Chamber and committees

I should perhaps make us a little bit aware of the time. We are a little over halfway through our questions. I think that we will be fine, but it would be great if we could keep our questions and answers a bit more succinct. I have to say, though, that we are having a very rich discussion.

I am going to bring in Collette Stevenson next, then Pam Gosal and Mark Griffin.

I believe that various organisations, such as the Electoral Reform Society, are working on citizens assemblies.

Thank you very much for that.

We have gone over time. I feel that it will be frustrating if we have this conversation next year. What has happened to the local government review that was in train but seems to have been lost in the weeds somewhere, and the “Democracy matters” process? Were they not about the third sector, local government and national Government trying to take the crowd with them? That was the process, but was it useful? Do we need to find the fire in that again or is it time to do something else? It feels as though we keep doing those reviews. As we have heard today, we keep writing different papers.

I will bring you in at the end, Mark.

We move on to the issue of public service reform, although I know that we have already started to touch on that, and the Verity house agreement. I will bring in Miles Briggs, to be followed by Colette Stevenson and Mark Griffin.

That is very helpful. That concludes our questions. Many thanks to the witnesses for joining us this morning and for your useful contributions. Let us hope that we can talk about something very different 12 months from now—that would be great.

As the committee previously agreed to take the next three items in private, and that was the final public item on our agenda for today, I now close the public part of the meeting.

The second item on our agenda is to decide whether to take in private items 4 and 5. Do members agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Can you assure—

It has come up that, even when data is published, it is not that user friendly. It comes out in different forms, which gives the people who want to analyse it and put it together, whether as volunteers or even from within the industry, a lot of work. If we could make the data not only public but user friendly, that would be great.

I will pick up on that last point about using the Scottish Government’s resource as best as you can and in collaboration with other academic institutes.

As Rhoda Grant mentioned, we visited the Scottish Association for Marine Science—SAMS—which does incredible work on ocean systems, climate change, marine conservation, aquaculture and food security. I have not visited the marine directorate laboratory, but Rhoda Grant and other colleagues have mentioned the challenging situation in Aberdeen. SAMS is an absolutely contrasting experience to that, from what I hear.

No one doubts the team of scientists in the marine directorate science division; they are doing a good job, but in a challenging situation. People at SAMS asked us whether they could be brought more closely in and whether more of the Scottish Government’s resource could be used in that collaborative way. Our meeting with SAMS was impressive. We saw many of its facilities. I know that the Scottish Government marine directorate brings in SAMS from time to time, but it is looking for an opportunity to bring some of its academic brilliance into the mix. It has an incredible offer on the west coast of Scotland, and a lot of good work is being done there.

You referred to inshore fisheries pilots. To be clear, which ones did you have in mind?