Vessels and ports

The Vessels and Ports Plan proposes that, to renew the vessel and port assets required for the long-term sustainability of current ferry networks, prioritising where to invest is required due to budget constraints in the current financial environment. The Plan proposes that the following factors are taken into consideration when making decisions on prioritisation:

• The sustainability of ferry services by maintaining and increasing reliability and resilience.
• Ferry routes and services providing the primary transport connection for people, goods and services required for the sustainability of each community.
• Those communities identified as at greater risk of depopulation and economic decline.

Responses to Question 12 by respondent type are set out in Table 13 below.

Table 13: Responses to Question 12 by respondent type

Respondent	Agree	Disagree	Total
Community Council, Development Trust or Transport Forum	7	1	8
Energy related business or group	3	2	5
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	4	1	5
Local Authority, RTP or CPP	6	1	7
Port or harbour authority	2	0	2
Public Body	1	1	2
Third sector or campaign group	2	0	2
Tourism organisation or business	4	0	4
Trade Union	1	0	1
Other private sector business or group	4	0	4
Total organisations	34	6	40
% of organisations	85%	15%	100%
Individuals	98	32	130
% of individuals	75%	25%	100%
All respondents	132	38	170
% of all respondents	78%	22%	100%

A majority of respondents – 78% of those answering the question – agreed that the factors set out are the right ones to consider when making decisions on prioritisation. Organisations were more likely to agree than individuals, at 85% and 75% respectively.

Around 130 respondents made a comment at Question 12.

A number of respondents noted their agreement with the three factors set out, including that they are all important, but that delivery will be key. In terms of the fit between the three priorities and the ICP overall, a joint response from a local authority and regional transport partnership suggested that they align with the Vision and Priorities and that, by considering these factors, decision-makers can ensure that ferry investments are directed towards projects that will have the greatest positive impact on island communities. There was also a note of caution around the difficulty of determining what each of the factors would mean in practice, as well as their potential to lead to unintended consequences for some islands. In relation to prioritisation decisions, it was noted that the community needs assessment findings on each island/route will provide vital evidence, and that decision-making must be supported by a transparent and consultative process involving stakeholders and communities.

The issue of funding and investment was also raised, with concerns about references to budget constraints; while it was recognised that the current financial environment is challenging, it was also noted that it is not just about national budgets, but about impact on communities, including those for whom ferries are essential services. It was suggested that these services require the necessary financial support, whatever the cost, provided that the services are run efficiently. There was also reference to having an understanding of the counterfactual position in relation to investment; an example given was, if no investment was made and reliability continued to worsen, what impact would this have on the sustainability of a route? It was reported that such an assessment method is common among other transport schemes.

There was also a call for all new vessels procured to deliver the ICP Vessels and Ports Plan to be publicly owned by the Scottish Government and chartered to publicly owned service operators, ideally subsidiaries of David MacBrayne.

Equally, the risk of having to prioritise ferry services in the short term if at the expense of long-term sustainability was highlighted, with planning and investment around vessels and ports described as the most fundamental part of the ICP. In relation to the necessary investment, there were references to the public funds being invested into both the rail service and the road infrastructure and it was suggested that any cut in ferry services and capacity to suit contracting Government budgets is wrong in principle and incompatible with the principles of “island proofing”.

Another wider issue raised was that local authority-controlled routes should also be covered by the ICP, and by extension be considered when making decisions on prioritisation. It was suggested that if local authority ports, harbours and ferry services are not covered by future long-term plans (e.g. the Vessels and Ports Plan) and investment, then there is a risk that some island communities will be excluded from future transport investment programmes that would support national priorities.

Maintaining and increasing reliability and resilience

Comments relating to this factor very much reflected those at earlier questions, and at Question 7 in particular. They included that sustainability is key, not only for the routes but also for the communities served.

Ports and harbours were described as an essential part of the ferry network, and it was suggested that the need to invest in them is the same as the need to invest in vessels. However, it was also noted that the picture is slightly more complicated due to the number of different port owners. Suggestions as to how port infrastructure could help support a more resilient and reliable ferry service included:

• Ensuring the appropriate investment is made into port infrastructure, including for privately owned ports. There were calls for a defined program of maintenance and improvement, rather than sporadic interventions.
• Giving priority to ports that have not been upgraded recently, including to avoid emergency/critical works being required.
• Port operators being liable for the impact of poor service where the facilities are found to be at fault.

There was also a call for better co-ordination of vessel procurement and port infrastructure improvements. An example given was that, in the case of Islay, the two new vessels may arrive before the planned improvement works to accommodate them at Port Ellen are fully completed. It was also suggested that the policy of building vessels to fit a particular port is fundamentally flawed and that the option of considering and nominating ‘new’ ports in the future should not be discounted.

In relation to vessels themselves, it was reported that resilience and reliability are increasingly impacted by external factors, most notably changes in weather patterns and that, in some instances, it was argued that larger vessels could be less reliable than smaller ones. More generally, it was suggested that the resilience of vessels and infrastructure must take account of prevailing changes to operating conditions and that changes in sea conditions and wind speeds need to be carefully monitored and used to inform the safe design of new ferries and infrastructure on the CHFS and NIFS networks, particularly given the significant differences between the routes operated on the respective contracts.

An associated point was that the costs associated with large, single vessels, combined with costs of any consequential necessary changes to port infrastructure, can impact on the overall costs of serving island communities. Other vessels related comments and suggestions included that:

• Decisions around the number and design of ferries – in terms of type and size – is a driver service flexibility, operating costs and of the level of investment needed in ports.
• Some communities have ferry services with relatively long journey times and low sailing frequency; this suggests a need for faster and/or more than one vessel operating on these routes to meet users’ expectations.
• Vessels should be able to operate on different routes, with a limited number of different models of ferry to support this flexibility.
• Decisions on the design of vessels must be taken in consultation with the relevant Trade Union(s) so that their members have a direct say in their working conditions on these vessels.
• Vessel procurement should be cognisant of changes at international level to mandatory Seafarer Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) requirements for crew working on ferries powered by new green technologies.
• Financial penalties for the supplier should be built in for if new builds are not completed on time; if the vessels are all publicly funded then their replacements should have solid contracts and contract terms that best suit the taxpayer not the shipbuilder.

There was also a suggestion that there is actually over-provision of ferry services for particular islands which could be used elsewhere, including if provision is insufficient or to facilitate ferry maintenance.

Primary transport connection

Comments often addressed themes covered earlier, including those around essential services and sustaining the local economy; the central role of ferry services and, in many cases, the only viable option being a ferry service was again highlighted.

In terms of making decisions on prioritisation, points raised included that there needs to be a clear understanding on the purpose of the ferry service; it was suggested that at present there appears to be a disconnect between the requirements of providing a service and for whom the service is provided, and that this can lead to the needs of ferry-dependent communities taking second place to prioritising investment and operation. Where there are no alternative transport options, there were calls for investment decisions to consider the impact of works on the community.

It was also seen as essential that any decisions on prioritisation:

• Are understood by the community and have buy-in.
• Use an assessment process which includes a customer service metric reflecting customer experience.
• Take particular account of the needs of young people commuting for education.

As at earlier questions, it was also suggested that the concept of “lifeline” services should be retained, especially in relation to those communities identified as at a greater risk of depopulation and economic decline.

Also as at earlier questions, some respondents pointed to a need to move away from a reliance on ferry services as the primary and sometimes only transport connection and to consider the potential of more fixed links. Further comments included that, given the likely level of investment, alternatives such as tunnels should be considered; it was suggested that although probably more expensive in the short term, they could offer a more lasting and less expensive solution in the long term and that by expending considerable resources in a short term ferry infrastructure solution Scotland runs the risk of never being able to afford what might be described as a better solution.

Risk of depopulation and economic decline

Respondents were most likely to comment on the need to consider those communities identified as at greater risk of depopulation and economic decline, with points including that poor ferry links contribute to depopulation and, conversely, that it is very important to keep communities connected to avoid depopulation and any economic decline.

When considering depopulation, it was seen as important to consider not only total population but also the demographic structure, such as loss of young people and an ageing population. Good connectivity was seen as vital to supporting population growth, including by retaining young people and attracting those of working age. In relation to particular communities and types of location, comments included that:

• The communities identified as at greater risk of depopulation and economic decline should include mainland communities that provide vital onward connectivity and products and services to the islands.
• Care will be needed to ensure that the areas not currently identified as priorities for investment do not quickly become at risk of depopulation and economic decline themselves.
• The Development Team within the Crofting Commission are working on projects within the crofting counties to specifically address the issues of depopulation and associated issues, as laid out in the National Development Plan for Crofting; it was hoped that the Crofting Commission would be involved in a strategic and meaningful way in the development of new policy to ensure that crofting and crofters are given the appropriate importance within policy planning.

Also in relation to particular communities, a public body respondent commented that young people are the future of Gaelic, and that good ferry services play a significant part in their decisions whether to continue to live on an island.

Other respondents also referred to the importance of considering tourism. For example, while recognising the rationale for prioritisation given budget constraints, another public body respondent was keen that the visitor economy and its role in sustaining island communities is reflected; they commented that tourism sustains communities, creates jobs and attracts investment and is an economic and social powerhouse benefiting every part of Scotland.

In relation to other types of economic activity and development, it was suggested that enabling businesses to import equipment and supplies, such as those required by large energy projects, is a key driver of economic growth. It was noted that this, in turn, creates high-quality economic opportunities which allow people to continue living and working in island communities.

While most of those commenting on depopulation were looking to see it halted or reversed, there were also a small number of responses which questioned whether this is a sensible or reasonable priority. Comments included that the approach could hold back areas that are currently growing and where the economy is expanding, and that where economic decline and depopulation is already taking place, ferry services will be far from the only issue. It was also suggested that, given the climate emergency, it may not be appropriate to keep subsiding all communities at a level that keeps them viable.

Competing factors or priorities

Albeit sometimes broadly agreeing with the suggested factors, some respondents did put forward additional factors that they considered equally important. Other respondents, primarily those who had disagreed at the closed question, suggested alternatives.

Capacity in the network was the most frequent suggestion, with associated comments including that routes with the greatest capacity constraint should have the greatest priority. Necessary or greater capacity was linked not just to preventing economic decline, but to underpinning economic growth, and there were calls to recognise the needs of those communities where the economy is growing, and where the existing ferry service is becoming a limiting factor in this growth.

Another suggestion was that decisions on priorities must take account of the need for ports and vessels to be accessible for those with mobility issues or disabilities, and there were also references to: safety and compliance; asset condition and performance; operational efficiency; strategic alignment; cost-effectiveness and budget constraints; stakeholder engagement and consultation; and risk management.

Responses to Question 13 by respondent type are set out in Table 14 below.

Table 14: Responses to Question 13 by respondent type

Respondent	Yes	No	Total
Community Council, Development Trust or Transport Forum	3	6	9
Energy related business or group	2	2	4
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	2	3	5
Local Authority, RTP or CPP	3	5	8
Port or harbour authority	0	2	2
Public Body	1	3	4
Third sector or campaign group	1	0	1
Tourism organisation or business	1	3	4
Trade Union	0	1	1
Other private sector business or group	3	1	4
Total organisations	16	26	42
% of organisations	38%	62%	100%
Individuals	52	71	123
% of individuals	42%	58%	100%
All respondents	68	97	165
% of all respondents	41%	59%	100%

A majority of respondents – 59% of those answering the question – did not think that the factors set out should be ranked.

Around 125 respondents made a comment at Question 13

Reasons for not ranking the factors

Those who did not favour ranking the factors were most likely to say that they were all of equal importance, and sometimes also that they are fundamentally linked and need to be considered as a whole. It was suggested that ranking them implies that one aspect should take priority over the others, and that this is not the case.

Other reasons for not agreeing with a ranking approach tended to reflect either a basic disagreement with one or more of the factors identified, or a view that a wider set of factors needs to be taken into account. There was a concern that, given the range of priorities and factors to be considered around any investment project, it would not be helpful to tie decision-making to ranked priorities.

There were also references to priorities needing to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, reflecting the needs of different communities, with a suggestion that if these factors are ranked, it could result in contentious or perverse outcomes. An alternative suggestion was taking a holistic approach, based on specific detail and scope, using the three factors as a guide to develop each socio-economic case as projects arise.

Other points stemmed from concerns that it is not appropriate to prioritise one community’s needs at the expense of another’s. It was suggested that ranking the factors risks the creation of a ‘league table’ and that while there might be instances where priority has to be given to certain community needs, the general concept of ranking should be avoided and each community and situation should be considered separately and on its own merits.

Possible rankings

There was a suggestion that the factors should be further refined and weighted to reflect their relative importance, and that such an approach would help ensure that the most critical factors are given the highest priority in decision-making. In terms of factors that could be considered when refining and weighting the prioritisation factors there was reference to: the specific needs and priorities of each island community; the relative importance of each factor; and the potential impact of each factor on the overall ferry network. In terms of how the factors might be refined and weighted, suggestions included engaging with stakeholders and communities, using a multi-criteria analysis framework and developing a transparent and consultative process.

Most of those who did support a ranking approach went on to suggest a range of possible ranking orders. They were most likely to suggest the order currently set out is the right one; maintaining and increasing reliability and resilience (Factor 1); providing the primary transport connection required for the sustainability of each community (Factor 2); followed by a focus on depopulation and economic decline (Factor 3). There were also references to Factor 1 being the most important. Other variations suggested included:

• Factor 2 is the most important.
• Factor 3 will flow from the other two, or that the other two are more important than Factor 3.
• Alternatively, that Factor 3 is the most important, with a suggestion that depopulation is the ultimate metric, aggregating all others.

As at Question 12, it was also suggested that any ranking order should reflect local priorities, and that the factors should be ranked according to the needs of different areas. There were also calls for any proposed ranking to be put to local communities.

Other respondents did favour a ranking of factors but, again reflecting some of the suggestions made at Question 12, identified factors other than those set out. Suggestions included that the first/most important factor should be:

• Community growth aspirations.
• Reaching net zero and planning for climate change.