Contact: Kevin Fuller, ext 7958 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 of Practice, 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.

8341/RC

APPENDIX 1

Dear Mr Greenway

Root out Ragwort Campaign

I understand that you have agreed to sponsor the above campaign and will present a Private Members Bill in March.

Hampshire is a largely rural county and the problems associated with Ragwort are uppermost in our minds, particularly in areas like the New Forest where large numbers of animals graze. I believe communities at large have a responsibility for identifying and taking ownership of such problems. Hampshire County Council has always taken the issue seriously and will continue to do all it reasonably can to control the weed, but we have to set this in the context of limited resources balanced with the need to deal with many competing priorities - the correct balance needs to be struck.

We are able to be flexible in our approach and will adjust the timing of our response to suit growing conditions which, you will be aware, do change from year to year. However, the County Council will never control Ragwort by itself and will need to continue to work in partnership with local communities, landowners, DEFRA and others. The County Council's main area of activity in terms of the control of Ragwort is highways. Generally roadside verges are narrow stretches of land adjoining much larger expanses. We will continue to take appropriate action to deal with Ragwort growing within the confines of the highway but the effectiveness of such treatment is reduced considerably where adjacent land is left untreated.

I believe Parish Councils could, and sometimes do, carry out an important role, if only to report problems to landowners and other relevant parties. There are examples in Hampshire where Parish Councils organise volunteers to pull and dispose of the weed. I am sure you will agree that this type of approach is commendable.

I fully support your endeavours to raise the profile of this important issue and suggest that more could be done by local communities, perhaps by way of `working parties' or via those undertaking community service. We have raised the latter suggestion with the local Probation Service and I am pleased to say they have been very supportive.

I hope the above will provide helpful background information for your campaign.

Yours sincerely

Keith B Estlin

Executive Member for Environment

Copy to: Director of Environment

Colonel Peter Sweet

Ted Johnson, Chairman, New Forest Committee

Bcc: Bryan Boult

Richard Chinn

APPENDIX 2

Dear Mr Greenway

Root out Ragwort Campaign

Further to my letter of 24 February 2003 and our subsequent discussion, I confirm my support for a Code of Practice for the control of Ragwort and indeed will be happy to contribute to the formulation of such a Code if that will be helpful.

I understand your Private Members Bill will receive its second reading this coming Friday and have copied this letter to the Minister for Rural Affairs, The Rt Hon Alun Michael MP and to DEFRA.

Yours sincerely

Keith B Estlin

Executive Member for Environment

Copy to: Director of Environment

The Rt Hon Alun Michael MP

Colonel Peter Sweet

Ted Johnson, Chairman, New Forest Committee

Bcc Wendy Peckham - British Horse Society

Bryan Boult

Richard Chinn

news release

PR 347 APPENDIX 3

COUNTY COUNCIL BACKS RAGWORT CAMPAIGN

Hampshire County Council is backing the British Horse Society's Ragwort Action Week (21-27 July) - and urging landowners to `do their bit' to keep the deadly weed in check.

Ragwort is a significant problem, particularly in the New Forest, and it can cause a painful and protracted death from liver damage when eaten by livestock.

The difficulty comes because the County Council is responsible only for removing the weed from highway verges - something it has been doing since last month as part of its annual removal programme, at a cost of around £15,000 so far this year. It cannot operate effectively in isolation however, and is calling on all landowners to take action to get rid of ragwort on their land.

The County Council's Executive Member for Environment, Councillor Keith Estlin, said: "Ragwort is a menace to livestock, but as it's a native weed and seeds can lay dormant for up to 20 years eradication is unlikely, however hard we all try.

"It goes without saying that ragwort doesn't recognise boundaries, and the County Council is fighting an uphill battle against this pernicious weed. It's a community problem, and while we will do all we can to keep it in check on highway verges through cutting and pulling, this represents a tiny fraction of land infested with ragwort. We really do rely on landowners and parish councils to play an active role in dealing with it.

mf/2

PR 347/2
"It's an issue we continue to take very seriously, but one we cannot combat on our own. We're working with the Forestry Commission - which has also started its removal programme on Crown land - I have written to John Greenway MP in support of his ragwort Private Members Bill, and the County Council has offered to assist DEFRA in the preparation of a Code of Practice.

"The County Council's ragwort removal programme will continue at least through August and into September if needed. I urge all landowners in the New Forest to do their bit to control this harmful weed."

ENDS

For further information please contact: Sarette Martin on 01962 847666

[email protected]

22/07/2003