Contact: Richard Chinn, Tel 023 80 427000 email [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report outlines the problems associated with common Ragwort and describes what is being done to control the weed within the confines of the public highway in Hampshire. It also informs Members of the need to review current practice of Ragwort control in the light of a proposed amendment to Section 1 of the Weeds Act 1959.

2. Background

2.1 Common Ragwort is one of the five "injurious weeds" controlled under the Weeds Act 1959. It is a biennial weed when undisturbed but can develop perennial characteristics. The weed is poisonous to livestock and can cause a painful and protracted death from liver damage when eaten. Cattle and horses are particularly susceptible to Ragwort and sheep can also be affected.

2.2 Primary responsibility for the control of injurious weeds lies with the occupier of land on which the weeds are growing. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can serve notice on an occupier where there is a risk of injurious weeds spreading to neighbouring land. If an occupier unreasonably fails to comply with the notice then he may be found guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.

2.3 Given that Hampshire is a largely rural county the problems associated with Ragwort are significant, particularly within the New Forest where large numbers of animals graze.

2.4 The County Council as highway authority has a duty to control Ragwort on roadside verges and other public highway land and, more generally, on land that it owns.

3. Control of Ragwort

3.1 Ragwort can be controlled using several methods, the most common being pulling, cutting and use of herbicides. Care is needed in the choice of treatment, particularly on sites of special conservation interest where there may be a risk of damaging rare or valuable fauna and flora. Certain methods cannot practically be used where animals graze, for example herbicides used to treat the weed can be harmful to animals; where cutting takes place the cuttings have to be removed wherever there is a risk of animal contact.

3.2 The County Council has an annual Ragwort control programme. This generally involves pulling but some cutting is also undertaken.

3.3 Trials of the three control methods mentioned in paragraph 3.1 were conducted in the Basingstoke area approximately three years ago. All were found to be reasonably effective, the most economical in cost terms being cutting during the early spring with a tractor mounted flail, at which time there is a greater chance of attacking the weed in its rosette stage before flowering and seeding. However, as stated above, this method can only be used where there is no risk of animal contact.

3.4 Whatever the method used Ragwort control is resource intensive. Pulling is a manual operation, there is a need for the contractor's operatives to wear protective clothing and the pulled plants have to be safely disposed of.

3.5 Typical costs associated with the control of Ragwort on the highway are in the order of £40,000 per annum. Of this £25,000 is spent in the New Forest. However, when considering the scale of the problem, this level of expenditure is a drop in the ocean and allows only the worst affected areas and areas where there is a greater risk of livestock contamination to be addressed. Inevitably there will be a need to re-treat, sometimes on several occasions, during the growing season. A very much larger deployment of resources would be needed to bring about a greater level of Ragwort control on the highway. However, a sensible approach needs to be taken when allocating finance for such work - given that it is so widespread, throwing money at the problem is unlikely to have the desired effect and is likely to be abortive where adjoining land is left untreated.

3.6 The County Council will never be able to control Ragwort by itself and will need to continue to work in partnership with local communities, landowners, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and others. Parish Councils can and sometimes do carry out an important role, if only to report problems to landowners and other relevant parties. In some areas Parish Councils take the problem very seriously and organise volunteers to pull and dispose of the weed.

4. The Legal Position

4.1 As stated above, the primary legislation which provides for the control of injurious weeds is the Weeds Act 1959.

4.2 A Private Member's Bill on Ragwort Control, sponsored by John Greenway MP, has successfully completed its report stage and third reading in the House of Commons and is due to move on to the Lords in the autumn of 2003.

4.3 The Ragwort Control Bill is designed to amend the Weeds Act by placing a duty of responsibility on public authorities, such as highway authorities, to "take all reasonable steps to remove Ragwort from relevant land occupied by them and to prevent the growth or re-growth of Ragwort on such land".

4.4 In essence it seems that local authorities will face tougher enforcement from next year if they fail to follow Government guidance on Ragwort control. The Minister for Rural Affairs has stated his intention to issue a code of practice if the Ragwort Control Bill successfully completes its passage through Parliament.

4.5 It is expected that a draft Code, having been the subject of consultation during the summer, will be laid before Parliament early in 2004.

4.6 The Code of Practice will provide statutory guidance on how to prevent the spread of Ragwort and will be "admissible evidence", allowing courts to take it into account in any prosecution the Government may bring under the Weeds Act.

5. Raising Awareness in Hampshire

5.1 The Executive Member for Environment, Councillor Estlin, wrote to John Greenway MP on 24 February 2003 supporting his endeavours to raise the profile of Ragwort issues and suggested that more could be done by local communities, perhaps using those undertaking Community Service. A copy of the letter is attached as Appendix 1.

5.2 In a subsequent letter dated 18 March 2003, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 2, Councillor Estlin confirmed his support for a Code of Practice and offered to contribute to the formulation of such a Code.

5.3 The County Council has itself made efforts to raise the profile of Ragwort locally. The New Forest Association of Local Councils and Hampshire Association of Parish and Town Councils have been contacted and asked to help by asking their members to take appropriate action.

5.4 A County Council press release dated 22 July 2003 indicated the Council's support for Ragwort Action Week and drew attention to the need for community action in dealing with Ragwort. A copy of the press release is attached as Appendix 3.

6. Discussion

6.1 The County Council has always taken the issue of Ragwort seriously, allocating a reasonable level of resources to control growth and spread of the weed.

6.2 The main problem areas for the County Council as highway authority are roadside verges, central reserves and other highway land within rural areas, particularly where there is a risk of livestock poisoning and contamination of land used for food or forage production.

6.3 The problem extends well beyond the boundaries of the highway and quite large expanses of private land within Hampshire are infested with the weed. The effectiveness of the County Council's actions to control Ragwort can be abortive or reduced considerably where private land is left untreated.

6.4 If the Ragwort Control Bill successfully completes its passage through Parliament an amendment to the Weeds Act to include a Code of Practice for Ragwort control is likely to become law early next year. In the light of this the County Council will need to review current practice to establish what else, if anything, it needs to do to comply with the requirements of the legislation.

6.5 However, communities at large must take a responsibility for identifying and taking ownership of the problems associated with Ragwort if efforts to control the weed are to be successful.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The County Council has always taken the issues associated with Ragwort seriously, allocating reasonable resources for its control. The Ragwort Bill is progressing through Parliament and, assuming it does so successfully, will subject local authorities to additional responsibilities with respect to the control of Ragwort.

7.2 The County Council cannot expect to control Ragwort by itself and needs to continue to engage local communities and encourage a wider ownership of the problems of Ragwort control.

7.3 It would, in the light of the proposed change to the legislation, be prudent for the County Council to review current practice and make appropriate amendments for the future.

Recommendation

That this report be noted.

8199/RC