Community Voice, Transparency and Accountability

The consultation paper noted that previous feedback suggests there could be more dialogue and consultation carried out across the network, giving local communities a better opportunity to provide feedback, which will aid decisions related to ferry services. It also highlighted a need for ferry services need to be appropriately timetabled to balance the needs of different users.

Around 370 respondents answered Question 7.

Current arrangements

General comments included that communities already have a strong role in providing input on ferries-related decisions, or that there are already a number of routes through which people can be involved, and that these mechanisms have been a positive development in terms of giving communities a stronger voice. There was reference to the role of Ferry Committees, the Ferries Community Board, Ferry Stakeholder Groups, Islander User Groups, and Community Councils in communicating ferry user requirements, experience and views to Operators, Transport Scotland and Scottish Government.

However, there were also some concerns, including that the current Ferry Committees appear to be having limited impact and/or are powerless. More generally, it was thought that community views are not given sufficient weight, and that previous engagement or consultation does not appear to have led to change or to have affected outcomes, with no genuine attempt to take account of service user views. Respondents referred to consultation fatigue and a wider loss of trust across island communities, and there was a concern that this could now be a barrier to efforts to give communities a stronger role in decision making.

The Operator’s approach was described as not proactive enough, including not demonstrating a genuine commitment to giving communities a voice in their decision making. It was also reported that CHFS2 had required the Operator to appoint a Community and Stakeholder Engagement Manager, but that this role was removed during the contract period.

In terms of moving forward, it was suggested that current approaches, including the composition and functioning of existing Ferry Committees, should be reviewed, with a focus on how they can provide a strong basis for further developing the influence of the community voice in decision making.

However, the challenges associated with ensuring that communities have a greater input on ferry-related decisions were also noted, including that:

• If communities do not feel that their needs are being met, by extension they are unlikely to believe that their voice is being heard and their input valued.
• It may be difficult for specific communities to have a view of whole system planning and the wider picture/requirements relating to inter-island connectivity. The Trade Union respondent making this point went on to comment that community engagement needs to be more than a talking shop for localised demands.

More effective engagement structures

A frequently made point was that the Operator and other key stakeholders need to both listen to the views of communities and also act on their suggestions. In particular, there was a view that there is room for significant improvement in how empowered island communities are in the delivery of ferry services.

In terms of the most constructive and productive approaches going forward, suggestions included:

• The Ferries Community Board, other Ferry Stakeholder Groups, Local Authorities and Regional Transport Partnerships should have a key role in ensuring more effective engagement with communities.
• The new CHFS contract should include an explicit requirement and/or incentive for the Operator to work with, and be accountable to, communities. Ferry Board, Committee or Group respondents were amongst those making this suggestion.

Comments or suggestions about the type and role of organisations that represent communities included that:

• Each port or island should have a community-agreed organisation that interacts with the Operator. New committees should be created where none exist, potentially in partnership with other community bodies such as Community Councils.
• Ferry Committees should be given the status of statutory consultees to formalise the requirement for all relevant agencies to consult with them.
• Ferry Committee members could be elected by the local community.
• The Ferries Community Board should be appointed only by the Scottish Government (with no input from the Operator).

In terms of support and resourcing, it was suggested that the Ferries Community Board should be provided with a secretariat function by Transport Scotland. There were also calls for either Transport Scotland or the Operator to provide funding for administrative support for existing Ferry Committees and to support the creation of new committees where required.

In terms of raising the profile of the ferry-related organisations that represent local communities, it was suggested that details about the local Ferry Committee and any other relevant groups should be displayed on the vessels covering their routes.

Although many of the comments focused on how existing structures could be improved or supported, alternative approaches and/or new structures were also suggested. They included:

• Establishing a Ferry Regulator with an integrated joint board incorporating representatives from each community, the ferry operators, trade unions and businesses that use the ferries or rely on the ferries (such as tourism businesses).
• Communities being represented at regular meetings to discuss compliance with the contractual performance regime for CHFS3.
• Ensuring management boards include representation from communities and ferry users. This was linked to a concern that the lack of representation of island residents on the boards of CalMac, DML and CMAL has contributed to a sense of remoteness between these bodies and the communities they serve. Specific suggestions included that each board should include a nominated representative from each port, along with the Chairs of Transportation Committees for relevant local authorities.

Direct engagement with communities

Other comments and suggestions focused on direct engagement with service users and included that the Scottish Government and/or Transport Scotland should ensure local communities and ferry users have a stronger voice in delivery of services. This was sometimes connected to a concern that current Ferry Committees do not necessarily reflect the views of their wider community.

Specific ideas for direct engagement with local communities included:

• Affected communities being able to vote on big decisions, with a suggestion that any vote should be binding.
• Running surveys, including online surveys, to help inform bigger decisions.
• Holding regular island-based consultation events or community meetings. This included the Operator’s management and/or staff holding regular on-island meetings with ferry users.
• Establishing a community panel made up of individuals from each island/ community.

The importance of ensuring that approaches capture a diverse range of views was highlighted, including making sure that younger people are involved. It was noted that meeting the needs of children and young people is highlighted as a key issue in the National Islands Plan, with evidence indicating the importance of transport in enabling islands to retain their younger populations.

In terms of the issues of particular importance to communities, there was thought to be a need for a more coherent approach to ensuring timetabling decisions take account of community views. The current approach was described as too narrowly focused on listed committees and there were calls for as much engagement as possible across island communities to ensure that community and business needs are fully considered.

Finally, the importance of ensuring that sufficient time is allowed for meaningful consultation with communities was highlighted, including to ensure that feedback can influence the decision-making process.

Transparency and improved communication

Associated with improved approaches was the need for greater transparency around decision making, including better communication with communities about those decisions. It was suggested that commercial confidentiality should not be used as an excuse to shield ferry-related decisions from public scrutiny, especially in relation to a publicly owned company.

In particular, there were calls for greater visibility of senior management from the Operator across island communities, including proposals for management of ferries and booking to be returned to local port offices. It was suggested that having more senior managers based across the islands would help to improve understanding of the difficulties faced by islanders, and ultimately to contribute to more coherent decision making.

Respondents also saw scope to improve direct communication with the members of the communities for whom ferry services are the most important; it was suggested that this might include:

• Direct email communications with island residents, including providing more information about key decisions.
• Sharing of information about ministerial decision-making.
• Producing and sharing quarterly and annual performance reports for each route, to provide a basis for engagement with communities and identification of improvement actions.

Finally, it was suggested that the current feedback and/or complaints systems do not work well, and that complaints handling by CalMac and the Scottish Government is often poor. An associated suggestion was for a regional or national escalation route for complaints and/or for the introduction of an Ombudsman for ferries.

Around 335 respondents answered Question 8.

Most of those commenting did think there are ways in which Operator’s engagement with local communities can be improved, albeit it was noted that there are structures in place, for example Ferry Committees. Although there were references to the current approach working well, there were also frustrations about the extent to which community views are taken on board. It was noted that this is not only in relation to CalMac but can also extend to CMAL, Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government.

A number of the issues raised reflected those already set out at the previous question, such as the importance of acting on feedback from local communities and calls for the next CHFS contract to place specific obligations on the Operator around engagement.

Communication style and quality

Concerns about the quality of communication with communities was one of the most frequently made points. Local Authority, Public Body and Individual respondents were amongst those suggesting that the Operator’s communication style and approach can sometimes be extremely poor, and it was also suggested that this is a commonly held view across island communities.

There were calls for greater transparency, including through an improved communication style, along with a willingness to listen to, and make changes in response to, community concerns. It was hoped that demonstrating greater openness would improve relationships and support better engagement with communities. Specific suggestions included that the Operator could or should:

• Adopt a clearer style, including when sharing performance updates.
• Act earlier, especially around sharing decisions and notifications about changes to services and timetables.
• Communicate directly with communities, rather than residents having to rely on local or national press to access information. The use of local press and social media groups to reach a wider range of the community, along with the provision of on-board literature, were suggested.
• Provide routes for members of the communities and other ferry users to respond; suggestions included support or feedback lines being made available and the Operator’s website directing interested parties to local community groups where they can share their views.
• Greater transparency and better information sharing should extend to communications with Ferry Committees, or other community stakeholder groups, and should explain why things are not happening.

Genuine engagement

Reflecting some of the issues covered at Question 7, there were concerns about the extent to which the Operator is committed to and values community engagement. Ferry Board, Committee or Group and Transport partnership respondents were amongst those raising this question.

Moving forward, it was suggested that the Operator needs to see engagement with communities as a two-way process, and as central to their service delivery. Other points included that the Operator should:

• Develop a better understanding of the distinct communities it serves, including their specific needs and dynamics, and their experience of ferry services.
• Be more flexible and varied in the engagement approaches it employs. Specific methods referenced included web and postal survey-based engagement, email, use of social media and via MSP email newsletters. There were calls for the Operator to raise awareness of these engagement options through local advertising.
• Recognise the role of in-person engagement, including suggestions that the Operator should seek to engage with residents in the locations and venues that they use, such as cafes, village halls and sports or community groups. Using accessible venues, choosing accessible times and giving a longer notice period for meetings were also suggested.

Connected to this latter point about in-person engagement were calls for regular on-island meetings between the Operator and local communities. It was suggested that these could help improve relationships with local communities, and offer an opportunity to communicate plans, ask questions and resolve issues. The value of in-person engagement was highlighted in particular in relation to major decisions; for example, it was proposed that timetable decisions should be supported by larger-scale in-person engagement to ensure representation from across the community.

Respondents also highlighted the importance of the Operator responding to feedback gathered through community engagement. It was suggested that they should publish a response to each engagement exercise or meeting or provide regular updates on action taken in response to feedback.

Visibility of ferry management

As at Question 7, respondents discussed the visibility of ferry management specifically in the context of supporting better engagement with communities. The Operator’s current approach was described as “remote” and “detached”, and it was suggested that this was in part due to working with a central headquarters. There were also some concerns about staff continuity, and a suggestion that turnover of both management and other staff can disrupt efforts to build good working relationships.

Respondents suggested that Operator management being seen and heard on islands would demonstrate their commitment to engagement and would support a more positive working relationship with communities. In addition to being more visible in the community, respondents felt that being based on the islands would help management to better understand the needs of these communities, including because they would need to make more regular use of ferry services themselves. It was also proposed that the Operator should ensure that each community has a dedicated liaison officer, and that their role and contact details should be shared widely.

The Ferries Community Board

The Ferries Community Board is a group formed of island community members, to be the voice of the communities and provide the community view to CalMac.

Responses to Question 9 by respondent type are set out in Table 15 below.

Table 15: Responses to Question 9 by respondent type

Organisations	Yes	No	Total
Community Council or Development Trust	3	2	5
Farming or land management organisation	2	0	2
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	4	2	6
Haulage company or representative body	0	2	2
Local Authority or HSCP	1	2	3
Public Body	2	0	2
Tourism business	0	2	2
Trade Union	0	1	1
Transport Partnership	1	0	1
Voluntary sector organisation	0	2	2
Other business or representative body	2	0	2
Total organisations	15	13	28
% of organisations	54%	46%	Not Applicable
Individuals	119	215	334
% of individuals	36%	64%	Not Applicable
All respondents	134	228	362
% of all respondents	37%	63%	Not Applicable

A majority of respondents – 63% of those who answered the question – did not think the Ferries Community Board is representative of island populations. However, a small majority of organisations (54% of those who answered) thought it is representative.

Around 250 respondents made a comment at Question 9.

Representativeness of the Board

Many of those commenting raised concerns about whether the Ferries Community Board is fully representative of island populations This was raised in relation to the profile of membership and the extent to which Board members understand the views of island communities.

Although the challenges inherent in representing such a diverse range of communities and interests were recognised, there were nevertheless concerns that the geographical spread of communities represented is uneven. Some noted that the Board does not include representation from each island, and there was a suggestion that members can be too focused on their own island’s needs and do not take adequate account of experience across others.

It was also noted that:

• There is often overlap with the membership of Ferry Committees and other similar bodies, raising concerns around the potential for conflicts of interest.
• Ferries Community Board members tend to be older and male and may be more representative of some business sectors and interest groups, such as transport businesses, than the wider community.

In terms of the extent to which the Ferries Community Board represents local community interests, there was concern that members may not consult with or seek the views of those communities. Respondents cited specific examples of where there have been issues, including that when there are consultation meetings or events, these are often poorly organised or held at short notice.

There was also a view that, since the Operator established and set the terms of reference for the Board, and appoints and covers the salary of its Chair, it is both undemocratic and operates with a conflict of interest. It was suggested that other bodies – for example Ferry User Groups, Regional Transport Partnerships and the Islands Transport Forum are more democratically accountable to their respective communities.

Influence and reach of the Board

Although many of the comments focused on the membership of the Board, there were also references to its influence. These included that it appears to have a relatively limited influence, and it was suggested that this perception has led a number of communities to set up their own pressure groups to better represent their islands’ interests.

In terms of public perception, a number of Individual respondents reported that they were not aware of the purpose or make-up of the Ferries Community Board, did not know whether their community was represented and/or the arrangements for selecting or electing members.

Alternative perspective

Although most of those commenting raised concerns, others did think that the Ferries Community Board either is, or probably is, representative of island communities. These respondents suggested that, in the context of the broad geographic area covered, membership has a good level of representation across island communities. There was reference to specific examples of the Board representing key local groups and to regular meetings between Board members and local stakeholders as having proved useful.

Respondents also noted that the focus of the Board is on representing strategic issues affecting the whole network, rather than escalating island-specific issues. However, there was concern that this role is undermined by the lack of a structural relationship between the Board and Ferry Committees (which focus on local and operational issues).

Proposals for change

Reflecting the range of issues and views noted above, respondents proposed a number of ways in which the Ferries Community Board could improve its representation of island communities. In terms of the makeup of the Ferries Community Board, suggestions included:

• Ensuring that when existing members reach the end of their term, they are replaced by a resident of an island not currently represented on the Board.
• Rebalancing the membership to better represent typical island residents who use travel services, alongside business interests.
• Recruiting members with specific expertise around the operation of ferries.
• Requiring the Board to always have a member who is aged 21 or younger.

In terms of structures and processes, suggestions included:

• Implementing a clear structural relationship between the Ferries Community Board (as the body dealing with strategic network-wide issues) and Ferry Committees (as the bodies focused on local and operational issues). An associated suggestion was that Ferry Committees should nominate member(s) to represent their area to the Ferries Community Board.
• Updating election processes, for example to include online polls and make elections more widely accessible.
• Providing adequate resourcing and appropriate administrative support to enhance the Ferries Community Board’s representation.
• Considering the scheduling of meetings (and notice given to communities) to maximise participation.

In relation to the remit and focus, suggestions included ensuring the interests of islanders employed as ferry workers are considered by the Ferries Community Board. It was also suggested that improving other engagement mechanisms with specific economic sectors would enable the Board membership to focus more on representing island communities.

Responses to Question 10 by respondent type are set out in Table 16 below.

Table 16: Responses to Question 10 by respondent type

Organisations	Yes	No	Total
Community Council or Development Trust	2	2	4
Farming or land management organisation	2	1	3
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	4	2	6
Haulage company or representative body	0	2	2
Local Authority or HSCP	2	1	3
Public Body	2	0	2
Tourism business	0	2	2
Trade Union	0	1	1
Transport Partnership	1	0	1
Voluntary sector organisation	0	2	2
Other business or representative body	0	2	2
Total organisations	13	15	28
% of organisations	46%	54%	Not Applicable
Individuals	92	226	318
% of individuals	29%	71%	Not Applicable
All respondents	105	241	346
% of all respondents	30%	70%	Not Applicable

A majority of respondents – 70% of those who answered the question – did not think the Ferries Community Board reflects their interest for the next contract. Individuals were more likely to hold this view than organisations (at 71% and 54% respectively).

Around 260 respondents made a comment at Question 10, albeit that many of the comments referred to, or raised similar issues to, those at the previous question. For example, it was suggested that the Board does not adequately represent island communities and that members do not consult sufficiently with their local communities, including comments that respondents have not had any communication from the Board.

The Ferries Community Board was also seen as having limited influence on ferry services, while some simply noted that they did not know enough about the Board and its workings to make a judgement about whether it would reflect their interests.

Further points included some concerns around wider governance and handling of the next contract, and some suggestions, already covered at Question 9, about how the Ferries Community Board could be made more representative of island communities. An additional suggestion was the establishment dedicated sub-committees for specific interest groups.

Responses to Question 11 by respondent type are set out in Table 17 below.

Table 17: Responses to Question 11 by respondent type

Organisations	Yes	No	Total
Community Council or Development Trust	6	0	6
Farming or land management organisation	3	0	3
Ferry Board, Committee or Group	6	0	6
Haulage company or representative body	1	0	1
Local Authority or HSCP	4	0	4
Public Body	3	0	3
Tourism business	2	0	2
Trade Union	1	0	1
Transport Partnership	2	0	2
Voluntary sector organisation	2	0	2
Other business or representative body	2	0	2
Total organisations	32	0	32
% of organisations	100%	0%	Not Applicable
Individuals	334	31	365
% of individuals	92%	8%	Not Applicable
All respondents	366	31	397
% of all respondents	92%	8%	Not Applicable

A majority of respondents – 92% of those who answered the question – thought communities should have greater say in the development of timetables, so they suit the needs of ferry users. All of the organisations that answered this question thought so.

Around 320 respondents made a comment at Question 11.

The principle of communities having a greater say

There was a view that communities should clearly have a greater say on development of timetables. This included comments that communities are affected most directly by ferry services, and that residents and businesses have the best understanding of local needs. In this context, a stronger say for communities was seen as crucial to ensuring that timetables better meet the needs of residents and businesses, in addition to considering operational issues. It was noted that this is in line with the stated service objective: ‘we are the heart and soul of the places we sail to and the people we serve’.

Respondents also suggested that working together and maintaining an open dialogue would benefit both communities and Operator, ensuring that timetable development is more transparent. There was concern that the current timetable process is pre-conditioned by operational factors that communities may have no information on, and that community requests are considered by individuals with no experience or understanding of local community needs. It was suggested that a two-way discussion is required to ensure that timetables take proper account of community needs and inevitable constraints on operation. There were also calls for the engagement approach to recognise that communities can understand and take account of financial, operational and other constraints on servicer provision.

Having a greater say on the development of timetables

For many respondents, comments at Question 11 reflected a view that engagement to date on development of timetables has been too limited, and that timetables currently focus too much on the Operator’s needs and cost of service provision, rather than impacts for residents and businesses. Respondents wished to ensure that the focus of timetable development is on meeting community needs, and highlighted potential for relatively small timetable changes to have a significant (positive or negative) impact for residents. Some were of the view that no ferry timetable should be implemented without proper engagement with local communities.

Respondents also saw a need for timetable development to consider a wider range of factors, and to balance the service cost of timetable changes against other potential benefits. There was reference to potential socio-economic benefits for local communities, contribution to wider policy priorities such as National Performance Framework outcomes, benefits associated with any reduction in car use, and the potential cost to communities if changes are not made. In this context, it was noted that timetable changes are currently required to be ‘cost neutral’ and suggested that this prevents consideration of more significant changes that may help to address unmet need and generate additional revenue. There were calls for a more flexible approach to amending timetables, including reference to delays caused by the requirement for the Operator to apply for contract variations.

Issues to be addressed

Comments on the potential need for communities to have a greater say in timetable development included reference to a range of problems with current timetables where, it was suggested, more consideration of community views could help to improve services. These primarily related to ferry times and the number of sailings.

In relation to ferry times, it was argued that the priority should be ensuring that services are run at times that meet residents’ needs with flexible timetables and more frequent sailings. Specific suggestions included that:

• Extended operating days with early and late ferry services would allow workers (including key workers) to commute. Benefits for business travel, daytrip tourism, and groups travelling for recreation or sport were also suggested.
• An early sailing from islands on Saturday and a late return on Sunday, would allow those in full-time employment to travel to the mainland at weekends.
• Getting to the port for early services is not practical for some residents – for example islanders from Harris who may be faced with a choice between leaving home at 3am or paying for overnight accommodation in Stornoway.

In relation to the number of sailings, there was thought to be a need for service adjustments to take account of increased demand such as an influx of visitors for a local event. It was noted that single vessel services in particular can be more restrictive for communities, and some saw a greater need for a strong community voice on timetabling of these services.

The reduction in frequency during the winter was also described as especially frustrating and it was suggested that winter timetables should not be changed without adequate explanation being provided to communities.

Approaches to enable a greater say for communities

Respondents discussed a range of issues and potential approaches to give communities a greater say on timetabling. This included a view that broad participation across island populations will be vital to ensure that engagement reflects the full range of community requirements and views. Key groups identified as having specific timetabling needs included businesses, young people, those in need of regular medical treatment on the mainland, and those commuting to their place of employment.

Comments on potential approaches included a view that engagement must be at an early stage in timetable development, allowing sufficient time to gather feedback and, crucially, to make any adjustments to timetables. This was seen as a key factor in ensuring that engagement with communities is meaningful, with a genuine opportunity to influence timetables. It was also noted that some community and stakeholder groups do not meet very frequently, and it was suggested that the contract should build in sufficient time for meaningful engagement.

Other comments on community engagement included proposals for initial discussion with ferry groups and committees to inform the approach to wider engagement including, for example, formulation of timetable options to be presented. The importance of providing feedback after engagement is complete was also highlighted, including a clear explanation of any proposed changes that have not been made, to ensure that communities understand how their feedback has been considered and addressed.

More generally, Local Authority and Ferry Board, Committee or Group respondents were amongst those suggesting that engagement with communities in relation to timetables should form part of a coordinated approach to joint working across service providers. It was suggested that a wider approach will be necessary to ensure that timetable development considers the full range of relevant factors including community voice, local and regional strategic priorities (such as population retention/growth and economic development), and operational requirements or constraints. The relevance of connecting train and bus services for timetable development was also highlighted.

Other issues where communities should have a greater say

In addition to timetable development, respondents identified a number of other issues about which they thought that communities should have a stronger voice, including:

• Feedback on general service quality and reliability, including consideration of performance information.
• Ensuring the Operator understands the personal and community impact of timetabling (and performance) that does not meet community needs. This included reference to accessing services, commuting and more generally ensuring that ferries are run for the convenience of service users.
• Aligning ferry services with other public transport modes. Respondents highlighted the importance of bus and rail timetables being better aligned with ferry services.

Concerns around communities having a greater say

Although most of those commenting were looking for ways in which communities could have a greater say, there was also a view that they already have sufficient say on timetable development, with current engagement mechanisms working relatively well. This included citing examples of community groups having an input into timetable development.

There was also reference to the need for community views to be balanced with operational considerations including the cost of delivery, regulations and maintenance factors. This appeared to reflect a view that communities can have unrealistic expectations due to a lack of understanding of constraints on services and timetabling.