Community voice and transparency

The consultation paper acknowledges the importance of empowering community voice and transparency in communications and notes that the current methods of engagement that are used by operators to inform communities are through email and webpage updates, with further communications shared through relevant ferry committees and transport forums. It also notes that local authorities and Scottish Government/Transport Scotland use engagement methods such as through project reference groups, stakeholder groups and webpage updates.

Transport Scotland reports that they have heard from communities that more can be done to take account of their views when it comes to decisions on ferry services and that there is a lack of clarity on how decisions are made.

Around 170 respondents answered Question 4.

Listening to the community

One of the most frequently raised points at Question 4 was that, although there have already been many surveys and consultations, those who make decisions about ferry services do not appear to be listening to the communities that use them. Some respondents referenced results of previous surveys and engagement exercises that have not been reported back to them, community requests and suggestions that have not been acted upon or letters and emails that have gone unanswered. There was an associated view that those making the decisions do not understand, or are too far removed from, the problems of living with unreliable ferry services. To rectify this, it was argued that some operator senior posts, including operator board members, should be island based, and that island communities should have their own representatives on the operator’s board. The need for greater accountability was also highlighted, with suggestions including appointment of an independent commissioner.

Future community engagement

The need for better or earlier community engagement, and greater community involvement in decision making was another frequently raised issue. Going forward it was argued that further engagement must be ‘meaningful’ and not what was seen as ‘tick-box’ exercises with ‘predetermined outcomes’. Suggestions included that there should be:

• A standard, transparent process for engaging with all the communities served by the ferry infrastructure, (including those that do not have a Local Ferry Committee) and a consistent route for communities and other stakeholders to influence decisions.
• Clear lines of communication for local communities and stakeholders, for example via a dedicated operator spokesperson on each island or a specific team at Transport Scotland to whom concerns can be communicated.
• Consultation with a wide range of users, potentially targeting groups who may otherwise be unlikely to participate, including young people.
• More direct, face-to-face engagement between decision makers and members of the communities served.

It was also suggested that National Standards for Community Engagement, could provide examples of good practice for improving communication and decision making, and that the Participation Request process set out in the Community Empowerment Act might be expanded to include and improve decision making around ferry services. View the participation standards.

Direct engagement with individual community members

The most frequent suggestion was that there should be more direct, face-to-face communication between decision makers (both ferry operators and Transport Scotland) and members of the community. Public meetings, workshops and drop-in sessions were all proposed. Reasons for this position included that project reference and stakeholder groups are not necessarily representative of the wider community, and that not everyone engages with local ferry groups and committees, so these may not represent all local opinion. Another perspective was that, while ferry groups do a good job in representing their communities they can, unfairly, be blamed for poor ferry services.

With respect to practical arrangements for public meetings, suggestions included that they should be held at convenient times, including when they can be accessed by public transport, in the evenings and at weekends, so that those who are working or running businesses can attend. They should be held across the islands in locations that are easy to get to – for example near harbours – and should be advertised well in advance, giving participants enough time to consider proposals. Meetings should provide opportunities to ask questions and/or express concerns and minutes should be recorded.

It was also suggested that more proactive engagement, inviting different type of stakeholders could take place, for example visiting high schools and local businesses. There could also be potential for setting up focus groups with representatives of local businesses, environmental groups, tourism organisations and local communities to discuss specific issues or concerns associated with specific projects.

Other proposals with respect to methods of community engagement included:

• Providing opportunities to participate in online meetings or webinars.
• Use of social media platforms, including via place-based approaches, to share information, gather feedback and engage with a wider audience.
• Surveys and questionnaires – both across the community as a whole and also onboard surveys for passengers, including the experience of disabled passengers.
• Ensuring inclusivity by also using non-digital communication methods such as local papers, radio, post, and posters on community noticeboards or in ferry waiting rooms. These could be both to advertise meetings or to ask for feedback.
• Providing communications in alternative formats (for example videos, British Sign Language, or Easy Read versions).

Engagement via representative groups and forums

Some users suggested that community engagement could be achieved by working through existing groups, including:

• Community Councils, that could have increased capacity to undertake their own consultative processes on transport links.
• Common Grazings Committees.
• Local Ferry Committees, expanded and resourced to cover as much of the operational ferry network as possible.
• The Ferries Community Board (FCB) on the CHFS network.

There were mixed views on the current operation of the FCB – including that it has an important function and strong track record in representing the interests of ferry users to the CalMac board and that more should be done to raise awareness of the FCB across communities. However, it was also suggested that some FCB members do not provide feedback to the communities they represent. Going forward, suggestions included:

• That how the FCB engages and communicates with local residents should be reviewed.
• That the current membership should be replaced by one chosen on a democratic basis.
• That the FCB should become independent of CalMac and operate as an equal partner with Transport Scotland, CalMac and CMAL in shaping strategic decisions.
• That a democratically elected FCB should have the power to dismiss senior CalMac managers.

In terms of engagement with businesses and other stakeholder organisations there were references to opportunities to connect via existing organisations such as:

• Local transport forums – such as the ZetTrans External Transport Forum and the Caithness Transport forum.
• Ferry Stakeholder Groups, which provide an opportunity for both route-specific and network-wide issues to be discussed.
• The Western Isles Major Projects Forum which covers topics such as future freight and supply capacity during upcoming major development periods.
• Specific Project Reference Groups.

Additional suggestions included that there should be greater direct engagement with local businesses and employers including in relation to timetabling and capacity issues. CalMac’s new booking system was given as an illustration of a project where taking a more collaborative approach before new systems and processes were developed and introduced could have potentially delivered a better outcome. While island Destination Management Organisations (DMOs) could be used to facilitate proactive engagement with the wider island business community, it was suggested there should be a new forum specifically for freight users, with representation from Transport Scotland, and possibly CMAL as well as CalMac to facilitate decisions that require funding or are the responsibility of Transport Scotland rather than the operator.

Other suggestions for new bodies included:

• Re-establishing a body such as the Northern Isles Ferry Services Consultative Forum to ensure early engagement with Port and Harbour owners, including third-party ports.
• Establishing stakeholder advisory committees with representatives from various community groups, businesses, and organisations, to provide input and advice throughout the decision-making process.

It was also argued that CalMac ground staff and crew understand how communities are affected by decisions around ferry services and should be part of the engagement process.

Explaining decisions

The importance of acknowledging suggestions from consultees and of follow-up communication to explain the decisions that are made were seen as important, both providing greater transparency in relation to operational matters and allowing consultees to understand how their feedback was considered and addressed. Timetabling was suggested as an issue where this is particularly important. One suggestion was for a single public portal for publishing information on progression of key ferry issues. Another was that reports (on both individual engagement events and on consultation exercises as a whole) should be sent to consultees rather than simply being posted online.

Regulatory requirements

With respect to impact assessments, a local authority respondent stated that Island Community Impact Assessments (ICIAs) in respect of Transport Scotland, CalMac and CMAL reviews, polices, and strategies should assess the impacts on each community.