The Scottish Parliament - Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee Report

Dr Amanda Currie, Secretary, Lismore Community Council; Councillor Len Scoullar, Scottish Islands Federation; Sandy Brunton, President, Mull and Iona Chamber of Commerce;

Blair Fletcher, Transportation and Infrastructure Manager, Argyll and Bute Council; Councillor Roy Pedersen, Highland Council; Councillor Donald Manford, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar;

Councillor Alistair Watson, Chairman and John Halliday, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport; Duncan MacIntyre, Chair and Ranald Robertson, Partnership Manager, HITRANS

Written Evidence

Highland Council

Supplementary Written Evidence

Scottish Islands Federation – 4 March 2008
Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership – 17 April 2008

18 March (6th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3))

Oral Evidence

Roderick McLeod, Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland;

Stephen Boyd, Scottish Trades Union Congress; John Docherty, Unite

Phil McGarry, National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT), Paul Moloney, Nautilus UK; Stan Crooke, Regional Organiser, TSSA;

Marjory Rodger, Confederation of Passenger Transport UK; Peter Williams, First ScotRail

Written Evidence

Confederation of Passenger Transport UK (CPT)
Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC)
Letter from Passengers’ View Scotland to the Clerk

Supplementary Written Evidence

Confederation of Passenger Transport – 1 April 2008
First ScotRail – 25 April 2008
RMT – 30 April 2008

15 April (7th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3))

Oral Evidence

Graham Bell, Press and Policy Officer, Scottish Chambers of Commerce;

Stewart Wood, Vice President and Lisa Webb, Regional Manager, National Farmers’ Union; Libby Woodhatch, Chief Executive, Seafood Scotland;

David Eaglesham, Policy Adviser, Road Haulage Association; Gavin Scott, Head of Policy, Freight Transport Association

Supplementary Written Evidence

National Farmers’ Union Scotland – 22 April 2008

28 April (8th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3))

Oral Evidence

Daniel Thompson, Chair, Yell Community Council; Hamish Balfour, member, Shetland External Transport Forum; Brian Kynoch, Chair, Orkney Means Business;

Councillor Allan Wishart, Shetland Islands Council; Ken Duerden, Transport Development Manager, ZetTrans

Written Evidence

Orkney Islands Council

6 May (9th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3))

Oral Evidence

Professor Neil Kay; Professor Alf Baird;

Ben Carter, Head of Strategic Relations, Andy Stevens, Island Manager – Shetland and Chris Maguire, Strategic Relations Manager, Visit Scotland;

Captain Ron Bailey, Harbourmaster, ClydePort Ltd ; Guy Platten, Managing Director, Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited; Iain MacLeod, Chairman, Stornoway Port Authority, British Ports Authority

Written Evidence

Professor Alf Baird
Professor Neil Kay

Supplementary Written Evidence

Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited – 12 May 2008
Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited – 30 May 2008
Professor Neil Kay – 13 May 2008
VisitScotland – 26 May 2008

13 May (10th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3))

Oral Evidence

Bill Davidson, NorthLink Ferries Ltd; Lawrie Sinclair, CalMac Ferries Ltd; Peter Timms, David MacBrayne Ltd;

Andrew Banks, Pentland Ferries Ltd; Gordon Ross, Western Ferries (Clyde) Ltd

Written Evidence

CalMac Ferries Ltd
David MacBrayne Ltd
NorthLink Ferries Ltd
Pentland Ferries
Western Ferries (Clyde) Ltd

Supplementary Written Evidence

CalMac Ferries Ltd - 3 June 2008

3 June (12th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3))

Oral Evidence

Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Stewart Stevenson MSP;

John Ewing, Graham Laidlaw and Alan McPherson, Scottish Government Transport Directorate

Supplementary Written Evidence

Letter from the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change to the Committee – 13 June 2008
Letter from the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change to the Convener– 19 June 2008

ANNEXE C: ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Notes of fact-finding visits and video conferences:

Meetings in Gourock and Dunoon, 11 March 2008
Meetings in Arran, 17 March 2009
Video conference with representatives from Tiree, 22 April 2008
Video conference with representatives from Barra and Uist, 22 April 2008
Video conference with representatives from Lewis, 22 April 2008
Meetings in North Shetland, 29 April 2008
Meeting with Trade Union representatives in Shetland, 29 April 2008
Meeting with Community Council representatives of the Small Isles in Shetland, 29 April 2008
Meeting with the Chair of ZetTrans and ShetIand Islands Council representatives of the Small Isles in Shetland, 29 April 2008
Meeting with the Chair of ZetTrans and representatives of the North Isles in Shetland, 29 April 2008
Meetings in Mallaig, 19-20 May 2008
Video conference with representatives from Orkney, 20 May 2008

Summary of written submissions received in response to the Committee’s call for views and summary of responses to the online survey

ANNEXE D: LIST OF OTHER WRITTEN EVIDENCE

The Committee received other written evidence from the following individuals and organisations which is available in the electronic version of this report on the following web page:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/ticc/inquiries/FerryInquiry.htm

Alasdair Allan MSP

Anonymous submission

Argyll and Bute Council

Arran Council for Voluntary Services

Campaign for 7 day ferry services

Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport

Andrew W. F. Coghill

Coll Community Council

Colonsay Community Council

Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar

Councillor Rob Crichton

Cumbrae Ferry Users Group

Gourock Community Council

Stewart and Margot Grant

Mr and Mrs Griffiths

Douglas Hamilton

Highland Council

Highlands & Islands Enterprise

Iain Hunter

International Beam Global Spirits & Wines

Islay and Jura Ferry Company Ltd

Isle of Arran Distillers

Isle of Arran Ferry Committee

Isle of Barra Transportation Committe

Isle of Skye Ferry Community Interest Company

John O' Groats Ferries Limited

Catherine Johnstone

Jura Community Council

Lords Day Observance Society

Mobility Access Committee for Scotland

Nestrans

North Ronaldsay Community Council

Office of Fair Trading

Orkney Islands Council

Road Haulage Association

Cllr Uisdean Robertson

Rousay, Egilsay & Wyre Community Council

Colin Roy

Chris Ryan on behalf of 52 Lewis and Harris businesses

Submission from Sanday Community Council

Scotch Whisky Association

Scottish Association for Public Transport

Scottish Chambers of Commerce

Scottish Crofting Foundation

Scottish Council For Development and Industry

South Cowal Community Council

Western Ferries (Clyde) Ltd

Colin Woodcock

ZetTrans and Shetland Islands Council

Remit and Membership

Remit:

To consider and report on matters relating to transport, infrastructure and climate change falling within the remit of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth.

Membership:

Rob Gibson

Charlie Gordon

Patrick Harvie (Convener)

Alex Johnstone

Alison McInnes

Cathy Peattie (Deputy Convener)

Shirley-Anne Somerville

David Stewart

Committee Clerking Team:

Clerk to the Committee

Steve Farrell

Senior Assistant Clerk

Alastair Macfie

Assistant Clerk

Clare O'Neill

Committee Assistant

Sophie Ellison

Ferry Services in Scotland

The Committee reports to the Parliament as follows—

introduction

1. Ferry services in Scotland provide a lifeline link to our island communities. Their passenger and freight services play a vital role in preserving and enhancing the economic and social fabric of island life. To these communities, ferries represent much more than simply a transport link. Ferries play an active role in promoting diverse communities and encouraging families and young people to live on our islands. They help promote inward investment in these communities to sustain their economic well-being and development. In the course of this inquiry, the Committee heard, for example, that—

‘Affordable, reliable ferry services are probably the single most important factor in maintaining functioning economies and viable populations in the islands of Scotland’¹
‘People…are dependent on these ferries as a lifeline to education, school, shopping and leisure’²
‘The ferry is a critical part of the visitor experience, not just a means of getting visitors to their holiday destination’³
‘Communities are completely reliant on European export markets, and ferry journeys are only the first part of a very long transport chain’⁴
‘Strong and reliable ferry services are important to the agricultural industry on all the islands’⁵

2. This is the first major inquiry into ferry services carried out by a committee of the Scottish Parliament. It is the Committee’s intention that this report should support the improvement of ferry services to ensure that the communities they serve can be sustained and developed.

3. The Committee believes that the time is right for this inquiry. The Scottish Government is about to begin a review of Scotland’s ferries. The Committee wants to inform this review to ensure that it properly reflects the priorities of ferry users and is sufficiently ambitious in its scope. The Committee also wants to ensure that this review is not used by policy makers as an excuse for short-term inaction. Therefore, as well as covering more strategic medium-term recommendations, this report contains a number of recommendations for improvements to ferry services that the Committee wishes to be taken forward immediately.

Evidence received by the Committee

4. The Committee’s inquiry has been one of the most extensive conducted by a Scottish Parliament committee. The inquiry had wide-ranging terms of reference, covering all aspects of ferry services in Scotland. The Committee was keen to gather as wide a range of views as possible and organised a major programme of evidence gathering. This included—

Conducting an online survey of ferry users, which was publicised by placing leaflets in both English and Gaelic aboard ferries across Scotland, and received over 330 responses
Holding public committee meetings in Oban and Lerwick
Arranging a programme of five other committee meetings at which the Committee took evidence from key individuals and organisations with an interest in ferry services
Arranging video conferences with representatives in Orkney, Barra, Uist, Tiree and Stornoway
Taking part in informal fact-finding visits to Arran, Gourock, Dunoon and Mallaig to meet with ferry users and operators
Issuing a call for views in writing from anyone with an interest in ferry services which received over 110 responses

5. The Committee took evidence from the following witnesses at committee meetings—

Dr Amanda Currie, Secretary, Lismore Community Council
Councillor Len Scoullar, Scottish Islands Federation
Sandy Brunton, President, Mull and Iona Chamber of Commerce
Blair Fletcher, Transportation and Infrastructure Manager, Argyll and Bute Council
Councillor Roy Pedersen, Highland Council
Councillor Donald Manford, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar
Councillor Alistair Watson, Chairman, and John Halliday, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport
Duncan MacIntyre, Chair, and Ranald Robertson, Partnership Manager, The Highlands and Islands Strategic Transport Partnership (HITRANS)
Roderick McLeod, Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland
Stephen Boyd, Scottish Trades Union Congress
John Docherty, Unite
Phil McGarry, National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers
Paul Moloney, Nautilus UK
Stan Crooke, Regional Organiser, Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association
Marjory Rodger, Confederation of Passenger Transport UK
Peter Williams, First ScotRail
Graham Bell, Press and Policy Officer, Scottish Chambers of Commerce
Stewart Wood, Vice President, and Lisa Webb, Regional Manager, National Farmers’ Union
Libby Woodhatch, Chief Executive, Seafood Scotland
David Eaglesham, Policy Adviser, Road Haulage Association
Gavin Scott, Head of Policy, Freight Transport Association
Daniel Thompson, Chair, Yell Community Council
Hamish Balfour, member, Shetland External Transport Forum
Brian Kynoch, Chair, Orkney Means Business
Councillor Allan Wishart, Shetland Islands Council
Ken Duerden, Transport Development Manager, ZetTrans
Professor Neil Kay
Professor Alf Baird
Ben Carter, Head of Strategic Relations, Andy Stevens, Island Manager – Shetland, and Chris Maguire, Strategic Relations Manager, Visit Scotland
Captain Ron Bailey, Harbourmaster, ClydePort Ltd
Guy Platten, Managing Director, Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited
Iain MacLeod, Chairman, Stornoway Port Authority, British Ports Authority
Andrew Banks, Pentland Ferries Ltd
Bill Davidson, NorthLink Ferries Ltd
Gordon Ross, Western Ferries (Clyde) Ltd
Lawrie Sinclair, CalMac Ferries Ltd
Peter Timms, David MacBrayne Ltd
Stewart Stevenson MSP (Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change)
John Ewing, Transport Directorate, Scottish Government
Graham Laidlaw, Transport Directorate, Scottish Government
Alan McPherson, Transport Directorate, Scottish Government

6. The information gathered by the Committee is available publicly. Copies of the written views received can be found at Annexe D. An analysis of the responses to the online survey and the call for written views has been carried out by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre and can be found at Annexe C. A written transcript of each committee meeting can be found at Annexe B, along with written information associated with the meeting. Notes of each of the fact-finding visits and the video conferences can be found at Annexe C.

How the Committee used the evidence

7. The Committee has drawn on the information that it received extensively in reaching its conclusions and making recommendations. The Committee is very grateful to all those who contributed their views, either in writing or by meeting the members of the Committee in person, at formal or informal meetings. The response to this inquiry indicates the strength of feeling in communities about their ferry services.

8. The Committee is aware that not every piece of evidence that it received will be mentioned in the report, and not every issue highlighted in evidence will be specifically addressed in its recommendations. If the Committee does not specifically mention the experience of a particular community in this report, it is not because it is unaware of it or considers it to be without value. All the evidence received will be archived online permanently and will be publicly available.

9. The evidence received by the Committee, in all its forms, is particularly relevant due to the timing of the forthcoming Scottish Government review of ferries. It is not yet entirely clear what form this review will take, or what level of public consultation will take place. Later in this report, the Committee recommends that a full public consultation takes place as part of the review on the complete range of issues relating to ferry services. In the meantime, however, the Committee intends to issue a complete set of the evidence received to the Scottish Government with the recommendation that these views are fully assessed and taken into account as part of the review.

10. In assessing the evidence received, the Committee has tried to remain aware that different views can exist between ferry users regarding the future of their services. The Committee is aware, for example, of the different views between the residents of Barra and South Uist regarding the best route from their islands to the mainland. The Committee is also aware of the strong differences of opinions between those who support and those opposed to Sunday sailings to Lewis and Harris. In general, the Committee considers that these types of issues are best discussed at a regional or local level. The Committee does not consider it to be the role of the Scottish Parliament’s committees to intervene in often sensitive matters which are rightly and more appropriately dealt with locally, reflecting the views of the communities themselves.

Scope of the report

11. This report aims to set out a clear vision for the future of ferry services in Scotland. The Committee will highlight the views that it has received from local communities and will make clear recommendations for action in order to deliver service improvements. The Committee will not, however, generally make recommendations pertaining to detailed operational issues relating to specific ferry routes. The Committee does not have the necessary local knowledge and expertise to make recommendations on issues such as sailing times and the crewing of particular vessels. These are decisions that need to be made following a full assessment of local circumstances, not made by a parliamentary committee. The Committee can, however, make recommendations that aim to ensure that communities have their views taken into account and their concerns responded to. Most importantly, the Committee hopes to promote a policy framework in which service improvements can actually be delivered.

12. The remit of the inquiry covers ferry services in Scotland. This means that services to other countries from Scotland fall outwith the scope of this report. The Committee notes with concern, however, the recent announcement that the Superfast ferry service from Rosyth to Zeebrugge will cease operating later this year. Although not within the remit of this inquiry, the Committee questioned the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change on this issue when he gave evidence on 3 June 2008. The Committee intends to monitor this issue closely in the future.

13. The Committee is aware that although CalMac Ferries Ltd and NorthLink Ferries Ltd are the major ferry operators in Scotland, they are not the only operators providing ferry services. Sometimes the terms ‘ferries’ and ‘CalMac’ are wrongly used interchangeably in Scotland. The Committee notes that some witnesses used the generic term ‘ferries’ when they were only commenting on CalMac Ferries Ltd ferry services. It is hoped that the context of their remarks when recorded in this report, will make it clear to which services they are referring.

14. Similarly, some of the comments and recommendations made by the Committee will not be relevant to all ferry operators in Scotland, such as Scotland’s privately-owned ferry operators and the ferry services provided by Orkney Islands Council and Shetland Islands Council. Again, it is hoped that the context of the comments and recommendations in the report will make this clear. The Committee will comment specifically on private ferry operators in a later section of the report.

Main ferry operators in Scotland

15. This section provides a short guide to the main ferry operators in Scotland and the services that they provide. This section contains extracts from a briefing on ferry services in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe), which can be found on the Scottish Parliament website.⁶

Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd (CalMac) is a company owned by David MacBrayne Limited, which is itself owned by the Scottish Government and which provides ferry services to 22 islands and four peninsulas on Scotland’s west coast. Caledonian MacBrayne was split into two separate companies on 1 October 2006. Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd (CMAL) retains ownership of CalMac vessels and infrastructure, including harbours, and CalMac Ferries Ltd provides Clyde and Hebrides ferry services under contract to the Scottish Government.
NorthLink Ferries Ltd is a company owned by David MacBrayne Limited, which is itself entirely owned by the Scottish Government. NorthLink provides passenger and freight ferry services between Scrabster and Stromness, between Aberdeen and Kirkwall, and between Aberdeen and Lerwick.
Western Ferries is a privately owned operator of an unsubsidised car ferry service between Dunoon (Hunter’s Quay) and Gourock (McInroy’s Point).
Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) is the regional transport partnership for the west of Scotland, and operates the Renfrew ferry that links the Clydeside communities of Yoker (north bank) and Renfrew (south bank). SPT also operates the Kilcreggan ferry which links the Firth of Clyde communities of Helensburgh, Kilcreggan and Gourock.
Orkney Ferries is entirely owned by Orkney Islands Council and links the Orkney mainland with 13 of the smaller Orkney Islands.
Shetland Islands Council operates a network of ferry services linking the Shetland mainland with Yell, Skerries, Bressay, Fair Isle, Foula and Papa Stour. A service also links Yell with Unst and Fetlar. The service to Foula is operated by Atlantic Ferries Ltd under contract to the Council.
Highland Council operates the Corran car ferry, linking Nether Lochaber and Ardgour on opposite banks of Loch Linnhe, and the Camusnagaul Ferry, which provides a foot-passenger-only link between Fort William and Camusnagaul, again on Loch Linnhe.
Argyll and Bute Council runs car and passenger ferry services between Islay and Jura (operated by ASP Ship Management), Isle of Luing and Isle of Seil and Port Appin and Isle of Lismore.
Pentland Ferries is a privately-owned company that runs unsubsidised scheduled ferry services between Gills Bay, near John O-Groats and St Margaret’s Hope on South Ronaldsay (Orkney).
Skye Ferries is owned by the Isle of Skye Ferry Community Interest Company. It operates a car and foot-passenger service between Glenelg on the Scottish mainland and Kylerhea (Skye). The service operates between Easter and October.
Other operators include Bruce Watt Cruises, the John O’Groats Ferry and Sound of Mull Transport Group.

improving ferry services: short term action

16. The Committee has sought to put the views of ferry users at the heart of its inquiry. This is essential if changes are to be recommended to ferry services that truly reflect the needs of communities.

17. The Committee engaged in an extensive consultation on ferry users’ views, discussed above. The Committee is very grateful for the detailed and informative responses it has received. This section of the report will discuss some of the broad themes that have emerged from this evidence.

18. This section of the report will highlight concerns raised by ferry users that the Committee considers can and should be addressed via short-term action now or in the very near future. The next section of the report will argue that more strategic thinking is needed in order to improve ferry services more fundamentally.

19. One of the themes that emerged when the Committee spoke informally to ferry users was a frustration at the slow pace of action to improve ferry services. The Committee notes that it can always be argued that there is a good reason why change must wait. But, as Councillor Donald Manford told the Committee—

‘I believe that we must get to grips with the issue now—I made the same point in 2000. All the negative stuff that has gone on in the past 10 years, which has focused only on the type of contract, has set us back 20 years at least.’⁷

20. The Committee is anxious that this slow pace of improvement is addressed. The recommendations made in this section of the report should not wait for the outcome of Scottish Government’s ferries review. Work should begin to assess them immediately.

21. It should be noted that the evidence highlighted below does not necessarily represent the full range of views received by the Committee on a particular topic. The Committee has chosen to highlight particular views on a range of themes that it considers to be typical of the wider experience of ferry users.

Timetables

Commuting

22. The Committee received a number of views on the timetabling of ferry services. A common theme was the need for timetables to allow island residents to commute to the mainland. Councillor Roy Pedersen of Highland Council explained that—

‘If people in an island community can commute to work in a nearby regional centre, that enhances the quality of life on the island, because it means that they earn a decent income but can live on the island and come home to their family and friends at night. In many cases, that is either difficult or impossible.’⁸

23. This was a recurring theme during the inquiry. Problems commuting to and from islands were identified on routes such as Raasay to Skye, Ardnamurchan to Tobermory, and (during winter months) Mallaig to Armadale. But, as Councillor Pedersen told the Committee, in relation to the Mallaig to Armadale service ‘relatively simple adjustments to scheduling would make such commuting possible’.⁹

24. A representative from Mull and Iona Chamber of Commerce commented that ‘if the word "commutability" was built into timetabling, it would create a difference in how things happen.’¹⁰ The Committee, however, heard evidence that ‘almost all ferries shut off at or just after tea time, except the Western Ferries service across the Clyde and Shetland's internal ferry services.’¹¹

25. The Committee heard that basing ships and crew on islands rather than on the mainland might provide improved commuting options for island residents. A representative of Mull and Iona Chamber of Commerce, for example, told the Committee that—

‘The main ferry to Mull sails from Oban. Our service is based in Oban rather than on Mull. A service that was based on Mull would allow for earlier departures and commutability from Mull to Oban. We should bear in mind that Mull is, in various ways, more disadvantaged than Oban—in respect of accommodation and connections, for example. Basing the service in Oban gives an advantage to those who already have the advantage.’¹²

26. However the Committee notes that CalMac Ferries has argued that such a proposal could have disadvantages—

‘If we based the ship on Mull, the chances are that tradesmen would have only five hours on the island, not including the time for travelling onwards from the port. The other distinction is that we have difficulty with the ship lying overnight in Mull, where the port is not as safe as the one in Oban. We would prefer the ship to lie on the mainland side.’¹³

Winter timetable

27. A number of responses to the Committee argued that the winter timetables on CalMac Ferries services needed to be improved. In a written submission, Colin Woodcock commented in relation to the Oban to Tiree route—

‘The winter service is totally inadequate with only three sailings each week – Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. There has been a massive increase in shipped passengers during the winter – in 2001 there were 18,266 and in 2006 there were 25,810 – an increase of 29%. Has there been any response to this amazing increase? None what-so-ever.’¹⁴

28. The Committee received a number of other comments on the issue of winter timetables. One comment received in the Committee’s online survey, for example, was that it ‘would be good if Tarbert-Uig ferry went more regularly in the winter timetable’, whilst a submission from Coll Community Council explained—

‘At present we get double sailings on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Until Christmas we get a single call on Sunday. After Christmas, this stops. We are keen that that Sunday sailing continues through out the winter period, as it allows our secondary school children and weekend visitors to get to the island for a short weekend.’¹⁵

29. Two Committee members visited Mallaig in May 2008 and heard from residents of the Small Isles. They complained that in the winter the timetable for their ferry service was reconfigured so that the boat used on the Small Isles run also served the Mallaig to Armadale route. This meant that in the winter the Small Isles received an inferior service.

Cost of staying on the mainland

30. Some respondents commented that the timetabling of some ferry services meant that islanders had to spend a number of nights on the mainland, incurring significant cost and inconvenience. A response to the online survey stated—

‘The integration of ferry arrivals/departures with public transport is non-existent. In almost all cases an overnight stay in Oban (adding to cost of journey) is unavoidable in order to catch the early morning ferry.’¹⁶

31. Another respondent to the online survey who uses the Ardrossan to Brodick route made the point that cancelled services can lead to island residents incurring unplanned costs—

‘An outpatient appointment can be missed or if the ferry is cancelled on return an expensive night in a hotel results.’¹⁷

32. The Isle of Barra Transportation Committee described the trend in timetables toward ‘more late evening and night arrivals in Oban long after all connecting public transportation has ceased and when hotels and B&Bs have effectively closed their doors.’¹⁸ The Committee discussed this issue and other concerns relating to the timetabling of ferries with Barra representatives in a video conference in April 2008.

33. On the informal visit to Mallaig, committee members heard that the timetable for services to the Small Isles was such that overnight stays of one or two days were often necessary in order to meet routine appointments on the mainland such as hospital outpatient appointments. The length of stay on the mainland could be even longer if poor weather meant that scheduled return sailings were cancelled.

Additional sailings

34. An analysis by SPICe of the written submissions revealed that twenty-one respondents had expressed a desire for additional sailings on existing routes. In reviewing all the evidence received, the Committee is in no doubt that this is an aspiration shared by many, if not all, islanders.

Northern Isles services

35. The Committee heard that there appeared to be reasonable satisfaction with ferry timings on NorthLink services. This view was expressed by Orkney Islands Council¹⁹, and by Brian Kynoch from Orkney Means Business who told the Committee—

‘The timetabling of the services seems to be fine tuned now. A couple of years ago, there was a furore about the removal of the early morning sailing from Scrabster, but the initial worries about that seem to have disappeared, and there are no timetabling issues to report… In general, I think that people are happy with the quality of the service and the comfort of their travel.’²⁰

36. Councillor Allan Wishart of Shetland Islands Council suggested that there would be benefits if NorthLink were able to make small timetable changes more easily—

‘I am not sure how tightly the contract specification is set down, but I wonder whether it would help if there was a little more flexibility so that the operator had the power to make decisions on minor day-to-day alterations to the timetable.’²¹

37. Dan Thompson from Yell Community Council, speaking on behalf of Association of Shetland Community Councils, commented on the timetabling of inter-island ferry services in Shetland, suggesting that a priority for communities was to maintain current service levels—

‘I am not aware of any serious timetabling problems. There are some problems, but the concern is that communities have grown because of the level of service, but now they are not. The services must be protected, as any reduction in services would devastate communities socially and economically.’²²

Conclusions

38. The Committee is aware that many island residents have already raised with CalMac Ferries the question of timetable improvements on specific routes. In many cases the response from CalMac Ferries has been that the company would like to put on improved services but that major barriers exist which prevented this from happening, such as hours of working regulations or a shortage of vessels. The Committee understands the constraints under which CalMac Ferries operates. However, the Committee considers that the only way of achieving major timetable improvements is to address these fundamental restrictions. The Committee will examine these issues later in this report.

39. During a fact-finding visit to Gourock, Committee representatives also heard from CalMac that, in structuring its timetables, it has made significant efforts to ‘maximise the day’ to meet the needs of users.

40. However, the Committee believes that it would be possible for CalMac Ferries to adjust some timetables to a limited extent to meet more effectively local needs and to provide some additional services, within the current restrictions imposed by crew working hours and other factors. In particular, the Committee recommends to the Scottish Government that it directs CalMac Ferries to investigate whether it can to do more to lengthen the sailing day and maximise the utilisation of vessels to allow for the greater possibility of commuting from islands.

41. On an informal visit to Arran, committee members heard from residents about the lengthy period of time needed to discuss and improve the introduction of an improved winter timetable on the Ardrossan to Brodick route. The Committee believes that a speeded up process would provide CalMac Ferries with more incentive to look into further possible timetable adjustments that might benefit communities. The Committee also recommends that the Scottish Government investigates ways of speeding up the process of approving small uncontroversial timetable changes so that they can be implemented more quickly and with less bureaucracy.

42. The Committee further recommends that the Scottish Government directs CalMac Ferries to investigate whether there are any new innovative working practices which might allow timetables to be improved.

Sunday sailings

43. The Committee is very aware that the question as to whether Sunday sailings should be introduced on the Ullapool to Stornoway and Uig to Tarbert routes arouses strong views within local communities from both those in favour and against their introduction.

44. The written submission from the Campaign for 7 Day Ferry Services to Lewis and Harris stated that some of the arguments in favour of Sunday sailings were as follows—

‘As well as boosting tourism, Sunday ferry services would have many social benefits for island residents and their families and friends elsewhere, for example:

More frequent visits to friends and relatives
Weekend holiday, leisure or shopping trips with no time off work/school
Weekend hospital visits to Inverness, Glasgow etc
School and sports club trips – inward and outward
Attending weekend sporting events
Attending weddings and other social events
Increased weather flexibility – especially in winter’²³

45. The Committee also received a submission on behalf of 52 businesses in Lewis and Harris arguing that the introduction of Sunday sailings is ‘a necessary and long overdue development with the potential to improve the islands’ tourism industry in line with the Scottish Government’s target of a 50% increase in tourism revenues.’²⁴

46. On the other hand, the response from the Lord’s Day Observance Society argued against the introduction of Sunday sailings, explaining that—

‘We are now the only part of the British Isles where there is still a real, restful Sunday, with shops and businesses closed and our working people being free to spend the day in peace, relaxation and – where they so choose – public worship. The imposition of a Sunday ferry service would, we believe, fatally burst the dam, and change our culture with remarkable speed, as the Lord's Day is quickly overwhelmed by the forces of untrammelled free-market enterprise. As a community, we would lose a genuine amenity of great interest and appeal to many visitors.’²⁵

47. The debate over Sunday sailings was a feature of many of the responses to the online survey, as well as being the subject of a number of individual written submissions to the Committee.

48. The Committee notes that there are strong and reasonable arguments which have been presented in favour of Sunday sailings and it would appear that their introduction could potentially deliver economic and other benefits. However, it must also acknowledge the strength of feeling on the other side of this debate from those who feel that the introduction of Sunday sailings would be intrusive and would impact negatively on traditional local observation of the Sabbath. The Committee’s view, however, is that this is an issue of some sensitivity that should be discussed and agreed at a local and regional level and it is not a matter on which it should take a position.

Integration between ferries and other modes of transport

49. The Committee heard from a number of ferry users who had concerns about poor connections between ferries and buses and trains. In some cases the timetables appeared to be constructed in such a way that long waits occurred when connecting between different transport modes. In a written submission to the Committee, Christine March explained—

‘I write regarding the ferry service from Armadale to Mallaig. I often take this route to Glasgow using the ferry and train. It would be a very convenient way to travel but is totally spoiled in the winter service by the lack of a ferry to meet the return journey from Glasgow to Mallaig. The train gets in at 1.30pm but there is no ferry till 4.00pm and I cannot see any reason for the ferry timetable not accommodating the train arrival time.’²⁶

50. A number of ferry users made the point that whilst they appreciated that it may sometimes be necessary to wait for a train service after disembarking from a ferry, improved facilities at stations would make the wait less of an inconvenience. This seemed to be a particular issue at Mallaig station.

51. Other evidence received suggested a lack of flexibility existed when it came to trains or ferries waiting for delayed passengers to make a connecting service. The Committee heard accounts from ferry users in Arran of situations where a ferry from Brodick to Ardrossan arrived slightly late and the train from Ardrossan to Glasgow departed as passengers from the ferry were walking up the platform about to get onboard. In the view of Arran residents this was caused by the strict performance regime under which First ScotRail operates, whereby waiting an extra few minutes to depart with passengers onboard would lead to fines being imposed on First ScotRail. According to a written submission, a similar issue has arisen in Gourock—

‘The worst case was last summer, when docking at Gourock from Dunoon, the waiting train was permitted to leave without the disembarking passengers. The local station staff were apologetic. However it seems that their head office insists that the train leaves independent of the ferry sailings.’²⁷

52. Another point about integrated transport was raised in a submission from the Isle of Barra Transportation Committee, which suggested—

‘Oban has regular bus and train services to and from Glasgow. The main difficulty is that buses and trains tend to leave or arrive in Oban at the same time. This then limits the opportunities to integrate public transport with ferry arrivals and departures. Staggered timetables would improve considerably the ability for public transport integration.’²⁸

53. It appears to the Committee that two factors currently hamper the successful integration of ferries with other transport modes. Firstly, the complexity of timetabling both ferries and trains makes it very challenging to integrate connections in all cases. This is particularly an issue in relation to the West Highland Line, which is a single track line and therefore has limited flexibility in relation to adjusting train times. Councillor Manford indicated his view that ‘how to put things right is not an easy question to answer. Tinkering by another committee will not put them right.’²⁹

54. The second factor which may affect integration is the performance regimes by which rail operators and, to a lesser degree, CalMac Ferries are bound. Phil McGarry of National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers highlighted this as a problem—

‘I simply do not think that there is any co-ordination... we can discuss the principle of providing a public service to the public, irrespective of the mode of travel that people choose. However, the fact is that, because train operating companies are duty-bound by their contractual obligations to run trains on time, the principle has disappeared.’³⁰

55. In evidence to the Committee, the managing director of NorthLink indicated that his company does its best to meet transport connections.³¹ The Committee notes, however, that the particular characteristics of NorthLink services, with long overnight journeys, may make it easier to integrate with other modes of transport.

56. The problems faced in relation to CalMac Ferries services were articulated by the company’s managing director Lawrie Sinclair—

‘If we wait for people in the middle of the day, it knocks the ferry service out for the rest of the day, which means that the customers on the ferry miss their connections to different parts of the island, or that when the ferry returns it misses the train and bus connections. The buses cannot wait, and the trains certainly cannot wait, because they have a limited slot to get into the main stations. If it is the last sailing of the day, we try to ensure that the ferry waits for passengers who are late.’³²

57. In evidence to the Committee, First ScotRail suggested that missed connections between trains and ferries were not a significant problem—

‘We hold trains where we can. There are problems from time to time, but not on-going problems. Relationships exist between the ferry operators and our control department, which is responsible for the day-to-day management of our services and short-term alterations to them. Sometimes there are difficulties and trains cannot be held—for example, we are occasionally asked to hold trains that are going out of Stranraer, but connections will be missed in Glasgow if those trains run late.’³³

58. The Confederation for Passenger Transport Scotland explained the position in relation to the integration of bus services with ferries—

‘It is easier to hold back local bus services, such as those that are operated by West Coast Motors in Oban and district, because the people involved use mobiles and know each other, so they can be more pragmatic. If a service runs more than five minutes late, the operator is in breach and could be pulled up before the traffic commissioner, but proof that the service was waiting for a ferry connection would be an acceptable reason for delay. It is harder for longer-distance coach services to be held back.’³⁴

59. Councillor Len Scoullar, representing the Scottish Islands Federation, supported the idea of there being a single authority to co-ordinate the effective integration of public transport—

‘I think that it would be the key. When our timetable was changed, I acted as an intermediary between the rail network and Caledonian MacBrayne to try to achieve some kind of integration. If one authority had overseen that change, I agree that it would have been much better.’³⁵

60. In evidence to the Committee, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change set out some of the problems associated with the integration of transport modes—

‘There might be inflexibility in contracts, but there is also inflexibility in the infrastructure… In the performance regime for the ferries, in particular, we allow for the knock-on effects of delayed sailings and we provide relief in contractual terms. In doing that, we try to relieve the ferry companies of the pressure of feeling that their performance will be marked down if they respond to events.’³⁶

61. The Committee agrees with a number of witnesses who stated that there were no straightforward solutions to many of the problems associated with integration of different modes of public transport. As Councillor Manford commented in relation to the limited numbers of trains departing from Oban—

‘If 12 ferries come into Oban and there are three ways out, the needs of passengers from three ferries will be met, but those of passengers from nine will not be met.’³⁷

62. The Committee also notes that the geography and climate of Scotland can make it difficult to integrate different transport modes. To reach certain ports, for example, lengthy rail journeys are sometimes needed which increases the likelihood of delays, whilst poor sea conditions can make delays to ferry services a possibility. It is also acknowledged that it may be difficult for trains to delay their departure if this impacts more widely on train movements or on connections with other services.

63. Yet, despite these constraints, the Committee believes that a situation where a train departs as ferry passengers walk down a station platform to get onboard is completely unacceptable. The Committee recommends that a degree of operational flexibility should be built into the contracts between the Scottish Government and both First ScotRail and CalMac Ferries to allow common sense to prevail in these types of situations. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government investigates what scope there is for flexibility within the railways performance regime to avoid penalising First ScotRail if the departure of a train is delayed for a few minutes in order to wait for ferry passengers.

64. The Committee has received examples of good practice in relation to the integration of transport modes but has also heard accounts of where it is clearly not working. The Committee believes that integration works best where operators talk to each other regularly and share best practice. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government establishes a group under the auspices of Transport Scotland to ensure that operators meet regularly with each other to discuss how integration can be improved. This group could also discuss other relevant interests, such as the facilities at locations where different transport modes meet. The group could also include representatives from local authorities who often play an important role in setting local bus timetables.

Summer / winter timetables

65. A point raised by some witnesses was that First ScotRail and CalMac Ferries introduce their summer and winter timetables on different dates and this can cause confusion. This year, for example, CalMac Ferries summer timetables run from 21 March to 18 October, whilst First ScotRail’s summer timetable runs from 18 May to 13 December. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change commented to the Committee that recently a member—

‘…drew my attention to one of those simple things that one tends not to notice, which was that people who set the timetables for different modes of transport have different views about when summer starts and ends. I certainly have a job to do in that regard.’³⁸

66. The Committee considers that this is an unfortunate situation which can lead to difficulties in integrating services when timetables change at different times of the year. The Committee therefore recommends that the Scottish Government facilitates discussions between First ScotRail and CalMac Ferries to identify capacity for improved co-ordination of timetable development and introduction.

Booking arrangements

67. The Committee’s online survey asked ‘in the past 12 months have you been unable to board the ferry service you most regularly travel on due to a suitable lack of passenger or vehicle spaces?’ This question was answered by 313 respondents, with 123 indicating that they had been unable to board the ferry. Respondents indicated they had been unable to board 23 different ferry services at least once in the last 12 months.

68. Particular concerns raised through the online survey included block booking by haulage contractors, especially on Monday morning sailings, meaning that there was limited space for cars; smaller replacement vessels used when the regular vessel is away for repairs thus restricting capacity; problems in service recovery following cancellations due to poor weather, and problems caused by increased traffic during the summer holiday season.

69. The Committee received a number of complaints from ferry users about the practice of block bookings being made on vessels in advance, only for them to be cancelled, but not reallocated to other users. This could result in users being told that the vessels were full and finding themselves unable to travel, although vessels would actually sail with some spare capacity. In a written submission, for example, M Ross who uses the Ardrossan to Brodick route told the Committee—

‘There have been reports locally that commercial users block book space which is not used but the booking prevents private users making a booking.’³⁹

70. The Committee also heard during its video conference with ferry users on Lewis that CalMac does not appear to record statistics on those who are told in error that the vessel is fully booked which, if collected, would assist in identifying the scale of the problem.

71. The Committee put these complaints to the managing director of CalMac Ferries, who responded—

‘We are looking at that and we will restrict the amount of traffic that is block booked for commercial vehicles. However, it is a problem not just for commercial vehicles. We were over in Mull last year and talked to the communities there about the difficulties that they had in getting on vessels. In October, the number of cars that did not turn up for specific sailings was more than 600. That was locals booking places on two or three services so that, if they missed one, they could get on the next one. We are considering ways in which to combat that, as it is not fair on the other islanders.’⁴⁰

72. The Committee believes that a booking system whereby unused vehicle spaces on board busy sailings are not reallocated to other traffic is not fit for purpose. It does not consider it unreasonable that those who make multiple or block advance bookings should be required to notify CalMac within a certain timeframe if they do not intend to travel, perhaps with appropriate penalties being applied as an incentive for them to do so. It also considers that CalMac must devise effective mechanisms for reallocating any spaces which become available. The Committee welcomes the commitment of CalMac Ferries to consider this issue further, and recommends that quick progress is made to reach a resolution and eradicate this practice. As a first step, and in order to identify the extent of the problem and inform a solution, the Committee recommends that CalMac Ferries collates and publishes relevant statistics on the problem. These statistics should include a breakdown of which types of vehicle are responsible for cancelled bookings and the numbers of passengers who are turned away when spaces are not reallocated.

Consultation arrangements with ferry users

73. The Committee received a number of representations from ferry users who were disappointed at the demise of the Shipping Services Advisory Committees (SSACs). The Committee notes that CalMac Ferries currently operates Regional Ferry Forums, but the perception from many stakeholders is that they do not represent a proper replacement for the SSACs. Councillor Len Scoullar, speaking on behalf of the Scottish Islands Federation, told the Committee—

‘We in the Clyde shipping services advisory committee had a great deal of input into various matters. Often, we developed solutions for CalMac. I felt that it was a great pity that the shipping services advisory committees were removed and their responsibilities passed to the tier 1 groups within the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership. Those groups meet to discuss such issues, but they do not meet CalMac.’⁴¹

74. The need for improved consultation arrangements between users and the ferry operators was highlighted in a number of written submissions, including one from the Scotch Whisky Association, which argued that ‘a recurring issue raised by Scotch whisky distillers is a lack of appropriate consultation between the ferry operator and local businesses as to what service best meets the social and economic needs of the community.’⁴²

75. On the other hand, Duncan MacIntyre of HITRANS, the organisation implementing the new consultation arrangements, defended the new structures for consultation—

‘I have just been involved in setting up the tier 1 and tier 2 meetings: the first series took place just last month. They were organised across the whole western seaboard and, indeed, into the Clyde, and they seem to have gone particularly well.’⁴³

76. The Committee also heard positive feedback on the new arrangements from Orkney Islands Council and from Ken Duerden of ZetTrans who explained—

‘What is known as tier 1 is a local group that ZetTrans set up in Shetland. The idea was to bring together the representatives of all the different user groups. That has been going for just under a year now and has been successful. The operators come and meet us regularly and are now using those meetings as an opportunity to announce changes that they are going to make.’⁴⁴

77. Some respondents felt that CalMac Ferries would be more responsive to the requirements of ferry users if more decision-making powers were delegated to regional managers. This was an issue raised during a fact-finding visit to Mallaig. The Committee also heard the view that CalMac Ferries’ headquarters should be moved from Gourock in order to increase the company’s understanding of islanders’ needs. This idea was raised by representatives from Barra in a video conference. The Scottish Crofting Foundation agreed, arguing—

‘The main headquarters of Caledonian MacBrayne should be relocated to one (or more) of the islands served by the company.’⁴⁵

78. Peter Timms of David MacBayne Ltd made the point that consultation currently takes place between both NorthLink and CalMac Ferries and communities, but went on to say—

‘Speaking personally, I regret that the shipping services advisory committees have been discontinued, because they gave us and our customers a formal opportunity twice a year in which to discuss collectively the very issues about which you have heard complaints. Now we engage directly with each community separately, and in some cases with more than one group with differing views within the same community. In the past 12 months, some of our directors and managers have visited virtually every one of our destinations and consulted community representatives and business sectors formally and informally.’⁴⁶

79. Sandy Brunton of Mull and Iona Chamber of Commerce made a suggestion for how to improve current consultation arrangements—

‘A study has been carried out, and we believe that a transport forum could be linked to a hub port. On that forum would be the funders, the providers of the services and the users of the services. The forum would meet perhaps once a year, and representatives of the communities would attend. People would be able to discuss timetabling, links, prices and all sorts of different things.

The forum would let operators and users get together. That does not seem to happen just now; we do not seem to have the opportunity to get the railway folk, the bus folk, the ferry folk and the users all talking together. A transport forum would assist such discussions. There could be such discussions at every hub port—at Mallaig, Uig, Oban and so on.’⁴⁷

80. John Ewing, Head of the Scottish Government Transport Directorate, made the point that the current arrangements were designed to embrace all forms of public transport and promote integration of transport modes, rather than focusing narrowly on ferries. However, he did appear to acknowledge that the Scottish Government was open to persuasion on this issue—

‘At the time, it was hoped that the integration with the RTPs [regional transport partnerships] would provide a better service. However, as the minister says, we need to keep the arrangements under review to consider whether they meet the purpose... We will be interested in any views that the committee forms on that.’⁴⁸

81. Although some respondents felt that the new consultation arrangements had been working effectively, on balance, the Committee considers that the evidence that it has heard on this issue highlights deficiencies in the arrangements. The Committee considers that it may have been a backward step to lose a formal forum at which local representatives had the opportunity to liaise regularly and directly with ferry operators. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government reviews how well the new consultation arrangements have worked in practice and whether any adjustments are required in order to improve lines of communication between the operators and communities. In doing so, the Committee recommends that the Scottish Government reflect on the experience of the Northern Isles where it appears that the arrangements have been more successful than in other parts of Scotland.

82. The Committee notes the suggestion that CalMac Ferries’ headquarters should be moved to an island community, but does not believe that the disruption and cost of such a move would be justified. The Committee believes that there may be more merit in the suggestion that CalMac Ferries devolves greater powers to its regional managers, or localise some of its functions, where this is possible, in order to promote quicker decision making that is more responsive to local needs as well as encouraging operational flexibility.

Accessibility of ferries

83. The acting convener of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland (MACS), Roderick McLeod, gave evidence to the Committee on the issue of the accessibility of ferries.

84. The Committee understands that accessibility issues relating to the design of ferries and ferry buildings are reserved to the United Kingdom Government, so most of the work on the accessibility of ferries is carried out by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), which is linked to the Department for Transport. The DPTAC has recently published guidance entitled Designing and Operating Passenger Vessels and Passenger Shore Infrastructure: Guidance on Meeting the Needs of Persons with Reduced Mobility which is intended to give guidance on accessibility issues to providers of ferry services within the UK.

85. In evidence to the Committee, however, MACS expressed concern that this guidance did not sufficiently take account of the particular characteristics of ferries in Scotland, where the main problems with accessibility occur at the point where passengers embark and disembark the vessels. This is particularly an issue with the smaller ferries that are often found in Scotland. Roderick McLeod explained that—

‘The DPTAC guidance is sorely lacking in advice on the matter. It is an important job for Government to provide advice and guidance to people who design ferry services, and such advice would be of great value. MACS expressed its view that there was a deficiency in the document, but DPTAC pressed ahead with it. However, DPTAC agreed that if MACS were to publish additional guidance on boarding and disembarking from small ferries, it would include in its guidance a pointer towards the MACS advice.’⁴⁹

86. MACS acknowledged, however, that making all Scotland’s ferries fully accessible would be a long-term project, with Roderick McLeod explaining that ‘typically, ferries last for 30 years, so it will be a long while before the whole stock is converted to an acceptable standard.’⁵⁰

87. A particular challenge appears to exist in respect of the internal ferries run by Orkney Islands Council. In a written submission it informed the Committee that—

‘None of the existing ferries have full facilities that meet the present requirements laid down for the carriage of Disabled Passengers and their vehicles, by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC). With the present type and construction of these vessels it will not be possible to meet these requirements.’⁵¹

88. The evidence from MACS also mentioned two other issues which sometimes arose in relation to the accessibility of ferries—

‘Two types of comment are characteristic. First, people complain about the complication of timetables. They have difficulty in understanding the complex diagrams that CalMac, for example, produces.’⁵²

‘The second issue, which runs right through the work of MACS and through our experience with ferry operators, is staff understanding of the needs of disabled people. That understanding is patchy, although some companies have put a lot of effort into training staff to understand those needs, which aids in getting round some of the physical restrictions.’⁵³

89. CalMac Ferries explained to the Committee—

‘Most of our small ferries are 20-plus years old. The newer ferries are much more customer friendly for those who are disabled. We have just completed the Loch Shira for the Largs to Cumbrae route, and we had the needs of disabled people in mind when it was built. It is difficult to change a ship once it has been built, but we look at the best way forward with all our new ships, large and small.’⁵⁴

90. Bill Davidson, the managing director of NorthLink Ferries Ltd told the Committee—

‘We were fortunate, because we were able to specify what we wanted when we built new ships, so we designed them bearing in mind people with mobility difficulties.’⁵⁵

91. Gordon Ross of Western Ferries explained that—

‘We run four boats. The two new boats that were built by Ferguson's basically have no steps. If someone arrives who is in a wheelchair or who has special needs, there are no steps for them to worry about. They can quite easily be taken down the linkspan. Our passenger accommodation is on the deck so there is full access for anyone with mobility issues.’⁵⁶

92. The Committee notes that both MACS and vessel operators accept the fact that the age of some vessels in Scotland means that they are not well suited for use by passengers with reduced mobility. It also notes with particular concern the difficulties faced by Orkney Islands Council in making its vessels accessible. The Committee also welcomes the fact that modern vessels, such as those introduced by NorthLink and Western Ferries, are significantly more accessible.

93. The Committee considers it essential that all proposals to procure new or refurbish existing vessels have accessibility as a core requirement when they are being taken forward. It notes that this is particularly important in relation to smaller ferries, which also invariably use port or landing facilities that are themselves inadequate in terms of accessibility. Indeed, this approach should also apply to the development of ports infrastructure and passenger terminal facilities to ensure that disabled people and those with mobility problems find it easier to get on and off ferries. As MACS said in its written submission ‘for many disabled people this can be the most challenging part of any ferry journey’.⁵⁷

94. However, the Committee also notes the concern expressed by MACS regarding the lack of guidance for ferry operators on accessibility issues which recognises the particular nature of ferry services in Scotland. It considers that, given that the responsibility for the design of ferries and ferry buildings is reserved, it is imperative that there is full recognition of the Scottish ferry network within any guidance on accessibility which is produced by DPTAC. The Committee is of the view that there is a requirement for a strong representation from Scotland to influence DPTAC and the Department of Transport to ensure that this happens.

95. The Committee therefore recommends that the Scottish Government considers, as a matter of urgency, what might be the most appropriate means of working with DPTAC to ensure that its guidance on accessibility issues is appropriate to the Scottish network. The Committee also considers it essential that the accessibility of ferries is treated as a priority issue by the Scottish Government and that the pace of improvement in this area increases. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government fully integrates accessibility issues as part of its forthcoming ferries review and identifies scope for bringing existing ferries and infrastructure up to modern standards wherever possible.

Customer service

96. The Committee has received a number of practical suggestions from ferry users on how ferry operators might improve their customer service. The Committee highlights as examples the following comments—

‘I would like to suggest that the 'decision makers' i.e. the senior managers should undertake regular customer surgeries (perhaps by travelling on the boat). This would give folk the chance to put forward constructive suggestions and give CalMac managers a chance to answer questions on the spot and tell folk their Company Policy on relevant matters.’⁵⁸

‘Train passengers at Ardrossan are unprotected on the walk from ferry to and from Harbour station. Getting soaked in the 21st century is surely unacceptable.’⁵⁹

‘If people try to come into Oban early to do shopping, they cannot check-in their luggage, although that can be done in Glasgow. As if to infuriate people more, the luggage cabinets that have been installed are locked and cannot be used for some reason.’⁶⁰

‘I would like to suggest a rationalisation of fare structure based on the differences between winter and summer useage, where the regular, year-round users of any service would get a discount related to the increase in traffic during the summer months. This decrease to be offset by an increase in fares for the summer visitors.’⁶¹

‘Bikes should be free on all routes - this would encourage sustainable transport. Cycles do not have for the most part any exclusive facilities and do not (on the vast majority of vessels) take up any space which could be used for other reasons - ie they are squeezed in wherever they can be put.’⁶²

97. The Committee has highlighted these comments as just a few examples of a number of suggestions received during the inquiry. The Committee notes, for example, that the standard of facilities such as waiting areas can make an important contribution to travellers’ overall experience their journey and that in some cases these facilities need to be upgraded.

98. The Committee notes that CalMac Ferries’ Customer Care Department was set up in October 2004 consisting of a Customer Care Manager, Customer Care Officer and Customer Care Secretary. The department now consists of members of staff reporting to the Communications Director, who is reports to the Board for Customer Care. According to the CalMac Ferries written submission, the Customer Care Department is responsible for—

‘ Development, implementation and management of customer feedback processes and the network-wide Mystery Visitor Programme

Deal with customer feedback efficiently and consistently

Recording customer feedback, investigating issues and responding in line with the performance measures set out in the Customer Services Undertaking as part of the PSC [public service contract] with the Scottish Government for the delivery of lifeline ferry services to the Clyde and Outer Hebrides’⁶³

99. Peter Timms, managing director of the David MacBrayne Ltd, acknowledged that some differences did appear to exist between NorthLink and CalMac Ferries in relation to customer care—

‘NorthLink's customer care programmes benefited from a new company ethos from the very start, but it is taking a while longer to implement such programmes in CalMac, where attitudes that have been developed over decades are being overcome. I would be the first to agree that we could improve still further, and there is evidence to support the view that our performance is often better than it is portrayed.’⁶⁴

100. The Committee also detected in the evidence that it has received during the inquiry some signs that NorthLink may be more responsive to customer input than CalMac Ferries. MACS, for example, pointed to NorthLink as promoting good practice in relation to disability issues—

‘We have worked with NorthLink, whose managing director is very enthusiastic about having disabled passengers on his boats, and active in promoting that—in fact, one of the MACS meetings took place on a NorthLink ferry. I am not here to advertise NorthLink, but the director has tried hard and when the person at the top of an organisation tries hard, that makes a difference.’⁶⁵

101. Ken Duerden of ZetTrans also praised the positive attitude of NorthLink towards customer engagement—

‘We appreciate how the management of NorthLink Ferries, in particular, work with us. Although we do not always agree, they are always willing to listen. Since they began to run the route, they have done a lot not only to grow the business but to improve information flows between users and the company and to take suggestions on board. They are prepared to attend a lot of meetings with a lot of different groups.⁶⁶

102. The Committee believes that both CalMac Ferries and NorthLink Ferries must do more to ensure their companies effectively consult their customers on service provision, are responsive to their views and fully embrace the ethos of customer service. The Committee recommends that the Scottish Government instructs CalMac Ferries to make public, using an appropriate mechanism, how often it adopts suggestions for improvements to its services made by ferry users, and what these improvements have been.

103. The Committee is concerned that customer care practices appear to vary so significantly between two companies within the same group which both offer ferry services. Given the high number of customers that the companies serve, it is considered imperative that their customer care operations are well resourced, efficient and responsive. The Committee therefore recommends that the Scottish Government instructs David MacBrayne Ltd to review, as a matter of priority, its customer service operations and, in doing so, takes into account how best practice in relation to customer service can be shared between NorthLink and CalMac Ferries in order to develop consistency in approach and to improve standards overall.

Professionalism of ferry crews

104. In this section of the report, the Committee has highlighted areas where ferry services could improve. The Committee would, however, like to acknowledge that, although a number of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with some aspects of ferry services, there was a general acknowledgement of the helpfulness and professionalism of ferry crews. The Committee notes that the staff of Scotland’s ferry companies are an important asset and carry out a professional job in sometimes challenging conditions.

105. Catherine Steed commented in a written submission, for example that ‘I should first say that personally I have always found Calmac staff to be courteous, friendly and helpful’⁶⁷ while a written submission from M Ross who uses the Ardrossan to Brodick service stated—

‘The crew of the Caledonian Isles are courteous and helpful. The catering crew work very hard and maintain a high standard of cleanliness on board. The office staff at the terminals are also helpful and courteous.’⁶⁸

106. A submission from the Scottish Crofting Foundation was typical in its appreciation of the work of ferry staff—

‘Vessels and ports are operated with a very high degree of professionalism and a good standard of customer care. Staff are on the whole helpful, friendly and considerate.’⁶⁹

ferry services: a longer term approach

107. Up to this point, the Committee has discussed proposals that it considers could be implemented now or in the immediate future. However, in the course of this inquiry the Committee also heard proposals for improvements to ferry services that were of wider strategic importance and that clearly could not practically be introduced in the short term. These include: proposals for the introduction of new, smaller and faster vessels on certain routes; significantly improving timetables; rethinking the current provision of ferry routes; substantially upgrading ports; investing in fixed links instead of ferries; and examining the way that vessels are currently staffed. These are the proposals that have the potential to deliver marked improvements to ferry services in Scotland.

108. If any of these proposals are to be considered seriously, however, long-term thinking is required by policy makers, as well as, in all likelihood, a substantial financial commitment over a number of years. The Committee’s concern is that these essential preconditions for delivering more far-reaching improvements to ferry services do not currently exist. In this section, the Committee will outline suggestions it has heard for possible improvements, and, more importantly, go on to outline how the nature and extent of any required changes could be assessed and, if appropriate, delivered.

109. The Committee will firstly discuss some of the constraints that have prevented service improvements from taking place in the past. The Committee will then note briefly some of the suggestions that it has heard for more far-reaching improvements to ferry services in Scotland.

Constraints to service improvements

110. The Committee heard various explanations as to why more innovative proposals for improving ferry services might not have been explored properly in the past. It is important to understand any constraints that have prevented action from being taken in the past in order to identify whether there might be scope for removing them in the future.

Challenges facing ferry operators

111. In evidence to the Committee, Peter Timms, chairman of David MacBrayne Ltd, outlined some of the significant constraints faced by his company in delivering improvements to certain aspects of ferry services—

‘Many people offer the view that the shortest distance between an island and the mainland, together with the fastest vessel, offers the shortest journey time, greatest frequency and most capacity. However, that ignores the cost of implementing such an upheaval in terms of the 30-plus year service life of the existing fleet, together with the present ports and mainland infrastructure.’⁷⁰

112. Mr Timms noted that there had been criticisms that the vessels in the CalMac Ferries fleet were old fashioned, but he cautioned that often weather conditions ruled out innovative vessel design. He cautioned that ‘all our experience… is that a monohull will continue to run in bad weather when a catamaran has long been tied up due to Maritime and Coastguard Agency wave height restrictions.’⁷¹ However, he also pointed out that his company was looking into ways of introducing more innovative services, telling the Committee that an independent study had been commissioned into the advantages and disadvantages of operating a catamaran compared with a conventional ferry on the Uig-Lochmaddy-Tarbert routes.

113. The managing director of CalMac Ferries highlighted the fact that his companies operated ships in ‘some of the roughest seas in western Europe.’⁷²

114. The chairman of David MacBrayne Ltd also highlighted to the Committee a number of other constraints that his company was working under—

‘You will have heard it said that CalMac has a take-it-or-leave-it attitude, that it is unhelpful, that it will not listen or that it operates to the benefit of its crews rather than its customers. Those views are often a result of our inability to meet the service improvement or ticket price demands of some, which might be due to hours-of-work restrictions, to vessel or port unavailability, or simply to affordability factors.’⁷³

115. Mr Timms described the role which the contracts with the Scottish Government played in determining the activities of his company—

‘Our public service contracts are prescriptive. They specify which vessels to use on which routes, the precise timetables to operate and the prices to charge. They include a performance regime that requires services to arrive within a specified time, and there are heavy financial penalties for service failures, although a number of relief events are detailed to provide for matters outside our control, such as having to wait for delayed public transport or essential lifeline produce.⁷⁴

116. He also indicated to the Committee that innovations could not be introduced without the explicit approval of the Scottish Government—

‘We are expected to innovate whenever possible, and we are keen to do so. However, in order to adjust any aspect of our services—except to reduce fares at our risk—we must initially consult interested parties in the community involved to procure their broad agreement, and then we must seek the approval of the Scottish ministers to vary the contract.’⁷⁵

117. John Ewing, the Head of the Scottish Government’s Transport Directorate, however, played down the restrictive nature of the contracts, telling the Committee—

‘We have sent the message to boards that ministers do not want to stand in the way of sensible adjustments that meet customers' needs, as long as they remain within the cost parameters of the exercise. We are not seeking to use contracts to prevent innovation. However, the committee should keep in mind the fact that one reason for the restrictions that are contained in the contracts is that, at the beginning of the tendering process, communities were concerned that there should be safeguards regarding the nature of the service.’⁷⁶

118. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change told the Committee that in relation to the arrangements for approving minor changes to timetabling—

‘There is no evidence yet that streamlining is required, but we have the option to change the nature of the contract as well as refine the timetable within the existing contract. If people wish to bring specific instances to the minister's attention, he would, of course, be happy to look at them.’⁷⁷

Challenges facing CMAL

119. Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd (CMAL) retains ownership of CalMac vessels and infrastructure, including harbours. Guy Platten, managing director of CMAL, told the Committee that apart from a new vesel to serve Islay, his company have no new ships on order at present. By the time the Islay vessel is delivered in 2011, the average age of the vessels will be 21. CMAL considered that the issue of the age of the fleet needs to be addressed ‘urgently’.⁷⁸

120. The chairman of David MacBrayne Ltd, Peter Timms, confirmed that—

‘We have one vessel on order, which is not due to be delivered until 2011. The calculations are not rocket science: if we have 30 vessels and each of them has a 30-year lifespan, we should be replacing one a year. The spending review does not allow CMAL to procure an additional vessel…’⁷⁹

121. The managing director of NorthLink, Bill Davidson, indicated that CalMac Ferries had a particular problem procuring suitable vessels for its routes—

‘We are fortunate in that many of our ports are not restricted in terms of the draught of the ship. Many CalMac ports are restricted in that way and if you search the world you will find that the only ships that fit them are CalMac or ex-CalMac ships. We have the option of sourcing vessels from elsewhere, with or without crew, to meet our requirements. I am conscious of the fact that Lawrie Sinclair and Peter Timms have more significant problems and restrictions.’⁸⁰

122. Lawrie Sinclair, the managing director of CalMac Ferries, also indicated that his company undertook extensive consultation with communities regarding the design of new vessels, the suggestion being that this added to the length of the procurement process.

123. Guy Platten of CMAL also informed the Committee of the expenditure that will be required just to maintain ports infrastructure to an acceptable standard—

‘Part of our mission is to consider the long-term future, so we have drawn up a 10-year maintenance strategy for all our ports. We would like about £3 million a year to bring our ports up to a good, safe standard, and to maintain them at that standard over the next 10 years. Major improvements, such as new terminal buildings, would require investment over and above the investment required just to maintain the status quo.’⁸¹

124. The managing director of CMAL explained the timing and scale of investment that might be required in the future—

‘The day-to-day running of the ferry service is down to the operator; our job is to look at the long-term infrastructure and investment requirements. We are talking about a possible major investment in the fleet of £200 million over 10 years.’⁸²

125. In considering the evidence received on the level of investment that might be required, the Committee notes that currently there are difficulties in undertaking a vessel replacement programme, given the available budget. For example, it heard from CalMac Ferries during a fact-finding visit to Gourock that the current budget for such work is £5m-£10m per annum, whereas one major vessel (such as that proposed for Islay) could cost up to £30m. It would appear, therefore, that if each major purchase can currently take up several years’ budget provision, significant additional financial resources will be required if the estimate provided by CMAL proves to be accurate.

Orkney Islands Council ferries

126. A written submission from Orkney Islands Council outlined a number of significant problems that it was facing operating its internal ferry network.

127. The internal ferry services are provided through the Council-owned and subsidised company Orkney Ferries Ltd. A total of four small roll on-roll off (RO-RO) vessels and a small passenger and cargo launch serve the Inner and South Isles and three larger RO-RO vessels serve the Outer North Isles, with an additional passenger launch between Westray and Papa Westray in the summer.

128. One problem faced by the Council was the age of the vessels. Its written submission indicated that ‘vessels are approaching the end of their workable life, with all needing replacement over the course of the next 10-15 years.’ It went on to explain that three vessels serving the Outer North Isles had problems meeting current regulatory requirements—

‘The Outer North Isles vessels are presently trading with seven exemption certificates (on each vessel) from existing legislation, regardless of any requirements that would be required under new build rules and regulations.

Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2687 “The Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ships on Domestic Voyages) Regulations 2000” and amendments indicates that after 1 July 2010 all three of these vessels (Outer Isles) will not meet regulatory requirements.’⁸³

129. Orkney Islands Council also described significant capacity problems on their internal ferry network, telling the Committee in its written submission that—

‘The problem of inadequate capacity, especially at peak periods, is being felt throughout the system. There is increasing demand for transport as people and businesses need more frequent connections with the Orkney mainland.’⁸⁴

130. This problem of capacity has not been helped by the fact that the vessels used in the inter-isles system are purpose-built. It is therefore not possible to rely on chartering vessels from elsewhere to cover for maintenance and refit, especially unplanned maintenance.

131. The cost of running Orkney’s internal ferry system was also highlighted by the Council, with its submission pointing out that CalMac Ferries is funded by the Scottish Government directly. The Council argued that although some other local authorities have the burden of operating and funding ferry operations ‘nowhere else does the local authority operate ferry service outwith classified waters, which require compliance with more stringent rules and regulations in relation to vessel specification and vessel operation, as is the case with the Outer North Isles services in Orkney.’⁸⁵

132. The Council also noted that the financial restrictions under which it was operating its ferry network meant that fares had to be set at a level significantly greater than in Shetland.

133. A number of these issues were also highlighed to the Committee in a written submission from North Ronaldsay Community Council, which warned—

‘The vessels that serve our isle are ageing, and due to weather conditions on route and general sea conditions in and around this exposed isle, there are regular occurrences of disruption to the weekly service particularly during the winter months.’⁸⁶

Shetland Islands Council ferries

134. A joint written submission from ZetTrans and Shetland Islands Council notes the costs associated with the vessels and associated infrastructure used for the Council’s network of internal ferries—

‘The average age of the ferries operating the Shetland inter-island ferry service is over 16 years and the oldest unit is 33 years old. The vessels were designed for a 20 – 25 year working life. Many of the ferry terminals are reaching the end of their design life and are in poor state of repair predominantly due to handling ferries considerably larger and heavier than they were designed for.

Considerable capital expenditure is required in coming years for both ferry and terminal replacement. It is unlikely that this programme can be funded from SIC’s own resources.’⁸⁷

Constraints facing NorthLink ferries

135. The joint written submission from ZetTrans and Shetland Islands Council also highlighted some constraints which NorthLink ferries were working under. The submission argued—

‘The main criticism of the Northlink service highlighted during the consultation for the Transport Strategy was the shortage of passenger cabins. Since then, additional cabins have been built on the vessels but there is still concern about not being able to get cabin accommodation, especially when travelling at short notice.’

136. The submission also mentioned that in addition to the two passenger vessels on the Shetland route, NorthLink charter and operate two freight vessels. There was, however, ‘concern that both vessels are old and slow and they have recently proposed chartering an alternative vessel. This proposal was rejected on cost grounds.’

Concerns of ferry users

137. The Committee also understands that there are scenarios under which communities might not have embraced the prospect of changes to their ferry services, and might even have tried to resist change, however well intentioned. Councillor Roy Pedersen noted in his written submission that ‘any, perhaps most, communities fear change and seek to preserve the familiar if inefficient practices of the past’. Councillor Donald Manford warned the Committee that ‘even if change is largely for the better, it will find a hostile reaction’.⁸⁸

138. The Committee appreciates why communities may be extremely nervous about the idea of changes to their lifeline services. If changes are to be proposed to ferry services then effective communication from policy makers is vital in order to explain what is planned and the likely benefits. It is essential that change is properly managed and that full consultation takes place with communities in order to win their support for what is being proposed.

Lack of a clear policy lead

139. The Committee believes that in the past more innovative proposals for improving ferry services have not been properly assessed because there has been a lack of clear strategic policy direction and leadership.

140. The Committee notes, for example, that this role does not appear to have fallen to David MacBrayne Ltd. Peter Timms, chairman of the company, emphasised that he was quite closely bound by policy directions from the Scottish Government—

‘We understand the wish of communities for more frequent or earlier or later sailings, or for other service improvements, and we acknowledge that the cost of ferry travel represents a barrier to economic welfare. However, those are ultimately matters of policy for the Scottish Government.’⁸⁹

141. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change confirmed to the Committee that strategic direction for ferry services was a matter for the Scottish Government—

‘We have a contractual relationship with Caledonian MacBrayne and with NorthLink. In essence, our relationship with those companies is defined in the terms of the contracts. Our role is to provide strategic direction, not to be involved in running the companies, which is for the owners.’⁹⁰

142. The Committee notes, however, that the Scottish Government has never produced a separate ferry strategy document. It is acknowledged that this may have been one of the unintended consequences of the uncertainty created by the recent tendering exercise. The Committee also notes that suggestions have been made that the Scottish Government has not yet quite adjusted to the new realities of CalMac Ferries’ role following tendering. Professor Neil Kay explained to the Committee—

‘The old CalMac was responsible for strategy, and whether or not we agree with what it did, the reality is that it looked at a 20 to 30-year time horizon and made recommendations about new ships. That the old CalMac no longer exists has not been properly recognised. CalMac Ferries now has a six-year time horizon and is basically an operating company.’⁹¹

143. The Committee will discuss the tendering exercise in more detail later in this report.

144. The Committee heard suggestions that responsibility for ferry policy should be transferred to Transport Scotland, in order to encourage integration of different transport modes and to promote clarity in policy development. Stephen Boyd of the STUC, for example, told the Committee—

‘I found it strange that, when Transport Scotland assumed responsibility for various areas, responsibility for ferries remained with the Government. The rationale behind such a move was never articulated and, even to this day, I cannot understand it.’⁹²

145. Peter Timms, chairman of David MacBrayne, responded ‘yes’ when asked if he was interested in there being a Government agency that would be responsible for ferry policy.⁹³

146. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, however, told the Committee—

‘It is quite clear that the responsibility lies with the transport directorate. I am not minded to substitute the team that I have in place, which I think is highly capable of making progress, by redistributing that responsibility.

It has certainly been suggested from time to time that Transport Scotland should look after ferries; I am pretty agnostic on that. I see no case for change at the moment and want to make progress with the team that we have in place.’⁹⁴

147. He went on to explain that—

‘Transport Scotland's involvement brings greater coherence and more experience to infrastructure projects. That is the key thing that Transport Scotland does. The transport directorate is more about engaging on the provision of services.’⁹⁵

148. The Committee makes recommendations on this issue in the next section of this report.

Proposals for a new approach to ferry services

149. The Committee has highlighted above some of the constraints that may have prevented improvements to ferry services in the past.

150. The Committee will now outline some of the proposals it has received for overcoming these constraints and significantly improving current ferry services. The role of the Committee at this stage is not to discuss, or comment on, these suggestions, but simply to record them. The assessment of the viability and desirability of each of these suggestions is a significant undertaking which falls outwith the scope of this Committee’s work. A later section of this report will, however, set out suggestions for how more detailed work which is necessary might be taken forward.

New vessels

151. A number of representations were made to the Committee suggesting that there should be investment in new types of ferries that were faster and more fuel efficient.⁹⁶ The Committee heard some views that the current vessels, particularly on the Clyde and Hebrides routes, did not properly meet the needs of ferry users.

152. The Committee also heard suggestions that certain routes might benefit from the replacement of one large ferry with two or more smaller ferries, thereby providing a more frequent service.⁹⁷ According to some respondents, new vessels might also improve vehicle carrying capacity on certain routes.⁹⁸ Some respondents mentioned the introduction of catamarans on particular routes.⁹⁹ A comment made by a representative from Mull and Iona Chamber of Commerce was typical of the views heard by the Committee—

‘There has been a single large ferry serving Mull for more than 60 years. The time the ferry takes is the same now as it was when it started. There has been no increase in speed for a long time—in fact, some of the older ferries were faster than the present ones.’¹⁰⁰

153. The Committee heard suggestions that it might be possible for CMAL to lease vessels rather than construct them.¹⁰¹ The Committee also received comments from some witnesses who felt that new vessels could be constructed relatively quickly if decision making was streamlined. Andrew Banks of Pentland Ferries commented, for example—

‘The public sector probably cannot move as fast as the private sector. We decided to have a new vessel built, and we placed the order in February last year. She is being delivered this July.’¹⁰²

154. Gordon Ross of Western Ferries explained that his company’s most recent two new vessels, built by Ferguson Shipbuilders in Port Glasgow, were delivered in a 12 to 18-month period. This report has discussed above some of the constraints that CalMac Ferries face in procuring new vessels.

155. With regard to the fuel efficiency of vessels, the Committee heard during a fact-finding visit in Shetland that ZetTrans is keeping a watching brief on alternate fuel sources for ferries, such as hydrogen. Whilst it appears that diesel is the only readily available option at the moment, the Norwegian government is currently allowing hydrogen-powered engines on vessels as part of a joint fuel system. The Committee would hope that, when procuring new vessels in future, every effort will be made to ensure that they are as fuel efficient as possible and that the potential for accessing new engine technology which may result in reduced emissions should be fully explored.

Timetables

156. The Committee has discussed previously the concept of ‘stretching’ current timetables at the margins. However, the Committee also heard views that this process should go further and that timetables should be significantly extended into the early morning and later evening, with more frequent sailings and improved sailing times in winter.¹⁰³ The views of ferry users on this issue were discussed more fully in a previous section of the report.

Ferry routes

157. The Committee heard a number of calls for new ferry routes to be introduced, such as a route from Lochboisdale to Mallaig and from Lagg on Jura to Kiells in Argyll.¹⁰⁴ Conversely, the Committee heard some arguments that particular routes should not be changed, such as the route from Castlebay to Oban. Councillor Allan Wishart of Shetland Islands Council also argued that Aberdeen was the preferred destination for NorthLink services from Lerwick. He described Aberdeen as—

‘A natural point of contact for Shetlanders. There are good road, rail and air connections from Aberdeen. Close working and liaison goes on between health services in both areas.’¹⁰⁵

158. The Committee also received proposals that addressed the current route network as a whole and highlighted possible new approaches to a number of ferry routes.¹⁰⁶

Footnotes:

¹ Scottish Crofting Foundation. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

² Response to online survey.

³ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 6 May 2008, Col 670. Ben Carter, VisitScotland.

⁴ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 15 April 2008, Col 562. Libby Woodhatch, Seafood Scotland.

⁵ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 15 April 2008, Col 561.Stewart Wood, National Farmers Union Scotland.

⁶ Scottish Parliament Information Centre. (2007) Ferry Services in Scotland. Spice Briefing 07/56. Available at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/subject/transport.htm [Accessed 16 June 2008]

⁷ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 472.

⁸ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 474.

⁹ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 474.

¹⁰ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Sandy Brunton, Col 457.

¹¹ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Councillor Roy Pedersen, Col 475.

¹² Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Sandy Brunton, Col 455.

¹³ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 723.

¹⁴ Colin Woodcock. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

¹⁵ Coll Community Council. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

¹⁶ Response to online survey.

¹⁷ Response to online survey.

¹⁸ Isle of Barra Transportation Committee. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

¹⁹ Orkney Islands Council. Written evidence to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

²⁰ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 28 April 2008, Col 596.

²¹ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 28 April 2008, Col 613.

²² Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 28 April 2008, Col 597.

²³ Campaign for 7 Day Ferry Services to Lewis and Harris. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

²⁴ Chris Ryan on behalf of 52 Lewis and Harris Businesses. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

²⁵ Lords Day Observance Society. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

²⁶ Christine March. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

²⁷ Henry Thomson. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

²⁸ Isle of Barra Transportation Committee. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

²⁹ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 475.

³⁰ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 18 March 2008, Col 528.

³¹ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 702.

³² Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 701.

³³ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 18 March 2008, Col 534.

³⁴ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 18 March 2008, Col 540.

³⁵ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 458.

³⁶ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 3 June 2008, Col 776.

³⁷ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 475.

³⁸ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 3 June 2008, Col 776.

³⁹ M.Ross. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁴⁰ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 711.

⁴¹ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 454.

⁴²Scotch Whisky Association. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁴³ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 502.

⁴⁴ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 28 April 2008, Col 617.

⁴⁵ Scottish Crofting Foundation. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁴⁶ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 694.

⁴⁷ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 455.

⁴⁸ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 3 June 2008, Col 779.

⁴⁹ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 18 March 2008,Col 507.

⁵⁰ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 516.

⁵¹ Orkney Islands Council. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁵² Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 18 March 2008, Col 507.

⁵³ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 18 March 2008, Col 508.

⁵⁴ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 702.

⁵⁵ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 703.

⁵⁶ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 730.

⁵⁷ MACS. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁵⁸ Tom Vella-Boyle. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁵⁹ Jim Reside. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁶⁰ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 475.

⁶¹ Response to online survey.

⁶² Response to online survey.

⁶³ Caledonian MacBrayne. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁶⁴ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 694.

⁶⁵ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 18 March 2008, Col 508.

⁶⁶ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 28 April 2008, Col 613.

⁶⁷ Catherine Steed. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁶⁸ M Ross. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁶⁹ Scottish Crofting Foundation. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁷⁰ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 693.

⁷¹ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 694.

⁷² Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 721.

⁷³ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 695.

⁷⁴ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 696.

⁷⁵ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 696.

⁷⁶ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 3 June 2008, Col 786.

⁷⁷ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 3 June 2008, Col 786.

⁷⁸ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 6 May 2008, Col 685.

⁷⁹ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 708.

⁸⁰ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 709.

⁸¹ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 6 May 2008, Col 683.

⁸² Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 6 May 2008, Col 685.

⁸³ Orkney Islands Council. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁸⁴ Orkney Islands Council. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁸⁵ Orkney Islands Council. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁸⁶North Ronaldsay Community Council. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁸⁷ ZetTrans and Shetland Islands Council. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁸⁸ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 474.

⁸⁹ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 696.

⁹⁰ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 3 June 2008, Col 770.

⁹¹ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 6 May 2008, Col 657.

⁹² Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 18 March 2008, Col 529.

⁹³ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 669.

⁹⁴ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 3 June 2008, Col 767.

⁹⁵ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 3 June 2008, Col 778.

⁹⁶ For example, Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 460, and written submission from Helen Whyte of Pentland Ferries Ltd.

⁹⁷ For example, Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 473, and written submission from Arran Council for Voluntary Services.

⁹⁸For example, Pentland Ferries. Written submission to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

⁹⁹ For example, Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 15 April 2008, Col 578.The Committee also heard this view when they met ferry user representatives in Mallaig on 19 and 20 May 2008.

¹⁰⁰ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 460.

¹⁰¹ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 6 May 2008, Col 683.

¹⁰² Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 13 May 2008, Col 732.

¹⁰³ For example, Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 457. The Committee also heard these views in Mallaig in relation to the Armadale and Small Isles ferry services.

¹⁰⁴ For example, Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 4 March 2008, Col 458, and written submissions from Roy Pedersen and Islay and Jura Ferry Company Ltd.

¹⁰⁵ Scottish Parliament Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Official Report, 28 April 2008, Col 616.

¹⁰⁶ For example, written submissions from Scottish Association for Public Transport and Councillor Roy Pedersen.