Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review

Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

November 2016 Page intentionally left blank

November 2016

Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

Document Information

Document History and Authorisation Title Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Commissioned by Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar Issue date November 2016 Document ref R,2418 Project no R/4453/1 Date Version Revision Details 17 October 2016 1 Issued for Client Review 21 November 2016 2 Issued for Client Review 25 November 2016 3 Issued for Client Review 28 November 2016 4 Issued for Client Review

Prepared (PM) Approved (QM) Authorised (PD) M J Smedley T Auld N J Kitson

Suggested Citation ABPmer, (2016). Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar:, Harbour Review, ABPmer Report No. R,2418. A report produced by ABPmer for Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar, November 2016.

Contributing Authors Monty Smedley, Capt. Trevor Auld, Nick Kitson

Notice ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd (‘ABPmer’) has prepared this document in accordance with the client’s instructions, for the client’s sole purpose and use. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of ABPmer. ABPmer does not accept liability to any person other than the client. If the client discloses this document to a third party, it shall make them aware that ABPmer shall not be liable to them in relation to this document. The client shall indemnify ABPmer in the event that ABPmer suffers any loss or damage as a result of the client’s failure to comply with this requirement.

Sections of this document may rely on information supplied by or drawn from third party sources. Unless otherwise expressly stated in this document, ABPmer has not independently checked or verified such information. ABPmer does not accept liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person, including the client, as a result of any error or inaccuracy in any third party information or for any conclusions drawn by ABPmer which are based on such information.

All content in this document should be considered provisional and should not be relied upon until a final version marked ‘issued for client use’ is issued.

All images copyright ABPmer apart from front cover (wave, anemone, bird: www.oceansedgephotography).

ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd Quayside Suite, Medina Chambers, Town Quay, Southampton, Hampshire SO14 2AQ T: +44 (0) 2380 711844 W: http://www.abpmer.co.uk/

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | i Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

Executive Summary

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (CnES) is the local government council for Na h-Eileanan Siar council area of Scotland, which comprises the Outer Hebrides. The Comhairle is the Statutory Harbour Authority for 32 harbours and the owner and operator for 51 pier, jetty and slipway facilities. The Comhairle’s port and harbour facilities are spread throughout the Outer Hebrides, many of which are located in areas with sparse populations, resulting in low numbers of harbour users. The Comhairle’s ports and harbours are generally unmanned during normal operations and are attended by Comhairle marine staff on a scheduled basis, and in response to specific harbour user information and requests.

The Comhairle commissioned ABPmer to carry out a study to review the current arrangements for discharging the duties of the Statutory Harbour Authority under the requirements of the Department for Transport ‘Port Marine Safety Code’ (the Code), and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) ‘Safety in Docks’ Approved Code of Practice (ACOP).

The study team from ABPmer conducted a site visit, from the 5 to 8 September 2016, and conducted a series of interviews and meetings with members of the Comhairle’s marine team, port management and an elected Council Member. The output of this review has been split into three sections covering the topics of: Governance, Marine Services and Marine Safety.

Governance: Recommendations

Recommendation 1

CnES should rename the ‘Piers and Harbours’ heading to ‘Harbour Board’ with a leading statement added to the effect that ‘this Committee is now sitting as the Harbour Board and is the acknowledged Duty Holder as identified within the Port Marine Safety Code’.

Recommendation 2

CnES should complete the actions required of the Duty Holder, these are namely: the update and review of its Marine Safety Management System (MSMS), auditing of the MSMS’s effectiveness and reporting to the Harbour Board, the publication of a ‘marine safety plan’ followed by performance reporting, and the completion of the compliance exercise to the MCA due in March 2018.

Recommendation 3

The Designated Person’s report should be submitted directly to the Harbour Board.

Recommendation 4

The Designated Person’s reports should contain a clear statement regarding the effectiveness of the Marine Safety Management System in complying with the Port Marine Safety Code.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | ii Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

Recommendation 5

The Comhairle should consider producing a vision, strategy and business plan that looks at the future prospects of its port and harbour portfolio and how it will meet the requirements of the stakeholders, who should be involved in its development.

Recommendation 6

There is no change of Governance model; however, the Comhairle could make better use of the current Governance arrangements. Specifically, consideration could be given to creating a sub- committee of Councillors to form the Harbour Board, allowing for more committee time and focus for port and harbour governance issues.

Marine Service Review: Recommendations

Recommendation 7

CnES should reinstate the piers and harbours routine inspection check list after due review of its content against the latest HSE ‘Safety in Docks’ ACOP. A procedure for completion of the check lists should be included in the Marine Safety Management System, with details of the manner in which copies should be promulgated and filed.

Recommendation 8

CnES should review the current method of managing housekeeping at their piers and harbours. Consideration should be given to using CnES’s powers under Section 30 of the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Various Harbours) Harbour Revision Order 2002 to make byelaws to regulate such activities and enforce compliance.

Recommendation 9

CalMac’s shore operations at Leverburgh, Berneray, Otternish, Aird Mhor, Ceann a Gharraidh Slip overnight berth should be documented and agreed formally by CnES in a memorandum of understanding and thereafter audited annually and after every reported incident.

Recommendation 10

CnES’s Marine Safety Management System should include an organisational diagram (and associated procedures), showing how the Marine Operations Team, Designated Person, Health and Safety department professionals and, where relevant, other departments with links to marine safety consult with one another on issues relating to the Port Marine Safety Code and Health and Safety law, particularly the ‘Safety in Docks’ ACOP.

Recommendation 11

Interchangeable job roles and profiles for the Harbour Master and Deputy Harbour Master will provide resilience for their marine safety and management functions. Job roles should be reworded to cover all Port and Harbour locations.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | iii Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

Recommendation 12

Lochmaddy Marine Assistant duties in respect of managing ferry berthing should be reviewed in order to release the Marine Assistant to carry out duties at other CnES port and harbour facilities.

Recommendation 13

Change the employment status of the part-time Marine Assistant based in Barra should be changed to a full time position. This will provide additional capacity to carry out duties at other CnES port and harbour facilities.

Recommendation 14

Interchangeable job role and profiles for the two Marine Assistants. Job roles should be reworded to cover all Port and Harbour locations.

Recommendation 15

Assistant Harbour Master role should be created as a new post, providing resilience to cover the duties of Marine Office Administrator, Marine Assistants and some functions of the Deputy and/or Harbour Master.

Recommendation 16

Marine Office Administrator role created and/or existing administrative role expanded to include the Core Duties (shown in this Report, Section 3.8.5) plus Additional Duties as required.

Recommendation 17

The restructured Marine Operations Team should dispense with the idea of home ports or offices. Job roles reworded to cover all Port and Harbour locations.

Recommendation 18

All Marine Operations Team members should be issued with a laptop or tablet, and a smart phone to allow them to operate efficiency from any location. Offices and land lines should only be used in areas where mobile signals are poor.

Marine Safety Review: Recommendations

Recommendation 19

CnES should consider if their approach to appointing a Designated Person provides sufficient support to the decision making of the Duty Holder.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | iv Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

Recommendation 20

CnES should establish a process for reviewing its Ports and Harbour policies, duties and responsibilities.

Recommendation 21

CnES should establish a risk assessment process that takes account of best practice and guidance in the Guide to Good Practice on Port Marine Operations. This process needs to establish: how the assessment is conducted, the expectation for author and reviewer skills, how the risk assessments are consulted upon and disseminated, plus the frequency of review.

Recommendation 22

CnES should establish a central register of Health and Safety Risk Assessments to provide a clear overview of risks and their controls, this should also include expiry dates to prompt review.

Recommendation 23

Marine staff authoring and reviewing Health and Safety risk assessments should receive certificated training.

Recommendation 24

CnES should establish a Marine Safety Management System (MSMS) which is compliant with the requirements of the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) as detailed in Section 2.12 to 2.17 of the Code.

Recommendation 25

An audit schedule should be established which provides at least one annual internal audit, to a scope agreed with the Designated Person, with a full Port Marine Safety Code audit of the Harbour Authority every three years.

Recommendation 26

CnES should review its arrangements for marine staff training and qualification retention. This review should include the creation of a training matrix to identify the required level of skill and competence, which should consider the recommendations provided in the Code’s Guide to Good Practice.

Recommendation 27

CnES should publish a ‘safety plan for marine operations’ and following this, an assessment of the performance against the plan as required in the Code, Section 2.26 to 2.28.

Recommendation 28

Technical officers of the authority should include the availability of Aids to Navigation into Harbour Board reporting.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | v Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

Contents

1 Background to the Review ...... 1 1.1 The Harbour Authority ...... 1 1.2 Demographics ...... 2 1.3 Scope of the study ...... 3 1.4 Structure of the Report ...... 3 1.5 Reference Standards ...... 3 2 Governance Review ...... 4 2.1 Scope of the Review...... 4 2.2 Current Governance Arrangements ...... 4 2.3 Governance Options ...... 7 2.4 Governance: Recommendations ...... 8 3 Marine Services Review ...... 12 3.1 Scope of the Review...... 12 3.2 Current Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar Port Traffic and Activities ...... 12 3.3 Site Review ...... 12 3.4 Piers and Harbours Routine Inspection Check List ...... 14 3.5 Marine Service Review: Recommendations ...... 14 3.6 Current Service Provision ...... 15 3.7 Job Descriptions Summary ...... 16 3.8 Marine Staffing ...... 18 4 Marine Safety Review ...... 24 4.1 Scope of the Review...... 24 4.2 Requirements of the Port Marine Safety Code ...... 24 4.3 Review Evidence ...... 25 4.4 Marine Safety Review: Recommendations ...... 25 5 Summary of the review ...... 32 6 References ...... 32 7 Abbreviations/Acronyms ...... 33

Tables

Table 1. Population by Area ...... 2

Appendix

A Facility Inventory ...... 35 A.1 Uist and Barra ...... 36 A.2 Lewis and Harris ...... 37

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | vi Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

Figures

Figure 1. Statutory Harbour Authority Port and Harbour Locations ...... 1 Figure 2. Recommended Staffing Level ...... 19

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | vii Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

1 Background to the Review

1.1 The Harbour Authority

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar is the local government council for Na h-Eileanan Siar council area of Scotland, which comprises the Outer Hebrides. The Comhairle is the Statutory Harbour Authority for 32 harbours as detailed in the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Harbour Revision Order, 2002 (HM Government, 2002). The geographic location of these harbours is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Statutory Harbour Authority Port and Harbour Locations

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 1 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

Each of the Comhairle’s harbours is identified on UK Hydrographic Charts with harbour limits transcribed from the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar HRO (HM Government, 2002). These boundaries identify the Statutory Harbour Authority (SHA) boundaries within which the Comhairle has specific duties and powers, as the Harbour Authority. The Comhairle is also the owner and operator of 51 marine facilities, comprised collectively of piers, jetties and slipways. These facilities are located both within and outside of defined harbours. The Comhairle does not have Competent Harbour Authority (CHA) status in respect of vessel pilotage.

1.2 Demographics

The Outer Hebrides (also termed the Western Isles) are comprised of a string of islands, some of which are connected by causeway roads. The main islands form an archipelago of which the major islands include: Lewis and Harris, North Uist, Benbecula, South Uist, and Barra. The 15 inhabited islands have a combined population of 27,070 from the most recent mid-year population estimates from 2015 (CnES, 2016). The largest conurbation is Stornoway, which has an estimated population of circa 8 thousand (approximately 30% of the total population). From North to South, for the purpose of defining the population spread, the island groups are referred to as: Lewis, Harris, North Uist, Benbecular, South Uist, Barra and Vatersay. The population in each island group is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Population by Area Area Population Count (2011) Percentage (%) Lewis 19,658 71.0 Harris 1,916 6.9 North Uist 1,619 5.8 Benbecula 1,330 4.8 South Uist 1,897 6.9 Barra and Vatersay 1,264 4.6 Total 27,684 100 (CnES, 2016)

With the exception of Stornoway, and the immediate surrounding conurbation, the islands forming the Outer Hebrides are sparsely populated, with small pockets of dwellings focused around local amenities. Many of these amenities are related to port and harbour infrastructure, such as ferry berths and slipways, fishing piers or sheltered anchorages. In addition to the inhabited islands, there are more than fifty uninhabited islands greater in size than 40 hectares (99 acres) these includes such island groups as: the Barra Isles, Flannan Isles, Monach Islands, the Shiant Isles and the islands of Loch Ròg.

Transport by sea is very important to the Outer Hebrides; key transport routes include connections to the Scottish Mainland at Oban, Uig and Ullapool. These routes connect to Castlebay (on Barra) Lochboisdale (on South Uist), Lochmaddy (on North Uist), Tarbert (on Harris) and Stornoway (on Lewis). Other summer routes are also operated. In addition, a number of inter-island connection routes are operated, including the key routes of Leverburgh to Berneray (connecting Harris and Lewis, with North Uist) and Eriskay to Barra (connecting South Uist with Barra and Vatersay). It is also worth noting the distance by road, from the Northerly most point of Lewis to the Southerly most point of Vatersay is circa 180 miles by road. To travel this distance would take at least 8 hours and involve two ferry crossings; due to the timing of ferry services (especially in months with shorter daylight hours) it is unlikely that this trip could be completed in one day.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 2 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

For the most part, the 32 harbours operated by the Comhairle are unmanned during normal operations and are attended by Comhairle marine staff on a scheduled basis, and in response to specific harbour user information and requests. These ports and harbours also have a low usage rate, due to the demand from the local population.

1.3 Scope of the study

The Comhairle commissioned this study to review the current arrangements for discharging the duties of the Statutory Harbour Authority under the requirements of the Department for Transport ‘Port Marine Safety Code’ (the Code), and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) ‘Safety in Docks’ Approved Code of Practice (ACOP).

1.4 Structure of the Report

To provide the information required by the scope of work, this technical report is structured as follows:

Section 2 Governance review; Section 3 Marine services review; Section 4 Marine safety review; and Section 5 Summary of the review.

This report is presented in English. To reflect the custom and practice in the Outer Hebrides, the Gaelic word ‘Comhairle’ is used within the report in place of the word ‘Council’ (with the exception of roles specifically referenced as Council). Where the whole reference to Comhairle nan Eilean Siar is used, this is abbreviated to ‘CnES’.

1.5 Reference Standards

The harbour review site visit was conducted between the dates of 5-8 September 2016 using the following versions of the standards which were in publication at that time:

. Department for Transport (DfT) ‘Port Marine Safety Code’, November 2016; . Department for Transport (DfT) ‘A Guide To Good Practice On Port Marine Operations - Prepared In Conjunction With The Port Marine Safety Code’, July 2015; and . Health and Safety Executive (HSE) ‘Safety in Docks’ Approved Code of Practice (ACOP). 2014.

This report has been compiled using the set of reference standards shown above. Any subsequent issue of these standards may affect interpretation against the contemporary version.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 3 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

2 Governance Review

Municipal ports are operated for the benefit of stakeholders with an understanding that the function of the Harbour Authority takes account of the needs of the local community. The Municipal Port governance model varies from authority to authority, depending on past history and the requirements of the incumbent administration. The review undertaken as part of this study has evaluated the Comhairle’s governance structure against the requirements of the Duty Holder identified in the Port Marine Safety Code (the Code). The scope of the review is identified in Section 2.1

2.1 Scope of the Review

The scope of work requires the study to: ‘Undertake a review of the existing structure of the Harbour Authority and to advise [the Comhairle] on the optimum solution for a suitable structure in terms of governance’.

2.2 Current Governance Arrangements

To understand the current governance arrangements, the study team reviewed information on the Comhairle’s website and met with representatives of the Comhairle. Meetings with the following key post holders were conducted:

. Chair of the Harbour Board / Transport and Infrastructure Committee; . The Comhairle’s Designated Person (Port Marine Safety Code); . Director of the Technical Services; . Head of Municipal Services; . The Comhairle’s Harbour Master; and . The Comhairle’s Assistant Harbour Master.

The current arrangement for governance is described in the following paragraphs.

As a municipal port [authority] the Comhairle must work within the statutory framework that governs local authority functions. The structure adopted by the Comhairle for its ports and harbours is discharged at a local level through the Marine Services function, which is part of the Technical Services Department. The full Comhairle is the Harbour Authority with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee forming the Harbour Board.

The Council Members collectively number 31 and each member is an elected representative. The decision making of the Harbour Authority function is therefore collectively shared amongst the Council Members. Council Members normally serve a term of 5 years, with the next election of members due in May 2017. To manage the various Comhairle functions, these are shared amongst committees to allow particular interest areas to be considered by a selected group of representatives. This allows a more strategic approach to policy and decision making with subject matter experience developing over time within each committee. A number of committee members have long-standing experience with particular interest areas. Each Council Member normally sits on two committees.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee has a range of topic responsibilities including; transport strategy, highways authority, taxi/car hire licensing and the Harbour Board for the Comhairle’s Statutory and non-statutory port and harbour facilities. In this respect, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, in the capacity of Harbour Board, is the ‘Duty Holder’, as defined in the Code.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 4 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

It is useful to state at this point in the review, that the role of the ‘Duty Holder’ as stated in the Code is described as follows:

“Organisations must have a ‘‘Duty Holder’’ who is accountable for their compliance with the Code and their performance in ensuring safe marine operations. For most organisations, the role of Duty Holder is undertaken by members of the management team or a board who are (both collectively and individually) publicly accountable for marine safety under the Code2” (DfT, 2016).

The Comhairle’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee is formed from 17 of the 31 elected Councillors. Membership of the Committee (along with other similar Comhairle committees) is listed on the Comhairle’s website. This provides public knowledge and recognition of the Harbour Board membership. The Committee has an appointed Chair and Vice Chair, the Vice Chair taking over should the Chair declare any conflict of interests in a particular topic or vote.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee meetings are scheduled in advance and advertised on the Comhairle’s website. Typically there are five meetings per year and the minutes from these meetings are publically available following each meeting. It is acknowledged (and noted within the minutes of Transport and Infrastructure Committee meetings) that the members of this committee form the Harbour Board and are identified as the Duty Holder. However, it is relevant to note that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee meeting ‘Harbour Board’ Agenda section is entitled ‘Piers and Harbours’ which, on occasion, has sub-topic headings when the discussion has a specific focus. Therefore, the ‘Harbour Board’ element forms part of the overall agenda for the committee’s meeting, with other topics from the committee’s remit being discussed during each sitting of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. The meetings are open to the public and typically have attendance from other non-voting Council Members (who may be attending to contribute to specific topic discussions).

2.2.1 Policy and Plans

The Code details the requirement that all Harbour Authorities must develop policies and procedures in accordance with the standards in the Code, and must publish these policies and procedures. In addition, there is a requirement for Harbour Authorities to publish reports of their formal periodic reviews, setting performance against their plans and against the standard in the Code. As a minimum, plans and reports should be published every three years. There is no prescribed format for these reports; their form is at the discretion of each Harbour Authority. It is wholly acceptable for policies and plans to be made within the context of a business plan or wider set of policy objectives, so long as the components required by the Code are included. These include:

. A statement of the aims, roles and duties of the authority as Duty Holder; . The overarching policies and procedures of the authority to achieve those aims, including the commitment to implement the Code; . The objectives which support the overarching plans and policies; . Some means of measuring their achievement against those objectives; and . Accordingly, a review of how far the authority has achieved its aims and objectives and of changes it proposes to its policies and procedures (DfT, 2015).

The Comhairle has published the following plans:

. Corporate Strategy: 2012-17; and . Technical Services Department Business Plan, Period 15/16-19/20: Marine Services Section.

Both of these plans provide strategic objectives and direction; however they do not specifically state the aims, role and duties of the Harbour Authority in sufficient detail or make reference to the Duty Holder’s commitment to the Code. The Marine Services section of the Technical Services Department

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 5 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

Management plan identifies that the Comhairle will: “Discharge the Comhairle’s roles and responsibilities as statutory Harbour Authority” and “Discharge the Comhairle's role as Local Lighthouse Authority”. Actions and responsible officers are identified, with timescales for achieving completion. This forms part of the ‘objective setting’ but does not identify what measure is used to evaluate completion, nor does it present achievements against the last plan.

2.2.2 Decision Making

The Director of Technical Services submits a report providing information, recommendations and matters to raise for approval, at each Transport and Infrastructure Committee meeting. The committee will then debate the items presented and if necessary vote on the outcome. In support of the report, the Head of Municipal Services and the Comhairle’s Harbour Master also attend as technical officers to provide further information and clarifications.

Decisions voted and agreed upon by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee meeting are taken forward to the full Comhairle who, as Harbour Authority, confirm the decision. It is possible that a decision made by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee can be overturned by the full Comhairle.

2.2.3 Experience, Training and Awareness

The role of the Harbour Board as Duty Holder means that accountability for compliance rests collectively and individually with the members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), who carry out ‘health checks’ on Harbour Authorities to measure and test their compliance with the Code, publish an annual summary of commonly occurring trends, both positive and negative, as seen through their auditing. One such trend that has been commented upon in 2014 and 2015 ‘Port Marine Safety Code Health Check Trends’ (MCA, 2016) is the level of awareness training provided to the Duty Holder regarding their responsibilities under the Code. It was noted during this review that the Harbour Board had collectively received Duty Holder training delivered as a Workshop and Presentation by external marine consultants. This meets best practice.

The Code does not prescribe an expectation of the skills and experience of the Duty Holder, only that each Harbour Authority clearly identifies who performs the Duty Holder function. During the review, anecdotal information was gathered regarding the marine experience of the (currently in-post) Harbour Board as Duty Holder. It was concluded that two members out of a board of 17 had previous marine experience (which includes professional and/or recreational experience of boats and shipping). This extent of marine experience on the Board, means that information contained in reports, both written and verbal, must be suitably represented to members without expert knowledge.

The Code expands on the expectation that the Duty Holder will have a clear understanding of the marine activities of the Harbour Authority, indicating an expectation that awareness training is provided. Paragraph 2.2.11 of the Guide to Good Practice says: “It is recommended that all Board Members should take time to gain an appropriate insight and understanding of the port’s marine activities, marine safety management system and supporting systems”. (DfT, 2015)

It is also worth noting that Paragraph 1.9. of the Code says that: “Harbour authorities have powers to appoint a Harbour Master and may properly entrust the operation of the harbour to such professional people; but the Duty Holder cannot assign or delegate its accountability for compliance with the Code” (DfT, 2016). Therefore, the Duty Holder retains strategic oversight and direction of all aspects of the harbour operation and must ensure that their powers are discharged but not exceeded. The Duty Holder cannot abdicate responsibility on the grounds that they do not have particular skills.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 6 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

2.2.4 The Designated Person

The Code states in Paragraph 1.11 that: “Each organisation must appoint an individual as the “designated person” to provide independent assurance directly to the duty holder that the MSMS [Marine Safety Management System], for which the duty holder is responsible, is working effectively” (DfT, 2016). The Comhairle has appointed their Chief Internal Auditor as the Designated Person. Whilst the Chief Internal Auditor is an employee of the Comhairle, their role does not have a marine or harbour involvement at a technical or managerial level; and therefore the role of Designated Person does not obscure the accountability of the Authority and its Board Members. In addition, the Comhairle has appointed a representative of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to be the initial point of contact for the Designated Person. These appointments fulfil the requirements laid out within the Code.

The primary purpose of a Designated Person is to provide independent assurance directly to the Duty Holder that the marine safety management system (MSMS), for which the Duty Holder is responsible, is working effectively. The Designated Person’s main responsibility is to determine, the effectiveness of the marine safety management system in ensuring compliance with the Code, through assessment and audit. For the Comhairle, this is achieved through direct audit of the port and harbour facilities, with the Designated Person’s audit provided to the Audit and Scrutiny Committee. The scope of each year’s audit is set by the Designated Person and agreed in advance. It is worth noting that the yearly Designated Person audits are direct audit and not a combination of monitoring, assessment and audit.

2.3 Governance Options

The following section provides a brief overview of the governance options available for UK ports. There are essentially three type of port ownership (namely; Private, Trust and Municipal) of which the Comhairle is currently a municipal Harbour Authority.

Options for future Harbour Authority ownership could be one of the following:

. continuation in the public sector as a municipal Harbour Authority (the do-nothing scenario); . retention within the public sector, but with an operating ‘lease’ offered to a public or private enterprise; . reconstitution of the Harbour Authority as a local authority company; . retention within the public sector, using a ‘Harbour Management Committee’ model; or . transfer of the Harbour Authority to a Trust or Private status.

2.3.1 Local Authority Company

This would see the reconstitution of the port as a local authority company, meaning that management of the port and its assets become a commercial imperative, whilst retaining a community focus and so presenting a more attractive process through which to facilitate local regeneration and retain community controls.

2.3.2 Harbour Management Committee

A Harbour Management Committee (HMC) provides a means of placing a municipal port onto a more commercially focused footing, through the creation of a committee to take the role of Harbour Board and Duty Holder. By choosing to have the management of ports and harbours as a function of the local authority, the Harbour Board can be established as a decision-making body, allowing a HMC to be constituted as a committee within the current structure of the local authority. In order that a HMC

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 7 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar operates effectively, it is considered best practice to establish a formal memorandum of understanding between the HMC and the local authority. This will provide the ground rules and framework allowing the setting of harbour dues, maintenance of assets, establishment of assured accounts, claw-back of profit and agreement over business planning.

For a HMC to realise its potential, the formation and membership of the committee is critical. The committee needs to remain protected against short-term thinking and must be apolitical. A number of models exist, for example; an 11 member ‘Harbour Board’ with 6 local authority employees, and 5 external members; or a 50/50 split with the Chair always reserved for a local authority member (thus ensuring that the local authority maintains overall control of the port strategy). Before recruiting for the committee, a skills audit to assess the balance of skills required to govern should be carried out, ideally following the guidance in the ‘Modern Trust Ports for Scotland Guidance for Good Governance’ issued by Transport Scotland (Transport Scotland 2012).

2.3.3 Trust Port

This transfers the status of the harbour authority by reconstituting into an independent Trust. If this option is taken it would however, remove the harbour authority (or selected ports) entirely from their current ownership, and would mean the divesting of a potentially valuable asset for no definite return. It would also require the provision of the newly established Trust with a dowry to underpin its first year(s) of existence. Any agreement to change to Trust status may also require that critical port infrastructure were transferred in good operational condition. Moving to a Trust port status would also require a Harbour Revision Order (HRO); a process that can be expected to last up to 18 months if objections are made and a public inquiry results.

2.4 Governance: Recommendations

The following recommendations are made by the study team, having reviewed the current governance structure employed by the Comhairle as Harbour Authority.

Recommendation 29

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee meets in this capacity at intervals throughout the year. During these meetings, the topic heading ‘Piers and Harbours’ is used as a reference. This does not provide sufficient recognition that the ‘Harbour Board’ function (and therefore the Duty Holder requirement) is being acknowledged.

It is recommended that:

Recommendation 30

The ‘Duty Holder’ responsibilities, as outlined in the Code (Paragraphs 1.6 to 1.10), describe the various topic areas that the Harbour Authority is required to address in order that compliance is met. In order to effectively undertake the role of Duty Holder, the Code states that the Duty Holder should:

. be aware of the organisation’s powers and duties related to marine safety; . ensure that a suitable MSMS, which employs formal safety assessment techniques is in place;

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 8 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

. appoint a suitable Designated Person to monitor and report the effectiveness of the MSMS and provide independent advice on matters of marine safety; . appoint competent people to manage marine safety; . ensure that the management of marine safety continuously improves by publishing a ‘marine safety plan’ and reporting performance against the objectives and targets set; plus . report compliance with the Code to the MCA every 3 years.

Through the Marine Safety Review (see Section 4 of this report) the following items have been identified as requiring further action to satisfy the requirements of the Code:

. a MSMS update is required; . the effectiveness of the MSMS should be confirmed through direct audit and monitoring, activities; . a ‘marine safety plan’ should be published, and performance against the objectives of the plan reported upon; and . the Duty Holder should report compliance with the Code to the MCA every 3 years. The next scheduled compliance statement is due by the end of March 2018.

It is recommended that:

CnES should complete the actions required of the Duty Holder, these are namely: the update and review of its MSMS, auditing of the MSMS’s effectiveness and reporting to the Harbour Board, the publication of a ‘marine safety plan’ followed by performance reporting, and the completion of the compliance exercise to the MCA due in March 2018.

Recommendation 31

The Comhairle has an appointed Designated Person, who provides a report (plus follow-up reports) which are submitted to the Audit and Scrutiny Committee. One of the functions of the Designated Person is to provide assurance to the Duty Holder. Whilst it is acknowledged that the report is available to all Council Members, a direct submission to the Harbour Board is more appropriate.

It is recommended that:

The Designated Person’s report should be submitted directly to the Harbour Board.

Recommendation 32

The Designated Person, under the terms identified in the Code, provides independent assurance that the Marine Safety Management System (MSMS) is working effectively. The Designated Person’s report should include an explanation of the process of monitoring, assessment and selective audit employed to measure the MSMS’s effectiveness and the conclusion reached. It is recommended that:

The Designated Person’s reports should contain a clear statement regarding the effectiveness of the Marine Safety Management System in complying with the Port Marine Safety Code.

Recommendation 33

There is currently little tangible information regarding the vision, strategy and business plan for the Comhairle’s ports and harbours. This presents difficulty in fully complying with the Code, as there is an expectation that the Harbour Authority will comment on performance towards meeting its plans and objectives, for example; Section 2.26 to 2.27 identifies that the Duty Holder should publish a

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 9 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

‘safety plan for marine operation’ and then report progress against this plan. Section 2.2.1 of the Guide to Good Practice (DfT, 2015) further expands on planning by stating that:

“The Code does not prescribe a form in which authorities are to report publicly about the safety of marine operations – that is for the port to decide. It is very important that the management plan should be the authority’s: it is for the board to choose the priorities, the emphasis, and the detailed wording, just as much as the policies and procedures. Some authorities will prepare statements specifically for the purpose, others may include a separate chapter in their annual report. A management or business plan of any sort is likely to address more than marine operations and it is entirely right for these to be set within this context. The coherence of a single document, or suite of linked documents, is clearly an advantage to ensure that nothing is missing.”

The Comhairle should consider producing a business plan that looks at the future prospects of its ports and harbours, and outlines how it will meet the requirements of the stakeholders (who should be involved in its development). The plan should review the strategy of the port and present measurable objectives.

It is recommended that:

Recommendation 34

The study team consider that the Governance model used by the Comhairle is commensurate with those used by other Municipal Harbour Authorities. A number of improvements, as identified in the recommendations, would aid a more transparent and clear position regarding compliance with the Code, and would benefit the wider Governance of Harbour Authority. It is acknowledged however, that the Duty Holder position need not reside with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee as Harbour Board; there are a number of options which could be applied. This is recognised within the Code’s guide to good practice, which states in section 2.2.19 that:

“The Harbour Authority must have a ‘Duty Holder’ who is accountable for its compliance with the Code and its performance as regards the safety of marine operations in the harbour and its approaches. For most harbour authorities, the role of Duty Holder is undertaken by members of the Harbour Board who are (both collectively and individually) accountable for marine safety under the Code. This is the default position. If however, it is not appropriate for Harbour Board to assume this role – which might be, for example, the position for some municipal ports - the Harbour Authority must confirm and publish who the Duty Holder is.” (DfT, 2015).

Options include the creation of a Harbour Management Committee (HMC), the transfer of status to a Trust port or the reconstitution of the port as a local authority company. To pursue any of these options further would require the collective will of the Comhairle to move in this direction. The public view the port and harbour function to be part of public ownership, for which there is an expectation that the Comhairle would manage and maintain. There is no perceived benefit to the current Governance arrangement by moving to a different ownership model or for the creation of a HMC. Therefore it is considered that the current Governance model (with improvements in report and information exchange) is the right one for the Comhairle at this time.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 10 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

It is recommended that:

There is no change of Governance model; however, the Comhairle could make better use of the current Governance arrangements. Specifically, consideration could be given to creating a sub-committee of Councillors to form the Harbour Board, allowing for more committee time and focus for port and harbour governance issues.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 11 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

3 Marine Services Review

To safely and efficiently run a port, the Harbour Authority needs to appoint key officers to roles within the authority. Appointed staff need to be competent and suitably qualified, with sufficient experience for the role. These appointments, along with service delivery staff, form the Marine Services department. Based upon the understanding of existing port operations, the port services currently provided and the personnel resources deployed to deliver these services; a review of the minimum safe level and the optimum staffing level is required. This must take into account the requirements incumbent on a Statutory Harbour Authority for the provision of services. The scope of the review is identified in Section 3.1

3.1 Scope of the Review

The scope of work requires that the study: ‘review the Marine Services section in terms of personnel resource and recommend options for both minimum and optimum staffing levels in terms of fulfilling its duties as a Harbour Authority’.

3.2 Current Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar Port Traffic and Activities

The Comhairle owns and/or operates 51 separate piers and harbour facilities. To provide an inventory of facilities, the study team gathered relevant information from the Harbour Master, the Comhairle’s website and the Admiralty Chart catalogues to identify the following features:

. Location; . Description; . Current usage; . Condition; . Additional facilities (such as waiting rooms, toilets, etc.); and . Maintenance routines.

Appendix A shows this information in tabular form.

The busiest of Comhairle’s pier and harbours facilities are those with ferry operations (identified collectively as Transportation Piers) and those with fishing operations (identified collectively as Fishery Piers). In the remaining piers and harbours, usage varies between fishing and leisure craft, with a volume described as very low to moderate, with some seasonal variations.

3.3 Site Review

During the site visit the study team sampled a selection of port and harbour facilities including the Transportation Piers at Lochmaddy, Berneray and Leverburgh, and the Fishery Piers at Leverburgh, Berneray Harbour, Kallin and West Loch Tarbert. At Lochmaddy the study team was accompanied by the on-site Pier Operative.

The aim of each site visit was to gain an overview of the facility and note issues at variance with the recommendations of the HSE ‘Safety in Docks’ Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) (HSE, 2014) and the Code (DfT, 2016). The study team’s observations on the various types of piers are as commented upon in Section 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 12 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

3.3.1 Transportation Piers

It was noted that the shore management of Harris Sound ferry arrivals and departures from Leverburgh and Berneray slipways was unsupervised by a Comhairle representative. At both facilities there was good evidence of pedestrian/vehicle segregation (ACOP 68). A CnES sign detailing the conditions of use and a 24 hr contact number was displayed in a prominent position at Leverburgh (ACOP 20), however similar signage could not be found at Berneray. Lifesaving equipment (ACOP Para 220) was conspicuous and provided at appropriate intervals at both ports. At Berneray, a lifebuoy with lifeline was available but secured to railings immediately adjacent to, rather than in, the lifebuoy housing unit.

At Lochmaddy there were no ferry movements during our site visit. There was good evidence of pedestrian/vehicle segregation (ACOP 68) on the pier and in the marshalling area. Substantial safety barriers were positioned around the marshalling area to prevent vehicles running over the edge of the quay (ACOP 62). Access to the ramp entrance from the marshalling area was initially noted as unsecured, but later secured by a swing gate.

On Lochmaddy Pier the edges were unfenced but there was good evidence of ladders on quay walls and lifesaving equipment (ACOP 211). It was noted that the timbers of two vertical fender posts on the south side (ferry berth) had been damaged but could still be used with caution after temporary repair. Housekeeping on the pier was very good.

The port’s waste oil and oil filters receptacle is positioned in a narrow gap between a container and a low wall and partially obstructed. The manual manoeuvring required to gain access to the receptacle whilst carrying a heavy container full of waste oil has the potential to cause musculoskeletal disorders (ACOP 243–246). Issues with access may also delay the response for oil spill containment (and recovery) and for firefighting.

3.3.2 Fishery Piers

A general observation from all the site visits to fishery piers was the poor level of housekeeping. In particular, fishing industry related equipment was evident on most of the quays causing obstructions to foot and vehicle traffic and creating potential slip and trip hazards. (ACOP 206-209). The following relates to specific observations at each pier we visited.

At Leverburgh Pier an anchor and anchor chain lying close to the edge of a section of unfenced quay presented a trip hazard.(ACOP 206). At the same pier it was noted that access to a lifebuoy was obstructed by tyre fenders and also that the lifebuoy’s lifeline was entangled beneath the lifebuoy housing (ACOP 220).

At Berneray Harbour fishing industry equipment was observed to be stored immediately under a storage forbidden sign and around the port’s fuel oil tank. A notice to indicate the facility was owned by CnES and the contact number to call to report faults was not sighted.

At Kallin a further example of poor housekeeping and a trip hazard were observed, together with another example of equipment stored under a ‘storage prohibited’ sign (ACOP 209). It was also noted that the drip tray on the port’s oil fuel tank was full of water. Any release of fuel from the supply line would flow over the water in the drip tray and onto the surrounding ground causing pollution and creating a potential slip hazard (The Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (HM Government, 2006)).

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 13 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

At West Loch Tarbert we observed a further example of poor housekeeping with fishing industry equipment and other general waste placed against the harbour wall. {ACOP 209). The absence of signs to notify those using the pier about the areas of unprotected quay edge (ACOP 61), was also noted.

3.4 Piers and Harbours Routine Inspection Check List

An example of a completed paper copy Piers and Harbours Routine Inspection Check List was sighted at Lochmaddy. The check list included condition reports and comments on lifebelts, fire extinguishers, ladders and handholds, fendering, railings, slipway and steps, lighting, bollards, pier decking/walkway, power points, crane/davit, waste oil, batteries, garbage, fuel tanks, water and toilets. The use of the check list has, however, been discontinued and replaced by email reports of particular issues with the North Uist and Barra facilities. Therefore it was not possible to look back through the check lists to determine how housekeeping has been or is being addressed.

3.5 Marine Service Review: Recommendations

The Code Section 3.3 (DfT, 2016) states that the Duty Holder (the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee) should; “Conserve and promote the safe use of the harbour/facility and prevent loss or injury through the organisation’s negligence”. From the study team’s site visit there are a number of issues that the Duty Holder needs to address in order to ensure compliance with the Code in general and this paragraph in particular. The following recommendations are made:

Recommendation 35

The existing piers and harbours checklists provide a means of demonstrating active management of CnES’s piers and harbours.

It is recommended that:

Recommendation 36

Evidence from the site visit would indicate that CnES’s ‘Clear Decks’ policy, shown in the paragraph below, and promulgated to all Pier Users in the Harbour Master’s General Notice (April 2016 to March 2017), is largely being ignored.

“The Comhairle’s harbour team will be conducting regular inspections of piers throughout the year. If fishing gear or other materials is found to be causing a safety or health risk to pier users, Section 29 of the CnES (Various Harbours) Harbour Revision Order 2002 will be invoked and such fishing gear or materials will be uplifted without further notification and stored for a maximum period of 7 days. The gear of materials can be reclaimed with the 7 days on payment of uplift and storage charges”.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 14 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

It is recommend that:

Recommendation 37

Whilst CalMac’s management of the berthing, unberthing, marshalling, loading and unloading of the Harris Ferry in Leverburgh and Berneray would appear to be undertaken in a competent and professional manner, it is noted that this situation is not subject to formal review by the Comhairle in its role as Harbour Authority .

It is recommend that:

CalMac’s shore operations at Leverburgh, Berneray, Aird Mhor, Ceann a Gharraidh Slip and Otternish overnight berth should be documented and agreed formally by CnES in a memorandum of understanding and thereafter audited annually and after every reported incident.

Recommendation 38

The integration of the Comhairle’s advisory services to inform the Marine Department’s decision making and management of marine risk could be used to greater benefit. These services include the Designated Person, the Comhairle’s Risk and Emergency Planning, and the Health and Safety Advisor function.

During the site visit, the study team held review meetings with the Designated Person, the Risk and Emergency Planning Manager and the Health and Safety Advisor. In each meeting we were impressed by the level of knowledge demonstrated by the post holders about their particular areas of expertise. It was also apparent that they were not an integral part of the MSMS. For example, the Designated Person’s comprehensive reports in which repeated concerns about the structural condition of harbours, piers and other facilities were made independently of the reports received from the routine checks on piers and harbours by the Marine Operations Team. Another example is how the routine checks on piers and harbours are being undertaken without the advice of Health and Safety representatives or other, equally relevant, ACOPs and Regulations which the Comhairle should follow to ensure compliance under Health and Safety law.

It is recommend that:

3.6 Current Service Provision

To determine the current service provision we met separately with the Harbour Master, Assistant Harbour Master, Port Operative (Lochmaddy) and Administrative Assistant to discuss their current duties using their respective job descriptions as a point of reference. The Port Operative (Barra) was

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 15 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar not available at the time of the site visit; his duties were therefore discussed with the Harbour Master, using the job description as a point of reference.

The job descriptions (and person specification) used in this review are dated as follows:

. Harbour Master - August 2012; . Assistant Harbour Master – January 2013; . Pier Operative (Lochmaddy) – April 2002; . Pier Operative (Barra) – June 2009; and . Administrative Assistant – May 2006.

3.7 Job Descriptions Summary

The most notable general omission from the Marine Operations Team’s job descriptions is the absence of any references to the current Comhairle’s Marine Safety Policy and associated risk assessments.

Section 2.1 of the Comhairle’s (draft) Marine Safety Policy states that: “the Comhairle shall establish and maintain an effective management structure to manage the navigation and operation of all vessels safely within its areas of jurisdiction” and later in the same Section “To ensure that all personnel employed on marine operations understand safety requirements fully, all responsibilities and authorities are defined clearly in individual and collective job description”. It should follow, therefore, that the job descriptions link to the Marine Safety Policy, but they currently do not.

It is a requirement of the Code (DfT, 2016) Section 2.14 states that the MSMS should; “confirm the roles and responsibilities of key personnel at the organisation” and Section 2.13 states that the MSMS should: “… incorporate safety policies and procedures to ensure there is proper control of vessel movements, protect the general public from dangers arising from marine activities, allow functions to be carried out with special regard to the possible environmental impact, and prevent acts or omissions that may cause personal injury to employees or others”. Therefore, the job descriptions cannot be viewed in isolation of the Marine Safety Policy.

The following provides observations on the role of each post holder as the role is currently structured.

3.7.1 Harbour Master

The Harbour Master’s job description is generally in accordance with the requirements of the Code (Section 1.14 and 1.15) in that he has day-to-day responsibility for managing the safe operation of navigation and other marine activities at the Comhairle’s piers and harbours and, depending upon ownership, its harbour approaches. The Harbour Master has sufficient experience for the role, and has also demonstrated competence to undertake other relevant duties in relation to Health and Safety at Work and Merchant Shipping legislation.

The Harbour Master has powers of direction to regulate the time and manner of ships’ entry to, departure from and movement within the harbour waters (granted under the 1847 Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act) and related marine safety purposes. He also has the ability to issue, if it is necessary, General Directions and make Byelaws (granted under The Comhairle nan Eilean Siar HRO 2002). Through his direct actions and those of his Marine Operations Team he ensures the co- ordination and regulation of vessels with the piers and harbours and (depending upon ownership) the harbour approaches. He also has responsibility for regulating dangerous goods in transit on ships; command of the piers and harbours counter pollution response, and for the provision and maintenance (through a contract with NLB) of the Comhairle’s aids to navigation.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 16 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

The Harbour Master’s job description does however; include a number of duties which are not directly associated with marine safety. Time devoted to general administration, finance, resolving problems with marine fuel key systems, ice plants, waste disposal and other matters of a minor but nevertheless demanding nature must, inevitably, leave less time for managing and maintaining the MSMS. This is particularly relevant when the time taken to physically travel between the Comhairle’s facilities is also taken into account.

3.7.2 Assistant Harbour Master

The Assistant Harbour Master’s job description is very similar to the Harbour Master’s job description in that he is required to assist and be involved in the day-to-day management issues of the Comhairle’s piers and harbours. His powers of direction are, however, only inferred by his duty to deputise for the Harbour Master in his absence and not defined in detail in his job description. To fully deputise for the Harbour Master the Assistant Harbour Master must be given a training review to determine the qualifications he will require to fulfil all aspects of the role and not just those of a statutory nature. (Under Section 2 of the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Various Harbours) Harbour Revision Order 2002 “the ‘harbour master’ means any person appointed as such by the Comhairle, and includes his deputies and assistants, and any other person for the time being authorised by the Comhairle to act, either generally or for a specific purpose, in the capacity of harbour master)”.

Like the Harbour Master, the Assistant Harbour Master is required to spend time on a number of duties. As the comment in respect of the Harbour Master’s time commitment to non-core MSMS matters noted; time devoted to such matters as resolving problems with marine fuel key systems, inevitably leaves less time for managing and maintaining the MSM. Again, this is particularly relevant when the time taken to physically travel between the Comhairle’s facilities is also taken into account.

3.7.3 Pier Operative - Lochmaddy

The Pier Operative’s job description includes a number of duties and responsibilities that have changed or are no longer required since the description’s drafting in 2002.

He is required to control vessel movements but the extent of his powers under the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Various Harbours) Harbour Revision Order 2002 are not defined.

The job purpose refers only to Lochmaddy and does not include the Pier Operative’s current role in checking the Comhairle’s other piers and harbours in North Uist.

The Pier Operative is rostered to work by CalMac and he cannot take leave unless a suitably qualified and experienced CalMac employee is available to cover his work. His ability to manage the port of Lochmaddy is, therefore, governed by a CalMac, giving rise to a clear conflict of interest in the manner in which he can fulfil his duties.

3.7.4 Pier Operative - Barra

The Pier Operative’s job description includes a number of duties and responsibilities that have changed or are no longer required since the description’s drafting in 2009. He is required to control vessel movements but the extent of his powers under the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Various Harbours) Harbour Revision Order 2002 are not defined.

When the Pier Operative is on his week with CalMac there is no day to day management of the Comhairle’s harbours, piers and slipways in Barra. The Pier Operative is a CalMac employee and is subject to the demands of CalMac as his primary employment (as demonstrated during the site visit;

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 17 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar he was off-island, attending a training course). There is therefore, a clear conflict of interest in the manner in which he can fulfil his duties for the Comhairle.

3.7.5 Administrative Assistant

The Administrative Assistant’s job description includes a number of duties that have changed or are no longer required since the description’s drafting in 2006.

The Administrative Assistant’s role is primarily revenue collection through Harbour Dues and fuel sales. Support for the Marine Operations Team is limited to ensuring information received in the Balivanich office, mainly from the Pier Operatives, is passed to the Assistant Harbour Master and Harbour Master, as appropriate.

The requirement to maintain paper and digital records is no longer deemed part of the Administrative Assistant’s role. Whilst this is not a contravention of the Code it is a recommendation in the Guide to Good Practice on Port Marine Operations (DfT, 2015) to have access to proper records to make it much easier for the port to monitor the port’s safety management system.

3.8 Marine Staffing

Neither the Code nor the Guide to Good Practice on port marine operations is prescriptive about marine staffing levels. Sections 1.16 and 4.2 of the Code provide details on the appointment of a Harbour Master (PMSC, 2016). Section 2.8 of the Code and Section 11 of the Guide to Good Practice identify the need for Harbour Authorities to ensure that everyone, who has responsibilities or is involved with the safety of navigation, is qualified and competent to do the job. Authorities must ensure their staff meet the nationally agreed standards of competence, or alternatively be able to show their local competency standards are fully equivalent.

The study team found that every member of the Marine Operations Team was knowledgeable, experienced, and committed to making the existing organisational structure work as well as possible. However, the human resource available to accomplish their stated job rolls need to be both coordinated and structured around minimising the greatest risks to marine safety. To do this effectively it is first necessary to complete a set of marine risk assessments to determine exactly where the greatest risks to marine safety lie and then develop a MSMS to manage those risks. The MSMS should include the number, qualifications, training and experience of personnel required and the best means of deploying them. Job descriptions for all members of the Marine Operations Team must identify the levels of experience and qualifications which are deemed essential and desirable for each specific role.

In the absence of a comprehensive set of marine risk assessments for all of the Comhairle’s port and harbours, the recommended staffing level is based on expert judgement and includes a degree of subjectivity.

3.8.1 Recommended Staffing Level

Whilst safety of navigation must be the primary concern in establishing levels of staffing, it is acknowledged that the levels must also be cost-effective and sustainable. From the site visit evidence, it was apparent that the Assistant Harbour Master could not deputise for all the Harbour Master’s duties. Similarly the Port Operatives at Lochmaddy and Barra could not provide cover for one another, resulting in the Assistant Harbour Master fulfilling the role of relief Port Operative. A more practical solution, without making a wholly radical departure from the current staffing level, would be the creation of a management structure with redefined duties and inbuilt cover to give greater focus

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 18 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar on addressing marine safety related tasks. The structure identified in Figure 2 is therefore recommended.

Harbour Master

Deputy Harbour Master

Assistant Marine Assistant Marine Assistant Marine Office Harbour Master (1) (2) Administrator

Functional responsibility

Line management responsibility

Figure 2. Recommended Staffing Level

The following sections describe the structure in more detail.

3.8.2 Harbour Master and Deputy Harbour Master

The harbour Master and Deputy Harbour Master will head the new Marine Operations Team. Both must be formally appointed by the Harbour Authority (i.e., via the Harbour Board) and given details of their powers of direction, and tasked (in accordance with the Code, Paragraph 1.14 (PMSC, 2016)) with day-to-day responsibility for the safe operation of navigation and other marine activities across the Comhairle facilities. The Harbour Master and the Deputy must be able to provide cover for one another, which must include all duties. Therefore, their training must be of equal standard and status. Ideally their duties should not include tasks such as resolving time consuming problems with non- marine issues (currently identified as fuel management, repairs to infrastructure, cranes, ice plants and waste management).

Recommendation 39

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 19 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

3.8.3 Marine Assistants

Two marine assistants will support the Harbour Master and Deputy. Both assistants will have experience of, or qualification in, port operations. One of these assistants can be the current Port Operative - Lochmaddy, released from his duties at Lochmaddy by an MOU (or equivalent agreement) to have CalMac manage ferry berthing. The second assistant, employed on a full time basis, must be trained to the same standard as the first assistant with an identical job description. The two assistants can then cover one another as required. With only two assistants it will be physically impossible for them to visit all CnES’s facilities on a regular basis, although if visits are prioritised (targeted) by the Harbour Master in accordance with the MSMS and coordinated by the Marine Office Administrator, an effective inspection and safety regime can be established.

Recommendation 40

Lochmaddy Marine Assistant duties in respect of managing ferry berthing should be reviewed in order to release the Marine Assistant to carry out duties at other CnES port and harbour facilities.

Recommendation 41

Recommendation 42

Interchangeable job role and profiles for the two Marine Assistants. Job roles should be reworded to cover all Port and Harbour locations.

3.8.4 Assistant Harbour Master

The recommended level of staffing described in shown in Figure 2 makes provision for absence of team members through sickness, extended leave or other unforeseen circumstances. This structure recognises that a third marine assistant trained is required to cover the most important duties of everyone in the marine team. The additional employee could be called the Assistant Harbour Master in acknowledgement of the requirement to provide short-term cover for some of the Harbour Master and/or Deputy Harbour Master’s functions. The Assistant Harbour Master’s job description will, of necessity, be of a more generic nature than the job descriptions of the other Marine Operations Team members. Appointment to the post of Assistant Harbour Master may also be an opportunity to begin the process of succession planning.

Recommendation 43

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 20 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

3.8.5 Marine Office Administrator

Experience from other similar Harbour Authorities has shown that an effective small marine team can be built around an effective marine office administrator. Knowledge of marine terminology is desirable for this post but the essential requirements must be excellent administrative and organising skills and a high level of competence in the use of information technology. Core duties should include, but not be limited to, maintaining the following:

. Marine safety management system; . Standard operating procedures; . Marine risk assessments; . Incident and accident records; . Key performance indicators; . Training records; . Aids to navigation availability statistics; . CERS returns; . Notices to mariners; . OPRC plans; . ISPS plans; . Marine Planning applications; . Passage plans; . Permits and Permissions; . Emergency plans; and . Marine website.

Additional duties may include:

. Organising meetings; . Creating electronic forms; . Preparing reports; . Coordinating consultation with stakeholders; . Record keeping and archiving; . Maintaining diaries; . Organising leave and authorised absence; . Managing time sheets; . Maintaining marine notice boards; and . Arranging advance accommodation, ferry booking and other transport requirements.

A decision will have to be taken on whether the marine office administrator should also deal with revenue related tasks such as invoicing and collecting harbour dues. This is effectively a risk based decision as too much time spent on revenue related tasks may be a distraction to the primary role of supporting and coordinating the actions of the Marine Operations Team. Given the use of networked facilities and the broad scope of the administrator role, it should be feasible to base this position within any of the Comhairle’s administrative offices.

With an administrator established at the hub of the Marine Operations Team, consideration can be given to the number and the duties of other team members.

Recommendation 44

Marine Office Administrator role should be created and/or existing administrative role expanded to include the Core Duties (shown in this Report, Section 3.8.5) plus Additional Duties as required.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 21 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

3.8.6 Locations and Equipment

To achieve the level of free movement required by the Marine Operations Team it will be necessary to dispense with the idea of home ports. Instead, by equipping all team members with a laptop or tablet and a smart phone they will be capable of operating effectively from any location. Offices and land lines should only be used in areas where mobile signals are poor. When it is necessary for a Comhairle representative to be in a particular port, (for the movement of explosives through Lochmaddy, for example), any member of the Marine Operations Team can attend.

As further investment is made in CCTV coverage of the Comhairle’s ports and harbours it should be possible, using modern technology, for the Marine Operations Team to monitor port activities from a distance and only attend in person if a particular problem is identified. Looking further into the future, the use of drones to overfly remote piers and harbours may also prove an effective means of remote monitoring.

Recommendation 45

The restructured Marine Operations Team dispenses with the idea of home ports or offices. Job roles should be reworded to cover all Port and Harbour locations.

Recommendation 46

All Marine Operations Team members should be issued with a laptop or tablet, and a smart phone to allow then to operate efficiency from any location. Offices and land lines should only be used in areas where mobile signals are poor.

3.8.7 Marine Staffing Summary

The recommended marine staffing levels proposed in Sections 3.8.1 and shown in Figure 2 is based upon our knowledge of the Comhairle’s current port operations, the study team’s interviews with four members of the current Marine Operations Team and our experience of port operations nationally. We have also taken note of the existing Marine Safety Policy, general risk assessments and navigation risk assessments.

The recommended staffing level will provide in-built resilience of service during busy periods, or at times of reduced staff numbers (due to holiday, sickness or staff training requirements). This is achieved through increased staff resources, greater reliance on technology to remotely management and monitor, in-combination with job roles that spread responsibility for marine facilities to all members of the team.

The study team are of the opinion that the current Marine Operations Team is not performing as effectively as it could, for the following reasons:

. There is a considerable amount of time being spent by senior managers on issues not directly related to marine safety. . There is a considerable amount of productive time lost by all members of the team travelling between ports. . There is an absence of the Comhairle’s representation on Barra for at least six months of the year. . There is an absence of (assigned) Comhairle representation on South Uist, Lewis and Harris. . Administrative support is mainly revenue based.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 22 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

. There is no evidence of recent record keeping. . There is a conflict of interest in Lochmaddy and Barra due to over dependence upon CalMac.

The minimum and optimum levels of staffing outlined in 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 above will:

. Remove the time being spent by senior managers on issues not directly related to marine safety. . Reduce, by the use of available technology, the amount of productive time lost by all members of the team travelling between ports. . Enable a marine representative to monitor CnES’s marine interests on Barra, Uist, Lewis and Harris throughout the year in accordance with a risk based strategy. . Enable administrative support to be focussed on marine safety. . Enable comprehensive marine records to be maintained for reference, assessment and audit. . Eliminate conflict of interest between CalMac and the Comhairle.

In summary, relatively small and cost-effective changes in the structure of the current Marine Operations Team, adoption of new communication technology and a shift in focus from designated geographical areas of responsibility to targeted areas of responsibility will ensure that the restructured Marine Operations Team is in a much better position to meet the requirements of the Code. However, it is only after all marine risks have been formally assessed and a MSMS has been developed, that a true assessment of the effectiveness of the new Marine Operations Team structure can be determined.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 23 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

4 Marine Safety Review

The Marine Safety Management System (MSMS), and any associated operating procedures, is the core delivery tool used by Harbour Authorities to safely and efficiently manage a port. The scope of this review considers the existing MSMS against the national standard defined in the Code and its accompanying Guide to Good Practice. The scope of the review is identified in Section 4.1

4.1 Scope of the Review

The scope of the work requires the study to: ‘review the current Safety Management System and its associated procedures’.

4.2 Requirements of the Port Marine Safety Code

Prior to considering the specifics of a MSMS, the context in which this system operates (as defined in the Code) should be considered. The Code was introduced in 2001 as the national standard and has been refreshed periodically since then; the latest version is dated November 2016. The Code is accompanied by a Guide to Good Practice on Port Marine Operations which expands, explains and gives examples of the requirements of the Code.

The Code provides the standard against which the policies, procedures and the performance of harbour authorities can be measured. It also describes the role of key personnel in relation to safety of navigation and summarises the main statutory duties and powers of harbour authorities. As well as complying with these duties and powers, the authority must develop an effective marine safety management system based on formal risk assessment. In order to comply with the Code, the Duty Holder must satisfy the following requirements on behalf of the Harbour Authority:

. Formally identify and designate the Duty Holder, whose members are individually and collectively accountable for compliance with the Code, and their performance in ensuring safe marine operations in the harbour and its approaches. . A ‘Designated Person’ must be appointed to provide independent assurance about the operation of the MSMS system. The Designated person must have direct access to the Duty Holder. . The Duty Holder must review and be aware of their existing powers based on local and national legislation, seeking additional powers if required in order to promote safe navigation. . Comply with the duties and powers under existing legislation, as appropriate. . Ensure that marine risks are formally assessed and are eliminated or reduced to the lowest possible level, so far as is reasonably practicable, in accordance with good practice. . Operate an effective MSMS which has been developed after consultation, is based on formal risk assessment and refers to an appropriate approach to incident investigation. . Use competent people (who are trained, qualified and experienced) in positions of responsibility for managing marine and navigational safety. . Monitor, review and audit the risk assessments and MSMS on a regular basis – the independent designated person has a key role in providing assurance for the Duty Holder. . Publish a safety plan showing how the standard in the Code will be met and produce a report assessing performance against that plan at least every 3 years. . Comply with directions from the General Lighthouse Authorities and supply information & returns as required.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 24 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

The MSMS should be a worthwhile management tool that together with the other Systems mentioned in this report demonstrates that the Harbour Authority has discharged is statutory duties.

4.2.1 Legality and Inspections

Compliance with the Code is not a legal obligation; however, non-compliance is indicative of breach of duty, negligence and possible criminal offences. The Code is not optional; harbour authorities are expected by Government to work to achieve the national standard and to show commitment to its implementation. On a three yearly cycle, each Harbour Authority is expected to respond to the MCA with a statement about their Compliance (known as the Compliance Exercise). It is also worth noting that the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) would consider a Harbour Authorities approach to compliance with the Code should any incident in the port result in an investigation. The MCA does not have any statutory powers of inspection in relation to the Code, it may however carry out a verification visit (termed health check) to test and advise a Port on its adherence to the Code. Typically 8 to 10 verification visits are arranged each year.

4.3 Review Evidence

The study team examined the existing documentation constituting the Comhairle’s MSMS. This included draft and previous versions of documents held on file at the Comhairle. The study team discussed these documents and their status with members of the Marine Operations team. The document, as currently available, does not fit into a coherent system; there are policy documents, procedures and a historic MSMS mostly developed by previous administrations. They do not reflect the current marine operations and can therefore only be considered as legacy information, which is now redundant. There is a new (in draft) Marine Policy document, but this cannot be considered as current or in-force, as the Duty Holder has not considered and endorsed it. Marine Risk assessments are in place; these have been reviewed and are available to the Marine Operations Team. The following section therefore present the current situation, based on a review against the requirements of the Code.

4.4 Marine Safety Review: Recommendations

To provide a structure for carrying out the review, the ten-point check list from the Code has been used as a high level benchmarking test to identify aspect of compliance and areas for improvement. The following section provides the review observations against each topic area.

4.4.1 Duty Holder

The Duty Holder role is assigned to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. This decision is confirmed in the ‘Transport Committee’ meeting minutes, held on 8 February 2012. At which time, it was stated that: “At the October 2007 series the Comhairle agreed that the Transportation Committee take on the role and responsibilities of a Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Harbours Board. Accordingly it would be appropriate that the Transportation Committee are also identified as “Duty Holder” in accordance with section 1.5.3 of the Port Marine Safety Code”. Furthermore, the draft ‘Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Ports and Harbours Safety Management System’ identified the role of the Duty Holder, and provides a line diagram of the various harbour roles and functions.

It can therefore be concluded that the role of the Duty Holder has been defined by the CnES as the Harbour Authority.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 25 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

4.4.2 Designated Person

Whilst independence is preserved through the appointment of the Comhairle’s Chief Auditor to the role, there is also the expectation that the Designated Person will be available to offer advice on whether the individual elements making up the MSMS meet the requirements of the Code. It is acknowledged that there are numerous approaches to fulfilling the requirements for the appointment of the Designated Person, however, it is for the Duty Holder to be demonstrably satisfied that they have adopted the best approach for the circumstances. In respect of the Designated Person’s experience, the Code’s Guide to Good Practice, Section 2.2.38, states that:

“…. best practice supports the view that a DP should have: . Relevant first-hand experience of the marine environment and how ports operate. . Appropriate knowledge of shipping, shipboard operations, and port operations”.

Recommendation 47

It is recommend that:

CnES should consider if their approach to appointing a Designated Person provides sufficient support to the decision making of the Duty Holder.

4.4.3 Legislation

The Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Harbour Revision Order, 2002 (HM Government, 2002) provides a clear and concise Act with identified powers. In many Harbour Authorities, the special Acts can be complicated to piece together, making the task of understanding available powers a challenge. This is not the case for the Comhairle, the 2002 HRO lays out the information succinctly.

During the review visit, the study team were not able to identify evidence of formalised reviews of the powers under legislation. There is an expectation in the Code (Section 3.3) that existing powers are reviewed on a period basis by the Harbour Authority, to avoid a failure in discharging its duties or risk exceeding its powers. Most ports and harbours discharge this requirement to review powers by holding periodic (for example, yearly) meetings to review its policy, powers and duties.

Recommendation 48

It is recommend that:

CnES should establish a process for reviewing its Ports and Harbour policies, duties and responsibilities.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 26 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

4.4.4 Comply with the Duties and Powers

During the review visit, the study team identified evidence of awareness of powers of Special Direction from members of the Marine Operations Team. There was also a track history of managing and issuing Harbour Works licensing (it was noted however, that licences should be issued by the Harbour Authority, rather than a named officer of the Comhairle). There was no evidence of the use of powers in respect of wrecks or to the prosecutions by the Harbour Authority of any harbour users; however there was awareness that these powers were available.

The Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Harbour Revision Order, 2002 provides powers to issue General Directions and Byelaws to manage the use of the Comhairle’s Ports and Harbours. However, these powers have not been used to date. If a review of powers were held periodically, then consideration to employ these tools for managing port and harbour users could be considered (refer to Recommendation 20 in Section 4.4.3).

4.4.5 Ensure All Risks are Formally Assessed and as Low as Reasonably Practicable

To provide a clear statement on this topic, the risk profile has been split to ‘Marine’ (navigational and afloat risks) and a ‘Health and Safety at Work’ (predominantly shore-side risks).

Marine Risk: during the review, the study team identified a set of risk assessments covering the Harbour Authority’s navigational risks. These assessment were in-date with evidence of recent review. However, it was noted that the assessment process did not fully match that in the Guide to Good Practice, in that the assessment process does not take account of financial loss. Also, the process for carrying out marine risk assessments does not retain previous iterations, which means that change and review over time cannot be evidenced. In addition, there was no evidence of consultation with key stakeholders or the wider port community. Finally, the process of making and reviewing risk assessments was not sufficiently identified, thereby allowing the system to be one of custom and practice, rather than an established routine.

Recommendation 49

It is recommend that:

CnES should establish a risk assessment process that takes account of best practice and guidance in the Guide to Good Practice. This process needs to establish: how the assessment is conducted, the expectation for author and reviewer skills, how the risk assessments are consulted upon and disseminated, plus the frequency of review.

Health and Safety at Work: during the review, the study team identified various risk assessments that evaluated tasks carried out by the Marine staff, both ashore and afloat. The assessments that were evidenced were in-date and had been reviewed recently. However, a number of assessments are stored and accessed at local port facilities and there was no master list making it difficult to identify what was in place, who it related to and how it was reviewed and signed-off. It is also worth noting that under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (as amended), (UK Government, 1974) that any risk assessment needs to be shared and consulted upon, and must demonstrate adequacy. The Comhairle needs to consider a process to achieve this for its Harbour Authority responsibilities. It was also noted that the authors for the risk assessments had not received any formalised training specific to conducting risk assessments (health and safety at work compliant risk assessments). It should be noted that technical advice is available as a central function of the Comhairle, but this does not include subject matter advice.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 27 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

Recommendation 50

It is recommend that:

CnES should establish a central register of Health and Safety Risk Assessments to provide a clear overview of risks and their controls, this should also include expiry dates to prompt review.

Recommendation 51

It is recommend that:

Marine staff authoring and reviewing Health and Safety risk assessments should receive certificated training.

4.4.6 Operate an Effective Marine Safety Management System

During the review, the study team were shown a range of documentation that would be included within the context of a MSMS. There was however, no central structure or document that could be considered as a functional MSMS. Marine Safety Policy documentation exists; this could be adapted into the front-end of a MSMS. Any such set of documents would need to be endorsed and signed by the Duty Holder to be considered as compliant with the Code.

A set of operating instructions exist, although these are out of date and require re-writing to reflect the current practices used in the Harbour Authority. Anecdotal information demonstrates that Marine staff were unable to identify a MSMS when asked, confirming that no functional MSMS is operated by the Harbour Authority. On this matter, the Code in Paragraph 2.12 states that:

“A MSMS - which manages the hazards and risks along with any preparations for emergencies – must be developed, implemented and maintained. This should be operated effectively and revised periodically”.

It is therefore clear that a MSMS needs to be established as soon as practical, to fulfil this requirement.

Recommendation 52

It is recommend that:

CnES should establish a Marine Safety Management System (MSMS) which is compliant with the requirements of the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) as detailed in Section 2.12 to 2.17 of the Code.

4.4.7 Review and Audit

There is an annual audit of the Harbour Authority, carried out by the Designated Person. In respect of monitoring, assessing and auditing compliance with the Code, Section 2.24, states in this respect that:

“The MSMS must incorporate a regular and systematic review of its performance. This should be based on information from monitoring the system itself and from independent audits of the whole system. Performance of the MSMS should be assessed against internal performance indicators and, where appropriate, by benchmarking against other similar organisations that have adopted good practice”.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 28 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

The Guide to Good Practice (Section 4.4.1) expands upon this requirement:

“An internal audit must be carried out [every year] and a statement about the performance standard of the port should be included in the annual report. An external audit or peer review should take place every three years, informing the 3-yearly publication of the marine safety plan and the Authority’s performance against the previous plan, as required by the Code”.

It can be concluded from the information available at the time of the review that the Designated Person has performed yearly reports, based upon an agreed report scope. The scope of the Designated Person’s inspection includes a visit to each port, but does not holistically cover all of the duties and functions of the Harbour Authority, specifically a functionality audit of the MSMS. A full external audit, on a periodic basis, should be considered to provide a benchmark against which the annual Designated Person report can sampled. It would also be beneficial to create an internal audit checklist to vary the areas that are sampled, and ensure that key features required for compliance with the Code (for example, Aids to Navigation) are considered.

In respect of Duty Holder requirements to conduct and report compliance, the Comhairle has not responded to the last MCA compliance exercise, which was due in March 2015. The Code, Section 2.30, states in this respect that:

“Every three years, the duty holder should sign a statement describing their organisation’s compliance with the Code. If the organisation is not compliant, or not fully compliant, the statement should also describe the organisation’s intentions for achieving compliance, including planned timescales”.

This omission is indicative of a wider appreciation of reporting requirements, and ultimately, compliance with the Code.

Recommendation 53

It is recommend that:

4.4.8 Use Competent People (i.e. Trained, Qualified and Experienced)

It was evident during the review that the personnel in post are dedicated and experienced. This partly answers the requirement in the Code, Section 2.18, that: “all persons involved in the management and execution of marine services should be qualified and trained to the appropriate national standard”. It was noted that a number of post holders are in need of refresher training, or may require additional training to align their training to the requirements of the role. One clear omission is the existence of a training matrix that identifies the competencies expected of each post holder. Whilst job descriptions are in place, these need updating, and the results of this update should be provided in the form of a ‘Marine Staff Matrix’ (examples of which are included in the Code’s Guide to Good Practice). Currently, it is difficult to evidence that members of staff are ‘trained, qualified and experienced’ as the retention of certification and training records is incomplete.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 29 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

Recommendation 54

It is recommend that:

4.4.9 Publish a Safety Plan

The requirement place on the Duty Holder, is to publish a safety plan showing how the standards in the Code will be by the Harbour Authority, and produce a report assessing performance against that plan at least every 3 years. Following review of the available plans, it is evident that there is no published ‘safety plan for marine operations’. The Code provides guidance (in Section 2.26) to assist Harbour Authorities in providing a plan, it states that:

“To demonstrate the organisation’s commitment to marine safety and to ensure the involvement of harbour users, a safety plan for marine operations should be published at least once every three years. The plan should illustrate how the policies and procedures will be developed to satisfy the requirements under the Code. It should commit the organisation to undertake and regulate marine operations in a way that safeguards the harbour/facility, its users, the public and the environment. It should refer to commercial activities; the efficient provision of specified services and the effective regulation of vessels including near miss reporting. It should also explain how commercial pressures would be managed without undermining the safe provision of services and the efficient discharge of its duties”.

The second part of the reporting topic is the expectation that a review against the plan is published by the Duty Holder. Such reviews normally cite key performance statistics and a summary of auditing information. The important aspect is the publication of the plan for wider consumption. Currently, the Comhairle does not publish a review. The Code, Section 2.27, states in this respect that:

“The Duty Holder must also publish an assessment of the organisation’s performance against the plan. Information gathered from the monitoring and auditing of the MSMS should be used to support the analysis and conclusions”.

Recommendation 55

It is recommend that:

CnES should publish a ‘safety plan for marine operations’ and following this, an assessment of the performance against the plan as required in the Code, Section 2.26 to 2.28.

4.4.10 Aids to Navigation

The expectation of the Code is that Harbour Authorities will comply with directions from the General Lighthouse Authorities (in this instance, the Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB)) and supply information and returns as required. During the site visit, the study team were provided with information about the inspection regime, defect notification and report made to the NLG. From the information presented, these actions were commensurate with that required of the Comhairle in its duties as a Local Lighthouse Authority. It was however, noted that the Category 3 lights were operating below

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 30 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar the minimum threshold set by the General Lighthouse Authority. This was not easily identified as the inclusion of Aids to Navigation as a key performance indicator was not a reporting item to the Harbour Board, nor an item on the Designated Person’s report.

Recommendation 56

It is recommend that:

Technical officers of the authority should include the availability of Aids to Navigation into Harbour Board reporting.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 31 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

5 Summary of the review

In summary, this report has documented the observations and recommendations from the review of the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Harbour Authority. In total, 28 recommendations have been made. These recommendations are contained within the text, and summarised for convenience in the Executive Summary which precedes the report.

6 References

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (CnES) 2016. ‘Factfile – Population’. Accessed 19 November 2016. http://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/factfile/population/islandpopulations.asp

Department for Transport (DfT) 2016. ‘Port Marine Safety Code’, November 2016.

Department for Transport (DfT) 2015. ‘A Guide To Good Practice On Port Marine Operations - Prepared In Conjunction With The Port Marine Safety Code’, July 2015.

HM Government, 2002. ‘Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Harbour Revision Order (HRO)’.

HM Government, 2006. The Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006

Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 2014. ‘Safety in Docks’ Approved Code of Practice (ACOP)

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), 2016. ‘Port Marine Safety Code Health Check Trends: 2015’.

Transport Scotland, 2012. ‘Modern Trust Ports for Scotland: Guidance for good governance’ Published by Transport Scotland, November 2012.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 32 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Harbour Review Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

7 Abbreviations/Acronyms

AA Administrative Assistant ABPmer ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd ACOP Approved Code of Practice AHM Assistant Harbour Master CalMac Caledonian MacBrayne CCTV Closed-Circuit Television CERS Consolidated European Reporting System CMAL Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd CnES Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar DP Designated Person DfT Department for Transport HMC Harbour Management Committee HRO Harbour Revision Order HSE Health and Safety Executive IDT Internal Departmental Transfer ISPS International Ship and Port Facility Security KPI Key Performance Indicator M+F Both merchant ships and fishing vessels MAIB Marine Accident Investigation Branch MCA Maritime and Coastguard Agency MGN Marine Guidance Note MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSMS Marine Safety Management System MSN Merchant Shipping Notice NLB Northern Lighthouse Board NVQ National Vocational Qualifications OBC Other Bulk Cargo OPRC Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation PAX Passenger PFSO Port Facility Security Officer PMSC Port Marine Safety Code PO-B Pier Operative – Barra PO-L Pier Operative – Lochmaddy SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency SMS Safety Management Systems SOSREP Secretary of State’s Representative SSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest Transec Transport Security & Contingencies Directorate UK United Kingdom VHF Very High Frequency

Cardinal points/directions are used unless otherwise stated.

SI units are used unless otherwise stated.

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 33

Appendix

Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

A Facility Inventory

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 35 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

A.1 Uist and Barra

Maintenance UKHO

Location Description Current Status Usage Condition

Routines Charts

Ferry Terminal Ferry FisheryPier Pontoons Slipway Crane Fuel Water Power Payphone Toilet Shower TrailerLaunch Oil Waste Reception Lochmaddy Pier plus Linkspan Skye ferry + bulk cargo Busy Good        Planned + as required 2825

Berneray -Ardmaree Slipway Sound of Harris Ferry Busy Good            As required 2802

Newton Jetty Short slipway Redundant ferry pier Almost no usage Poor   None 2802

Alignment structure Otternish East Slip Slipway Redundant ferry slip Almost no usage     None 2802 deteriorating Otternish West Slip Slipway General purpose slip Almost no usage Good     Minimal as required 2802

Otternish Overnight Berth Concrete pier Overnight berth for ferry Busy Good  As required 2802

Cheesebay Slipway Fish farm + some local boats Well used by Fish Farm Good  As required 2802

Griminish Pier Fishing mainly seasonal Well used in summer Good        As required 2841

Moderate Fishing + Berneray Harbour Box Harbour Fishing and leisure Good As required 2802 leisure Kallin Box Harbour plus pier Fishing Busy Good           As required 2904

Petersport Slipway Fishing Low to moderate Poor     Minimal as required 2904

Poll na Crann Pier Fishing summer only Low to moderate Moderate     Minimal as required 1795

Lochboisdale Fishery Pier Pier Fish farm + some local boats Moderate Moderate          Minimal as required 2770

Orasay Slipway Fishing summer only Low to moderate Moderate   Minimal as required 2770

Ludaig Slipway Redundant Ferry Slip Moderate-fishing Moderate        Minimal as required 2770

Haun Slipway Redundant Ferry Slip Low Moderate     None 2770

Eriskay Causeway Slipway Redundant Ferry Slip (temp) Community Boat Club Moderate None 2770

Pontoons-good. Acarsaid Pier plus pontoons Fishing Busy        As required 2770 Pier-Fair Ceann a Gharraidh Slip Slipway Sound of Barra Ferry Busy Good         As required 2770

Aird Mhor Slipway Sound of Barra Ferry Busy Good       As required 2770

Ardveenish Pier Fishing + Commercial Busy Good         As required 2769, 2770

Castlebay Slip Slipway Fishing +Leisure Moderate Good      As required 2769

Vatersay Causeway East Slipway Fishing Busy all year Good        As required 2769

Vatersay Causeway West Slipway Fishing Busy in summer Good        As required 2769

Vatersay Uidhe Pier Redundant Ferry slip Almost no usage Poor  2769

Eoligarry Slip Slipway Redundant Ferry slip Almost no usage Poor   None 2770

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 36 Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

A.2 Lewis and Harris

Maintenance

Location Description Current Status Usage Condition Charts

Routines

Ferry Terminal Ferry FisheryPier Pontoons Slipway Crane Fuel Water Power Payphone Toilet Shower TrailerLaunch Oil Waste Reception Brevig Box harbour Fishing + Leisure Moderate Good     As required 1785

Portnaguran Box harbour Fishing + Leisure Very Low Good          Safety critical only 1757

Bayble Pier Fishing + Leisure Very Low Good  Safety critical only 1757, 1785

Port of Ness Slipway Slipway Fishing + Leisure Low Poor     Safety critical only 1785

Skigersta Pier plus slipway Fishing + Leisure Low Poor      Safety critical only 1785

Carloway Pier Fishing + Leisure Moderate Good         As required 2515

Breasclete Pier & Slip Pier plus slipway Fish Farm + local boats Moderate Good      As required 2515

Callanish Pier Leisure + tourism Low Good   Safety critical only 2515

Kirkibost Pier Fishing Busy Good           As required 2515

Hacklete Pier Fishing + Leisure Very Low Moderate Safety critical only 2515

Miavaig Pier plus pontoons Fish Farm + commercial leisure Busy Good          Planned + as required 2515

Valtos Pier Fishing + leisure Very Low Moderate    Safety critical only 2515

Crossbost Pier plus slipway Fish Farm Moderate Moderate      As required 2529

Gravir Pier Fish Farm Moderate Good     As required 1757

Cromore Pier Fishing +leisure Very Low Good   Safety critical only 2529

Hushinish Slips Slipway Access route to Scarp Very Low Good  Safety critical only 2841

Scarp Slip Slipway Sole landing place on Scarp Very Low Moderate  Safety critical only 2841

West Loch Tarbert Pier Fishing Moderate Moderate      As required 2841

Kyles Scalpay Terminal Slipway Fishing plus leisure Low Moderate     As required 1757

Scalpay Terminal Slipway Fish Farm Low Moderate   As required 2905

Scalpay Fishery Pier Pier Fishing Busy Good         As required 2905

Ceann Dibig (Miabhaig) Slipway Fishing plus leisure Very Low Good     Safety critical only 2905

Stockinish Pier plus pontoons Fishing Busy Good         As required 1757

Leverburgh Slipway Sound of Harris Ferry Busy Good      Planned + as required 2802

Leverburgh Pier Fishing + Commercial Leisure Busy Good         As required 2802

ABPmer, November 2016, R,2418 | 37