Accessibility

Transport Scotland proposes introducing an accessibility standard that would be in addition to the legal requirements and could act as guidance for all ferry services. This is to ensure that our ferry services, vessels and ports are easy to use for all, while recognising that people have different needs and capabilities. The standard could include standards such as inclusive and disability training to be carried out frequently and an accessibility review carried out periodically on ferry services, ports and vessels.

Responses to Question 5 by respondent type are set out in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Responses to Question 5 by respondent type

Respondent	Yes	No	Total
Community Council, Development Trust or Transport Forum	8	1	9
Energy related business or group	3	0	3
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	5	0	5
Local Authority, RTP or CPP	8	1	9
Port or harbour authority	2	0	2
Public Body	3	0	3
Third sector or campaign group	4	0	4
Tourism organisation or business	4	0	4
Trade Union	0	0	0
Other private sector business or group	2	2	4
Total organisations	39	4	43
% of organisations	91%	9%	100%
Individuals	117	16	133
% of individuals	88%	12%	100%
All respondents	156	20	176
% of all respondents	89%	11%	100%

A substantial majority of respondents – 89% of those answering the question – thought that an accessibility standard is a good idea. This rose to 91% of organisations.

Around 130 respondents made a comment at Question 5.

The need for an accessibility standard

In addition to a number of suggestions for what should be included or covered by a standard (set out at the next question), there were also comments on some of the wider benefits that a standard could bring or the overall approach that should be adopted. An accessibility standard was described as an essential service requirement that should assist in embedding a disability-inclusive approach across ferry and port operations.

Those who thought that an accessibility standard is a good idea sometimes commented that, in 2024, it should be a given that ferry services are accessible for those with particular needs. However, a number of respondents, including individuals and community council respondents, highlighted some of the problems that they or members of their community encounter when attempting to use ferry services. Some location or service-specific examples provided included that:

• There is no disabled access at Inverie Pier on Knoydart and therefore no disabled access to the Knoydart Peninsula. The open motorboat ferries, such as those for Easdale island and Luing, are also not accessible, as is the current ferry to North Ronaldsay.
• In North Ayrshire, the terminals at Largs, Cumbrae and Lochranza have slopes with substantial gradients that require assistance to negotiate at certain times.
• On a day sailing between Aberdeen and Kirkwall, accessing a cabin is an expensive option for someone who needs to be able to rest on a longer journey; it was reported that the free of charge overnight cabin that is available is of huge value but to only offer this option overnight is short sighted for people with specific needs. The shortage of available accessible cabins was also raised.

Respondents also highlighted some general issues or barriers they had encountered. These included that:

• The CalMac ticketing system will not accept Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) concessionary passes, meaning holders cannot buy multi journey tickets online.
• The challenges of access for all passengers at ramps and slipways will also require particular attention.
• With car decks tightly packed, people with mobility issues struggle to move between boarded vehicles in order to access passenger areas.

Although most of the examples were of barriers and problems, a small number of positive examples or experiences were also given. These included of staff helping those with special requirements and that the Loch Seaforth provides good facilities for disabled people.

In addition to comments on current facilities and services, respondents also highlighted the extent of the need for accessible ferry services. Points made included that some of the areas served by ferry services, such as Argyll and Bute, have a high and increasing proportion of older residents. It was also reported that there is an increasing number of travellers with varying accessibility needs, and that these may be related to mobility, cognition and/or neurodivergence.

There was also reference to people with mental health conditions and those with learning difficulties and to people with sight and hearing impairments. It was also noted that in areas with an older population profile, people are also more likely to need to travel to access to medical support and care.

Around 130 respondents made a comment at Question 6.

Engagement and learning

One of the more frequently made suggestions was that engagement and coproduction should be at the heart of producing any standard. It was also suggested that key stakeholders should be consulted in the development stage, with the Mobility and Access Committee Scotland (MACS) noting that they would welcome the opportunity to be involved. Other comments included that:

• A broad range of needs and disabilities / difference should be represented in the development process, including learning disability and neurodivergence.
• If a user group is established to develop the standard, groups that support people with non-visible disabilities should be included; Alzheimer’s Scotland, National Autistic Society Scotland, RNIB Scotland, MS Society and Headway were suggested. The needs of older people travelling could be taken into consideration by working with Age Scotland.
• Specialist services that understand the complex nature of achieving accessibility in a rural context should be consulted.

It was also suggested that it would be helpful to understand what, if any, equivalent accessibility standards exist on other modes of transport and what benefits these have brought. In terms of other potential learning, it was reported that:

• CalMac piloted a scheme on the Loch Seaforth which allowed neurominority people to look around the ferry before taking a trip and book quiet spaces. It was reported that this worked well and could be adopted more widely.
• Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness and Highlands & Islands airports have adopted the globally recognised Hidden Disabilities Sunflower scheme.

It was also noted in the Strategic Approach that an Equalities Impact Assessment (EQIA) will be carried out on the overall ICP, and it was suggested that the EQIA this should be done on a community rather than a network basis to facilitate appropriate mitigations to redress specific needs.

Core components of a standard

General suggestions included that the standard should apply across the network and should set minimum legal requirements for accessibility, enforced with penalties for non-adherence.

There were also references to design requirements to improve vessels and ports to better accommodate disabled passengers, and it was suggested that the design of new ferries and harbour and shore infrastructure should take full account of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) guidance.

Compliance monitoring, audit and review were also seen as important, and there was support for ongoing accessibility audits to support continuous improvement. Specific examples given included detailed review of key ferry terminals to consider physical integration and accessibility.

Staff awareness and training

In addition to suggestions relating to vessels and ports or accessible services, a number of respondents commented on the vital role that well trained staff have to play in delivering an accessible ferry service. For example, it was reported that good customer care and assistance by staff is often viewed as the key factor when deciding if ferry travel is possible, practicable or comfortable.

It was suggested that a standard would assist passenger-facing staff and crew by giving them a better understanding of disabled passengers needs and the ways in which they can support them and would also enable the development of comprehensive training programmes. It was also proposed that Inclusivity and Disability training should be mandatory for all service providers as well as decision makers.

Specific suggestions related to the type and coverage of training included that providers could work with local Access Panels to provide lived experience training. It was also noted that any training should also cover non-visible disabilities.

Support and assistance

Respondents often highlighted the importance of staff training because of the vital role they thought good quality support and assistance could play in making ferry services more accessible. They were looking for staff to take a proactive approach, including offering boarding assistance, navigation within the ferry, or in the event of emergency evacuation procedures being required. Specific suggestions included that:

• Crew should be on hand at lifts for passengers requiring assistance to ensure they are seated as close to the lift and other facilities as possible.
• If there was a priority seating area, a particular steward could oversee that area and be available to offer support to any passengers who may need it.

In addition to comments relating to staff providing support and assistance, it was also noted that some passengers may travel with an assistant. Associated comments included that free companion travel should be introduced on ferries as standard. It was noted that this approach is being piloted on rail services, and already applies to concessionary travel by bus.

Infrastructure and vessels

There were a number of suggestions about areas of ports and vessels that could be made more accessible, and a general suggestion that disabled access requirements should be as for public buildings.

In relation to boarding and disembarking, there were calls for:

• Pre-embarkation, a weatherproof shelter that is easily accessible to wheelchair users.
• Ferries to have accessible boarding ramps (not via the vehicle access ramp) or lifts to accommodate passengers using wheelchairs, with mobility aids, or who have difficulty with stairs. More generally, sufficient and working lifts, with alternative arrangements in place if they are out of order.

It was also proposed that, if a port or slip does not meet the accessibility standard, this should be clearly set out in the Vessels and Ports Plan, which should also detail the mitigation measures and procedures that will be included to help users to access the service.

Other specific suggestions included that an accessible standard could or should require:

• Corridors, hallways and open spaces to be free from obstacles and wide enough for wheelchair access.
• Automatic doors.
• Improved access to outdoor areas, including wheelchair access.
• Designated, priority accessible seating areas on the ferry, including spaces with ample room for wheelchair users.
• Quiet rooms and safe spaces available for ferry users when required and further rollout of National Autistic Society-developed sensory bags.
• Accessible toilets, equipped with grab bars, lowered sinks, and adequate manoeuvring space. Specifically, more Changing Places facilities on ferries.
• Accessible height customer services desks.
• Accessible spaces and tables in cafeterias, with a number of designated cafeteria tables to accommodate wheelchair users.
• Cabins built to minimum standards, plus some additional spaces built to a higher standard.
• Designated parking, close to the terminal with easy access and lifts (if required).

It was also suggested that the Accessibility Standard should include repair timescales and repair priorities for accessibility infrastructure.

Information and booking

In addition to accessible facilities, a number of respondents commented on the importance of clear and accessible communication; an Accessible Communication Strategy was suggested as a mechanism for informing passengers of services and procedures available to support their journey and their right to access these. In terms of the types of information needed, ideas included:

• A clearly set out rating system, with indicators describing the level of accessibility.
• Early and clear communication of changes to services via multiple channels, including email, text alerts and digital channels.
• A visual guide available for boarding and embarking at each port and clearer signage for those who have requested to board early.

With regard to how information should be provided, suggestions included by:

• Ensuring that printed materials, such as schedules, maps, and safety instructions, are available in accessible formats, such as large print, Braille, or electronic formats compatible with screen readers.
• Promoting Relay UK to help people who cannot hear on the phone or have difficulties with their speech by providing a text-to-speech and speech-to-text translation service.
• Signs and signage being of sufficient size and positioning that they can be more easily read by those with impaired sight.
• Having a clear, audible announcement system, with a hearing loop, in terminals and on ferries.

Suggestions relating to the booking system included that ticketing systems need to be more accessible and should allow passengers to purchase tickets, make reservations, and request assistance through multiple channels, including online platforms, phone services, and in-person at ticket counters. There was also a call for disabled passengers with concession cards to be able to get their tickets in advance and have the option to acquire a return ticket if required. It was reported that people currently have go into a ticket office to book every journey and that this is unnecessary and stressful.

Boarding and emergency procedures

Finally, there were suggestions that an accessibility standard should cover:

• Priority assisted boarding and disembarkation procedures. It was reported that CalMac’s early boarding option works well, but that there is not the same support to disembark before others.
• Emergency procedures, with clear emergency evacuation protocols that are accessible to disabled passengers, including designated evacuation routes, assistance protocols, and accessible life-saving equipment.

Introducing a standard

Although generally still agreeing that an accessibility standard should be introduced, some respondents did comment on what may be appropriate or realistic in the short to medium term. In particular, there were concerns that failing to meet any new accessibility standard should not lead to vessels being taken out of service.

It was suggested that most of the current fleet will be below the standards to which Scotland would aspire, and that it may not be a good use of scarce resource to spend money on old vessels that need to be replaced. Further comments or suggestions included that:

• The standard will need to be introduced gradually, and without reducing service provision by condemning older vessels before new ones are available.
• The standard should only apply to new, replacement vessels. It was assumed that the six new ferries due to be delivered over the next few years should provide a level of accessibility far superior to the vessels they are replacing.

Temporary issues, such as lifts being out of action, should not lead to services being cancelled; early and clear communication, with support to make alternative arrangements, would at least avoid wider disruption to ferry services.