quarters of an hour, an hour isn't long to discuss them, but I think we've covered some really useful ground. If there's anything further you'd want to add, we'd be really pleased to hear from you, which I know, as a trained historian myself, is a dangerous thing to say to historians, because you could get inundated. [Laughter.]

But thank you very much indeed, all three of you, for your time. As I think David Melding said, we've had really good evidence this morning, and a good place to start. I wanted to respond early to a point that Abu-Bakr made: nobody's got all the answers to this, that's why we're having to have the conversation, and I guess, as Martin has said, having the conversation is part of a valuable process in itself. So, I thank our witnesses very much indeed.

So, if we can bring you back at half past, and if we can suspend the broadcast now for the break, please.

So, if I can ask Richard Suggett first of all to introduce himself.

I'll start. My name is Richard Suggett, and I'm an architectural historian. I work for the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, based in Aberystwyth. The royal commission is the national body of survey and record for the historic environment. We maintain a database of historic sites, and from this database we know that there are some 40 prominent statues in Wales, well over 300 memorials—principally war memorials—and innumerable plaques and inscriptions that show that the people of Wales are very much involved in the process of commemorating people and events.

Thank you, Richard. James January-McCann.

I don't know who'd like to start with that. Richard, do you want to make a start with that?

Yes. As I said, we've got a lot of information on memorials of different sorts: I mentioned statues, prominent statues erected in the nineteenth century, often listed; war memorials as well; and public art. Some of these memorials are the subject of separate databases. War memorials are covered by the Imperial War Museum's database, and there is a database of public memorials too. But, by and large, we try and collect as much information as we can.

There is a visibility problem. Prominent memorial statues are listed, and we have that information as a matter of course, but there are many monuments that aren't listed, are barely visible. In Aberystwyth, for example, there must be a hundred different monuments of different sorts, principally inscriptions and memorials, some very interesting indeed. Across Wales, there will be many thousands of inscriptions and plaques that have very little visibility outside their community, and it's very desirable that they are actually put on our database. Thank you.

I think that's probably a question for James.

James.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I would be interested in your views as to what principles public authorities ought to follow in deciding who should be commemorated in public spaces. In our consultation, we set out some of the factors that might be involved, such as historical significance of a person, their continued influence, their national impact, impact in their particular field of activity, how the person was viewed at the time, whether they would set a good example to people today, architectural significance and also the impact on minority groups and what the views would be of the act of commemoration. So, we've set out what, perhaps, some of the broad parameters might be, but I'd be interested in any views you have in terms of how public authorities ought to decide these matters.

I'd be happy to answer this. I did hear this historians in the first session just talking about the difficulty of defining the criteria. There are guidelines out there. There are not very many, but there are some. I think the most influential have been the guidelines for the famous London blue plaques, and the criteria were set down, really, over 70 years ago by the Greater London Council, the GLC, and it's been taken over by English Heritage. The system is quite interesting. I think the first thing to say is that it's a bottom-up system, it's not top-down. Suggestions are invited from the public and there's a very simple online form to fill in if you want to make a nomination. And the criteria are relatively clear. There are three or four principal criteria. One is that the person nominated has to be reasonably well known, has to have some sort of public profile, public presence. The second one is really very interesting, and that is the person nominated has to have made a contribution to the well-being and happiness of the public. That's a very interesting one. And thirdly, the person nominated has to have made some achievement in his or her own field.

Now, they do rule out some categories. They're against tokenism. The person nominated has to make an achievement in his or her own field. They don't allow nominations of fictitious people, so no Sherlock Holmes or Professor Moriarty or Doctor Dolittle. Also, they require that the person nominated has to have been dead for about 20 years, just to allow the dust to settle and to see if anything nasty has emerged in the meantime. Then the nominations go to a panel. The panel is composed of historians rather like the historians that you've seen in the first and second sessions. The historians sift the applications and then further research is required to firm them up, and within two years a plaque can be awarded.

So, I think to summarise, the process is bottom-up, there are quite clear criteria, and it's fairly speedy. Two years in planning terms is speedy.

John.

That's very interesting, Richard. One question that I raised with previous witnesses, you may have heard, was whether there should be fixed criteria similar to those that apply to listed buildings, for example, to guide decisions. In terms of what you just mentioned, or indeed any other criteria, would you be in favour of that sort of fixed criteria system?

I do think there can be guidelines, and the blue plaque guidelines work very well. I think most of us can take those on board, and they are pretty flexible. But more than that, there has been a change in public memorials since the war, and there's an additional criterion now, or an additional aspect of memorials, which is very difficult to pin down as a criterion, and that is that quite a lot of memorials, public inscriptions, now seek to right wrongs. That's a new development.

If I may, I'd like to give just a couple of examples. In Aberystwyth, where I live, in 2017 a memorial was erected by the town council to Professor Hermann Ethé. Professor Ethé was a professor of German and oriental languages in Aberystwyth. He was a German national, and at the start of the war, a hostile crowd, egged on by some pretty respectable people, ran him out of town. They marched on his house and he was given an ultimatum: 'Either leave town or we'll demolish your house brick by brick'. He left town and died in Bristol a few years later a broken man. A hundred years later, the town council erected this tablet to his memory. It's trilingual—German, English and Welsh—and the point of the memorial is two lines, which say that the town hopes that no person will ever be subject to the sort of persecution in Aberystwyth that Hermann Ethé endured. So, that's a purely local example, and a very good example, of the way plaques now seek to right wrongs. 

But a more international aspect of this are the famous stumbling stones in Germany. These are little raised pebbles set in the pavement, set outside the houses of people who were killed by the Nazis. They're set outside the houses they last lived in, and they're slightly raised so you have to notice them, you have to avoid them, you have to actually bend down and look at them. They record the name—that's very important; they're remembering a person—and dates of the person who last lived in that house who was killed by the Nazis. There are some 70,000 of these, an enormous number, and they've spread throughout Germany and right across parts of Europe. They're the largest decentralised monument in the world. So, that's a really interesting aspect of the way modern memorials seek to confront the past, seek to right wrongs.  

Thank you, Richard. I'm just conscious that we've got quite a lot of questions we'd like to get through, so if we can try to keep our questions and answers fairly tight. Anything further from you, John Griffiths?

No, that's fine, then, Cadeirydd. Diolch yn fawr. 

Thank you. Diolch yn fawr. Mick Antoniw. 

Thank you, Cadeirydd. Just a few questions, really, about how we go about this. Because obviously, one of the things we want to do is to try and bring things together into some sort of framework or mechanism for constructively tackling all these complex issues we've been discussing. Part of the suggestion you've made is in respect of examples for future monuments and recognitions, and so on, and you've also talked about how you correct some of the issues of the past, but what about the sort of processes that should be involved in looking at monuments and places that already exist, that already have the associations, et cetera? How should we actually engage and deal with those? Do you have any particular views as to how we might constructively approach that? 

I think one has to say it's consultation, consultation, consultation. As a previous witness said in the last session, the great lesson of the Colston statue incident was, as Marvin Rees, the remarkable mayor of Bristol said, people had been petitioning the council for a long time about the future of the Colston monument and had been pushed from committee to committee. So, direct action in the end wasn't a surprise. But, as Marvin Rees has said, the demolition of the Colston statue isn't the end of the process, it's actually the start of the process, and now a very interesting forum has been convened called We Are Bristol and it'll discuss questions of identity and history. So, always consultation. Decisions can be quite rapid in the end. I think the decision by Cardiff council to remove the statue of Picton is a very interesting one, but here there is a process that will be gone through. I think the statue is now boxed in and they will have to go through a listed building consent process in which people can engage. But it is always consultation, and if you don't have consultation, as the Newport Chartist memorial saga showed, there will be problems. 

Thank you. Mick. 

Just to follow on, then, do you think there should be some engagement in terms of the curriculum? We've been talking a lot about the teaching of Welsh history and community history within our curriculum, and of course a lot of the issues that are emerging are from the fact that people, quite often, don't actually know or it isn't actually taught. So, in terms of this consultation process, do you think there is an opportunity that emerges for the way we teach about our communities and our past history that might be relevant to any decision-making process or framework we might be looking at?

I think Martin Johnes put it very well when he said that there is certainly scope in the curriculum for discussion about colonialism and slavery. But I think, more broadly, public engagement means some sort of public debate, and that's what's happening in Bristol in the We Are Bristol movement. Public memorials do, or can, form a focus of debate. Once it's pointed out that a person commemorated may be controversial, then people do engage with that. So, yes, not simply in the curriculum, but outside the curriculum too. 

Thank you. Anything to add, James? 

Anything further from you, Mick?

Just one point. In terms of the criteria that you were referring to with the GLC, which I thought were really quite interesting—well known and made a contribution to well-being and happiness—do you think that that might provide a framework for, also, the consultation or engagement where issues on existing memorials are actually raised? It probably need to be expanded a little bit, and maybe might need to have criteria with regard to, I suppose, the well-being or the historical relevance et cetera, but I'm just wondering if you think that there is the potential for perhaps a set of principles that would underlie consideration of these issues. Or would that be too difficult to do?

I think it would be difficult, but I do think that the GLC criterion on the contribution to well-being and happiness, however defined, is an intriguing and challenging one, and I think it could be profitably adopted. 

I'd just make one comment on that, which is, of course, when we look at past criteria of what is acceptable et cetera, if you take 1960s and 1970s television, I think most of us are absolutely appalled when we see some of the sorts of stuff that used to appear and the attitudes. Now, times change and everything else, but it does seem to me—and I'd just like to push you on this one point—that there should be some common principles that underlie, in terms of diversity and equality and justice and so on, that would at least provide the framework for the start of any discussion or consultation. Would that help?

Yes, I think justice and diversity are very important principles. But I think the GLC have been quite careful not to be accused of tokenism. The people who are commemorated have to have achieved real things in their life. They're real people who've actually achieved things. 

Of course, the GLC was abolished, wasn't it? We're talking about the Greater London Authority. 

[Laughter.] Yes, I have to say. The successor administrator is English Heritage, yes indeed. 

But the criteria have survived. Thank you.

The criteria have indeed survived, and they've been there in place with very little tinkering for 70 years. They're simple and they're straightforward, easy to understand, and, as I said, it's a bottom-up process, by and large. 

Thank you. 

Thank you. We are getting close to the end of time. Can I just ask the witnesses: are you able to stay on for a few minutes if we need to run this session over a bit?

Yes, of course. 

Yes.

Is that okay? It's not always possible because people have other commitments. I thank Mick for his questions, and then turn to David Melding.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I presume the royal commission works on the presumption that monuments should be preserved. So, I just wondered what your view is on how probably many monuments over time need to be contextualised in their actual environment, and whether you have any particular approaches here. 

The royal commission works on the basis that we actually record monuments. Monuments do move about and we note that, but the context is, of course, important. And there's been a lot of discussion this morning about the recontextualising of monuments and, yes, that is very important. And that's not only in relation to statues of figures who have become controversial, like Stanley. The famous statue of Stanley in Denbigh shows him extending his hand, saying, 'Dr Livingstone, I presume'—a very famous moment in nineteenth century history. But I think it has been recontextualised now with the discussion of Stanley's role in the Congo in relation to Leopold. 

But, much more broadly, talking about monuments broadly defined, I think it's important to note that the National Trust have just issued a really interesting interim report on their properties in England and Wales and their connection with slavery and colonialism. And in Wales, the key sites—crowd-pullers—that they've identified as connected with the empire are, of course, Chirk castle, Erddig, Powis castle, of course, and Penrhyn castle. And the National Trust will be going through a process of recontextualising, which will, of course, be reflected in our record. We're waiting for the reports behind this interim report so that they can be referenced in our record.

Historic buildings do have these associations and, wherever there are historic buildings, there are challenges. And of course, in the United States, Monticello, the home of Jefferson, is exactly the point—Jefferson, the man who wrote 'all men are created equal', was a slave owner, and that's the challenge of interpretation in Monticello.

Thank you.

James, have you anything to add?

No.

Diolch. Thank you. Anything further from you, Mick—David, sorry?

I just wonder, then, if you have any views on removing statues and memorials from their—

Yes.

—[Inaudible.]—anyway when originally unveiled and that, and whether there are any issues there about how we should go about that. Because I think that most people feel that monuments should be preserved—not everyone; we have had one witness say, 'Well, there isn't an obligation to do that.' One can think of some historical figures, and you mentioned Germany earlier, where, clearly, a thorough process of elimination would probably be in everyone's interest. But I just wonder if you've got any views on removal and to where they might be removed that still—[Inaudible.]

Okay, yes. Well, as I emphasise, the commission is a recording body. I have personal views; I don't think the commission has an official view about where a monument should be removed to. But, yes, I think previous witnesses have spoken about the way in which statues have been retired to parks in Budapest and elsewhere, and, of course, that's happened in India with imperial statues. It's very moving, apparently, to see these imperial statues in parks. And I think, despite the problems that Simon mentioned earlier, museums are the appropriate place for removed monuments.

I'm not in favour of destroying monuments. I think erasing the past—it's better to engage with these objects, rather than destroy them. I just want to mention, really, that monuments—we think of monuments being destroyed because of their disturbing, unpleasant and so on associations, but we seem to forget, and often planners forget, that, in fact, some monuments are really well loved. I just return to the Newport Chartist monument. That was removed—destroyed, in fact—without proper public consultation. People really liked that monument—a huge mural in a very undistinguished pedestrian underpass. And it was a mosaic, full of detail, and the detail drew you in, and you were forced to contemplate the monument. That was, really, removed without proper public consultation, and there was a public outcry, and eventually, as I understand it, a motion was passed in the council regretting the decision to destroy the monument without proper public consultation, a committee or trust was formed, and a new monument has been commissioned. So, not all monuments that are removed are monuments that are hated—some are liked.

That's, of course, a very important point. Anything further?

Thank you. David, anything further?

No.

Thank you. So, if I can turn to—

The real question I have, Chair, is this idea of how do we draw the line in terms of who should be commemorated and who shouldn't be, really. Is there any official guidance at all from the witnesses' perspective, or any guidance they're aware of that already exists in order to help us in that regard?

Richard.

No. There's no official guidance. But there is the experience of other countries, which has been mentioned by other witnesses. I think the main point that has emerged from recent debates is that—. Well, I think I'd just like to draw attention to a recent book by Susan Neiman, and it's called Learning from the Germans, a sort of provocative title, really. Anyway, she discusses how Germany has come to terms with its militaristic past, and removed, destroyed, all the monuments relating to the Nazi era, but, in their place, created a lot of memorials to those who were victims of the Nazi regime, quite a lot of them in Berlin. But her main point is that to move forward you have to confront the shames of the past. That's her big point. And I think, in that context, if we're talking about this country, I think we have to confront the experience of colonialism and slavery and its memorialisation. That's like the key problem, and it's one that other witnesses have referred to.

Diolch. Anything further from you, Carwyn?

No, thanks, Chair.

Just before I bring the session to a close—Richard, this is a particularly targeted question at you—would you see—? Thinking about those blue plaque guidelines, could they be used to contribute to a framework to look back at people who are already commemorated and consider whether we should continue to commemorate them?

An interesting question.

A kind of retrofitting.

Yes. That's a very interesting question, and I think the answer is 'yes'. These have been—. They're simple criteria, but they're enduring criteria. So, yes, they could be used in that way.

Accepting, obviously, that what we believe contributes to people's happiness now may be slightly different to what people would have believed 70 years ago, when the criteria were—

Absolutely. That's the historian's point. Yes, indeed, yes.

Thank you.

Any points that you haven't had a chance to make?

Anything further you'd like to add, Richard, just before we bring this session to an end?

Nothing further, I think.

If I can ask the broadcasters to bring to broadcast to an end and confirm to us when we are in private session. Thank you.