Department for Transport
Organisation/Person Description Q1. Do you agree that retaining 24/7 subcentres at both Shetland and Stornoway adequately addresses the concerns expressed? Do you think that there is a more cost effective way of addressing these concerns? Q2. Do you agree that retaining the 24/7 subcentre at Holyhead rather than the station at Liverpool with which Holyhead is currently paired best addresses the concerns expressed in consultation? Q3. Does the new structure as described provide appropriate resilience to cover the UK coastguard operational needs? Q4. In proposing the retention of Milford Haven rather than Swansea, are there any other factors that need to be addressed?
All other comments
Member of the public No I do not this is not all about cost<br><br>There are many other ways that the Govt can save money rather than picking on a service which saves lives to make relatively paltry savings.<br><br>Clyde Coastguard presides over one of the busiest restricted channels in the UK which has a high concentration of leisure, commercial and naval craft, including the UK's nuclear submarine fleet and facilities.<br><br>The area between Shetland and Belfast has more coastline than the whole of the rest of the UK put together and it is simply nonsense to suggest that scrapping the local Coastguard will have no affect whatsoever on marine safety. Not qualified to comment although less stations can only compromise safety No it does not Again safety                                                                                                                                                  
Small to Medium Enterprise (up to 50 employees) Yes,i agree.Although i live in westcountry,i travel to the area,and know many vessel operators,and feel that the cover is adequate.Especially being 24/7 operation.I cannot comment on cost effectiveness with any qualification. Yes.geographical proximity,with technology would give adequate coverage appears that built into the new format is flexibility,but still concerned about Local Knowledge. I know this area well.I drive an ex lifeboat(Arun class)in the Bristol channel,and feel that if local knowledge is retained,and auxiliaries,then i feel confident that area is well serviced                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public NO I CERTAINLY DO NOT!<br>ANY half wit would not consider shutting the Clyde station<br>And it needs some pretty straight and non P C talking to prevent such a crazy idea.<br>It is all very well making decisions from Southampton, but you have no idea and NEVER HAVE HAD of the geography of Scottish waters. no comment Certainly not no comment                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public No specific opinon on these locations, but the more 24/7 centres retained the better. No specific opinon on these locations It's an improvement more 24/7 cover rather than relying on a few centres is definitely a move in the right direction, but I'm still concerned at any closures, particularly that of Yarmouth MRCC transferring the load to Humber and Dover does not provide adequate cover for the coast off Norfolk and Suffolk, especially given the increasing amount of traffic for offshore gas, wind farms, and also the shiptoship transfer zone off Southwold. No specific opinon on these locations                                                                                                                                                  
Interest Group Absolutely not Not conversant with the area No Our concern is the closure of Portland Coastguard. We had been given to understand that Portland had been reprieved. <br><br>The Portland /Weymouth area is probably the most active in the country for watersports. Closure of Portland will mean that this very, very busy area on the central southern coastline will not be covered. The nearest stations being to the extreme west and the extreme eastern points of the south coast. <br><br>Next year sees Portland as the centre of the Olympic sailing competitions. No Coastguard coverage for this is not acceptable. If it's not accptable for a two week extravaganza, it's certainly not acceptable for year round sailing, diving, fishing and other watersports.<br><br>The proposal to close Portland MUST be reversed.                                                                                                                                                  
Small to Medium Enterprise (up to 50 employees) xcv bsdfg sfg fgsdfg                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public Not competent to comment do not live in the region Yes without doubt.<br>Retaining Holyhead as a 24 hour station addresses many important operational issues which are not mentioned in the consultation document. These include:<br> Responding to jumpers off Menai Bridge<br> Supporting the large pleasure craft presence in the dangerous waters of the Irish Sea<br> 'Policing' the entrance to the River mersey<br> Responding to incidents in the burgeoning wind farm presence between Isle of Man and the North Wales coast. I could not possible comment on all the UK coastguard operational needs. However, first impressions are favourable and suggest that many of the gaping holes in the first set of proposals have been filled.<br>I find it difficult to imagine that anybody could ever have thought that they were anything other than an insult to the service and the public they serve. Milford is a critical station in the light of the dangerous cargoes which use the port. To say that there are few operational differences between the Haven & Swansea is to demonstrate a fundamental ignorance of shipping not unexpected from a Vice Admiral.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public         No Comment                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Yes. No.   No.                                                                                                                                                    
Member of the public dont know dont know dont know<br><br>however i still feel the concerns regarding local employment have not been addressed sufficiently as well as value for money and efficiency and modernisation there are concerns both about losing local knowledge which applies to all areas and concerns about losing local employment which applies to all areas some of these places have limited local employment opportunities so losing good jobs is a serious impact which should be taken into account whenever dealing with the public sector also as a public service one of its remits should be to support the local communities i always feel that value for money and business efficiency should take a secondary place to employing local people as a priority dont know                                                                                                                                                  
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team I agree, these areas are the most remote areas in the UK. And the relationship with teams abroad is invaluable to the success of rescues in some of our most unpredictable seas. Yes I have concerns over the possibility of effective communications with Milford Haven from the Exmoor sector. VHF systems work well at sea however communications can be strained whilst operating at land even whilst dealing with Swansea. More local relay masts need to be located inland to make this an effective change. I have concerns over the possibility of effective communications with Milford Haven from the Exmoor sector. VHF systems work well at sea however communications can be strained whilst operating at land even whilst dealing with Swansea. More local relay masts need to be located inland to make this an effective change.                                                                                                                                                  
pleasure yachtsman no view no view no view no view The closure of the east coast stations (Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk areas) is an accident waiting to happen in the abscence of local knowledge of this very busy shipping area.<br><br>As a pleasure sailer I am uncertain of the range of my vhf radio to summon help from many miles away or even if my call is able to be heard so far away : I have excellent contact now with Thames Coastguard that I will loose.<br><br>If the government are determined to press on, I suggest a test period of a year to see how it works out before a final decision is taken and maybe lives lost at sea caused by confusion as to where an incident is, and when a simple local knowledge remedy will deal with the matter                                                                                                                                                
Member of MCA Staff No I feel that this does not cover the concerns expressed and is now purely a political stance. Having served previously in Shetland, dealing with such incidents as the the Braer tanker disaster, the lunohodhs, the Borodinsky Poyal, and other newsworth incidents I feel that the level of staffing is too great for Shetland . A more reasonable level would be 4 on each watch, total of 16 per station. This would, in my view be more reasonable.<br><br>The excess compliments from these proposals should then be moved to Aberdeen and thus assist in complimenting the additional district being taken on, Aberdeen needs to be restored to a MOC status subserviant to the southern MOC. The reason is political, with the threat of greater powers for Scotland after the recent elections highlighted the likelihood of future devolution/independence<br><br>In real terms however I still believe that a super station in the central belt of Scotland would be the better option, (Please see previous proposal submitted by myself) Yes however the staffing levels and district expansions do cause me concern No I feel that unless a move towards the proposals that i submitted for the last consultation document are given to Scotland (My earlier submission) that Aberdeen be relisted as an MOC with appropriate levels of watches None aware I am somewhat puzzled over the levels of watchs, 23 at most/all stations Shetland do not require such levels, I have experience of 7 years in Shetland to back this up, the additional staff should be employed at Aberdeen (MOC)                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public In the main, I do think the new proposals have gone a long way towards a realistic solution. The cost savings explained make complete sense overall and the situation appears to have been thought through fairly well. Yes, I think this addresses the issue for this area and the concerns have been taken into account. I still think there are some weaknesses in the coverage, in particular the more remote areas with a lot of coastline, such as Cornwall and Scotland. I'm also concerned that Brixham will close, because the English Channel is the busiest shipping lane in the World and there is quite a distance between Falmouth and what will be the next Coastguard Station. I think this proposal has been reasoned well and makes sense, I believe the concerns have been addressed sensibly. It would be very nice if a few more stations could be retained, but realistically I know this is unlikely to happen. I would feel happier if I knew that local knowledge will not be lost and perhaps a way could be found to retain this somehow, such as emphasis on sharing of all information between stations, or maybe volunteers who could be called upon to assist when needed to provide additional local knowledge or information. Maybe a supportive agreement and donation to the RNLI could provide the local knowledge at relatively low cost, this way both organisations benefit, I do realise that both organisations work closely together as it is, but maybe a closer more mutually beneficial partnership could be arrived at.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public No.<br>Cost Saving does not equal Modernisation.<br>Cost Saving does not equal service cuts.<br>Additional costs of additional Management & Coordination should not be paid for by cutting front line services.<br>Costs can be cut by reducing salaries not services, if we are really all in this together. NO No Yes.<br>Service level reductions at Swansea are not a fair and proper way of paying for your increased costs for management and coordination, or for paying for the Treasury Department cuts. I was pleased and releaved that Local Knowledge was recognised as important, and that its dilution was to be avoided.                                                                                                                                                
Pleasure boat owner N/A N/A No N/A We need the station at Walton in Essex to be retained as it is purpose built and covers a section of coast that has huge navigation problems due to the very shallow nature of the water in places such as the coast of Brightlingsea and Bradwell. To quote the RYA instructer on our powerboat level 2 course &quot;it is a matter of when you go aground not if&quot;                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I cannot agree that a centre at Stornaway adequately covers the vast numbers of leisure boats as well as ferries and commercial shipping using the coastline and inner Hebridean islands from the Mull of Kintyre to Ardnamurchan Point in addition to the inner Clyde area.. An examination of the callouts for the Oban and Tobermory lifeboats in particular will show steady demand for rescue services in this region particularly over the summer and autumn months. Stornaway will certainly lack the knowedge of the area currently held by Clyde Coastguard crucial to dealing with emergencies although it may adequately deal with routine VHF traffic. I suggest that Clyde should continue on a daytime basis leaving 24/7 cover to Stornoway. No views No views No views. No views.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Yes I agree. Cost cutting risks lives. Accidents can happen at any hour of the day or night and the whole coast should be adequately covered. Yes. No. The closure of any station puts lives at risk and especially the closure of Swansea. Closing Swansea will put a large sea area at risk from Swansea Bay to the upper reaches of the Bristol Channel and Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. Do politicians not grasp the concept of VHF range. Perhaps they should take a basic radio course. There are many leisure sailors, fishermen and commercial vessels in this large sea area. I know from personal experience where Milford fades and Swansea takes over. Politicians are forever meddling. The basic principle should apply that if something is not broken don`t fix it! Lives will surely be lost and the ministers responsible should be held to account in the future.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Not completely. Of the Clyde/Belfast pairing, the one being retained is Belfast. This ignores the report that Clyde is the busiest station on Scotland for coordination of rescues (&quot;casualty working&quot;) The reason for this is probably the combination of considerable leisure activity , sport and commercial diving and a busy fishing industry, all in the area covered by the Clyde and the southern part of the Scottish west coast . In addition the fishing is nowadays increasingly focused on static gear methods and diver -assisted fishing, both of which seem to be more prone to generation of emergency situations.<br><br>This is not to denigrate the work of Belfast. On the contrary, I believe that both of these stations need to be retained. There being no question relating to this issue, I have had to assume that Stornaway will extend its area of interest to cover the area of the Clyde and west coast south of Mallaig. I believe that the extension area would better handled by staff based on the Clyde.<br><br>Finally, I regret that the final question in the section relates to cost effectiveness. One of the documents giving information on the consultation refers to &quot;Protection our coasts&quot; and there is a table indicating the functions relating to &quot;protection&quot; and the assignment of agencies to take action on each function. There is a plethors of agencies mentioned. If cost-efectiveness is the aim (and I dispute whether it should be) then eliminating agencies rather than Coastguard stations would be more effective. Most of the functions (if not all) could and should be handled by HMCG I follow the arguments and agree with them. They also apply to he Clyde/Belfast pairing. Both the west/central Scottish dialect and the Norther Irish dialect can be difficult for someone from outwith these areas to follow. It is also difficult for an Ulsterman to understand a Scot and vice versa. The resilience is certainly improved, but I am not qualified to judge whether it will be adequate. I have no views as I am not familiar with these areas. Bearing in mind that there is a proposal to close the busiest (by casualty working) ststion in Scotland, I think that the questions are rather loaded to avoid the issue.                                                                                                                                                
Large Company Yes by keeping both of the MRCC posts the concerns IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA are addressed but concerns at other areas are not adequately addressed No as Liverpool currently has responsibility for a very busy sea area compared to that for which Holyhead is responsible for they are currently more used to dealing with multiple major incidents and multiple minor calls. i feel the best solution for this station os either to close holyhead or keep both as 24/7 mrccs Almost but more attention is needed on the west coast of England situation   Why change a good system?<br>                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public 24/7 centes need to be retained as a priority. Given the location of the centres and the fact that the area is reliant on maritime activity, it is vital that the location has excellent maritime rescue services.   No. With the closure of Portland, the Dorset coast is left without sufficient cover. Dorset being a desirable tourist destination,attracts a lot of visitors in the summer months. This increases the number of incidents along the coastline, These incidents consist of inshore emergencies of swimmers and small craft users and walkers and pets which have become stranded on cliff faces. <br><br>The sea around Dorset has it's own unique problems, The Tidal races at Portland, double tides at Poole to name just two. Under the new proposals, coastguard officers from neighbouring stations would not have the knowledge of these unique problems or have the geographical awareness of the area. <br><br>Your own findings show the highest percentage of comments are concerned with the loss of local knowledge. Your own consultaion report starts with the statement “The backbone of the Coastguard will always be the men and women who know the shores, love the sea and will do their utmost to save lives at sea and around our coast&quot; .With this statement being at the fore of the Coastguard ethos, the closure of Portland contradicts this statement. <br><br>The initial consultation was not highly publicised locally . The proposed closure of the Portland offices was reported, but from talking to my neighbours, the majority were not aware of the opportunity to voice theire opinion on the proposals. more should have been done to engage the local community, Fliers sent to all local residents, local information centre set up on the seafront. I do not know the area well enogh to comment, but the geographical location and traffic flow MUST be taken into account. The majority of comments will be overall against the closure of locl costguard agency offices. Everybody realises that in the current state of austerity measures, Govt. organsiations have to look at measures to cut costs and become more efficient. <br><br>Funding of the MCA could be overhaulled overnight with one piece new legislation. Make watercraft users more like motor vehicle users. with licence and insurance regulations. Talk to insurance companies with a view to increasing medical and household insurance premiums to include accident cover for emergency services. This would allow the MCA to recoup the costs of much of its workload.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public No, All current centres should remain open. No comment No No Comment The reduction in Coastguard centres around the UK, will only serve to reduce the local information and knowledge that is available to the coastguard.<br><br>I have found the local stations to be knowledgeable and understandable in all their duties, and a friendly and helpful voice on the end of the radio.<br><br>Their knowledge of the local area and comings and goings is excellent, and of paramount use to the safety of vessels in their area.                                                                                                                                                
Small to Medium Enterprise (up to 50 employees) Agree. No to other ways Yes Not really Area knowledge. Distance. Need update equipment of stations. And training. Ie first aid is many years behind. Fire service has newer quicker rescue methids even for doing coastguard stuff.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Yes<br><br> Yes I think it is far more resilient than the original proposals.<br><br>However, there still appears to be massive gap in 24/7 coverage on the South coast. Falmouth and Dover do not adequately cover the very busy central Channel/Solent Area currently covered by Solent, Portland & Brixham.<br><br>I believe one of these stations should be retained with 24/7 coverage. Probably Solent or Portland given the traffic density in their areas and importance of local knowledge along this intensively used stretch of coast. Not aware of any                                                                                                                                                  
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team As i have no knowledge of there work activaties and area coverage, i feel that it would be inapropriate to comment Yes if the consultation shows this to be so Yes i agree that the sub-centres should be open 24/7 Yes i agree I am pleased as a Auxilary Coastguard for 37 years that this shake up is being put in place with fair consultation. For many years as a previous Station Officer i watched the local search teams views being disregarded and their contribution undervalued. <br>The cost of the ever increasing need to change proceedures and equipment that have been tried and tested over many year is a constant irritation and all the extra training required for this is destroying the moral of the local CRO teams<br>I hope that through this modernisation process our value with be recognised and the money available more fairly distributed to enable us as voulenteers to carry out our job as we see fit. <br>We who all have our own jobs and do not even get a pension for our serivce should be listened to, our local knowlege is one of the most important aspects of quick and efficient response to situations and with the closure of Stations this will become more and more important                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Agree Don't know No Don't know I am concerned at the closure of Clyde and Forth stations and request further consideration as to the effect of this on the safety of lives and shipping in Scottish waters.                                                                                                                                                
University Academic The most important thing is that the centre handling a problem or incident is in a position to understand the context and the communications on the baisi of adequate familiarity with the local waters. It does not much matter whether one is talking to a CG operator 10 miles away or 100 miles away so long as one is able to establish mutual understanding and recognition. Retaining 24 hr stations at Stornoway and Shetland does adequately adress the specific objections to the proposed closure of same. Probably, yes. The crucial element will still be the retantion and availability of suffcient, suitably trained and rewarded staff. No amount of technology can substitute for suitably skilled human involvement.                                                                                                                                                    
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team NO!<br>Keep open MRCC 12 hours who are not busy have three stations 24/7<br> No! No! The loss of local knowledge and relationships with local CRT. As a Station Officer for a CRT my concerns over loosing Yarmouth and Thames on the East Coast would be the welfare and safety of my team members. Would a Watch Manager in Southhampton really have the time to worry about wether my team has stood down and returned home safely. The relationships between opps room staff and CRT will be lost. The opps room staff at present knows who they are talking to , this is a huge advantage as trust is 100%                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Seems that you have only kept these two stations open as you cant remote them from the south coast No. Liverpool is a better choice of station. People who work at Holyhead will not visit the area in the Liverpool District as it is at least two hours just to get to the border of the area. To assume that Welsh language will be retained if Holyhead stays open means that the MCA must ring fence jobs at Holyhead? Liverpool already works in North Wales and suggesting that they do not know areas in North Wales as they are not welsh is discriminatory and racist. <br>Liverpool has a much bigger building than Holyhead and it has surveyors and other MCA personnel in it. It is ideal for the MOC or a education or training centre. To leave it under utilised would be a waste of tax payers money. The staff at Liverpool are more used to a busier workload as the station is busier than Holyhead. The station is more cost effective as it is 8% cheaper to run even though it houses 17 more staff and is 80% bigger than Holyhead. <br>Liverpool is accessible. It is used for other MCA functions due to its central location in the UK. It has motorway, airport and rail access as well as being a major port. It would not be feasible for the survey staff to relocate to Holyhead as it is not the area of maritime activity. Liverpool is. It is getting busier with a new panamax dock and cruise liner facility. <br>Liverpool works with the Isle of Man. It has provided SAR for them for a number of years and now works in the Cumbrian Lakes. It works with 7 police forces as well as nuclear police. <br>It is the best value for money. Busiest and most accessible station so keep Liverpool. No. There is no details on how this system will work. How will it work while changing over. Is it safer for the mariner than how it is now or is it just about money? We need a safe coastguard. Running a station from the south coast to run the UK is madness. This is a step too far. The remote sites will not be able to keep up and this will result in confusion and ultimately someone dying. <br>Work out what needs to change before you make the changes. <br> No opinion either way                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public     NO. Not for the South Coast. You have a great centre on the Solent, and a good one at Portland. Why do you need to sacrifice them? Surely the gap between Dover and Falmouth is too long, especially considering the intensity of Channel traffic?<br> Yet again, you are sacrificing the benefit of local knowledge to the God of computer geekery. <br>Endless online chatter is just not the same as direct contact with local seafarers and coastguards.<br>Sailors can feel safe with our current system, supplemented by coastwatch volunteers and our local Swanage lifeboat. Making them always refer to Dover or Falmouth---which?!-- would cost time and possibly lives.<br>Plus Falmouth is already very occupied with international rescues, which they are fantastic at. They just don't need more work! Very sensible, considering the volume of traffic at MHaven, esp LNG vessels etc.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team Yes, I agree that these sub centres should be retained No I think that Both centres should be retained to give adequate coverage for a complex area I think that the decision to close Thames and Gt Yarmouth is a wrong step because of the nature of the area covered. To expect Humber Coastguard to cover from Berwick on Tweed to the Thames Estuary is expecting an awful lot for one group of people. If there were to be a comms failure in the network, the attempts by any team to stay in contact and to have backup in planning and resourcing facilities would be a nightmare.<br>CRT's rely on the centres to provide planning and resourcing when they are deployed. OIC's on scene do not have the necessary equipment and resources to do this by themselves.<br>Radio comms in some areas are patchy at best and having to place relays from mobiles dilutes the efforts of the teams for the task in hand. Radio comms would require additional aerial sites to provide &quot;cast iron&quot; coverage for all areas and we would require mobikle phones fitted to all MRU's.<br>The proposal for better training and facilities would need to be implemented as this has been mooted before but nothing has ever happened. No comment Having served as a CRO for nearly forty years, I have been through several reorganisations of HM Coastguard. I would observe that, in the past, these events overtake each other and one event is never completed before the next arrives and changes the changes.<br>The history of HM Coastguard seems to go in15 to 20 year cycles of reorganisation, cost cutting and changing. Having read several books on Coastguard history this has been happening since DAY ONE.<br>I have lost many good team members because they could not agree with what was happening. I have 3 years service left so these changes are not going to affect me greatly but I would like to think that I will leave a good and resilient CRT for my successor at Aldeburgh. A thought to continuity would be greatly appreciated by all CRT's<br>It would also help if the Government would consider providing help to employers in some way so that team members can be released from work to attend incidents.<br>I have to take leave or work extra hours to cover my absences from work. Mr Cameron might like to take this onboard for his much vaunted volunteering scheme.                                                                                                                                                
Professional seafarer I cannot directly comment about the Shetland and Stornoway centres as I am unfamiliar with their current workload and demands on the area between both centres.<br><br>From my own experience, I am aware the Stornoway has always been a busy station and in my opinion, as with all these centre closures, the work balance between Shetland and Stornoway would have to be weighed up.<br><br>It one was closed and the other remained this would, to the locals, represent another situation in proposals of lost local knowledge.<br><br>Therefore if the operational demands were there to justify keeping both centres then I think that would be a perfectly reasonable suggestion to keep both and satisfy local concerns. In any event, having additional rescue support capacity enhances sea safety within the coverage area.<br><br><br>As for cost effectiveness:<br><br>As with any of the proposed closures, retaining 24hr stations as opposed to the initial daytime suggestion will increase costs both of operation and staffing.<br><br>I think that reasonably this is one of the few ways to help satisfy concerns over night time / day time operation. <br><br>My own belief was that under the initial proposals, a night and day structure was a very dangerous way to run the system for emergency / incident response at night. As above in question 1, I am unfamiliar with the area and feel this would be a question better answered by the local users both pleasure and commercial.<br><br>If one of the two has to close, then the one which is better place to assume operational responsibility in the new system should remain, if that is Holyhead then so be it. I think the amended proposal to 24 hour stations is vastly improved from the day time suggestion.<br><br>As for Belfast, it is right that a coastguard station be kept in Northern Ireland to retain local knowledge within the country for coastline and inland waters and retain the working relationship with the republic of Ireland's coastguards.<br><br>I still cannot understand the need for a designated MOC. Surely if we are now proposing 24 hour stations, then, when required, the next geographically available centre can assist in operations as opposed to a MOC many many miles away.<br><br>The MOC may have to assist with operations throughout the entire structure anywhere in the 4 countries of the UK. Surely using local knowledge between centres would be more straightforward and helpful in an emergency situation than expecting senior management in a MOC to take decisions without clear local / situational awareness of any ongoing incident. Again I feel I cannot comment as I do not understand the demands / workload of the local areas I feel that any proposed modernisation, whilst being cost effective, must support the shipping industry which is a major user and the pleasure industry in the best possible way.<br><br>Modernisation must be moving forward to improve the coastguard provision and not just simply changing in a cost cutting exercise.<br><br>I remain unconvinced at the desire to press forward in the MOC concept when I cannot see how this is an improvement in utilising knowledge and resources. If technology is improving through the new concept (which of course it should) then why do we need one large scale MOC when perhaps a couple or a few centres be manned to cope with additional supportive roles- in the way that, for example, Clyde being larger would have supported Belfast in the current system. Surely a few centres dotted around in suitable locations would be easier to work with than one large MOC being tasked with the whole lot.<br><br>By keeping 24 hour stations this helps to alleviate some of my concerns over standard routine traffic reporting being lost in talking to a centre many many miles away, again without the local knowledge. For example, I know without question, that in my job when I speak to Dover coastguard passing a particular point, they know exactly where I am. If I were reporting to a MOC elsewhere, is there not a risk that this could be lost.<br><br>The proposed increase in 24 stations is an improvement on the initial suggestion but we need to make sure that no changes detriment the safety of water users across the countries                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public cost effevtive no Liverpool should be reained to support South Scotland and North West as the distance between Liverpool and Holyhead is not great. Solway Harvester sank due to closing another more North station as mistakes made at Liverpool. Local knowledge is needed. Holyhead to stay because of Prince William. No local knowledge is needed for speed and efficiency don't know Holyhead to stay because of Prince William. This is wrong.                                                                                                                                                
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team Yes Yes Not at all.The problem that I have with the proposals is that we will be dealing with people who nothing about our local area as the officers at Thames do now.I doubt they will know which team to call out in certain circumstances. This doesn't affect me. The main problem I have is when we get called out to an incident, how will we be able to keep in contact with Dover or Humber as the radios we have at the moment won't reach either stations.You may say that we can use mobile phones but some areas in our patch have no mobile phone signal.I just can't see it working.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public     No   I think all life saving be it helicopters , lifeboats or coastguards should be controlled in the local area by personnel who have local knowledge. I am really at a loss to even start to understand why anyone with any intelligence would risk peoples lives by seperating the two.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public   ? no Both should be in full manned operation disgraced                                                                                                                                                
Other Emergency Service (Police/Fire/Ambulance) I agree that the both sub stations should remain and no further issuse need to be addressed. I agree that the Holyhead sub station should remain as long as there is no loss reguarding the efficiency of SAR response. With reguards to the overall restructuring of the agency around the uk I feel ample descisions have been made but some have been made very inapropriatly with very little thought and lots of political drive. There are a number of factors that personally and proffesionally I feel have been deliberatley overlooked to gain parlimentory power. These injustifiable factors include the more than two fold number of incidents delt with at Swansea, the loss of local knowledge of the staff at Swansea which has been encured over many years both within SAR and their personel lives. The extended time for mobalisation of SAR units and search planning because of the lack of local knowledge. Further to that I feel that the excuse used in the local media to close Swansea is not only discusting but totaly irisponsible and can not be justified and therefore rediculous. I am very disapointed and let down with the proposed desicsion. You have all the evidence to show that Swansea should remain as it is. After all it is the bussiest in Wales and has got all the resources in place to run another co-ordination centre as well as its own at any one time. Not to mention it serves one of the bussiest shiping channels in Europe which also has one of the biggest rise and falls of tide in the World.                                                                                                                                                
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team       My worry is that less staff manning more aerials on a busy day our messages will be missed by other traffic talking over us when using our handsets. This has happened in the past when we have worked with Milford.<br> I may agree that the Milford area has the greater shipping but as far as Coastguard incidents go I would say that the Swansea area would be better positioned as it has the greater population. After all as a example we have had45 incidents this year so far and only 9 of them was to a vessel, most incidents involve members of the public injuring themselves, becoming trapped in mud, cliff etc. I would also say that 99% of vessel distresses are to small pleasure craft and not offshore vessels.<br>Sir Alan Massey also stated the cost of coming out of stations who make no difference whether it was Swansea or Milford, yet as I understand it Milford station is a small station that would surely need to be extended or even a new station built after all its a substation not a Mrcc.<br>The staff at Mrcc Swansea from my experience handles a much larger number of calls than the other stations above and many others around the UK. And they do it in the calm professional way you would expect from such professionals. Their profile is massive in the area and we are constantly telling members of the public that our team is from Port Talbot and not Swansea. Which says a great deal considering outside of the service the public in general just don’t know what the coastguard does, it would be very interesting if a survey was carried out to ask members of the public that question I am sure you would find there is a lot of work to be done in raising public awareness on the roll of the coastguard and closing a high profile station as MRCC Swansea would do a tremendous amount of damage to that.<br>I agree the coastguard does need to change but with more investment in the service so we can at least mach the RNLI, Fire and Rescue to name but two. We as CROs know there is kit out there that can make our job easier and save more life’s. But above all that is our need to know we can rely on our coordinators to call us when we are needed, to send us to the right area, to give us quick information when we phone in (example Medi vac in front of François takes 2 seconds on the phone Milford will not know that) to be able to receive quick information (we are just coming up to Jeff’s Bend again Milford will not know where that is) We need to be able to trust the staff as we do now to get us the help we need when we need it and where we need it.<br> There is great need for investment in the CROs abd to expand its role                                                                                                                                                
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team I would think so but do not have detailed knowledge of the area. I dont have enough knowledge of the area to comment I think it leaves the east coast with a large gap between Humber and Dover, this is a very busy area both commercially (Thames and Felixstowe) and huge leisure industry.   I am concerned about the extra management layers on the CRS. I dont see how this is actually going to help. If we have a full time coastguard involved in call outs it will demean the role of the professional CROs to assistants rather than having the responsbility they have at the moment. They are highly motivated and in most places highly skilled and wish to put these skills into use rather than just be directed by a manager. I think the role of SM and other full time CGs to be to provide support and advice when and how requested and in normally circumstances leave the teams to do the job they have volunteered for. I dont think more management would help. I think some of the smaller teams could be merged with some of the more active/busy teams in areas to ensure they is enough work to keep them motivated and skills up to date. I think money saved from not employing further managers could be spent on training. There are times when the training, patrol and equipment budgets are eeked out. With the spate of driving incidents, driver training is one area of concern I suspect. Better co-operation for FRS and Police is also essential rather than the competative situation that exists currently, the FRS seem to be taking more and more of the CRO role with mud and water rescue. I think if the volunteer CROs role is deminished in any way then there may be loss of expereinced and skilled people a way need to be found of enhancing their role and using the skills they bring.<br>I also wonder what will happne to TEPs in the east region as there will be no where to safely dispose of them, very few will drive to Humber or Dover and substantially more will be abandoned.                                                                                                                                                
Large Company yes No. I have concersna about local area knowledge being lost and difficulty in communicating with the Sub centre. presumably the CRO's are to be issued to with new communications systems which allow effective communication with these station, rather than replying on their own mobile phones? No I do not believe it does. I have concerns that the cut backs will effect the ability to manage large scale emergency's effectively and this will only be tested when such an event occurs; and at this point it will be too late.<br><br>Poor local area knowledge and communications will be the biggest problems faced. it is not just acceptable for operators to view areas of the incidents on computerised systems, this remoteness also removes any understanding of the local area conditions Unknown                                                                                                                                                  
Small to Medium Enterprise (up to 50 employees) leave everything alone, its not just about saving money no no of course<br> this seems like an excuse to try and save money at the expense of a service which works perfectly well the way it is.                                                                                                                                                
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team No.<br>I also think that a 24hour centre should be within the central belt of Scotland too. Yes. It appears to but I stress that I feel it would be wise to retain a 24 hour station in the central belt of Scotland. I agree that Milford Haven should be retained due to its unique shipping traffic in the area. As a volunteer Coastguard Resque Officer, I will miss the familiarity of dealing with the full time officers at Forth and can only hope that through time the staff at Aberdeen will learn the strengths and weaknesses of individual volunteers within the area they will assume control of.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I still feel that the very long coastline on the west coast, with all its islands, needs Clyde to stay open as well for inhore users. Don't know the area well enough to comment. It is much better than the first proposal, so thank you for listening. I hope it works. I do not know the area well enough to comment, but yourproposl sounds logical. These proposals are much more realistic than the first ones, and I hope everything works out well. Some of the suggestions in response to the earlier consultation about liaison with the RNLI should be followed up, to see if there are things which could be sorted out to the mutual benefit of both organisations, before the next cost-saving proposals.                                                                                                                                                
Member of MCA Staff Yes the case has been clearly made regarding the infrastructure problems If the status quo cannot be kept - I still have a problem with the MOC concept as it reminds me of the MRCC - MRSC situation when I joined the service.<br><br> I believe that it is the best choice as the Welsh language is certainly an issue that needs addressing and the Coastguard has been very slow dealing with it - inroads have been made and due to local recruitment Holyhead is better placed than it has ever been.<br><br>The above observation is made by an english speaker who has lived and worked in Wales for nearly 20 years. All the other emergency services in North Wales put a high emphasis on the Welsh language and rightly so (60% of the villiage I live in are first language Welsh speakers).<br><br>In addition having basic knowledge of the language even if you are not fluent in coversational Welsh makes it easier to handle place names. As I have said I have lived here for nearly 20 years and I still struggle at times to pronounce certain words and places.<br><br>If closed all the advances the Coastguard has made over the years will be lost. keeping the MRSC's 24/7 addresses some of my concerns regarding the MOC -MRSC system but I am still not totally sure how they will interact with each other. <br><br>I know IT has moved on but I can remember the MRCC - MRSC system which was discontinued as it did not really work. I follow the reasoning and there is a definite need for a MRSC in South Wales, Milford Haven is very well placed to cover that need.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public This is an impovement on the previous plans, but still in my view insufficent. Closing stations still represents a massive loss of local knowledge. Holyhead makes more sense due to the welsh coastline and irish sea. I still believe there will be a loss in local knowledge. I don't know this area well enough to comment. I maintain local knowledge will be lost and also have major concerns about the government trying to centralise communications systems. They have a track record for wasting vast sums of money and not successfully completing the project, take the national fire brigade call centre for example!                                                                                                                                                
ex lifeboat crewman 25yrs plus and LOM.... The most cost effective method is to have a similar spread of dedicated centres similar to the current position. Local knowledge, quick response, and confidence in the centre is essential for those in difficulties at sea. No... moreappropriate to keep Liverpool I do not believe it does I cannot comment as I have insufficient information I very much regret the desire to save relatively small amounts of money which will affect the safety of those at sea who are dependent on rapid response from those with local expertise. So much is wasted in so many other areas and the dedication, loyalty and hard work of the coastguards shopuld be appreciated. This should be a priority area and adjustments to the service need to be carefully scrutinised for serious defects. I believe the present plan has too many potentially harmful consequences.<br>I write solely on my own behalf but based on on my experiences as a lilfeboat crewman for over 25 years, being a station Lifeboat manager for 12 years, having a son in law as a lobsterfisherman and being a keen sea angler myself. In my time I have witnessed the saved and the dead at sea. Careless cutting back may save money but jeopardise safety and I would council caution <br>                                                                                                                                                
Representative Organisation Yes   No. Closure of the Clyde Station is unacceptable.   Our association submitted objections to the previous consultation. We believe the objections were not addressed and as such they remain. Please refer to our previously submitted response.                                                                                                                                                
Retired Fire Officer I do not agree. Cost should not come into saving lives. No I do not. The Port of Liverpool is one of the biggest ports in the UK and is set to grow with the planned of enlargment of Liverpool docks and, the possibility of a Start, Stop Ctuise Liner Terminal also in Liverpool.<br>I believe that to have the full length of English coastline between the Welsh and Scottish borders without a Coastguard Station on its shore as incom.prehensible. No I do not. I consider that to much emphasis is being placed on new technology both Radio and land based communications which can fail. With the reduction of staff and stations, the local knowlege for a given area would not be available to assist in correctly identifying and determining the location of incidents. This would result in a delay in best use of available resources<br><br>The governments decision to abandon the reduction in number of Fire Control Centres in England because of those reasons should be a warning to the UK Coastguard not to standby and allow these reductions. I do not have a comment. I consider that these changed are just a cost cutting exercise and do not take into account the detrimental affect on the Coastguard Service.<br><br>I Also consider that political factors have also been instumental in in the proposed closure of the Liverpool Station over the Belfast and Holyhead Stations in order to appease the anger of politicians in the Welsh and Scottish Officers which could be expected from the closure of those two stations.<br><br>I think that political decision to be the most discusting part of the whole process of the reorganisation of the UK Coastguard Service and one in which the people of Merseyside and the North West of England will not forgive if a lives are lost due to the closure of the Liverpool Station.<br><br>                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I have no specific knowledge of that area. This appears to be a watering down of the original proposal but it is still a watering down of the service. Any reduction in the number of coastguard stations will result in a loss of local knowledge. That local knowledge is crucial as it cannot be relied upon for all emergency messages to provide an accurate lat/long of the location of an incident. No. Technical and organisational measures to improve resilience should be overlaid on the existing network of coastguard stations. Not brought in as a substitute for the closed-down stations. At the risk of repeating myself, both are needed to provide a reasonable degree of local knowledge. The Bristol Channel is a well-known difficult area for navigation due to the second-highest tides in the world and the continually moving sand banks. A CG officer in Milford Haven cannot be expected to have a detailed knowledge of the waters around the Severn Bridge, for example.<br><br>When a Milford Haven officer hears a reference to the Hen and Chickens he will probably think of the waters around Lundy. Will he be aware of the other Hen and Chickens, or of the particular and entirely different hazards that they represent? This is just one example that springs to my mind, but there must be hundreds that are equally applicable arond our coasts. I have a strong suspicion that this was the proposal that was intended all along, but it's proponents thought it would be unacceptable to the British public. Therefore an even more unacceptable proposal was put forward initially which can then be superceded by this one. And we are all supposed to be grateful! I watched Yes Minister!<br><br>I am sure there are plenty of technical and organisational improvements which can be made to the existing coastguard structure. This is where the drive should be directed, but without diluting or dispensing with the local skills that currently provide us with an excellent service.<br><br>As a sailor who continually monitors channel 16 while at sea, I hear a great deal of the coastguard's communications while protecting us. I am always impressed by the professionalism, and I feel safe in their hands. I don't want the coastguard turned into just another call centre.<br><br>Apart from the calmness in the handling of a situation which is obviously frightening and hazardous for the casualties, a point that I have heard on a number of occasions is the way in which the coastguard asks questions to establish the location of the casualty when it can't be readily established by lat/long. As sailors usually do know where they are terms that can be reasily expressed over the radio, I would imagine this is a scenario which comes into play much more frequently when it is a lay member of the public reporting an incident.                                                                                                                                                
RNLI lifeboat crew member yes as both stations cover a large area no it does not i cannot see how some one in a remote station could provide the level of local knowledge that Liverpool has delivered throught its history and the idea of putting all of ones eggs in the same basket is a ridiculous idea what will happen if there are multiple incidents ocurring all at the same time i do not see how the level of cover would be sustainable no i don't i can see peoples lives being put at risk for the sake of saving a few pounds and to lose Clyde, Liverpool, and portland will leave the west coast with a very limited coast guard service that as i have said about will put lives in danger there seems to of been a lean towards welsh speaking stations with holyhead being retained over Liverpool i think this is wrong as the majority of shipping is not welsh speaking and the volumes of traffic around the liverpool bay area and the Gas platforms that i work on would be better covered by Liverpool as a lifeboat crew member for almost 20 years i find it proposterous that you can even comtemplate closing so much of this countries coast guard stations                                                                                                                                                
Water user   Holyhead is rather remote when considering the area covered and its population.<br>The Coast North into Liverpool Bay and the Lancashire coastline is far more problematic.<br>A review of emergancy calls and the actions required needs to be made before any consideration of closure of the Liverpool site. I suspect far more Local knowledge required in this area due to the tides and coastal conditions. Lancashire mud has claimed many lives. The new structure places too much emphasis on the &quot;routine traffic&quot; Many of whom are professional seafarers and do not need nanny state. The public who pay for this need looking after. All those wind surfers and city people who don't have a dsc vhf set to hand and if there is sufficient resiliance to cope with all of them on a windy summers day at high water with an under current then maybe its ok! Not many people live in Milford Haven. Lots live in Cardiff and Swansea. Couldn't a remote radar be operated from Swansea to cover Milford Haven. Far to much emphasis being placed as previously noted on routine DSC AIS Radar equiped routine traffic. I can see a need for Dover due to the large traffic volumes,but the closure of Thames is flawed. I listened to a Mayday from the comfort of my boat handled by Dover earlier in the year. The casualty was on 16 no DSC and was clear about where he thought he was. Near a wind farm. The Coast G diverted a fast large powered yacht to the assumed position to asist. He couldn't locate the casualty. More discourse as to position.<br>The Coast G failed to get a QDR on the vessel. The casualty was by now fretting. The good news was the weather was fine, but it was getting late in the day and he was drifting. More questions about who could see what and the colour of the boat. The Lifeboat was launched they have a df set that enabled them to find him. The CG in its current form as part of the MCA makes me wince. It needs hiving off from MCA and staffed with both full and part time staff both paid and volunteers. In many respects it has become a busy body encouraging all and sundry to contact them with nonesence routine calls. None of which were essential in the past but are deemed vital by the current management. A full analysis of Mayday responses needs to be made before any further moves are made. The use of routine traffic calls as a &quot;saftey need&quot; needs review.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public         I live in Morriston and there isnt a week goes by without the Air/Sea rescue helicopter going overhead to Morriston Hospital especially in the summer months. Whenever there is an accident around the Swansea Coast line, the coastguards are involved and by closing this station, lives are being put at risk. I think it is a disgraceful move by the Government.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I completely reject that coastguard stations need to be closed for &quot;cost effective&quot; reasons.<br><br>As the second busiest station in the UK (according to the PCS) and the busiest in Wales, the area covered by Swansea Coastguard includes the whole of the Bristol Channel, Welsh and English coastlines. Within the area of responsibility activity is high with numerous marinas, commercial ports, busy beaches, a large resident population and a large amount of visitors.<br><br>Swansea coastguard should not close for these reasons.<br><br>I also reject that closures of any other coastguard will be necessary because I reject your claim that &quot;no change is not an option&quot;. I ask you to support this claim and explain why a change means closures of stations. Both should be retained. If there are any concerns at all, then there should be no closures. As the second busiest station in the UK (according to the PCS) and the busiest in Wales, the area covered by Swansea Coastguard includes the whole of the Bristol Channel, Welsh and English coastlines. Within the area of responsibility activity is high with numerous marinas, commercial ports, busy beaches, a large resident population and a large amount of visitors.<br><br>Closing it will not cover the UK coastguard operational needs. Please address the option of keeping both open.<br><br>A decision made on the grounds of safety would retain both stations.<br><br>I reject any options presented on the grounds of &quot;cost efficiency&quot;.<br><br>I reject your claim that &quot;no change is not an option&quot;, and ask you to support this claim. I also ask you to support why this claim, if true, would mean closures. Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport, has personal wealth estimated at £9m (source: New Statesman (London). 1 October 2009)<br><br>This is approximately the cost savings you hope to make through the proposed changes!<br><br>Please close Philip Hammond's bank account, not coast guards!                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public         If the Brixham station is shut how will sailors around the south hams and ajoinng areas be able to test their equipment or contact the coastguard in an emergancy if the vhf only works on line of site?                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Not sufficient coverage. All current sub-centres should be retained. There are areas of government spending (eg MOD) that savings can be made by reducing waste (eg building aircraft carriers and then scrapping the aircraft that can fly from them) without the same potential danger to life no opinion on this specific issue No - all current centres should be maintained Insufficient local coverage - retain both centres Brixham, Portland and Solent cover some of the busiest recreational sailing areas and provide an invaluable service, not just in co-ordinating rescues, but also preventing incidents. Do not close these centres                                                                                                                                                
Small to Medium Enterprise (up to 50 employees) Yes I do agree that we should keep these centres ,as a diver I feel safer being at sea knowing that there is someone there on my radio if needed .also having these these stations provides a source of employment in areas where employment is somewhat hard to come by       You should not shut any stations where ever in the UK they are ,these stations do a service that a central station could not carry out ,you have coast guard that are locals and know the area they cover better than any one else. By closing these stations you are putting peoples lifes at risk .I totally disagree with the closures ,I think I have made my point quite clear                                                                                                                                                
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team   The proposed closure of Liverpool MRCC does not represent a very good strategic operational spread of co-ordination centres. After the closures there will be two stations in Wales, the whole coastline of which would almost fit into Liverpool District, and none on the whole west coast of England. In my opinion this does not represent a safe operational change, nor does it retain geographical balance of coordination centres. <br><br> It is marginally better than the ridiculous initial proposals. However, why should the MOC be situated in the south of the country. The centre at Liverpool is owned by the MCA and is adequate in size to more than accommodate extra desks required without the need for capital expenditure, as would be the case with Holyhead. Liverpool was purpose built and actually won a design council award after being opened in December 1982. In fact there is a very strong case for the site to be the location of the Maritime Operations Centre (MOC). By the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s own admission the site of the MOC could be anywhere in the United Kingdom, why not Liverpool. As previously stated ground area is not an issue, purchase price is not an issue, location is not an issue also rent is not an issue with the site being rent free. The site is more or less geographically central to the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It would make sound business sense to seriously consider this as an option to save more unnecessary expenditure from the public purse. <br>                                                                                                                                                    
Member of the public N/A Certainly not. Not in terms of local knowledge. N/A One of the main concerns expressed by interested parties is the loss of local knowledge. This will apply in all regions. The Liverpool Coastguard covers both coastal and inland areas of water. There will be a large number of visitors from whom one might expect less than accurate location reports. Local area knowledge will be vital.                                                                                                                                                
retired i simply oppose all proposals that will bring about the risk to lives, for the sake of penny pinching. NO!!!!! NO! PASS                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public I have no knowledge on this question. I have no knowledge on this question. To have no station between Humberside and Dover is a mistake, I believe. This part of the East coast is busy with holiday resorts, water sports and increasing maritime activity. Local knowledge is important in saving life at sea and so the closure of Yarmouth would, I believe,lead to increased risks. I have no knowledge on this question.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public Yes, considering the density of shipping in the area, all in all a good decision. Probably a sound decision, IF it is a foregone conclusion to close one or the other,I think the reason about welsh names etc is a bit lame considering there are very few people in Wales who cannot read, write or understand the English language of the United Kingdom.<br>However, If the research supports this then I am surprised.<br><br>Could not the same be said of the people of Holyhead not understanding the english names of the coastal locations around merseyside? Only time will tell, the closure of many of the coastguard stations, including Brixham may well prove to be an unwise decision, regardless of the reasons given in the report that local knowledge can be gathered and stored centrally for use in emergencies, a central registry will only be as good as the information stored - there must be provisions for updating on a very regular basis. <br>I cannot help being of the opinion that local knowledge of locations, hazards and sea conditions experienced in the past by local coastguard members is vital in an emergency.<br><br>The cost saving of a few million pounds (under £4m per year?) set against saving lives does not seem common sense to me. No I appreciate the need for modernisation and cost savings, but closing seven centres which have served well for many, many years seems a 'cut too far' <br>However good the operators at a call centre might be, they cannot ever be aware or to understand fully the local conditions, geography or hazards experienced in the past.<br>Local knowledge is vital.<br><br>I have always been interested in the sea, fourteen years in the Royal Navy, 30 years in an emergency service (Police) and I have always relied on local knowledge coupled with the invaluable assistance which can be given centrally. However, I doubt that my concerns carry any weight.<br><br>Thankfully the R.N.L.I is not involved in these changes. <br>                                                                                                                                                
Retired member of CG resue team and leisure yachtsman Yes: <br><br>The area is exeptionally large due to indented coastlines and tidal streams because of the uneque geological nature of the area. LOCAL KNOWLEDGE IS ESSENTIAL!<br><br>Cost effectiveness must ineveitably come in to the equasion of what is eventually decided: <br><br>However, the cost of a failure to have propper effective cover for such an area, is too high to be put at risk by scimping on the running costs of saving lives. Liverpool should be kept and even enhanced as with out it's long time history of moitoring shipping of all types opperating in one of the countries major ports has got to be made use of in the efficient organisation of urgent rescues over a vast area that contains such a large number of maritime activities both commercial and leaisure based. The Coast Guard Service up until the review had obviously been developed to cope with the needs of the times and the to cover the ever increasing commercial and leisure activities that have also developed.<br><br>Although communications have become very much better at an almost exponential rate; ( Mobile phones, Radio, The Internet etc.) and devices such as GPS navigation have made the reporting of where an accident or incident might be; the traveling time taken to get to the incident has not really altered at the same rate&gt; Therefore, there should not be a reduction in the points from which a rescue can be mounted. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the area to make a qualified answer to this : But , would re itterate my answers to the previous questions. If it ain't broke don't fixit!                                                                                                                                                
South Coast Sailer I think that all 24/7 centres should be retained I think that all 24/7 sub centres should be retained No it does not.<br><br>The UK South Coast, the English Channel and the Solent in particular, is one of the busiest coast lines in the country both for commercial and pleasure craft.<br><br>To scrap Solent Coast Guard will dilute the service provided, loose valuable time in rescue situations and risk lives at sea.<br><br>Both Solent and Dover should be retained on a 24/7 basis. Again. all 24/7 stations should be retained This second consulatation has aimed its questions at three very specific marine areas.<br><br>It has totally disregarded the busiest waters of our coast line, if not the busiest waters in the world. These are the English Channel and the Solent.<br><br>Both Dover and Solent Coast Guard Sations should remain on a 24/7 basis.<br><br>To close Solent Coast Guard is going to risk a great many lives.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Not connected to this area of the UK but am strongly of the opinion that losing ANY local centres will lose vital local knowledge and consequently put lives at risk. Just to save a few million, why not sack a couple of RBS bankers and save the taxpayer the cost of their bonus. Perhaps the money could then be used to save lives. Rather more important don't you think? See previous comment. Frankly no. Try this one for size. I've fallen out of my kayak and trapped in the mud on a flooding tide. All I can see are a couple of posts in the river and a large long building with a tall tower on the opposite bank. Where am I? Are Humber coastguards going to know that answer and launch the ILB? Proobably not, so a life lost.<br><br>Try asking Thames the same question and I guarantee they will know where I am. Life saved. See previous comments. By all means modernise communications between MRCCs but do not forsake local knowledge or rely on volunteers to provide a service thta should react as an emergency service.<br><br>Ask the Fire Service, aka the taxpayers, how effective was their plan to centralise their response centres. If it can't work for them, then why does this clown think it will work for HMCG? <br><br>The history of Government departments modernising their IT systems could form the script of a pantomine. Except it is rarely fictional e'g Fire, NHS, Ministry of Defence etc etc etc.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Keep the local knowledge No No No idea                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public     No<br>Leaving the Humber to the Thames without a station leaves far too broad an area to be covered from Dover. In teh event of a problem at Dover, teh next nearest stations would be expected to cover areas way beyond their remit.   Thames is currently the 3rd busiest centre in the UK. I believe that it should be<br>retained, at minimum as a day centre.<br><br>The justification for this is evident from:<br>Dover Coastguard being reluctant to take over Vessel Traffic Services coverage of the Sunk Precautionary Area as the northern approaches to the River Thames are outside its area of expertise.<br>The potential impact of an incident during Ship to Ship (oil) Transfers in Sole Bay;<br>Anchorage;<br>shipping density;<br>wind farm density; <br>large numbers of recreational craft.<br><br>these issues are exacerbated by teh closure of Yarmouth.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public No this is totally inadequate so many lives will be lost in the north west if Liverpool coastguard closes. No Liverpool is a far better location covers so much more area centrally. No No centres should be closed its a disgrace its lives that matter not money                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public No - I feel that its a large area of water to expect efficiant and safe response time Liverpool is a traditional port for boats - why change a good arrangement I don't know enough operationally as a member of the public n.a Its a small saving of capital for a loss of jobs and local peoples livelihoods                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public       Yes it`s crazy Swansea have saved far more lives than anyone else in Wales so why close it down? You`re putting our lives at risk. Milford Haven will take too long to get to us!!!                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public yes as we should retain as many stations as possible Yes as a merchant seaman living in Wales there is a real need to address Welsh. Whilst radio communications are conducted in english there is a need for a basic understanding of Welsh for local knowledge. You either need staff to have a command of the Welsh language or live in Wales where even english speaking staff build up and understanding over time. as far as I can see we need as many stations as possible Milford is a busy port and I agree there seems to be a good reason to retain the station.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public NO I DO NOT<br>I think the provision should be left as it is now with a fully manned Centre at Mumbles.<br><br>Cost-cutting is wrong when people's lives are at risk.<br>'Modernisation' is just a euphemism for cuts. NO<br>The provision should be as it is now. NO IT DOES NOT<br><br>This is an exercise which doesn't regard the quality of service but is concerned with cost-cutting whivch is immoral in relation to this provision. This proposal is flawed.<br>Swansea/Mumbles covers a huge area already and needs to be retained.<br>We need both Milford haven and Swansea Coastguards to give adequate cover for the area.<br>Swansea is constantly being stripped of all its services in the name of 'efficiency'. This really means cost-cutting for the sake of saving money and nothing else. This is WRONG and unsafe for the waters which surround this area which has some of the fastest and most difficult tides in Britain. The Tory/Lib Dem Government are not concerned with the safety of our Coastguard provision. They are engaged in an immoral campaign to cut public services which will endanger both our shipping in some of the busiest shipping lanes and will jeopardise safety.<br><br>This is immoral and wrong.<br>Swansea Coastguard and all other centres which are threatened with closure should not be closed. The present provision should be retained and the government should not follow this flawed plan.<br>The arguments for cuts do not hold water. They will jeopardise the safety of shipping and the general public.<br><br>This whole plan should be rejected for the rubbish that it is.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public no idea no idea no swansea provides 24/7 coverage and can send out emergency support from their vantage point on tutts head also provides an excellent view of the bristol channel and have supported other emergency services to rescues. the gower peninsula is an area of outstanding beauty and people get lost or fall down cliff faces or rock climbing and canoeing jetskis power boats and sail can all be seen from this vantage point or directed by use of maps dont close swansea down it needed                                                                                                                                                
Member of MCA Staff         1. Will transfers from all old post to all new posts be co-ordinated or will the process be piecemeal and phased?<br><br>2. When and how will any redundancies be notified? Will there be any?<br><br>3. Will/when will the recruiting ban be lifted? Current manning, here at Forth at any rate, is quite critical with tha station often going to OPS 2, unable to man with more than 2 staff. We are about 10 operational staff below establishment. <br><br>Your staff would all, I am sure, like some basis upon which to plan the rest of their lives and so some indication that MCGA has these matters in mind would help: it cannot be that you have no contingency proposals ready - you could NOW be asking for expressions of interest and interviewing individuals on a planning basis.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I strongly support the retention of the Stornoway centre. <br> Although small, parts of the islands are very remote and because of the decline in grazing are not visited by anyone for very long periods, something which is relected in the presence of large numbers of very rare birds nesting. Walking and wild camping in the least popular parts of Lewis, Harris and North Uist for three weeks in July 2010, I only saw two groups of people on the hills the entire time, one of which was three salmon poachers I surprised. I was very pleased and releived therefore one day when a sea kayaker saw my tent and , assuming it was abandoned, called out the coastguard helicopter. As it happened I was OK and did not need hospitalisation. I am confident however that had I been badly injured I would have got exposure, even in July. I am not cofident that a casual observer would have been comfortable in calling Shetland to report something when they were uncertain what had happened or that there would have been such a prompt response if the helicopter had had to come from the mainland in answer to a call where no accident had been detected.<br>I know that there are larger issues at stake, that the risks may be more to shipping and the oil industry but the coastguard still has a role to play in rescuing ordinary people and I am very pleased and impressed that they did so so efficiently for me. No opinion No opinion No opinion                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public       Yes there certainly are, Swansea covers the busy port area, the Bristol Channel, and the Gower Peninsula, VERY busy shipping and recreational areas where our trained Coastguards have invaluable local knowledge to aid rescue operations.<br>This current UK Government should be disgusted with themselves for putting £`s over lives, and for not fully understanding the implications and future consequences involved in closing the station in Mumbles, this WILL certainly come back to haunt them, and the MCA, when the first life is lost if this closure is carried out.<br>PLEASE RECONSIDER VERY CAREFULLY! The Coastguard Station in Mumbles MUST stay to protect shipping in the port and the busy shipping lanes, water users and boat owners, and the general public that use the hugely popular Gower Peninsula.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public no yes no Yes, Swansea also needs to be retained due to the high level of maritime activity in the Bristol Channel. Welsh place names are difficult to pronounce if you are not conversant with the location or are a welsh speaker and this will inevitably put lives at risk due to possible Mis-pronunciation. <br>Swansea is promoted as a tourism hot spot and as a result many people visit the area for its coastal location. The fact that there is a facility at Swansea obviously provides reassurance to both visistors and locals alike. I think that you should re consider the statistics i.e lives saved, and not base your decision simply on the number of Local Government posts available in the area. How can you put cost saving above life saving!                                                                                                                                                
Central Government Yes I agree with this, though I have not been involved in this campaign as a representative from Wales. Yes I do. Holyhead should be retained, and I supported the work of the local campaigners and the AM Ieuan Wyn Jones in their campaign to stop its closure. I do not believe that the new structure will provide appropriate resilience. I do not agree with the decision to close Swansea Coastguard Station, when it was never earmarked for closure initially. I attended a public meeting with the MCA at Swansea's Marriott Hotel, and the discussion was around downgrading Swansea to a day service, for Southampton to carry out emergency cover in the evening's. This was not desirable at the time, but on hearing from the media that Swansea is to close, I cannot support this- as a political representative for the area, or on looking at the reasoning for the decision. From what I have seen in the press the UK Government are stating that there are already 5000 public sector jobs in Swansea. This is not a strong enough reason to close the Coastguard Station. It is a very busy area, and I believe that more lives may be put at risk if Swansea is closed. It does not seem that the decision to close Swansea was made for an operational reason. I want to understand why it has been announced. What is the new information that has come to light to justify closing Swansea? What risk assessments have been made to quality this? Can we see the reasoning that was made to base this decision on? What are the long term implications? There are too many questions yet to be answered for me to be able to support this closure. <br><br>I am also appalled that the MCA nor the UK Government did not contact me as an elected representative to tell me about this planned closure. It was insulting to have to find out in the media about something so important to my constituents. I have outlined many of the issues in the previous question. I need to question why Swansea has been earmarked for closure at this stage. I have not received any formal communication from the UK Government to properly understand why they are now consulting to close Swansea.<br><br> We have not had sufficient time to put forward our case as to why Swansea should be retained. Of course, Milford Haven is a major energy portal and should be kept open, but I do not believe that Milford and Swansea should be seen in the same context, or that one should be kept open to the detriment of the other.<br><br> Where is the risk assessment showing that lives will not be put at risk as a result of closing Swansea? Why was this decision made at the last minute, when Swansea was never even considered for closure from the outset? <br><br>Have staff been consulted, and the trade unions?<br><br>The safety of shipping and the thousands of people who live, work and visit our coastline is of paramount importance, and I am not convinced that closing Swansea will provide the service that people need in this regard. The UK Government wish to make savings, and change services, but this should not be done when lives could be put at risk. I would like to reiterate that I am deeply concerned by the way that this process has taken place. It has been flawed from the outset. <br><br>The original proposals were criticised in a report by the House of Commons Transport Committee, which said evidence it had received during its inquiry into Coastguards had raised “serious concerns that safety will be jeopardised if these proposals proceed”. <br><br>This does not bode well for the second stage of consultation with regards to the closure of Swansea Coastguard Station. Why should people in this area trust a consultation process again?<br><br> We did not put forward an argument to save the Station like Milford and Holyhead campaigners did, as we did not knpow that Swansea was on the cards for closure. <br><br>This decision to close Swansea therefore is underhand, as the people of the area, and those who work at Swansea Coastguard Station have been mislead from the outset as to the true intentions of the UK Government.<br><br> We need answers to questions regarding why this decision was arrived at at this late stage, where is the reasoning, where is the risk assessment? This decision is an insult to the people who work at Swansea, and the lives that could be put at risk as a result of a decision by the UK Government. Plaid Cymru will campaign against the closure of Swansea Coastguard Station.<br><br>                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Yes. <br>Money should not be a thought when it comes to saving lives. No.<br><br> No it does not<br><br>How can the Government put saving lives at risk by making cuts.<br><br>Local knowledge and Local place names are vital in a rescue. Having a rescue centre take charge of a rescue with out the knowledge could easily give the wrong information when it comes to welsh place names. Thus, sending a search team to the wrong location. Considering that Swansea is the second busiest station in Britain, there are alot of factors that need to be addressed and SWANSEA should be kept open.<br>Politics should be keep out of Search and Rescue.<br> Its total unbeleiveable that the Government see it fit to tamper with such an important organisation as, the MRCC.<br>They should go along and spend a busy summer weekend with the MRCC and see what saving lives is all about.<br>It is certainly not saving money.<br>Its the Government who want to make cuts with all the fat cat pay outs they get and all the banking topbrass with their stupid overpaid bonus' and for what nothing. This money would be put to better use by the Search and Rescue Centres and Search and Rescue teams around the coast. These all the people who matter. Leave our MRCC alone and look closer to home to make your cuts Mr Cameron.                                                                                                                                                
Member, National Coastwatch Institution unable to give an opinion due to lack of knowledge of the area As previous question I still have concerns about the loss of experienced officers and Coastgurad stations At present Swansea covers part of the area with which I am familiar; how can we be assured that one centre will be able to cope? I am greatly relieved that Falmouth will be retained as a a 24 hour cnetre, but worried about how reduced staff there will cope with the work at present dealt with by Brixham (including SE Cornwall\)                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public yes yes no Swansea is important base that must be retained 24/7, it covers a very busy channel and large area of cliffed coast land. With the intoduction of the Swansea ti Ilfrcome ferry the Swansea station will be more important for safety than ever before                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public no yes no job losses<br>the area in which Swansea cover<br>risking lives                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public     We are a small island surrounded by sea. Everyone wether they use the sea for a living, or for enjoyment needs help and protection from accidents and incidents that we have no control over. That's without the security issues? We need both, both are equally busy ports<br> This idea of closures is just so short sighted<br>                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public     no way how can cutting back which will slow down response times be a good thing its a bloody stupid idea were are a island we have wonderfull beachs that y tourists come here in dangering there lifes will not atrack tourist the fact that swansea porttalbot the gower are all sea side resorts we desperatly need our own life guard how on earth any body can think endangering lives in this way is good idea to get rid of either one would be like signing dozens of people death sentences if not hundreds if a ship was to get in to trouble we pay our taxes for services like this as regular vistor to the beachs around swansea llanneli and the gower i know how dangerous the rocks round the gower can be how dangerous the tides at llaneli can be how dangerous the sinking sand in swansea bay can be we need people who know this area who are based in this area <br> come on just show some common sense                                                                                                                                                
individual no knowledge of this. commenting re arrangements for wales. As previous, commenting just on arrangements for Wales. No, I'd like to comment on the decision to close the Swansea Coastguard. I feel this is wrong for the following reasons: <br><br>Implications <br>-- the closure will result in a massive loss of provision. currently Swansea is the 2nd busiest coastguard station. The loss of the manpower will result in a much declined level of service. <br> -The purpose of a coastguard station is to coordinate rescue, and for that local knowledge is critical. The proposed solutions to address the loss of Swansea will not overcome the loss of officers with local knowledge; a call centre in Southhampton or a base at Milford will not have adequate understanding of the area covered by swansea, i.e. Swansea, east wales, bristol, devon and cornwall. <br>- It is likely that there will be a huge decline in perceptinos of safety of using the coastline in the area currently covered by Swansea. That will result in loss of peace of mind and enjoyment by users of the water, beaches, and coast. <br>- Llikely reduction in tourism, because as a result the area will be less attractive as a destination. <br><br>the reasons for the decision are flawed and wrong. <br>- I feel the reasons are purely on the basis of budget, reasons I'm aware of relate to costs of buildings and numbers of public sector jobs. <br>- there has not been enough consideration of the implications on safety<br>- No consideration has been given to the impact of damage to public confidence in safety and the effect that could have on tourism in all of the affected areas, i.e. Swansea, South East Wales, Bristol, Weston super mare, Devon and Cornwall. <br><br>Announced late in decision making process, with little opportunity for reconsideration:<br>- this has been announced, at a late date in the decision making process, giving extremely small amoutns of time for raising of concerns and consultation of people affected, and for reconsideration of the decision by the government. no, the decision to close swansea is fundamentally flawed and wrong. it can't be mitigated by addressing other factors, other than reconsideration and keeping a 24/7 service at Swansea. A sweeping policy of closing one of every pair of stations does not work in practice. the factors are different in each area. <br><br>It's essential that all 3 coastguard statinos in wales are retained. Holyhead is important for the north wales area. Milford Haven is important for the west coast. Swansea is essential for the severn estuary area, and the entire bristol channel. <br><br>The decision involves putting money before safety and people's lives. <br><br>Residents in the area are disgusted and shocked. It has really shown the lack of interest of the coalition government in the interests and wellbeing of individuals in the UK. It is extremely unpopular and likely to contribute to the growing anger about public service cuts.                                                                                                                                                
Also RNLI crew member Yes Yes No Yes, many. Safety and lives comes first. None.                                                                                                                                                
member of british canoe union i agree to having 24/7 centres and dont think that there is a cheaper way. i think that local knowledge is better than risking lives by giving grid references to a stranger miles away. not really although milford deals with much heavier traffic, the gower is home to a lot of light users- surfers, conoeists, walkers and small boat users. as the gower is aonb it probably has more tourists than locals. keep swansea as the gower is my home and that is where i gained my confidence in the sea with the knowledge of tutts head around the corner.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public no why not man it with volunteer or part time staff not destroy a busy station yes no swansea handles more emergency situations than milford has ever donei beleive this is another goverment move to keep the local mp happy like the closure of velindre tinplate in the 80's was                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public No I do not, I have never agreed with the closure of any Coastguard station no matter what its location is, I know we all have financial restrictions at present but to cut the safety factor to address this issue is not right, if any thing you should be increasing the service coverage not closing it down. As for cost effectiveness, how do you cost the value of a lost life or lives, because that is what will happen. Millions of pounds of money is wasted in this country on payments to the EU and given away to Foreign countrys, this should stop, its time to look after our own country and people. I feel that both stations should remain open, however if the Holyhead station is better equiped and positioned more geographically to the main sea area then perhaps it is better siuted. No it does not, not in any way shape or form, you are leaving areas of sea and coast wide open, and tis will cost lives and well you know it. Again I consider that both stations should remain open, here is another scenario where possible there will be no cover on part of the coastline in SouthWales, how are you going to ensure adequate protection and coverage, possibly by volunteers who will not have the same skills and experience that the full time Coastgurd do. Whilst I can appreciate that you are having a funding problem I cannot in any way understand why you are closing so many Coastguard Stations, it beggars belief that people who do not appreciate how dangerous our coasts are, are making these decisions. A prime example is Brixham and Portland, no way should you even consider the closure of these two stations, you will have no safety coverage from the Solent to Falmouth, who ever thought that one up, the most dangerous part of the English Channel, and especially around Portland Bill, with the Race and extreme currents. Just look at the record of callouts carried out by the Portland crew they have saved many lives over the past years and that will not stop happening,but if you carry out your plan people will die, and I am sorry but there is no way you can class that as cost effective, In the years I was in the MoD I had many meetings with the MCA and I have a lot of respect for what they do in helping to keep the seas a safe place, and I am sure these decisions are being forced upon them in the name of costs saving, WELL ITS NOT ACCEPTABLE NOT AT ALL.<br>One last comment , you have to decide on where to place the Command Centre of Operations for the Coastguard, well why not put it in Portland, we have excellent communications here now because of the Olympics, and it would be right in the centre of the Solent and Falmouth able to assist in all directions, now that would be sensible and enhance the safety of the sea for all. Please think about what you are doing there is no price on safety.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public All coastguard stations should remain open All coastguard stations should remain open no Swansea is the second busiest in the Uk so surely it should remain open KEEP SWANSEA OPEN                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Please retain, they area vital service to coastal communities unknown Not if it means closing vital coastguard stations The distance from Milford to Swansea and the amount of area which is covered by Swansea coastguard station Swansea Coastguard provide a vital service and I am concerned at potential consequences if this station were to close.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public We should keep all the centres open and make the rich pay their avoided and evaded tax. We don't need Trident either.<br> We should keep all the centres open and make the rich pay their avoided and evaded tax. We don't need Trident either.<br> We need all the centres around the UK to stay open... don't close any.<br>Stop giving more and more money to super rich bankers, bond-holders and speculators. We should keep all the centres open and make the rich pay their unpaid, avoided and evaded tax. We don't need Trident either!<br> Why are the questions in this survey skewed towards closing one centre rather than the other?<br><br>This is not a real consultation if the result is already decided!<br><br>We need all the centres around the UK to stay open... don't close any!<br>Stop giving more and more money to super rich bankers, bond-holders and speculators. We should keep all the centres open and make the rich pay their unpaid, avoided and evaded tax. We don't need Trident either!<br> Why don't you do a real consultation?                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public No No No Lives<br> Safety on the water                                                                                                                                                
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team Yes, due to their remote locations, they both need to be retained and fully manned 24/7. Holyhead MRCC is in an excellent position in the Irish Sea but both MRCCs are needed and one must be fully manned 24/7.<br><br>It is of the utmost importance that Holyhead is retained as it is a major Ferry terminal, its at the corner of the Irish Sea, North Wales Coast & Morecambe Bay. There are major sailing venues, mountains, islands and rugged coastline.<br><br>Liverpool should be kept due to the large expanse of Morecambe Bay, Blackpool seafront, Gas fields and the Lake District.<br><br>Since HM Coastguard are dedicated to SAR, ALL SAR activities in the UK should be the sole responsibility of HM Coastguard. Every MRCC & Coastguard Team are trained in LAND-SAR and can respond to all manner of incidents both offshore, coastal and inland. This is proven! NO.<br><br>At present, MRCCs are paired - this is the best form of resilience there is. <br><br>Paired stations work together and should one station need evacuating, their sister station can take over without hitch. Recent and ongoing improvement in the infrastructure can only improve on what is already an excellent system.<br><br>HM Coastguard are already resilient, and certainly better equipped than partner Emergency Services. Yes.<br><br>Swansea has traditionally been the main site and has been at its present location for well over a hundred years. It already has the room to expand.<br><br>It has a workforce that comes almost entirely from within the city boundaries, each staff member does not need to travel great distances. This is of great importance during severe weather where more remote MRCCs struggle to get staff in as they are cut off by these conditions.<br><br>Swansea, as it is close to a major conurbation, already has the infrastructure needed to cope with any future expansion. Roads, housing, schools, communications and utilities are already in place. It is located just off a main road. <br><br>Swansea MRCC is the second busiest MRCC in the UK. The staff are well used to working under great pressure. Expanding a station that handles less than half the number of calls would result in mistakes being due to the sheer increase in magnitude of calls.<br><br>Swansea's location is benign when compared to the location of Milford haven MRCC. Milford Haven MRCC overlooks a new LNG terminal that is handling vast quantities of Liquefied natural Gas per day, as well as the major Oil terminals that exist on both sides of the Haven. In the event of a tanker or pipeline incident, Milford Haven MRCC would need to be evacuated - a huge area of coastline would then have to be transferred to an even more distant location, just when its needed. There may even be casualties directly as a result of the incident! <br><br>With Swansea in place, the staff would be able to take command immediately and would then be assisted by Milford staff who would have only taken about an hour and a half to travel between sites. <br><br>This is resilience! Local officers being able to transfer between sites easily without the need for expensive helicopter operations. Constant training by both stations paying dividends.<br><br>This works already! No need to change!<br><br><br><br><br> By keeping the existing configuration, i.e. all 19 sites that are paired, there will be no need to build any new stations. resilience is already built in.<br><br>Local knowledge will be preserved without placing additional burdens on the Coastguard Rescue Service. The CRS is manned by volunteers who are already under pressure from both the MCA and their employers!<br><br>The upgrade program that is already complete at some sites has already been paid for and will improve resilience, again without any additional costs.<br><br>Moving to an MRCC/MRSC configuration could reduce the headcount at the MRSC to make substantial savings without the loss of well trained personnel, reduced additional costs in redundancy/relocation/retraining and also minimise concerns by local communities.<br><br>                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Who cares about how much it costs? Are we seriously putting money before people's lives? I see no reason for one to remain open and the other to be closed. I think that they should both remain open to help protect the lives of the public. no                                                                                                                                                    
Member of the public     Most definitely not. I feel it is a terrible idea to close Swansea Coastguard station - both Milford and Swansea need to be retained. <br><br>Swansea is currently the 2nd busiest coastguard station in the UK whereas Milford is also important given the industrial considerations. <br><br>The Gower and the Bristol Channel in general are extremely busy waterways. Swansea Coastguard also covers Somerset and North Deven. Removal of the Swansea coastguard is in my opinion a crazy idea. Milford Haven is simply too far away to be useful.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public NO NO NO Swansea is a busier station covering a large area of very busy waterways. The population of water users especially non commercial pleasure is higher and hence the probability of those users needing fast local response for support. It is an outrage that the threat to Swansea Coastguard had been hidden behind a campaign to close other stations.                                                                                                                                                
Local Government Keep Swansea open - its one of the busiest coasts in Wales. Keep Swansea Open - one of the busiest coasts in Wales Keep Swansea Coast Guard Open - one of the busiest coasts in wales Keep Swansea Coast Guard Open - one of the busiest coasts in wales with all the tourists & locals, especially the surfers. Keep Swansea Coast Guard Open - one of the busiest coasts in wales                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public       Swansea needs to remain open; it is sited in an area of heavy water sports use-sailing, diving, windsurfing, surfing, and a busy waterway.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public No<br><br>Continue with current service No No Speed of response.<br>Confidence of public. As a family man who spends many days surfing, swimming and fishing on the South Wales coast line I'm appaled at the cut backs planned for the service. I think the current service is adequate for public and business needs and that it should NOT to reduced in any shape or form.                                                                                                                                                
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team I agree that retaining 24/7 sub-centres at both Shetland and Stornoway adequatlely addresses the concerns expressed. <br><br>Due to the geographical positioning, varied climatic complictaions on communications and local dialecs I do not think there is a more cost effective way of addressing these concerns. Due to the lack of knowledge on the locality and infrastruture relating to sub-centres I would be unable to answer if Holyhead is best suited to be retained. I understand the thinking behind the new structure and believe it might be possible to cover the UK coastguard operational needs, but with all new structures it has been unproven as to how it will truly operate until put into operation.<br><br>Once applied I believe that a lot of minor changes will have to be made to iron out operational issues. Communictions will be the most vulnerable factor that will effect it in my opinion. There will be issues with system failures which in turn may result in a less effective operational set up.<br><br>I believe that more resources will have to be allocated to local CRT's in terms of equipment and training to allow this national structure to acheive it's goals. Unable to comment due to insufficent knowledge of the effectiveness of retaining Milford Haven rather than Swansea. I believe the closing of Forth Coatguard will have a major impact on the effectiveness of the CRT teams along the south east coast of Scotland. With the removal of Forth, Aberdeen will become our main source of contact and is widely believed this is to far away and will lead to a feeling of isolation and may lead to a less effective response.<br><br>Change is obviously going to occur and whilst undestanding the principles behind the new structure to create a more effective and focused Coastguard I do beleive in the transitional stages whilst all the gremlins are being sorted out it will suffer.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public No, I do not agree. Shutting down Swansea Coast Guard station will endanger many lives and will undoubtedly result in fatalities as local knowledge is vital   Definitely not. Local knowledge of those attending the Swansea area will be nil - this will result in lost lives. It is madness to make cost cuts to this vital service. Save money by cutting MPs and AMs expenses or salaries, or get the money back from the banks we've all bailed out - but don't put our lives at risk.                                                                                                                                                
Small to Medium Enterprise (up to 50 employees) Yes Yes No - I believe that all of the present coastguard stations need to be maintained and that NONE of them should be closed.<br>For those in peril on the sea - heed the words. We are an island nation. Our seas are treachorous and unpredictable. We need our coastguard stations to remain open in order that lives are not lost.<br>Now that the UK has retracted its financial support of Malawi to the tune of over £70 million per year, use that money to keep all our coastguard stations open. Yes- I believe that all of the present coastguard stations need to be maintained and that NONE of them should be closed.<br>For those in peril on the sea - heed the words. We are an island nation. Our seas are treachorous and unpredictable. We need our coastguard stations to remain open in order that lives are not lost.<br>Now that the UK has retracted its financial support of Malawi to the tune of over £70 million per year, use that money to keep all our coastguard stations open.<br><br>If someone gets into trouble in the seas around Swansea, it would take too long for the coastguard to respond from Milford Haven.<br>People drown very quickly.<br>Sending the coastguard from Milford Haven would just not work.<br>We need both Swansea and Milford Haven coastguards to remain operational. Please listen to the views of those people who live in and around Swansea and use the sea.<br>We need to maintain the coastguard station at Swansea in order to save lives.<br>The coastguard station at Milford Haven is far too far away from the Gower in order to effectively patrol.<br><br>If Mr Cameron or any of the government ministers had ever experienced the force of the sea around the Gower coastline and beyond, they would realise what a foolish and costly mistake it would be to close down Swansea coastguard.<br><br>A drowning person cannot survive in our cold coastal waters long enough for the Milford Haven coastguard to be summoned.<br>We need Swansea coastguard to stay open.<br>If not then the guilt of lost lives in our waters will surely have to fall at the feet of this government.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I believe when life saving services are involved cuts should be avoided at all costs there are so many other frivilous areas where cuts could be made. No - both centres are needed to provide adequate cover - these are human lives that hang in the balance. Absolutley not - our emergency services including the Coastguard are stretched as in. Reducing services further will have disasterous consequences. Swansea responded to 2074 calls in 2074 alone - these real life heroes need to stay in place. The extra seconds needed to respond from Milford Haven rather than Swansea could be the difference between life or death for a person in trouble. Closing Swansea should not even be considered as an option! The &quot;cost cutting&quot; that has been proposed to theses critical services is diabolical. These are human beings, human lives - stop playing god, stop deciding who lives and who dies and for once do the right thing with the budget. Allow these miraculous individuals to carry on saving lives!                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public yes yes no the closure of swansea coastguard is quiet a heavy water user i find it is the coastguard who are the first to arrive with help.there is a large amount of water users in swansea & bristol channel/devon who benifit immencely from having the station in swansea.if this station was to close i can see a significant loss of life occuring.swansea also offers local sea conditions which is invaluable to water users (& there is a lot of them in the bristol channel) with various marina`s ,ports & beaches.britain is supposed to be a seafearing nation & is also an island which should have adequate coverage with the coastguard                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public   Yes I think that the plan leave too many gaps without local knowledge of the coastline and confusion with Welsh spelling and locally used place names. This causes a certain amount of confusion with the current system but it would be exaccerbated with the withdrawal of certain MRCC and MRSC stations. Possibly the retention of Swansea on a daylight hours only station covering the upper part of the Bristol Channel. The original plan for the closure of Stations appeared to be a money saving action without thinking about the actual saving of lives or the prevention of a possible shipping disaster.<br>The new proposals will save a certain amount of money but provides a better safety coverage but there are still areas which give a certain amount of concern over the safety coverage.                                                                                                                                                
Member of MCA Staff no comment no comment Yes no comment As Dover has to be run as a 24/7 station already agreed for CNIS etc, and to my knowledge it has plenty of space to accommodate and expand; why not make it the (full) MOC?<br><br>Why spend time and money searching for a suitable site in the Southampton/Portsmouth area so close to our HQ, when Dover is already up and running?<br><br>We would still need to build a southern data centre remote from Dover, possibly in the Southampton area together with the northern data centre to support the infrastructure<br>                                                                                                                                                
Local Government No comment. No Comment 'RESOLVED that a response be sent on the new consultation document with a strong request that both Brixham and Portland stations be retained. In addition, a letter to be sent to our local MP for their support with a copy to other MP’s located along the coastline who would be affected.' <br><br>The Council is very concerned that the removal of both Brixham and Portland Stations on some of the busiest waters around our coasts is a retrograde step for water safety. Our exmouth lifeboat is one of the busiest in the South West and we have a signifant amount of inaccessible coastline with high cliffs. The experience of dependence on centralised call centre/computer systems implemented by public bodies has not been good with inexplicable soaring costs, details and problems associated. Locally we have direct experience of a new fire control centre for Devon and Somerset being built and abandoned when implementation and costs went out of control. <br><br>Whilst reducing costs of manpower always seems an attractive way to make dramatic cuts it is not considered locally to be a wise move. We know how much human experience and local knowledge is contained within the MCA and consider that the closure of both these stations is a step too far. <br><br>Exmouth Town Council would ask for serious reconsideration of these closures. One of our Councillors is a member of the National Coastwatch Institution with direct experience of water safety issues and if a priority had to be placed he would place emphasis on the importance of Portland Station. The Council as a whole though is resolute that the Brixham Station should also be retained. No comment Safer Lives, Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas is the MCA slogan. Exmouth Town Council believes that our ability to respond to these issues will be severely diminished by centralisation of the MCA operations and goes against the Government's self professed desire to move towards Localism.<br><br>                                                                                                                                                
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team Yes No comment Yes No comment As a volunteer member of a Coast Guard team for almost 30 years I would see the priority as on the ground training. This is where the local knowledge lies and where we communicate, given modern technology, is not an issue to my mind whether it be Aberdeen, Lerwick or indeed Southampton. What I have witnessed is a steep decline in training and equipment for remote volunteer teams like ourselves. More coast guard officers on the ground to deliver support and training means better information and more effective handling of incidents by first responders like ourselves.                                                                                                                                                
Central Government       Yes, Swansea is such a busy station. The 2nd busiest I believe in the UK. It covers a massive area of coastline and there are many tourist acttraction beaches in the area that it covers with people taking their children to the beach and walkers alike. Local knowledge is also a big factors as I would imagine that not many people who are not local to the area wouls know where donkey rock is for example. Also, the MRCC houses other team that are part of the MCA including a business unit and other managers. I believe also that other emergency services including the RNLI and Fire service use the premises to train.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public         No Comment                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public       Yes. Swansea is the busiest centre in Wales. It commands an excellent position at the entrance to the Bristol Channel. There are no operational reasons for closing this centre. It must be retained. Safety at sea is more important than the number of people employed by the Dept. of Transport in Swansea.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of MCA Staff   I dont believe that using the &quot;welsh language&quot; is a suitable enough excuse to keep holyhead open over liverpool NO!!!!<br><br>2 words - LOCAL KNOWLEDGE Swansea is one of the busiest stations in the UK handling in excess of 1200 a year, compared to Milford Haven<br><br>The point that has been made in regard to more civil service jobs in the swansea area is irrespectable. the DVLA have just CUT jobs here in swansea as have the Job Centre....<br><br>Swansea cover 2 vast areas of the bristol channel - England & Wales<br><br> It will be a grave mistake to close Swansea Coastguard Station & it will take a loss of life to prove this                                                                                                                                                
    No- the liverpool station is centrally located to cover the whole of liverpool bay andthe nw england coast line,which calls for specialist local knowledge which will be permanently lost if the local aspect is transferred to another station. Asfor the question of the welsh language - english is the accepted norm for<br>maritime radio traffic, no                                                                                                                                                    
Member of the public     I DON'T BELIEVE SO, YOU WILL BE LOSING LOADS OF VERY VALUABLE LOCAL KNOWLEDGE                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public     I strongly believe that by closing the Swansea centre lives will be at risk, local knowledge is essential when organising any rescue but to take this knowledge away from the operators will all but hinder any attempts of rescue from why is a costal city. With so much land covered by the Swansea station and knowing that every second counts when a person is in such dire need of help those extra moments it will take to co-ordinate and deploy a rescue team from neighbouring stations are noting short of abysmal. Cost cutting measures at the cost of people's lives. I think the time it will take to deploy staff where needed in Swansea from Milford haven should be assessed in it's entirety I do not believe those responsible for the proposals have considered the impact this will have on the effectiveness of any rescue needed. I urge you to consider the full implications of decommissioning the Swansea station, as I stated, cost cutting measures should never be made at the cost of someone's life.                                                                                                                                                
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team YES YES NO It would seem that keeping Holyhead to the North of Wales and Swansea to the South would seem the most sensible way forward. Local Knowledge is my main point.<br>It takes Years to build up that picture of local knowledge, and relationships with various other rescue organizations.And I know that many of the Swansea coastguards have taken the time to come to the North Devon Coast and in their own time to enable them to build a wider picture of local knowledge. I have to say from bitter experience that we had the loss of life of a young boy at Ilfracombe back in approx 1989 at Rapparee Cove. It was a mess up on the 999 system and an over load on the System and when the call went through to Milford reporting the boy in the sea at Rapparee cove Ilfracombe the coastguard at Milford was heard to say Rapparee cove where is that ? I was the Auxiliary in Charge at the time and the loss of life , and media reporting went on for many years after. And because of the media attention The Chief Coastguard had to come down to see where Rapparee Cove was for himself. This all Happened just after Hartland closed, and people said there would be a loss of life.and there was. Even paired stations can not have anything like the local knowledge. For example casualty at Lee Bay , which Lee Bay ? We have two in our sector . I retired as Station Officer at Ilfracombe 5 years ago I still serve as an active member of the Team at Ilfracombe. Yes as a Coastguard Rescue Team we have the local knowledge but the initial call goes to the coordinating station and they must know that area 100% so as to know which resource to send . Don't let there be another loss of life because of a lack of local knowledge . Swansea Coastguard is the Regional HQ so why move it . Any Large incident Swansea is far more central than Milford which is as far West as you can go.<br><br>The Media have reported that there are too many public sector workers in Swansea with the DVLA.<br><br>MP for Milford Tory Assistant Government Whip, It would seem that this decision is political as it stands.<br><br>SWANSEA COASTGUARD SAR Incidents 2010 1,795<br><br>Milford 789 + Holyhead 881 Total 1,670<br><br>So Why close a station that is so busy ? and deals with more incidents than both the other stations ?                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public   NO Need to retain local knowledge, too much distance to make right decisions better by being near to any incidents. No where near   Would you like to be in a small boat, lost at sea, at night, in stormy weather and people who do not have local knowledge trying to find you?                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public       The loss of local knowledge along not only the Welsh but the English coasts cannot be underestimated, the numbers of holidaymakers along these coasts far outweighs the Milford area, to close this station which is the second busiest in the country on the basis that the Swansea region has a higher number of government jobs is ludicrous!<br>                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public       Yes. SAVE SWANSEA COASTGUARD STATION, IT IS VITAL IN SWANSEA, WHICH COVERS SOUTH WALES, THE BRISTOL CHANNEL AND DEVON. IT IS THE SECOND BUSIEST STATION IN THE UK AND WE NEED IT TO STAY OPEN IN ORDER TO SAVE MORE LIVES !                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public       Swansea is currently the secnd busiest coastguard station in the UK. It also covers a large section of the North Devon Coast - Milford Haven is too far west to cover the same area effectively and too far from Devon to maintain a safe level of cover and sufficiently fast response time.                                                                                                                                                  
Other Emergency Service (Police/Fire/Ambulance) key areas covering remote seas presenting danger to shipping if close down, other alternatives would not provide the same consistemt professional watch or cover required. No, liverpool flys the MCA flag with pride and efficiency servicing all the needs of the NW coastal stakeholders. They are proactive intheri support to Border Security and show most effective leadership to associated agencies. We need to maintain that lcoal contact on the ground which we would lose with Holyhead. Not sufficiently No comment Liverpool and the irish sea are growth maritime areas, consider the plans for Peel Holdings and Mersey Docks and the Ship Canal. Proper MCA cover for busy essential shipping lanes and traffic are essential investments for the welfare and security of our maritime and economic development.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public     No it does not. If there is more than one incident, or a large-scale incident, then the coastguard service will not have the resilience to deal with it effectively.                                                                                                                                                    
Member of the public       Swansea is a very busy station. It is in a central position in the Bristol Channel. It is the largest population centre in West Wales, therefore has the most work. It is a freight port, a ferry port and a large tourism centre.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public Yes No. The Mersey is one of the busiest rivers in the country with commercial, pleasure and tourist traffic, 3 active ports at Liverpool, Birkenhead and Garston and an active shipyard and ship repair facility at Cammell Lairds in Birkenhead. The distance from Holyhead to the Mersey is an effective barrier to swift response in times of emergency, which together with the loss of local knowledge and experience is a potentially deadly combination.<br> No. It is removing the local element from the Coast guards operations which is Vital.   What do you want to do...? Save money or Save lives...?<br><br>The answer should be obvious.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public         No Comment                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public No. Keep Crosby manned 24/7. No. Keep both. No. Lives will be lost. Don't know enough about both to comment. Crosby benefits from experise & experience gained over many years dealing with many incidents. These are too valuable to be throwm away. Keep Crosby manned 24/7.                                                                                                                                                
Retired police officer. No, I beleive as with all emergency services that local knowledge is paramount. No, as stated before, local knowledge is paramount to all emergency services. NO Emergency services require local knowledge and therefore neither one or other is satisfactory. In the same way as centralising fire brigades and police services are a bad idea, so is this. Perhaps someone will explain the cost effectiveness in terms of saving of lives?                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public yes no no You must keep Swansea operational, Swansea can save lives, Milford is purely a commercial choice, let the oil company's make up the cost of running it.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public no no no                                                                                                                                                    
Member of the public YES YES NO Expereience of the coastal area and types of responses required <br>Swansea is the 2nd most called upon station in the UK which would indicate its importance                                                                                                                                                  
Local Government       Closing Swansea Coastguard station is flawed the capacity required in summer months would leave insufficient resources availble to deal with SAR incidents and having overflow dealt with by stations located outside the geographical area is flawed and will lead to slow responses to SAR incidents and possible loss of life.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public   <LARGE></LARGE>&lt;LARGE&gt;&lt;/LARGE&gt;&lt;LARGE&gt;&lt;/LARGE&gt;&lt;LARGE&gt;&lt;/LARGE&gt;<br>H.M. COASTGUARD. Closing Liverpool Maritime Rescue Centre at Crosby.<br><br>We’re in that place once again. Yes, the prospect of closure of the Coastguard Rescue Centre at Liverpool is again being considered but this time it seems the proposal is much more serious.<br>The last time the closure was withdrawn but the safety implications are still there; they are still familiar:<br>The need for local knowledge to make rapid rescue decisions, the familiarity with other local emergency facilities, and countless more.<br><br>All these considerations which were put forward for keeping the centre open before, are still valid, but now the situation with which we are faced has evemore serious implications if the closure was to take place.<br><br>Let us consider some of these:<br>(a) It is proposed that Liverpool should share with Southampton the embarkation and terminus point for cruise ships. The implications of this for search and rescue services are surely obvious. The Rescue Centre is the hub of all ferry disaster emergency procedures for the River Mersey and Liverpool Bay. They hold regular exercises with other emergency services to make sure that all arrangement are up to date and able to manage changing situations. Attendance at local planning meetings in Liverpool is essential for senior staff. Often these meetings take place at the rescue centre. Local knowledge of facilities, both offshore and onshore, is vital to all concerned.<br><br>(b) Offshore wind farms in the north Irish Sea and their future development will make navigation a ships master’s nightmare. Modern radar, will of course, be useful for avoiding collision but what of the implications for small leisure craft without sophisticated equipment? The wind farms, already established, have altered the character of inshore passage planning but the proposed area for development between Point Lynas and St. Georges Channel will make the area like a bagatelle game at a fun fair. The price of failure will be catastrophic! <br><br>(c) The extra radio watch keeping load of the existing Liverpool guard aerials for channel 16, and D/F sites will have to be urgently addressed by any stations/centres shouldering Liverpool’s responsibilities. Is this a practical proposition with their local knowledge implications? <br><br>(d) Have the reactions of our S.A.R. partners been fully considered?<br><br>But what of onshore implications? What of Public Relations and Beach Safety? The hinterland of the Liverpool Rescue Centre is a patchwork of the industrial towns and cities of the north-west of England and beyond. Where do these people go to enjoy a day out? Quite often to the seaside and the beaches, of course! <br>H.M. Coastguard publishes many useful leaflets and booklets on beach safety which are well received by schools, clubs, and community groups. These are distributed by coastguard officers responsible for public relations at Liverpool, as well as their watch keeping duties. Quite often these organisations request a visit to the coastguard centre after the visit of P.R. staff, which are always welcome. If the centre closes these visits will face an additional 200 miles round trip to Holyhead on top of their journey to Liverpool from their inland homes. Obviously this will mean that a day trip of this kind is out of the question. Sea safety has onshore implications as well as the obvious ones offshore. <br><br>I suggest these points for consideration as a retired member of staff as an Operations Room Assistant, and a Public Relations and Education Officer at Liverpool Rescue Centre. I was also their Duke of Edinburghs Award instructor, at bronze, silver and gold standard. Many, completing their D. of E. training became Auxiliary Coastguards. Truly a valuable service to the community. The facilities for visitors, whether they are from the local area or further afield, are second to none. On what other bases do I make these observations? I am also a retired member of the education profession, hence some of the duties I had, which I have just mentioned. I am also a Life Governor of the R.N.L.I. and a member of their P.R. team.<br><br>R.R. WAGSTAFF.<br> No. I don't think it does.   Each coastguards station is unique in it's guard and the knowledge and experience of Coastguard officers in permanently manned stations is invaluable and should not be dismissed lightly, particularly when the offshore situation is constantly changing, as in the Liverpool Coastguard's 'guard' in Liverpool Bay and the North Irish Sea, as already mentioned. Please remember too that there are nuclear hazards on the coast in this sea area.                                                                                                                                                
Small to Medium Enterprise (up to 50 employees)       swansea covers more than just Swansea, to close Swansea would be a massive disaster,please keep it open,or so many life's will be lost.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I do not think the sub centres should be changed to anything but 24/7 as lives would be put at risk as at night the nearest 24/7 coastguard would surely not be able to reach anyone in danger in time, and also the local coastguards have local knowledge, which is overally benefical given the number of isles comprimising the western isles, however i am not so convinced that both centres should remain open and feel that stornoway 24/7 would be able to cover the shetland isles also if that were closed or day time operation only. yes, given the close proximity of the two i think it is clear that one should be closed and i feel that holyhead is a better location for the remaining station to be located at by cutting the number of coastguard centres lives will be at risks and surely this is something the government should consider. given that swansea was the second busiest station in 2010 the facts speak for themselves that this is vital to the sea community and whether we be walking along the coast, engaging in water sports or in danger out at sea, we need a fast response in order to save lives. Furthermore, the gower penisula is a poplar holiday destinations with it's 23 bays and a hive of activity on the beach, on the cliffs and in the sea. However, as the Swansea station does not only protect the people within the local vicinity but also those within the bristol channel and devon, it is a key to the saftey of lives. whilst milford haven may be able to offer some assitance, i am sure that they will be overstretched given the large area they will be expected to cover and when at risk of danger at sea response times are vital to life saving no                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I think that as many 24/7 sub-centres are retained as can be managed to be minimise the danger to the public. They both should be retained given the amount of shipping covering the area. No - absolutely not. Swansea has attended more callouts than Milford Haven. It covers a larger area.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public   Closing the Liverpool station will put peoples lives at risk No                                                                                                                                                    
Member of MCA Staff I think that retaining Stornoway and Shetland addresses the concerns expressed in so far that they are geographically best placed for Coastguard stations but the concept of operations envisaged for these stations is seriously flawed in that local knowledge will be lost if the MOC in the south of England is controlling the coast. Manpower should also be increased to reflect the larger areas being covered. No . I beleive personally that both stations should be retained to retain the specialist local knowledge No. The concept of operations is seriously flawed. With less stations the amount of work each remaining station is to carry out will increase levaing little time for the training envisaged by the new proposal. The Moc taking over stations and areas that they have no experience of. Does the agency really think that all out of work coastguards will go to the MOC for employment ? To base a concept of operations on the premis that staff will just up sticks and move is a gross misjudgement. No comment on this as I dont know the area The new proposal stakes out at two tier Coastguard. Promotions in the MOC are accessable but for those in the MRCC's those same advantages are not present leaving those personnel only the CRS of the Southern MOC to advance in the organisation, not a fair system. Fail to see how our job will change by 70 percent to make us apply for jobs we are already in. Staions closing within 12 months still have no details of what their packages will be. For an organisation that has &quot;Investors in People&quot; isnt it about time the MCA lived up to those ideals.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I have no opinion. I have no opinion. I don't believe that the areas of the Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary can be covered by a single station. The Swansea MCA station has expertise and a proven track record in handling all sorts of incidents and the evidence is simply in the numbers of incidents which each station has responded to.                                                                                                                                                  
Trade Union     No it does not. The proposed structure would lead to an extremely concerning loss of local knowledge. In emergency situations the response time is vital; those with first-hand experience frequently talk about the first 5 “golden minutes”. Local knowledge can be key to the timeliness of the response. Locations may not be named on a map, they may be known by different names locally to those that might appear on any national map and frequently places share the same name. Being able to identify a location that falls into one of these categories is essential, as is being able to identify a location from a description of the person on the other end of a phone is a visitor who doesn’t necessarily know local place names. If emergency calls can be routed to any station, regardless of location, then that vital local knowledge is lost, potentially leading to help being misrouted. The consultation is framed so as to lead respondents into choosing between competing, paired coordination centres. The importance of local knowledge makes this approach fundamentally flawed. Here are 2 examples that illustrate the value of local knowledge. Brandy Cove, a location familiar to most people locally, does not appear on national maps. There are 2 Culver Holes on Gower, one on South Gower, near Port Eynon and one on North Gower, near Burry Holmes. There will be many more such examples for Swansea, Milford Haven and indeed, all the other centres around the country. We therefore need to retain all existing coastguard centres. The proposed changes are about saving money and not improving a service. It is all part of making ordinary people pay for a crisis we didn’t create, while the real culprits, bankers, speculators and super-rich tax dodgers continue to rake in super-profits. Public sector cuts hurt ordinary people; in this case, there is every likelihood they could kill!                                                                                                                                                
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team I agree that retaining the 24/7 facilities at Shetland and Stornaway addresses the concerns expressed. Especially in the case of retaining specialised local knowledge in such remote areas. Familiarity with Gaelic place names is very important in reducing response times. I agree with the retaining of Holyhead as the 24/7 sub-centre. The familiarity with the Welsh language and with its place names, as with Shetland and Stornaway and Gaelic, is extremely important in SAR situations. Being able to pinpoint a location and send the appropriate resources quickly is the essence of SAR, and the special nature of Welsh and its place names could prove a barrier to that swift response in staff not familiar with and experienced in its use. I believe resilience comes from spreading out control rather than centralising it. The unassailable resilience of the internet has shown this to be true. At present the MRCCs are not linked, and resilience could be lost in extreme situations. Would it not make sense to keep the existing MRCCs and improve the links between them. This would need to happen anyway with the proposed MOC and subcentre system. The present MRCCs with fewer staff in each, all linked and able to take on the work of any other in an emergency would provide a strong web of resilience. The controlling overview could be allocated to the station managers who could be in constant contact with each other with the same technology proposed for the MOC. <br><br>With the MOC system, in an extreme situation of a sub centre being out of commission and the MOC also failing, it would fall to other sub centres to take over the work load. The resilience, therefore, is in the linked sub centres not the MOC. I believe the factors in this situation have been adequately addressed. The strength of any organisation lies in its people. Technology is a tool and can improve many things, but, as yet, technology cannot think for itself. It is necessary to improve some aspects of the HMCG, but increasingly relying on technology is a dangerous game, especially when undertaken in the name of 'resilience'. SAR is about understanding the nature of a given situation and responding accordingly. Technology can help but it cannot replace the local knowledge and experience and language skills of people.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I cannot comment on the Shetland and Stornoway situation as I am not aware of the details. I live in Wales and wish to retain the Swansea Coastguard station. As question one. As I understand it from the news reports I would have to say no. Why do any of the coastguard stations have to be closed? Lives should come before money. 1. How knowledgable are the staff at Milford Haven with regards to the vast distance of the South Wales coastal regions, the small bays and inlets where locals or regular visitors go?<br><br>2. How far along the West Wales coast are Milford Haven already responsible for?<br><br>3. Milford Haven and Milford Sound are busy shipping areas with oil refineries nearby, if they get a serious emergency which requires all their attention and resources whose going to be dealing with emergencies currently covered by Swansea?<br><br>4. Most importantly HOW MANY LIVES WILL HAVE TO BE LOST BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT REALISE THAT THIS IS A BAD IDEA?<br><br> Why does this all seem to have been resolved with indecent haste? How much money will actually be saved when taking into account the redundancy packages, the unemployment benefits and the mothballing of the buildings and equipment?<br><br>My guess is very little in real terms.                                                                                                                                                
Other Emergency Service (Police/Fire/Ambulance) Is there a price on Life? CLOSE THE STATIONS AND LIFE WILL BE IN GRAVE DANGER! The station is there for a reason! no! we all know that this decission is political you know that closing ANY station is wrong! Time to get rid of the TOP management who are allowing this to go ahead,ALL of the M P&quot;s ,A M&quot;s and local pollititions not to mention the people of south wales want the welsh stations to remain open! so don&quot; be so arragent and LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC who pay thare taxes and pay the wages of the IDIOTS who are attempting to close the stations in Wales.                                                                                                                                                
Other Emergency Service (Police/Fire/Ambulance) I do not think the service should be trimmed in any way, there is too much at risk not to have people with local knowledge available to coordinate rescues. In areas like the Shetlands they may not be as many poeple walking coastal paths, but shipping lines may need the service. Every life needs to be safeguarded I would think that geograhically the area served by Holyhead and Liverpool may be workable together I think the Swansea coastguard serves a significant area which will be best served by retaining the station there Both are critical stations, with Milford Haven area overseeing the Irish sea crossing area with regular professionally run ferry crossings, and the Pembroke caostal areas , while Swansea oversees the Bristol Channel, and has responsibility for helping those amateur sailors who use the Marinas, and along the coast of South Wales and Devon. As more people holiday in the UK, and increased recreational time, there is an increase in numbers who need the security of the coast guard service. The number of walkers along the coastal streches a concern, with Gower being an area of outstanding natural beauty drawing thousands of visitors a year. There is a duty of care, and the Government cuts cannot put iives at risk,by closing either of these stations other cuts need to be made elsewhere I do not agree with the proposal to close the Swansea coastguard Station. Lives will be more at risk, local knowledge is needed and the years of exerience of the staff needs to be maintained, and would not be avaialble from a more remote station. Geographically Swansea is central along the South Wales coast and within the Bristol Channel area, and is the obvious station to retain if a cut has to be made.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Keep the station open at Swansea! no no Swansea is busier than Milkford Haven, so it doesn't make sense! If Swansea Coastguard station is closed lives WILL be lost!                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Absolutely not! This service has to be offered around the whole of the United Kingdom to continue the work of saving lives! No, both of these station need to remain open and working 24/7 as this is a massive area to cover for just one station. The Mersey is a treachourous and busy piece of water alone. There is no way Holyhead alone could watch over both the Welsh Coast and the Mersey successfully at one time. Lives WILL be lost! Definately not! <br>My father was a seafarer for 40+ years and he had the greatest respect for the sea and raised us to be the same. You can never tell what the sea, tides etc can throw at you. Ignorance is often the excuse ot eh may people who holiday by the sea. I myself have rescued a child whose parents where sunbathing, from being swept out too sea. Reducing these stations is a recipe for disaster an inadequate and poor service. We are an island for goodness sake, and we need to know that are seaways are adequately policed! Again you are expecting one station to cover to the same standard as 2 stations and during the peak holiday times especially this is just not possible. We reguarly holiday on the Gower and have seen first hand how quickly and efficiently the service currently works!<br>The sea needs to be treated with great respect and those that live by it and use it reguarly usually do treat it this way. Unfortunately this is not the same for everyone. Ignorance is rife on the Island of the United Kingdom surrounded by seas and oceans, reducing a service like this is a recipe for more deaths and serious incidents. These already 'few' stations provide a remarkable service do not reduce them further and have a 'sketchy' service.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public         No Comment                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public   yes no we need both keep SWANSEA open                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I do not believe that this is an effective way. The time that will be added to rescue operations if using these sub-stations will put lives at risk and will make way for more casualties. No. I believe that all current stations should remain open as they are a form of emergency services. I don't agree that the retention of one sub-station will be as effective as two. It makes no logical sense to me. No Again the rescue time will be significantly increase, causing more casualties. I honestly believe that, should these coastguard station closures go ahead, we will be hearing in 6 months to a year's time that the decision has been remitted and all stations will be re-opened due to a significant increase in Casualties. This will save the government money in one area, just for it to be spent on the consequences of such an absurd &quot;economical&quot; decision. It is going to be, in essence, taking one step forwards to take two steps back!                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public     I think that cost is being put before public safety. The seas are ever changing and by reducing any cover in any part of the country can only have a detrimental effect on everyone that comes into contact with the sea. Whehter its for pleasure or work. The vast area that will now have to be covered by Milford Haven surely has to be taken into account.<br>The Bristion Channel is one of the most dangerous tideal areas in the country. Surely it would benefit all those in this area if there were people who know the area co-ordinating any rescues. Gower is such a dangerous area, how can someone from Milford Haven understand the complex needs of the area.<br>There are the docks that needs to be considered with the ships coming in and out of there. Also the ferry.<br>Why does people's safety have to be compromised?                                                                                                                                                  
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team I agree yes I do No not at all, the main loss is local knowledge, one of the most important aspects of rescue coordination Swansea is the second busiest station in the Uk with over 2000 jobs a year and Milford Haven had 1006. no suprise that their local MP is buddy buddy with our prime minister.<br>to shut Swansea is absolute lunacy. The first death because of it should bring a charge of manslaughter to the idiot that came up with the stupid idea KEEP SWANSEA OPEN IT MAKES SENSE                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Probably not; busy shipping lanes in a complex environment Probably not; see response to Q1 Almost certainly not; this is a political not an operational nor efficiency decision. Definitely!<br>The GOwer Peninsula as well as other parts of South & West Wales are popular tourist destinations; tourists walk, climb (sea-cliffs), swim, boat/sail and frequently get into difficulties. Add to this the busy Bristol Channel (Merchant shipping into/out of Bristol/Avonmouth, Newport, Port Talbot, Swansea not to mention the hazardous shipping into Milford Haven.<br>All this complexity demand better coverage than than just one Coastguard on the far West coast.<br> Political insanity.                                                                                                                                                
H & S Rep NO 24/7 centres should close..The weather,seAS AND INTERNATIONAL SITUATION demands an official presence to be vigilant,As an ex North Sea mariner the Shetland and Stornoway area is ABSOLUTELY requiring 24/7 coverage ,as is Swansea ,liverpool and Hull which massively benefit from Local knowledge..<br><br>SO AGRREE retain 24/7 coastguard can never be an either this station or another one..THINK LIVES THINK SAFETY over-riding consideration, Stupid choice to make just to save £3.5 million pounds ,the price of a Swansea City premiership footballer..LIVES MATTER not stupid accountancy,dogma or paying £14 billion bankers bonuses ,bailed out by yours truly and you and you and you..Some time it could be you ,you and you who will need that Rescue sometime...Think again.. RESILIENCE is exemplified by the 7/7 response in London..Remember the failures in comms,failures in command,failures in ID ,failures in Emergency response..In that case Resilence is also exemplified in the failed Fire Co-ordination centre reconfiguration ,The system had to be retro engineered ,see the response in Swansea to the TYRE FIRE which took 22 days to extinquish costing now over £2million pounds..RUNNING networks to the bone which this proposed new structure does WILL COST LIVES,GIVE A WORSE SERVICE and COST the current Government real Political backlash..CAN YOU/WE afford either ,all for £3.5 million pounds..the cost of a Swansea City footballer. Another stupid choice ..The TWO have been required and utilized when a fire put Swansea CG Stn out for just 1 day,when the workforce could redeploy to run rescues from Milford and vice versa..In NASA terms it is called redundancy ,not talking about jobs redundancy[although this applies too] but the ability to run a back up station..NASA has HOUSTON and KEnnedy space centre to fall back on..GET REAL and stop putting the lives of mariners,yachtsman,children kayakers and swimmers,orienteers at risk..ALL for £3.5 million pounds the price of ONE Swansea City footballer..KEEP the MCA ,SWANSEA,LIVERPOOL ,HOLYHEAD ,HULL in the Premier league of Coastal supervision at the bargain basement price of £35million overall,the Price of a MAN CITY footballer who we in Swansea play on AUG 15th,,COME on the Swans!! and Swansea coastguard..! The Marriott presentation was unanimous that LIVES would be imperilled by these &quot;politically&quot; motivated mean minded proposals,,The constituents of Runnymede might take a dim view of the RT HON gentleman endangering the voting and sailing public ,should they be so appraised..It is not too late to scrub this mickey mouse ,disingenuous exercise and ask MR Hammond to meet with the Professionals and Trade Union ,Local MP's and RNLI to hammer out a get out clause,or else the CONDEM administration will be marooned without a paddle in the Hacktivist sea of Coulson bluff.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public         No Comment                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public         No Comment                                                                                                                                                
Coast Watch volunteer     No see Questions 4 & 5. Swansea deals with more incidents than any other Coast Guard Station in the U.K. bar one<br><br>The area covered takes into account practically the whole Bristol Channel and the staff have long standing knowledge of the channel and the effects the second highest tidal range in the world has upon safety in the area.<br><br>In view of the number of incidents dealt with the need remains for both Swansea and Milford to be retained.<br><br> Suggestions that the staff at Swansea could be re located is without substance and should not even be considered.<br><br>Members of the Mumbles RNLI are completely against any reduction in cover from Swansea.<br><br>As are members of the local Coast Watch volunteer organisation who have daily contact with Swansea Coast Guard in the course of their work.<br><br>Cost saving should not have a bearing on the saving of life and the safety of all concerned.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public they all need to saty open keep both open no many lives are going to be lost because of this x swansea is one of the busiest stations so i really can`t understand why they would close this. KEEP SWANSEA OPEN! AND KEEP OUR WATERS SAFE                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public   no No not at all Swansea covers from Carmathen down to Devon!! A big area and is the second busiest station in UK. How can it make sense to close it. Having lived in Swansea all my life and the amount of sea based accidents, people in danger etc reported over the years would have had different outcomes if it were not for the coastguard station!!                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public yes because of the dirlect spoken by eg the fishermen NO. there are Welsh speakers in Liverpool that can be employed if the people from Holyhead do not want to transfer to Liverpool. No. Liverpool and its buisness with the new passenger terminal will create a larger risk of something going wrong with the shipping through put that is presently available.<br>The port Radar and Poitots are based at Liverpool and it makes sense to keep the Coastguard station there also.<br><br>Liverpool receives Royal Navy ships and tankers and the personnel at Holyhead do not play as much as a part as the Crosby Coastguard satation in co-ordinating this usage. <br><br>If the Welsh language is the porblem for eg the local Welsh fishermen I would draw your attention to the Gvt latest move that all people liveing in the British Isle should be able to speak English.<br><br>Welsh speakers can be recuted for the job purpose. I am of Welsh decent so I am not biased I can not comment on this as I do not know Liverpool has more shipping to co-ordinate in the way of river traffic and passengers using the port. Holyhead can be sean as having passing ships trade. I know that they play a very important part in the grand design of things and that Holyhead and Liverpool complement one another is keeping the vessels safe but Liverpool is responsible for a greater area and more shipping than Holyhead. In my view.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public   no no yes I believe that all the coastguard stations should be kept open and swansea should operate 24/7 in the interest of public safety                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I do not agree with just retaining Shetland and Stornoway.<br>This is a safety not just a cost issue. No comment No it doesn't particularly in and around Bristol Channel Higher density population and sea/coastline usage to the East. There must have been good reasons why in the initial decision Swansea was to be retained. How has the situation now changed?                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I believe that all centres and coastguard stations are important and should be retained to ensure they cover the UK sufficiently and effectively. Fewer stations cannot watch all the sea lanes I believe that if either centre covers an area which the other cannot cover then there would be a disaster waiting to happen. No it does not provide appropriate cover or resilience to ensure confidence in the public and business Just because Milford Haven is within the area of where the tankers come in with LPG and other oil products does not mean that it should take priority over Swansea. Swansea's location is superior for other reason. I don't feel it should be an either or for these 2 stations. Do the right thing. Protect all Coastguard Stations                                                                                                                                                
Small to Medium Enterprise (up to 50 employees) I have no local knowledge on this subject No local knowledge. Not if includes shutting down Swansea Coastguard station. I have no views on Milford Haven, presumably the station is needed to deal with the heavy shipping in that area. <br><br>But Swansea handles a greater volume of incidents with experience and expertise over the whole of the Bristol Channel. Local knowledge is an essential adjunct to the efficient working of a station and Swansea has proved itself over many years. All shipping and boating concerns are appalled at the prospect of losing such a facility and the leisure activities of the whole area will be left unsafeguarded. With tourism being encouraged it can't be sensible to reduce safety cover. <br><br>Lives will be lost. Did anyone do a feasibility study on this? And how could they possibly have come to the conclusion that Swansea was expendable?                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public         No Comment                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I disagree. it would save money which could be allocated to other centre's. no                                                                                                                                                    
Member of public Do not alter the current services NA No Loss of local knowledge time and capacity                                                                                                                                                  
Other Emergency Service (Police/Fire/Ambulance)     Its impossible to agree to this statement and only time will prove the argument. Of course Milford Haven is important because of the port traffic but Swansea has a much greater overall role covering a huge area as far west as the north Devon coast.<br>The need to reduce public expediture is well understood and accepted but central government has a duty to do whatever is necessary to save lives and if concentrating SAR control at Shetland and Stornoway are the best &quot;cost effective&quot; option consider whether they are the best &quot;operationally effective&quot; option.<br>I cannot see control room staff travelling to the Severn Estuary on a Sunday morning and in their own time for familiarisation training. They will need to be paid salary and expenses for this work. The economic situation is temporary. Don't take the risk of dismantling an effective service for a short term solution. Use those interested parties to arrive at a more creative solution.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public       They should both stay open. They are a vital service for everyone. Anyone can have an accident, should that mean they should risk possible death due to service cuts and stupid government policy? It will be court case after court case if these services are cut. They are vital to all coastal areas, and given the volume of accidents that occur around the Swansea/gower coastline (my locality) then it is just too risky to cut this service. It's playing with peoples lives.                                                                                                                                                
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team I do not agree. There is an oppurtunity to save money (in house) but no one listens.<br>Surely what matters is that the job gets done to save lives rather than just think about costs .What is the value of a life . Why two centres in Wales and none at all in the North west of England ?<br>The whole thing stinks, as a North Southdivide.<br><br>No I do not No it is just a badly thought out cost cutting exercise.<br>Why is there the urgency to destroy the service ? there should be an increase in the service to fit the needs of the 21st century No comment I do live there There should be an increase in CG resposibilities not a destruction.<br>The fire service fight for money and get piles of it, they are awash with gear, boats etc.etc<br><br>No one seems to fight for HMCG only CROs Top brass are trying to destroy us. We have been loosing responsibilities ,stations,boat fleet, training time, patrol time Accident prevention etc etc etc for years and yet the cutbacks continue.<br><br>Totally amazed and disgusted at the ridiculus proposals.                                                                                                                                                
Member of MCA Staff I don't think this is the most effective way of managing both Shetland and Stornaway but I am not familiar enough to reccomend an alternative. I personally don't believe either should shut as both of them have their own unique issues, one of the main being the language barrier as I strongly believe that the strong accent of a liverpudlian poses as much an issue as does the welsh language pronounciation. I propose to keep both stations open as this is the most effective way of keeping a superb search and rescue repsonse. I think the MOC concept is so critically failed in many areas. These include the fact that it could possibley incorporate vast areas including seperate countries, each of which with their own unique issues, not just including the different language ones. I still cannot understand how the MOC concept is the way forward, I strongly believe the MCA should be making a bigger effort to engage with their local and neighbouring communities but all I see is a major breakdown waiting to happen. I am extremely worried as both a CRO, shift worker, member of the public and an incredibley active coastal user. There are an overwhelming number of factors that I would strongly suggest that Swansea is more strategically placed and able to deal with Search and Rescue operations within their region.<br><br>These include:<br> - the fact that Milford Haven MRCC find it extermely difficult to recruit and the last two persons that were hired by them moved to Swansea and there are others waiting to do the same.<br> - Milford Haven have been incredibely short of staff, which has required them to have RCCM grades and Sector Managers filling in for staff shortages, of which hasn't been required in Swansea.<br> - Swansea MRCC already have a much larger area in terms of resources dealt with including 7 Police, 6 Fire and 5 Ambulance Constituencies, where as Milford primarily deal with just the one.<br> - The concept that Milford Havens existing building isn't large enough, they don't own the land, the Port Authority want the land back sooner than the lease is up, don't have enough existing staff and after having lived / worked in the area I dont believe it is an attractive area to move to and have expressed my concerns to my other colleagues. I have great respect for all of my colleagues in all of the Coastgaurd Stations accross the country and believe that none should be shut as a result of government cuts, which is what they are. I am in total agreement with Alan Masseys comment that stated that &quot;MRCC wacth keeping staff, are front line troops&quot;! And front line troops of any emergency service shouldn't be reduced.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public no no no   liverpool saves lives                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public   Holyhead is an ideal location to retain as it has coverage of all Irish Sea and Cardigan Bay areas Under the old Coastguard station coverage it was possible for mariners to make an appointment and then call to leave old pyrotechnic flares for disposal at Coastguard stations.<br><br>Clearly some people will no longer be able to do this with the reduced number of stations.<br><br>It has often been stated that purchasers of such items, required under SOLAS, should consider how they will dispose of them at the end of their life, at the time of purchase.<br><br>What facilities will be put in place for responsible boat owners to safely dispose of these potentially dangerous items, when their proposed safe disposal points are removed by closures?   Under the old Coastguard station coverage it was possible for mariners to make an appointment and then call to leave old pyrotechnic flares for disposal at Coastguard stations.<br><br>Clearly some people will no longer be able to do this with the reduced number of stations.<br><br>It has often been stated that purchasers of such items, required under SOLAS, should consider how they will dispose of them at the end of their life, at the time of purchase.<br><br>What facilities will be put in place for responsible boat owners to safely dispose of these potentially dangerous items, when their proposed safe disposal points are removed by closures?                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public i think the more chance we have of saving people from the water the better i know quite a few of the loughor inshore rescue and know how difficult it is to save people, cost shouldnt matter we need enough money to run emergancy services, and schools and that should be it,bus services charge and make enough money to run themselves and the same with other things     swansea as a place contains the either the third or forth fastest changing tide in the world (this being around the loughor area), so this place needs a highlly fast coastguard that is close to give people who get into trouble when loughor inshore requires help a chance these questions shouldnt matter many people want swansea coastguard to stay open and the government keeps complaining no-one likes them, its because they choose to spend money on things we dont need instead of what we need its like when the NSPCC call centre closed, that place gave more of a chance for children to get help than most organisations in the country, like swansea coastguard this gives more people the chance to be saved than a lot of the other organisations                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public These stations are relatively quiet however if they are there due to geographical or strategic reasons then they should stay, however their staffing should reflect this rather than having the same number of staff in places such as Humber and Aberdeen? Liverpool is the best option. They already work in North Wales. They are a more strategical position with a large sea port and links to the maritime world. Holyhead is too remote to be inclusive to the maritime world. Liverpool already is linked in so many ways inlcuding facilitating a joined up approach with other MCA business. Liverpool is shown as being busier and cheaper to run as well as important features such as accessibility. They are accessible and know the area of the Irish Sea and coastline around the NW some off which is notoriously dangerous (morecambe bay). The location at Liverpool is the best option There is not enough information about this in the documents to make a decision. Seems that there may be a two tier system. The south coast has already Dover and Falmouth so why does it need to be the location of the MOC. Surely it should be located somewhere accessible and in a cheaper living area. The BBC moved north so why doesnt the MCA? One supercentre is a little ambitious and does not get rid of the concerns about locations. You cant guarentee that people living in the area of eg Holyhead will get the job there. So how can this be used as an arguement. Have larger stations strategically around the coast to cover the areas with more staff in them for resilience purposes with the MOC as a SPOC at Falmouth or Dover with about 40ish staff? No need for nearly a 100 in Southampton, or is it a case of &quot;jobs for the boys&quot; on the South coast? Milford is a better location as long as Holyhead goes. Then there will be a even spread of stations. There doesnt seem to be much support for these proposals from your staff. That should be a big indicator that things are not correct. Why dont you get them involved, and maybe learn about change management. it seems a bit of a shambles.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Don't know Don't know Don't know Yes, Swansea is a busier station than Milford Haven and covers a more important area.<br><br>But it really shouldn't be one at the expense of the other. The costs are miniscule compared to the outrageous sums spent on Trident to no foreseeable effect. The reason Swansea did not make a fuss at the original plans was because we were told that it would revert to a daylight hours operation. Not desirable but a reasonable compromise if absolutely necessary.<br><br>To then learn that Swansea was to close completely was a betrayal of trust and a shameful deception.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public       The vast majority of MRCC Swansea incidents are concerned with small craft and members of the public around the coastline. They cover an area from the mouth of the River Towy to the head of the Bristol Channel and down the English coast to the Devon/Cornwall boundary. In this respect they handle many more incidents and cover a much larger geographic area than their colleagues in Milford Haven who cover the area from the mouth of the Towy around tothe coast near Dolgellau.<br><br>With this in mind and the fact that Milford has an Harbour Authority which looks after the big commercial shipping, it makes sense that, if there has to be choice between the two stations, then the obvious station to keep open is Swansea MRCC. It is clear to me, that in the current economic climate, efficiency savings have to be made and that one or the other of the two stations has to close. That being so, it makes much more sense to retain Swansea on a 24/7 basis.                                                                                                                                                
Scout Group I do not know Yes, it is closer to any problem in Irish Sea NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Severn Estuary around Swansea, Gower, Neath Port Talbot Who are the dick heads who have proposed this? Are their names in the public domain?                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public yes I agree that we need a 24/7 service. safety is formost concerns i think that all stations should be kept to a 24/7 service no sure swansea is also a big port. we need as much protection as anywhere else                                                                                                                                                  
Concerned individual No. <br>What has cost got to do with this? No. No. Yes. The decision to close Swansea Coastguard because Central Government already invests in the DVLA is one of the most bizarre, and frankly unbelievable, reasons given for the reduction in an essential service. We live on an island and as a result we need a fully effective maritime coastguard that equals the best of all the world's coastal safety organisations. <br>Prevention of sea accidents as well as co-ordinating rescues is essential for all of Britian's people and those who visit our country's coastal areas. <br>The proposal to reduce cover appears to be purely financial. The cuts in service are short-sighted and border on insane.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public No the area involved is too large and needs Swansea Coastguard No No it leaves a large area of the West Coast vulnerable in terms of members of the public who use the sea & coast for leisure purposes, risks to shipping in particular bulk ore, petrochemical & LPG shipping, passenger ferries & local fishing vessels. Milford Haven needs it's own facility being the major petrochemical & LPG port on the west coast. It cannot be expected to cope adequately with a much larger area. The decision was based on a specious &quot;there is enough public service based in Swansea. It should be challenged via Judicial Review.                                                                                                                                                
N/A Yes Yes No The high response that Swansea covers will it be safely covered with less stations?                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public I believe that these two stations cannot adequately supply the level of knowledge and understanding required of local areas to provide an effective response in a situation. Unlike other emergency services local knowledge at sea is of the highest importance and as a person who enjoys leisure boating and as a professional sea farer I believe this to be a massive liability and the cost of human life far out ways the relatively small savings to be made. No, Holyhead will not provide adequate coverage for the Irish Sea and northern regions and irrefutably will lead to loss of life and an increase in cost due to the inevitable increase in accidents due to a lack of coastguard information especially in the Mersey region. No, not in any way. It is Dangerous and likely to lead to an increased loss of life. It shows a complete disrespect for seafarers and leisure boaters alike and does not recognise the importance of the sea in our national identity. I can not comment on this particular area. I believe the plans here are dangerous and put at risk Britain’s reputation as a professional and efficient sea fairing Country.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I would say that retaining the centres is the best way to guarantee the best coverage of coastguard services. Since Liverpool bay is a hive of maritime activity, a Liverpool based station is the best way to guarantee vital coastguard services in one of the UK's most important ports. I would argue that significant closures in stations will always lead to a reduction in the quality of service, and since this frequently involves risks to human life, I would argue that trying to save a relatively small amount of money is not worth the increased risk of loss of human life.   Significant closures of stations are not worth the increased risk to human life.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public     NO YES - SWANSEA IS THE BUSIEST STATION ALONG THIS STRETCH OF COAST.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public no and yes   no yes                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public Having read various news stories regarding these proposals, there seems to be a great concern that the new streamlined service could not provide the same degree of safety at sea.<br><br>As to a more cost effective way of addressing the concerns, I would recommend looking elsewhere, areas that do not threaten life and limb.<br><br>The unassailable banking system comes to mind immediately.<br><br> Having read various news stories regarding these proposals, there seems to be a great concern that the new streamlined service could not provide the same degree of safety at sea.<br><br>As to a more cost effective way of addressing the concerns, I would recommend looking elsewhere, areas that do not threaten life and limb.<br><br>The unassailable banking system comes to mind immediately.<br><br> Having read various news stories regarding these proposals, there seems to be a great concern that the new streamlined service could not provide the same degree of safety at sea.<br><br>As to a more cost effective way of addressing the concerns, I would recommend looking elsewhere, areas that do not threaten life and limb.<br><br>The unassailable banking system comes to mind immediately.<br><br> The proposal to close down Swansea Coastguard station which monitors the whole of the Bristol Channel means that if you have ever been on a beach or riverside from Gloucester to Pembrokeshire or from Gloucester to North Devon you will have been covered by this particular station. With this closure the Milford Haven Coastguard Station will have all its previous responsibilities, plus this area. Obviously the same thing applies in reverse.<br><br>I feel along with all the commentators that I have read, it is dangerous to assume that this is safe.<br><br> The proposal to close down Swansea Coastguard station which monitors the whole of the Bristol Channel means that if you have ever been on a beach or riverside from Gloucester to Pembrokeshire or from Gloucester to North Devon you will have been covered by this particular station. With this closure the Milford Haven Coastguard Station will have all its previous responsibilities, plus this area. Obviously the same thing applies in reverse.<br><br>I feel along with all the commentators that I have read, it is dangerous to assume that this is safe.<br><br>                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I am unable to express an opinion on this issue having never seen that coast-land between the two distant points. It would seem to me that Holyhead has the advantage of being able to see a great expanse of the Irish Sea I am worried that tracts of the coast line and the outlying sea will not have adequate provision of safety features....after all so much is made of health and safety on land that I would hope that the same standard of efficiency would appertain for those on the sea. Well yes... can Milford Haven see all the way up to Cardiff or down to Cornwall.. perhaps at St Anne's Head they do have wide vision over the South Irish Sea area, but nothing in the Bristol channel which has quite a lot of sea traffic both commercial and leisure activity.                                                                                                                                                  
Small to Medium Enterprise (up to 50 employees)     Speaking perochially, no it does not Yes.<br>My wife runs a small holiday business and my family and I live on Gower, a popular holiday area that thrives on sea related business.<br>Should there be a need to raise an alarm for an incident the person/s raising the alarm are most likely to be non-local and would only be able to provide information to the Coast Guard on the basis of lank marks and the like. Some degree of interpretation will undoubtedly be necessary by the professional services. It is virtually impossible for the MCA to have the necessary level of local knowledge to direct their own and others services to the casualty/incident confidently.<br>Speed is of the essence when saving lives.<br>The proposals by the MCA to close Swansea WILL COST LIVES.<br>I know that we live in difficult times but there has to be a solution that retains the front line personnel so valuable for co-ordinating rescue services effectively and efficiently.<br>Cut some of the administration/management posts/salaries/hours for instance.<br>The MCA should think more creatively as I have had to do in my other role as MD of a small manufacturing company in wales that has had to survive in the tough climate we are all experiencing.<br>                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public i disagree very strongly that retaining the sub - centres adequately address the concerns expressed and I also think that as you are dealing with an emergency service and peoples lives cost effectiveness shouldn't be an issue. I don't think any Coastguard stations should be closed. You are plain russian roulette with peoples lives. Absolutley not. Milford haven and Swansea coastguard stations should both be kept open. All Coastguard stations should be kept open for the very simple reason that they are there to save lives. There are many reasons why Swansea shouldn't be closed and I will put them in bullet point form below:<br><br>1) There is a wealth of local knowledge retained by the staff who work at Swansea Coastguard station, Local knowledge saves lives. There are many areas that locals have names for that someone who isn't from the area will not know so trying to explain on an emergency call where you are, would be a lot quicker to someone who has a greater understanding of the area.<br><br>2) The RNLI in this area works very closely with Swansea Coastguard. If they are on a call out, there is radio contact every 15 minutes between Swansea Coastguard and the Lifeboat. If the service is moved to a different station, that vital contact due to a higher caseload will be lost and a disaster could occur with the loss of many lives.<br><br>3) Mumbles and other local Lifeboats are on the water and rely heavily on the knowledge of the area supplied by Swansea Coastguard, without this knowledge lives will be lost. There are many times when they need guidance in bad weather and this will not be able to be supplied from any other person without a comprehensive knowledge of the area.<br><br>4) Gower is a massive tourist area with many people using the sea recreationally, from boats to surfers Swansea Coastguard is a very busy station. If their caseload is shifted to another station how will prioritisation take place. There is a tiny timeframe to save lives at sea and any delay can cost a life/lives.<br><br>5) There will be a language barrier due to local place names and accents. Again any delay and misunderstandings can cost lives. Many names around this area will be very specific to the Welsh language and someone who hasn't got an understanding of this could pass on the wrong information whilst co-ordinating a search and rescue team.<br><br>5) The caseload that Swansea Coastguard carries cannot be taken over by another station that will already have it's own caseload without delays happening in rescues. How will this caseload be prioritised and why should it be prioritised when there is already a perfectly good operation up and running here at Swansea<br><br>6) Many local clubs e.t.c yacht club will no longer be able to hold events without the back-up of a local coastguard station. These events are enjoyable not only for adults but also for children, plus they also bring much needed revenue to the area.<br><br>7) I find it inconceivable that an emergency service is being cut to save money. If any lives are lost on this or any stretch of coastline in Britain then the Government must be held fully accountable for the life/lives lost. Mumbles Coastguard is a fundamental part of not only Swansea coastline but up as far as the river seven and across to Devon. The information and knowledge that these people retain is in invaluable and must be retained here in Swansea. Co-ordinating search and rescue operations without this knowledge will result in delays and lives being lost. Swansea Coastguard isn't just a call centre, the staff in that building are guardians of everyone in the area who use the sea and at peak times, thats a massive responsibility. They all do a fantastic job in sometimes horrendous conditions and should be commended for the job they do, not have it taken away from them. They are there to protect not only recreational water users but also the RNLI, and any commercial water users who come in and out of the area and anyone who sails on the sea or who flies above the sea. They regularly train in massive search and rescue operations that are specific to the area and this loss of station would be tragic.                                                                                                                                                
Boating club     obsolutly no                                                                                                                                                    
Member of the public Leaving to local interest groups etc to reapond leaving to local interest groups to respond 1. I remain concerned at ability of reduced facility to deal with multiple demands along the South Coast following closure of so many stations when considering the volume of commercial shipping and leisure activity in these areas.<br>2. If your intention is to retain/expand/uprate existing radio aerials, will there be sufficient knowledgeable staff on duty to cope with high demand.<br>3. You place high value on safety. Will you improve access including retention of friendly contact with staff, dealing efficiently and courteously with enquiries, radio check requests etc? Or will it all decline into a stiff bureaucratic impersonal mess reliant on ticking boxes, strick rules over what can be discussed pretty much like that curse of modern life, the Call Centre?<br>4. What if the Solent area MOC goes down in the middle of a crisis - and sods law decrees that it will!! Dover then needs to be made operational. Where will those staff come from and how long will it take to be up and running???<br>5. Although you talk of the value of local knowledge available at local stations, this is hard won by staff and as you will now be covering much larger areas, you suffer the risk of diluting this with staff being less inclined be associated with their &quot;family area&quot; and acquire the intimate knowledge needed.<br>6. A key point seems to be the value placed on volunteers. This can be arduous, time consuming and is blithly based upon the assumption that there will be a ready supply of such persons. What evidence do you have that this will be the case in all the areas where such back up is needed?   1. Sadly the history of specifying, purchasing and commissioning robust new electronic and computer based plans is not very good generally and in government departments it is deplorable. How do you plan to avoid this?<br>2. I saw a reference earlier that the response of government was expected to earlier issues involving capital expenditure &quot;at a later date&quot;. Bearing in the mind the manner in which they have dealt with that much more important matter, our national security, and the savage cuts imposed on the armed forces leaving us dangerously exposed, I fear all this could be trashed by the government simply refusing to finance it. <br>                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I have no localised knowledge to comment on this. I have no localised knowledge to comment on this.   I have no localised knowledge to comment on this. Being on the Jurassic Coast there are a high number of call-outs to request the assistance of Coast Guards co-ordinating and receiving landbased pleas for help - people falling off Cliffs, cut off by tides etc. Those telephoning and calling for help are not nautically thinking, and ask for help at &quot;Bottom of Church Lane,&quot; or &quot;has dived off Pulpit Rock.&quot; They do not know north or south, or lat or longit., but local knowledge of land topography means that these calls for assistance can be pin-pointed and answered, rather than trouble finding which of the 24 Church Lanes in the area ends in a Cliff.<br>A Coast Guard staion in the Weymouth/Portland Area is essential.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public   Yes No Without Swansea a thorough service will no be able to be retained                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public   Yes. It is essential that there are people who can both understand and correctly pronounce the Welsh names of places, since many do not have alternative English names. NO, I do not believe that the new structure, which includes the closing of Swansea, will meet the needs. YES!<br>Swansea is the 2nd busiest station in the UK and so is used to handling multiple, concurrent complex jobs, far more so than MH.<br><br>On a monthly basis, Swansea handles TWICE the calls of Milford Haven (MH) (2,000 vs 1,000), so should be much more able to handle the additional jobs of MH, than MH could take on doubling their load.<br><br>Milford Haven (MH) has historically had trouble recruiting and hiring staff, whereas Swansea has not.<br><br>The MCA Broadband connections are far more reliable in Swansea station than in MH, where connections are not as strong and are much less reliable.<br><br> I firmly believe that lives WILL be lost if the current plan to close Swansea is not reversed!                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public while i believe cost cutting by the goverment is essential in certain areas. public health and safety is not one of these areas. not sure.<br>I believe that Swansea being one of the busiest stations in the country needs to remain open 24/7 NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO YES, BOTH STATIONS PROVIDE ESSENTIAL LIFE SAVING EXPERTISE AND SOULD REMAIN OPEN MY HUSBAND IS A MEMBER OF THE MUMBLES CLIFF RESCUE TEAM AND WITHOUT THE DEDICATION OF THIS TEAM AND THE LOCAL KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE WORKING IN THE SWANSEA STATION MANY LIVES WOULD BE LOST. IF THE CLOSURE OF THE SWANSEA GOES AHEAD MANY LIVES WILL BE LOST DUE TO COST CUTTING AND RED TAPE !!!!                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Do not agree. These stations are too far away and cannot know the coast line around Swansea well enough to be of any use. These areas seem to far apart to cover a large such a large section of the coastline. NO Swansea covers an area which is very popular with tourists at all times of the year. The Gower peninsular is popular for many sports which use the sea. Response times for this area will surely be increased if calls have to be relayed through Milford Haven. Can only reiterate that such a large area as Swansea, Gower needs it's own coast guard.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public yes yes no                                                                                                                                                    
Member of Coastguard Rescue Service team Firstly I would like to address the problem of local knowledge. It is a relatively simple solution although it will be time consuming and could never really be fully solved. As it stand people are concerned, for example, that if a 999 call comes in with a person needing assistance in a location that is known locally as Jeff’s Bend (this is an example of a Port Talbot location) but is not documented officially then a MRCC or MOC that is not Swansea could not know where they are. Furthermore if the first informant is disconnected/ falls unconscious/ becomes unavailable before additional information can be acquired then the MOC/MRCC will only have Jeffs Bend to go on. However, in my opinion, using the new SARIS map it is possible for every MRCC to attach tags to specific location within their guard highlighting the local names. This would allow operators to see on a map the name of a local location. A search option allowing operators to input a location to see possible matching would also quicken response. So for example if a 999 calls comes in from Port Talbot with a location of Jeff’s Bend this would allow the watch staff to quickly search the local area for possible results. This would eliminate the local knowledge issue. This, however, could not be achieved alone. It is dependent on the 999 call being picked up and zoomed in on. I mean to say that now if Swansea MRCC (for example) takes a 999 call the computer automatically zooms in to the surrounding area that the call is being made from. This area is never really that big, this means a local name would only be applicable to this area. If further investigation is needed where the system I spoke of above fails a local team member could be phone/paged to see if they recognise the name. <br><br>In summary then all MRCC should immediately start creating lists of local names they know that is applicable for the areas they cover. This should then be turned in and added onto each map. This would then allow watch staff to zoom in on a location (Port Talbot for example) and either search, or click and identify local names. For example staying with Port Talbot if they click either of the harbour walls it will show the names- First Breakwater, Second Breakwater, lee breakwater, main breakwater, Long-arm and Short-arm and Bullring. This will eliminate the problem of Local Knowledge. <br><br>In response to the actual question I believe that it will address the concerns addressed. However a cheap alternative would be to close one station and add new staff to the one to save on energy, rent and property maintenance etc. <br> In response to this question I completely believe this question of Welsh Language is completely irrelevant. Speaking as a Welsh Speaker the proportion of the Welsh Speakers is higher in the South than the North meaning either Milford or Swansea makes more sense to stay open in regard to Welsh Language problems. Also no one person is a sole Welsh Speaker, meaning there is no need to really have one Welsh Speaker in the MRCC. If a rare incident where a Welsh speaker is needed it would be cheaper and easier to have a nominated list of Welsh Speakers Available in the Guard to contact for assistant from the pool of CROs. Also in terms of Welsh names, having Welsh people or people who have lived in Wales for extended periods in the ops room will make it easier to say Welsh names correctly. However the Phonetic Alphabet was created to address such problems and in most situations the MRCC could spell phonetically the name of the location to teams on the ground. In terms of other issues I cannot comment due to my lack of knowledge of the areas involved with either of the MRCCs in the questions.<br> I do honestly believe that the MRCCs need updating. However until problems at baseline CRO level are address you CANNOT modernise the CRS. If anyone believes otherwise they are completely detached from the real world. <br> It is blatantly obvious that the choice to retain Milford Haven rather than Swansea is politically motivated and has nothing to do with saving lives. The complete rubbish concerning DoT jobs in Swansea compared to Milford Haven should have to bearing to the decision! WE SAVE LIVES! This should be the FIRST point to ensure is addressed before another. The reasons given in the consultative document is completely fabricated to try and hide that the Conservative government is trying to save jobs in the Conservative Constituency of Milford Haven rather than the Labour Constituency of Swansea.<br><br>Although Swansea does have problems in term of some members of the watches not wanting to do their jobs properly, their completely obvious favouritism of Mumbles CRT in terms of sending them to every little job while other stations are not tasked to the same jobs and the fact that they will happily avoid incidents and some staffs opinion that they are above and superior to the frontline CRO they are still Incredibly good at their jobs. In my personal opinion and meaning no disrespect to Milford Haven, when Milford take over Swansea’s Guard it is obvious that the level of competency displayed by Milford is far inferior to that of the Swansea Watches. Swansea’s normally a very busy station and as such the staff have had years to develop their skills to deal with such days. Milford however has not and cannot deal with the volume for incidents that Swansea do. The majority of the staff at Swansea are incredibly professional, competent, dedicated and reliable.<br><br>In summary Swansea should stay open!<br> It is infuriating that the CRS is having its budget cuts!! We run on a TINY budget in relation to the other Emergency Services and even other coastal SAR services of other countries. My passion and rage for this is so strong that it is all I can do to leave out the profanities in this statement. The CRS could be doing so much more than it is! It is down to the fact that people from other departments are being put in the top jobs to boost their pensions and will not “rock the boat” in terms of pushing the service into the spotlight and demanding more money to improve the FRONTLINE rescue service. When the floods rock our country and the Coastguard was the obvious choice for leading future response what did the Coastguard top brass do, they happily let the fire service push for themselves to be responsible for that area! <br>I am begging the leaders of our service to bridge the gap between voluntary CRO and full time staff and create a clear career path allowing a person to rise from CRO right up to the big jobs so that the service is driven by people who love the service, who will know every part of the service like the back of their hand and who will propel the service into a role fitting for a service so old and thoroughly brilliant in its field. I can see the CRS absorbing so much work from fulltime services due to the fact it’s based on a voluntary system and costs so little. With just a reasonable budget we could do amazing things! <br>In summary the CRS needs modernising but we must look at the grassroots problems not at its MRCCs.<br>                                                                                                                                                
MOD. No it does not address the concerns expressed because while it's good to have these sub-centres providing a service, the personnel here A: Have their usual job to do without the extra workload should Swansea Coastguard Centre close, B: The personnel at both these sub-centres do not have the local knowledge of some of the areas covered by Swansea Coastguard Centre and C: Should an incident occur around Swansea shoreline/surrounding areas then the response time to these incidents will be delayed due to the fact that both sub-centres are further away. Both centres should remain open due to the personnel in each centre having local shoreline knowledge for the areas each one covers along with quicker response times when dealing with an incident in the area that each centre currently covers (resulting in lives being saved). But as far as keeping one centre open 24/7 instead of the other-then that would depend onhow busy a specific centre is to determine keeping it open 24/7; eg: If Holyhead has a large fishing industry with vessels using that area throughout the day/night and Liverpool has very few nightime incidents, then Holyhead would be the best option (or if both centres are constantly busy at all hours, then keep them both open 24/7). No-as the saying goes: 'If it aint broke, don't fix it!' The only factors are the common sense ones already been expressed by concerned persons: The fact that Swansea Coastguard Centre is one of the busiest in the UK, The fact that Swansea Coastguard has an excellent response time to incidents in areas that they cover due to the centres location/the ability to liaise with othe emergency services in response to incidents and the excellent knowledge that the Swansea Coastguard team have of local shorelines etc... Closing Swansea Coastguard would be disasterous for all sea users and those living, working near or simply enjoying the coastline/surrounding areas. If this were to happen, precious lives would be lost due to the longer response times (Milford Haven Coastguard Centre is further away), the lack of local knowledge of the Swansea/Mumbles/Gower coastline/cliffs etc if Milford Haven Coastguard is summond to respond to an incident in the areas mentioned as well as the Bristol Channel and of course there's the added workload to the personnel of Milford Haven Coastguard Centre who already provide a valuable service to the areas they cover.                                                                                                                                                
Member of MCA Staff I think the decision for keeping both the stations is not anything to do with operational need. If there is a weak link to the main land and it is not within the realms of technology to upgrade it or modernise the structure then they will have to be left as they are. However it is not fair to residents of the UK who live and work on the UK main land to be victimised for job losses purely due to the fact that they live in accessible locations and it is easier for Government departments to close them due to the fact there are other civil service jobs or they are not welsh. A decision should be made on good business sense, which means that it does not waste tax payers money (84% of which live in England!). <LARGE></LARGE>No. Liverpool should remain open.<br><br>Liverpool ticks all the boxes that the MCA require for a MOC as per the rationale. They are located in an area which is easily accessible by rail on the major West coast main line. By road we are accessed by the major motorway network linking the M6 (North to South) with the M62 and M56 (East to West). By air MRCC Liverpool is serviced by Liverpool, Manchester, and Blackpool airports. They are co-located with surveyors, the counter pollution team and MO admin staff. They are on a large plot and have one of the largest purpose built ops room (only ten years old). This is mentioned in Answer 44 of the FOIA. Out if the 13 MRCC’s disclosed Liverpool is the second largest with an internal GIA of 860m2. They are 80% larger than Holyhead, 40% larger than Humber and 43% larger than Falmouth which are all proposed to stay open. The radio room has ample space (according to the BVT engineer). The operations room is approx 143m2 and the EPR, which is stud walled, is next door is approx 110m2 floor area. We have 21 car parking spaces and 1 disabled bay and are located next to an extensive public car park which is used for overflow if needed.<br><br>They have a great working relationship with the surveyors and counter pollution officer, the saying “the MCA under one roof” is mentioned when referring to this site. They have good working relationship with the Isle of Man Coastguard (a crown dependency so can not declare a SAR region under UNCLOS and IMO). It appears that the Chief Coastguard has told the Isle of Man they will be charged by the MCA for SAR unless they do it themselves. By asking them to co-ordinate SAR within 3 miles of the coastline it will interfere with UK SAR by means of aerials and duplication of work and usage of resources. Eg, IOM may want a lifeboat to do a investigation within 2.5nm of the coastline whilst the MRCC may want it to do an incident 15nm from the coastline. Who will have primacy?. By not using our facilities already and making the IOM government provide their own is wasteful and places burden on a relatively small community (approx 100,000 inhabitants on the IOM).<br><br>The EPR is used for LRF’s and RRF’s and Irish Sea windfarm liaison meetings, due to its central location and ample facilities. It is within easy travel by car, Humber (2 hours) by car for resilience reasons. It is located close to Arqiva for faults. The MRCC is located next to a major international port which now has a cruise liner terminal and increased container terminal. They are located between two maritime training centre’s (Fleetwood and Lairdside LJMU) for future employees. They are located in an area of lower living costs in comparison to South coast. We are within a co-located site with a local aerial and met observation site. The MRCC is on freehold ground however there are restrictive covenants, especially 2a. “Use as an MRSC….and no other purpose.”<br><br>Liverpool is in an ideal location to be a MOC with all the strengths they have, I am sure it will be easier to move people to Liverpool than to Portsmouth or Southampton. The average house price is significantly less in the NW than it is in the latter locations by 25%. Liverpool has been used for training locations, example, offshore SAR awareness course as well as First Aid for CROs. It is used for the area (Holyhead and Liverpool) Station officer’s Annual meeting as it is a central location for all interested parties. <br><br>There is a proven statistical record of how many incidents we deal with which are evenly distributed day and night and are incidents which require SAR knowledge. Liverpool has higher incident numbers than Holyhead, a staggering 29% more, therefore, are more accustomed to higher workload. Liverpool also has many major incidents which have been dealt with professionally and mainly in the night, many of which have resulted in the staff having Chief coastguard commendations. The station is also cheaper to run than Holyhead by 8%, considering Liverpool has nearly 50% extra MCA staff than Holyhead in the Liverpool site using the facilities.<br><br>MRCC Liverpool is positioned on the Irish Sea coastline which is becoming busier with wind farms (one of which is 1,200 turbines), offshore rigs, LNG storage, TSS and VTS opportunities, busy commercial vessels and leisure users as well as busy holiday and hotspot locations (for example, Dec 12th 2010, there were three incidents in Blackpool all after daylight hours lasting from 0003UTC until 0424UTC).<br><br>More windfarms mean more incidents during installation of the wind farms (incident UR101 barge in Solway Firth, jack up rig Abigail H capsized, the Riverdance ferry would have gone through the proposed wind farm site as it missed the weather mast by 10m). Once the wind farms are operational there are always maintenance issues with people working within restricted workspaces. These will also require future VTM and TSS to manage traffic. Eg. Gwyn-Ty-Mor site of 160 turbine installation, the turbines will be made in Liverpool by Cammel Lairds and there will be 200 vessels involved with this installation alone.<br><br>There is also new thinking in storing LNG offshore, for example, Morecambe Bay, Pilling sands are going to construct an underground offshore LNG storage facility. This will involve more high risk shipping. This has been confirmed that Fleetwood will be the terminal for the LNG.<br><br>Liaison with nuclear sites<br>There will also be more nuclear sites, at present Liverpool deal with MOX (mixed oxide fuel usually plutonium or uranium)movements. This will increase as demand for greener fuel is required by the UK Government in the future. We have three nuclear sites on the coast within the NW area.<br><br>Liaison with Local Resilience Forums (LRF’s) and stakeholders<br>There is a pressure for a more multi-agency working; by having locations close to large populations will mean better relationships within organizations. E.g. At present MRCC Liverpool works with seven Police forces. We are a category 1 responder so have a legal responsibility to attend the contingency meetings. In the FOIA response it shows that the MCA attends 6 of the 12 LRF’s in Western Region and 1 LRF of the 8 LRF’s in SCOTNI region. We do attend the local resilience forums; I have been involved in emergency planning for a village whose access floods every spring tide. <br><br>The issue about Liverpool MRCC doesn’t understand Welsh<br>The comment about Holyhead is to remain open due to the Welsh language.<br>Firstly within Liverpool’s district there are Flint RNLI Lifeboat and Dee Coastguard Team. Both of which are located on the North Wales coastline. If the staff at Liverpool don’t understand Welsh names then they would not be able to deal with SAR in the River Dee area for the past 20 years!. North Wales is a popular location for holidays from people from the North West of England and if any analysis was done about casualties in North Wales it would most likely show they are from England. This area is very familiar to the current officers at Liverpool as it is frequented. <br>Holyhead only has one Welsh speaker. There is no guarantee that the one person located Holyhead now will have a job within the new structure unless her job has been ring-fenced? Discrimination against Liverpool as a site based on the fact that they do not know Welsh place names is nonsense when they already work in North Wales! By not having a site at Liverpool means that there is no mainland station on the West Coast from Holyhead until Aberdeen. This is not acceptable.<br><br> No it does not .<br><br>Emergency Planning considerations -<br>With the proposed sites all being located in inaccessible locations this will have a huge impact on emergency planning. Having experienced a number of high publicity and major incidents including mass fatalities it is imperative that the players can get together. Lessons learnt from the Morecambe Bay disaster show that it is imperative for the Police to liaise direct with the MRCC co-ordinating and this is facilitated via the emergency plans by sending a Sergeant to the MRCC to relay to his control what is going on at sea so they can plan shore side response. Having stations in remote locations does not make the Coastguard accessible during incidents. With Clyde closing it is more important to have a station on the mainland. It would mean that there is no mainland coastguard station between Holyhead and Aberdeen. This is not accessible and is not inclusive to your stakeholders. See the MCA Fault map to see the amount of area that Liverpool currently deals with, which involves three countries and one crown dependency.<br><br> The locations should be chosen on good business sense as well as operational need. If Milford is to remain open then Liverpool should remain open so there is an even spread of coastal locations. Under this proposal there are limited opportunities for progression unless you are in a position to sell your home and move. The good workers will be forced to leave due to moving etc while others will get on within the agency due to living in the area of the proposed sites when they not necessarily be the most suitable candidates. My example, is a person who is a fantastic worker, he is not able to progress due to home-life commitments, if Liverpool were to close he would leave after over 10 year’s service. There may be a person who has no family who can move but is nowhere near as good as the former employee but will get the job as they can move. You need to keep the dedicated and professional workers. There is also a concern about the future application and interview process, if numbers of jobs are to decrease so severely as proposed will the jobs go to the person who has worked hard and deserves to stay?<br><br>Equality in HM Coastguard<br>There is a pressure to be diverse and equal within society and the workplace showing a representation of the UK population meaning that we (the MCA) should be employing people with different backgrounds and lifestyles, by restricting locations and opportunities to be employed within the MCA this will result in a loss of good people and mean that people who have no ties and no responsibilities will be the only ones who can make the move to the location of the MOC. Alternatively, the MCA will have to recruit new inexperienced personnel local to the MOC to make up the required numbers. <br><br>It is my belief that having limited locations that this will restrict the number of female applicants for posts. For example, a female WM with a child living in the Northwest. She would not be able to relocate to the South of the country as it would not be financially and domestically beneficial. As you only have 27% of females in the HMCG workforce (EqIA data) this should be considered as a pressure to facilitate working opportunities. The Eqia is expecting a reduction of 0.4% and replacing this with post re-organisation male coastguard number. According to the business directory (5th Feb 2011) there are only 7 female WM’s out of 83 WM’s, 8.4% of first line CG operational managers are women. There are only 11 females holding a position of WM to CSM out of 111 posts, a mere 10%. This proposed change will exclude female employees and female managers from the future structure of HMCG. This means that HMCG is not showing proportional representation of the UK workforce.<br>                                                                                                                                                
local independant lifeboat station no it does not it is a very large are to cover and liverpool have been doing this area for years.<br> no we need liverpool what is going to happen to smaller units and there radios are relay masts going to be put up. no it does not                                                                                                                                                    
Member of the public There is no price that can be put on life, we are an island nation and need as many coastguard stations as we can place around the coast. No The structure fails to address the problems of coastal/marine safety. The retention of Swansea is paramount in securing the safety of our shores. Local knowledge of tides, geography and environment will be lost along with many lives. For an island nation to scatter it's coastguard stations to the winds of chance is sheer madness. Lives are lost both at sea and on the coastal reaches every day, to close the only facilities people can call upon to be rescued from danger is the folly of mad fools.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Yes Yes No Yes. <br><br>Swansea is busier with inciidents involving members of the public which surely should be one of the main factors of keeping it open full time. <br><br>An example of 'Local Knowledge' was used last week invlolving a Coast Guard, his rescue would not have been so quick and successful had it not been for this.<br><br>The safety of the public is paramount and keeping Swansea open there are more chances of successful rescues. Does it have to take a fatality to realise this?<br><br>The campaigns regarding 'Safety at Sea' in recent years is worthless with no back up from one of the busiest MRCC's in the country!<br> <br>By keeping Swansea open they could share the guard between Holyhead and the rest of the Bristol Channel instead of having two stations next to each other!                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public         No Comment                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public       WE CANNOT LOSE OUR COASTGUARD STATION IN SWANSEA. IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE SAFETY OF THE AREA. IT IS THE 2ND BUSIEST STATION IN THE UK ! WE NEED THEM BOTH. SEE SENSE AND SAVE SWANSEA COASTGUARD STATION !                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public         No Comment                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I do not agree with closing any of the regional centres.<br><br>There are a number of ways in which te MCA can stream line it's operational practices without cutting stations or placing lives at risk.<br><br>MCA management are not time served Coastguards with Frontline Operational experience, so why do they think they have the knowledge and experience to make decisions that they are so far detached from? No I do not.<br><br>I attended the public meeting in Southport, and have written to Mr Massey on a number of occassions and have yet to receive suitable answers to my questions.<br><br>How can the MCA justify 2 centres in Wales and nothing at all on the North West coast of England? which is a larger stretch of coastline and far busier than all of Wales?<br><br>The North West coast covers numerous industries including Wind Power, Nuclear Power and Oil and Gas, they now have no resilient cover in the event of an emergency.<br><br>Mr Naylor told me himself at Southport that if the 2 MOC's go down - which is a likely event with the unproven technology that has been proposed - and there is an incident in the EIS Gas Field then we were &quot;on our own&quot;. That is not a good enough response when lives are on the line.<br><br>The MCA selected Holyhead over Liverpool and justified the response by claiming that Holyhead has Welsh speaking personnel and Liverpool doesn't. To be blunt, I don't give a damn, the last time I checked the official language of the United Kingdom was English, and all the staff at Liverpool speak English! When a member of th public rang Holyhead and spoke nothing but Welsh to them, they could not deal with his call - and the MCA call that resilient? No it does not.<br><br>How can you provide an effective Emergency Service when firstly you have lied in the consultation, and secondly you have introduced an additional level of delay by ensuring that the original 999 call is taken by the MOC and then distributed to the 24/7 sub-centre. How can that be cost effective, efficient or beneficial to the person in distress?<br><br>Again how can you justify resilience by selecting Holyhead over Liverpool and leaving a huge stretch of coastline unprotected?<br><br>I wonder if the MCA understands what resilience actually means? it seems to me as though this has just been selected as a buzz word to cover a multitude of ineptitude that we are seeing from the MCA.<br><br>Surely if the MCA were as committed to resilient cover as they believe then the obvious choice for a MOC would be Liverpool MRCC, which has a purpose built centre, houses additional MCA support teams, has excellent road, rail and air links, is virtually central for the MCA.<br>If the MCA is truly committed to resilience then why isn't Liverpool staying open and why isn't Liverpool in the running to become a MOC? If you haven't already gathered from my previous answers, I think the Welsh coastline will be just fine with one 24/7 centre.<br><br>However the North West Coast of England will be left unattended and lives will be lost. Perhaps keeping Liverpool open at the expense of an additional centre in Wales is the more resilient option. Mr Massey has already stated that these changes are set in stone and will not be changed - this is the same man who has completely ignored the consultation process and the recommendations of the Transport Select Committee, the same man who ruined the Navy, and now he has been sent to ruin the Coastguard.<br><br>Why are you asking these questions again, when you have already predetermined the outcome?<br><br>Retaining Liverpool as an MRCC or MOC, is the logical and sensible choice, there are many many people who agree with this statement. <br>There are many people who have campaigned long and hard to be heard, so why is it when we are alledged to be in a democratic country, are we suffering tyranny at the hands of Mr Massey and his henchmen?<br>The People have spoken and are continuing to speak - they do not want Liverpool to close.<br><br>I have likened this Consultation Process to that of Henry VIII and his Reformation of the Monastries, that was badly thrown together plan, and so is this one.<br><br>If the MCA truly wants to modernise, why haven't they been able to get their own staff and volunteers on board, why haven't the frontline staff been asked about modernisation and what is needed rather than having this shambles forced upon them?<br><br>We all know that this is a cost cutting exercise - and I have already told Mr Massey that he should have grown a pair and told the Governement that this wasn't an option - so why is it that there are so many areas that could be improved upon and modernised and be more cost effective, but the MCA Management has chosen such a ludicrous route to save money?<br><br>I would also like to remind Mr Massey and his henchmen, that the Prime Minister David Cameron stated in Parliament that Front Line Emergency Service jobs would not be subject to cuts - so why are they being cut? <br><br>I am quite happy to discuss any cost saving proposals I have with the MCA, although I'm quietly confident you wont ask.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public         No Comment                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public we already know that swansea coastguard is the 2nd busiest in the uk,so it is obvious 2 me that by getting rid of swansea coastguard there is a very strong possibility that there are going to be lives lost at sea that would have otherwise been saved no NO KEEP SWANSEA COASTGUARD OPEN OR LIVES ARE GOING TO BE LOST WHO ARE THE ACTUAL IDIOTS WHO HAVE DECIDED TO DO THIS BECAUSE THEY WILL BE THE ONE S WHO WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE HUSBANDS,WIVES ,MOTHERS ,FATHERS,SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF THE LOVED ONES WHO WILL BE LEFT TO DROWN                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public No opinion Yes No No opinion As a marine surveyor and a boat owner my concern is for the coast between the Thames and the Humber. The new proposals leave this entire stretch of coast bare and certainly does not address the considerable concerns about loss of local knowledge. Given the amount of commercial traffic in and out of Felixstowe and Harwich and the considerable number of leisure boaters using this area I feel as a minimum Thames should be retained as a 24/7 MRCC.                                                                                                                                                
Central Government     No it does not. The loss of Swansea Coastguard Station is a particularly serious threat to safety in the Swansea area and the wider Bristol Channel. This coastguard station covers the area from Gower along the Welsh coast as far as Bristol and back along the Avon, Somerset and Devon coastline. In 2010 the number of incidents involving Swansea coastguard was 2,074 and the coastguard workers union say it is the second busiest station in the UK in terms of inshore search and rescue operations. That compares with 1,006 that were attended by Milford Haven coastguard station and 1,137 recorded by Holyhead Station<br><br>The specialist knowledge of the coastguards based at this station is key to saving lives, whether it is in directing rescue operations in the treacherous currents of the Loughor estuary, understanding the geography of the many bays and inlets off the Bristol Channel for cliff side rescues or directing operations around a person trapped in the many mud traps on the coastline.<br><br>Milford Haven traditionally works directing operations around the Pembrokeshire coastline and Cardigan Bay and does not have the capacity nor the local knowledge to take over from Swansea. Inevitably, if they are engaged on an incident then the next coastguard station to take over coordinating rescue operations in the Bristol Channel will be Stornoway or the Solent. That in itself is absurd and unsustainable.<br><br>In addition, Swansea Coastguard Station regularly cooperates with different agencies in the southwest of England and South Wales which significantly contributes to increase safety of British coasts. <br><br>Swansea is better placed strategically to co-ordinate activity in and around the Bristol Channel and the staff there have a wealth of experience in this regard. Above all I am confused as to the reasons given for closure which, according to statements in the House of Commons appears to be that the Government want to spread Transport Department jobs around. The considerations in these proposals should be about safety and operational effectiveness not a newly emerged jobs strategy. On this grounds it seems to me that keeping Swansea Coastguard Station open is the only logical option. <br><br>Finally, I would draw your attention to proposals to construct a major deep water wind farm near to Lundy island. This is a major undertaking that will involve the transport of equipment and turbines, labour and machinery from Swansea, Port Talbot and Milford Haven over the construction period of the Atlantic Array. The coordination of this traffic around existing uses, including the hundreds of surfers, boat owners, survey vessels, water skiers, passenger and commercial shipping is a massive undertaking that needs an experienced and knowledgeable coastguard station to oversee it. Milford Haven do not meet that criteria, whilst Solent and Stornoway would be even more remote. The two coastguard stations both need to be retained for the reasons set out in my response to question three.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public     no                                                                                                                                                    
Member of the public No. Thie Liverpool Bay coastline is one of the most dangerous in the Country.<br><br>There is still a large amount of shipping/freight/ferries accessing the Mersey.<br><br>To have no Coastguard on the West Coast is crazy No<br><br>Too far away Definitely not I have no knowledge of the South Wales area and would prefer not to comment                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public         No Comment                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Don't know enough about this to comment. Don't know enough about this to comment. I think coastguard stations are vitally important and none should close. Yes, the fact that Swansea deals with twice as many incidents per year as Milford Haven. Swansea watches over an extensive area of dangerous seas and is needed far more than Milford Haven. Swansea Coastguard Station is an extremely busy Station - far busier than the ones you want to remain open. The staff are dedicated to preserving lives and helping people at risk at the sea. To lose this station would be madness.                                                                                                                                                
Friend of National Coast Watch Inst.     <br><br>Not in any way. <br><br>Swansea Coast Guard is the second largest Station in terms of incidents dealt wih in the U.K.<br><br>The Station covers the entire Bristol Channel both the Welsh and English side of the coast.<br><br>The Bristol Channel is an exceedingly dangerous sea area with the second highest tidal range in the world.<br><br>Pleasure craft and commercial shipping abound in the channel from Hartland Point to Gloucester,taking in the port of Swansea and its Irish ferry, Cardiff, Port<br><br>RAF Air rescue services and Air Ambulances are dealt with by the Station as are the main lifeboat stations allong the coast.<br><br>The station is manned by a dedicated and extremely professional staff whose experience can not be matched by any other means.<br> <br><br>Savings could be made in areas such as The P.M's &quot;survey of happiness&quot; which will do nothing to save lives arround the coast.                                                                                                                                                
just want coastguard to remain       swansea is far better milford is too out of the way                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public       1) Has M H got the expertese to cope with the huge tidal range on the Bristol Channel ?<br><br>&quot;2) Most of the ship movements , particularly in the Haven, are controlled by the Harbour authorities. Swansea CG, has a watching brief for shipping approaching Avonmouth, Newport, Cardiff, Barry, Port Talbot Swansea. Local Knowledge is essential when E&gt;G, a new to the Channel captain looks for shelter when all ports are closed.<br><br>3)Knowledge of the coastline on both sides of the Channel are required when accidents or strandings occur.<br><br>4)Swansea C G handle the second highest number of recorded incidents of ALL CG stations. Many of these are lifesaving incidents .It would be clearly dangerous to expect M H to deal with all the extra incidents. The suggestion that M H may be forced to passon emergencies to other Stations who have little intimate knowledge of the Bristol Channel is clearly unacceptable.                                                                                                                                                  
      No Swansea is far busier than Milford Haven, the 2 areas if joined as one would be extremely busy which one MRCC would be unable to cope with. Also both areas have locations with Welsh names, if coordination was diverted to Southampton or elsewhere this could prove a challenge                                                                                                                                                  
Ex-M.N. Seaman There is not much chance of Westminster drifting in the Mersey, so why should THE CREW OF <br>H.P.WESTMINSTER worry about safety,when there is a chance of perhaps saveing a few BOB.?<br><br>THERE IS &quot;SPARE&quot; CASH TO BE FOUND FOR &quot;LAME DOGS&quot; OVERSEAS. SOFT JOHNNY ENGLISH       In my opinion, With the traffic plying the River Mersey,and Liverpool now able to handle CRUISE LINERS<br><br>In the interest of SAFETY, this is not the time to EVEN THINK of proposals to close LIVERPOOL <br><br>COASTGUARD STATION, Come on Westminster, you have just done what the BANKS done a few <br><br>years ago, made a bad investment,buying Euro debts, BILLONS OF POUNDS, how much will you <br><br>WRITE-OFF in a few years time??? Customs and Excise cuts a few years ago, now we are flooded <br><br>with ILLEGALS. How many more Cock-ups???<br><br> I could go on, but whats the use, you always jump before you you stop and think<br><br> L. EDGE.<br> A DISENCHANTED 84YEAR OLD                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public no no no yes retain as is,any more comments unprintable                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public     i doubt it very much, there can be no better alternative to eyes 'in situ' . the historic siting of local coast guard stations has come about because of need and expedience. while larger shipping may be reduced, it is still there, smaller vessels have less possibilitie of other shiping providing support or ability to raise calls for assistance, they also provide security against those who would wish to take advantage of an under protected coast to perpetrate wrongdoing, such as drug/arms smuggling. whilst milford haven doubtles has a higher traffic of larger vessels, (and experience of disaster incorporating dangerous 'modern' cargoes, swansea has good vantage to moniter and assist a large amount of smaller vessels and has good vantage of the transition from bristol channel to severn estuary. swansea/mumbles gives very good vantage with a wide angle of scan over an area where smaller(and often less experienced) vessels/crews are abundant                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Maybe getting public support? Not sure I do not believe so It is rediculous that theres any proposal to shut down any coastguard in any area, lives will certainly be put at risk. lives should come before saving money!!                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public       MRCC Swansea has a unique knowledge of tidal waters of the Bristol Channel, Severn Estuary and River Severn, with the second highest tidal range in the world, these waters pose a serious threat to life, in particular the young who frequently make their way out on to sand banks which flood with amazing speed in these waters. Without the local knowledge of MRCC Swansea staff assisting our own lifeboat crews, I have no doubt that closure will result in lives lost.<br><br>Uniquely dangerous waters require unique local knowledge, this is provided by MRCC Swansea and could not be replicated from other areas. Protect the public, in particular children, please save Swansea MRCC                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I agree   apparently NOT                                                                                                                                                    
Member of the public No Opinion No Opinion No. The closure of the Swansea Coastguard Station leaves a massive gap in what is a very busy area.<br>The specialist knowledge of the coastguards based at this station is key to saving lives, whether it is in directing rescue operations in the treacherous currents of the Loughor estuary, understanding the geography of the many bays and inlets off the Bristol Channel for cliff side rescues or directing operations around a person trapped in the many mud traps on the coastline.<br>Swansea is better placed strategically to co-ordinate activity in and around the Bristol Channel and the staff there have a wealth of experience in this regard. However,according to statements in the House of Commons it appears that the Government want to spread Transport Department jobs around when the real decision should be about safety and operational effectiveness not a jobs strategy. Milford Haven traditionally works directing operations around the Pembrokeshire coastline and Cardigan Bay and does not have the local knowledge to take over from Swansea. Inevitably, if they are engaged on an incident then the next coastguard station to take over coordinating rescue operations in the Bristol Channel will be Stornoway or the Solent. That makes no sense at all.<br>There are also proposals to construct a major deep water wind farm close to Lundy island. This major undertaking that will involve the transport of equipment and turbines, labour and machinery from Swansea, Port Talbot and Milford Haven over the construction period of the Atlantic Array. The coordination of this traffic around existing commercial and leisure uses, is a massive undertaking that needs an experienced and knowledgeable coastguard station to oversee it. Milford Haven is not positioned to deliver this service effectively, whilst Solent and Stornoway make even less sense. The sudden about turn on this issue of which coastguard stations in Wales should be closed with the criteria being based on where DoT jobs are loacted makes no operational sense and seems to me to be based on political lobbying and short term political advantage rather than the health and safety of the public. I would urge to Coastguard Service and the Minister to reconsider the decision to close the Swansea Coastguard Station.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public       Swansea has always been the busiest and covers a vaster area                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public   Yes No, there will be loss of local knowledge which ultimately may compromise safety and response times. As a leisure boat owner I have grave concerns over the propsed closures of the coastguard stations. I feel that this a political move due to the fact that the DVLA is situated in Swansea and employs a large number of local people. However, this should not be a factor in the decision to close Swansea. The closure of the Swansea Coastguard station will undoubteldy compromise safety. The Bristol Channel is one of the most dangerous tidal ranges in Britain and local knowledge allows the response teams to pin point emergencies in a timely manner and with the utmost precision. I fear that transferring the operations to another station will hinder these reposnse times due to lack of local knowledge of the coastline and the wider channel area. As a leisure boat owner I feel very strongly about this. <br>I also feel that this a political decision as the DVLA is an employer of a large number of local people in the Swansea area. This decision has not been based on what is best for the Swansea and surrounding coastal areas. <br><br>                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Retain Swansea Coast Guards No No Retain Swansea                                                                                                                                                  
Interest Group No I do not agree. No any dilution of the MCA is detrimental No. Situations can and do excalate dramatically and local knowledge cannot be seconded. Both Swansea and Milford should be maintained. The local knowledge and understanding cannot be lost in any area. The cost of the MCA is cheap for the cost of the service.                                                                                                                                                
Representative Organisation Money and cost should not be a concern where people's lives are at risk. The MCA must not be diluted, lives WILL be lost No, the COST of the MCA is minor. NOt one or the other but BOTH LIVES WILL BE LOST....................................ANYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THIS                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public No Comment No Comment Not in the case of the Bristol Channel Yes. First of all the reason for the minister keeping open Milford Haven at the expense of Swansea is ridiculous .The decision shold be based on an analysis of need not whether there are a high number of public service jobs in the city.Swansea has proved itself to be really efficient well utilised sevice with experienced staff with operations which save lives every day.The local knowledge and strategic position are also important factors<br>I find it hard to believe that that the operation can be conducted as efficiently and effectively under the new arrangement and along with many thousands of others request that Swansea should remain open. Please keep Swansea Coastguard station open                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public       Swansea Station is of huge importance to the safe operation of all sea traffic in the area, regular commercial, industrial and ferry services depend on the ability of the local station to respond quickly to problems.<br>Swansea Bay and the Gower Peninsula are one of the busiest tourist areas of the country, many of these folks are very inexperienced and it is essential we have a local service staffed with personnel with local knowledge to handle any dangerous situations that regularly arise.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public I am more interested in saving lives than cash. I think both are assets and the UK is currently disposing with enough of it's assets as it is, particularly in the armed forces. However of all the proposed closures Liverpool MAY have the least negative impact. Absolutely not. Not reliably and therefore not safely. I also think the way the proposals are being changed as the winds change is alarming and shows that the whole thing has been poorly thought out and amateurishly handled. Swansea handles twice as many incidents as Milford Haven and covers the busy Bristol Channel which has the second highest tidal range in the world in places. To close this station is reckless, irresponsible, ill informed and incompetent. Deliberately placing lives at unecessary risk is no way to cut costs. Do not play bean counting with lives. Keep Swansea coastguard station open.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public       Given the nature of the busy coastal regions for commercial and social activities, stations in BOTH locations need to be retained.                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public     No. Yes there are! Swansea covers a much bigger area of operation. It deals with more incidents per year so theerfore has a higher incident rate. This is about public safety and well being, far more people visit and use the maritime Swansea area than Milford Haven. The people who visit will arguablly feel less inclined to visit the coast if they do not feel safe and this will have a huge impact on the local economy as well as the direct knock on of job losses at HRMC Swansea and supporting agencies.<br><br>Having been raised in Swansea and moved to Yorkshire as an adult, I know that most incidents are inshore and require local knowledge and a fast response. Locals are far better placed to assist someone in trouble than someone who has never been to Swansea let alone Pobbles Bay, Three Cliffs or any of the other small bays which are hard to access leading to cliff rescues and have their own current patterns etc.<br><br>Please just think about all of the tourist areas that Swansea MRCC covers, it is a huge area stretching through West Wales, over to the Devon and Cornwall and Eastwards to Gloucester. I think that if the general public realised this there would be a huge outcry! The bottom line is you need to rethink this and open the cosultation up to an informed public rather than making it all so hard for people to see what is happening and to express their concern. When I return to Wales and take my children to the beach, who have not been raised at the seaside I know that they are safe, this will not be the case if you go through with these proposals and I will have no choice but to curtail their time spent at the seaside and spend my money elsewhere!                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public         There seems to be much concern that the closure of local stations will increase danger because remote stations do not have local knowledge. Surely there is a very simple and cheap answer to those concerns; install notices on beaches showing the post code of the beach. Presumably all search and rescue agencies have GPS installed in their vehicles.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public       The Swansea Station, covers a far larger area than it appears initially. It is responsible for not only the Welsh coast , but the other side of the Bristol Channel encompassing the coast line of Somerset and Devon.<br>Local knowledge is vital when it comes to a rescue situation, and there is no substitute for this.<br>Expecting stations far from here to act as the co-ordinator in an emergency situation is ludricous - they will be way out of touch with the reality and geographic location of the event.<br>In an area where there are vast numbers of pleasure craft and 'weekend sailors' it is essential that a specialist service, with local knowledge, is available 24 hrs. a day, to provide continual safety for all sea users.<br>This safety can only be assured with a continual provision of the service.<br>There are several small airfields in the area catering for those whose well being, when in the air, should also be considered. Should a pilot be unfortunate enough to crash into the sea, it is the Coastguard who are the first point of contact by the public.<br>This is an area with cliff paths, and also accidents. How long would it take for the Mobile Rescue Unit to reach the casualty if they are alerted from the South of England or Scotland with only the barest details?<br>To ensure that lives are not put at risk, all Coastguard Stations shoud remain open on a 24 hour basis.<br>Can you put a price on human life?<br><br>                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public Yes i think that they should be kept 24/7,and to make it cost effective link them all up to one system. As i said in question 1 they should all be kept 24/7 as you can't put a price on peoples lives and safety. simple answer NO As a local in milford haven i want milford haven to be kept,but no station should be kept at thee cost of any of the others.<br><br>They all are needed to cover different parts of the country,as said there most be a way to link them all together enabling them all to stay open fully manned 24/7 Only 1 put lives before saving money,money can be recuperated,a persons live can't                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public The sub-centres should both be retained as 24/7 centres. No Absolutely NOT Milford Haven has specific factors and the station there needs to be able to concentrate at the level which it does at the present time. Movement of LPG Tankers etc need to be closely monitored by a station close by in The Haven and there needs to be close contact with shipping and leisure users in and around the waters of West Wales, where the level of risk is high.<br> Swansea needs to be restored to 24/7 status, so that the safety of all the users of the Severn Estuary and the Bristol Channel is maintained. The local knowledge, expertise and management abilities of the Officers at Swansea is irreplaceable. It is the second busiest Coastguard Station in the UK and Closing it, or reducing its operational hours would be madness of the highest order. People will die if this decision is allowed to stand and our coast will not be protected as well as it is now. The benefits of new technology available for monitoring is still to be seen in the local context, and evidence needs first to be collected and collated before any radical decision is made. Where is the evidence from The Department of a detailed Risk Assessment on the proposals? The Severn Estuary and The Bristol Channel are stretches of water where the risks to life of the people who live, work or play in them (or near them) are amongst the highest in the UK; the hazards that abound on a daily basis, as the sand and silt move around in the strong currents and tides, can only be understood with experience and local knowledge, both of which can be found in abundance within the staff of the Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre at Swansea. Experienced officers are passing their knowledge and expertise to the younger, local young recruits as I write this. If this essential Coast Guard Station closes, this continuity of knowledge, experience and expertise will be lost forever.<br>Both Stations have compelling and overwhelming reasons to be maintained as 24/7 Stations. Employment numbers in the Department of Transport based in Swansea should not be the basis of a decision that involves the safety and survival of people using the waters around our coast. To base such a vital decision on this as a criterion is tantamount to admitting that the Minister responsible does not have sufficient grasp of the gravity of his proposals. I was totally stunned to hear this in his address to The House of Commons and felt it was degrading to our Parliamentary system of government.<br>In conclusion, I believe &quot;The Mother of all Parliaments&quot; is in danger of being known instead for the making of &quot;The Mother of all Mistakes.&quot;                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public No no No Safety in upper reaches of Bristol Channel                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public Yes I agree - the safety of people at sea is paramount and should be considered no matter what the cost. Yes, the Holyhead sub-centre is best placed with its position into the Irish Sea, to look after the North Wales coast and Liverpool. It's strategic proximity to the RAF search and rescue HQ at Valley and experience with dealing their Irish counterparts and mountain rescue teams are excellent reasons to keep the station open. No, there cannot be too much cover 'for those in peril on the sea' and for ensuring our shores are protected from illegal entry and import of undesirable goods and aliens. Both should be retained As a responsible user of coastal waters I want to see retention, if not an increase of the presence of mca all around our shores. The services provided, such as the courses for the proper use of VHF marine transceiver, are absolutely invaluable and should continue to be made available to all users of coastal waters all around the UK.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public     No Swansea is better placed to cover the whole Bristol Channel. Milford is also needed because of tanker movements in a busy, restricted haven. It should not be an either/or                                                                                                                                                  
Member of the public That is not a question. It is two!<br>a). No.<br>b). That is not a 'Yes' or 'No' question to answer as it is a 'loaded' question. Not in a position to answer that. No. Yes, but clearly the decision is a politically biased one. Swansea is considerably busier, with excellent records of service. Diluting this via Milford Haven is not only a backward step, but is also likely to have potentially disastrous consequences for those in danger. I can understand a Conservative Government not wishing to 'reward' a Labour stronghold, but surely the welfare of the public is too important to be politicised!                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Yes. Yes. No. The closure of adjoining MRCCs at Portland and Brixham will severely inhibit the amount of local knowledge in an area with one of the most difficult tidal races (Portland Race) and where that local knowledge is vital in correctly directing rescue resources in a timely manner.<br><br>This issue of local knowledge has been acknowledged in the latest consultation and the geographical location of Portland Coastguard would make it an obvious choice for the location of the MOC - midway between the retained MRCCs of Dover and Falmouth. No opinion on this. There is a strong case for the location of the MOC in Portland, with readily available land for a new centre to be established - there is already considerable land held by MCA with the new Search and Rescue helicopter facility and more Government owned land exists on Osprey Quay with ready access to high speed fibre optic broadband being installed as part of the infrastructure for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic sailing events.<br><br>With an existing highly skilled MCA workforce here, and the strong support of the local authorities, there is a compelling rationale for the MOC to be located in Portland.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public They should be retained yes Would be much better to keep all stations open   there is no price on human life keep our seas sake and dont cut services                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public I have little local knowledge but at face value 2 subcentres operating 24/7 would appear to be adequate The distance from Liverpool to Holyhead is quite large and it would appear to be appropriate for there to be cover more locally at Liverpool which has high marine traffic. NO! It is essential for coastguard officers to have local knowledge so closing so many stations will put lives at risk. For the purposes of monitoring merchant vessels the proposals are probably not to bad, but a large number of incidents are caused by the inexperienced, the holiday maker and the amateur sailor. These are likely to be inshore and may involve the coastline, cliffs and beach. The local stations provide the cover for this type of incident. As local co-ordinators for incidents the coastguard officers presently have good working relationships with all the assets sent to help, lifeboats, aircrew and coastguard cliff top rescue teams. Closing stations will necessarily remove this link which makes such a difference to the efficiency and speed of response. I would want to see some local stations perhaps at Swansea not necessarily working 24/7 to provide the necessary cover to the resorts and coast of the Bristol Channel The present system may have its faults and inefficiencies when viewed financially but has been successful in keeping our seas safe for many years- why change it so radically. IT can help provide a better overall robustness to the service but it can never replace the local coastguard officer who knows his area, and his mariners and others well. When I call MayDay I want to know that the person on the other end of the VHF knows my situation and is not that far away. The officer in a supercentre may be every bit as professional and efficient but he may have only a chart to go on, he will not KNOW those he is calling out to my aid and he will possibly be overwhelmed by the number of calls, some of which are not required, but all have to be handled.<br><br>Closing Portland and Brixham are of particular of concern as the next nearest centres are many miles away and there is considerable leisure marine traffic along the southcoast. <br><br>I do not believe that the options have been fully explored with perhaps volunter assistants to paid staff at certain stations or even volunteer run stations linked into the professional network. Please do not put lives at risk by cutting what is a very good service.                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Althought I know very little about the Shetland and Stornoway stations, I think the Swansea Coastguard station needs to be kept open. No No, not at all. The Milford Haven station while the Swansea one, with twice as many calls and a history of liaising with several other centres, will be closed. It is out of sheer political contempt that the government has agreed to such plans and without the slightest regard for people's safety. Yes, most certainly. It is glaringly obvious that, despite an initial proposal to close the Milford Haven station, the current government has decided to punish Swansea as Martin Caton is a Labour MP, while Stephen Crabb (of Milford Haven) is a Conservative MP. This is politics at its worst - preferring to try to strengthen their Tory vote in a particular area rather than considering the safety of the people in general; a complete lack of circumspect and logic on the part of the Government has caused this ridiculous situation. Lives are more important than winning votes. Keep Swansea Coastguard open!                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Keep swansea coastguard station open no no it does not/ Lives will be lost with the loss of local coastguard stations especially Swanse Why not keep both they are both busy shipping areas Keep Swansea coastguard open                                                                                                                                                
Member of the public Sub centres are a world away from the Bristol Channel and are not viable due to the distances involved. <br>Maintaining and investing in Swansea Coastguard and Mumbles lifeboat is the only way to ensure adequate cover and the eventual saving of lives. The Bristol Channel is one of the busiest areas of shipping in the UK. The north Devon and South Wales and Gower coast are frequently used by water sports enthusiasts, swimmers,and coastal walkers. It would be foolhardy to close Swansea Coastguard. No I not do agree, again Holyhead is to far distant and has its own coastal waters of the Irish Sea to protect. No the distances between coastguard stations are too far apart. In my opinion both centres should be maintained and operational. It would be foolhardy and short sighted to close Swansea Coastguard as many people rely on their outstanding commitment to saving lives, their record speaks for itself.                 &nbs