Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 857: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food the date on which the Noxious Weeds Act 1936 was last reviewed; her plans to update this Act; the penalties under the Act in relation to the spread of ragwort; when penalties were last imposed under this Act; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24669/05]

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 859: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food the number of cases of ragwort which have been reported over the past year; the comparison figure of the number of reports received for each of the past five years; if an increase of ragwort nationwide has been brought to her attention; the proposals she has to enforce the Noxious Weeds Act 1936; the action which is being taken in this matter and the person taking the action; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24671/05]

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 864: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food the action which is being taken by local authorities under the Noxious Weeds Act, 1936 to control the spread of ragwort in 2005; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24724/05]

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 857, 859 and 864 together.

The Noxious Weeds Act 1936 provides for the control of the spread of the following six weeds, including ragwort: thistle, ragwort and dock — 1937 order; common barbery — 1958 order; male wild hop plant — 1965 order; wild oat — 1973 order.

Under this Act, it is an offence not to prevent the spread of certain weeds, which are scheduled as noxious weeds under the Act. The owner, occupier, user or manager of lands on which these weeds are growing is liable, upon conviction, to be fined. In the case of fences and margins of public roads, the local authority charged with the maintenance of such roads is the responsible person.

While the Act itself has never been amended, the Department is examining the provisions of the Act with a view to updating and strengthening them in accordance with good agricultural and environmental practice. Modern farming has now reached a level at which weed control is an integral part of good farming practice. Farmers have the choice of using agro-chemicals or machinery to control noxious weeds. The penalty, where a person is found to be guilty of an offence under the Act, on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding £20.00 or €25.39. The last prosecution and conviction under the Act was in June 1988.

The number of cases of ragwort which have been reported to my Department over the past five years are as follows.

My Department is aware of an increase in the level of complaints about the presence of ragwort and in this regard all local authorities charged with the maintenance of public roads have been written to, to seek their co-operation in the elimination of these weeds from the roadsides and other areas under their control. Consideration will be given to timely press releases and to eradication campaigns where ragwort is concerned. In the present circumstances, I consider that advice and persuasion is the most appropriate policy to pursue and that the good will of local authorities and others can be relied on to take appropriate action.

A Teagasc advisory leaflet is available for the control of noxious weeds and is revised in line with advances in new control procedures.