Debate contribution: Decolonisation of Museum Collections and Repatriation of Artefacts

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 20 May 2025.

MLA

Mr Gordon Lyons

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

20 May 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Decolonisation of Museum Collections and Repatriation of Artefacts

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4963944

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion on the decolonisation of museum collections and the repatriation of artefacts. Museums are in the unique position of holding collections through which they can tell the stories of the past in order to engage, educate and inspire. Those stories can cross traditional, cultural and societal divides to bring people together over shared histories, but, equally importantly, they can facilitate difficult discussions and debates. I am aware of the live issues that face our museums regarding the ethics of some of the collections that they hold and the challenges that they face in taking responsibility for the future of those objects. I have seen, at first hand, the work that museums can do to bring people from different cultural backgrounds together, both at home, where National Museums NI engages marginalised communities through the Global Voices Local Choices project, and, in the United States, with the work of Lonnie Bunch, the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. In recognition of the important role that museums play in our society, a new museums policy is a central plank in the heritage, culture and creativity programme that I established last summer. I expect that policy to be ready by the end of the year. My intention is to support the work of our culture and heritage institutions and communities and to help protect and promote our tangible and intangible cultural heritage. This debate centres on collections. Our museums hold some extraordinary items. Those collections and markers of our past are not just the preserve of the great collections at National Museum Northern Ireland sites; they are held elsewhere in Northern Ireland as well. The collections are not just about holding objects from the past; they are about collecting, preserving and telling stories about how we came to be here and about the influences that, for good or ill, have helped to shape where we are, how we live today and how we regard and understand each other. I have concerns about the motion, not because I dismiss the value of cultural sensitivity or the ethical stewardship of museum collections, but because of what I have seen of the so-called decolonisation agenda that other Members have presented today. That leads me to believe that, perhaps, this is less about justice and more about a politically motivated, anti-British campaign. Let us consider the practical implications of the motion. It encourages museums to cooperate:

"with requests for the repatriation of art and artefacts".

On the surface, that seems reasonable. The motion cites the return of human remains to Hawaii as a success, and I do not dispute the moral case for doing that — few would. However, let us be clear: that is a narrow example that is being used to justify a much broader agenda. Moreover, who decides what gets repatriated? The vague call to cooperate with requests opens the door to endless demands, often from groups with tenuous claims to ownership. Many artefacts were legally acquired through trade, gifts or salvage. Others come from regions where modern nation states did not exist at the time of acquisition. The logic of decolonisation, as presented today, unravels when applied consistently, and it becomes a Pandora's box of competing claims driven not by ethics but by political pressure.

I am happy to give way to the Member.

I do not agree with the Member's comment, because he is treating every artefact that did not originate in this place in the same way. That is simply not the case. Had the Member been listening to what I have just said, he would have realised that the artefacts and items in our collections come from many different places and were acquired by different means. Am I opposed to having the conversations and making sure that we do this in a sensible and appropriate way? No. Absolutely, that should be the case. In opposing the motion, I do not advocate a whitewashing of history. Museums should engage with communities, acknowledge contested provenance and present balanced narratives, but they must do so without succumbing to a politicised agenda that distorts the past to serve present-day ideologies. The Inclusive Global Histories exhibition, for example, could be a platform for dialogue in the same way that National Museums Northern Ireland, through its Troubles and Beyond exhibition, has commanded respect from all sides of the community. That respect has been won not by rewriting history or sanitising our past but by telling the truth and being honest about our past. Many listening will think that Sinn Féin has an absolute brass neck with the comments that its members have made. They talk about the need to tell the truth of the past; the need to be honest about the past and the hurt that has been inflicted on communities. It is beyond parody to hear words such as those from the Members opposite. I hope that they take time to reflect on some of the hurt that has been caused across Northern Ireland by those whom they have associated themselves with in the past. Let us protect our museums in Northern Ireland as places of learning, not propaganda. Let us celebrate our shared heritage, not dismantle it. Let us preserve the mutual respect for National Museums NI. Let us ensure that decolonisation does not simply become code for an anti-British movement, dressed up as a virtue that seeks to divide rather than to unite. We in Northern Ireland deserve better. That is why the amendment in the name of Mr Beattie goes some way to preventing some of the harm that might otherwise be caused by the motion and those who are behind it. I will happily accept the motion, but I will not support it unamended.

965 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Qualifying Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:32 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification