Good morning and welcome to this meeting of the Scottish Affairs Committee. Today we are going to be looking at connectivity in Scotland’s islands and particularly the issue of fixed links. It is an issue that the Committee is taking a great deal of interest in and we have visited the Faroe Islands to see the tunnels that they have, to give ourselves as good as possible an idea of what the options might be. We are very much looking forward to today’s session with you and for the visit we are going to make in early June. Thank you for coming along today. We will begin with a question from me. I think it has been said that the islands are perhaps not able to contribute as well as they would like to the UK’s economic future. Can you explain why that is the case in the current set-up?

Yes, I am happy to take that one. I think the reality is the sheer difficulty of making the connections between the islands at the moment. The ferries are very weather dependent, have reliability issues and things like that, and yet we are dealing with industries in the island where time really is important. I am thinking about things like the spaceport, a new entry into our local economy, but also the traditional industries as well, because fishing and aquaculture depend on those really quick connections. At the moment, some of our seafood has to take three ferries before it even reaches the UK mainland, so those are all potential points for delay and failure. Certainly, in the North Isles, in Yell and Unst, we not only have the spaceport, but we have Cullivoe and Yell, which is a significant fishing port. We also have a lot of aquaculture—both salmon and mussel farming—in the island too. Both of those are really significant industries in terms of the UK economy. Almost 90% of the mussels that are produced in Scotland come out of Shetland, and a good quantity of those come out of the North Isles too, along with significant amounts of salmon. That is why we see this as being important. Tunnels would take that weather dependency and ferry reliability completely out of the equation.

Of course, the journey to the mainland is only the beginning of the journey for much of the seafood that is then having to go to Europe, so that journey becomes even longer.

Yes, it does indeed. In fact, the west coast of France, which used to be famous for its own mussels, now sells Shetland mussels. That is the sort of reach that our seafood has, but it really is dependent on getting to its destination really quickly.

It has also been emphasised to us that the cultural significance of island life cannot be overestimated. I think I understand what is meant when that is said, but could perhaps all three of you tell us a little bit more about why you think it is in the interests of the wider UK to sustain island life? I will start with Councillor Steele this time.

I suppose the contribution of the islands has been one of us sharing from us to the mainland. We lose a lot of our population. We do a good job of educating and training seafarers, so you will find Islanders throughout the world. Islanders are very good at actually exporting people. One of the issues we have is trying to retain the people. We do have an awful lot of things going for us in the islands. Economically, we have a third of the ScotWind sites between the three of us, so enough to power every home in Scotland twice if all these sites are taken forward. In terms of what we can offer to Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom just that part alone is massive. The potential for the islands is huge in the cultural aspects and the tourism offering that we have, despite the difficulties in getting to the islands. When it works and when people get there, the experience is fantastic. I try not to mention it too much, but I have a 20-mile-long beach on my island. Not many people know about that. It is fantastic. People love to come for the hill walking and the culture; the Gaelic language is basically with us in the Western Isles. It is so important and it is a rich part of Scotland’s heritage, in terms of the people, the place where people come to visit us, and also the economic opportunities. I touched on Scotland but between aquaculture, food and drink, and distilleries all throughout the island chain, we are a significant contributor to the Scottish economy, despite the barriers that we have in terms of connectivity. Do Gary or Heather want to say anything on that?

I will come to Councillor Woodbridge next, if I may. Would you like to add anything to that, Councillor?

Thank you, Chair. I fully support my colleague, Councillor Steele’s answer there. In terms of cultural significance, we often think about fixed links in Orkney as inter-isles fixed links connecting small communities to other small communities, to ultimately make that community better connected and slightly larger. Connectivity—digital and physical—underpins every aspect of life. In our outer isles, I think of those connections as being by ferry, by road, and by fixed links. Living on the periphery of the UK means we are both the beginning and the end of the national transport network, and that should require the same attention and investment as any area at the centre. That matters culturally, in terms of being a part and being included.

Thank you. That is a good point. Councillor Robinson, do you want to add anything?

Yes, thank you. The culture of the islands has been maintained through time. We always have change in the islands, sometimes small changes, sometimes big changes. In the 1970s, the oil industry arrived in the islands and many people said, “Oh, that’s the end of your culture.” But the fact that the culture and the economy are intertwined actually helps to promote both, because despite the arrival of such a significant change in the population and the economy of the islands, we have maintained and improved our culture in all the things that are important to us in Shetland. The traditional industries like knitwear, tourism and fishing have been maintained, and Shetland is still a place that is famous for its music and its knitwear and all the things that it was famous for before that. I think the culture of the islands is actually quite safe through the change, I am sure. As you saw in the Faroe Islands, the culture and the economy has been enhanced there too. In many ways that is what we are trying to emulate.

A big question to all three of you then would be: what sort of investment is needed to release the full potential of your communities and how would that investment help you to do that?

I can start off on that one. Certainly, while we are looking at tunnels, the issue is not around how much the money is. It is what the period of the expenditure is. We have worked out that it will probably cost the same, but in fact, it actually looks more favourable over a period of time to have tunnels connecting the islands rather than ferries, because ferries need to be replaced every 30 years or so. Ferry infrastructure and the ports need to be replaced periodically as well. All of that adds up to a cost that is probably more over a period of time than it would be to build the tunnel. I think the challenge for us—and probably the main reason we are here speaking to Government—is that the cost of the tunnel is up front, but the benefit of the tunnel extends probably well over 100 years.

Would anyone like to add anything to that?

Are you looking for exact figures?

No, not at all. No, just an indication.

We have done some research on the different sites. We are looking at the Sound of Harris and the Sound of Barra links. I think you will be going over to Barra yourselves when you come to visit us. The Harris link is something we have looked at for quite a while. We have had plans drawn up and looked at ways it could be funded and resourced. We have costings for what it would cost for a mix of a causeway and bridge to cover that. Rather than tunnels, it would be a fixed link of a different sort. Then there is a cost to do that, but also incorporating renewables as a way to finance it over a certain period. That link is probably the more doable of the two at the moment. It might potentially be a tunnel for the other one, just because of the geography. In terms of costings, we do have rough costings and they are not ridiculous. They are within the cost of replacing vessels.

That is very interesting. Councillor Woodbridge, do you want to add anything?

Yes, thank you, Chair. I love that question. What can the UK Government do? What is needed? Ultimately, it is that similarity with the Faroese example. They were able to progress forward with tunnels because they had that underwritten by the Danish Government. They had the confidence to invest. Orkney Islands Council is the smallest local authority in Scotland. We are a tiny local authority. We do not have budgets to speculate with, and we are highly scrutinised by a very engaged population. We need surety to be able to carry out investigative works to see if tunnels or other forms of fixed link would be appropriate for some of our communities. Without Government support, and if we are not working together, it is really hard to move anything forward. It becomes a barrier before we can even start looking at the options. Mine is a slightly different position from the Western Isles and Shetland. They have much more developed projects, very clear fixed links, and very clear community support. We have a number of very intelligent and thoughtful arguments for a number of fixed links in Orkney, but they are not at the same stage of development as the Western Isles and Shetland. There is a risk of Orkney Islands Council looking at that and saying, “We don’t want to march everyone up to the top of the hill and say, ‘I am sorry, you are going to have to come back down again because we are not going to fly today’ because we don’t have the surety to move forward.” That is a caution about raising expectations in communities. What would need to happen is certainty, co-working, and the security to be able to progress because, ultimately, we in Orkney are some of the most remote and smallest communities, and our council budgets reflect that. Also, talking about what is needed to unlock the economy in our area. I think that ultimately it is investment. It is physical investment. Real care and attention is what we need from both the Scottish and the UK Governments. Of course, we formerly had EU funding, which supported remote island communities, which we all benefited from significantly. EU structural funds—for example, the ERDF funding—previously supported infrastructure, growth, and connectivity, particularly in Orkney and in my colleagues’ areas as well. These were replaced by the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, which was then replaced by the Local Growth Fund, which the new Highlands and Islands Authority received funding from in the 2026-27 allocation. I would ask the Committee to consider that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I have a supplementary from Angus MacDonald.

Mr Robinson, when we were in the Faroes, we saw how much they were investing and borrowing in order to build their tunnels. When we were reading about investment required, we saw how, due to a very clever move by Shetland Island Council 30 years ago, you basically received a percentage of the revenue coming from oil. I have looked it up and the Shetland Charitable Trust now has £490 million of investments. Viking is bringing in a couple of million a year. Would you not think it was sensible to use some of that money or do some sort of joint project using your own funds to connect your islands?

The Shetland Charitable Trust, because of its charitable status, can only spend on things that are deemed to be charitable. In respect of infrastructure like this, the charity’s regulator looks upon it as being either the council’s or Government’s responsibility and not for a charity to step in. The other fund that you mentioned—the Viking Energy Wind Farm—is much smaller by comparison, but that can invest in a variety of things. One of the things that it is focusing on is much needed housing in the islands. That fund certainly does not have the scale to invest in something like this. I think the reality is that whether it is Norway, the Faroes or different places, these things are backed by Governments. A council does not have the capacity in its prudential borrowing framework to borrow the significant amounts that are needed for this type of infrastructure.

Councillors, where fixed links—and I mean transport, causeways, bridges—already exist in your communities, what have been the immediate tangible benefits of those, and are those offset to any extent by some detrimental effect from the introduction of fixed transport links? Can I start with you, Councillor Woodbridge?

Yes. Thank you for that question. For some context, Orkney has a number of fixed links already. If you are interested in your war history, we have four fixed links that were built primarily to prevent the movement of submarines into Scapa Flow in Orkney, which is one of the most strategically important natural harbours in the world. The primary reason was a defence reason, but the local benefit was, of course, that suddenly these islands were connected to mainland Orkney, a much larger island. At the time, it would have been a huge boon for those islands, connecting people, providing access to education, health, work, and access to food in a different way. Of course, the social activity and the social opportunity was really critical as well. One of the real tangible benefits to think about is that of South Ronaldsay, which is a connected island to mainland Orkney via fixed link. It is a similar size to other islands in Orkney but, because it has a fixed link it has a much higher population than a comparable island of a similar size that is connected by ferry. There is clear evidence that better connectivity enables the population to sustain much more than it could previously.

Thank you. Councillor Robinson?

We have some real-life examples in Shetland where the council built bridges back in the early 1970s between the mainland and the island of Trondra, and then on to the island of Burra as well. Before those bridges were built, those populations had been in quite serious decline. In the 40 years previously, the population of Trondra had collapsed from 91 to just 17. In the 40 years after the bridge was built, it rose from 17 to 135. We are seeing that reversal of population decline when we are able to put in fixed links, be it bridges or tunnels. Similarly, in Burra, the population had fallen by a quarter to around 565 before the bridge was built, but after the bridge opened it rose by more than 50%, reaching roughly 850 today, so it does have a real impact on reversing population change.

Thank you very much, Councillor Steele.

Obviously in the Western Isles we have been doing it for quite a while and we have connected Berneray, Scalpay, Bernera, Vatersay and Eriskay. I think Eriskay was the last one. The stat I have in front of me is that 50 years prior to the causeway it suffered a 60% drop in population and in the 20 years since it has had a 20% increase. Just in terms of population, actually having that fixed link has been absolutely massive for the people of Eriskay. The quality of life has improved, employment opportunities have increased, and there is now access to other markets. My family on my mother’s side are from Eriskay, so we used to summer over there. I remember the days of getting the UHT milk and that was what you had with your tea; there wasn’t any fresh milk. You had to deal with the stores for the summer. So, even that, just access to what you take for granted in the rest of the United Kingdom and also in other island settings, has been huge for Eriskay alone. You asked about disbenefits as well. One of the things that comes up when we have these discussions is the centralisation of services. The conversation then tends to naturally lead towards the fact that we are doing that already. It is already happening because of shrinking budgets. Centralising services and having better links allows you to access more services than you would if you did not have that link. Although things are struggling in terms of centralisation, having fixed links is something that, despite being seen as we might lose something, it actually gives you more access to services and less reason for, say, visiting surgeons or specialists to come to the hospital. At the moment, they cannot come because of limitations on ferries and flight options. If you have a fixed link, that is done away with. You are actually boosting the services that you get in the area. Although it is a disbenefit when you have the initial conversation, it quickly changes to, actually, the reverse might happen.

I do not want to take up too much time, so just stick to the Western Isles as an example. Anecdotally, if you go to the pub and talk about fixed links, what would the pub view be of fixed links? Is it generally positive, generally wary, or what?

Generally positive.

Apologies, I did not answer the second part of your question, but I would agree with Paul on that. Shetland is very much in a similar situation as the Western Isles.

Could I ask Councillor Steele and Councillor Robinson about your proposed fixed linked projects? What do you think the key benefits to the communities would be if they go ahead?

I can go first. Certainly one of the main benefits is access to employment as well, because increasingly, as our ferry services have improved in Shetland, we have seen more people able to commute and go to jobs on the mainland, or conversely trave to jobs on the island. However, every time we improve the ferry service it hits its limit, and then we see the constraints of the ferry service. The spaceport coming to Unst has really accelerated that. We have hauliers telling us, “We have had lorries stuck in Unst because we cannot get them on the ferry back out.” That is an asset sitting there that is costing money to the business owner. Then for the people themselves, as Paul says, it is that access to services and the ability of services to easily get into the islands to deliver services in the islands, in people’s homes or at their businesses. That is a huge benefit that just does not exist with a ferry service, because it cannot be as regular as the people might wish to travel.

From our point of view, population is a big issue: retaining population and attracting people to move to the islands. When you see the headlines about ferries being cancelled—there has been quite a lot of that recently—that is a negative image in terms of the people that live there having confidence in terms of their own community, so there is a social aspect to it, but there is also the economic aspect. I will use myself as an example. I live in South Uist, so for me to get to my office in Stornoway, 120 miles away, it is an hour drive and then an hour and a bit on the ferry. For the last two months we have had a smaller ferry. I cannot actually get my vehicle on, so I have to go across as a foot passenger and try to get a lift on the other side. In fact, for some of our preparation meetings for this, I could not attend because I was travelling. If I had been able to take my car, I could have stopped, so it is very difficult in terms of just getting people up and down the islands. You have interesting conversations when you do these journeys. There was a local company that, because of the ferry change, had a vehicle left on the north side in Harris. They were not able to carry out their deliveries in Uist, and they could not get on the ferry for a month. Their vehicle was stuck there. They were on the other side. If you are trying to run a business, the benefits of new tunnels is that will not be an issue anymore. Your economy works throughout the archipelago of the islands, so you are able to get up and down as required. When we build houses in Stornoway the premium is 20% higher than it is on mainland Scotland, but when you try to build in Uist or Barra, it is actually 30% higher than Stornoway. That is because the contractors tend to be in the large populations, and they build in transport and accommodation costs, and when you are away from home you get food privileges, and so on. Throughout the islands, the further you get from the centre—although in the Western Isles the centre is at the top, not in the centre—so getting down to the other end, the cost of running a business and being able to operate is massive, it is huge, and it is restricted by not being able to get backwards and forwards as quickly and as easily as you should be able to. That was my thoughts on that.

You spoke about some knock-on impacts there and mainly very positive, but have you identified any downsides of the projects?

No. There are community elements, so people in the community are worried. When there are big changes like this and changes to the way you are operating, there will be concerns about the impact it will have on villages and the area. There are the ports that we have at the moment—for example, when you are in Berneray or Leverburgh on the Harris side there is a bit of activity in those areas because people are there early and they are waiting for ferries, so there are a few cafes and shops. If you are going straight through, there is concern that people will just travel straight through, so potentially it is an issue. However, again, if you take Barra and Uist as well, people will travel up through the islands a bit quicker because they are able to travel faster. The flip side might also occur that because it is easier to get around, you might just say, “Well, I don’t need to leave Barra at 3 o’clock on the ferry to get to Uist. I can actually stay and have my dinner and then in the evening head over to my accommodation.” I think it is a disbenefit that way but there are always flip sides to it.

How do you think that the proposed projects will impact the culture of the area?

In Shetland we have seen the ferry service increase over the years to run for longer days and more frequently. It has gradually become much easier for people to travel in and out of the islands. That has not had a significant negative effect on the culture and heritage of the islands. Thinking about disbenefits, when we speak to people in the north isles of Shetland, Whalsay, Yell and Unst, there is a fair amount of unanimity now that some kind of fixed link has to be the answer to give them the frequency of travel and the length of day that they want to be able to move in and out of the island. The island of Bressay is slightly different because that is the island that is just across Lerwick Harbour from the town. It is a seven-minute ferry crossing. The ferry terminal is quite central on the island. The furthest inhabited properties are probably only about three miles away from the ferry terminal, so it is quite central. It brings people into the centre of town. Because the Lerwick side is so built up, any tunnel to replace that ferry route would be significantly longer. That is definitely a concern for Islanders, and some Islanders are saying, “Well, an improved ferry service might be better for us just because of that situation,” because any journey would be significantly longer than the seven-minute ferry crossing that they have at the moment. However, again, they are within scope for the project that we are working on, and it will very much be for the Islanders themselves to frame that discussion and debate and decide the direction that they would like to go in for the benefit of their island.

Can I come in just briefly on that? I forgot to say culturally, thinking of what has happened in Eriskay. Eriskay is thriving now. Eriskay is renowned for its ponies, where Bonnie Prince Charlie first landed, the Eriskay jumpers and everything else. But the football pitch is one of UEFA’s eight recognised culturally significant football pitches in the world, so people travel to see it. There was a Guinness advert last year that was filmed in Eriskay that was on before every single Premier League match. Culturally, people are able to come and experience it because of fixed links. We are not sure what will happen with the new fixed links but, actually, if we look at what is currently happening and what has been happening with the previous fixed links, it has been a positive for all the islands.

Thank you. Councillor Woodbridge, did you want to add anything to that contribution?

Thank you for inviting me in to speak. I just have to support my colleagues and say that we have fixed links that have been in place for a number of years, absolutely recognising that if you go to the pub and have this conversation somebody might say, “Will this mean that we will lose the identity of the island? Will shops disappear? Will we be relying on centralised services, socially, economically, and so on?” However, I have to say for South Ronaldsay, Burray and Orkney, which are populated islands with fixed links, they have such a strong identity thatI would not be overly concerned, because I think the culture is there and it is incredibly strong. Fixed links are a positive and it does not necessarily mean that you lose that cultural identity of small communities as a result of installing new fixed links. Thank you.

I was going to ask the councillors about public views, but I think we have explored that quite well in the past questions with the responses to Mr Doogan and Ms Murray. However, I want to ask Councillor Woodbridge—I think one of the reasons we have asked you less in that last batch of questions about public views is because I understand there are no concrete plans at the moment for more fixed links in Orkney in the way that there is in your islands, gentlemen—would there be an appetite in Orkney for more fixed links, do you think? I think early on in your answers, if I understood you correctly, you said you did not want to march the public up a hill that you could not deliver on. Is that perhaps the reason there are not those plans at the minute? Do you think there would be public support for them if they did emerge?

That is a really good question. What I need to also reflect is the difference in geography between the Western Isles, Shetland, and Orkney. I think for Shetland and the Western Isles, you have a slightly more linear geography in many ways. You have really quite clear connections where you think, “You know what, a fixed link would absolutely work there.” It is so obvious. However, Orkney—and I would love for the Committee, you are very welcome to come and visit, come and see us, come visit and see for yourself—is a bit more like the spokes of a wheel. You have so many islands connected directly to mainland Orkney, the main island. There is a lot more subtlety in that conversation around actually what is the obvious connection? Is it Kirkwall to Shapinsay? Is it Eday to Faray to Westray? Is it Rousay, Egilsay, Wyre? It is much more subtle in terms of: is that the route that that community wants? There are some really excellent grassroots arguments from those communities, but I want to reflect that it is less obvious in a way. In my view, the reason this has not developed to the same stage as the Western Isles is that natural geographic difference. Also, as the council leader, you have to be very careful not to raise expectations unfairly. That is really important. The other reason we are perhaps in a slightly different position is because our ferry services are at a point of incredible urgency in terms of replacement. That has to be our top priority, our main focus, because that is the urgent need in our community in terms of connectivity. That is just so clear to me in terms of representation, as well as our maintenance of existing fixed links. For us, fixed links were not designed for that connectivity purpose. There are challenges with those aging fixed links as well. I have to say that over the last two budget cycles, particularly with the Scottish Government, we have had such constructive and positive moves forward in terms of ferry replacement, but that has to be our priority until that is underway. Going back to your question: what is the appetite? I think the appetite is absolutely there. I think it is about how do you then enter into that engagement in a constructive process that also does not risk that conversation about replacing ferries, which are absolutely needed, regardless of the future, and having fixed links. My Shetland colleague talked about that as well—that, actually, fixed links will not be the solution for everything. We are going to need ferries, and it is really important that we do not lose sight of that and those conversations as well. It is about significant infrastructure in ferries, piers, harbours, and potential fixed links.

This is for Councillor Steele. The Scottish Government have previously identified potential bridges in the Western Isles, and of course they have their islands connectivity plan. However, you have said that no further action has been taken since. Now I may be putting this question to the wrong person, but I will have a go. Why do you think that is? Why has there been no progress on this?

It is an interesting question. When we discussed STPR2, where the fixed links have been put in, our feedback was that we were very much looking for a spinal route, road network, and the intra-islands transport—be that air or ferries—to be included and it wasn’t as such. For us, the spinal route would obviously be the link from the north to the south. We work slightly backwards in the Western Isles, so we have Barra in the north, and we have Barra Head in the south. We are trying to connect all the way down, so obviously fixed links will be part of that conversation and has been for a number of years. We are in almost daily dialogue with the Scottish Government about transport, but not fixed links. It is ferries. We have had so many issues over the last few years that that has been our focus and, like I say, pretty much every conversation we have with them is about resilience in the network and issues with best availability, deployment plans and the impact that is having. We were concerned that it did not include those things that we asked for in terms of the spinal route and air links especially. They are really important in terms of getting people access to the hospitals coming from Barra all the way up to Uist to the hospital in Stornoway. You are talking a two to three-day trip for an appointment. Why have we not had further discussions? I am not 100% sure. I think it might just be the distraction of that, but we are engaging with Transport Scotland on it and there is going to be a series of community consultations and engagement on the fixed links. We are also going to try to ask them to include a potential for a fixed link to the mainland just to gauge views because, ultimately, are we looking long term to connect ourselves to the mainland Scotland? It might be something, it might not be something that the Islanders are looking to do, but I think since we are doing a consultation on fixed links, it is going to be really important. However, in terms of engagement, an awful lot of our time is taken up with ferries.

I think that members of the public—particularly residents, your constituents—would be a bit baffled given that the island’s connectivity plan specifically identifies the opportunities for more resilient transport links with the replacement of ferries. It is odd that this has not really been taken forward, but I do understand the urgency in addressing the issues with the ferries. You mentioned that there will be further discussions upcoming with Transport Scotland. Will that be focusing on fixed links?

I think there will be in the autumn. I believe we have something scheduled for a series of engagements throughout the islands on fixed links. We have had a discussion in the recent past.

Will that be to take the conversation forward in light of the islands’ connectivity plan?

It will be linked to that, yes.

Councillor Robinson, could you give us an update on the feasibility study for tunnels in Shetland? Given this Committee has recently visited the Faroe Islands, I think we would be really keen to understand where you are on that journey at the moment.

Yes. I know that Andy Sloan from COWI is speaking to you in the next session, so I will not go into the technical detail that I expect he will want to get into. We contracted with COWI and Stantec and an engineering firm to try to find out what the best options were to actually build a tunnel in Shetland. As part of that process, we identified the Yell Sound route as just an example that we would use to find out the real cost. That involved working up the scheme, working up what would be needed, how it would meet with all the current legislation and everything. Then our contractors engaged with actual tunnel builders to go out to them and say, “If we presented you this as a project now, how would you cost that?” We have actually had three companies that are experienced tunnel builders that have come back to us and said, “This is what we believe it would cost. This is what we would tender if you promoted that tomorrow.” We have those figures. We have only just recently got them back. I cannot share them today, but we will be sharing them next month. I will make sure that we send those on to the Committee so that you get those, and you can see what is involved with constructing tunnels and what the cost is.

That would be very helpful. Thank you. When will you complete the feasibility study, and what do you think the next steps are after that?

The feasibility study is due to come back to Shetland Islands Council at the end of next month. I think we are meeting on 30 June. There has been a change in meetings. I think that meeting was 1 July, and it has been pulled forward to the 30th or vice versa, but I think it is back to the 30th. We will have that coming in very short order.

Is that something that could be shared with us?

Yes, indeed. It will be published a week before that meeting, and we will make sure that you get that as well.

Can I ask something slightly offline here, Councillor Robinson? I am familiar with one tunnel, which is the Clyde Tunnel, which begins in my constituency—or ends in my constituency, depending how you look at it; I think it begins—at the north end, and takes vehicles under the Clyde. In the context of my discussions about that tunnel, I wonder whether ongoing maintenance has been factored into your plans. I ask that because I know that Glasgow City Council has real difficulty in meeting the maintenance costs of the Clyde Tunnel. Although it is a sub-river tunnel, the amount of money that is allocated for maintenance is only the same as a similar meterage of ordinary road. That always gives the city council a real problem, and they have had to look at other options of how they might do that, including the potential—and it is only a very sketchy idea at the moment, I think—of there being a toll on the Clyde Tunnel. Would maintenance be something that would be included in your feasibility study in terms of making sure that you can afford the ongoing costs?

Yes. That is very much something that has been factored into the study that we had done. We will get those figures to you, along with the construction costs as well when we send that to you next month. It is a very favourable sum compared to the maintenance costs of a fleet of ferries. It is significantly lower than that. So that has very much been factored in. We have heard about this from the consultants as well. I think Andy Sloan put it very well to me in a meeting that we had probably about 10 years ago now, because I asked him, “How long is this tunnel going to last?” and he said, “Well, the tunnel is a hole in the ground forever but you will need to maintain the lighting and the ventilation and all those kinds of services, and resurface the road and things like that”. Those are all the kinds of things that we have factored into the survey, so there should not be any surprises should we be fortunate enough to go ahead and build this.

Thank you.

Thank you. I have a slightly different question for each of you, but on the same thing. If I could start with you, Councillor Robinson. Looking at the age of your ferries, I understand that a replacement life for a ferry is approximately 25 years, and yet I see that five of yours are 40 years plus, and the youngest is 22. Can you tell me where you are at with Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government in terms of replacing your fleet?

We have no fixed ferry replacement programme now and we have not done for a number of years. Primarily, that was because ferries in Orkney and Shetland—Heather knows this as well as I do—were deemed to be the responsibility of the respective councils, unlike the Western Isles, where CalMac and essentially the Scottish Government have historically looked after those since, I think, the 1960s. Since the inception of rural ferries in Shetland in 1974, the council bore the capital and the revenue costs of those ferries entirely on their own. What we found since 2002 is that we were barely able to keep up with the revenue costs at that point, never mind capital replacement. We did have some difficult conversations with the Scottish Government around the fairness of a situation where the west coast ferries were the Government’s responsibility and the northern isles were told they were our responsibility, and yet there wasn’t the money that followed that. Therefore, we do not have a replacement programme. We are very grateful actually to the UK Government because the ferry that we are replacing at the moment—in fact, it is being built in Whitby as we speak—is for Fair Isle, and that was funded by the UK Government in partnership with the Shetland Islands Council. That ferry should be coming into service quite soon, we hope, and there are terminals in both Fair Isle and near Sumburgh Airport. The one at Sumburgh Airport I think is nearing completion now to service that. We did put in a request to the Scottish Government for some unrestricted funds. I think both Orkney and Shetland got £10 million from the Scottish Government, and Shetland is putting its £10 million towards the cost of a relief ferry because, at the moment, we do not even have enough relief ferries. The situation that we are facing is, actually—you mentioned the age of the ferries—the older the ferry gets, the less dependable it becomes. We have had to do some fairly major maintenance on our ferries, like replacing steel on the bottoms of the ships, replacing main engines and things like that. Main engines would normally be expected to last the life of the vessel, but we have been having to re-engine some of our ferries. Even our newest ferries—the two that were built in 2002—are reaching that 25-year lifespan that you mentioned. It is an ongoing challenge. We have had more positive conversations with the Scottish Government recently. They have covered our revenue costs for the ferries since—I think I am right in saying—2019. Heather will maybe tell me if I am wrong, but that is really where we are at. We have no capital at the moment to replace ferries.

On the basis that they take, say, three years to replace, if you are lucky, there will be a stage where you are going to have to call an island emergency or something like that. Are you taking steps to preparing the population for the fact that they cannot move between the islands and the Scottish Government that they are going to have the issue that they have had with CalMac coming their way? Because if we do not read about it—I read about the CalMac issues, but we do not read about the island issues.

Yes. I do not think we have had anything quite as serious as what has happened in the Western Isles, but we have certainly had outages, and we have a few routes on Yell Sound. We have two ferries operating on that route, but those are dedicated; they can only operate on that route. Most of the other ferries—in fact, all of the other rural ferries that we have—can go on any of the other link spans. For example, on the triangle between Yell, Unst and Fetlar, we have two ferries there. However, if we have a breakdown, we sometimes have to take one of those ferries away, which means that the Islanders do get a service—we do not stop the service; we manage to keep it running—but it is not as frequent or regular a service as the Islanders are used to. I suppose we are moving towards trying to reduce the risk of seeing an island cut off by going ahead and building the relief ferry. The other thing is that we also have very old infrastructure ports for the ferries to go into. Some of those are going to need significant investment in a relatively short space of time as well. There really is no cheap option for us. I think, in some ways, that is the attraction of the tunnel option because we would only do it once. We would not be back around in 25 years’ time again looking at unreliable ferries and how we are going to replace them, because that would be resolved at least on all of the routes where we have proposed fixed links for.

Thank you. Councillor Steele, can I ask you: we know about the replacement ferries coming from Poland, Turkey, Sanok, and so on. Do you think we now have a ferry replacement programme that will resolve the issue for the next 25 years?

The next 25 years? No, is the short answer. I think over the next decade possibly, but there is an awful lot of vessels that need to be replaced across the fleet. To go back to Gary’s point earlier on, the council did operate the ferry service up until the fixed link was built to Eriskay. Before that there was no vehicle access between the Western Isles. We could not get from Barra to Lewis without it. Putting fixed links in has allowed us to pass that on to CalMac to run. Again, on the sounds, it has not been as bad as it has been to the mainland. However, yes, in the long term, I think there needs to be a steady stream of vessel replacements coming. We have some being built at the moment, but what comes after that? Because the vessels, the “new” vessels, are getting old. As Gary touched on, they are almost needing replacement already. I think there is going to have to be a step change in terms of the delivery of larger vessels across the fleet on the west coast, certainly.

I had a meeting with a very informed person who asked me not to mention their name in this. They said there needs to be a 25-year view, a new ferry every year, and it should be a single organisation between CMA and CalMac and legislation be passed to preserve this through the governance in the Scottish Government. Do you have a view on that?

We were involved in the Project Neptune review, which currently sits with the Scottish Government and has not been implemented, and I think those were some of the recommendations. I like to say that if people actually listened to the Islanders when they consult us, things would be slightly different. We were asked about this 20 years ago, and our view for the Stornoway route, for example, was that it should be two vessels, and you should start to replace every couple of years. As you said, every three years makes sense. If that had happened 20 years ago when we said it, we would be nowhere near this position. We would have a whole new fleet of vessels. We would not have the issues with dry docking. We would not have the issue with vessels having to cover other routes. They would be better in bad weather, less susceptible to breakdown, and in terms of carbon emissions. The vessel that does the Sound of Harris produces a third of the carbon emissions for all the small vessels across the west coast of Scotland in the CalMac fleet. In terms of carbon emissions, if we had been listened to when we were first consulted, and those actions had been taken forward, we would not be struggling as much as we are just now.

A supplementary from Douglas McAllister.

My question is to all three of you. Everyone in Scotland is familiar with the ferry fiasco, with the Glen Sannox and the Glen Rosa. I think we are now up at £400 million plus spent on that. To my mind, fixed links relates to a more remote question about population decline. From hearing your evidence this morning, it sounds like the Scottish Government comes up with strategic plans, consultations, and discussions, but there is never any actual urgent action. What is needed now is urgent action because of the ageing fleet and widespread breakdowns and cancellations, which must mean that businesses, hoteliers, food production companies and so on are suffering massive economic losses because of the ancient fleet. What you touched on there, are you saying that the single ship strategy is failing and it needs to be a two-ferry solution? Can I ask you your view, all of you, in relation to the calls from some that the Scottish Government should be setting up an emergency compensation fund?

There is a fund that was set up. It has been acknowledged that the issues have been affected certain islands. I live in South Uist, where we probably have had the biggest impact. In fact, we had two months without a ferry. My niece started working on the pier recently, catching ropes for the boat, for two months before she actually got to do her day job because the ferry was not coming in. Sorry, could you just repeat the last part of your question?

I was asking you about whether we have to move towards a two-ferry solution rather than the single ship plan. Also, how do we compensate the Islanders, the population who are suffering massive economic losses every time the ferries fail? The ageing fleet is 30 plus, 40 plus years. It is just not good enough.

The two-ship solution is the Stornoway route, and the problem is each port is very specific in its needs, but it needs to be designed so that the vessels can be moved to different ports. One of the downsides to living in South Uist is the ferry we have actually can fit in pretty much every other port. When there is an issue somewhere else on the network, that is where it goes. We tend to bear the brunt of that just because that vessel is probably the best designed in terms of being able to go anywhere else. Then the vessels come in and they are very specific for the routes that they are doing, even the ones that are coming in over the next couple of years. The investment over the last few years was very much welcomed, and I think it is a move in the right direction. We just hope it is going to continue. In terms of compensation, I mentioned the £4 million. That has been increased to £10 million, so there is an acknowledgement that something needs to be done to support the communities. We have businesses incurring astronomical costs because of ferry breakdowns and cancellations. We had the Convention of the Highlands and Islands in Uist a couple of years back. In order for people from Edinburgh and throughout the Highlands to get to Uist, it involved travelling to Oban where they were told, “The ferries are cancelled,” then travelling to Skye to be told, “The ferries are cancelled,” then to Ullapool, so up the whole west of Scotland. You are talking hundreds and hundreds of miles and time taken out of your day. That is just for people attending a meeting. This is happening daily in terms of people trying to run and operate their businesses. One of my colleagues lives down the road from me. He had to go down to England to pick something up. The ferry was cancelled and he was offered another sailing further up the coast. It cost him £3,000 just because of that one ferry sailing being changed. We had someone who was moving their elderly mother. She was going into care, so they were moving all of her belongings from Skye to Uist. That cost another £3,000 because they hired the van, they hired all the people to do the work, they did the load, and the ferry was cancelled. They still have to make the move. They still have to get across. There are huge issues that are impacting people, and that is not just economically, but socially and also in day-to-day access to healthcare. One of the starkest examples—the figure was roughly about £3,000 I notice now that I am talking about it—is the daughter of one of my council colleagues who recently had a baby. If you live in South Uist or Barra, you have to travel two weeks in advance to Stornoway because you cannot rely on transport connectivity. It cost them £3,000 just to travel to have a baby. There is nowhere else in the United Kingdom that you have to make that journey. You have to go because you cannot risk not being able to access the services. That is a hit you have to take. In terms of island life, it is something that you get used to but, when you stop and think about it, it is unfair; it is not right, and it should not be happening. If we had fixed links there would not be an issue. You stay in your home. You have the support of your family. You access the services when you need them and then you get back home as soon as you can. Another thing that happens is if there are any issues the baby and mother get flown to the mainland. You have gone up to Stornoway with all your belongings and your car. You get flown back to Glasgow. Then you get flown back to Uist, but all your belongings, your car and all the goods that you bought for the baby are up in Stornoway. Then you have to work out how you are going to get up there and get everything back when we have constrained capacity. I could go on about the ferries and the issues I have had recently. That is just what happens when you live in an island setting, so you build it in and you accept it a little bit, but we should not have to.

I was intrigued, Councillor Robinson, to hear that you had used UK Government funds to help with the ferries. Was this money that was allocated with which you could do what you wanted, or was it specifically allocated for ferries?

It was specifically allocated. We made a bid to the Levelling Up Fund, specifically to replace that ferry infrastructure, because, as others have mentioned, the ferry serving that route is one of our oldest, approaching 50 years old, I think, and it was getting to the point where, if we did not replace it, we were going to have to take it away. It was pretty much at the end of its life. Also, if I could pick up on your points as well around what we have done with ferries. In Shetland, in some respects we have managed better recently, although we still have challenges. I cannot deny that. We have not had as much challenge as there has been on the west coast, because all but two of our ferry terminals are standardised, so any ferry in the fleet can go there. That was something that we started right from the very outset, was to ensure that we could move our ferries around to different terminals and cope with breakdowns. The real impact, I think, of late has been the sheer busyness that we have had in the northern isles—especially in Yell and Unst—with the spaceport, and the aquaculture and fishing industries. The loser in terms of reliability and capacity has been the tourism industry, particularly in Unst, which is part of the UNESCO Global Geopark. It is a huge tourist attraction, but we have had people saying, “Well, I don’t want to go to Unst today because I don’t know if I will get back home or back to my accommodation at the end of the day”, so it is definitely having negative impacts for us as well, but I would not say that they are at the scale there has been in the Western Isles recently.

Councillor Woodbridge, do you want to add anything?

Thank you. Yes, I think we have covered a range of topics there. I think maybe it would be helpful to give a bit of an Orkney context. As Councillor Robinson said, we are in a slightly different position in in the north isles compared to the Western Isles. First, I have to reflect that we have had huge steps forward in terms of ferry replacement over the last few years. I was first elected in 2020 and became the council leader in 2024. Over my very short time as a politician, this has transformed our relationship with the Scottish Government in terms of that constructive and positive route to be able to replace ferries. It is really important to reflect that there is good work happening. We have regular meetings with the Ferries Task Force and, of course, we will find out who the relevant Minister is with the correct portfolios to continue those meetings and continue that momentum for Orkney. We have a ferry placement programme underway. We have done investigative studies. We have progressed really well with phase one, looking at a number of islands. I am very happy to supplement some of this with facts and more detail that I think I could spend a lot of time talking through, but I think that we can come outwith this meeting today. I think we have that certainty of funding to progress with the first three ferries. That is tremendous for us and tremendous for the community that we have reached this stage. There is a real positivity there with those islands. Now we just need to see those first ferries arrive. I just want to contextualise that that we are in a slightly different position, and it is not the same across Scotland. However, the seriousness of the ferries, the impact on communities—and I mean in terms of age—is as serious, but I want to reflect that there is some light there as well. Orkney has 11 ferries in our fleet. Currently, the average age—perhaps it is by the end of this calendar year—is 29 years, and some of the larger vessels that we are very dependent on are almost 40 years old. We are talking in a similar age range with our existing fleet as well.

Councillor Woodbridge, did you also receive levelling-up funding? Was that used for ferry purchase?

Thank you very much for that question. I was hoping to answer that as well. Of course, Orkney also put in a bid for levelling-up funding, but we were unsuccessful; because of how that was structured, it was essentially one project in Orkney and Shetland, and Shetland was successful. I am delighted that that project is going ahead but it meant that Orkney didn’t see any of that funding because Orkney and Shetland in that context were lumped together in the funding allocation.

That is helpful to know. Thank you very much.

I will direct my question to Councillor Robinson and Councillor Steele. You may have covered some of my question, but I will ask it anyway. You have previously said the cost of projects would be well beyond your councils’ means. How far beyond your means are these projects and what financing options are you considering for these projects?

If you consider that probably the biggest project that the Shetland Islands Council has ever undertaken is the replacement of Anderson High School, which I think was about £56 million, it is a much bigger project and a much more specialised project than that. Building schools and constructing that kind of infrastructure is something that we know about, we can do, we can manage, although in the case of Anderson High School we used the hub process to deliver that. As I said before, we will get you the exact figures for the cost of the fixed infrastructure and the ongoing maintenance that would be required for that. That £56 million for Anderson High School is probably approaching the limit of what would be considered potential borrowing for a council of our size. I am sorry I am skipping around a bit, but I can’t put out figures that I am not allowed to put out just yet.

Way beyond, I suppose. Our capital allocation as it stands is very small to deliver something along these lines. We could potentially borrow but there must be other ways we can do this. When we look at the investment that is coming to the islands just in renewables to get to net zero and everything that is happening with the renewable development in Lewis alone, we are talking billions of pounds worth of investment. Linked to that, to allow the community to support these developments, we need to ensure that they have the connectivity to be able to go backwards and forwards and move around the islands. There are things that can be done publicly with funding options. There is borrowing, but we would struggle. My chief executive is behind me, and he would be in agreement there. We are looking at a replacement for our school, and we are doing it alongside other public sector bodies. It is going to be a campus in Barra. The costs are significant and part of that will be because of accessing the workforce and bringing things to the site. The easier it is to move things around within the islands, the more cost effective it will be to build the projects we are trying to build now, but to finance that we need Government support. We touched on earlier that previous funding, EU funding, structural funding was really important for the islands. In fact the majority of the larger pieces of road infrastructure that we have done in the last 20, 30 years have some with support from Europe. We see a role for the UK Government in filling that gap. We have the Community Regeneration Partnership funding at the moment and part of that has been allocated to road investment, infrastructure improvements and causeway repairs—not quite replacements. The UK Government are already doing these things for us, but to get to the next level of the bigger fixed link projects, we see a role for the UK Government in that.

I am sure you would agree that it is also not just a Western Isles problem because it impacts Oban, Ullapool, Uig and so on. It is a Scottish national issue; it is not an islands issue.

It is investment across. We were in category 1, recognised as a critical area by Europe, but since Brexit it has not followed through and we have lost that level of investment, which was really important for us to keep operating.

If I can build on Councillor Steele’s comments, the European Union has recently done much more to recognise the fragile status of remote areas and especially islands. It has strengthened up on that, where in the UK we appear to have weakened support for islands.

The Island Strategic Partnership has called on the UK Government to be involved in Shetland’s tunnel proposal. Given that transport is devolved, why do you think that the UK Government should be involved in that?

In the first instance there is the precedent where we did get funding for the Fair Isle ferry project but also there is something about we need Government, or indeed Governments, to look more long term when it comes to projects like tunnels and fixed links. That probably needs a reshaping of how funding for government and council works to support that kind of project. When you see the paper that we will send to the Committee next month, if we can think about this long term, the benefits are there for everyone, whether the UK Government, Scottish Government, or indeed the council, to have an asset that you don’t have to replace every 25 years. That whole concept needs to be understood and supported at Westminster and in Holyrood for this to work for us.

This is for you both. Beyond financial contributions, what other forms of support do you think the UK Government should be giving?

I think in-kind support of the Government saying, “This is the kind of project that we are willing to support for some of the most fragile and remote communities in the UK,” speaks volumes for the commitment to the communities but also when it comes to being able to go to anyone who might be able to help fund it to say that we have got the Government support in this. I think just the very statement of support would be immensely helpful. Of course, funding would be welcome too. I won’t shy away from that.

I think being a partner in taking things forward would be hugely beneficial for us. Having the backing of both Governments would be really key when we are looking for financing models and all we could do going forward. What looks to be happening in the islands is that we are contributing to economic growth and the national objectives with renewables and just transition and all these other things that are kicking off. We are going to be part of that, so I think it is only fair to have support that comes back. If you are in the islands, we are suffering massively from poverty at the same time as we will potentially be producing enough power for Scotland twice over. That is not right. There are lots of things around the edges that both Governments could be doing, working with Ofgem and the national power providers and changing the way things are currently done. There are an awful lot of things in supporting the renewables element, because that is what is with us now, but also supporting the economy and the communities. In lots of the communities, depopulation is what it is all about. It is overarching everything we are doing. We are trying to retain as much as we can, looking at ways to attract people to the islands. We have talked about rural visas and that kind of thing in the past, just making it easier to operate and work in island settings. We floated removing VAT on transport coming across to the islands to make it more attractive and make businesses able to compete with their colleagues on the mainland. There are lots of things that could be done by both Governments to support the islands that would link towards the development of fixed links as well.

Are the fixed links projects reliant on support from the UK Government?

I think so, yes. As I explained before, it goes far beyond what would be considered prudential borrowing for councils the size of our councils.

Can I ask Councillor Woodbridge about UK Government support as well, please, Chair?

Councillor Woodbridge, would you like to add anything to that?

I agree with my island colleagues, and we support the position that the UK Government need to recognise the needs of islands and how they can contribute alongside the Scottish Government. I think what is really key for our areas is that we are in a unique political situation. I know you were talking before the meeting about whether it is normal that all these are independent councillors. We have a very interesting structure. We are true community representatives here. We don’t have links into political party structures in the same way. What really harms us is not having care and attention when Governments are not working together. We need both Governments to come together in a constructive way and talk about these issues and how are we going to solve them and how are we going to support our peripheries. I think that is probably the key thing and it needs to be said. There are so many opportunities in the investment periphery, if you look at Scandinavian models of that investment in the economy and infrastructure and you think how strong you could make the Scottish highlands and islands, how much you could gain from doing so, and to look at this as an opportunity for us as the smallest local authorities in Scotland. We are always asking for something, but it is always a reasonable ask, a compassionate ask, and it is always evidenced. We need that attention. I really value the opportunity to be able to say that today.

I noticed recently that the Scottish Human Rights Commission warned that without major investment in transport and infrastructure, Islanders’ human rights could be compromised. That is quite a stark statement but is it one that the three of you agree with? I will start with Councillor Woodbridge.

I think that is impossible not to agree with. I absolutely agree and reflect that our existing transport network in Orkney is really complicated with a number of connections, but they are far below what would be acceptable in this day and age, far below the routes and services methodology that the Scottish Government published a number of years ago. It is now out of date, of course, but is a really helpful marker for what should be acceptable. Where I am sitting now, I can see the pier. The island of North Ronaldsay is where I am from and where I am calling from today. This island receives one ferry per week in the winter timetable, two in the summer. That is so far below a reasonable expectation. I know that the milk can be quite political and Councillor Steele talked about UHT earlier. I grew up drinking UHT milk and I am in my 30s. It is so challenging to get fresh food to these islands with our current food structure, our food networks and how that works in the UK. I think that care and attention and taking an holistic view of how both Governments are supporting these rural areas is really important, so I fully support that statement and the question you asked.

I agree entirely. We had representatives from the Scottish Human Rights Commission present their report to us and we could not argue with anything they were saying. We take some responsibility because they are services that we provide for some of the connectivity now, but they are not the services we would like to provide. We would like to provide better services to the people. Accessing healthcare is a really simple one and one that has covered quite a lot of area in Uist and Barra over the last while because we go to Stornoway or we go to Glasgow. Do you fly directly to Glasgow? We have a Western Isles health board, and you are routed up that way, so it is accessing the basics. I touched earlier on the maternity situation and that is replicated across all sorts of services. In some ways we get a good service because we are able to get to the hospital. We go to Glasgow because arrangements are in place, but it is physically accessing them and the time it takes to get somewhere. I have had situations where people have said that they are not going to go for cancer treatment because they can’t rely on getting back and forth and the cost involved. You are subsidised to a certain level, but you also have to subsidise your accommodation. This was in Edinburgh. There is the cost to go and stay. The person was not able to work because they were unable to. They were sick, they were ill, they were getting cancer treatment, and they said that they could not afford to go and receive care. When we are talking about human rights, these are the basics and you can directly link that to the transport and the connectively in the islands.

I would like to reference the minimum income standard, which is work that Highlands and Islands Enterprise undertook probably 10 or 12 years ago now, but it has been refreshed since. Shetland Islands Council is involved in trying to take forward another refresh of that work. That told us that to have the minimum, really a basic standard of living, you needed 40% to 60% more if you were living in the islands than if you were in, for example, the central belt of Scotland. I think the extrapolation of that is quite interesting when you consider that nobody makes allowance for that in any kind of benefits or pensions or anything like that. They just assume that a fixed amount of benefit will provide for everybody regardless of where they are, but the island of Unst that we were speaking about earlier, where the spaceport is, is one of the places that falls into the higher bracket. It is close to 60% more, so I think you could easily see how people’s human rights are being affected if they quite simply can’t afford to live in a place that they might well have been born in. We are all making contrasts with inputs and outputs, but the gross value added by the Shetland Islands in 2023 was £855 million and that equates to £37,000 per head of population in the islands. We are making a significant contribution to the economy, and I think what we are really saying is help us and we can deliver more. You have been up in Faroe, so you have seen how its economy has strengthened and grown and the population has grown too. It is not that long ago that the population of the Faroe Islands was on a par with the population of Shetland and yet we have 23,000 and falling slightly and Faroe has now topped 54,000, which was the last figure I heard. That is where we think the investment wherever it comes from can go into the islands and help us to deliver more for the national economy.

Very briefly and to continue on your point about the Faroes, Councillor Robinson, one thing that I was really struck by was the shared vision that everyone should be able to reach the capital within an hour, which is quite incredible when you consider the landscape there. I think that underlines the importance of keeping people and communities connected. Do you think that the islands in Scotland would benefit from that same or similar shared vision and understanding of the importance of keeping not just people, but communities and businesses connected?

Yes, I think that is hard to disagree with. I was certainly aware of that. It is 10 years since I was last in Faroe, but the Faroese Government outlined that vision and ambition to us when we were there and, again, we were thinking about our own islands and saying, “We can’t get from Fetlar to Lerwick within an hour.” There are various places where we can’t do that currently, but I think that the fixed links that we are proposing would make that possible.

Having that vision statement has driven the connectivity work, whether tunnels between islands but also tunnels on islands themselves.

Yes.

There certainly seem to be very good contributions to the idea that we all live in one city that the Faroe Islanders have. Thank you very much. That is the end of our session with you this morning. I thank all three of you very much indeed for that very helpful session. As you can probably gather, it is an issue that the Committee is very interested in, and we hope to work with you further going forward and we will be making various visits as well. Thank you, all three of you, for joining us this morning. Examination of witness Witness: Andy Sloan. [This evidence was taken by video conference]

Welcome back to the second session of the meeting today of the Scottish Affairs Committee looking at connectivity in Scotland, specifically around fixed links. We have with us Andy Sloan, who is the Managing Director, UK, and Ireland, of COWI. I understand you have described the proposed tunnels in Shetland as technically straightforward, Mr Sloan. Can you give us a little bit more detail about the basis for that assessment?

I have been looking at the feasibility of building tunnels in Shetland for nearly two decades. That builds on the experience of the Faroese and not just them but Iceland and Norway as well. The form of tunnelling is drill and blast and I think that the Committee has been to the Faroes. The tunnels they are proposing or talking about in Scotland, and Shetland in particular, are very much like the ones you saw in the Faroe Islands. They are not the Clyde tunnel or the Silvertown tunnels that we have just completed the design of in London or the lower Thames crossing. Those tunnels are all designed for very high volumes of traffic, and it is the volume of traffic that really dictates the design of the tunnels with the mechanical and electrical provisions, the fire and life safety and so on that we have to provide within the tunnel. While these projects seem relatively big or are big in an island context, in a UK construction context—

We seem to have lost you, Mr Sloan. Sorry, we lost you there for a moment, Mr Sloan. I am not sure what happened, but it looks like you are back again, thankfully. You were just talking about the comparison with some of the other tunnels you have worked on when we lost you.

The tunnels we are proposing and studying in Shetland are not the lower Thames crossing, which we are working on, or the Silvertown tunnels that we are just completing the design of. It is all to do with the volume of traffic that goes through and in an island context the volume of traffic is very low, which leads to a fairly simple design.

Are there any uncertainties such as perhaps the geology around Shetland that could make the project unexpectedly more complex or costly, or is that something you are able to be quite confident about at the moment?

On the engineering feasibility, we are confident that we can use the techniques that we are talking about, drill and blast tunnelling, to create the tunnels, but before we go into any construction contract to form the tunnels, there needs to be a phase or phases of site investigation to drill and collect rock samples to do studies into the geophysics and so on to pin down in more detail the ground conditions that we are likely to encounter while building these tunnels.

Thank you. I am now going to pass to my colleague Elaine Stewart for the next question.

Mr Sloan, based on your experience from international projects, what benefits have you observed from comparable fixed links?

In simple terms, the creation of fixed links like this in Scotland would be transformative, in my opinion. If we connect the islands of Shetland that we are studying, as with the population on the Faroes, for example, that you have visited, the number of people living on the islands invariably increases, the average age of the population of the connected islands comes down, therefore younger people are there. It is an opportunity for increased travel, so the number of the population itself increases. All in all, by connecting a relatively depopulated island with a centre like the mainland of Shetland leads to prosperity, growth, and an increase in the economy. We see that whether it is a small-scale connection like we are talking about in Shetland or elsewhere in Scotland, but it is equally true at mega scale. We are designing the connection between Denmark and Germany at the moment; 18 kilometres of what is called immersed tube tunnel. That is all about economic development. What is good for inter-country is good for smaller inter-island.

Have there been any unintended consequences or lessons that the UK could learn, in your view?

There are two very distinct types of connection. There is intra tunnel. I believe you heard from the Western Isles or Shetland this morning talking about connecting tunnels to, for example, the mainland of the Shetlands. That is a fundamentally different thing from connecting, say, Mull to the mainland of Scotland because in that situation you can replicate the connection between Skye and the mainland where there are a lot of vehicles and so on travelling around Skye now. I am not commenting on whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but what would happen if you were connecting the island into almost an infinite number of vehicles. That is not the case with Shetland and the Western Isles, or the first two tunnels in the Western Isles, so there is a fundamental difference. There are always mixed views in populations, and I am back in Shetland next week talking to communities. Some people just like an island life and not to be connected. The people I have talked to all across Shetland are very positive about the prospects of fixed links. Something about the loss of that island feel could be an issue but I have not heard that view expressed very often.

Mr Sloan, transport is a devolved issue in Scotland, but do you believe that there is a strategic case for the UK Government’s involvement in any tunnel project for Shetland?

Part of that is funding. You may or may not have heard but I think you will understand about the funding of the Fair Isle ferry. I don’t know whether you heard that in an earlier session. To deliver these tunnels, we need political champions. The engineering feasibility is without question. The transformative impact of fixing communities with these tunnels is beyond question. The essential part is: do you, as politicians in London or Edinburgh, want to deliver these things? From my perspective, it probably comes down to a combination of the two. There needs to be collaboration between Westminster and Edinburgh and a cross-party, cross-government look to say, “Do we want to look after our peripheral communities or islands communities?” If we do, Shetlands Island Council, with the study that we have completed now, is in the best position that any community has ever been in to deliver fixed links. We know that they can be delivered and we have gone through the process of delivery. The question is a bit convoluted. Politicians both in Edinburgh and London need to support this and to champion this cause.

Could the project to deliver tunnels for Shetland still go ahead without UK Government involvement? Again, I stress that transport is a devolved matter in Scotland. I am wondering about your view on whether, if the UK Government did not provide financial support for such a project, it could go ahead?

The tunnels are from Transport Scotland. The STRP2 document and policy made no mention of tunnels in Shetland. Shetland Islands Council is keen on exploring the options available to it. My feeling is that it was left to the council very much by Edinburgh to say, “You do not want to do it.” Quite rightly, I suppose, Transport Scotland is saying, “They are not part of the trunk road network, which we are responsible for. They are all council roads and so you are responsible.” Whether it is politically correct is not for me to say, but leads into the need for both governments to lean in. We did explore routes to funding, and I will come on to that if you have questions but, in all cases, delivery needs Government backing.

One question I raised in the previous session was around the islands’ connectivity plan, which identified that more fixed links, rather than relying on ferries, would be beneficial, but it would seem that no funding was put behind this. Do you agree with that, and do you believe that perhaps a more robust route should have been outlined to deliver on what was set out in that plan?

I can only talk to Shetland because that is where I have been doing most of my work over the last couple of decades. We are looking at the moment at giving the councillors there the tools to say, “Across this piece of water, it is either a ferry or a tunnel, and here are the options,” through the appropriate appraisal process. It is true that because of the age of the fleet, which is pretty old, here in Shetland we do not have a do-nothing solution. It is not an apparently expensive tunnel versus nothing. We need investment across the whole piece. Behind your question, I am guessing, is the need for investment, whether it is a fixed link or new ferries and the ports and everything, which is not a cheap option at all, and you have to keep replacing them every 30-odd years. The simple answer is, yes, there needs to be more—

Take Iceland. I am Chairman of COWI Iceland, our company in Iceland, and we are just about to start designing a tunnel there. We do hospitals and all sorts of things. We are one of the biggest consultants in Iceland. With the way the political situation is set up there, rural communities have a bigger voice at the heart of government. In Norway, where we work extensively, the investment in rural infrastructure is significant and, arguably, greater than we see in Scotland. A simple answer to your question is yes, but I am an engineer, not a politician and so that is based on my experience of where projects come.

The process at the moment in Scotland follows a STAG process and the principles, it is a multiyear criterion in nature, assessing options against environment, climate change, health and wellbeing, economy, equality, accessibility, policy feasibility, and all of that. However, the benefit cost ratio is still a significant part of this. The benefit cost ratio will continue to be discussed and will be important into the future. The benefit cost ratio of anything we talk about today, whether it is ferries or whether it is fixed-link tunnels, will be below one. From an investment perspective and its conventional approach, the BCR will look uninteresting. That is because the process of doing that focuses on reducing journey times and not just that, but reducing accidents and reducing and looking at the costs of running vehicles. Those criteria are not that relevant when you are thinking about the unfettered access you get from being able, at any time of the night or day, to go the length of Shetland, to go to the SaxaVord Spaceport or the hospitals in Stornoway or whatever they may be. We need to have a look at the selection process, the STAG process, specifically around the economics of the island links, both ferries and tunnels. The economic dimension within the whole process needs to be emphasised. We need to have some way within the STAG process to focus on the transformational effect that fixed-link tunnels would have on the economy and the social fabric of these islands and not just focus on journey times. It is not completely focused on journey times, but it still plays a significant part in the assessment process. We probably need to see some fundamental research done in future developments on how we are better able to look at the economics of this transformation that would come around from fixed links and even in looking at ferries in the communities.

Mr Sloan, can I ask about financing and financing models? When we were in the Faroe Islands, the roads were tolled and visitors paid three times the price of locals. Should the business model include tolling, or would that be politically unacceptable?

You have to toll. The financial model is not just a case of going and asking for money. We are not doing a feasibility study. The feasibility of the tunnels is without question. We can build them. We are looking at the deliverability of these tunnels. We have taken one, Yell, by way of example, and then we have looked at how we would come about delivering it. If we can come up with a model that says how it would be delivered locally by the Shetland Islands Council, and how contractors would come to the Shetland Islands to build such tunnels, if all these things are true, we can take it to the financial community, “This is the project. This is what it looks like. This is the risk associated with it. Is this something that you would see as being fundable?” In our study, we went to 17 or 18 entities within the financial community and explored the deliverability of such links. Their conclusion was that, yes, these are investable pieces of infrastructure. Part of that investability was that we have defined what SIC needs to become to be a delivery agent. We took one tunnel and developed a design to what we call a reference design stage, a pretty well-advanced design, making assumptions on the ground conditions, referring to the earlier question. Then, taking that reference design, we went to three independent contractors, one from Norway and two from Austria. The two from Austria have worked extensively in the UK and one is working at the moment in Scotland doing drill-and-blast tunnelling. We asked them to price these projects. We got prices, condensed those prices, looked at our own reference selection of prices and, with that package, went to funders and said, “All these things being true, including the type of contract and so on that we would use to deliver, do we have fundable, investable projects?” Across the board, they said, “Yes, they are investable.”

The Corran ferry from Fort William to Ardnamurchan is being replaced at the moment. A single ferry and two new harbours is £58 million. The cost of tunnelling it was not very much more, and would not have had the cost of replacing the ferry, looking after it, maintaining it and all that. Yet we still opted for the ferry. One thing that came up in that investigation was that the cost of tunnelling in Scotland would be much more than in other countries because we have a higher specification. For example—and I do not know if it is true—we have to line our ferries in concrete, whereupon in the Faroe Islands they have raw rock. Are we overspecifying our tunnels and making them too expensive?

First, we have not delivered this type of tunnel in Scotland. We would need to put in presumptions about the type of tunnel linings and so on. No standards anywhere in the UK mandate the type of lining that goes into a tunnel. A risk-based approach is taken. The tunnel that we have taken to a pretty far advanced level in Shetland, the Yell one, does have a concrete lining but it is a sprayed concrete lining. It does not have a big shutter travelling through and putting additional concrete on the inside to give a smooth finish. Essentially, we put support into the tunnel with sprayed concrete, rock bolts and steel bars drilled into the rock as and when required. What you saw in the Faroe Islands was rock that was good enough that it did not need sprayed concrete as support. Some of the tunnels in the Faroe Islands do have this sprayed concrete in areas. We have looked at the standards and that is in this report that is being issued to Shetland in the next couple of weeks. The UK standards do not 100 per cent cover these very low-volume traffic tunnels, but the adoption of the newest Norwegian standards in parts with the UK ones and some European ones gives us a suite of design standards that adequately deal with this type of tunnel in Scotland. I have to be clear. We do not have to overspecify the tunnel compared to other parts of northern Europe.

Mr Sloan, a final question from me. We know that you are engaged in Shetland’s fixed-link model study and we have heard today that it is likely to be received by the council quite soon, I understand. Is that correct?

Very soon, yes. We are nearly ready, yes.

Can you share with the Committee any early findings? The Council Leader has undertaken to provide a copy of the study in due course, but can you share anything from that at the moment with the Committee?

I can share broad points, but I cannot share the numbers and the costs because the council is dealing with that in its own way in the coming few weeks. The broad conclusion of the study is, I suppose, from the highest level, this is the first study that is been done in Scotland that takes the deliverability and explores how we would deliver tunnels in a Scottish context. We should all be clear that they are deliverable. This is not intangible. Shetland Islands Council has taken the conversation into a space where these things can be reality. That reality could be, once we build one tunnel like this in Scotland, there will be more because that is what happens when people get connected. They get a taste for it. You can see that in the vision of one hour to Torshavn, which is a magnificent political vision. The broad conclusion is that these things are deliverable and that we need to go on with it. In the detail of the questions that were set, yes, I believe that Shetland Islands Council, as a council, can deliver these tunnels on its own by setting up a lean delivery agency. These communities have a real opportunity here to show that infrastructure can be delivered differently than it is in the rest of the UK. A simple lean delivery agency set up by SIC with mature forms of contract would allow some elements of risk sharing, partnering with a contractor to deliver these tunnels. These tunnels are big in an island context, but they are relatively simple in terms of engineering. As tunnellers we are simple. We get up in the morning, go in, drill, blast, take the rock out, spray some concrete, and do the same thing for the three years that it would take to excavate the rock across the Yell Sound. With the SIC in that position, it could perhaps do the design itself so that it can control that tendering to mature contractors. We have asked the contractors already, “Would you come to build a tunnel in Shetland?” The contracting community has said yes. It has been presumed that it is just about raising the money, but we still have to attract contractors to come to Shetland to build them. We know that contractors will come and contract with the Shetland Islands Council to build these tunnels. We know the finance routes that we would need to go down for those, and we know how to finance the maintenance of these tunnels. It would be through the revenue raised by tolls. In the round, we have an advanced piece of work that should move the conversation forward. What we are saying in the report is equally applicable to the Western Isles, although I have never studied the potential for tunnels there.

You mentioned there that it might take three years. Is that roughly the estimate for the Yell tunnel?

For the Yell tunnel, we are looking at it. We need to do an outline business case and a detailed business case in parallel with that. We need environmental studies. We need to do a site investigation to understand the geology in more detail. We need to go through planning, and we need to raise the money. That first part will take, we think, about three years to do that. In the third year, we could start some preparatory works at each end of the tunnel. Building the tunnel would take a period of about two and a half to three years. Then we are testing systems and so on at the end. The whole construction for the Yell tunnel is around eight years to deliver the tunnel, give or take. With will, by the end of the next Scottish Parliament, we could have one and a half kilometres of tunnel built.

How long is the distance across the Sound of Yell that we are talking about?

Just over six and a half kilometres.

Mr Sloan, thank you very much for your evidence this morning. It has been extremely helpful to us. Thank you for your time, too. We look forward to seeing the study when it is eventually published in the not-too-distant future. Thank you again very much indeed. Thank you.