Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I agree entirely with what Gavin Whitefield and George Black have said.
As someone who has had the pleasure and privilege of sitting on the other side of the table from my current side, I think that the convener and the deputy convener have already summarised some of the key legacies that the committee will leave behind, including your refreshing approach to taking evidence and your efforts to get out and talk to people. Even in your questioning today, you have attempted to avoid the usual suspects—I am sorry that you have three more in front of you. I hope that, in your legacy paper, you will highlight your efforts to do that.
Having sat with you, I know that you have taken a challenging approach, which I wholly endorse. That is the main purpose of a parliamentary committee, and I suggest that, if you can, you pass on to your successors the view that they can be even more challenging.
I would say that one size does not fit all. You would expect the former chief executive of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar to say that, but you summed it up, convener, when you said that the committee has heard evidence from many sources and that Scotland is a diverse place. For the benefit of the four committee members here who are new to me, I make the point that I spent 20 years as a civil servant, sitting in Edinburgh and dreaming up some of the top-down solutions that have not worked, so I have experience on both sides of the fence.
The committee’s questioning of the academics who were here highlighted another area, which I would like to finish on. I hope that, in passing on the committee’s legacy, members will draw out some principles to guide their successors rather than highlight specific issues. I would be happy to elaborate on that if the committee wishes me to.
I will give just one example that follows from a question that I heard John Wilson ask about how we can improve engagement. I think that all the committee members know the answer to that question anyway. Engagement comes best when people think that it matters—it is as simple as that. To go back to the question that was asked, why do people not engage in the planning process until they find out that a swimming pool, a pub or a casino is going to land on their doorstep? The chances are that they have never really understood the process and have only just found out.
The biggest piece of evidence for what I have said is the referendum, in which there was an 85 per cent turnout. That was because people thought that their votes mattered. The committee should be thinking about that level in passing on its legacy. There are the legacies of challenge, finding out about community engagement and, above all, finding ways to ensure that people feel that, when they express their views, they will be listened to and their views will be addressed.