Jim Shannon – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Shannon on 2016-10-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps her Department is taking to reduce levels of knotweed proliferation; and what assessment she has made of the potential merits of making house and land owners more responsible for uncontrolled weed growth.
George Eustice
The Department takes the problems caused by Japanese Knotweed very seriously and has taken a number of steps to tackle this invasive plant.
Defra has provided funding of £390,000 for biocontrol work to tackle Japanese knotweed. A psyllid/insect, Aphalara itadori has been identified as a biocontrol agent capable of retarding the plant’s growth significantly and therefore reducing its ability to spread and regenerate. A closely monitored, licensed release programme has been ongoing since 2010 to assess the impact of this psyllid/insect, but as with other biocontrol programme, it can take five to ten years from release to achieve success.
Defra has also provided funding for Local Action Groups (LAGs) to tackle and raise awareness of invasive non-native plants, including Japanese knotweed. Additionally, Defra is currently funding a LAG coordinator to help groups with funding bids and provide advice.
Japanese knotweed is listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it an offence to allow the plant to escape or cause it to grow in the wild. Whilst landowners are under no statutory obligation to remove Japanese knotweed from their property, where they are acting unreasonably and allowing Japanese knotweed to cause a nuisance to the local community, local authorities and the police can now issue a Community Protection Notice against them to ensure that appropriate action is taken.
The issue of making land owners more responsible for uncontrolled weed growth.is complex. It could produce disproportionate or inequitable impacts such as the potentially high cost of removal and liability on landowners for clearance as a result of fly-tipping.
