Guidance

Port Marine Safety Code - Health Check Trends 2019/20

Published 28 June 2021

Executive Summary

There has been a desire within industry to update the way the Health Trend reports are presented. Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has responded by pursuing a more data driven approach to trend reporting, using data collated from Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) reports to identify specific statistical trends. To improve PMSC data gathering, an agreement was reached at the PMSC Steering Group meeting to use ISO audit focussed terminology such as ‘nonconformity’ and ‘observation’ which it is hoped will improve MCA’s ability to analyse the data generated by the PMSC program.

This report is designed to provide stakeholders with an insight into emerging trends in compliance identified during the MCA’s health check visits during the two-year period 2019-2020. It also provides examples of best practice that have been observed whilst conducting the latest health check visits. During the two-year period, the MCA conducted sixteen PMSC health checks throughout the UK at the following types of facility:

• 8 x Municipal
• 4 x Private
• 4 x Trust

As a result of these visits, four of the organisations were found to be non-compliant with the requirements of the PMSC to the degree that they will require return visits during 2021 to verify that the issues identified have been addressed.

The following summarises some of the main issues relating to the trends identified during the 2019-2020 health check visits.

• There remains clear evidence of the need for greater understanding by the post holder over the role and responsibility of the Duty Holder, and to a lesser degree, the Designated Person.
• Any period of training for these roles would benefit from regular briefings and operational visits. This would also assist in increasing the visibility of the post holders.
• Appointees to both roles should ideally have a maritime background. However, where this is neither practicable nor possible, there should be a commitment from all concerned to ensure that the post holders receive some form of continuous training relative to the positions they hold.
• Ideally, suitably qualified, and trained deputies for the positions should also be available as required to both assist with and cover the roles in the absence of the post holder.
• During periodic reviews of the Marine Safety Management System (MSMS), as well as adding new documentation, consideration should be given to removing redundant documentation to ensure the manageability and relevance of the MSMS.
• In large port groups a programme of internal audits comprising of individual MSMS should be agreed, and where possible, these audits conducted by suitably qualified personnel, ideally with some background or experience in a port or marine environment.
• Periodic review of staff training records should include a review of the relevance of the training and that it reflects current regulation.
• Appropriate resource should be allocated for the maintenance of conservancy, (where required) dredging, lights, and draught marks etc for each port. Any changes affecting these should then be effectively promulgated to all stakeholders with ideally confirmation that the updates have been received and understood.
• Attendance at regular stakeholder engagement meetings, including separate PMSC meetings ideally chaired by the Harbour Master and attended by the Designated Person and Duty Holder, should be encouraged and formally documented.

Introduction

The Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) 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, and in the aftermath of the Sea Empress accident in 1996. Compliance has been voluntary since its introduction in 2000 and its primary function remains to assist the industry in ensuring the ports, harbours, and other facilities to which it applies can be enhanced for everyone who uses or works in the UK marine environment.

The involvement of industry representatives in the on-going development of the PMSC has been critical from the outset and we will continue to work in partnership with the sector to ensure that both it, and the related Guide to Good Practice on Port Marine Operations (GTGP), remain current and reflect the latest best practice.

We recognise that port, harbour, and marina authorities in the UK vary significantly in size, volumes, and types of traffic. This diversity means that a one-size-fits all approach to safety standards would be disingenuous but there are common legal duties relating to the safety of people who use these facilities and for the wellbeing of the port environment and its community. For this reason, the PMSC is specifically designed to enable users to scale its application in a pragmatic way which is proportionate to the risks. The GTGP, which is designed to be read in conjunction with the PMSC, underpins this ethos by providing guidance and examples of best practice which are 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 Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) normally seeks to undertake eight PMSC ‘health checks’ annually, aiming to visit a range of different types of facility across all parts of the UK. However, due to the additional challenges created by COVID 19 pandemic, this report covers the sixteen ‘health checks’ undertaken over the two-year period 2019-2020.

A visit may be triggered by evidence of a problem (or potential problem), self-reported noncompliance or a request for assistance. A health check is intended to identify where things are working well but also areas where improvements could be made to strengthen compliance; it is not a formal inspection or enforcement action.

“The Port Marine Safety Code (the Code) is applicable both to statutory harbour authorities and to other marine facilities which may not have statutory powers and duties. It is strongly recommended that organisations or facilities which are not a statutory harbour authority should seek a proportionate compliance with this Code”

Future health checks will continue to have an emphasis on supporting smaller harbours, ports, or marinas, particularly under municipal ownership, whilst also including several larger ports.

The United Kingdom Harbour Masters’ Association (UKHMA) Designated Person Working Group seek to review anonymously any trends or areas of good practice identified with the Group’s representation. The Group look to collate trends to help identify areas of improvement and draw out industry best practice.

The intention of the group is to inform the UKHMA’s representation to the PMSC steering Group, support wider awareness and discussion and aid the further development and continued relevance of the PMSC and GTGP. The UKHMA Designated Person Working Group meets twice a year. Additional data collected in 2020 and provided by the group, can be found in Annex A of this report.

Exposure from PMSC compliance failure

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 authorities/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, so 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.

Summary of non-conformities for period over 2019-2020

Recommendations Given in Health Check Reports	Total per Group	Percentage across all Health-Checks
Designated Person	17	11%
Duty Holders	31	20%
Duties and Powers	7	4%
Consultation and Information Dissemination	15	10%
Risk Assessment	12	8%
Safety Management System	24	15%
Powers and Enforcement	8	5%
Pilotage and Passage Plans	14	9%
Tugs, Workboats and Marine Services	5	3%
Conservancy Obligations	10	6%
Training	14	9%
Vessel Traffic Services	0	0%
Total recommendations	157	100%

Health Check data by category indicates that findings relating to just three areas, ‘Designated Person’, ‘Duty Holder’ and ‘Safety Management System’ account for 46% of all findings.

Summary of 2016-2019 findings

An analysis of Health Check data for the period 2016 to 2019 shows several perennial issues identified in successive Health Check Trend Reports.

Recommendations Given in Health Check Reports	Percentage across all Health-Checks
Designated Person	9%
Duty Holders	13%
Duties and Powers	6%
Consultation and Information Dissemination	7%
Risk Assessment	10%
Safety Management System	28%
Powers and Enforcement	2%
Pilotage and Passage Plans	8%
Tugs, Workboats and Marine Services	4%
Conservancy Obligations	6%
Training	6%
Vessel Traffic Services	1%

Key points to note 2016 to date:

• Nonconformities and observations relating to the Duty Holder continue to increase and should now be a cause for wider industry concern.

• Nonconformities and observations relating to the Designated Person, Consultation and Information Dissemination, Powers and Enforcement, and Training, have shown the greatest an increase in the last 3 years and require attention to arrest this trend.

• Conversely it is pleasing to note that MSMS based nonconformities and observations, initially a regular feature of PMSC findings are declining and have almost halved in the last three years.

• Associated nonconformities and observations relating to Risk Assessments have also declined over the same period.

Observed Good Practice

Several examples of Good Practice were observed during the health check visits:

• A Health and Safety commitment by the Duty Holder and Designated Person in the foreword of the MSMS.

• A developed, well-structured induction programme for new entrants alongside the training matrix.

• Evidence of the wide-ranging consultation process within the harbour authority’s area ensuring appropriate representation with a variety of stakeholders.

• Use of several methods of communication with port users including a user-friendly website where a large amount of marine and general safety information can be found.

• Harbour production of annually produced sailing directions, in hard copy, free to its users.

• Dissemination of regular safety bulletins through a group email address.

• Increasing and innovative levels of use of all forms of social media to communicate with stakeholders with, for example, changes to services, scheduled events, and early warnings of bad weather. All enhance the safety of routine operations.

Conclusion

The trends relating to Duty Holder non-conformities should be regarded as an industry wide concern. The MCA encourages the industry to take account of the issues highlighted, along with the non-conformities 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.

Annex A

Information provided by the Designated Person Group of the United Kingdom Harbour Masters’ Association.

FINDINGS

The DP Group highlighted in recent audits/reviews that there were 3 main areas that appeared in many of them those being;

• Failure to review risk assessment post incident
• Training matrices present but not being complied with or training stipulated that either does not meet industry standards or is set too high and minimum requirements are met but now what is stated in MSMS.
• Marine Terminals / Marina’s failure to meet Code compliance or understand the requirements/need to do so.

INSPECTIONS / AUDIT FIGURES

Based on organisation count rather than individual Ports.

Type of Port	PMSC Audits (last 5 years)	MSMS reviews (last 5 years)	PMSC NRAs (last 5 years)	Current DP provision
Private	317	33	14	10
Trust	17	1	2	9
Municipal	12	4	8	7
Dockyard/Government	5	6	7	4
Other (terminal/non UK, but applies PMSC)	4	1	4	1

More Information

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

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

Telephone: 02038172000

Email: navigationsafety@mcga.gov.uk