Petitions
Opencast Mining (PE346 and PE369)
Item 3 is consideration of public petitions. We are to consider petition PE346, which was lodged by Scotland Opposing Opencast, and petition PE369, which was lodged by the Confederation of UK Coal Producers.
On 12 December last year, the committee considered the petitions and agreed to appoint Adam Ingram and Nora Radcliffe as reporters to investigate on its behalf the issues that the petitions raise. The context for the investigation was to be national planning policy guideline 16 and the cost of monitoring and enforcing mineral permissions.
Members have a copy of the paper, which reviews the written and oral evidence that the reporters gathered and makes recommendations for action in a number of areas. I invite the reporters to make additional comments, if they so wish, after which I will seek the committee's views on the paper.
I do not want to add anything to the paper, which we will discuss in a moment. However, I want to put on the record our thanks to the people who put a great deal of time and effort into giving us evidence. I also thank Alastair Macfie for making the arrangements and for his support.
I ask Adam Ingram whether he wishes to highlight any parts of the report.
Yes. It is obvious that opencast mining raises a lot of passions in the communities that are affected by it. In essence, we were asked to examine the balance between conflicting objectives. On the one hand, there is a strategic need to produce coal to meet Scotland's energy needs. On the other hand, opencast mining is a form of coal mining that can be especially destructive to the environment. It can have an adverse impact on the amenity of local communities in terms of health and safety, infrastructure and degradation.
It is clear that communities need to be protected from the adverse impacts of opencast mining. The main focus of our investigation was to gather and weigh up evidence to determine whether the balance in the current planning framework is the right one. The framework is set by NPPG 16, which was published and introduced in 1999, when it represented something of a tightening up of the planning regime. Our main conclusion is that we favour a comprehensive review of NPPG 16 as soon as is possible. The policies that are set out in NPPG 16 are still being put into several local plans but, as soon as that process is completed, we should consider a comprehensive review.
On balance, we believe that there is substance to the concerns that are expressed in PE346 about the need to protect local communities from adverse health impacts and to address the under-resourcing of the monitoring and enforcement aspects of opencast permissions.
We recommend that the Executive commission medical research into the effects of airborne particulates. New research is emerging from America, for example, suggesting that there is a direct correlation between PM10 particles in the atmosphere and respiratory and cardiovascular disease and mortality. However, no research has been done on the issue in a Scottish context. Given the heavy concentration of the opencast industry in Scotland, that serious omission must be rectified as soon as possible.
We also believe that the Executive should consult on the fees regime to meet the cost of monitoring and enforcing opencast permissions. That will require new legislative powers to be given to the planning authorities, which means that the Parliament will have to pass primary legislation. The opportunity for that may arise in the new planning bill that the Executive has recently announced. [Interruption.]
As there has been a power failure, we had better suspend the meeting.
I had finished anyway.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I can now call the meeting back to order after the loss of power—although I am sure that the Parliament has paid its electricity bills. We had to suspend because, for formal meetings, committees require the official report and the official broadcast. We therefore could not continue when we lost power in the chamber. We have relocated to committee room 4, which is a bit inconvenient as it is relatively small. However, coming here will allow us to get on with our business.
We were considering the two petitions on opencast mining and the reporters' paper. Adam Ingram was close to the end of his introductory remarks when we had to suspend. Adam, do you want to add anything?
No—I had just concluded my remarks when the power was cut. My speech was obviously devastating.
Do other members wish to comment on the paper?
Given the renewed pressures for the development of opencast mining and the closure of Longannet, it is urgent that paragraph 23 in the paper be stiffened up. I should have prefaced my remarks by saying that the paper is an excellent report; I congratulate our reporters. However, as paragraph 23 reads at the moment, its intention is not as clear as it might be. It says that it would be "premature" for the review of the operation of NPPG 16 to begin at present. However, elsewhere in the paper the reporters recommend that such a review should take place. The question is therefore when that review should start. "As soon as possible" is not a strong enough phrase; we should recommend that it take place within a year.
If some councils are not far enough on in their strategies to implement NPPG 16, the review of what they are doing could simply be done in parallel with the implementations. With other councils, it would be entirely appropriate to start the review soon after they have begun to implement NPPG 16. There is urgency because of the intense pressures to develop opencast mining in Scotland.
I welcome the comprehensive report and I congratulate the reporters. I am especially concerned about the health matters that Adam Ingram raised, which are of grave concern. I fully endorse the need for the Executive to consider doing some research on that issue.
I am not sure that I wholly agree with Robin Harper that further measures need to be implemented straight away. I take the view of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors that the NPPG is bedding in and should be given some time to do so. Not all councils agree that more needs to be done. Fife Council seems to be managing quite happily.
If more fees are introduced for monitoring and enforcement, that will be an additional cost to the industry. I subscribe to the view that a more detailed study should be carried out. I am in no way belittling the value of the report, but perhaps the Scottish Executive should carry out a study to establish whether more needs to be done. I would be interested to hear what Adam Ingram and Nora Radcliffe have to say on the matter. I suggest that paragraph 52 should state, "The Reporters recommend that, after conducting a study into the need for and the impact of the introduction of formal monitoring fees, the Executive might wish to proceed with a consultation on a new fees regime." A study should be done before the consultation process goes ahead. I am interested to hear Adam Ingram and Nora Radcliffe's further justification for the position that they have taken.
For John Scott's information, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has undertaken a detailed process in England. England has gone well down the route of establishing the need for a review of the fees regime. That evidence has been produced, so there is no need to replicate it, as the Executive acknowledges in its correspondence with us.
A problem clearly exists. All the local authorities bar one have indicated that they are under-resourced in terms of their ability to monitor opencast operations effectively. That is a significant problem. Some of the councils have a large number of opencast sites in their area, yet only one person is available to go out to them—that tends to be a fire-fighting exercise. The Executive and the department in England recognise that that is a major problem, on which we must make progress. The question is how we reform the fees regime. That is still open to debate. There is no question but that we must provide the resources to local authorities to do the necessary work, which is currently not being done.
It is almost certain that there will be a planning bill in the next parliamentary term. The most important point for the committee to signal is that we want to be involved in the pre-legislative process for the planning bill, which would take these issues on board. The work that Adam Ingram and Nora Radcliffe have done takes us a considerable way forward and can be a holding position until we get into the pre-legislative process for the planning bill. Opencast mining can be properly considered in that context. We should signal to the Executive that we want to be involved in a structured pre-legislative process for the planning bill. That might not happen between now and next May, but it will be an early task for the Transport and the Environment Committee thereafter.
I will add a few comments. Members will be aware that some of the petitioners come from the area that I represent. The work that the reporters have done is worth while. The recommendation on introducing a new regime is sensible. I note that in the report the Scottish Executive indicates that it intends to consult on monitoring and enforcement fees. We should encourage the Executive to proceed with that consultation as timeously as possible.
The report also highlights the lack of detailed research on the health impacts. The Executive has a responsibility to fill that gap. We must also be conscious of the fact that, because many communities that are close to opencast developments were once mining communities, they have suffered from a fair degree of ill health in the past. I do not leap to any conclusions about the health impacts, but we should ensure that appropriate research is undertaken on what those impacts are. That will also have an effect on how we regulate the industry. I support the reporters' recommendation for more research.
With that, I bring my comments on the report to an end and ask members about the way forward. The only alteration to the report has been suggested by Robin Harper, who recommends that we should put a time limit on when NPPG 16 should be reviewed. Do members want to go down that road, or should we leave the report as it stands?
I support Robin Harper's recommendation, which concerns a drafting issue. According to the Executive, NPPG 16 is under review all the time. A revision was introduced based on work on airborne dust and particulates that was carried out by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. However, for a number of reasons, that research is not the definitive exercise. We need to establish good evidence that is based on Scottish conditions and that can lead to a proper revision of NPPG 16.
I prefer to amend paragraph 23 of the report in the way that Robin Harper suggested. In essence, we need a comprehensive review of NPPG 16 as soon as is practicable. The problem is that the local plans for some areas have not yet been finalised. Once that process is complete, we should move immediately to a comprehensive review. We also need to press the Executive urgently to commission the required medical research, which is lacking in Scotland.
The report states that clearly.
I endorse what Adam Ingram has said. There are many issues concerning the consistency of interpretation of the NPPGs and how they are implemented in local structure plans. Many of those issues will be bound up in the long-term review of the whole planning structure that will precede the new planning bill. It makes sense for our recommendations to be made in such a way that they can correlate with, and dovetail into, the other long-term work that is being done.
On the health impacts, it became apparent that there were deficiencies in the research. That issue can and must be addressed straight away. We need evidence on which to base conditions for future permissions.
Does the committee agree that we should amend paragraph 23 to reflect the comments that were made by Robin Harper, Adam Ingram and Nora Radcliffe?
Members indicated agreement.
With that change agreed, are members happy to endorse the report and forward it to the Minister for Social Justice, Margaret Curran?
Members indicated agreement.