There is no doubting the success of the (penny-pinching)
RET scheme that has run on the Western Isles routes.
There is a certain logic in the policy that needs to be considered and adopted, if any politician is truly in favour of
RET as an instrument of economic policy.
It is at that point that the current policies fall down, and there needs to be a wider understanding of the implications of current (almost)
RET policy and the implications of a proper
RET policy (like the one the
SNP used to advocate in opposition).
The
Stornoway-
Ullapool ferry was always running near or about capacity during the summer months and one strand of the complaints from the
Comhairle was about the lack of information about 'lost' business. How many tourists turned up in
Ullapool and couldn't get on the ferry? 100, 1000 or 10,000? No-one knew, and
CalMac made no secret of the fact that they couldn't/didn't record this information.
The Council believed - probably correctly - that a combination of cost and capacity issues meant that we lost out on a huge amount of potential tourism on the islands. No-one could quantify this, so estimates ranged from the low to the ridiculous, but either way it was probably significant.
RET has
dramatically increased traffic: but is this
extra journeys for local people and businesses, or new visitors to the islands? My - totally unscientific -
assessment is that there is a lot more local people and
businesses making more use of the ferries, often replacing an equally full plane.
The
extra tourist volumes are relatively minimal, with more advance bookings due to the lower costs, but the same or fewer impulse travellers due to the ferry being full.
The problems have been flagged up for decades, but need to be restated.
- Cheaper travel
- More travellers
- Bigger ferries
- More frequent journeys
We have got the more frequent journeys as a way of spreading the load across seven days instead of six (actually adding only one journey to an
existing 14) but this is only a temporary solution.
The
Isle of Lewis needs to be replaced to make sure that the capacity is availa
ble, and possibly that vessel can move to another route to
give capacity and the trickle-down of vessel size can commence. Except that the vessels need to be designed for the particular routes and particular harbour configurations and there are restrictions on what can be done.
I have spoken to a number of people about this, and the best estimate for the capital cost of
renewing the fleet to meet the impact of
RET is around £75m, all of which is going to arise in a three-year period. That could be stretched, but only at the expense of services, and excludes the cost of
replacing the
Muirneag, which is already being factored into budgets for a few years hence.
The trouble is: the Scottish Government
doesn't have that level of funding available at present and whoever wins the next Scottish elections won't be able to deliver the
necessary ferry improvements without major cuts elsewhere. (Yes, this is largely due to the
mismanagement of the economy by Gordon Brown, but the budget is still a budget.)
Unless we as a community put
pressure on those who wish to be elected we coul
d find the pseudo-
RET pathfinder being
abandoned due to financial constraints and that the service revert back to the previous situation. If we can apply the right pressure then perhaps we can get promises of full
RET and a better ferry service from the political parties and see a huge improvement in the services too and from the islands.
I intend to vote for the candidate who can
promise and deliver the best for the islands, of which ferry fares is a key component.