First it was Oliver Dowden, arts minister, threatening last summer to cut off funding to arts organisations.  This week it’s Robert Jenrick, communities and local government minister, announcing heavy-handed plans to protect England's 12,000 historic statues from what he sees as criminal acts and mob rule. 

"We cannot, and should not, now try to edit or censor our past", he said in statement to the Commons.  "That's why I am changing the law to protect historic monuments and ensure we don't repeat the errors of previous generations". 

Or does he mean, protect the government's own view on preserving historical falsehoods?

His solution?  In future, the removal of any historic statue, plaque, memorial or monument, even on a temporary basis, requires full planning consent.  All unlisted as well as listed heritage assets are wrapped up in this new legislation, which becomes law in the Spring. Even smaller memorial items like plaques, which don’t meet the current size threshold, will be included.

So determined is this government to hang on to their own singular vision of Britain's past, the Minister insists he will override the advice of any local authority applying to remove a contentious statue - even after a full, public consultation elects it should be retained.

Not surprisingly, many in the heritage and planning communities are enraged. 

To me, both statements seem ominous and unwelcome interventions by central government. Are Whitehall ministers really better placed than local officials to 'retain and explain' if a statue or monument should remain on its plinth? Are they more informed and experienced in local and national heritage affairs they can dictate ethics and curatorial integrity to town halls, college governing bodies and local communities?

Some have accused the government of inciting this culture war to deflect attention from its own mis-handling of the Covid pandemic. Focus on the pandemic, they argue, and leave the administration of local heritage assets to the professionals.

When it comes to handling legacies of colonialism and slavery, Parliament is clearly failing to keep pace with this country’s changing mood. Despite plenty of good examples of emerging best practice up and down the country, it seems unwilling to listen and learn from decolonising initiatives already underway.

Take the Black Lives Matter movement, which is making such a seismic impact on museums and doing so much to expose structural racism.  Aware of the public’s agitation with racist memorials and a discernible shift in public sentiment, the movement has motivated councillors, museum trustees and colleges to reverse years of inaction and indifference.  At last they are starting to consult on race, diversity and decolonisation.

Whitehall ministers should recognise and welcome this momentum, not seek to ignore and legislate against it. Local consultation is critical, as Jenrick espouses in his new regulations, but so is being prepared to act on the results of that consultation. 

Will he veto, for example, the City of London Corporation's consultation on removing or re-labelling every monument in the Square Mile with links to slavery?  It attracted over 1,500 public responses.  Or ignore the long-mooted review of the Cecil Rhodes legacy at Oriel College, Oxford, which is expected to recommend the removal of his controversial statue from outside the college entrance.  Will the Minister once again ignore it’s findings as well as public opinion?

Before introducing impractical legislation, the minister should push aside his feelings about the uncomfortable felling of the slaver Edward Colston’s statue into Bristol harbour and test the nation’s wider appetite for new, corrective histories…. as they’re about to do in Scotland.

In September, Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, stole a lead on England by committing the Scottish government to sponsor an independent group that will recommend how to recognise and represent their colonial and slavery history. As planning is a devolved issue, Scotland are able to ignore Jenrick’s new regulations and implement whatever future policy they see as more appropriate.

This announcement followed news that Glasgow City Council has commissioned a detailed audit of all  historical bequests to their City. Their aim is to identify every statue with an historical link to slavery, as well as every monument, plaque, street name and building with slavery connections.

Jenrick might also reflect on the work completed by the National Trust, an organisation not exactly known for leading from the front or charting new directions. 

Recognising a need to explain the complex histories of those who built, owned and lived in properties under their stewardship, last summer the Trust published their own report into colonialism and slavery. It was no knee-jerk reaction to BLM (it took over 12 years to research). Instead, it mapped out future plans to start removing (or returning) statues and other items visitors consider are racially sensitive – and, perhaps, keeping visitors away. Is the Minister prepared to overrule the National Trust, an independent charity with its own governance arrangements?

Both Dowden and Jenrick are running dangerously close to ignoring the changing tide of public opinion. They are also at risk of compromising the duty of curators, charity trustees and other independent governing bodies who must listen and act on the views of their communities. 

Decolonisation is not about rewriting history. It's a continuous process to uncover and better understand the full and complex stories that are often left untold. It is these stories and not a government directive that should inform whether it’s right that a statue commemorating a shameful history should remain in place or not.

Photo: Edward Colston statue toppled

Courtesy of The Telegraph

After this was written.....

Three days after Jenrick made his statement, the City of London Corporation announced the re-siting of two statues of prominent City figures with links to slavery: William Beckford and Sir John Cass.  Both statues currently stand in the Corporation's Grade One-listed Guildhall headquarters.  The recommendation to remove the statues was made by the Corporation's Tackling Racism Taskforce, whose co-Chair, Caroline Addy, said, "The slave trade is a stain on our history and putting those who profited from it literally on a pedestal is something that has no place in a modern, diverse City".  In the light of Jenrick's statement, the Corporation has said they'll look closely at the new legislation to ensure they comply.