Review of Maritime Statistics
Appendices
CONTENTS
Appendix 1
Project Initiation Document
A-2
Appendix 2
Data User Consultation
A - 12
Appendix 3
Data Provider Consultation
A - 31
Appendix 4
Sea Passenger Data Collection
A - 46
Appendix 5
Maritime Statistics Collection Agency – Specification of
Activities
Maritime Statistics Data System (Freight Data) - records
received
A - 50
Appendix 6
A-1
A - 56
Appendix 1
Project Initiation Document
A-2
Project Initiation Document (Paper MSDQR(1)2)
1. Introduction
The review is to cover the Maritime Statistics Data (MSD) freight and passenger collection
system and linkages to other work and data sets where relevant.
The MSD collection system was set up to meet the requirements of the EC Maritime
Statistics Directive. The MSD system became operational in January 2000 and gathers data
provided by shipping lines, their agents, and ports on maritime freight and passenger traffic
to and from UK ports. Results have been produced annually for the years 2000 - 2005
inclusive for maritime freight traffic and up to Q3 2005 for passenger traffic. Provisional
quarterly returns are also made to Eurostat.
The MSD system is run by the Maritime Statistics branch (SLAM1) of the Statistics,
Logistics, Aviation & Maritime Division of the Department for Transport (DfT). British
Maritime Technology Ltd (BMT) carries out the collection of the freight data component
under contract to DfT.
The review is to be a Standard Review carried out in accordance with Guidance set out by
the Office for National Statistics
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/data/methodology/quality/reviews/default.asp.
2. The aims of the quality review
The aims of the review are summarised as follows:

User needs & data quality - To consult on the information needs of users and to
assess whether the collection system fulfils their needs, including the breadth of data
collection, quality, timeliness, ease of access (publications and presentation of data
therein, ad hoc requests etc), and generally to assess whether maritime statistics are
fit for purpose. Make recommendations as to how additional needs may be met, or
existing data collection simplified or reduced.

Data Providers Needs - To estimate the burden of data collection on data providers
and to make recommendations as to how the burden on data providers might be
reduced.

Processes - To assess whether the processes involved are efficient (i.e. make the
best use of available resources) and are effective (i.e. achieve the desired objectives
and data quality in the most practicable manner) and to recommend improvements.
It will also take into account related data sets to the extent that they impact on the three
areas above, e.g. consistency with the Quarterly Ro-Ro Goods Vehicle survey; linkages to
data collected by HMRC on imports and exports.
The review will need to be tailored as it progresses in the light of user and data supplier
consultation responses and discussions in the Project Board.
The quality review needs to take explicit account of the requirements of survey control
reviews so that it also serves this purpose. Given that compliance costs exceed £250,000
per annum a survey control review requires an independent observer and that the review
A-3
project is managed, conditions this quality review meets. Such a survey control review
should evaluate:








the need for information
the conduct of the survey
costs to respondents (compliance)
costs to government
respondents' views
users' views
options for change
minimising burden on small businesses
international comparisons
3. Expansion of review topic areas
Notes relating to each of the main review aims are set out below.
3.1 User needs & data quality
User consultation
This should be the initial central focus of the Quality Review since the findings are likely to
determine other avenues which need to be examined during the review process, or
determine recommendations for further work. User needs will be established by sending out
a questionnaire to data users, and personal interviews with major users will also be
considered. Paper MSDQR (1)4 presents an outline plan for user consultation, including an
initial list of organisations or individuals who should be consulted. A draft user questionnaire
is presented in Paper MSDQR (1)6.
Known problem areas
There is one known data quality issue currently which should be addressed as part of the
review, or subsequently as part of the review recommendations:

diverging trends in recent years between the Maritime information for Ro-Ro (HGVs
and unaccompanied trailers) traffic on east coast routes and the Quarterly Ro-Ro
Goods Vehicle Survey - a problem identified recently by MDS Transmodal when
producing traffic forecasts for DfT as part of the Ports Policy Review process.
The relationship between these two surveys has already been looked at in the Road Freight
Surveys Quality Review, resulting in improvements being made to procedures (e.g. for
SLAM1 to notify SLAM 4 of new routes and closures already being noted by SLAM1 for
maritime survey purposes). The Review should take stock of the position now reached and
what further actions need to be taken.
Part of the problem may be the definition of what is being recorded as "unaccompanied
trailers" in the Quarterly Ro-Ro Goods Vehicle Survey. The MSD system separately
identifies HGV unaccompanied trailers (which are recorded in the Quarterly Ro-Ro study),
and "shipborne port to port trailers" (which are used by shipping lines between ports to
transport containers where there are considered to be no Lo-Lo facilities, and which should
not be recorded in the Quarterly Ro-Ro survey, since the trailers are not used outside ports
on the road network). The Quarterly Ro-Ro survey does not differentiate between the two, so
A-4
a mixture might be reported and not on a consistent basis. There is the additional
complication in reporting of "mafi" trailers, which is a term widely used in the industry but not
specifically mentioned in either survey (in the case of the quarterly survey, to discount it); it is
a trailer used to transport the container on board where there are no Lo-Lo facilities but it is
not clear if they are also transported by the ship with the container, or taken off. If the former
then they should be reported as shipborne port to port trailers, but if the latter then they
should, at least in principle, be reported as containers. More precise definitions are needed
in both surveys.
It is becoming increasingly important to be able to distinguish between containers which are
loaded using conventional Lo-Lo facilities and containers which are loaded by Ro-Ro (the
shipborne port to port trailers/mafis). This is because as Lo-Lo facilities become stretched
due to increased demand, more containers (it is thought) are going through Ro-Ro ports.
Known data gaps
There are areas where more data is known to be needed but cannot be obtained from the
current system, which need to be specifically addressed:

Transhipment of containers: this information may be available separately from the
main container ports e.g. Felixstowe, Southampton via port community systems and
would not need to be integrated with the main MSD data collection system. (Note
also that MDS Transmodal has carried out a study on transhipment as part of the
Ports Policy Review which may give further insights to what is available and what is
needed.)

Detailed commodity information: imports through individual ports by detailed
commodity description, e.g. for contingency planning

Inland origin and destination of port traffic (especially unitised). This is outside the
scope of the MSD system and of the Maritime Statistics Directive, but is a well known
gap - highlighted again in the recent Transport Select Committee report on The Ports
Industry in England and Wales (24 Jan 2007). Previous surveys of inland origins and
destinations have been carried out, however the difficulty of such work increased
substantially after customs controls within Europe ceased in the early 1990s. As a
result some freight models continue to use 1991 data from the last survey conducted
in the 'Customs data' era in preference to 1996 survey results.
Publication, presentation and availability of data
Comprehensive data is published in Maritime Statistics annually (in October). A separate
annual sea passenger bulletin is also published electronically each March, but following
consultation with key stakeholders the publication of quarterly sea passenger statistical
releases is being discontinued. The Review may wish to review the scope and presentation
of these publications. The following considerations should be taken into account:

the annual bulletin has been produced in largely the same format for several years,
which gives continuity.

many of the annual tables are produced largely automatically from the maritime data
analysis and grossing system and the routines would have to be re-written if large
scale changes were made.
A-5

the annual tables would have to be produced anyway to provide base summary data
each year for briefing, analysis etc, and if they were not then there are likely to be
many more ad hoc requests for information which would require special Access
queries. There is then a danger of getting fragmented, slightly variant data
presentations for similar purposes which is likely to cause considerable confusion to
data users, especially given the inherent complexity of many of the data sets (in
terms of technical definitions principally, and the number of variables)
There are also data confidentiality issues which need to be addressed. At the moment the
guiding principle is that no data should be made available which would identify individual
data providers, without their permission. On occasions when this has arisen, data providers
have been asked for permission to release data. There is, however, no specific algorithm
which determines whether a particular operator is being identified in any ad hoc request - it is
considered on an individual basis whether there is likely to be disclosure, taking into account
the structure of the industry in the particular case. As far as ports are concerned, the major
ports are informed in a covering letter that their data will be published unless they write in
and say it should not be. Generally ports are less sensitive about the release of data.
Shipping lines, on the other hand, are usually more guarded about what can be made
available because of the release of potentially useful information to competitors.
It should be noted that data has been made available to two universities under user
agreements.
Charging arrangements - so far no charges have been made for data although the approach
is to reserve the right to do so if the data extraction effort is significant. There is a need to be
consistent with other statistics divisions in DfT and ONS policy generally.
3.2 Burden of data collection on data providers
The compliance costs to businesses of providing the MSD data were estimated initially when
the present survey was started in 2000 at £850,000 per year. The cost of providing sea
passenger returns is estimated at £15,000 per year.
Six years on, the MSD system has bedded down, it is largely electronic, and improvements
have been made to the customised electronic input system, SDES (Statistical Data Entry
System) so that there is a need to estimate afresh the costs to data providers.
This will need to be done separately for the different sorts of data provision i.e.
ASCII files
GESMES (the two port community system providers)
SDES
Paper
The first two data provision methods are unlikely to take much operator time since they have
generally been set up to work automatically. SDES requires operators to input into the
database system individual records about freight trips; it should therefore be relatively easy
to estimate average time to complete records from a sample of data providers. Similarly for
paper forms, it should be fairly easy to estimate average completion time. Paper forms are
likely to take the most time per record/form to complete (and probably a disproportionate
amount of the total compliance costs) since much of the information (e.g. on ship details) will
have to be repeated on each paper form. (The SDES system has the facility to store
frequently used data, has drop down menus to avoid looking up codes etc).
A-6
At the same time data providers will also be asked to comment on how the existing system
could be made easier, and whether they might use alternative methods of data submission
which are under consideration.
An outline of the data provider consultation plans is given in Paper MSDQR (1)4, and a draft
questionnaire in Paper MSDQR (1)5.
3.3 Processes
Overview
There are two separate surveys carried out as part of the MSD system, one covering
passenger traffic and one covering freight traffic to and from UK ports. Both surveys are
primarily designed to meet the requirements of an EU maritime statistics Directive 95/64/EC.
Both surveys have been in operation in their current form (with some mostly relatively minor
modifications) since January 2000. The processes essentially deliver what is required by the
EU Directive - no more, no less.
EU data requirements are currently met within the required timescales. A recent EU proposal
to make the collection of data by commodity group (using NST2000) mandatory would have
posed considerable problems for the UK since much of the data, principally goods on Ro-Ro
and in containers, cannot be identified by commodity. The current system could not be
modified to do so without prohibitive costs to both the Department and to data providers.
However, a compromise has been negotiated at EU level which should allow the current UK
collection system to continue with no change to data providers.
The passenger traffic survey is carried out entirely in house by one full time Executive Officer
(EO) and a small part of one Higher Executive Officer (HEO). It is a relatively small scale
enquiry surveying around 33 ferry and 25 cruise lines quarterly. The information is supplied
principally by fax or in spreadsheets and the data input to a bespoke Access database. The
data is published annually in a Statistical Bulletin (and until recently, in less detail, quarterly
in Statistical Releases). The passenger survey covers both international and domestic sea
passenger journeys, and both ferry traffic and passengers on cruises which start or finish at
a UK sea port. All the major shipping lines are surveyed and the response rate is very high.
The freight traffic survey is a much more complex study which involves carrying out a census
of shipping lines or their agents, and also port operators, quarterly. A census is carried out
because it would not be possible to take a sample which would adequately capture the huge
variation in journeys, by cargo type, for each port of origin and destination by individual
ships, to provide the information needed for the Directive. The same information is effectively
counted twice, once by ports to provide baseline figures (essentially capturing traffic coming
into and out of ports by cargo category, but no details of ships, routes etc), and once by
shipping lines or their agents who supply the detail - e.g. port of origin/destination, ship
characteristics. The information is then matched in the system to fill out the data matrix and
there is a "grossing" procedure to estimate for non-response by shipping lines/agents. The
above applies to "major" UK ports which account for 97 per cent of UK traffic. Less
information is collected annually from the minor ports (tonnes/units in and out of ports).
Although the information is supplied quarterly, the Department only publishes detailed results
annually, in Maritime Statistics in October (with highly summarised provisional results in
May). Quarterly results are supplied to Eurostat because this is a requirement of the
Directive, but these results are regarded by DfT as less robust and provisional only. They are
then finalised at the end of each year by DfT when the annual results are finalised and the
quarterly estimates for the year are recalibrated.
A-7
BMT processes
The freight data collection is carried out by the Department's collection agents BMT. Most of
the information is collected electronically (see section 3.2 above). BMT carry out two sorts of
validation checks - basic checks to make sure the data adds correctly, includes only valid
codes etc and more elaborate checks which identify duplicate records, cargoes which cannot
be carried in specified ship types etc. Some of these checks cause validation failures; others
alert the data providers to possible errors in the data but are advisory only and do not cause
validation failures. Parameters for these non basic validations are set in the system but can
be modified to suit changed circumstances. Reminder letters are sent to chase nonresponders.
BMT activities were subjected to a full audit during their first year of operation (2005), at the
end of which they were judged to be delivering the required outputs as currently defined in
the specification, so the review need not look further into this aspect.
Consideration in the review might, however, be given to how processes may be made more
efficient and less of a burden on data providers (although it is worth noting that various
improvements have been made since the survey was started mainly making SDES a better,
easier to use tool). As regards other parts of the system BMT are keen to make their internal
operations more efficient because it is in their interests to do so.
DfT processes
BMT send the validated data to DfT weekly. DfT carry out further validation checks of a more
subtle nature to identify other data problems - for example to match coastwise traffic coming
into a particular port, (reported by one set of agents) with the reporting of the same traffic
being sent to the port, from another (reported by another set of agents). The DfT checks are
essentially credibility or sanity checks to make sure the output makes sense. The accuracy
of the output data from the system is vulnerable, for example, to non or under reporting by a
major shipping line or for a major route which may go undetected (validation checks will not
pick this up), and which may have a severely distorting effect on the results. The system will
simply attempt to estimate for this missing information by using what information has been
provided by ports in the baseline data set. This process will usually result in calling up
shipping lines or agents to identify the problem, before resolving it.
The data from BMT is loaded into the bespoke maritime data system. The system takes in
ship details from the Lloyds Register Fairplay database (purchased by DfT), and the ships
(based on the unique LRN as the link variable) are matched up with the traffic data to
expand the data sets with all the information needed on ship type, ownership, registration
etc. The system aggregates the data into the 52 major "statistical ports" based on reporting
port information (e.g. the Port of London comprises a number of reporting units which
together make up the statistical Port of London. The reason for doing this is that the data is
much more robust at the statistical port level - shipping lines may, for example, report traffic
coming into Purfleet (within the Port of London) whereas other lines may report traffic
coming into Purfleet as "London"). The system estimates for non-response by "grossing up".
It does this relatively simply each quarter for provisional results for Eurostat, and then more
complex grossing is carried out annually for the final results (plus recalibrated final quarterly
data for Eurostat). The system also produces output tables for Maritime Statistics in final or
near final format.
One other major task undertaken within the branch is processing "expanded" data from ports
(on the form MSD2x), validating and then inputting it to the MSD system. This is an integral
part of the processing and results system because this information is used to produce the
A-8
ports "baseline", which is linked to more detailed information on individual trips supplied by
shipping lines and agents to expand the data set.
In summary, the DfT MSD processes in-house involve the collection and inputting of data (a
relatively small amount of data, however, compared to the whole data set), validation,
aggregation, bringing in extra data sets, grossing for non response, recalibration to get final
quarterly data, and the sending of results to Eurostat (via Eurostat's own data transmission
system), and provision of tabular outputs for Maritime Statistics in final or near final format.
One EO has responsibility for the computing aspects of the MSD system (plus other
computing work e.g. maintaining and producing analyses from the shipping fleet database).
One EO works full time on MSD freight principally on validation, clearing up errors by going
back to shipping lines and agents, chasing persistent non-respondents and answering ad
hoc enquiries. One HEO manages the whole production process, and responds to ad hoc
requests.
There are detailed desk instructions covering the various parts of the system.
The following areas (in addition to those already mentioned) may be worth looking at, from
several points of view, as part of the review to meet the review objectives e.g. efficiency
gains, minimising burdens, meeting user needs, etc:
(i) Review the way the various MSD functions are carried out in DfT to see if these could be
done more efficiently. They naturally fall into the following areas:





computerised MSD data system
data input (passenger data and supplementary ports data on the form MSD2X)
quality of data issues - validation and data correction
chasing (persistent) non-responders
output data production and publication
(ii) There is an issue concerning data for minor ports; very basic details covering tonnes and
units in and out (separately) are recorded each year as part of the standard processes. The
cargo details, however, are based on distributions estimated in [1997] with various
subsequent ad hoc adjustments. Minor ports are relatively unimportant (they account for only
2.7 per cent of tonnage). The question is should the base estimates by cargo type be
updated (in a new one-off survey); or should a cargo category breakdown be discontinued
(with consequential changes to some of the published tables in MS); or should the status
quo be maintained making the best available estimates using very dated information.
(iii) Validation parameters could be re-visited to see if they are still relevant and set at the
most appropriate level.
3.4 Related data sets
Information from HMRC on imports and exports is a potential source to get much more
detailed commodity information at individual UK ports, and which might also identify goods
carried in containers - desirable from a security point of view. However, there are likely to be
considerable difficulties in matching data – Customs’ main concerns are to get value correct,
particularly in total for all modes, so weight, mode and port are likely to be less important and
reliable. Also since the introduction of the single market the information on intra EU traffic
has been considerably reduced. Nevertheless it would be very desirable to take a fresh look
A-9
at what is available, how accurate it is and whether there likely to be any benefit to looking
into the data source in more detail.
Some maritime traffic data is also collected by others e.g. the Maritime & Coastguard
Agency (MCA), who are developing a harmonised system for EU reporting requirements
about goods/materials going through ports (e.g. hazardous waste), and Transec who collect
some traffic information for port security purposes. The overlap, such as it is, is not
significant. Nevertheless there needs to be greater transparency and awareness of what is
available, for what purpose, to avoid duplication of effort and extra burdens on ports in
providing information.
Consistency with the DfT Ro-Ro enquiry was covered in section 3.1 above.
4. Users, stakeholders etc.
The stakeholders for the review include the data providers (shipping lines, ports and their
agents), Government users (e.g. Port and Shipping policy Divisions, DfT economists, ONS,
HMT, HMRC, Cabinet Office, devolved administrations), port associations (UKMPG and
BPA), the Chamber of Shipping, shipping companies, port authorities, Eurostat/European
Commission, transport consultants & researchers and academics, and the Transport
Statistics User Group. Detailed proposals for stakeholder consultation are given in Papers
MSDQR (1)4, 5 & 6.
5. People involved in the review
A Project Board and Working Group have been established in accordance with the Guidance
for National Statistics Quality Reviews
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/data/methodology/quality/reviews/default.asp. Their key
roles are summarised below - more detailed discussion may be found in the above guidance.
Project Board [the Review Group]
Antonia Roberts
Phil Carey
John Dempster
John Dowden
Mike Garratt
David Glen
Angela Jeffrey
Peter Marlow
David Milroy
Charles Stride
David Whitehead
Chief Statistician, DfT
Ports Division
UK Major Ports Group
The Chamber of Shipping
MDS Transmodal Limited
London Metropolitan
University
Port of London Authority
Cardiff University
Shipping Policy Division
Institute of Chartered
Shipbrokers
British Ports Association
Review Sponsor, chairperson
Internal user
External user, data provider
External user
External user
External user
External user, data provider
External user
Internal user
Data provider
External user, data provider
The main function of the review group is to provide strategic direction in helping the review to
meet its objectives. Through its membership the Project Board should provide an external
perspective and oversee the review, taking account of wider issues related to the work areas
involved.
A - 10
Working Group [the Review Team]
Jeremy Grove
Steve Wellington
Ken Robson
DfT Maritime Statistics
branch
DfT Maritime Statistics
branch
Maritime Data Solutions LLP
Review manager
Review team member
External consultant
The Review Manager is responsible to the Project Board for the effective day-to-day
management and control of the review. The Review Manager, in consultation with the
Working Group, has overall editorial control over the contents of the Review Report and its
recommendations but in doing so must pay due regard to the views of the Review Sponsor
and the Project Board.
The external consultant has been recruited to assist the work of the Working Group by
undertaking the majority of the user consultation and the process review, researching some
of the other issues under review and writing (in consultation with the Working Group) the
initial review report and recommendations.
6. Final report
The final review report will be produced by the Working Group in consultation with the Office
for National Statistics to ensure that it meets quality assurance standards for National
Statistics. A draft will be presented to the Project Board for review. An indicative contents list
for the report is given in Paper MDSQR (1)7.
7. Outline timetable for the review process
A detailed project plan is provided for consideration by the Project Board in the Paper
MSDQR (1)3 and this will be reviewed and updated as necessary as the review proceeds. In
summary, the key points of the proposed timetable are as follows:
Activity
Complete by
Set up Project Board, contact ONS
Appoint Working Group and external consultants/assessors
First meeting of Project Board to discuss PID, consultation
questionnaires, and timetable
Carry out user and data provider consultations and other work
agreed through PID & Project Board meeting
Working Group prepare draft report
Second Meeting of Project Board to discuss draft report
Report to ONS for approval
Production of final report and publication
Mid Jan
Mid Jan
Mid Feb
Jeremy Grove
Review Manager
29 January 2007
A - 11
End Mar
Mid May
Early June
Mid June
Tba
Appendix 2
Data User Consultation
CONTENTS
A2.1
Results of Data User Consultation
A2.2
Data User Questionnaire
A2.3
Organisations Contacted
A2.4
TSUG Seminar on Maritime Statistics Review - DfT Minutes
A - 12
A2.1 Data User Consultation
Introduction
The Data User Questionnaire included both quantitative and qualitative questions. The
former were designed to identify the means and frequency of access to various publications
as a whole and more specifically to the various sections of the “Maritime Statistics”. The
qualitative questions were open ended to enquire whether users had suggestions for
improving any aspect of the publications in respect of the presentation, timeliness or content.
A copy of the questionnaire is included in Section A2.2 below.
The questionnaire was distributed by e–mail to a total of seventy-seven known users of the
data and others thought to have an interest in maritime statistics. A listing of organisations
contacted directly is included in Section A2.3. Members of the Project Board were invited to
circulate additional copies, and the questionnaire was also posted on the DfT web site.
Fifty-six completed questionnaires were received between 15 February and 24 April. Some
very useful material was gathered in the review ranging from detailed comments about
desirable information, gaps and presentation, to more general observations about the data.
It is important to note that while the results are necessarily summarised largely in qualitative
terms, it should not be assumed that every response necessarily implies a similar underlying
'amount' of use of maritime data. Results used by a smaller number of users may be of
greater importance to them than another set of more widely used results. In some cases the
views of a number of major users were recorded on a single questionnaire. It is not thought
that this seriously compromises the results obtained, especially the overall qualitative
impressions, but should be considered before reading too much into 'rankings' of different
sub-sets of the data.
On 14 February 2007 the finalised data user questionnaire was distributed by e–mail to a
total of seventy-seven known users of the data and others thought to have an interest in
maritime statistics. A copy of the finalised questionnaire is included at the end of this section.
The list of contacts was compiled by DfT from in-house information; it comprised eleven
Project Board (PB) members and sixty-six others. A total of fifty-nine organisations were
represented. A listing of organisations contacted is included at the end of this section. The
questionnaire was also posted on the DfT’s quality review programme web site for other
interested parties to download and complete.
Characteristics of Respondents
A total of fifty-six completed questionnaires were received between 15 February and 24
April, an overall response rate of 73%:




9 from PB members directly (82% of sample)
37 from the known user list (56% of sample)
7 from others via onward transmission from PB members
3 downloaded from DfT web site
Of these, fifty-four questionnaires were received by e-mail and two by facsimile.
Respondents could be categorised into five groups, broken down thus:
 Central Government
10 (18%)
A - 13




Devolved Administrations/Local Government
Industry
13 (23%)
10 (18%)
Industry Representative Bodies
Research/Consultants (including academia)
8 (14%)
15 (27%)
Detailed Responses
Q1. Do you use maritime statistics in your organisation (i.e., UK maritime freight and
passenger traffic information?)
Forty-nine respondents (88%) did use maritime statistics in their work whereas seven did
not.
Q2. What is your particular area of interest? (Commercial/market information, Policy,
Forecasting, General background on trends etc., Academic research, Economic
modelling, Transport modelling, Other)
All areas of interest were represented.
 46 respondents (82%) did use maritime statistics data and categorised themselves within
at least one of the suggested areas of interest, broken down into:
Area of interest
Market information
Policy
Forecasting
General background on trends etc
Research
Economic
Transport modelling
Other
All survey respondents (inc. nonrespondents to this question)



Number of respondents making suggestion
Devolved
Industry
Research
Admins /
Rep
Industry / consult.
Local Govt.
Bodies
6
8
5
4
3
8
9
9
4
11
4
4
5
14
9
7
0
5
0
1
0
4
3
1
1
4
2
1
1
2
2
1
10
15
13
8
Central
Govt
1
4
3
7
0
0
1
2
Total
24
33
26
42
6
8
9
8
10
56
3 did use statistical data but felt their activities fell outside the defined areas (5%).
4 organisations carried out at least one of the defined activities but did not use maritime
statistics data in doing so (8%).
3 did not use maritime statistics nor had any interest in doing so (5%) (Two of these
respondents were shippers, who had received the questionnaire via their industry body,
and the other was a maritime body contacted via the general trawl - none of them offered
substantive comments on subsequent questions).
Q3. If you are a user of maritime data are you aware of the information produced by
the DfT?
Forty-seven respondents (84%) were aware of DfT publications whereas nine were not.
A - 14
Q4. Which DfT publications are you aware of? (Maritime Statistics annual statistical
reports, Focus on Ports, Department website pages on maritime statistics, Sea
Passenger bulletin, Transport Statistics Great Britain (maritime sections), Other
ports and shipping statistics requested direct from DfT)
Responses to this question were counted and then scored as ‘2’ (regular user), ‘1’
(occasional user) or ‘0’ (don’t use or not aware of). Of the 47 respondents the user
awareness and popularity of various DfT publications were:
Publication
Number of responses
Score
% Not
aware
Regular Occasional Aware of
Not
user
user
but don't Aware of
use
Maritime Statistics
annual statistical reports
20
22
2
2
62
4
Department website
pages on maritime
statistics
12
25
6
2
49
4
Transport Statistics GB
9
24
7
6
42
13
Focus on Ports
7
19
8
9
33
19
Other
6
16
6
15
28
32
Sea Passenger Bulletin
2
13
7
18
17
38
Analysis of responses to this question indicate that all DfT’s maritime statistics publications
are used on a regular basis though it appears the annual “Maritime Statistics” publication is
very well known and used most often. The “Sea Passenger Bulletin” is least well known and
only used fairly infrequently even by those that are aware of it.
Q5. How do you access the statistics? (Printed publication, DfT web site (.pdf
document), DfT web site (spreadsheet), Ad-hoc request)
A total of 45 respondents answered this question in some form:




32 respondents (71% of those answering) download .pdf files from the DfT web site
26 use printed publications (58%)
19 download spreadsheets from the DfT web site (42%)
14 make ad hoc requests to the DfT for information (31%)
A - 15
Q6. What is your preferred method of accessing the statistics? (Printed publication,
DfT web site (.pdf document), DfT web site (spreadsheet), Ad-hoc request, Other)
A total of 47 respondents answered this question in some form:





25 respondents (53% of those answering) prefer downloading .pdf files.
21 prefer to use printed publications (45%)
20 prefer to download spreadsheets from the DfT web site (43%)
10 prefer making ad hoc requests to the DfT for information (21%)
4 would prefer another medium such as being given access to the raw data or by having
it sent to them on some form of storage media such as CD-ROM.
Responses to questions 5 and 6 indicate that users find all forms of output media to be
helpful and many access the data via a number of means. Download of portable document
format (pdf) files is most popular (possibly on cost grounds) but printed outputs are also well
used. For those wishing to analyse or sort the data themselves the spreadsheet outputs are
also popular. Ten of the fourteen users making ad hoc requests to the DfT for data or
analysis were from central or local government, which may suggest they prefer this route
because they have direct access to or know the data providers, or 'expect' such channels to
be open to them.
Data analysis reveals very similar user preferences in output format for .pdf files, hard copy
and spreadsheets and each type has strengths and weaknesses. Most users prefer to
access the data via a number of means perhaps to overcome the weaknesses inherent in
each. On the face of it perhaps this makes the case for continuing with all types of outputs.
The proportions expressing a preference for paper publications were higher for industry
representative bodies and consultants/researchers than for local and central government.
Central government was notably keener on ad-hoc enquiries than other groups, contributing
6 of the 10 responses in this category. No researchers / consultants expressed a preference
for this option.
For reasons such as confidentiality as well as the data volumes and costs involved it is felt
unlikely that DfT will ever be able to supply data in its raw ‘as received’ format. Similarly, the
cost for data transfer and production of CDs may make this route prohibitive considering the
data are already available for download from the web site.
Q7. Please tell us what information you have used, and for what purpose. If you can,
please be specific about any particular results you use. If you have several
distinct needs, please tell us about them separately.
The results indicated that respondents have a wide variety of uses for maritime statistics
output data. Of the 43 respondents to detail their area of interest several highlighted more
than one use resulting in 48 answers:





17 respondents (36% of those answering) used the outputs to compare cargo
throughputs of different UK ports of which 9 (19%) used them for only this purpose.
8 developed port or wider transport policies based on the outputs (18%).
5 were interested in comparing ship traffic information (10%).
5 referred only to information on passenger numbers (10%).
5 used information on the UK ship register and emerging trends (10%).
A - 16




3 used all sections of all publications and had a wide interest in the outputs (6%).
2 reported using seafarer employment data (4%).
2 sought only to use the data as a cross-check of data gathered from other sources
(4%).
1 used data as a source of information on which ports are able to handle which cargoes
(2%).
Q8. How often do you use the information from Maritime Statistics annual statistical
report?
Responses to this question were counted and then scored as ‘2’ (regularly), ‘1’ (occasionally)
or ‘0’ (never). The popularity of various sections of the annual “Maritime Statistics”
publication from the 47 respondents that expressed an opinion on at least one topic is
presented in the table below.
Bearing in mind the responses to question 7, where many respondents highlighted that they
used the data for port comparisons, it is not surprising that freight, particularly unitised
freight, handled in the UK’s ‘major’ ports is of most interest to data users. Conversely,
passenger and fleet statistics were used far more infrequently. However, all sections were
used, albeit infrequently for some, and to scale back the outputs in any area is likely to
disadvantage some users to some extent.
What the results from this analysis indicate is that DfT may wish to consider broadening both
the scope and detail of those sections of “Maritime Statistics” that are in more regular use.
Section
Containerised traffic
Major port traffic only
Individual port breakdowns
International freight
General cargo traffic
Ro-ro freight traffic
Time series (recent years)
Bulk traffic
Ro-ro passenger vehicle
traffic
Minor ports
Domestic freight
Short sea shipping
Rankings of UK ports
Historic statistics
Country of load/unload
Deep sea shipping
Ferry passengers
Notes and appendices
UK fleet
Cruise passengers
Commentary
Number of responses
Regularly Occasionally Never
21
21
4
19
22
6
22
16
7
17
24
5
15
27
3
17
22
5
15
23
8
11
28
7
13
22
9
15
12
12
12
10
13
12
10
4
11
6
2
18
23
22
22
26
19
20
21
29
10
19
26
A - 17
10
8
9
9
8
13
12
14
9
24
20
16
Score
% Never
use
63
60
60
58
57
56
53
50
48
9
13
15
11
6
11
17
15
19
48
47
46
46
46
45
44
41
37
32
31
30
21
17
19
19
17
28
26
30
19
51
43
34
Charts
World fleets
Freight by flag of vessel
Other (please specify below)
2
6
7
0
24
15
11
3
19
23
26
11
28
27
25
3
40
49
55
23
Q9. Turning now to the occasions where you have used this information, did the
information fully meet your needs? If your needs were not fully met, please
describe how.
The data met the needs of the majority of those responding (46). It:



fully met the needs of 59% (27 respondents).
partially met the needs of 37% (17 respondents).
failed to meet the need of 4% (2 respondents).
However, of those whose needs were not met, or only partially met, it tended to be because
specific and sometimes quite detailed data was missing. Alternatively, some needs were not
fully met because the data sought was outside the scope of the publication, for example
seeking detail on:













Commodities in minor ports (3).
Monetary value of cargoes (3).
Commodities carried by container (3).
Inland origin and destination (3).
Transhipment data (2).
Bulk commodities (2).
Breakdown of statistical ports into constituent parts (2).
Methods of inter-modal transport to/from ports (2).
Seafarer employment (2).
Raw vessel data and date of arrival (1).
Port employment detail (1).
Passenger fares paid and their true origin/destination (1).
Seasonal variation of trade (1).
More pertinent was that some users felt their needs were not fully met because of the
frequency and timeliness of the data (see Q10).
Q10. Do you have any concerns or comments about the data? For example, about
data quality, timeliness, ease of access, detail, presentation of reports, lack of
clarity in way presented.
Question 10 enquired whether respondents had any concerns or comments about the data
contained within the publications. Twenty-three respondents (including two who made
relevant comments in response to Q14) expressed some dissatisfaction with some aspect of
the publications or their contents, whereas thirty-three either made no comment or were
satisfied with them:
A - 18










13 (57%) considered the outputs would benefit from reducing the interval between the
end of data collection and publication. This was the only issue for 7 of these
respondents.
Publications are too infrequent and provisional outputs are needed as soon as available
rather than waiting for annual publication (2 respondents).
Produce an annual publication timetable and distribute widely (2).
Presentation of some results, particularly of identifying data sources (1).
Improve explanation of coastwise and inland waterway traffic (1).
Change from quarterly to annual publication of passenger data may adversely impact
business (1).
Clarify the differentiation between major ports and minor ports and, in particular, include
minor ports in Table 1.4 of “Maritime Statistics” (1).
The system of ‘grossing up’ returns from lines/agents to match those of port operators
can lead to inaccuracies when attempting to disaggregate the data to individual port level
(1).
Spreadsheet outputs should follow a consistent format to facilitate grouping without the
need for data manipulation (1).
Accuracy of some cruise ship information differs from other publicly available data (1).
The remainder of comments referred less to issues relating to the data as currently analysed
and presented and more to how respondents felt the publications could be improved by the
inclusion of more detail or of other data sets. Accordingly, such comments have been
merged with those in answer to questions 13 and 14.
Q11. Do you use, or are you aware of, other sources of data that would serve similar
purposes?
Only eighteen respondents indicated they were aware of other similar data. The results have
been grouped into one of six sources:






Commercial 'at cost' data (4).
Direct from vessel/port operators (4).
Overseas sources (3).
Port operator annual reports (1).
Statistics gathered from other governmental surveys (3).
Trade organisations (3).
Although respondents were aware of some other data most felt that none were as
comprehensive as that produced by the DfT. Drawbacks expressed of other data tends to be
its limited scope (covers only one port or vessel operator) or the cost of bespoke analyses. It
is also possible that some outputs produced by other organisations may also be
‘repackaged’ DfT data.
A - 19
Q12. If you haven't previously used any of the information can you envisage any
occasions in the future when you may require information of this kind?
Respondents provided seven negative, five positive and three conditional (depending on
future activities) answers to this question. One indicated they are likely to make more use of
the data in future now that they are more aware of the detail it contains.
Q13. What information would you like to see which is not currently produced?
In answer to this question a total of 27 respondents (48%) commented on what additional
information they would like presented in maritime statistics publications. Several respondents
provided a number of suggestions resulting in almost 50 comments. All suggestions were
paraphrased according to their content and grouped into themes in the table below.
Number of respondents making suggestion
Devolved
Research Admins/ Industry Central
Industry
Total
/ Consult.
Local
Reps
Govt
Govt
Data user suggestion
Inland destination/origin details.
Means of inter-modal transport to/from ports.
Container and RO/RO contents.
Details of container trans-shipment activities.
Monetary value of cargoes.
Similar level of detail for individual terminals or
ports within 'statistical' ports, not just whole port.
More detail of bulk commodities.
For passenger statistics, need greater detail and
new specific data fields.
Level of detail on 'minor' ports the same as that
for 'major' ports.
Comparison of major UK container ports with
European competitors.
Expand commentary section to explain results.
More detail specifically related to fuel
imports/exports.
Volume of all imported/exported goods by all
modes of transport.
Cargo type cross-referenced to country of origin.
Foreign destination/origin.
More detail on seafarer employment.
Number of ship arrivals/departures at ports.
Port employment detail.
Provide online database for user queries.
Detail of ship/ship transfers.
More detail on crewing on UK ships.
Forecast of future port demand.
Include other activities such as value of fishing
and leisure.
Economic importance of ports.
More detail on cruise passengers.
A - 20
1
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
5
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
More detail on crewing trends on ships in UK
waters.
Passenger spending while in ports.
Up to date ship arrivals information.
1
1
1
1
1
1
Q14. Are there any observations you would like to make in general regarding the
collection and publication of maritime freight or passenger information?
Respondents were given the opportunity to make any other pertinent comment that had not
been detailed elsewhere on the questionnaire; twelve such comments were made though
two were felt to be more pertinent to question 10 and were transferred. Of the remaining ten:








2 respondents suggested making the data available in an online database (rather than as
a series of spreadsheets and documents) through which users could construct their own
queries. This will remove the need for users to study several files and permit the data to
be subjected to more clearly defined search parameters.
2 users requested that all the data currently available should be retained.
1 urged that the reporting burden on data providers be minimised.
1 suggested enforcing a fully electronic data supply regime.
1 expressed the need for access to raw data.
1 considered that public awareness of what data are available should be improved.
1 suggested the need for a new survey specifically to add detail for passenger routes (in
particular Scottish services).
1 suggested that the outputs should be co-ordinated with quarterly ro-ro survey.
A - 21
A2.2
Data User Questionnaire
A - 22
A - 23
A - 24
A - 25
A2.3 Organisations Contacted
 Advantage West Midlands
 Local Government Association
 Association of Inland Navigation Authorities
 London Development Agency
 Association of Inland Shipping Operators
 London Metropolitan University*
 Baxter Eadie
 Marine Accident Investigation Branch
 British International Freight Association
 Maritime and Coastguard Agency
 British Marine Federation
 Maritime London
 British Ports Association*
 MDS Transmodal Limited*
 British Waterways
 Nautilus UK
 Brittany Ferries
 North West Development Agency
 Cabinet Office
 Northern Ireland Assembly
 Cardiff University*
 Northern Lighthouse Board
 Coastlink Network Ltd.
 Ocean Shipping Consultants Ltd.
 Commissioners for Irish Lights
 Office for National Statistics
 Communities and Local Government
 One North East
 Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs
 Department for Transport*
 P & O Ferries
 Department of Trade and Industry
 Port of London Authority*
 Drewry Shipping Consultants
 PRB Associates
 East Midlands Development Agency
 RMT
 European Commission
 Scottish Executive
 Fisher Associates
 Sea and Water
 Freight Transport Association
 SITPRO Ltd.
 G P Wild Ltd.
 South East Development Agency
 HM Revenue & Customs
 The Chamber of Shipping*
 Imperial College
 Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers*
 The Chartered Institute of Logistics and
Transport
 Trinity House
 International Maritime Industries Forum
 UK Major Ports Group*
 IRN Research
 Welsh Assembly
 Lloyd's Marine Intelligence Unit
 Yorkshire Forward
 Passenger Shipping Association
 Lloyd's Register Fairplay
NB * signifies organisation represented on the Project Board.
A - 26
A2.4 TSUG Minutes
MARITIME STATISTICS – QUALITY REVIEW
TSUG Seminar - 21 March 2007
Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P
Attendees
Phil Carey
Jeremy Grove
Steve Wellington
John Dowden
Louise Swaden
Ken Robson
David Glen
David Greeno
David Pye
Dianne Foulkes
Sue Coleman
John Davidson
Qianwen Liu
Bill Eadie
Dick Scott-Kerr
Robin Whittaker
Mike Grant
DfT attendees
Rhoda Gakuru
John Gathercole
Philip Grindrod
Barinder Hundle
Nazir Pathan
Jeaur Raham
William Rose
Margaret Talbot,
Brian Turner
Anil Bhagat
Chair
DfT
DfT
BCoS
Fairplay
Consultant
LMU
Passenger Focus
LGA&R
THLS
THLS
M&CA
UCL
BELtd –CfPS
BELtd –CfPS
TSSA
MDST
Introduction
Phil Carey welcomed everyone to the TSUG seminar.
Jeremy Grove explained that the main purpose of the seminar was to obtain feed back from the group
about:
 the usefulness of the maritime statistics data that is collected and published
 the quality of the these statistics and how it could be improved
Jeremy also said that the review is being carried out in accordance with the National Statistics Code of
Practice and Survey Control requirements. Data collection is subject to survey control procedures and
the system for data collection system is now over six years old having been in place since 2000. The
main aims of the review are:
 to identify users’ needs
 to address data quality issues
 to consider whether other data sets might be available.
Maritime Statistics Data System
Steve Wellington then gave a presentation on the system as of now.
UK ports
These are vitally important to the UK economy, handling 95% (by weight) of imports and exports; other
imports and exports are by air and through the Channel Tunnel. The tonnage handled through the
ports in the UK is largest in Europe. In 2005 46% of the cargo was liquid bulk, 22% dry bulk, 9%
containers, 18% ro-ro and 5% ‘other’; in total 586 million tonnes of cargo was handled at UK ports in
2005.
Collection of data
Since 2000 detailed data on the freight traffic through major ports (those handling at least one million
tonnes of traffic per year) has been collected. Total tonnage data only has been collected for minor
ports. This system complies with the European Union directive on maritime data collection.
A - 27
Our agency (BMT) collects data on behalf of the Department via different media (SDES software,
ASCII format files, paper etc) from ports, shipping lines, agents and operators. Initial data validation is
done by the agency and further, ongoing, quality checks are done by DfT. The main results
(provisional) are published in May in the year following data collection; the final, detailed statistics are
published in October of that year. Final data is provided to the EU and data is also included in other
publications (for instance TSGB, Focus-on-ports, and Sea Passengers).
Despite what appears to be a comprehensive data collection system there are limitations:
 under reporting of data, particularly from agents or operators
 reporting of cargo details under the incorrect category
 late reporting of data
Use of the data
 Input into transport models and used for making projections
 Inform commercial investment and market positioning
 Inform Government interventions
 Inform planning decisions
 local level: planning and employment
 global level: UK position.
Quality Review – progress to date
Ken Robson summarised the results of his consultation to date.
Surveys
One hundred and eighty one questionnaires have been sent to data providers, of which 58% have
been returned. Seventy four have been sent to data users, of which 45% have been returned; it is this
survey that Ken can report on as DfT are analysing the results of the data provider questionnaire. The
main points are as follows:










the freight data in the Maritime Statistics publication are the most popular
.pdf files are used more often than the paper copy – they are easy to search
data on a CD was suggested
the spreadsheets on the website are popular as more analysis can then be done
there was a strong desire to keep the data in its present form, though some expressed a wish
to review the data.
half a dozen choices had been given in the ‘uses’ section and each option had been chosen by
at least one respondent.
the container traffic information is considered important
breakdown of information by individual port of breakdown is useful
58% of respondents were fully satisfied with the publication, 3% unsatisfied (i.e. 1 response)
and the rest were partially satisfied – often because a specific item of data was unavailable
most responders said that monthly or quarterly data would be more useful than annual data;
when annual data is provided there was a need for this to be published earlier in the year than
at present.
Data collection

Ken has investigated the ways in which data is collected and validated, for both freight and sea
passengers. He expects to make a number of recommendations about how both processes
could be improved both in terms of data quality and of efficiency. One suggestion was to
make available to the senders of data the information that we produce; this might improve the
quality of the data that the senders provide

MSD1 and MSD2 data are reconciled annually to MSD2X data so problems are only resolved
annually. It was suggested that data be reconciled more frequently (e.g. monthly or quarterly),
A - 28




so that possibly better quality data can be produced. In particular it was noted that annual
reconciliation removes any seasonality information.
More work could be done to compare Domestic Waterborne Freight statistics with Maritime
Statistics?
HMRC have freight data but there is very little overlap between it and the maritime statistics
data: HMRC are interested in the value of goods rather than weight of traffic and in addition
they do not collect data for imports from other EU countries. Information collected by HMRC
can be accessed on line at www.uktradeinfo.com
Data collection is to be increased by MCA but on current plans there is no overlap with DfT
data collection.
Passenger Shipping Association publishes monthly data on passengers so this may be a
source of information for sea passengers.
Questions and discussion


It was suggested that the collection of data should be brought ‘in-house’ to the Department.
DfT explained that the collection of data by our agency currently works well, and that some
validation work is carried out within DfT.

The question of non-response during the collection of MSD1 data was raised; as it was seen
as an issue the questioner asked whether any non-respondents had ever been taken to court.
DfT explained that so far no non-respondents had been taken to court; it was considered
better to obtain the data in other ways in order to try to maintain good relations with suppliers of
data.


The requirement to collect data so as to concur with the EU directive was referred to; the
questioner also asked whether this data meets the UK needs and whether more could be
collected if required. DfT replied that the review was taking place to answer these questions

There was a query as to how other EU countries collected the data that is required by the EU
directive; it is thought that other countries collect information directly from the ports as their
ports are more often in public ownership. In the UK lines and agents are used in addition to
the ports as most ports are privately owned.

In answer to a query about whether the port of origin (as opposed to previous port, which may
be different) is collected with other data it was stated that this information is not requested and
therefore not known.

The question of ‘mirror checks’ was raised (matching figures from for instance a French port to
a UK port and vice versa); DfT confirmed that mirror checks were carried out and showed
good matching.

It was once again suggested that as data is received weekly from BMT publishing monthly or
quarterly rather than just annually should be considered; this was noted.

The suggestion was made that the various surveys on Ro-Ro traffic could be brought together;
this was noted.
Group discussions
The meeting split into three groups for discussion of four questions. The following summarises the
outcome of these discussions:
1. To what extent do current data meet user requirements?


It was felt that ‘commercial confidentiality’ was sometimes applied unnecessarily; in many
cases information could be published.
Container traffic: it was felt that there was poor information on loading and that loading
information was needed to inform policy on weight limits and charging systems
A - 29


The issue of quarterly publications was raised again; estimates would be useful even if they
were later revised (compare Ro-Ro survey).
The example of rail freight data, and the frequency with which it is published, was mentioned.
2. What additional data are required?





Port of origin information – for transhipment studies
Transport chain information – including inland origin/destination and onward mode
Quarterly figures
Performance data – for asset utilisation
Value data
3. Why are these additional data required?




To inform the market
To identify any need for extra capacity
To inform the case for potential development in the regions
To quantify transhipment
4. Are there other potential sources of data or means of collection which should be
exploited?










Passengers Shipping Associations monthly data on passengers
Lloyds Register Fairplay (some already used)
Trade Press
FTA
Ship Charter Market
Aggregates companies
National Road Freight and Road User Survey
Trade information from HMRC
Tracking containers?
Financial data?
Review Timetable





April: analysis completed
May: draft report
19 June- Project Board considers report
Report Submitted to Ministers & ONS
Publish on ONS web site
Contact: [email protected]
Tel: 0207 944 4131
A - 30
Appendix 3
Data Provider Consultation
CONTENTS
A3.1
Results of Freight Data Provider Consultation
A3.2
(Freight) Data Provider Consultation Questionnaire
A3.3
Results of Sea Passenger Data Provider Consultation
A - 31
A - 35
A3.1 Freight Data Provider Consultation
Introduction
The data provider survey was carried out concurrently with the survey of data users and was
in large part handled by the DfT’s Maritime Statistics Collection Agency contractor, BMT
Reliability Consultants Ltd. The question set and sampling frame were agreed between the
DfT and BMT and administrative aspects, i.e., distributing, collating and data input, was
carried out by BMT.
The question set was primarily composed of quantitative questions although respondents
were also given the opportunity to expand their answers through comments. A copy of the
finalised Data Provider Questionnaire is included below in Section A3.2.
On 16 February 2007 the finalised data provider questionnaire was distributed by e–mail (to
those where this information was known) and by post to a total of one hundred and eightyone data providers.
A total of one hundred and ten completed questionnaires were received and much pertinent
information was gathered.
The data provider survey was in large part handled by the DfT’s Maritime Statistics
Collection Agency contractor, BMT Reliability Consultants Ltd. The question set and
sampling frame were agreed between the DfT and contractor and administrative aspects,
i.e., distributing, collating and data input, was carried out by them.
Freight Data Provider Sampling Plan
Survey population
Respondent type
MSD1
Major port (MSD4)
ASCII
GESMES
Paper
form
SDES
Total
"Poor"
respondent
s
24
2
151
187
364
118
8
1
33
35
77
43
62
3
65
48
Minor port
Total
32
3
246
225
506
ASCII
GESMES
Paper
form
SDES
Total
main
sample
"Poor"
respondent
boost
Total inc
boost
(half)
12
(all)
8
(both)
2
(qtr.)
37
(third)
11
(qtr.)
15
(qtr.)
46
(third)
12
(all)
3
97
20
117
31
10
41
18
5
23
63
61
146
35
181
Proposed sample
Respondent type
MSD1
Major port (MSD4)
Minor port
Total
20
2
A - 32
Notes:
1
2
3
Where not all respondents in a group were selected they were sorted by number of returns (MSD4 for ‘major’ ports
and total traffic for minor ports) then a systematic sample of 1 in 2 or 1 in 3 as required, starting from a random point.
For the boost, Sender IDs were selected randomly and if not already in the main sample added to the list until the
specified number of 'booster' cases was reached.
Each Sender ID in a given list was given the same chance of selection. The size of sample selected was governed by
the sampling fraction specified rather than the approximate number of cases in the above table.
Responding sample
In total there were 110 responses to the data provider survey, an overall response rate of
61%:






68 respondents (58% of sample) were shipping lines or agents and had previously
submitted only MSD1 returns
22 respondents (54% of sample) were major port operators and had submitted MSD2,
MSD3 and MSD4 returns
16 respondents (70% of sample) were minor port operators and therefore had previously
submitted only MSD5 returns
2 respondents were both shipping agents and major port operators and therefore had
sent MSD1, MSD2, MSD3 and MSD4 returns
2 records quoted a Sender ID code that had not submitted any returns
2 records quoted the same Sender ID code
Detailed Responses
Q1. How do you currently make returns? (ASCII, GESMES, SDES, Paper form)





6 respondents (30% of sample) used the ASCII flat file as their submission medium.
50 respondents (79% of sample) used paper forms
52 respondents (85% of sample) used the SDES
1 respondent used both ASCII and SDES
1 respondent used both paper forms and SDES
Q2. How many person hours does it take each year to complete and return the
MSD forms?
Responses to this question varied considerably in line with the number of returns submitted
per year. To enable a more representative comparison of the time (and hence costs)
incurred by data providers it was necessary to refer the time taken to the number of returns
submitted. Using data contained in the maritime statistics database (as of 4 July 2007) the
number of records was extracted for each data provider and averaged to an annual basis.
This was carried out separately for each submission medium and type of data provider, i.e.,
shipping line/agent, major port or minor port. The time spent per year was then divided by
the number of returns to determine the average time to complete and submit each record.
The assumptions made during this process include:

MSD1: Aggregating the number of records rather than the submissions, i.e., if more than
one cargo category has been reported then these are treated as separate records. In
A - 33




reality it does not take twice as long to report two cargo categories on a MSD1 return as
to report one because the vessel and respondent details do not have to be repeated.
MSD2: The number of returns submitted.
MSD3: The number of agent/line codes reported on the MSD3 return.
MSD4: The number of vessels reported on the MSD4 return.
MSD5: The number of returns submitted.
Survey results: Average time spent per record by data providers
Minimum average
time spent per
provider (minutes)
Maximum average Average time spent
time spent per
by ALL data
provider (minutes) providers per record
(minutes)
MSD1 returns
ASCII
0
3.3
0.31
SDES
0.9
168
4.95
Paper
0.2
150
5.35
ASCII
0.6
9.5
0.87
SDES
0.3
23.6
3.87
Paper
0.5
300
2.85
ASCII
-
-
-
SDES
60
1,800
1,100
Paper
15
720
111
MSD2, MSD3, MSD4 returns
MSD5 returns
The results indicate that even within the same data supply route there are large differences
between the minimum and maximum average time to supply a single record. In some cases
the maximum reflects unusual outliers from the majority of returns - however in most cases
these had a relatively modest effect on the overall results (and in the direction of increasing
the estimated data burden) and were retained in the analysis.
However, when all data supplied by the same route is assessed against the total time taken
by all providers it is apparent that the choice of submission route can be important in
minimising costs:


With an increasing data supply requirement the case for a system to produce ASCII flat
files can easily be justified. After absorbing the one-off costs associated with
implementing such a system there are usually minimal costs incurred subsequently
regardless of the amount of data submitted.
On average it takes approximately 0.4 minutes less per record to submit a MSD1 return
via the SDES than using a paper form, equating to a time saving of about 8%.
Surprisingly, the results indicate the use of paper forms is quicker than the SDES for
MSD2, MSD3, MSD4 and MSD5 returns although this possibly reflects the much smaller
A - 34
sample size and hence the possibility for the results to be skewed by over estimates of
time on a small number of SDES returns.
By and large the results detailed in the tables above, particularly for MSD1 returns, are not
unexpected and are entirely in line with advice given to data providers by the DfT from 2000
onwards.
To calculate the staff costs of data supply (‘other’ costs are analysed in question 3)
reference is made to the standard “06/07 Compliance Costs” as defined by government:
Management level
Hourly rate
Director
£78.84
Senior manager
£61.32
Middle manager
£42.33
Junior manager
£32.12
Clerical
£20.41
For the purposes of calculating the costs to data providers of the freight survey the 'Junior
Manager' grade has been used throughout, based on the assumption that the work required
is largely a clerical task, but that some intervention from more senior or specialist staff may
also be required form time to time, and that therefore the Junior Manager rate represents a
reasonable 'average'.
Using data contained in the maritime statistics database and presented in Appendix 6 the
total year on year costs of data supply across all providers has been calculated. Note that a
small proportion of returns for 2006 remained outstanding when these calculations were
made.
MSD1 Returns – total data provider staff costs by submission route
Submission route
Year
ASCII
Paper
SDES
Web
GESMES
Total
2000
£14,000
£119,000
£104,000
£4,000
£36,000
£278,000
2001
£13,000
£73,000
£129,000
£2,000
£28,000
£244,000
2002
£12,000
£58,000
£135,000
£1,000
£27,000
£234,000
2003
£12,000
£53,000
£134,000
£0
£28,000
£226,000
2004
£11,000
£51,000
£125,000
£0
£29,000
£217,000
2005
£10,000
£52,000
£129,000
£0
£28,000
£218,000
2006
£8,000
£47,000
£119,000
£0
£27,000
£201,000
Notes: 1
2
3
4
Time per record based on the average time spent by ALL data providers.
Calculation based on number of records multiplied by time per record multiplied by staff cost.
The cost per record submitted by the web is assumed to be similar to that of the SDES. Web submission ceased
during 2002.
Port Community Systems (who provide GESMES data) charge their customers per ship rather than per record, and
the cost has remained constant throughout the period. The figures shown for GESMES data are therefore
estimates of the PCS charges to shipping agents for submitting GESMES data, based on container ship arrival
statistics, rather than staff costs.
A - 35
MSD2, MSD3 and MSD4 Returns – total data provider staff costs by submission route
Submission route
Year
ASCII
Paper
SDES
Web
GESMES
Total
2000
£10,000
£8,000
£37,000
£200
£0
£55,000
2001
£9,000
£8,000
£30,000
£100
£0
£47,000
2002
£9,000
£8,000
£27,000
£0
£0
£44,000
2003
£7,000
£8,000
£27,000
£0
£0
£42,000
2004
£8,000
£8,000
£26,000
£0
£0
£42,000
2005
£6,000
£13,000
£26,000
£0
£0
£45,000
2006
£5,000
£14,000
£25,000
£0
£0
£44,000
MSD5 Returns – total data provider staff costs by submission route
Submission route
Year
ASCII
Paper
SDES
Web
GESMES
Total
2000
£0
£5,000
£4,000
£600
£0
£10,000
2001
£0
£5,000
£3,000
£0
£0
£8,000
2002
£0
£5,000
£3,000
£0
£0
£8,000
2003
£0
£5,000
£3,000
£0
£0
£7,000
2004
£0
£5,000
£2,000
£0
£0
£7,000
2005
£0
£5,000
£2,000
£0
£0
£7,000
2006
£0
£5,000
£1,000
£0
£0
£6,000
Summary of annual staff costs by respondent type
Year
Agents/lines
(MSD1)
Major ports
(MSD2,3,4)
Minor ports
(MSD5)
Total
2000
£278,000
£55,000
£10,000
£342,000
2001
£244,000
£47,000
£8,000
£299,000
2002
£234,000
£44,000
£8,000
£285,000
2003
£226,000
£42,000
£7,000
£275,000
2004
£217,000
£42,000
£7,000
£265,000
2005
£218,000
£45,000
£7,000
£270,000
2006
£201,000
£44,000
£6,000
£252,000
A - 36
To summarise the results:





The majority of costs to UK businesses in complying with the requirements of the
Maritime Statistics Directive are borne by shipping agents/lines. The annual staff cost to
these companies was about £220,000 in 2005, although there has been a consistent
year on year reduction. This corresponds to roughly £600 a year on average per
company.
The staff cost to port operators is dependent on the port’s cargo throughput; ‘major’ ports
have a greater reporting requirement than ‘minor’ ports. The total annual cost to all the
UK’s major ports was in the region of £45,000 in 2005, and that to minor ports about
£7,000. This corresponds to an average of £600 per reporting major port operator, and
£110 per minor port operator. Again, in both cases overall costs have decreased since
2000.
The ASCII flat file submission is the most cost effective solution even after allowing for
the one-off implementation costs.
Where available, the use of third party data providers (the PCS) appears to offer good
value for money when compared to other submission routes.
For the majority of MSD1 data providers the cost of using the SDES to make returns is
less than for paper forms.
Q3. Do you incur any other costs (that is, other than staff time) in completing
these forms, which you would not incur otherwise? Please give overall
amount (£/year) (e.g. fees or support costs for MSD forms specifically)
Very few data providers reported there were other costs associated with supplying their data
over and above their staff costs. All of those that did were agents rather than ports. Of the
seven (6%) data providers that reported a cost, five were £30 per year or less and cited
stationery, postage and printing. One reported an annual cost of £300 for ‘IT support’ and
one reported £200 for unspecified reasons. Assuming the costs reported among the sample
were representative, and extrapolating to the whole population gives an overall estimate of
under £5,000, thus the total annual cost to respondents would remain below £280,000 and
that to shipping lines and agents under £225,000.
Q4. Is the information required readily available from your records? If not, what
items are most difficult to extract?
The majority of data providers had little difficulty in collating the information for their returns:
ninety-five (86%) indicated the data were readily available whereas fifteen reported having to
collate information from other sources before they could compile their returns.
Q5. Bearing in mind the scope of the data collected is fixed in a European
Directive, can you suggest any ways in which the present collection
system could be altered to make it easier for you to provide the data?
Please provide details.
Data providers made a number of suggestions proposing what they felt would be beneficial
in easing their reporting burden. A total of sixteen substantive comments were made
suggesting, among others:
A - 37








Introduction of a browser based system for data supply (4 respondents).
Detailed vessel/cargo reporting should be provided by relevant port authority (2
respondents).
Giving the collection agency access to a data provider’s IT system to extract the MDS
data as required.
Facility to import comma separated value files into the SDES.
Reduce data validation within the SDES.
Returns based around port of loading/unloading rather than by vessel, i.e., a facility to
aggregate tonnages to/from the same port.
Provide a web site through which codes could be obtained.
Replace the quarterly MSD2 form with a MSD2X and abandon the annual MSD2X form.
Q6. Paper returns only: If a web-based form was available with the features
listed below, would you prefer to use it rather than making paper returns?
(Features: Direct data entry into on-line version of paper form, up-to-date
automatic code lists, immediate validation checks, no special software
required (other than a web browser).
A total of twenty-eight users of paper forms (55% of users) indicated they would use a web
form whereas twenty-one said they would not. Two did not express a preference one way or
the other.
Q7. SDES returns only: If a web-based form was available with the same
functionality as SDES, would you prefer to use the web-based method?
(NB: The web-based code lists could be automatically updated avoiding the
need to download new ones).
Although aimed primarily at users of the SDES, a total of 70 data providers responded to this
question including some that use paper forms and ASCII. Of those data providers that use
the SDES forty-eight (91% of SDES users) indicated that they would use a web based
solution whereas five would not.
Seven users provided comments to their positive response:




2 indicated they had previously experienced problems with the SDES.
2 felt it would remove the need to load the SDES on to multiple PCs.
2 would use a web based solution but also considered the SDES to be satisfactory.
1 would only do so if there was the facility to store partially completed returns.
Anecdotal evidence from the SLAM1 and Collection Agency Helpdesk staff suggests that
some users need significant help from their IT departments to run the current disk-based
SDES, though others report no difficulties.
A - 38
Q8. SDES returns only: Do you use the facility provided by SDES which allows
data providers to download their own data and also provides access to UK
maritime statistics?
A feature introduced in Version 3 of the SDES gave data providers the opportunity to
interrogate their own data as well as downloading the annual aggregated data set from the
DfT. Forty-six SDES data providers (89% of users) indicated they had not used the facility
and only six had used it. One SDES user did not indicate whether they had used the facility
or not.
Of the small number of data providers that had provided a comment to this question
the primary reason for not downloading their own data was because they were
unaware that the facility existed.
Q9. Are you planning an upgrade of your systems? If so, would this provide an
opportunity to look for more efficient ways of returning MSD forms?
A large majority of data providers confirmed that it was not their intention to upgrade their IT
system. Of the respondents that answered this question ninety-three (90%) did so in the
negative and ten answered positively. The extent to which a system upgrade may be
necessary to utilise the proposed enhanced web submission is unclear from the responses
received and may well differ from case to case. While the implementation of a data
submission tool based on a web browser is no doubt well intentioned, the number of data
providers that will need to upgrade their systems to be able to take advantage of it is a
matter of conjecture and will need following up. Particularly telling is that of the data
providers currently supplying data via paper form only three (6% of paper form user) are
intending to upgrade.
Q10. Would you find it useful to receive feedback through the data submissions
process? (e.g. Details of all data you have submitted?)
Forty-one respondents (37%) would find the feedback useful whereas sixty-nine would not.
However, the current data collection and processing system contains a module to send
acknowledgement/feedback messages and from comments it appears that some
respondents have assumed this question refers to individual submissions rather than a
listing of all data they have sent.
Of note is that thirteen respondents that submit their data via paper forms would welcome
some form of feedback that gives details of their previous returns. Data providers currently
using an electronic supply option (ASCII or SDES) have mixed opinions on such feedback:
twenty-eight would welcome it whereas thirty would not find it useful.
Q11. Do you use the Notes for Guidance provided? If so, please comment on
whether you found them helpful and ways in which they might be
improved?
A range of data provider guidance material is available as hard copy and in various formats
for download from the internet. Fifty-eight respondents (53%) reported using the guidance
documents whereas fifty-two do not use them. Several respondents that use the documents
A - 39
reportedly did so until they became familiar with the system but afterwards had done so less
frequently. All those that use the documents found them to be helpful though some
commented that they would benefit from more frequent code list updates.
Q12. Do you find the telephone or e-mail Helpdesk services provided for the
MSD data collection system useful?
A total of sixty-three respondents (57%) had used the maritime statistics helpdesk and all
considered it to be ‘helpful’. Forty-nine respondents reported that they had not used the
facility.
Q13. Do you use the maritime statistics published by the Department for
Transport? If so, for what purpose? (NB. If you wish to comment in more
detail as a user of these statistics, a voluntary user questionnaire is
available from the web site given above.)
The overwhelming majority of data providers do not use any DfT maritime statistics
publications. Only five respondents, all of whom where major port operators, indicated they
use DfT information for making comparisons between ports, marketing, planning, press
releases and lobbying. One hundred and five respondents (95%) reported they did not use
DfT statistical publications but some qualified this by mentioning that others within their
organisation may do so.
One data provider indicated they “Would like a copy of the statistics free of charge; on the
basis that we provide input information” and another mentioned they were unaware they
were able to access it.
Q14. Do you have any other comments about the MSD data collection?
Data providers made a number of substantive comments:



“I find I have to repeat a lot of data each quarter.”
“Could be more user friendly as same data has to be shown in different boxes.”
“I have to enter the information 12 times for each route. This is very time consuming can
all the forms hold all relevant information?”

“It would be nice it we didn’t have to submit an annual return as well as all the quarterly
returns.”

“There have been a few problems with the SDES forms and our IT dept have to load the
disc's to update data, so a web based method would be a better option.”
“Unfair to Burden Agents. Information is available from our Port Authorities.”




“Would it be possible to review the Quarterly MSD2 and Annual MSD2? It would be better
to have an MSD2X return (rather than MSD2) on a quarterly basis and do away with the
annual return!”
“It would be helpful to have an end of year summary with the total units/containers and
the tonnages.”
“You should provide reply paid stickers/envelopes.”
A - 40
A3.2 Freight Data Provider Consultation Questionnaire
A - 41
A - 42
A - 43
A3.3 Sea Passenger Data Provider Consultation
A smaller exercise was conducted for the simpler sea passenger survey. A letter was sent by
e-mail to all 51 respondents which asked the following three questions. A total of 23 data
providers replied, one of them covering two ferry routes.
Q SP1. How much time, in person hours per year, does it take you to complete the
Cruise Passenger Returns for the Department?
From the responses it was estimated that the total cost of responding was about £10,000.
The mean time taken (per year) was 11.5 hours and the median 7 hours. However, the
range of times reported was again large, from 1 hour up to 60. The data is skewed towards
the smaller values (three-quarters of the data is less than or equal to 12), so it was judged
more appropriate to use the median in estimating the overall respondent burden.
There was no correlation between the time taken supplying the sea passenger information to
DfT and either the number of sailings (and/or departures), number of passengers, number of
routes or average number of sailings (or passengers) per route.
All the companies keep records of the data that DfT require for their own purposes and it is
usually readily available from their systems. For this reason it was considered reasonable to
apply the standard Survey Control 'clerical rate' when converting time taken to a respondent
cost.
Q SP2. Are there any adjustments which you think could be made to the existing
collection system which would make it easier for you to provide the data?
(For example, would you prefer to fill in the forms on a secure web site, which
would automatically carry out validation checks straight away?)
Four providers said they would prefer a secure web site (and another gave the ambiguous
one word reply 'Yes'). Of these, two indicated an assumption that this would make the entry
or repeated fields such as ship, port and route details easier. Six said the current system
was quite satisfactory, 4 gave answers implying they were neutral or almost neutral between
a secure website and the existing system and 2 specifically indicated that they did not want a
solution which required them to re-key data (e.g. preferring to paste into existing Excel
spreadsheet than risk a web interface where this was not possible).
Q SP3. Do you, or your company, use the data on sea passengers, or other maritime
statistics, produced by the Department? If so, do you have any comments?
Only two respondents indicated they used DfT sea passenger data, one of whom said they
found it very useful. Another suggested that although they did not use it in their own section,
others in their company were more likely to - this may well be the case for others who did not
say so. Two pointed out that they operated freight-only ro-ro services (their passengers
being the lorry drivers), so they would not be interested in passenger statistics, while another
reported that they subscribed to a commercial monthly data service provided by IRNResearch.
Few other comments were offered. One respondent asked "why can't you combine all the
passenger and freight data you require into a single data collection exercise?"
A - 44
None explicitly mentioned any concerns about data security, although this may have been an
implicit factor for those wanting a secure web site.
A - 45
Appendix 4
Sea Passenger Data Collection
A - 46
Sea Passenger Statistics Collection
For the maritime statistics directive data on passengers, including children and lorry drivers,
is required from each company that has embarked all disembarked passengers in the UK.
These are required for vessels that have traded between the UK and foreign ports and also
between two different UK ports. In the case of inter-island traffic in Scotland, the data are
collected by the Scottish Executive and forwarded to the DfT.
Frequency of Collection
Data are collected every month in arrears and with a 15 day grace period, i.e., data for the
month of January must be supplied to the DfT by the 15 February.
Data are collected monthly primarily because ONS need them to 'gross-up' the International
Passenger Survey. The Maritime Statistics Directive currently requires quarterly data to be
reported to Eurostat quarterly, but this is due to change (probably from 1 January 2009) to a
requirement to provide quarterly data annually. The annual and quarterly data are also
published in the UK in an annual "Sea Passenger Bulletin" in March, as well as in "Maritime
Statistics" and "Transport Statistics GB" later in the year.
The monthly data collection needs to continue, unless or until ONS's requirements
change or can be met from an alternative source. If circumstances allow, data
collection should move to a quarterly basis, collecting data for individual months
retrospectively if need be.
However , it is recommended that collection should not be less than quarterly, even if
in future reporting is only required annually, because less frequent collection would
introduce difficulties in maintaining contact with respondents and keeping up-to-date
with route changes, reduce opportunities for data validation, and reduce compatibility
with the ro-ro survey.
Survey Population
The branch keeps a contact list of approximately 40 operators who may have a responsibility
to make returns.
When DfT become aware of new routes or operators, their list of contacts in the database is
amended. Although no formal procedures exist to ensure the DfT is made aware of new
contacts, staff refer to various trade publications where such announcements are usually
advertised. On the face of it this may appear to be quite an ad hoc arrangement but it is
believed to be adequate for the purpose. Even if the announcement does not contain all
necessary information required to initiate a new operator or route, there will be sufficient to
identify which port is involved and therefore which port operator can be contacted for further
details.
While the majority of operators are UK based and therefore readily contactable, there are
several based in other EU states. This has not proved to be a problem and all operators,
whether based in the UK or abroad, are very forthcoming with their information.
Data Submission
There are four types of forms dealing with different sea passenger voyages. The forms,
dealing with different voyage types, have been converted to electronic word processing
A - 47
documents (Microsoft Word). Depending on the type of voyages the Company engages in,
the branch tailors and modifies the forms slightly, by inserting the month and a unique
contact identifier, and distributes the appropriate forms to each contact by e-mail. The
messages are sent promptly by the end of the month to which they refer.
The majority of companies choose to complete their returns directly onto the Word document
and return the submission by e-mail, whereas 5 or 6 choose to print out a hard copy,
completed manually and return by facsimile (some also choose to return by both media). To
ensure full coverage, those operators that have not carried passengers during the period are
still expected to make a nil return.
On receipt by the DfT of completed forms sent via e-mail they are printed out in hard copy
and, together with those previously sent by facsimile, transcribed and entered into a bespoke
Microsoft Access database. Since the database was introduced in 2000, there have been no
major modifications to the system. Some minor changes have taken place largely as a result
of changes in output requirements.
Except in very exceptional circumstances (for example a temporary hiatus when a company
is taken over) a complete response is obtained from all operators, so no grossing
procedures are required to compensate for non-response.
Data Security
Of note in this process, is the lack of security arrangements. Forms submitted electronically
do not contain a signature or any other arrangement so that DfT can assure itself that the
form has really been submitted by the operator it purports to be from, apart from checking
the e-mail address from which the message was received. In reality, this may not be of too
great a concern as it is considered unlikely that the system will be abused. However,
demonstrating a security concern can go a long way in fostering confidence among data
providers that DfT takes their data seriously. In this respect a balance needs to be reached
between the value of the data, both commercially and intrinsically, and the cost of
introducing security arrangements. In the circumstances it is suggested that a level is
required no greater than the issuing of a unique password or PIN for data providers to enter
on their returns. Coupled with this could be the use of password protected forms where each
data provider is sent a blank form protected by a password known only to them (and the
DfT). Data providers could then be assured that even if their transmission was to be
intercepted en route back to the DfT, the attachment containing their data could not be
opened.
Data Validation
Using some predefined validation parameters within the database user entry screens, some
data can be checked as it is being entered. This has been achieved through linking the
database with the fleet database. On the whole, however, the predefined data parameters
tend to be quite basic and lack both complexity and subtlety. Part of the transcription
process is also used for non-automated quality-control checking, for example, comparing the
data being entered with the results from the corresponding month in earlier years.
From experience it appears that the majority of returns are correctly completed and it is rare
for the database to highlight erroneous vessel identity details or mismatches between the
number of arrival and departure voyages. A more frequently occurring situation, though still
no more than once or twice per month, is the need to follow up data providers on the number
of passengers they have reported. Where this does occur, having been highlighted by
A - 48
manual comparison, it is sometimes found to be the result of typographical errors or, equally,
unexpected changes in trade.
Although operators have a 15 day grace period, the DfT generally initiates their non
response procedures after 10 days and begins by reminding those operators who have yet
to make their return for the previous month of the need to do so. In many cases this
approach is by telephone in the first instance and may be supplemented by e-mail contact if
the telephone call has been unsuccessful. From experience DfT has found it necessary to
implement the non response procedure before the end of the grace period because the
timescales for the DfT to compile the data and forward it to the ONS are quite short. As the
database currently stands there is no facility to record which operators were non-respondent
in a particular period; there is also no facility to record the steps that were used to encourage
operators to make their returns or to follow-up where a return was felt to be in error.
Given that the majority of operators currently supply their returns by e-mail, the
current approach of printing out and later transcribing the data appears somewhat
outdated. To improve efficiency and reliability, increased automation of the sea
passenger questionnaire and the processing procedure, shifting much of the data
validation processing to the supply side to minimise the submission of erroneous
data, is recommended. Specifically

that data validation be shifted upstream and be carried out simultaneously with
data entry by providers. This would reduce the possibility of errors occurring
in the first place and eliminate much of the subsequent correspondence
between the DfT and data provider.

Providing blank data forms in a format that would facilitate automatic
validation checking and data upload and allow password protection. A suitably
secure spreadsheet would be more than adequate to meet these requirements.

Introduce a simple diary function to record SLAM1's dealings with each
operator.
A - 49
Appendix 5
Maritime Statistics Collection
Agency - Specification of Activities
A - 50
Maritime Statistics Data Collection - Specification of Requirement
Background
1. The UK has collected information about maritime traffic from 1 January 2000 to comply with the EC
Maritime Statistics Directive (95/64/EC). The information required covers maritime freight traffic and
ship movements to and from UK ports and the data is collected by an external consultant ("collection
agent") from shipping lines and operators, shipping agents, and from ports. The provision of data is
mandatory. Part of the maritime Directive also requires information on sea passengers but this is
collected in-house by the Department and does not form part of this contract.
2. The current contract with the collection agent expires on 31 December 2004 and the Department is
inviting tenders from contractors ("the contractor") to continue with this data collection activity from 1
January 2005 for three years, with the option to renew for a further two years. The contract also
includes a "call off” contract element to cover any additional work which may be required and paid for
separately.
3. The present collection system is fully operational. The successful contractor will be required to
maintain the current data collection and reporting system and carry out any ad hoc enhancements
which may be required by the Department under call-off contract arrangements. The contractor is
required to send validated data to the Department on CD-ROM weekly, for further analyses by the
Maritime Statistics Unit in the Department e.g. to produce "grossed" estimates taking into account nonresponse, to produce material for publication, and for use in ad hoc work. The contractor is also
required to maintain a Help Desk and web site for data providers.
4. Maritime freight data is supplied by around 700 shipping lines and agents. Other data, which is less
detailed, is supplied by around 150 port authorities and operators.
5. The data which is collected by the Collection Agent comprises the following main data sets:
From shipping lines and agents
(Data to be provided for each vessel trip starting or finishing in one of 52 major ports in the UK,
quarterly. Major ports are those ports where traffic exceeds one million tonnes per annum.)








the reporting port code;
the IMO number for the vessel (or name, flag and deadweight);
the direction of movement (inwards or outwards);
port of loading for inwards cargo or unloading for outwards cargo;
for unitised traffic the type of units (container, accompanied trailer, unaccompanied trailer etc.);
whether they are loaded or empty units;
the number of units and the freight tonnage;
for other traffic, the broad product group and freight tonnage.
From Port authorities
(Data to be provided quarterly by major ports);



the names of all shipping lines and agents using their port
the identity of all vessels using their port; and
the gross weight and number of units of goods in and out of their port in total, quarterly.
6. Information is also required from minor ports which are those handling less than one million tonnes a
year. Only very summary traffic details are required annually.
7. Data providers submit data to the collection agent using the following transmission methods:

EDI messages (UN/EDIFACT message, and GESMES used by Port Community Systems or PCS)
for users to send data automatically.
A - 51




Statistical Data Entry Software (SDES): this specially designed software allows the user to
complete electronic forms on their PC and then send the forms to the collection agent by e-mail.
ASCII flat file: designed for data providers who already have the required data in their in-house
information management systems. Data providers can extract the requisite data from their systems
in an ASCII Flat File, in a prescribed format.
Paper forms: used only if one of the above electronic options is not practicable.
Web form: there is also the option to complete returns on line is available but the option is used
very little, and not encouraged (only 9 web forms were received in the 12 months to April 2004).
8. As a guide, in 2003, around 370,000 records were received from data suppliers (records are data
sets within individual electronic forms, plus paper forms) of which over 50% were returned in GESMES
format used by PCs, 25% in ASCII format, 20% SDES and 5% paper forms. The information on paper
forms has to be input manually by the data collection agent.
9. Data is validated at point of data entry in SDES and also after receipt of data by the collection agent
for other data entry methods, using a series of validation checks, and error reports are returned as
necessary to data suppliers. Non-response reminder letters are also sent out. Validated data is sent to
the Department every week on CD-ROM for further processing by Department staff.
Background Documents
10. Detailed information about the operation of the maritime data collection system can be found on
the Department's maritime statistics web site http://www.maritimestatistics.co.uk/. The data collection
forms used are given in the Administrative Rules section of the web site (but note that the majority of
the information supplied is provided electronically).
Detailed requirements
11. The successful contractor is required to run the data collection system from 1 January 2005 to 31
December 2007. There will also be an opportunity to extend the contract for a further two years. All
activities involved with the running and maintenance of the data base will be the responsibility of the
contractor, ensuring that it is robust, secure and that there is adequate capacity.
12. The contractor will operate current procedures using existing software (the main processing is
carried out in Oracle). Any subsequent system changes, should they be necessary, will be discussed
between the Department and the contractor during the operation of the contract. Minor operational
changes will be expected to be carried out under this contract. More substantial changes will be costed
separately and carried out under call off contract arrangements.
Entry of electronic data
13. The contractor is required to maintain the entry system for electronic data. The data is processed
automatically and data suppliers receive automated acknowledgement and feedback messaging.
Entry of paper forms
14. The contractor is required to input data on paper forms to the database manually. The contractor
should carry out initial quality checks, and contact the data provider as necessary to ensure valid and
complete data. The contractor should maintain an auditable data trail and the paper forms should be
archived after input. As a guide, around 23,000 paper forms were received in 2003.
Data validation
15. The contractor is required to operate validation checks which are an important part of the data
collection system. The validation checks are carried out automatically (in some cases before the data
is transmitted in SDES), or after the data is received. Invalid records then have to be amended either
directly by the data manager, where there is sufficient information available for this to be done directly,
or in consultation with data providers. The Department also operates a parallel data validation
procedure, which is carried out on the weekly data files received from the collection agent and these
are referred back to the Collection Agency to rectify. As a guide, in 2002 around 80,000 invalid
A - 52
electronic records were rejected. In most cases there is sufficient information available for the invalid
records to be rectified by the collection agent without the need to consult data providers.
Procedures to handle amended data
16. The contractor is required to operate existing arrangements for data amendment so that the history
of the amended data or deleted previous entries can be tracked as required.
Procedures to deal with non-respondents
17. Companies are required to make returns under Statuary Instrument No 2330 (Carriage of Goods
and Passengers by Sea Regulations 1997). Where companies fail to make returns by the specified
period then the contractor is required to send out first and then, as necessary, second non-response
reminder letters. The procedure involves the identification of non-respondent companies, printing out
standard non-response letters, despatch, and keeping records. As a guide, in 2002 around 600 nonresponse letters were sent out by the collection agent.
Production and dissemination of user guides, code manuals
18. The contractor is responsible for producing a master copy of any changes to user guides and code
manuals, but excluding the cost of duplication and distribution which will be carried out under call-off
contract arrangements.
Maintain contacts register
19. The contractor should maintain a Contact Register using an ACT! contact management software
package to record all contacts with the collection agent - correspondence, telephone contacts and
electronic messages. The contact register is used to keep track of problems which arise and their
resolution, details about non-response details etc. The contact register is also used to maintain a
record of the number of records received from individual data providers and by transmission medium,
and is used to produce templates for letter, reports etc.
System availability and Help Desk facility
20. The full system is to be supported from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm Monday to Friday. Availability is to be
99 per cent during these service hours. The automated data receipt part of the system is also to be
available at all other times except as required for maintenance purposes.
21. A Help Desk should be manned during the working day from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm Monday to Friday,
to answer queries by data providers relating to operational matters and queries relating to data supply.
The Help Desk will also provide data support for all the various methods of data supply available. 95
per cent of queries should be responded to within 2 working days and 100 per cent of queries should
be responded to within 5 working days.
Back up procedures and disaster recovery plan
22. The contractor is required to ensure that back-up systems operate. The following service level is
required:




Security backups must be run on every day that a full service is provided;
Backups should allow for recovery of any data from any backup from the preceding month;
The latest generation of the backup to be kept on-site, with all other generations to be kept at a
secure location offsite;
In the event of a disaster the contractor should must be able to provide at least a partial service (so
that at a minimum data providers can continue to enter and submit data) within 10 days elapsed
and a full service within 30 days elapsed.
A - 53
23. Help Desk staff should also monitor automated data entry, validation and feedback received from
data suppliers to give early warning of fundamental errors so that these can be addressed immediately
in discussion with data suppliers.
Document and code list updates
24. A master paper copy of the Administrative Rules and Code Book should be maintained by the
contractor, taking account of various code changes which need to be made e.g. new port codes.
Duplication and distribution of these updates will either be done by the Department or under separate
call off contract arrangements.
25. Electronic versions of code changes are to be distributed by the contractor to SDES users by
electronic mail, twice per year. Downloadable versions should also be posted by the contractor on the
web site, bi-monthly.
The maritime statistics web site
26. The contractor should maintain the maritime statistics web site (www.maritimestatistics.org). The
main purpose of the web-site is to give data providers and other interested parties information about
the maritime collection system and any changes to. It is also used for updating SDES code lists.
Outputs and deliverables
27. The following outputs and deliverables are required (in addition to those already specified).
Transfer of data to the Department
28. The contractor is required to send data from the Oracle database in Microsoft Access format, on a
CD-ROM, to the Department weekly (every Friday and despatched by Royal Mail Special Delivery to
ensure receipt by the Department the following Monday).
29. Every month a copy of the Contact Register should also be produced and coped on to CD-ROM
and sent to the Department so that the Department has up to date details of notes and histories,
contact details and progress with non-respondents.
Reporting
30. Reports (three paper copies) are to be produced for the Department every two months (in
February, April, June, August, October and December). The reports should contain:




An overview of issues which it important for the Department to note.
Statistics on the amount, type and submission medium of returns
Activities of the Help-Desk
Appendices giving recipients and responses to non-response letters, list of senders with latest
number of records submitted and historic data, list of senders showing records by submission route,
and an extract of the Contact Register.
Evaluation criteria
31. The following criteria will be used to evaluate tenders




Understanding of the requirement - a clear indication that the contractor has looked at the data
collection system (e.g. examined documents on the maritime statistics web site) and understands
the scope and the most important operational aspects of the data collection activity.
The personnel to be employed on the contract have the necessary experience and competencies
(e.g. in survey work, validation, managing large electronic databases, experience in using Oracle
and Access software).
Evidence that the contractor will be completely familiar with the data collection system and can
operate it effectively from the start of the contract on 1 January 2005.
Value for money
A - 54
Review meetings
32. Review meetings between the contractor and Department will be held approximately every four
months to discuss progress, problem and any other issues. Contractor involvement at these meetings
would normally be the manager and database administrator and, at one of the three meeting per year,
the project Director.
Pricing and payment
33. The contractor should provide a firm price contract for carrying out the work as specified separately
for years 2005, 2006 and 2007. Payment for work done will be quarterly in arrears. Also the contractor
should, as part of their tender, provide indicative prices for years 2008 and 2009 and terms for any
additional work on a call off basis. In the case of call off contract work, payment will be made on
completion of the work specified under the call off arrangement, or otherwise as agreed with the
contractor.
A - 55
Appendix 6
Maritime Statistics Data System
(Freight Data) - records received
A - 56
Maritime Statistics Data System (Freight Data) - records received
The following tables show the number of records received for each of the 5 main MSD forms
from 1 January 2000 to 4 July 2007, broken down by data year and by data submission
method. Note that some returns for 2006 remain outstanding.
MSD1 records received (from shipping lines & agents etc)
Year
ASCII
GESMES
Paper
SDES
Web
Total
2000
84,753
187,424
41,702
39,200
1,674
354,753
2001
79,288
188,549
25,330
48,550
648
342,365
2002
74,711
186,109
20,163
51,085
468
332,536
2003
71,411
176,469
18,349
50,504
316,733
2004
67,985
182,550
17,942
47,183
315,660
2005
59,826
178,724
18,096
48,600
305,246
2006
50,837
181,391
16,402
44,797
293,427
Total
488,811
1,281,216
157,984
329,919
2,790
2,260,720
MSD2 records received (from major ports)
Year
ASCII
GESMES
Paper
SDES
Web
Total
2000
17
7
170
184
4
382
2001
20
6
164
176
5
371
2002
22
5
172
181
1
381
2003
20
4
154
165
3
346
2004
18
6
155
172
2
353
2005
12
3
298
145
458
2006
13
4
168
166
351
Total
122
35
1,281
1,189
A - 57
15
2,642
MSD3 records received (from major ports)
Year
ASCII
GESMES
Paper
SDES
Web
Total
2000
1,412
429
761
2,73
51
4,726
2001
1,270
273
917
1,719
9
4,188
2002
1,202
275
824
1,845
4
4,150
2003
1,021
261
832
1,560
6
3,680
2004
891
225
880
1,699
4
3,699
2005
759
193
1,299
1,407
3,658
2006
704
195
1,260
1,359
3,518
Total
7,259
1,851
6,773
11,662
MSD4 records received (from major ports)
74
27,619
1
Year
ASCII
GESMES
Paper
SDES
Web
Total
2000
19,456
2,132
4,338
15,405
43
41,374
2001
18,287
1,861
4,012
12,568
45
36,773
2002
18,044
1,731
3,938
11,230
12
34,955
2003
14,951
1,449
3,959
11,204
2004
15,364
1,338
4,293
10,650
2005
12,131
1,300
7,178
10,859
31,468
2006
9,411
1,418
7,883
10,665
29,377
Total
107,644
11,229
35,601
82,581
31,563
14
31,659
114
237,169
MSD5 records received (from minor ports)
Year
ASCII
GESMES
Paper
SDES
Web
Total
2000
0
0
84
7
1
92
2001
0
0
81
5
86
2002
0
0
81
5
86
2003
0
0
76
5
81
2004
0
0
84
3
87
2005
0
0
88
3
91
2006
0
0
82
2
84
Total
0
0
576
30
A - 58
1
607