Themes

Key themes

The consultation paper reported that Transport Scotland has gathered feedback from previous relevant engagements and consultations with island communities to identify the areas requiring improvements in relation to delivery of ferry services in Scotland. This resulted in the development of 11 themes, around which the Strategic Approach paper is structured. The themes are:

• community voice and transparency
• reliability and resilience
• accessibility
• timetables, unplanned and essential travel
• integration of services
• capacity and demand
• freight
• vessels and ports
• low carbon and environmental impact
• ferry fares
• local authority services.

Responses to Question 1 by respondent type are set out in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Responses to Question 1 by respondent type

Respondent	Yes	No	Total
Community Council, Development Trust or Transport Forum	5	4	9
Energy related business or group	5	0	5
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	2	3	5
Local Authority, RTP or CPP	6	3	9
Port or harbour authority	2	0	2
Public Body	1	1	2
Third sector or campaign group	1	2	3
Tourism organisation or business	3	1	4
Trade Union	1	0	1
Other private sector business or group	3	2	5
Total organisations	29	16	45
% of organisations	64%	36%	100%
Individuals	100	36	136
% of individuals	74%	26%	100%
All respondents	129	52	181
% of all respondents	71%	29%	100%

A majority of all respondents – 71% of those answering the question – thought that the key themes set out do capture the main aspects of transport connectivity for island and peninsula communities. Individuals were more likely to be supportive than organisations at 74% and 64% respectively.

Around 120 respondents made a comment at Question 1. Although some respondents set out why they had agreed or disagreed at the closed question, many either made general observations about the importance of ferry services, the ICP or one or more of the 11 themes set out in the Strategic Approach paper. Others made suggestions for changes to one or more of the themes, and/or suggested additional themes. Given that the answer given at the closed question tended not to dictate much of the content of the comments, the analysis presented below is thematic, rather than according to whether respondents had agreed or disagreed that the key themes capture the main aspects of transport connectivity for island and peninsula communities.

Positive comments on the key themes

In addition to general comments of agreement with the key themes, there was reference to them being comprehensive. It was also suggested that they reflect the priorities of particular communities, including those of the Isle of Lewis and Harris and Shetland. A community council respondent commented that many of these themes have emerged as key issues through their own community consultation.

Some respondents also referred to how vital these themes and, by extension, the delivery of high-quality ferry services are to the communities and businesses that rely on them. For example, it was noted that Shetland is highly dependent on the ferry link between Lerwick, Kirkwall and Aberdeen, which serves economic and social needs.

There were also references to the importance of particular themes, including from some individual respondents. They were most likely to comment that ‘reliability and resilience’ and ‘capacity and demand’ are the main concerns and are the themes that should be prioritised. However, it was also seen as important that none of the themes are viewed in isolation. An example given was that while reliability and resilience of vessels can be enhanced, this needs to be in conjunction with appropriate upgrades to port infrastructure to enable these vessels to operate across the networks.

Issues with the key themes overall

Although sometimes broadly supportive of the key themes set out, some respondents did highlight issues. For example, an individual respondent felt that the concept of a lifeline ferry service appears to be largely absent, with an associated concern that this could be interpreted as the Scottish Government no longer being interested in protecting the viability of some communities through the provision of a ferry service.

It was also suggested that the ‘connectivity’ element has not been articulated clearly, for example in terms of the planned shape of the network and opportunities to create links where none currently exist. One respondent stated that there is no policy or plan within Scottish Government which currently outlines all the air and ferry routes and services across Scotland and, more crucially, the investment need going forward. Other omissions noted included that:

• The focus is on travel to and from mainland Scotland and gives little to no focus on connectivity to and from outlying islands.
• The ICP is largely ferry focused and does not take other transport services into consideration, including those for some smaller communities where the primary transport connectivity may be by air.
• There is also no mention of islands currently linked by road causeways; in relation to Orkney, the age and condition of some of the causeways was highlighted, as was the major impact on residents and businesses of weather-related closures.

In relation to the themes themselves, there were concerns that the draft Strategic Approach paper does not give a sense of relative priority between them, indicating instead that they are of somewhat equal importance. In terms of those priorities, it was also noted that these may vary from island to island, and that different communities may have different views on how the themes should be prioritised.

The issue of differing needs was also raised, although with a suggestion that it is odd that the published ICP documents (the Strategic Approach paper and Vessels and Ports Plan) have been drawn up prior to a needs assessment being carried out; it was suggested that there needs to be mapping of journeys that people are making to understand the obstacles they face and that a key failing of the draft papers is that they do not focus on the whole of the journey(s) that people need to make.

In addition to general observations, some respondents commented on one or more of the eleven themes set out. The individual themes (excepting local authority services) go on to be the focus of Questions 4 to 19 and, to avoid repetition, comments have been captured within the analysis at those questions.

Local authority services

Local authority services were the focus of a small number of extensive comments. Those commenting included local authority and public body respondents.

A local authority respondent described the omission of ferry services operated by, or on behalf of, local authorities from the Strategic Approach and Vessels and Ports Plan as very disappointing, not least because of the acknowledgement that the challenges these services face are the same as those faced by services directly funded by Scottish Government. There was a call for the ICP to outline all services which are fully revenue funded by Scottish Government and not just those under the direct control of Transport Scotland.

Other key ferry-related points raised included that:

• Replacement of ageing infrastructure on ferry services run/contracted by Argyll and Bute, Highland, Orkney and Shetland Councils is one of the most pressing transport infrastructure issues for those councils.
• The Strategic Approach paper sets out that local authorities are encouraged to adopt the Vision and Priorities but without offering financial support beyond the existing special grant, which covers those councils’ direct operating costs but does not specifically provide for future investment.
• Funding and investment must be prioritised to ensure that essential core services are provided to all communities.
• Integration between local authority and CHFS and/or NIFS routes should be considered. One local authority respondent noted that their preferred position would be not to operate any ferry services.

Local ferry route specific comments included that for Knoydart, the Highland Council has a contract for passenger traffic and small freight, but transport of vehicles and larger freight is dependent on an unsubsidised local operator using a landing craft. It was reported that Knoydart is therefore unique in having no government-funded ferry provision for vehicles.

Air services were also referenced, and it was noted that Argyll and Bute Council, Orkney Islands Council, Shetland Islands Council, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar and Transport Scotland subsidise Public Service Obligation (PSO) air service routes and/or airports. It was suggested that air services should be supported by a funding programme, and also that a lack of a joined-up approach to PSO procurement limits opportunities for savings and options to offer additional routes. A respondent requested an update on the Scottish Government’s commitment to undertake a Scottish Air Services Review.

It was also suggested that investment in existing fixed links is required, with the Churchill Barriers in Orkney given as an example.

Suggested changes or additions

Respondents suggested a number of additional themes that should be included in the ICP. Economic and tourism development was the most-frequently made suggestion, with further points, all made by one or a small number of respondents, including that:

• Island economies should be included as a stand-alone issue.
• Island ferry services have an important role to play in supporting islanders to access social and economic opportunities and in supporting local economic growth.
• The ICP should look at ferry transport as a catalyst for tourism development, promoting ferry routes as scenic attractions, enhancing visitor amenities, and supporting local businesses to capitalise on tourism opportunities while preserving the cultural and environmental integrity of the region. Given the relative importance of the visitor economy, the ICP should be more explicit about this sector and more specific about its requirements within the key themes.

Other additional themes proposed included:

• Technology and innovation: Embracing technological advancements and innovation in ferry design, operations, and management to improve efficiency, safety, and passenger experience.
• Cultural heritage preservation: Recognising and preserving the cultural heritage, maritime traditions, and historical significance of ferry transport in island and peninsula communities.
• Biosecurity: Having robust biosecurity measures that are consistently adhered to is critical to protecting nature on our islands, particularly seabirds.

Vision and priorities

Based on feedback and discussions with key stakeholders, and drawing on the National Transport Strategy 2 and the National Islands Plan, Transport Scotland has developed a draft vision and associated priorities for ferry services, supported by other transport services.

Responses to Question 2 by respondent type are set out in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Responses to Question 2 by respondent type

Respondent	Yes	No	Total
Community Council, Development Trust or Transport Forum	6	3	9
Energy related business or group	4	1	5
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	3	2	5
Local Authority, RTP or CPP	4	4	8
Port or harbour authority	1	1	2
Public Body	2	1	3
Third sector or campaign group	3	0	3
Tourism organisation or business	3	1	4
Trade Union	1	0	1
Other private sector business or group	4	0	4
Total organisations	31	13	44
% of organisations	70%	30%	100%
Individuals	84	50	134
% of individuals	63%	37%	100%
All respondents	115	63	178
% of all respondents	65%	35%	100%

A majority of all respondents – 65% of those answering the question – believed that the draft vision captures the aspirations of island and peninsula communities for their future ferry services. Organisations were more likely to be supportive than individuals, at 70% and 63% of those answering respectively.

Around 135 respondents made a comment at Question 2, albeit many of these comments either reflected the range of issues covered at Question 1 or referred specifically to one of more of the four priorities (the subject of Question 3 below).

General comments on the vision

General comments in support of the draft vision included that it captures the main priorities and themes for consideration in the delivery of future ferry services and sets out a suitable overarching vision. They also referred to particular aspects of the vision, including reliability or connectivity being the crucial priorities referenced.

Others commented that, while the draft vison itself is fine, the challenge will come with delivery, and that it can be hard not to feel sceptical after the service disruptions experienced over recent years. There was reference to the draft vision being admirable, but there being a disconnect between this vision and the current experience of ferry users; it was suggested that island and peninsula communities would need to be very far-sighted to see their future having reliable and resilient, accessible, integrated and low carbon ferry services.

In order to both ensure that the vision is the right one, and help rebuild community trust in the ferry service, a local authority and a community council respondent wanted to ensure that the voice of island communities is reflected in the vision and called for a shift away from communities being consulted and towards meaningful co-design.

Suggested changes or additions

In the interests of inclusivity, a small number of respondents, including a community council and a public body respondent, suggested that the vision needs to reflect the interests of communities served not just by ferry services but also by fixed links. There was a call to recognise the potential of new fixed links, including tunnels. A specific suggestion, from a campaign group respondent, was to replace ‘ferry’ with ‘island and peninsula transport’.

Other suggestions included that, to make the vision relatable and real, it should reflect the impacts upon islanders and their communities. It was suggested that this could be achieved by adding: For Islanders, this means that the ferries that they use frequently will be on time, will be affordable, be accessible for everyone, will complement how they live their lives, and they will be able to get door-to-door with the upmost ease regardless of how they travel.

Other proposed additions included explicit reference to:

• Achieving equitable access to public services for island communities where these are not provided locally.
• Sufficient capacity. It was suggested that the vision should capture the importance of sufficient capacity for island residents and businesses, including to allow island economies to grow and prosper. A slightly different perspective, however, was that the vision should refer to the sustainability of island and peninsula communities and populations rather than their growth.
• Small scale businesses and crofters, reflecting the importance that crofting has to island and peninsula communities.
• Resilience, to capture the importance of ensuring there is a ferry service in place that can meet future challenges as they emerge.
• High quality, to aspire to delivering the best possible travel experience for tourists and members of the community.
• Accessibility, to demonstrate a firm commitment to improving accessibility for disabled passengers.
• Being accountable to the communities they serve.

Draft priorities

Responses to Question 3 by respondent type are set out in Table 9 below.

Table 9: Responses to Question 3 by respondent type

Respondent	Yes	No	Total
Community Council, Development Trust or Transport Forum	4	5	9
Energy related business or group	3	1	4
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	3	2	5
Local Authority, RTP or CPP	4	4	8
Port or harbour authority	1	1	2
Public Body	1	2	3
Third sector or campaign group	2	1	3
Tourism organisation or business	3	1	4
Trade Union	0	1	1
Other private sector business or group	3	0	3
Total organisations	24	18	42
% of organisations	57%	43%	100%
Individuals	79	53	132
% of individuals	60%	40%	100%
All respondents	103	71	174
% of all respondents	59%	41%	100%

A majority of respondents – 59% of those answering the question – thought the four draft priorities reflect what island and peninsula communities see for their future ferry services.

Around 130 respondents made a comment at Question 3.

General comments on the priorities overall

Comments on the priorities included that they reflect what is needed and that many people will agree with them, including those from ferry reliant communities.

The importance of each island deciding on their priorities for themselves was highlighted, and that priorities may differ across the islands, with a smaller island community council respondent sharing their view that policy is always driven by the louder voices. Other points included that:

• As each island has its own requirements, individual community needs assessments are required.
• The future economic needs of remote communities should be identified, including to ensure that any increase in fares does not impact adversely on the economy.
• There is a need for a consistent range of data on service performance to be collected and communicated clearly to ferry users on a regular basis to identify island priorities for the ferry service. This communication needs to be transparent and easily understood.
• The operator should be required to collaborate with each community to bring forward ideas to improve the service.

It was also noted that, as with the vision, delivery of the priorities will come with significant challenges which should not be under-estimated. There was reference to:

• Recognising that needs will change, meaning that retaining flexibility will be vital, especially given the essential nature of ferry services. There were also calls for the ICP to set out a clear commitment to continuous improvement.
• The need for appropriate infrastructure in order to deliver the priorities, and particularly Priorities 1 and 4. It was noted, for example, that in order for island communities to grow, there needs to be investment and potentially growth within the mainland communities serving these islands.

Priority 1: reliable and resilient

In line with many of the comments at Question 1, a number of respondents noted that they see Priority 1 as being the most important. There were references to uncertainty and disruption, both in terms of recent service levels and the delivery of new ferries and the changes to ports needed to support these vessels. A tourism organisation respondent reported that uncertainty and disruption to ferry services has resulted in the tourism and hospitality sector regularly facing cancellations. In support of fixed links, it was reported that, for example, employers on mainland Orkney Island are reluctant to employ people who live ‘the other side’ of the barrier, seriously affecting peoples’ lives and well-being.

Respondents proposed a number of suggested changes or additions to Priority 1 including:

• Referring to transport services rather than just ferries and acknowledging the challenges for linked isles.
• Recognising that ferry connectivity, capacity and resilience need to be improved if the depopulation and decline in many island communities is to be addressed.
• Being clear that adequate capacity is required to deliver reliability and resilience.
• Adding a reference to customer experience, including how long a journey will take and that it will be a simple and comfortable experience.
• Referring to flexibility to add extra capacity.
• Adding a reference to visitors, to highlight the importance of meeting the needs of visitors and supporting the local visitor economy.
• Changing the reference to a growing economy to a circular economy.

In relation to the delivery of Priority 1, comments included that reliability must recognise performance against the community needs and not be measured against timetables or other measures which do not meet the needs of the destinations. It was also suggested that measurement should reflect all aspects impacting the services and not exclude specifics such as weather.

Priority 2: accessible

Some of the comments on Priority 2 referred to affordability being key to services being accessible. For example, it was suggested that there needs to be more focus on residents being able to afford to travel frequently. There was also specific reference to making travel accessible for young people and children, for example by providing free ferry passes, as is the case with bus passes, for those under 22-years old.

The requirements of those with mobility and/or disability needs were also highlighted, and it was suggested that accessibility for certain groups, for example wheelchair users, is long overdue. A specific example of the current situation provided was that, to date, Orkney Island Council have not found a practical and dignified accessibility solutions for their inter-island ferries. Other points raised included that:

• Accessibility for those with mobility, sensory, cognitive and neurodiverse characteristics and health issues should be considered, as well as broader equalities issues.
• There is a strong connection with Priority 3, since the disjointed timetables that can be incredibly inconvenient for the majority, can make travel uncomfortable and difficult for disabled people or those with mobility problems.

Other themes that respondents identified as affecting accessibility included available capacity and journey length, along with timetabling that supports the use of public transport for onward travel. However, also in relation to travel to and from ports, there was a perception, reported by one local authority respondent, that there is a drive to reduce vehicle numbers on ferries, being justified by environmental arguments, and that this is an “islands proofing” issue. It was suggested that Scottish Ministers and Transport Scotland should be providing sufficient ferry capacity to ensure that no traveller is disadvantaged compared to their mainland counterpart.

Priority 3: integrated

Relatively few respondents commented specifically on Priority 3, but integration of the ferry services with other modes of transport was seen as an integral part of how a reliable and resilient ferry service is delivered. Other points raised included that:

• Integration should also make a significant consequential contribution to Priority 4: low carbon. For example, it was noted that currently, journeys are disjointed and require costly and inconvenient layovers at certain points making public transport - nominally a lower carbon choice - an unattractive option.
• There should be a focus on transport services that enable sustainable and active travel choices and that make island and other ferry-dependent communities great places to live, work and visit.

Priority 4: low carbon

A number of the comments on the low carbon priority were about its importance compared to reliable, resilient, accessible and integrated services. There was a view that Priority 4 may not be a particular priority for many islanders and most ferry users, and that they would not want a low carbon focus to delay improvements in service. It was suggested that the primary aim must be to get the ferry service running properly, with Priority 4 only applicable providing it does not have a negative impact on delivering Priorities 1 to 3. Related examples and comments included that:

• Adoption of alternative fuels and propulsion technologies must be supported with investment in the required fuel distribution and storage networks to ensure availability at a reasonable cost and frequency and avoid constraints on service delivery and service resilience.
• Recognising the probable increased costs of investment in low carbon technologies, those costs should not be a financial burden to island residents and businesses.

Additional priorities

In addition to comments on the four proposed priorities, there were also a small number of suggestions for additional priorities to be included in the ICP. These included:

• Capacity, as a standalone priority. Supporting comments included that islanders need to be able to make journeys at relatively short notice, and that sufficient capacity is also critical to the visitor economy. Capacity was also linked to frequency and length of the operating day. It was suggested that islanders should, as a principle, have frequent options to travel when they choose.
• Community voice and transparency, with more decision making by those living on the islands.
• High performance and providing an excellent service. This was linked to improved customer satisfaction and better engagement and communication with ferry users and communities.
• Sustaining population. It was suggested that transport providers have a key role to play in addressing and reversing population trends.
• There was a concern that, without incorporating biosecurity into the future Strategic Approach and the Vessels and Port Plan, Scotland’s islands will remain vulnerable to the threat of invasion by non-native species that could critically endanger native wildlife.