‘Carwyn raised no objection to Severn Crossing’s renaming’
The surprise announcement that the Second Severn Crossing will be renamed the Prince of Wales Bridge has detonated a volcanic eruption of online protest, writes David Williamson – and that should be no shock at all
THE decision to rename the second Severn Crossing in honour of the Prince of Wales without a public consultation has ignited intense controversy – but the Welsh Government has confirmed that the First Minister did not object to the plans.
The UK Government claimed that Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns had “corresponded regularly with the First Minister” and that the Welsh Government had been in “full support of the announcement”.
Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood said: “The wider issue here is that decisions are being imposed on Wales all the time without proper consultation, demonstrating a constant lack of respect.”
THE surprise decision to rename the Second Severn Crossing the Prince of Wales Bridge has triggered controversy, consternation, and bewilderment.
The UK Government is under fire for announcing the change without a public consultation.
And the Welsh Government has confirmed Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns wrote to First Minister Carwyn Jones last year and no objections were raised.
Labour and Plaid Cymru politicians have each denounced the move and by mid-afternoon yesterday an online petition opposing the name change had attracted more than 4,500 signatures.
The name change comes ahead of the final abolition of the Severn tolls later this year following the return of the infrastructure to public ownership. The renaming is intended to mark both the 60th anniversary of the Queen giving Prince Charles the title of the Prince of Wales when he was nine years old and also his 70th birthday.
Newport West Labour MP Paul Flynn was not impressed, saying: “It’s a rather pathetic and desperate stunt which improperly uses the Royal family in what is their repeated attempts to claim credit for the abolition of the tolls. I presume they’ll have another photo opportunity.”
The announcement contrasts with the approach taken in Scotland. A public vote was held in 2013 and the Forth Replacement Crossing was named the Queensferry Crossing.
Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood initially asked if the announcement was a “late April fool joke”.
She said: “I wouldn’t impose any name on it as a politician. If the bridge really has to be renamed an option would be to let the public decide.
“The problem with this is that people in Wales have not been asked – as people in Scotland were asked when the Queensferry crossing was named. Decisions about Wales should be made in Wales, not imposed on us without our consent.”
The Rhondda AM said neither the Assembly nor the public had been given the opportunity to discuss the renaming of the iconic landmark.
She said: “The wider issue here is that decisions are being imposed on Wales all the time without proper consultation, demonstrating a constant lack of respect.”
A UK Government spokeswoman insisted the Welsh Government had supported the move, saying: “Since last year, the Secretary of State for Wales has corresponded regularly with the First Minister about the decision to rename the Second Severn Crossing. Throughout the process the Welsh Government has been in full support of the announcement.” Neither of the candidates in the running for the deputy Welsh Labour leadership supported the name change. Cardiff North AM Julie Morgan said: “I think it’s a bit embarrassing really that this announcement has been made without any consultation. I’ve already had people contacting me in the office here about it... “I hope there will be consultation and it will be opened up to the public to say what they would like.” Swansea West MP Carolyn Harris doubted people would use the new name and would continue to refer the second crossing as “number two”. She said: “I think it’s been called number one and number two for a long time and people are never going to stop calling it number one and number two. I think it’s just a bit silly, really.
“No disrespect to the Prince of Wales – he deserves every accolade, he works hard, but those bridges have been there a long time and they’ve had names a long time. It’s a little bit patronising, actually, to try and give it a new name now.”
Ms Harris suggested the renaming was an attempt to draw attention to the changes in the tolls, which were cut in January from £6.70 to £5.60.
She said: “They just want to keep reminding us that they’ve done something they should have done a long time ago. I just think it’s a PR exercise and it’s a bit wasted.”
The announcement has come while Prince Charles is on a visit to Australia.
Graham Smith, of anti-monarchy group Republic, said: “I think it’s just incredibly badly judged to name the bridge after Charles. He’s not someone who’s really engaged or supported the Welsh community and there must be any number of exceptional Welsh figures the bridge could be named after...
“Absolutely no-one was demanding this, no-one was calling for it, it’s just a pretty awful bit of sycophancy... It’s the worst possible choice really for the name of a bridge.”
Mr Smith said it would be “fantastic” if the bridge was named after NHS pioneer Aneurin Bevan.
Swansea West Labour MP Geraint Davies, who has long campaigned to bring down the tolls, said: “The people of Wales should have a say on the name and if they want to name it the Prince of Wales of Bridge, I’d be very happy with that... I think there is a genuine conversation to be had about what the bridge should be named rather than it being unilaterally decided by the Government.”
Newport East Labour MP Jessica Morden, who was also a prominent opponent of the tolls, said she would have liked to have seen a consultation but stressed there were more pressing issues.
She said: “It’s always better to have consulted people but to be honest what is really important to my constituents as the tolls come off and Newport and Severnside experience a housing boom is that we have access to affordable housing and the infrastructure and transport links, including cross border rail services, that work.”
However, Montgomeryshire Conservative MP Glyn Davies welcomed the name change and dismissed the online opposition to the move.
He said: “While the online keyboard warriors will be making some negative comments I think the vast majority of people will be very, very pleased... Today it’s so easy to think that there’s some sort of movement afoot with all the gibberish you see online and I stopped Twitter a long time ago – it’s a cesspit of evil, I call it... It’s very damaging for civility.”
He continued: “I think it’s a very good name for a bridge... I think Charles himself has a very good connection and a longstanding connection with Wales since his investiture in Caernarfon.
“I think he’s popular and I think we should completely ignore the nonsense we’re seeing on the internet sites.”
THAT light in the sky you saw yesterday was the moment two cabinet ministers lit the touchpaper and detonated a controversy with the potential to burn and burn.
Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns and Transport Secretary Chris Grayling told the world that the Second Severn Crossing will be renamed the Prince of Wales Bridge and a fullyfledged furore is now alight.
The fascinating thing about the row is that it was entirely predictable. Vale of Glamorgan MP Mr Cairns will have gone to bed on Wednesday night knowing how Labour and Plaid Cymru politicians – not to mention the army of people who have signed an online petition in protest – would react.
This is an age of referendums and lengthy consultations. People expect to be asked their opinion before a decision is made.
In Scotland, people got to vote on the new name for the “Forth Replacement Crossing” road bridge which was christened the Queensferry Crossing.
But people in this nation woke up to hear that a bridge that has become known as a gateway to Wales is going to be named after royalty.
Wales is not famed as a hotbed of seething republicanism. In all likelihood the Netflix drama The Crown is just as popular on this side of Offa’s Dyke as in England.
Plenty of people across Wales from different political tribes are delighted to accept MBEs, OBEs and other assorted honours each year, and charities and community groups gladly welcome visiting members of the royal family. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge forged a connection with Anglesey when they lived there while Prince William worked as a search and rescue pilot.
If there had been a public poll to choose a name for the bridge and a majority wanted to name it in celebration of the Queen or any of her descendants, republicans might have groaned but only the most radical anti-monarchists try to overturn a democratic decision.
What has rankled to many people is the sense that this decision has been sprung on Wales. It looks like a fait accompli – a decision made behind closed doors by people who must have known just how much it would rile a slice of the population.
The controversy has a particular potency for a variety of reasons.
The Severn bridges have long been a source of exasperation because of the tolls that have drained hauliers and households alike of cash. The moment this year when the charges will vanish cannot come soon enough for drivers who have no other option but to use the infrastructure to cross between Wales and England.
Frustration at the high cost of the toll – now £5.60 for cars – and the importance of the crossing to the Welsh economy has prompted periodic calls for responsibility of the crossings to be devolved to the Assembly.
Not only has this not happened, the toll today is administered by Highways England and the second of the bridges will have a name it is almost impossible to imagine the Assembly choosing.
The announcement also comes at a time when decision-makers should need no reminding about the sensitivity surrounding landmarks linked to royal history.
Last year plans for an “iron ring” sculpture at Flint Castle which alluded to Edward I’s castle-building programme were scrapped after intense opposition. It should have come as no shock to Whitehall that Welsh nationalists and republicans would portray this renaming of the bridge as an attempt to reassert the authority of both the UK Government and the monarchy.
This comes right at the moment when Welsh and UK ministers are still locked in debate about the future of Brexit legislation that both Carwyn Jones and Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon initially denounced as a “naked power grab”.
There is real concern about Wales’ place in a post-Brexit United Kingdom. Questions about constitutional powers and the future of regional development funding remain unresolved.
For Plaid Cymru, Brexit has forced the party to engage in vexing thinking about its long-term strategy of achieving independence within Europe.
In such an atmosphere, the UK Government’s unilateral announcement that people will soon be driving across the Prince of Wales Bridge can be nothing less than inflammatory.
This does not mean that the majority of Wales’ 3.1 million citizens are outraged by the change. But it is telling that right when Whitehall is supposedly striving to ensure that the Assembly will not refuse to grant consent to the EU Withdrawal Bill it is prepared to make a decision guaranteed to antagonise so many AMs.
It is interesting to speculate what Prince Charles will make of the controversy. In recent years the royal family gave every impression of working, with success, to avoid generating consternation – but now the heir to the throne finds himself dragged into a very political row.
With a royal wedding looming, this is probably the last thing the father of the groom needs.
If popular campaigns are launched to instead name this magnificent stretch of road and steel in honour of, say, Gareth Edwards, Aneurin Bevan, David Lloyd George or Tanni Grey-Thompson, the message would be implicitly sent out that the public would rather celebrate citizens who have achieved the extraordinary than venerate the monarchy. That is exactly the type of PR disaster the Queen has so expertly managed to dodge.
The fact that the Welsh Government did not oppose the renaming when it had the chance may stop this debacle reaching such a point. Welsh Secretary Mr Cairns wrote to the First Minister last year and no objections were raised.
Plaid will seek to extract every ounce of political capital out of this but Labour politicians now know that attacking the name change risks weakening the Welsh Government.
What will prove crucial is how wider public opinion, far beyond Cardiff Bay, evolves. If there is evidence that a giant swathe of the population really will not tolerate a Prince of Wales Bridge then Whitehall and Clarence House may ask if it might be worth thinking again.
If ministers and royalty alike want to strengthen the United Kingdom, this is not a time to inflame revolutionary passions.