Comment DBCC-4375

Good morning,

I would like to offer comments for the consultation on the Proposed New Constituencies: Provisional Recommendations (d34hss7hg6i3n.cloudfront.net).

Bangor Aberconwy Ynys Môn
Section 1.2 of the consultation document states: “The UK Parliamentary constituency of Ynys Môn only has road connections to the mainland via the Bangor Aberconwy UK Parliamentary constituency. The act states that the Commission must create constituencies that are contiguous.”

I believe that the Commission has interpreted this duty in the Act (namely that the constituencies that are combined must be “contiguous”) too rigidly, especially considering that the constituency in question is an island. I feel that the Commission has interpreted this duty to mean that a major road must connect any two constituencies that are ‘combined’. As a result, this limits the options available in terms of combining Ynys Môn with the only constituency that includes a bridge over to the island (namely the constituency of Bangor Aberconwy). By interpreting the “contiguity” duty more broadly, I believe that the Commission would have the choice and freedom to combine Ynys Môn with the constituency of Dwyfor Meirionnydd as well. This constituency also ‘borders’ Anglesey. Furthermore, it is a constituency that suits Ynys Môn much better than Bangor Aberconwy, especially considering the other statutory factors outlined in the document.

If Ynys Môn cannot be combined with the constituency of Dwyfor Meirionnydd, consideration should be given to renaming the constituency “Menai Ynys Môn” (or a similar name that uses the word “Menai”). Using the word “Menai” would convey the fact that the constituency is a combination of both the island and mainland bridged by the Menai Strait.

Alyn, Deeside and Wrexham

There is no obvious reason why the monolingual name “Alun” should not be used as recommended by the Welsh Language Commissioner. The name “Alun” should be adopted in the Welsh and English names.

Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr

Combining Ynys Môn with Dwyfor Meirionnydd should be reconsidered, taking into account my comments that the Commission is able to combine the two areas by interpreting the “contiguity” requirement more broadly. At the moment, this constituency is far too large and combines areas that aren’t in line with the statutory factors outlined in the document (e.g. local ties).

With regard to the name, the name “Gwynedd” should be considered instead of “Dwyfor Meirionnydd”, as the name “Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr” is a mouthful – almost as huge as the constituency itself!

Carmarthenshire
The monolingual name “Sir Gâr” should be given to this constituency. It is a well-known name for the area in both languages and is shorter than “Carmarthenshire”. Using “Sir Gâr” would also avoid the need for separate names in Welsh and English.

Giving a monolingual Welsh name would also contribute to the principle that the use of the Welsh language should be promoted and facilitated in Wales, in accordance with the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. Having an English name (Carmarthenshire) would work against this principle.

Merthyr Tydfil, Aberdare and Pontypridd
Consideration should be given to using the Welsh spelling “Merthyr Tudful” in both languages. This will ensure that there are no unnecessary differences between the Welsh and English versions of the name, especially as only two letters distinguish between the two versions.

Cardiff West, South and Penarth
The placement of the word “South” is awkward and therefore the name should be reconsidered. Perhaps “Cardiff South and West and Penarth” or a similar name would be more appropriate.

Thank you for considering my comments. I would like to remain anonymous please.

Many thanks,

[REDACTED]

Respondent type

Member of public

This comment refers to

The entire area under review.