By stewartb

Planning for and subsequently delivering on major investments in national infrastructure takes time. Investment by Scottish governments and Transport Scotland in the publicly-subsidised ferry network falls into this category. Given all that’s going on now regarding CalMac services, for a better understanding of context and to gain some much needed perspective it’s relevant to look at recent history. This is where a report by Audit Scotland (AS) published in 2017 has value.

Source: Audit Scotland (October, 2017) Transport Scotland’s ferry services. (https://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/uploads/docs/report/2017/nr_171019_ferry_services.pdf )

Changing investment commitments

The AS assessment in 2017 came about four years into Transport Scotland’s 10 year ‘Ferries Plan’. It found that of 75 commitments relating to ‘routes and services, vessel replacement, harbour works, funding and procurement, fares, accessibility and responsibilities’, 53 commitments had already been met and 21 were on schedule to be met.

However, one specific commitment had already been ditched: ‘buying a passenger-only vessel for the Small Isles (the islands of Canna, Eigg, Muck and Rum) during the period of the interim CHFS (Clyde and Hebrides Ferry Service) contract (2013-16)’. The AS report includes this: ‘Transport Scotland reported in March 2017 that it will no longer be buying the new passenger vessel as the local communities had decided against an increased ferry service.’

Readers may remember this from BBC Scotland news reports of a month ago following a ministerial visit to Rum. Donald Cameron, a Tory MSP for the Highlands and Islands, said this of the Rum community: “they are dependent on an ageing and unreliable CalMac fleet they’ve been lumbered with due to the scandalous incompetence of the government Lorna Slater is at the centre of.”  And we also had this: ’Steve Robertson from the island’s community trust described the row as “a storm in a teacup” but confirmed that the CalMac ferry service did not meet the island’s needs.’ All this seems to run counter to what AS reported in 2017 – ‘the local communities had decided against an increased ferry service’. It’s all very ODD!

See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65570607.amp

And we also learn this from the AS report, on an additional CalMac initiative that was not in the 10 year plan:  ‘Since publishing the (ferries) plan, Transport Scotland has also made a number of other investments and improvements that were not included in it, to respond to changes in circumstances. Examples include increasing the capacity on the Kennacraig-Islay service, extending the operating day on the Tobermory-Kilchoan route and introducing a new route between Mallaig and Lochboisdale.’

This is the relatively newly introduced ferry service that a BBC News headline on 8 June told us: ‘Lochboisdale ferry cancellation has left islanders ‘beyond crisis’ following the redeployment of a vessel to serve Islay for a whole month, an island that, as I understand it, has – unlike the residents of South Uist – no alternative service option.

Investments in the ferry network

On overall public funding of domestic ferry services across Scotland between 2007/08 and 2016/17, the AS report noted:

• ‘Transport Scotland’s total annual spending on ferries increased by 115 per cent in real terms, from £97.3 million to £209.7 million.
• ‘total annual subsidies to ferry operators doubled to £168.7 million’
• ‘annual capital expenditure increased by 174 per cent, to £41.0 million’
• ‘CMAL has procured eight new-build vessels in this time’, and
• ‘Transport Scotland has spent £86 million on harbour upgrades.’

Specifically on subsidies for services for the Clyde and Hebrides, according to AS this ‘increased by 185 per cent between 2007/08 and 2016/17, to £133.8 million’.  Audit Scotland explains this increase is ‘mainly due to an increase in services, new vessels being added to the fleet and the introduction of the Road Equivalent Tariff (RET), which has significantly reduced the price of ferry travel for passengers and cars.’

It notes: ‘Since 2008/09, Transport Scotland has spent £40 million to compensate CalMac for lower ticket income’ following the introduction of RET. We learn that by 2017, RET had lowered CHFS passenger fares by up to 50 per cent and car fares by up to 65 per cent, compared to ‘summer single’ fares.  In 2016, which was the first full year of RET across the whole CHFS network, there was a nine per cent increase in passenger numbers and a 16 per cent increase in car numbers compared to 2015.

We learn that CalMac’s costs increased in the years to 2017 due to specific enhancements in service provision since 2007:

• two routes added to the network
• the annual number of sailings increased by 3.5 per cent (from 130,968 to 135,542)
• the annual number of sailings on:
  • routes that use large vessels increased by 29 per cent (from 15,472 to 19,961)
  • routes that use small vessels increased slightly, by 0.1 per cent (from 115,496 to 115,581).

It explains: ’Additional services require longer working hours and more crew, vessels, fuel and harbour access. This has contributed to higher annual costs including:

• staff costs increased by 91 per cent – (which leads to a beneficial multiplier for the communities in which CalMac staff live)
• vessel leasing costs increased by 29 per cent due to five new vessels being added to the fleet
• vessel maintenance costs increased by 136 per cent, due to a larger and increasingly older fleet.

The AS report notes: ’Transport Scotland has spent £86 million on harbour grants since 2007/08. Almost half of this (£42 million) was spent on CMAL-owned harbours. Improvements include the £17.8 million development of Brodick harbour and the £4.5 million upgrade of Largs pier. Transport Scotland also spent £44 million improving harbours that are not owned by CMAL. For example, in 2014 Transport Scotland contributed £8.8 million to the £12 million cost to upgrade the harbour in Stornoway, which is owned by Stornoway Port Authority.

Diverse public opinion

The AS report from 2017 notes that CalMac’s most recent post-journey customer satisfaction survey (December 2015 – April 2017) showed that 92 per cent of its customers were fairly or very satisfied with the service provided.

As part of its research into Transport Scotland’s ferry services, AS staff visited ten communities to talk to ferry users about their experiences and views of ferry services. This included a session on Benbecula on 20 March 2017 with representatives from community councils and the tourism, business and transport sectors from Benbecula, North Uist and South Uist.

See https://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/uploads/docs/report/2017/nr_171019_ferry_services_supplement.pdf

In its written record of the event, the AS report notes:

• on cancellations: ‘New captains take a while to get used to the route, harbours and the weather. Users believe that captains feel under pressure not to sail in poor weather, in case of vessel damage.’ – is that so unreasonable?
• RET seems to have increased tourist numbers and so ‘It is becoming more difficult for locals to secure a last minute booking, for example, for funerals and medical appointments’. – one wonders how much subsidised over-provision is required to meet such local and individual circumstances?
• ‘The RET formula appears inconsistent and ticket prices do not always match the length of routes. For example, ticket prices for the Mallaig- Lochboisdale route should be double the price of the Lochmaddy-Uig route as it is double the sailing time. But the tickets are less than double the price.’ – were these island residents complaining about a fare being too low?

Feedback from a similar session with community representatives from Arran stated that RET has been positive but the community view from Barra was the opposite: ‘Residents do not feel that RET has benefitted the local community. Their fares have not reduced in comparison to the multi-journey tickets that they used to have access to.’ 

Candidly, after reading through community views expressed in these sessions held by AS in 2017, attempting to reach a consensus with the different groups on the nature of CalMac’s ferry services – over ticket pricing; timetabling; optimising services for local residents or for tourists; optimising services for freight companies or the public; choice of vessel design; EVEN over local views on the appropriateness of vessel captains’ attitudes to  risk and more – would be an absolute nightmare!