The guidance that was released earlier today is to be welcomed, where I'm sure the Deputy Minister sought to provide clarity for public bodies, such as local authorities, to understand better the issues of public commemorations. Can I also associate myself with your remarks in particular about who is missing, because I think that is an entirely valid and fair point? I think non-white people publicly commemorated in Wales, women and people who have had disabilities, are very, very difficult to find. So, I totally agree with your sentiment there as well.

First of all, though, I'd like to reiterate that all these decisions are taken in the round, and to make sure that there is not a one-size-fits-all attitude to installing or even removing existing commemorations. This brings me on to the point of what may be termed 'problematic individuals' in the guidance. In other words, monuments to people whose actions have today caused controversy. Obviously, that's an issue that arouses strong passions on all sides. Instead of removing or destroying monuments and artwork of people who would perhaps now be seen by some as having a negative background, this could be seen instead, as you mentioned, as an opportunity to add an additional piece of context to educate the public about the full background of the person involved, giving both the problematic details and the reasons why they are commemorated as well.

Of course, a balanced view of the history of these people will add to public knowledge and our own historical understanding too. However, that should never take the form of cultural vandalism or tearing down or destroying of historical memory. It's often been said that those who forget the past are the ones doomed to repeat it. In events like the toppling the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol and the boarding up of the statue of Thomas Picton, we can see that turning historical monuments into a reference point for US-style identity politics is a road that only leads to division. What we need to make sure is that these decisions are all taken at a local level with clear guidance, as I hope we've seen the pathway towards today, to make sure that it is not just one specific group or viewpoint that feeds into the decision makers at the expense and sacrifice of others. Therefore, what considerations have you given, Deputy Minister, to this, and how do you intend on ensuring that all views are heard when it comes to future commemorations?

I also wanted just to touch, briefly, on the tragic passing of Her late Majesty. During the period of mourning, we've seen a variety of moving monuments and memorials being laid to pay tribute to our longest serving monarch, and that's often been done collaboratively between local residents and councils. As the faces of our new King gradually begins to appear on our currency, I think it's important that we make sure that there are permanent, lasting dedications as well to our late Queen. As is rightly pointed out in the guidance that was issued today, public commemorations are created for a range of purposes and done with honourable intentions. So, we need to make sure that we don't look at everything in the past through a twenty-first century lens, but with the ideas and thoughts of today, so that we can educate the next generations on our history, and not try to rewrite it.

I am concerned, though, in the guidance, about the wording surrounding military figures, where it's also suggested that they too are seen as problematic, as some may remember 'the casualties of their campaigns'. These are people who, on the whole, have served on behalf of our country and did so with honour and merit. They don't deserve a potential opening of this can of worms by guidance, not clearly stated, that those who served our country to defend our freedoms that we cherish so dearly today could, potentially, find themselves disgraced or vilified just for following orders that were set for them at the time to defend our freedoms and serve our country.

In the 'principles and practice' part of the guidance, while it's noted and accepted that inclusive decision making hears and acts upon the experience of diverse communities, again, I'd like to reiterate the point that we don't have the same people time and again making the same decisions on every plaque, every monument, and every commemoration. A breadth of diversity, voices and perspective is crucial in decision making too. And I accept the fact that engagement is going to be vital through all these processes. As an example of this, in the planning process that is being deployed by local councils, these processes could have the opportunity to enrich communities, social cohesion and interested views by bring all viewpoints together with a shared objective of ensuring their community is heard through education and information. I've no doubt that there will be strong views on all sides, regardless of what type of commemorations that are put forward in the future, but we need to ensure that we don't sacrifice the views of one community in favour of another, which could in turn cause further divisions within those communities. Therefore, my final question would be: given the finely balanced approach needed to ensure no community is left behind, what further engagement work could you be doing, Minister, with stakeholders to provide an opportunity for all communities to involve themselves in this process? Thank you.