I will focus on amendment 61, which, as the cabinet secretary has indicated, relates to the multi-agency public protection arrangements, which are better known as MAPPA. They impose a duty on responsible authorities in a local authority area to establish arrangements for assessing and managing the risks that are imposed by certain categories of offender.

I lodged the amendment after the campaigner Linda McDonald got in touch with me several months ago. She was brutally assaulted by the convicted murderer Robbie McIntosh in 2017 while walking her dog. The attack took place after Mr McIntosh had been let out of Castle Huntly prison for a week, ahead of a Parole Board for Scotland meeting. He pled guilty to assault to severe injury, permanent disfigurement, permanent impairment and danger to life and attempted murder, and he received an order for lifelong restriction.

Ms McDonald must be commended for the grace and immense bravery that she has shown in the light of the attack. She has been petitioning to drive change in the parole system to prevent dangerous offenders from being released without sufficient monitoring through her Justice 4 Linda campaign.

Multi-agency meetings began taking place in relation to Mr McIntosh as early as 2016, but key management decisions were not recorded and no clear action plan was made. Despite Mr McIntosh eventually undergoing a risk of serious harm assessment, no risk management plan was put in place. In the period when he was on home leave, the local policing team was not made aware that he was on that leave.

Ms McDonald has since received an apology from the Scottish Government, and a review of the updated policy and guidance for risk management teams was completed in 2020. However, there is now scope to tighten legislation in the area.

Amendment 61 stipulates that level 3 MAPPA prisoners be monitored in the same way as equivalent offenders, with regular check-ins with police and justice social work. The amendment would require ministers to review and report on the impact on MAPPA of part 2 of the bill as enacted. That would require consideration to be given to whether changes to national guidance were required and to how MAPPA offenders were monitored after release from custody, and it would ensure a consistent approach across Scotland.

As the cabinet secretary said, I moved the same amendment at stage 2. At the time, the cabinet secretary argued that the timescale of one year that I initially suggested would not be workable. I therefore amended the wording of the amendment to “3 years”, and I am disappointed that the Scottish Government feels that it is not able to support it.

I intend to move amendment 61.

I thank Alexander Burnett for securing the debate and for arranging the round-table discussion on the issue earlier today. Many important points have been made in the debate, and I particularly associate myself with Sarah Boyack’s contribution on third-party rights of appeal.

I fully support the need for a rapid expansion of the renewables sector but, as has been said, that needs to be done with the support of local communities and clear benefits to local people. That does not mean that every proposal from every developer should be granted, because there are significant problems, for example, with the ownership of much of the sector and some of the people who are behind proposals.

In North Ayrshire recently, there have been big community campaigns against the Rigghill wind farm and Cumbrae solar farm proposals. We need to make sure that planning law and indeed the national planning framework 6 ensure that local communities’ voices are listened to.

I am particularly interested in the motion’s reference to the joint review by the UK and Scottish Governments of the ETSU-R-97 regulations on all new onshore wind farm developments because of issues that constituents have raised with me over an extended period about low-frequency noise and vibration not just from wind turbines but from wind turbine testing, drillships and a range of other industrial developments.

I note that the Scottish Government intends to implement the recommendations of the joint review by the UK and Scottish Governments, which I support. However, we need to go further, in particular in relation to measuring the noise effects of wind turbines. The research on that has moved on and the regulations are now out of date. I am disappointed that the review does not seem to recognise the specific concerns about low-frequency noise. Despite the fact that constituents have repeatedly raised that issue with me and other elected representatives for many years, no new guidance has been issued for local authorities. We are still relying on regulations from 2005.

Although local authorities have a duty to investigate complaints relating to noise pollution under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, they are not supplied with updated guidance from either the Scottish or the UK Government. In 2011, the report by the University of Salford for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in relation to the proposed criteria for the assessment of low-frequency noise disturbance highlighted that the individuals surveyed attributed sleep disturbance, stress, headaches, migraines and severe mental health issues to low-frequency noise. Despite the findings of that report, we have not seen action to update guidance.

We need to recognise that this sector is rapidly expanding. We need to ensure that the regulations keep up with that expansion, given the rapid changes that we are seeing. I fully support the Scottish Government in its attempts to see the rapid expansion of this sector. However, this cannot be the wild west. We need to ensure that the views and concerns of local people are taken into account and that, where developments proceed, the local community sees advantages to them in what happens.

Would anyone else like to come in, particularly on any problems that the committee needs to be aware of that need to be addressed and on which there could be improvements in policy?

I do not know whether anybody online has indicated that they want to come in. Obviously, we are particularly interested in child poverty. Being a student can be quite a difficult period, and formal education can be quite a difficult period for parents.

I would like to ask about lifelong learning. What do you think the role of lifelong learning is in addressing child poverty? Is there an overlap with a just transition to net zero and training people for green jobs? Perhaps the witnesses in the room would like to respond first.

Project 12 in the national strategy for economic transformation includes:

“developing a stronger, simplified lifelong learning system, including support targeted at those who need it most.”

To what extent do you expect that low-income parents will be the main focus?

I do not know whether Kenny Anderson wants to come in on that.

I will move on to my final question. To what extent are parents now the central focus of the growth in employability activity? Philip, that might be a suitable question for the IPPR.

Do any of the online witnesses have anything to add?

If not, my final question is about how we ensure the availability of a diverse range of education. There have been several references to green jobs as well as to some of the caring professions that parents on low incomes look to. How do we ensure that a truly diverse range of opportunities—which the economy needs and which will lead to well-paid employment—are available to low-income parents?

Keith Robson, do you want to come in on that?

I suppose that what I am asking is whether services are expanding or whether resources are just shifting. Sarah, do you want to comment on that?