Petitions

We will now consider petitions PE346 and PE369, both of which relate to opencast coal mining. We have received an Executive response to the reporters' paper that was produced on the petitions. PE346 is from Scotland Opposing Opencast—SOOT—whereas PE369 is from the Confederation of UK Coal Producers.Our intention is to consider the response from the Minister for Social Justice and to decide what further action—if any—is required on the petitions. I will invite both reporters to comment on the minister's response. I am aware that a further piece of correspondence from Scotland Opposing Opencast was distributed to members yesterday. I ask Adam Ingram to comment on the minister's response and to indicate what further action he would like the committee to pursue.

I agree with John Scott. The Transport and the Environment Committee cannot pursue health matters. The Health and Community Care Committee must do that. Much as we might want to consider health statistics, for example, I do not know whether we can.

We should certainly draw the issue to the Health and Community Care Committee's attention. However, the petition is an area of overlap, in which the health issues are closely related to reform of the planning guidelines. We have a legitimate interest in finding out whether opencast mining has health implications. Perhaps the way forward is to pursue the issue further with the Executive but draw the correspondence to the Health and Community Care Committee's attention. I can liaise with that committee's convener on whether the committee wishes to take evidence on the matter or is content with any action that we pursue. That takes into account the Health and Community Care Committee's extremely heavy work load. However, we should give that committee its place in the matter and draw the issue to its attention. If it wishes to pursue the matter, it can by all means do so.

I welcome the fact that the Executive intends to review NPPG 16. I note that it intends to do so during its 2003-04 programme. We should encourage the Executive to draw that review forward into the current programme. I note that the Executive response says that that is possible if other funds become available.

I was not aware of that. We should welcome the fact that a review of NPPG 16 is taking place, as the committee requested. We should also welcome the fact that consultation will take place on the introduction of fees for the monitoring and enforcement of mineral permissions, which also concords with the committee's views. I agree with the comments that several members have made that the disappointing part of the Executive's response is on the health issues. I agree with Adam Ingram's point that many of the communities that are potential development sites for opencast mining suffered significant environmental degradation and health problems in the past largely as a result of the deep coal mining industry. We should be cautious before we expose future generations in those communities to potential health problems. The committee seems to be unanimous in wishing to encourage the Executive to embark on research that should buy into and dovetail with research that is already taking place. We also seem to be unanimous in believing that that research into the health impacts of opencasting should inform any review of NPPG 16. Further to that, we will draw the issue to the Health and Community Care Committee's attention, so that it can consider whether it wants to pursue any independent work on the petition or is content with the issues that this committee has raised. Do members agree that we should take that course of action?Members indicated agreement.