Introduction
This report presents an analysis of responses to a public consultation, along with a number of engagement events held by Transport Scotland officials, on the Islands Connectivity Plan: Strategic Approach and Vessels and Ports Plan.
The qualitative analysis and reporting of the evidence gathered have been undertaken by independent social research organisation, Craigforth (the Consultant), on behalf of Transport Scotland.
Background
The purpose of the Islands Connectivity Plan (ICP) is to set out how ferry services, supported by other transport modes, will be delivered, and strengthened, working towards a long-term vision, and supported by clear priorities and defined outcomes for people and places. The ICP is replacing the Ferries Plan 2013-2022 and is being developed within the context of the National Transport Strategy and the National Islands Plan and is being informed by the outcomes of the Strategic Transport Projects Review 2.
The Strategic Approach paper is one part of the ICP and proposes an overall Strategic Approach to island transport connectivity including ferries, aviation, fixed links and onward and connecting travel, especially addressing the strategic challenges facing Clyde and Hebrides Ferry Services (CHFS) and Northern Isles Ferry Services (NIFS). The Strategic Approach paper can be applied to all domestic ferry services, including commercial/freight services, while respecting the autonomy of local authorities to develop their own standards and their accountability to local electorates for the design and delivery of ferry services for which they are responsible.
The ICP includes a series of elements: Vessels and Ports Plan; (Refreshed) Community Needs Assessments; Ferry Fares Policy; Low Carbon; and Onwards and Connecting Travel. Alongside the draft Strategic Approach paper, Transport Scotland has published the updated draft Vessels and Ports Plan (VPP) for the CHFS and NIFS networks.
The public consultation exercise on the two documents was launched on 1 February 2024 and ran until 6 May 2024. The consultation documents are available on the Scottish Government’s website and, where consent has been given to publish the response, it may be found in the consultation responses.
Profile of responses
A total of 197 responses were available for analysis: Most of these (163 responses) were submitted through the Scottish Government’s Citizen Space consultation analysis platform. A further 34 responses were available that had been sent directly to Transport Scotland. Some of these followed the question structure set out in the consultation and a small number were statement style responses. The content of these latter responses has been analysed at the most appropriate consultation question.
Respondents were asked to identify whether they were responding as an individual or on behalf of a group or organisation. Group respondents were allocated to one of eleven groups by the consultant. A breakdown of the number of responses received by respondent type is set out below, and a full list of group respondents appended to this report as Annex 1.
| Type of respondent | Number |
|---|---|
| Community Council, Development Trust or Transport Forum | 10 |
| Energy related business or group | 5 |
| Ferry Board, Committee or Group | 6 |
| Local Authority, Regional Transport Partnership (RTP) or Community Planning Partnership (CPP) | 10 |
| Port or harbour authority | 2 |
| Public Body | 6 |
| Third sector or campaign group | 5 |
| Tourism organisation or business | 4 |
| Trade Union | 2 |
| Other private sector business or group | 6 |
| Organisations | 56 |
| Individuals | 141 |
| All respondents | 197 |
The majority of the 197 responses (141 responses) were submitted by individual members of the public. The remaining 56 responses were submitted by organisations or groups. The ‘Community Council, Development Trust or Transport Forum’ and ‘Local Authority, Regional Transport Partnership (RTP) or Community Planning Partnership (CPP)’ groups had the highest number of respondents.
In addition to undertaking the online consultation, Transport Scotland held a number of engagement events. They visited 23 locations, holding a mix of discussion and drop-in events. The discussion events focused on three themes of: community voice and transparency; accessibility; and onward and connecting travel.
The events were held in Barra, Coll, Gigha, Harris, Iona, Islay (Bowmore and Port Ellen), Jura, Kerrera, Lismore, Mull (Fionnphort and Tobermory), Orkney (Kirkwall, Stromness, Eday and North Ronaldsay), Raasay, Shetland (Lerwick, Sumburgh, Brae, Whalsay and Yell) and the Small Isles (hosted on Eigg with participants from Eigg, Muck, Rum, and Canna). The numbers attending ranged from one or two up to over 30 participants.
Transport Scotland recorded both verbal and written feedback from those attending the events, analysis of which has also been included within this report.
Analysis and reporting
The report presents a question-by-question analysis of answers to the closed questions. The analysis uses variable bases i.e. includes only those who answered the closed question. Please note that percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. It should also be noted that, given the sample size, the results should be seen as indicative rather than statistically robust.
Feedback from the events has been analysed at the most appropriate questions (primarily at Questions 4-9), with summary analysis of views expressed at the community engagement events presented in text boxes.
The analysis of further comments made is qualitative. If a point was more frequently raised this will be indicated, but otherwise the focus is on setting out the range of issues raised. This approach reflects not only the relatively small and self-selecting sample, but also the nature of qualitative data of this type. For example, comments may vary considerably in both length, focus and precision. Some may address the question directly; others may make more general observations. Given this diversity, it is often the case that specific points have been made by only one or a small number of respondents.
It is also important to note that an analysis of this type reflects the comments made and does not seek to verify the accuracy of those comments or make any judgment on the views expressed.
Finally, and as with any public consultation exercise, it should be noted that those responding generally have a particular interest in the subject area. Therefore, the views they express cannot necessarily be seen as representative of wider public opinion.