Community voice, transparency and accountability

The consultation paper noted that Transport Scotland would like to ensure that there is meaningful engagement with the community on the operation of NIFS services. The NIFS operator and Transport Scotland regularly engage with the Orkney External Transport Forum and Shetland External Transport Forum.

Communication by the NIFS operator

Responses to Question 7 by respondent type are set out in Table 12 below.

Table 12: Responses to Question 7 by respondent type

Type	Respondent group	Yes	No	Total
Individuals	NIFS network resident - Orkney	46	173	219
Individuals	% of NIFS network resident -- Orkney	21%	79%	100%
Individuals	NIFS network resident - Shetland	152	483	635
Individuals	% of NIFS network resident - Shetland	24%	76%	100%
Individuals	All other individual respondents	16	56	72
Individuals	% of all other individual respondents	22%	78%	100%
Individuals	Total individuals answering	214	712	926
Individuals	% of individuals answering	23%	77%	100%
Organisations	Farming or land management organisation	0	1	1
Organisations	Freight company or representative body	0	1	1
Organisations	Local authority or transport partnership	0	0	0
Organisations	Other business or representative body	0	2	2
Organisations	Port/harbour authority	0	1	1
Organisations	Public body	0	0	0
Organisations	Trade union	0	0	0
Organisations	Voluntary sector organisation	1	1	2
Organisations	Total organisations answering	1	6	7
Organisations	% of organisations answering	14%	86%	100%
Total	Total respondents answering	215	718	933
Total	% of all respondents answering	23%	77%	100%

A majority of respondents – 77% of those answering the question - did not want to see any changes in how the NIFS operator communicates with them, while 23% would like to see changes in communication. There was a good level of agreement across the three groups of individual respondents, and although organisations that expressed a view were rather more likely to think that no change is required (86%), most did not answer the question.

Around 610 respondents explained their answer.

What works well in relation to service changes and cancellations

Reflecting the generally positive response to the closed question, respondents were most likely to comment that the NIFS operator communicates very well or well and that no changes to communication are required. Others suggested that how the operator communicates is OK or adequate.

Some respondents commented specifically on communication related to service changes and cancellations, referring to receiving texts or emails and/or seeing social media updates about service changes of cancellations. For example, an ‘Individual’ respondent referred to the text messaging, email and telephone calls all being handled exceptionally well in Shetland at the moment. A ‘Local authority or transport partnership’ respondent referred to booked passengers receiving updates in relation to any travel disruptions, whether this is for livestock or for passenger reservations. Other comments included that the NIFS operator’s website is helpful and is generally kept updated.

What works less well in relation to service changes and cancellations

Some of those who would like to see changes in how the NIFS operator communicates with them made general comments that the current system does not work well or that improvements are required. For example, a ‘Public body’ respondent called for a clearer and more consistent approach to how the NIFS operator communicates service changes, disruptions and cancellations to customers. They went on to report that frustrations from NIFS service users often include important service updates being communicated late, limited information being provided on the reasons for disruptions / cancellations, and updates not going out through all available channels (text, email, app, social media and website).

A ‘Local authority or transport partnership’ respondent called for an approach based on clear, timely and accessible communication, with the next contract requiring the operator to adopt best-practice standards in communication. There was also a range of suggestions for specific improvements in relation to the current service, including:

• issuing earlier alerts and more frequent updates about service cancellations or changes
• providing an app, or sending alerts through existing apps
• contacting passengers by telephone to alert them to cancellations or changes
• keeping the notice boards outside terminals updated
• answering telephone call enquiries more quickly

There was also a suggestion for dedicated communication officers with local knowledge.

Event Feedback

Feedback provided by attendees at the Stromness community event included:

“Need better communication on reasons for disruption and timescales to resolve, plus website needs accurately updated to reflect disrupted sailing times.”

But also, in relation to the above:

“Disagree - website updated daily.”

Other communications related issues

Although most respondents focused on day-to-day communication issues, and in particular those relating to services changes or cancellations, a small number of respondents focused on broader issues around how the NIFS operator communicates with passengers, communities or other organisations.

For example, some ‘Individual’ respondents referred to the importance of the NIFS operator listening to, and communicating with, those who use the service, and especially islanders, before making big decisions. There was specific reference to more meaningful consultation and engagement on logistical issues relating to accommodation and booking and to engagement updates on long-term planning, not just immediate operational matters. These issues are returned to at the next question.

Two ‘Trade union’ respondents commented on communication between the NIFS operator and trade unions and the workforce, with one calling for a more formal consultation structure between the operator, Transport Scotland and the recognised trade unions organising the operator’s staff in shoreside and seafarer roles. They also called for a formal consultation structure with the recognised trade unions over the design of the NIFS4 contract.

Reflection of community views by transport forums

Responses to Question 8 by respondent type are set out in Table 13 below.

Table 13: Responses to Question 8 by respondent type

Type	Respondent group	Yes	No	Total
Individuals	NIFS network resident - Orkney	48	113	161
Individuals	% of NIFS network resident -- Orkney	30%	70%	100%
Individuals	NIFS network resident - Shetland	128	379	507
Individuals	% of NIFS network resident - Shetland	25%	75%	100%
Individuals	All other individual respondents	18	33	51
Individuals	% of all other individual respondents	35%	65%	100%
Individuals	Total individuals answering	194	525	719
Individuals	% of individuals answering	27%	73%	100%
Organisations	Farming or land management organisation	0	0	0
Organisations	Freight company or representative body	1	0	1
Organisations	Local authority or transport partnership	0	2	2
Organisations	Other business or representative body	2	0	2
Organisations	Port/harbour authority	0	0	0
Organisations	Public body	0	1	1
Organisations	Trade union	0	1	1
Organisations	Voluntary sector organisation	0	1	1
Organisations	Total organisations answering	3	5	8
Organisations	% of organisations answering	38%	63%	100%
Total	Total respondents answering	197	530	727
Total	% of all respondents answering	27%	73%	100%

Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority of respondents – 73% of those answering the question – did not think transport forums reflect community views effectively, while 27% thought that they do. Shetland residents were slightly less likely to feel that community views are reflected compared to those from Orkney (at 25% and 30%) respectively.

Around 580 respondents explained their answer, albeit around one in three of those commenting simply noted that they either were not aware of the transport forums or that they did not know enough about the issue to comment. Residents of Orkney were more likely to say that they had not heard about the transport forums than residents of Shetland.

Transport forums do not reflect community views effectively

Those who commented that transport forums do not reflect community views effectively sometimes made the wider point that communities are not being listened to, with Shetland residents particularly likely to raise this concern. There were references to the current NIFS operator not listening to the views of island residents, especially in relation to shared cabins and pods, and it was suggested that for transport forums to be considered effective, the changes and improvements that communities wish to see should have been delivered.

A ‘Local authority or transport partnership’ respondent commented that while the Orkney and Shetland External Transport Forums play a role, there is room for improvement in community representation, while a ‘Public body’ respondent suggested that the two forums provide a strong basis to build upon, but that there is scope for improving engagement and reflecting community views.

For some respondents the concern was that the transport forums are not, or may not be, representative of communities. Associated concerns included that transport forum members may not be aware of wider community views, and there were also references to the forums not consulting directly with the communities they are supposed to represent. This was sometimes linked to a concern that members of groups such as transport forums tend to be those who are most vocal rather than those best placed to represent the position of the wider community.

A ‘Public body’ respondent called for representation to be widened to help ensure that a broader range of voices from the community are heard, and a ‘Local authority or transport partnership’ respondent suggested that the operator and Transport Scotland need to establish additional community groups, where operational issues or problems can be raised and discussed, during the contract period. There were also calls to:

• embed the role of the forums as part of the next NIFS contract, with a mandatory requirement for the NIFS operator to work with them.
• strengthen the External Transport Forums, including by requiring the operator to work with ZetTrans to ensure they are representative, effective and transparent.
• ensure specialist groups have routes for their insights to be reflected at the strategic level.

Transport forums do reflect community views effectively

‘Individual’ respondents who thought that transport forums reflect community views effectively sometimes simply noted that they hoped or expected that this was the case. However, as with those who did not think so, respondents sometimes noted that this does not necessarily mean that those representations are listened to or acted upon.

However, a small number of organisations were amongst those highlighting the strengths of the existing approach, including that both the Shetland External Transport Forum and the Orkney External Transport Forum are established platforms for dialogue between communities, stakeholders, the operator, and Transport Scotland. A ‘Local authority and transport partnership’ respondent commented that they allow communities, sectors, and interest groups to contribute openly, and they provide a channel through which feedback can be seen and understood by all. They suggested that the challenge is maintaining value by ensuring that all perspectives – from industry to community – are connected into a coherent overall picture.