To hear questions from councillors of which due notice has been given.
Minutes:
(1) Councillor Paul Spooner asked the Lead Councillor for Environment, Councillor James Steel the following question:
“On 20 July 2020, Councillor James Steel in a Guildford Lib Dems Press Release stated that he was pleased to announce a project to decolonise Guildford Borough Council’s historic collections. He referenced a strategy timespan of 2020-2024 and stated that this was the top priority for GBC Heritage service to achieve over that period.
The stated process (apparently after discussion and agreement with the GBC leadership) is to:
1) Look at where each item came from
2) How each item was obtained
3) Whether the item should be sent back to place of origin to be displayed in their museums
4) For what remains after 3), write ups within the context of Britain’s colonial history
The reason for the decision to decolonise the collection is given as being ‘coupled’ with the Black Lives Matter movement.
I therefore ask the Lead Councillor for Environment:
(1) why he believes that he has a mandate for decolonising the Guildford collection without any discussion within the wider Council, any motion or policy being presented at Executive or to Full Council
(2) why no consultation has taken place to affirm that this is the will of the wider community
(3) confirmation that the leadership at GBC are now ‘coupled’ with the Black Lives Movement and advise the Council what the partnership means, what are the desired outcomes for the whole community and whether Black Lives Matter takes precedence over All Lives Matter in this context?
(4) An explanation as to how the Leadership team are going to define ‘colonisation’ in relation to history?”
The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:
“(1) The Heritage Service has put together an ambitious action plan ‘Heritage Forward Plan’ which is required by the Arts Council to ensure we have an accredited museum and embed best practice in managing our museum in which decolonisation is one of those action points. Decolonisation is a contemporary museum issue and one that all museums are now being asked to address. New guidance is currently being written by sector bodies such as the Museums Association to support museums in tackling this issue. In September 2019, a delegation was agreed by the Executive to the Director of Environment in consultation with myself to sign off the forward plan which was due to be submitted in April 2020; however, the Arts Council has delayed this by a year due to Covid. However, given the range of actions which the service wishes to conduct and my wish to have this on public display, the forward plan will be coming to the Executive for discussion and approval at some point in the Autumn as well as other matters in relation to the museum especially the NHLF withdrawing all funding bids across the country (apologies if this was not made clear in my article and has hence been corrected).
(2) We will be talking to and consulting with relevant museum and heritage stakeholders such as the Council’s own Museum Working Group, the Heritage Forum and Friends of Guildford Museum on the Heritage Forward Plan in due course. On a national scale we would be following the guidance of the Arts Council England, the Museums Association, and other professional organisations. The Museums Association is drawing up decolonisation guidance and checklists for museums to follow. The cultural and heritage sector is now taking the issue of decolonisation very seriously and we may find that when funding bodies such as NLHF and ACE relaunch their funding streams post Covid, that there is an emphasis on projects that address decolonisation and democratisation of collections. Therefore, we would put ourselves in a good position for future fundraising by being proactive on this matter. We are aware of some work that has been done in the past (2007) by the service in checking connections to our colonial past; however, we should not remain complacent about the matter and we need to reach out to minority groups as part of the process of displaying the various narratives objects can tell.
(3) I will take this question and answer in two parts. First there seems to be a misunderstanding on the term ‘coupled’ in relation to my article. The term was used to bring together sources of information, in this instance the murder of George Floyd, the protests happening throughout Western society and the Black Lives Matter movement. It wasnot a reference to a coupling of organisations such as the ‘coupling’ Guildford has with Freiburg. Decolonisation practice in museums has been happening for a couple of years now and the action to ‘decolonise’ the collections was in the Forward Plan before the Black Lives Matter protests. The public response to the recent Black Lives Matter protests has been a catalyst to push decolonisation up the agenda.
Second, I find it troubling that the leader of the Conservative Independent Group would want to push the term ‘All Lives Matter’. The usage of this type of language is incredibly dangerous as it completely dismisses the persecution and discrimination faced by ethnic minorities within and outside the borough of Guildford on a daily basis. I must add that I’m a straight white man and do not speak on behalf of the ethnic monitories of Guildford or beyond.
(4) I fail to see the connection between the Executive’s view on what is meant by colonisation and the work that will be conducted. Defining decolonisation is a matter of international debate and discussion and we will take our lead from professional bodies.
Decolonisation as a framework for re-evaluation of museum collections, has only recently entered contemporary museum practice, with the recent think piece by the Museums Association entitled ‘Empowering Collections’ recommending “a proactive approach to the democratisation and decolonisation of museums (Museums Association, 2019).” Case studies of decolonisation in museum practice have tended to focus on ethnographic collections; however, it is a useful framework to reflect on any group of people considered ‘other’ to the dominant narrative.
For a museum without ethnographic collections (such as Guildford museum) the process of democratisation and decolonisation would involve recognising potential and unconscious bias in the collections and then seeking evidence, objects and testimonies that tell alternative narratives. These might include histories of people with disabilities, women, working class people, people who identify as LGBTQ or people with BAME heritage.
The Forward Plan states an aspiration to decolonise the collections but the process is yet to be defined. It is likely that we will start by creating a decolonisation strategy or policy, linked to a research strategy, and based on museum sector best practice guidance. Decolonisation is likely to be an ongoing process that will happen via a series of smaller research projects. These will include consultation and collaboration with stakeholders and communities and may result in an exhibition or redisplay of a section of the museum.
Executive approval could be considered for any items that it might be felt should be repatriated or subject to restitution. There are strict guidelines and practice regarding the process for disposal, including for repatriation. Any objects proposed for repatriation would be subject to the policies and processes set out in the museum’s Collections Development Policy. Ethical guidance on disposal including repatriation is provided by the Museums Association Code of Ethics.”
Councillor James Steel
Lead Councillor for Environment
In response to a supplementary question from Councillor Spooner, in which he asked the Lead Councillor:
(a) whether the decolonisation work would apply not only to the museum collections but also to all heritage assets; and
(b) whether ethnic minorities were all black
the Lead Councillor confirmed in relation to (a) that the scope of the work would be defined in due course, but the crux would be based around the collections and the Museum project. In relation to (b), the Lead Councillor would respond by email.
Councillor Susan Parker asked a supplementary question to enquire whether, in view of comments in the press suggesting that the Museum collections were essentially local with very few relics of colonialism, and given the current crisis, the completion of an inventory of artefacts was appropriate?
The Lead Councillor responded by stating that the Arts Council England and other government bodies had drawn up checklists around decolonisation projects and where we want the museum to be placed to ensure that we keep up with the trends and ethics being promoted by these national bodies around museums.
Councillor George Potter asked a supplementary question to enquire whether
(a) the digital cataloguing of the museum collections an ongoing task, and if so whether the decolonisation work will be done as part of an existing exercise and
(b) the Lead Councillor was aware of the work done on Surrey local history in respect of the numerous links of several prominent local families to the slave trade.
Councillor James Walsh asked a supplementary question to enquire as to what wider consultations would be carried out in respect of this exercise.
The Lead Councillor responded by quoting from Tristam Hunt from the V&A Museum:
‘The arguments against
decolonisation seem to be: that
it’s not a nuanced approach - but the purpose of decolonising
is to add depth, breadth and new knowledge to collections; and that
it’s rewriting history. Reality check - this is what museums
and historians do all the time.
To decolonise is to add
context that has been deliberately ignored and stripped away over
generations. There are many examples of the misrepresentation of
objects in museum displays that have only been corrected after
dialogue with source communities. And there are countless instances
where interpretation still needs to be rectified and stories
freshly told.
It’s easy to
dither and defend the status quo but it is far more challenging and
rewarding to tackle these issues. The question for me is not why
should we rethink these collections and our relationships with
source communities, but can we afford not
to?’
Councillor Maddy Redpath asked a supplementary question to enquire as to whether councillors will, in future, be informed about initiatives by email before they are brought into the public domain rather than via the Liberal Democrats’ website.
The Lead Councillor responded by stating that he had apologised to the R4GV group leader, Councillor Joss Bigmore for the manner by which this announcement had been made, but had agreed with him the steps to be taken.
(2) Councillor George Potterasked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Reeves, the following question:
“Does the Council Leader agree that proposals to create a single, Surrey-wide unitary authority are incompatible with the principles of localism and could jeopardise our excellent COVID-19 response and public services? Will she agree to urgently investigate alternative options for unitary authorities, and the timing of a reorganisation, that may be more advantageous to our residents and our borough?”
The Leader of the Council’s response was as follows:
“At our regular Surrey Leaders meeting on 17 July we discussed the proposal by Surrey County Council to create a single unitary authority, outlined in an email each leader received on Tuesday 14 July. There was agreement that it was very unfortunate that the leader of Surrey County Council did not consult with any of the borough and district leaders before announcing the plan, in spite of having explained it to all the Surrey MPs.
The general opinion of the borough and district leaders was that a single unitary authority would be too large and would have a detrimental impact on the social cohesion of the communities within each of the boroughs and districts. Furthermore, the poor timing of the SCC proposals takes the focus away from the need to ensure that we continue to work in partnership with SCC and others to support our communities and businesses in recovering from the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The majority of Borough and District Leaders agreed to send a letter to the Secretary of State to voice our concern, and that leaders and the relevant chief executives would work together to put forward alternative proposals. A copy of the letter is appended to this Order Paper. A contribution of £10,000 from each authority was suggested by the relevant leaders as an appropriate contribution from each relevant authority to commission the work looking at this further. The final amounts, and the scale of the required work, is still under consideration but it would still be preferable if Surrey County Council could work with us and be open to exploring further options.
I understand that not all councillors at this authority disagree with the approach of a single unitary, however the majority do favour a unitary arrangement (more than one unitary council in the county) to replace Surrey County Council and the 11 boroughs and districts. We have heard some suggested timescales coming out of Surrey County Council (that do need to be confirmed by SCC) with submission of a full business case/proposal in September 2020, ‘consult’ November/December 2020, shadow councils in April/May 2021 and implement in 2022.
The key concern is there has been no consultation with us, and it leaves very little time for the relevant Boroughs and Districts to work up agreed alternative proposals for the Government to consider. My suggestion is that when the government White Paper has been published, we convene an extraordinary council meeting to discuss the way forward, if there is one.
As you all know, County Council elections are planned for May 2021 and we need to have some guidance about whether this process will be affected by this unitary discussion. I will update Councillors as soon as I know. Whilst we all understand the arguments about efficiency and clarity in relation to the unitary agenda generally, the omission of consultation with us, and the residents and businesses who will be most impacted, indicates a total lack of respect for local democracy and has not assisted in allowing balanced and inclusive discussion”.
Leader of the Council
In response to a supplementary question from Councillor Potter regarding the point at which an extraordinary Council would be convened, the Leader confirmed that the position was currently uncertain but that as soon as we have sufficient information to enable the Council to debate the matter, an extraordinary meeting would be called.