Comment DBCC-4457

I do NOT support the proposed constituencies for the following reasons:

• It seems that 40% of Wales gets only 12 Senedd members out of the 96 – that can’t be democratic or properly representative.

• The distances that an MS in one of these largest constituencies would have to travel to visit communities are far too great, 150kms and more. Likewise, this makes it impossible for constituents to visit the MS surgery of their choice.

• It is bad enough that constituents will be confused as to whether to contact one or all 6 of their constituency MSs to seek assistance with an issue, and that those MSs won’t know if others are dealing with the same issue or not, without the geographical challenge – a challenge which is made even worse by the lack of transport in those big rural areas. You yourselves say: “The Commission is of the view that having clear communication and travel connections is a vital part of being able to provide for effective and convenient representation.” Huge distances, even with “a connection”, are NOT convenient.

And in particular:

• How is Brecon & Radnorshire in any way connected to or similar to East Swansea? Different Health Board area, different County, different socio-economic make-up...no similarities at all. As you say, adding Cwm Tawe to Brecon & Radnorshire was controversial enough. Adding part of Swansea is totally incongruous.

• I note that you have stated: The Commission believes that there is a shared sense of character between the valley communities of Maesteg, Pontycymmer and Ogmore. That “shared sense of character” has been cited as a justification for joining those areas in one constituency. Using that logic, Brecon & Radnor should NOT be paired with Swansea East, as there is zero shared sense of character between the two areas. The issues at different ends of the proposed constituency are likely to be in conflict.

• Where there is such a huge imbalance in population across the proposed constituency, MS attention will likely be taken up by the city area, to the detriment and neglect of the rest of the very rural constituency.

• How can a Senedd member be reasonably expected to cover an area stretching about 100 kms? How will their travel expenses be met? How will they be able to spread their time to allow for so much travel? Constituents will be getting far less value from their MSs, whose time will be eaten up by journeys.

• Some Health Boards, eg. Powys, will find themselves having to deal with far too many MSs – 6 from each constituency that overlaps the Health Board area. (It’s unfortunate that the map in the proposal document isn’t overlaid with the NHS areas – especially as health is a devolved matter.)

• The proposed constituency is not coterminous with local authority/county boundaries either, but straddles completely different local democracy areas.

• Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr with Brecon & Radnor would have made more sense – seemingly made “impossible” by the previous, contentious pairing of Cwm Tawe with Brecon & Radnorshire. The Senedd seems to have tied your hands.

• The unwieldy proposed constituency name is a big clue as to its unsuitability as any kind of cohesive area!

The reduction to 16 constituencies imposed by the Senedd was never going to improve local democracy or help people feel more in touch with the Welsh government, but your boundary proposals pose very real, practical difficulties for the largest new constituency areas, and will definitely disadvantage people in those giant constituencies.

I believe they need to be revised.

[REDACTED]

Respondent type

Member of public

This comment refers to

The entire area under review.