Guidance

Port Marine Safety Code Health Check Findings 2021-2023

Published 8 October 2024

1. Executive summary

The following is a report from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) findings of Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) health checks conducted during the three year period 2021-2023.

Continued use of a data driven approach and ISO audit focused terminology such as ‘nonconformity’ and ‘observation’ have helped to compile this report with the aim of improving the MCA’s ability to analyse the data generated from the PMSC health check program.

This report is designed to provide an insight into the findings identified during the 28 health check visits conducted during the period 2021-2023 at a combination of municipal, private and trust owned facilities across all four home nations.  No particular PMSC related themes or challenges emerged from this report, however In the scenario where there are marine facilities within a Statutory Harbour Authority’s (SHA) jurisdiction, the PMSC health check team would however highlight the importance of SHA’s and facilities engaging positively with one another to confirm PMSC compliance and ensure that Marine SMS’s are in place and are complimentary to one another’s operations.

Introduction

The Port Marine Safety Code sets a national standard for port marine safety across the UK. Its development was prompted following a review of the Pilotage Act 1987, completed in 1998 in the aftermath of the Sea Empress accident in 1996. The PMSC’s primary function remains to provide guidance and assist the industry in safeguarding ports, harbours, and all other marine facilities, to ensure that safety can be enhanced for everyone who uses or works in the UK port marine environment.

The involvement of industry representatives in the on-going development and review of the PMSC has been and will continue to be critical in ensuring that both it, and the related Guide to Good Practice on Port Marine Operations (GTGP), remain current and reflect latest best practice.

The composition of ports, harbours and other marine facilities in the UK vary significantly in size, volume and types of traffic handled. Recognising the significant differences in the role, powers, duties, responsibilities and risks that different organisations have and manage, the Code is intended to be sufficiently flexible to enable its principles to be applied in a manner proportionate to local requirements. The GTGP, designed to be read with the PMSC, underpins this ethos by providing guidance and examples of best practice written by and agreed with industry. The PMSC and GTGP exist to assist the industry in promoting and executing safe, efficient, and accountable port marine operations based on best practice.

The MCA undertakes several PMSC ‘health checks’ annually, with the aim of visiting a wide range and composition of port marine facilities across the UK. A visit may be triggered by evidence of a problem, or potential problem; self-reported non-compliance or a request for assistance and is intended to identify where processes and procedures are working well but also areas where improvements could be made to strengthen compliance.

2. Exposure from failure to comply with the PMSC

The following extract is from a successful prosecution of a harbour authority which was found to fail in their duties to adequately implement four foundational elements of PMSC compliance.

This case demonstrates the importance that courts may place on organisations adopting ‘industry best practice’ and the exposure that they may face if they fail to take adequate steps towards compliance.

The harbour authority was subsequently fined for contraventions under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974:

“The charge related to the Port Authority’s duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Section 3, to conduct their undertaking in such a way as to ensure, as far as was reasonably practicable, that persons not in their employment who may be affected by the conduct of the Harbour Authority’s undertaking were not exposed thereby to risks to their health or safety.”

Part of the indictment noted that:

“You failed to provide a safe system of work in that you did fail to provide a Safety Management System to reduce to a level as low as reasonably practicable the risks associated with marine operations in the Harbour Area, in terms of the Port Marine Safety Code, and failed to appoint a suitable individual or individuals to share the function of ‘Designated Person’ to provide you as the duty holder with independent assurance that your Safety Management System was working effectively and to audit your compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code.”

3. Statistical summary of findings

Section heading	No. of Observations / Non-Conformities	Percentage of total number of findings
Duty Holders	16	9%
Designated Person	15	8%
Legislation	18	11%
Duties and Powers	25	14%
Risk Assessment	16	9%
Marine SMS	19	11%
Review and Audit	14	8%
Competence	19	11%
Plan	19	11%
Aids to Navigation	14	8%
Total	175	100%

4. Summary of observations/non-conformities

This section is designed to provide greater insight into the more common observations and non-conformities identified during the health checks conducted.

Duty Holder:

• The role and identity of Duty Holder was not published. This was particularly prevalent amongst municipal ports.
• Lack of awareness and understanding of the full range and responsibilities of a Duty Holder.
• Only basic introduction received regarding the role and responsibility of the Duty Holder with no evidence of any ‘follow up’ actions. These might include regular tours of the facility, attendance at operational meetings, participation at operational briefings.
• Basic introduction into the roles and responsibilities of the Duty Holder should be seen as the start as opposed to the end of the journey towards active Duty Holder involvement.

Designated Person:

• Lack of a suitably qualified Designated Person.
• Inability, particularly among municipal ports, to effectively demonstrate the independence of the Designated Person.

Legislation:

• Legislation not periodically reviewed to ascertain suitability to address the current needs of the organisation, e.g., following a change of ownership of a facility, or the removal or addition of a specific operation at a multi-functional facility.

Duties and Powers:

• Lack of awareness of the full range of the duties and powers of an organisation.
• Lack of periodic review of the duties and powers to ensure their suitability to address the current needs of the organisation.
• Lack of practical enforcement policies.
• Need for SHA’s to engage with third parties operating withing their jurisdiction to support PMSC compliance and ensure that the Marine SMS (Safety Management System) covers or is complementary to the third party’s operation.

Risk Assessments:

• No periodic review of risks, either or post-incident/accident.
• Need to guard against Dynamic Risk Assessments for tasks/duties undertaken regularly.

Marine SMS:

• Only a basic MSMS (Marine Safety Management System) is in place.
• Examples of absent information include no weather criteria for safe vessel access to a facility, no means of controlling vessel movements within a harbour, no details of a facility’s approach to accident investigation and no details of method of regular and documented consultation with stakeholders.
• Lack of effective and periodic review of the MSMS.
• A review should ensure that information no longer required or out of date is removed to ensure a ‘live’ and up to date document.

Review and Audit:

• Reviews and audits should be conducted by a wide range of personnel who are suitably qualified/experienced to do so, and ideally not be undertaken by one individual.

Competence:

• Lack of a suitably qualified deputy to cover absences for key positions.
• Lack of succession planning for key positions.

Plan:

• Lack of a Marine Safety Plan
• Where present, Safety Plans are not always reviewed with a published report of performance against the plan.

Aids to Navigation:

• Following identification, deficiencies should be rectified in a timely manner.

5. Observed enhancements and best practice

The following are examples of enhancements and positive observations observed during the health checks.

Duty Holder:

• Continued awareness and utilisation of PMSC Duty Holder Awareness training as an introduction to the role and responsibilities of the Duty Holder.
• General level of awareness of the responsibilities of the Duty Holder increasing.

Designated Person:

• Increased use of suitably experienced ‘reciprocal’ arrangements for the provision of DP’s, usually the Harbour Master, by ‘smaller’ facilities.
• Use of different, as opposed to the same, external body to conduct periodic external reviews.

Legislation:

• Increased awareness of the need of periodic review of legislation to ensure it meets the current, ever changing, needs of the organisation.

Duties and Powers:

• Despite this section recording the highest number of non-conformities and observations over the three-year period of this report, there is none the less evidence that the general level of understanding around the duties and powers of organisations is increasing.
• Efforts made to provide a more detailed breakdown of powers and duties in the MSMS.
• General level of regular and proactive stakeholder engagement is increasing.
• Increased use of social media to achieve enhanced level of stakeholder engagement.

Risk Assessment:

• Full listing and regular review of Risk Assessments for marine operations with navigational hazards clearly identified separately.

Marine Safety Management System (MSMS):

• MSMS’s being regularly reviewed by a wide range of suitably qualified staff.
• Welcomed increased awareness of and access to the MSMS by all members of staff.

Review and Audit:

• Welcomed evidence of greater level of periodic review of processes and procedures.

Competence:

• Where evidenced, training matrix where the subject of regular review and were kept updated with any legislative/regulation changes recorded appropriately.

Plan:

• Port Marine Safety Plans published with a clear commitment to continuous improvement including details of performance against previous plans.

Aids to Navigation:

• Continued regular inspections and maintenance of all Aids to Navigation.
• Recorded deficiencies being addressed promptly.

6. Conclusion

Of the 10 sections covered by each health check, there were no specific elements of PMSC compliance which stood out as a theme across the 175 findings / observations for highlighting.

In the scenario where there are marine facilities within an SHA’s jurisdiction, the PMSC health check team would however highlight the importance of SHA’s and facilities engaging positively with one another to confirm PMSC compliance and ensure that Marine SMS’s are in place and are complimentary of one another’s operations.

The MCA encourages industry to take account of the issues highlighted, along with the findings and enhancements mentioned in this report; they should then consider if any might be applicable to their organisations.

Best practice can similarly be shared among ports to enhance overall safety, productivity, and efficiency as sharing the knowledge ensures that best practice becomes embedded into the culture of the organisation.

More Information

Any further enquiries or comments related to this report should be directed to:

Ports and VTS
Technical Service Navigation
Spring Place
105 Commercial Road
Southampton
SO15 1EG

Email: navigationsafety@mcga.gov.uk