Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Regret

13:56

Moved by

[The Earl of Caithness]

That this House regrets that the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 increase the likelihood of wildfires in upland areas; risk the Fire and Rescue Service’s response capability; impact livelihoods, biodiversity, peatland protection, and human health and life; and fail to include a full impact assessment including on wider government priorities.

Relevant document: 38th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, for thousands of years, mankind has used fire to control vegetation. It is a sensible and practical process that also benefits nature. In this country, we tend to burn heather and grass in a prescribed manner and, if done correctly and under careful regulation, with practitioners trained in safe methods, only the vegetation and not the underlying soil is burnt.

The heather and grass burning regulations effectively mean that prescribed burning, or muirburn as we call it in Scotland, as a management tool for vegetation over some 676,000 hectares of predominantly moorland is banned in England. I believe that it will increase the likelihood of wildfires in upland areas, risk the fire and rescue services’ response capability and impact livelihoods, biodiversity, peatland protection, human health and life. No full impact assessment, including on wider government priorities, has been published.

If the vegetation is not controlled, it becomes older, woodier and denser, creating a bigger fuel load and making it more prone to intense, uncontrolled and indiscriminate wildfires, which always burn the underlying soil—if that is peat, the damage to this carbon-rich soil can be devastating. A recent study by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and the James Hutton Institute in Scotland found that

“96 % of the total wildfire area occurred outside moorlands managed by muirburn”,

suggesting that,

“may be due to fuel load reduction following muirburns”.

The National Fire Chiefs Council, in its consultation response to these regulations, expressed concerns that restricting prescribed burning would increase

“the risk of larger, more intense wildfires”,

by limiting the ability to reduce burnable fuel loads and create fire or fuel breaks. I agree with that. Alarmingly, it also went on:

“Further restricting land managers’ ability to use prescribed burning as a wildfire prevention tool could compromise FRS preparedness and response, increasing the danger to firefighters and the public”.


No Government should increase risk in this way.

In fighting wildfires, the FRS acknowledged that the expertise of landowners, gamekeepers and farmers is almost invaluable. At the recent Langdale forest fire, it was the local gamekeepers who provided the expertise for the risky operation of back-burning the vegetation to create a fire break. Without that, the fire would probably have crossed the A169, destroying Goathland village. If prescribed burning is stopped, the FRS will lose the benefit of the vital skills, local knowledge and equipment provided by grouse-shooting estates that are so vital to them.

14:00

As Britain experiences hotter, drier summers, wildfires are increasing in numbers and severity. In the UK, climate change is driving increasingly frequent periods of fire-supportive weather, as evidenced this year. This is the new norm to which we must adapt quickly. This year, 48,000 hectares have been burned by wildfire. That is seven times the average burned between 2006 and 2024, and more than twice the area burned in 2022. On 9 October, the Scottish Government delayed similar restrictions due to their fears that they could

“adversely affect our ability to prevent and respond to wildfires”.

Sadly, this Government blunder on, ignoring constructive and scientifically based advice. I agree that the scientific evidence around prescribed burning remains contested, with short-term studies identifying some impacts. That is not unexpected, as all interventions have an impact. However, long-term studies demonstrate that these are reversed and over time a net benefit emerges for carbon storage as well as other outcomes. Either way, the assessment of prescribed burning referenced by Defra—NEER155—considers only its impact and not the impact of not burning or comparison with wildfire impacts. Ideology has replaced evidence. Sherlock Holmes said:

“It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts”.

Science research demonstrates that the mosaic of habitat types and heather ages created through vegetation management supports a wide range of biodiversity, including rare birds, plants and invertebrates. Habitat diversity with areas of short vegetation due to burning management are valued by species such as the golden plover. Many plant species in the UK are now fire adapted and benefit from it as a management tool.

Turning to air quality, the Government claim that local communities are set to benefit from improved air quality. This is a new justification for the increased restrictions on prescribed burning. What data on air quality during the legitimate heather burning season was used to support this decision? What improvements are expected in air quality with the extended ban on legitimate burning? How will extending the ban on legitimate burning protect public health? What is the public health impact of wildfire smoke outside the burning season, given that the risk of wildfires is increasing? While air quality is a key wider government objective, as with carbon emissions, the relative contribution of prescribed burning to poor air quality in comparison to wildfire is not quantified. Why not?

Atmospheric particulate matter 2.5 is a major contributor to air pollution and can lead to reduced visibility and various health issues. The Saddleworth Moor fire demonstrated that PM2.5 in excess of WHO guidelines lasted for several days, resulting in more than £20 million of extra health costs, and the lives of nearly 30 people were shortened. In contrast, prescribed burn events last a matter of hours. Furthermore, given the severity and intensity of wildfires, the resultant ash, like the smoke from burning peat, contains toxic chemicals not found in vegetation burning. The health effects of co-exposure to other pollutants are significant, according to the UK Health Security Agency.

Sadly, the Minister missed the wind-up by his fellow Minister to an earlier Motion. The noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, was replying to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and in conclusion she said, “Nothing is off the table so far as the health of our children is concerned”. Clearly, controlled heather burning to stop wildfires is off the table, and our children are likely to suffer as a result.

The Government champion the rewetting of peatlands as a silver bullet to save them. However, most of our peatlands cannot be rewetted. Moreover, the chief executive of Natural England told me only a couple of weeks ago that she did not know how much could be rewetted. Where it is possible, both Defra and Natural England acknowledge that rewetting will take time. How valid in the long term is this policy, given that climate change is affecting the potential for consistently high water tables characteristic of healthy sphagnum peatlands?

Peat bogs require a positive water balance and are ombrotrophic—that is, they are only rain fed. More rainwater must go into the system than leaves it via either drainage or transpiration. Blocking drains built with taxpayers’ money some years ago to improve farm production has and will continue to help some peatlands, but not enough. Recent research shows that, under all UK climate projections, there will be substantial losses in areas suitable for healthy peatland in the foreseeable future. Sphagnum desiccation will increase due to drought conditions, and there will be a migration to more drought-tolerant species of vegetation. There remains the problem of wildfires, and it is surely folly to stop an appropriate management approach to mitigating this during the restoration phase.

I shall pick up some points made by the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its 38th report. The SLSC supported concerns raised during the consultation process about the timing of the introduction of these regulatory changes. While the new rules came into force on 30 September, the day before the start of the burning season, applications can take up to 12 weeks to process, and only if an appropriate SSSI consent is in place. Even so, a new application may be needed if the original consent specifies a peat depth of 40 centimetres.

If burning on an SSSI when consent is not in place, land managers need to apply to Natural England first, a process that can take up to four months before Defra will commence the licensing process. This means that about half the statutory burning season is lost, with practical experience showing that the spring prescribed burning season is more likely to be compromised by inappropriate conditions. Defra did not see the need for interim measures, given that the new process should make applications more straightforward, thereby taking far less than 12 weeks, and given the availability of other options for managing vegetation, such as cutting. However, cutting is an operation requiring consent on an SSSI and is difficult to conduct in rocky, sloping and remote areas, so it may not be an easy alternative.

I ask the Minister, first, why these regulations were timed to cause maximum difficulties. Secondly, why was the change to the wildfire licensing ground from risk to impact not consulted on? While the SLSC accepts that there was no legal duty to do this in response to consultation feedback, it states that the absence of a legal duty should not be a blanket approach. Given the contested nature of this debate, it would have been appropriate to contact land managers and their representative organisations in advance of the announcement. I think this is just another example of the Government’s dismissive attitude towards landowners and farmers.

The SLSC also picked up on the National Fire Chiefs Council’s suggestion of a more integrated cross-government approach to wildfire prevention. Can the Minister update the House on the current wildfire framework and the outcome of the scoping exercise? Lead responsibility for wildfire has moved from the Home Office and now rests with MHCLG. However, it is on the advice of Natural England that Defra has laid these regulations, which will exacerbate the risk of wildfires. Mandating the wildfire framework would require NE to consider the impact of wildfire on the conservation status of land. I suggest it should go further, and require NE to take account of the impact and enable mitigating actions. When will this Government stop talking about not working in silos and have an integrated cross-government approach to wildfire prevention? While the Government dither, England burns.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister about liability; I notified him about this yesterday. Given that a landowner can be held liable for doing something on their land that interferes with a neighbour’s land, where does the liability rest in this case? Imagine I owned land next to the noble Lord’s, who had been instructed or followed advice by Natural England as to how to manage his land—and because of that management the fuel load increases—and I warn the noble Lord, my neighbour, of the consequences the inevitable wildfire will cause. Sure enough, imagine this happens and destroys some of my property. Who is responsible? Am I entitled to sue Natural England, under the new regulations? Should not its directors face the same consequences as those that the directors for water companies face? It is a pity these regulations have been brought forward in such a hurried state after a short consultation period, and when so much badly needed research is currently being funded to try to get more science into this particularly knotty issue.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support the Motion in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. There are indeed matters to regret in the manner—and especially the timing—of these regulations. I cannot claim the experience that other Members of this House doubtless have in dealing with those very large expanses of northern moorland. My experience is from decades of land management on Exmoor, in particular the matter of heather burning, by which I also include gorse, bracken and grass. I am aware of the finely balanced expertise involved in burning operations: the topographical issues, soils, ground moisture, the dwarf shrub combustibility at any given moment, burnable volume or fuel load, wind direction—often depending on which side of the hill you are—and available manpower. I pay tribute to generations not only of Exmoor farmers but of land managers in the uplands in particular, across the country. Their efforts have retained much of what the public appreciate in terms of the natural beauty. I think here particularly of heather moorland—one of the reasons why Exmoor was designated a national park in the first place.

I am also aware of the effect of regulation and the perils of swamping land manager initiative in a sea of red tape, in which timeframes for consenting matters cease to be simple or cognisant of an essentially spontaneous alignment of the factors I have just referred to. In other words, practical matters are subordinate to process.

In my experience, heather is not the invasive species that obliterates moss and bog species. Most heathers do not seem to like boggy conditions, but they do like peaty podzols, where competition from other vegetation is impeded, allowing this pioneer species to develop and thrive. It is held in that balance by the management process: a management driven by purpose, usually gainful agricultural enterprise but also sometimes for game and sporting interests.

14:15

The first metric I draw to the House’s attention is cost-benefit. It is, in nature as in economics, a very fine balance. In nature, vegetation succession is a factor we have to take into account. The balance seems dependent on Defra carrying managers with it on the journey. I am not clear that it has been successful and, from what the noble Earl has said, he does not believe it is either.

The other balancing act is risk. Here, the process seems to be in a bit of a muddle. If I read the excellent 38th report from the SLSC correctly, there seems to be an association of risk with occurrence, which of course is one aspect, but the other is significance of outcomes. Those significant outcomes are themselves a cost-benefit candidate. Taking outcomes as a metric without specifying what you mean and leaving out the risk of occurrence seems a form of risk assessment innumeracy.

Let me put it this way: if management fails such that it is not cost beneficial in terms of a third party assessment of outcomes and methods to achieve them then, while everybody twiddles their thumbs and debates it, nature will take the initiative. Vegetation succession takes over. As the noble Earl pointed out, heather gets old and woody, with heather beetle usually being one of the last stages of the process. Meanwhile, bracken and sedges take over on Exmoor. The chief problem is something called Molinia, otherwise known as purple moor grass, which forms quite dense tussocks and matted vegetation. It is palatable to livestock, but only for about two or three weeks in the late spring or early summer, then it becomes unpalatable. Meanwhile, it suppresses everything else that grows with it. That is not better biodiversity—quite the opposite. Over the seasons, accumulations of the dry matter thus resulting may start to occur.

Unlike controlled burning, wildfires are essentially unplanned, unannounced and unconsented. They are most likely to occur outside the consented burning period, when things are at their driest. The resultant fire may, of course, burn quickly and cleanly through the vegetation, or it may linger in tussocks. This is where the risk of setting the peat alight comes about. Causes of such wildfires are many and various—maybe a discarded glass item, but I suspect more often a discarded cigarette or a carelessly used disposable barbecue. Where I grew up, we did not have much deeper peat. I am not sure how much peat of a depth of 30 centimetres or more there is on Exmoor, and I am fairly sure that there is not much evidence one way or the other about the distribution. It is likely to be distributed in what the noble Earl referred to as a mosaic—in other words, dotted around all over the place. If you start burning one area, how are you going to avoid these areas of deeper peat? I do not know how that works.

The proposals seem to lose the confidence of land managers and the potential for better co-operation. They certainly seem to add to the difficulties for fire and rescue, and they fail this cost benefit reality check. They bypass the agronomic value and the effects of a change in vegetation. The noble Earl referred to the use of machinery. I shudder at that in terms of surface damage, soil compaction and the amount of hydrocarbons burned in order to achieve this saving on what would otherwise be a properly managed fire. The transition implications for visual appeal to the general public are a point here. The unpredictability of timing, location, and cause and effect is a matter for concern.

When we get to the timeframes of rewetting of peat, the first thing that has to happen before you start dealing with vegetation management is to commence the process of rewetting the area. Not all areas are suitable for rewetting. On much of Exmoor, we are dealing with very shallow mineral podzols, and they do not have much peat. Therefore, there is not a lot to wet. The question then arises as to how this policy applies in such circumstances.

In passing, I note that the creation and deposition of peat at one millimetre per annum means that the policy of creating new peat and encouraging further peat depositions is a very long process indeed. Some years ago, when we had a paper at the headquarters of the RICS—my professional body—I asked at a meeting whether the period taken to deposit peat would be consonant with the time horizon of the policies in relation to relevant land management. I did not get an answer, but I note that, in my lifetime, my father was getting sums of money in grants from the Ministry of Agriculture for an excellent standard of reclamation of heather moorland for agricultural use. We then had to manage all the vegetation, and now we come full circle to having to deal with this “What-if?” of where nature is going to take us while we all contemplate what is going on. There have been so many changes in policy in my lifetime that I sincerely doubt whether the policy time horizon stands any real chance of meeting the actual ecological and deposition processes of peat creation.

I am concerned that the measures in this instrument are another straw that might break the camel’s back in this instance. That is not to say that they are not well-intentioned; I am sure they are, but, given the manner in which it looks likely they will be implemented, I cannot help feeling that there is more likely to be system failure than resounding success.

[The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing this extremely important matter to your Lordships’ attention, and I support his Motion. I declare my interest as a member of the GWCT, the BASC and the Countryside Alliance.

As my noble friend has alluded to, 2025 has seen almost 48,000 hectares of the UK burned by wildfires. That is seven times the average area burned between 2006 and 2024, and more than twice the area burned in 2022. This represents the new fire norm, whereby our changing climate is driving increasingly frequent periods of fire-supportive weather. While the majority of this hectarage was in semi-natural habitats, I want to highlight the risk that wildfire is posing at the rural-urban interface.

Development of the rural-urban interface is putting more assets and people at risk, either directly through loss of life and property, or indirectly via impacts on health and vital infrastructure. The Government are now talking about the possibility of housing developments being built on grey-belt land, which is bound to further exacerbate the problems.

The Wennington wildfire in July 2022 destroyed more than 18 houses and their residents’ possessions, as well as 12 stables, five cars and six garages. Fortunately, there was no loss of life. Such risks are not limited to London. The Ordnance Survey has estimated that over 1.8 million homes sit within the first 100 metres of urban-rural edges. As the agency states, these transition areas

“are where fuel and ignition sources, and the potential for high human and economic impact converge”.

The need to create and manage fuel breaks applies as much at the rural-urban interface as it does on our peatlands. The difference is that, on our peatlands, there are expert land managers and gamekeepers whose knowledge is vital to both preventing and fighting wildfires.

The peatlands of the Peak District and the Staffordshire Moorlands—where I live— are close to the urban conurbations of Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester and Sheffield, where experience already proves that wildfires can threaten homes and affect the health of local populations. The Saddleworth Moor wildfire of 2018, which was close to the Greater Manchester conurbation, resulted in 50 homes and 150 people being evacuated; and 4.5 million people up 80 kilometres away were exposed to very high concentrations of ppm 2.5 for longer than the World Health Organization’s 24-hour guideline, causing an estimated £21 million in extra health costs.

While the debate over how we protect our peatlands becomes mired in the broader ideological debate over grouse shooting—I no longer shoot, so do not have an interest in that—the very real threat of wildfire to these precious ecosystems, and to the health and infrastructure of our communities and the role of prescribed burning in addressing these risks, is being relegated to a mere sideshow. If the Government are not prepared to accept the practical experience of land managers—the experts—then surely they should take note of the National Fire Chiefs Council’s response to the consultation on these regulatory changes. This expressed concern that policy decisions are not aligned with the need to manage wildfire risk and that increasing the restrictions on a land manager’s ability to use prescribed burning for wildfire prevention would have implications for the ability of the fire and rescue services to respond to a wildfire, thereby increasing the danger to firefighters and the public. I sincerely hope that the licensing process is able to facilitate this need.

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for securing this regret Motion debate on heather and grass burning restrictions as laid out in the Government’s statutory instrument; I support it wholeheartedly. Like the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, I declare my interests: my membership of GWCT, BASC and Countryside Alliance. I also declare an interest relevant to today’s debate: I own and my team manage, under licence from Natural England as a Section 35 approved body, the Holkham National Nature Reserve in North Norfolk. It is the largest and arguably the most important NNR in the country. Indeed, in the years following our resumption of management of the NNR from Natural England, I received three letters from senior Natural England executives congratulating us on the excellent management of the reserve, and in particular on our interventions and the resulting outcomes. We have a team of land managers very experienced in nature conservation, forestry and nature-friendly farming, so although we do not have a current need to burn heather and grass in Norfolk, we are aware of its benefits.

I too have spent a good deal of time in the uplands, in the north of England and Scotland, speaking to practitioners of these practices, and I am well versed in the multifarious benefits preventive burning provides in protecting against wildfires, and the biodiversity benefits it provides. I am incredibly disappointed by the content of the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. In fact, by the time I finished reading them my blood was boiling, such was the litany of at best contentious assertions.

For a start, I am stunned that no government impact assessment was carried out, as

“no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen”.

That is a very bold assertion. I hope to demonstrate—as will other noble Lords—how wrong that is, and that the whole premise of this SI is deeply flawed and has already been found to be incorrect following the damage inflicted by two huge wildfires in the uplands this summer. The impact on forestry and biodiversity, and in terms of deep peat carbon loss, has been immeasurable. For the moment—until we are subject to even greater and more dangerous fires—the impact on communities, who, mercifully, were not hit with loss of property or life, has been less. The document also states that the purpose of the SI is to protect 676,628 hectares of peatland habitat by preventing further damage from burning—an increase of 246,000 hectares, as prescribed by the 2020 regulations of the same name.

This “protection” is a complete misnomer, because these restrictions will not protect these nature-rich habitats. Some 7,000 land managers have already contributed to the rewetting of the moorland in their management by blocking up drains as required by Natural England. That work did not stop the wildfires.

The claim that preventive burning dries up the moors is specious and not based on good science. Professor Andreas Heinemeyer of the Stockholm Environment Institute at York University is the most knowledgeable academic in the sphere of moorland management. His research into grouse-moor cool-burning’s impact on ecosystem services and aspects around alternative mowing, or no management at all, as advocated by this SI, has been broadly ignored. Has the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, ever visited the uplands in February and March to witness how this preventive cool-burning takes place?

14:30

Let me make it clear that burning takes place only in February and March, when the weather is cold and wet, and therefore by extension so is the heather—hence why it is called a “cool-burn”. Trained operatives burn the heather in a light wind. A Scottish moorland group made a video of a heather burn moving slowly over a Mars bar. Five minutes later, once the fire had passed, the Mars bar was picked up and opened. The fire had not even melted the outer chocolate coating. As well as leaving the Mars bar unharmed, the process leaves the peat unharmed, and any damage to the moss and litter layer, which sits on top, is minimised.

Typically, each cool-burn undertaken in winter will be no larger than an eighth of a hectare. These burns remove older rank heather, which is drier and has a higher fuel load; this helps to reduce the risk of wildfires. In addition, it provides a mini firebreak, were a fire to come along; it will not stop the fire, but it can slow it down. More importantly, it gets rid of the old vegetation, which has limited benefit for biodiversity, and allows the heather plant to regenerate, providing new young shoots for birds and mammals to eat. If burned in a rotational fashion, as is practised, differing heights of growth provide alternately a source of food or nesting areas for ground-nesting birds such as ring ouzel, meadow pipits, wheatear, merlin, stonechats, grouse and black game—and, of course, the slightly older, deeper heather provides protection from aerial predation.

Contrast this to the extreme damage done to deep peat by wildfires, the like of which we have seen in recent years—but particularly this year in Morayshire, at Carrbridge and Dava, the largest ever in Scotland at 11,827 hectares. They were also in the North York Moors, still smouldering in the deep peat a month after the fire started and relighting from time to time, yet again bringing the fire services and local land managers back out to fight them.

In 2021, Andrew Gilruth of the Moorland Association wrote to the Home Secretary and, if your Lordships will permit, I will read excerpts from his letter. The letter outlined

“the very real risk of catastrophic wildfires engulfing our moorlands due to Natural England’s restrictions on managing vegetation … The restrictions have led to a significant increase in fuel load, making the moors highly susceptible to wildfires, particularly with climate change exacerbating the situation. The letter details the devastating consequences of such fires, including the release of harmful pollutants and the potential for loss of life. It also calls for immediate action from the government to prevent this impending disaster”.

The letter stated:

“England’s catastrophic wildfires will be blamed on the Home Office: our letter to the Home Secretary…England’s moorlands provide our northern cities with fresh air and landscapes loved for their heather-clad vistas. Yet these treasures will become a national disgrace when massive wildfires sweep through them. This letter explains why these fires will be much worse than the Saddleworth blaze of 2018, threatening urban areas with fumes and flames”.

It went on:

“Huge wildfires are inevitable when vegetation is allowed to grow unchecked. Sooner or later there will be a spark. Add low humidity and strong winds and the horrors of Los Angeles follow. California’s politicians had failed to heed the warning from scientists that the risk of high-intensity wildfires was being increased by a ‘longstanding policy failure…to counteract the gradual accumulation of flammable organic materials’”…Yet while the Los Angeles tragedy was down to political negligence, here, growing the fuel load of vegetation was the deliberate policy of the previous government. For many years Natural England has been blocking land managers from reducing the fuel load on moorland. The extension of these restrictions in 2021 immediately led to a further 73% reduction in fuel load management through traditional winter burns. Neither burned nor mowed, the heather, which was already getting too long, has since been increasing year in, year out”.

The letter continued:

“Experts who have studied the dreadful wildfires in Portugal, Greece and Australia say that we too risk these new types of fires with pyroconvection causing flames to leap huge distances as they generate their own, unpredictable and highly dangerous winds. The flames will only be part of the problem. Since much of the fuel load is accumulating above areas of deep peat, these carbon stores will belch poisonous smoke for months. We consider Natural England’s current policy of adding fuel to the coming fires is absurd…Given that the experts are shouting, why has Natural England been so deaf? Partly it is due to its fixation with minutiae instead of major policy concerns. We empathise with your cabinet colleagues’ irritation about Natural England’s pettiness over bats and newts. In the case of moorland management, it has buried itself in micro-regulating decisions about where and when to remove vegetation through mowing or winter burns and how rewetting moors can help moss grow. These are issues where people working in the hills are much better positioned to understand what nature needs than officials in glass offices”.

Finally:

“The other overwhelming concern is the harm caused by fires. The Saddleworth disaster in 2018 saw five million people breathe in pollution which included lead and cadmium deposited on the moors during the Industrial Revolution. Scientists say dozens died early because of the fumes. There was also the release of huge quantities of carbon from the deep peat”.

That was written in 2021. That warning has been ignored by successive Governments and, this year, it came to pass with the devastating fires that we experienced this summer. My noble friend Lord Caithness talked about how the fire chiefs have warned against a burning ban as the Government push ahead, so I will not repeat that.

My final point refers to something that happened in Canada at the G7 meeting in Kananaskis, which produced the Kananaskis Wildfire Charter on 17 June. Before that, in early June, wildfire was debated in Westminster. Natural England was described as “not fit for purpose”. It was said, rightly, that no one should be

“surprised that there is a fundamental breakdown in trust with landowners to whom it dictates”.—[Official Report, 12/6/25; col. GC 310.]

It is therefore fascinating to see what happened when the world’s most powerful nations met in Canada in June, with Sir Keir Starmer sitting alongside President Trump, President Macron et al. Among their formal agreements was a shared commitment to prevent wildfires getting worse. The leaders called for the use of controlled burning. There was no namecheck for the voguish notion of rewetting, which circulates within Natural England, but the world leaders did advocate controlled burning to reduce the risk of extreme wildfires, which

“are endangering lives, affecting human health, destroying homes and ecosystems, and costing governments and taxpayers billions of dollars”.

These leaders recognised the ancient wisdom of preventive burns, calling them “Indigenous” and “cultural”, so my final question for the Minister is: why do this Government accept Natural England’s recommendations when our own Prime Minister signed up to the use of controlled burning only four months ago at the G7 conference? The blame for future and much larger and more damaging wildfires, which could—indeed, will—lead to deaths, will be laid fair and square at the feet of Natural England and this Government.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, as a life Peer, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness for tabling this Motion, which has enabled us in this House to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friends Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Leicester, three hereditary Peers—four, including my noble friend Lord Caithness—who have tremendous experience of safely managing moorland and using controlled burning. In particular, my noble friend Lord Leicester is regularly cited by Natural England and Defra as leading one of the finest private nature reserves in the country. Goodness knows how many official visits have been made to his estate to show others how it should be done. Therefore, I think it is terribly important that the whole House and Defra should pay attention to the wise words of my noble friend.

I am absolutely certain, although I am speaking from the Back Benches, that I will probably agree absolutely with my noble and hereditary friend Lord Roborough when he makes his speech from the Front Bench. I drafted my notes on the assumption that the excellent noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, would be back with us today, but that is not to be. So I hope the noble Lord will pass on our remarks and I know others in the building will pass on our remarks to the noble Baroness.

I wish to raise a related matter about the destruction of heather moorlands when the old straggly heather is not controlled properly through rotational burning. Noble Lords will be aware, as we have heard already, of the fires at Saddleworth Moor in 2018, 2020 and this year. Since 2007, the Peak District has had fires which have destroyed 77 square kilometres of moorland. In real money, that is 30 square miles destroyed, in nearly all cases by disposable barbecues. Just after the 2018 fire, which took three weeks to extinguish, people were again found on an unburned bit of the heather moor with disposable barbecues lit again, leading the Manchester fire chief to say that it beggared belief how stupid they were.

I want to demolish the myth perpetuated by some commentators that these fires are because of climate change. That is simply not true. There is no known case anywhere in the world, and certainly not in the UK, where a wildfire has started because of spontaneous combustion caused by global warming or climate change. There are no cases anywhere of dry grass spontaneously combusting. Wet grass tightly packed into hay bales can ignite when the chemical reaction causes the temperature to get to 250 degrees centigrade. Trees can self-ignite if the external temperature reaches, again, 250 degrees centigrade. Our temperatures have not quite got to that level yet. Dry heather cannot self-ignite. Of course, we all accept that when the habitat is bone dry it will burn more easily if a fire starts, and if there is wind it will burn more ferociously.

So how do so-called wildfires happen? Quite simply, in every case they are caused by humans, either deliberately or, in a minority of cases, accidently. The vast majority are caused by carelessness or stupidity, as in nearly all the cases of those Peak District fires. One was caused by a discarded glass bottle acting as a magnifying glass for the sun and one was a controlled burn this year—Beeley Moor—which got out of control due to a wind change. That should not have happened, but it is very rare.

In June 2022, the magnificent Thursley Common national nature reserve, which I have visited, was devasted by a massive fire, most likely started by a disposable barbecue. Almost half of the of the rare heath was destroyed. The Surrey fire chief said, “Help us to prevent wildfires; pack a picnic instead of a barbecue”. There was devastating fire in Wareham, Dorset, linked to barbecues, and it contributed to Dorset Council’s decision to ban them in many areas. This led to a subsequent council report that showed

“a huge increase in BBQ related fires from 2016 to 2020”.

There are hundreds more incidents that I will not go into, including 300 in Greater London itself—it is not just the urban fringe in the countryside—leaving a London fire chief to call for a ban on these filthy disposable barbecues.

My noble friend Lord Caithness had an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that we did not debate yesterday, calling for the Government to do more on public education on the risks of wildfires in the countryside. I also want the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, when she is back in action, to do more private education: private education of the remaining supermarkets who continue to sell these dangerous items.

Keep Britain Tidy advocates for banning disposable barbecues due to their significant fire risk and environmental damage. It highlights the fact that these barbecues cause wildfires, injure people and create hazardous litter when left hot and uncooled, sometimes causing fires even in public litter bins. The organisation is campaigning for retailers to stop selling them permanently and encourages the public to support these efforts.

I congratulate the majority of shops and supermarkets that have stopped selling them, but too many still do. That is why I want the Minister to call in the other retailers still selling them and give them a bit of private education on the sheer destruction they are causing to our wildlife, habitats and heather moorlands by continuing to sell these things. If retailers insist on selling them, I believe they should be banned.

14:45

I am not a natural banner, but there is no God-given fundamental human right for people to go into the countryside, sit in a farmer’s field, nature reserve, national park or public moorland and then light a fire. Since it is practically impossible to pack away a dirty, greasy, charcoal dust-filled tray, they get left behind or dumped as a danger to animals. In fact, since these things burn at 400 degrees centigrade, they all carry warnings on them to let them cool for about eight hours before packing them up. That is another reason why they are dumped.

I end with this crucial point. People using disposable barbecues on heather moors or upland heaths do not apply to Defra for a licence. They do not care about the depth of peat, but they cause the most destruction: more than any controlled heather burning ever does. We are obsessed with moorland owners doing a controlled burn, but we are not taking seriously the huge damage caused by wildfires caused by human stupidity. So I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that, if public education does not work, get the shops to stop selling them and, if that fails, go for a ban on the filthy things.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for moving this debate, which touches on many important issues. Following on from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, I had to look this up, but when we have four of a kind in a row, it is a “haul”. So we experienced a haul of Earls at the start of this debate, which is a very unusual thing.

At the heart of this debate today lies our relationship with nature and our country. It is hard to find any of our landscapes that have not been managed for thousands for years. The wildest parts of Dartmoor show evidence of intensive habitation and livestock grazing dating back to prehistory. The Flow Country of northern Scotland, with its open landscape of peat bogs, occasionally shows huge networks of tree roots that were surely harvested in prehistory and replaced with grazing. In that light, I refer the House to my registered interests as an owner of land, both in Dartmoor national park and in Sutherland. Just for the sake of clarity, I do not have any grouse. I have no grouse interests in this particular debate, apart from the fact that I enjoy going elsewhere and engaging with that.

There appears to be a presumption that, by reducing management of this land through things such as the regulations we are debating today, we are somehow helping nature. However, we need to appreciate that, if we reduce our management, we are laying ourselves open to much more damaging wildfires, as many noble Lords have pointed out today, and also to negative impacts on native species that have become dependent on this management. We are also undermining farmers who derive their livelihoods from these landscapes. Irrespective of whether these regulations are right, why does government insist on using the stick of regulations rather than the carrot of incentives?

As others have pointed out, peat covers only 8.5% of the English land area, but 80% of it is degraded. When we look at these areas, the priority should be restoration. That restoration is primarily about rewetting and eliminating cultivation; it has little or nothing to do with whether you have mature or young heather or grass on top. As long as the sphagnum moss is healthy, it is rebuilding peat, and to get the sphagnum moss healthy, the water table needs to be towards the surface. As that peatland is rewetted, it eliminates the massive carbon releases from degraded and dry peat and also allows for future carbon sequestration.

The peatland carbon code is an important financial incentive for land managers to carry out this work. However, liquidity in this market is lacking, as it remains a voluntary carbon credit. Please could the Minister update the House on the status of consultations on the inclusion of the peatland carbon code and the woodland carbon code in the UK emissions trading scheme? In that light, I also point out my interests as someone restoring peatland under the auspices of the peatland carbon code and developing new forestry plantations.

The regulations we are debating today extend existing licensing from peat deeper than 40 centimetres to greater than 30 centimetres, and from heather to grass. The implication is that the area covered increases from 430,000 hectares to 680,000 hectares. That will lead to coverage of these regulations coming further down the hill towards areas of greater population density and where fire risks are even more serious.

We on these Benches are unhappy with the existing licensing regime that prevents appropriate management, and the extension is deeply unwelcome. Noble Lords have discussed that managed burning is an important component of reducing fuel load, preventing wildfires from becoming so hot and entrenched. In 2018, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service found that only four wildfires out of 153 reported were in managed moorland, and all of those were outside the burning season and the result of accident or arson. The 2018 Saddleworth Moor fire was on a moor with a no-burn policy and took seven different fire services 10 days to bring under control.

Discussion has also focused on the importance of managed burning for biodiversity. The latest scientific evidence from the University of York in 2023, cited by my noble friend Lord Leicester, found that

“the burning and mowing of heather supported an increased diversity of vegetation ... The study also predicted a greater number of some ground-nesting birds, many of which are red listed as being of conservation concern”.

As I have already highlighted, these are not natural landscapes any longer, and many of our threatened species rely on us to provide them with the right habitat. Heather is a plant that will establish dominance on acidic and peaty soils and, without management, crowd out everything else.

One of the arguments against heather burning is carbon emissions. The University of York study also found that, while there are carbon emissions from a fire, the regrowth took up considerably more carbon over the longer term. When wildfires enjoy an excessive fuel load, they burn hotter and get deep into the peat, releasing far more carbon. The flow country fire in 2019 released 700,000 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. That is equivalent to the annual carbon emissions of 75,000 people.

That same point about the natural dominance of heather in these landscapes is also why managed burning is so critical for grazing. Cattle and sheep need grass and young heather to graze and gain nothing from veteran, woody heather. To support our farmers, we need to allow this managed burning. When adding in the benefits to wildfire management and biodiversity, the argument for including it within sustainable farming incentives is very strong. We read in the papers that new sustainable farming incentives are likely to focus more on upland farming, which was disadvantaged in the earlier SFIs. Given the many benefits of the managed burning of these upland landscapes, could I ask the Minister whether it is possible that a component of some of these SFIs could be for more of this managed burning? When will we see these new SFI regulations? We were originally promised that it would be in July of this year; we are now at the end of October.

Other noble Lords have mentioned the Carrbridge and Dava fire. Without repeating their points, I would say that this fire underscored, yet again, the importance of gamekeepers, farmers and land managers, not just in putting out these fires but in prevention through muirburn. On the back of the evidence of that incident, the Scottish Government have delayed the introduction of more controls on muirburn.

My noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I agree with his questions. In particular, would the Government be open to more integrated cross-government development of these regulations? The Minister is today responding for the Government, but it is not clear to us that the fire service, through MHCLG, is adequately involved in setting and implementing these regulations.

The point which illuminates the entire debate on the Motion that my noble friend has moved is the lack of a full impact assessment, including on wider government priorities. Those who have contributed today have demonstrated the many benefits of heather and grass burning, if managed and done correctly. It is unclear what real merits there are in restricting it further. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made this point most forcefully: where is the science? Surely a pragmatic, rational assessment could only conclude that it is in everyone’s interest to encourage the right kind of burning and, in instances where there is no other financial incentive to manage open land in this way, to provide those incentives.

We on these Benches fully support my noble friend Lord Caithness in this regret Motion. The extension of the burning regulations in this way appears to be unscientific and politically motivated. The Minister has been given a lot of questions to answer in this debate, and if he is unable to find the answers or does not have the time, I very much encourage him to commit to write to us.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for introducing this Motion and all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for telling us that we have had a haul of Earls from the Back Benches. I did not realise that there were collective nouns for different numbers of Earls, but in all sincerity I thank them not only for their contributions today but for their years—and, I am sure, in some cases, decades—of collective stewardship of our rich tapestry of habitats, which makes our countryside such a source of pride and one of the things we are most admired for throughout the world.

I appreciate the concerns raised particularly around the potential for increased wildfire risk because of these new regulations, which has been the focus of much of the debate. It is a valid concern, and I want to be clear that we are in no way dismissive of it: it is one that the Government have taken seriously throughout the development of this statutory instrument.

Let me begin by being clear that the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 are not about ignoring wildfire risk; they are about addressing it more effectively, sustainably and scientifically. The central aim of these regulations is to protect England’s peatlands, which are among our most valuable natural assets. Here I will shamelessly steal the words of my colleague, Minister Creagh, in the other place, who calls them the UK’s rainforests. These habitats store vast amounts of carbon, regulate water flow, support biodiversity and, crucially, when healthy, are more resilient to wildfire. England’s peatlands are of huge international importance and, when healthy, provide lots of environmental benefits.

However, 80% of England’s peatlands are degraded, with rotational burning being a contributing factor in upland areas. Burning also has negative impacts on air quality and human health. Large-scale burning of vegetation releases vast amounts of smoke into the air, impacting local communities. The evidence is clear: wet, healthy peatlands are far less likely to burn during wildfires. When peat is saturated, it resists ignition, slows the spread of fire and prevents deep burns that can release stored carbon and destroy the habitat irreversibly. Repeated burning dries out the peat, alters its hydrology and makes it more vulnerable to fire. Climate change also contributes to drying out peatlands. Rising temperatures and reduced rainfall further impact the hydrology of these habitats, lowering the water table.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who brought his experience of managing peatland areas in Exmoor to bear in his contribution, raised the impact on the hydrology of those peatlands. It is clear that restoring peatlands helps to raise the water table, which promotes the growth of key species, such as sphagnum moss and cotton grasses, and prevents overdominance of drying species such as heather or linnaea. Having a water table which sits close to the surface leads the site to being more resilient to the impacts of wildfire and reduces the likelihood of fire getting into the peat, causing further damage. A study following a 2019 wildfire in the flow country peatlands in Scotland suggested that the wildfire caused mostly superficial burning, except in the most degraded areas. The conclusion of this study implied that peatlands with wet conditions have the potential to help reduce the impacts of severe wildfires. We know that rotational burning can perpetuate the risks in the long term by altering the hydrology of blanket bog and making it impossible to return to its natural state. The flow country study is evidence from the field and supports the Government’s position that restoration and protection are the best long-term strategies for wildfire resistance.

Some have argued that restricting burning will allow vegetation to grow unchecked, increasing fuel loads and therefore fire risk, and we heard that in the debate this afternoon. While understandable, this concern overlooks the broader picture. First, burning is not the only tool available to manage vegetation. Mechanical cutting, grazing and other sustainable methods remain permitted and encouraged. These regulations do not restrict these practices. Secondly, the licensing regime remains in place. Where no feasible alternative exists, land managers can apply for a licence to burn specifically to reduce the impacts of wildfire. This is not a blanket ban; it is a targeted, evidence-based approach that allows for flexibility in exceptional circumstances.

This is probably as apt a time as any to refer to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, whose conclusion referred to the discussion at the recent G7 summit, which talked about controlled burning being part of a strategy to decrease the risk of extreme wildfires. Indeed, we are not saying that burning is not the right tool in some places and for the right habitats. We are saying that, while it is a tool that works in other habitats that are at risk of extreme wildfires—one thinks, obviously, of California—it is not necessarily the right tool for all habitats, and we are thinking particularly about protecting peatlands.

Thirdly, the newly revised heather and grass management code provides clear guidance on sustainable land management, including how to manage fuel loads without resorting to damaging burning practices.

We have also taken steps to improve the licensing system itself. These aim to reduce complexity and enhance co-ordination to make the process faster, more efficient and easier to navigate for applicants. We have also removed impractical grounds as a rationale for granting a licence, such as the land being inaccessible to cutting equipment. This should be considered in all cases whenever a licence application is made to evidence why burning is the only available option, rather than the ground for application. Instead, we have introduced a new, legitimate ground for research and education, and have extended the conservation ground to include the natural and historic environment, recognising the importance of maintaining archaeological features.

15:00

The Government’s position is grounded in a robust and growing body of scientific evidence. Natural England’s 2025 review, NEER155, which builds on its 2013 report, incorporates over 100 new studies and remains the most comprehensive review of the UK’s climates and habitats, and the effects of burning on peatlands. It concluded that repeated burning alters the structural function of these habitats, undermining their ability to deliver environmental benefits and making them more susceptible to wildfire.

Although there are differing views, the collective weight of scientific research supports the conclusion that burning contributes to peatland degradation and increased vulnerability to fire. Beyond wildfire risk, the regulations deliver significant environmental and economic benefits. Healthy peatlands improve water quality, reduce flood risk, and are havens for wildlife and store carbon, helping us meet our climate goals. The Office for National Statistics estimates that restoring British peatlands could deliver carbon benefits worth £109 billion.

We recognise that change is challenging, especially for rural communities, and that is why the Government are committed to supporting land managers through this transition. We are encouraging and supporting the development of wildfire management plans, providing training and maintaining a licensing system.

As we have already heard, some stakeholders have warned of Los Angeles-style tragedies if vegetation is allowed to grow unchecked. The evidence-based approach we are taking points to restoring and rewetting our peatlands as being the most effective long-term solution to increasing their resilience to wildfire. Rotational burning perpetuates long-term vulnerability to wildfire by drying out the peat and altering its hydrology. Moreover, prescribed burning itself carries risks, particularly in the case of escaped burns. The Government’s approach is not about abandoning fire management; it is about using it prudently, safely and only when necessary.

The noble Earls, Lord Caithness, Lord Leicester and Lord Shrewsbury, have raised that this statutory instrument does not include a full impact assessment. However, this is in line with the Better Regulation Framework guidance, as the net impact on business has been assessed as being below the necessary threshold of plus or minus £10 million equivalent annual net direct cost to business. Defra did produce a less detailed but proportionate assessment of the regulatory impacts, which self-certified that the measure is below the de minimis threshold and therefore met the de minimis exception for a full impact assessment. It is worth stating that Defra estimates that the annual cost to business will likely be between £589,000 and £1.2 million for year 1, taking into account the initial capital spend required for sites that wish to adjust their operations away from burning. Annual costs are expected to decrease thereafter.

I will take a moment to acknowledge the important work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its review of this SI and the publication of its 38th report. The committee’s scrutiny is a vital part of our legislative process, ensuring that the policy intentions behind our secondary legislation are clear and well-founded. As we have heard, the committee’s report has raised several points regarding the instrument. Specifically, it highlights concerns—indeed, this was echoed by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and a number of other noble Lords—raised about wildfires, particularly those raised by the National Fire Chiefs Council, and issues around the timings of the implementation of legislative changes and the impacts this may have on the licensing scheme. It is worth adding that Minister Creagh met the NFCC prior to the announcement of these regulations, as well as representatives from the fire service. We will, of course, continue to work carefully and closely with them. We pay tribute to the work that they do in response to all fire emergencies.

We have considered the committee’s report carefully, and I have responded to the points on wildfire licensing in this speech. Defra will continue to work closely with the NFCC and fire and rescue services, as well as MHCLG and the lead government departments for wildfire. This will ensure open communications and collaborative working to achieve the best outcomes. I would like to thank the committee again for its thorough examination of these regulations and its ongoing role in the scrutiny of secondary legislation.

These regulations are a vital step forward in protecting our peatlands, reducing carbon emissions and building resilience to wildfire. They are based on sound science, shaped by public consultation and designed to balance environmental protection with practical land management. They do not ignore the wildfire risk; they address it head on with a smarter, more sustainable strategy. So I urge the House to support these regulations not just for the sake of our peatlands but for the long-term safety, sustainability and prosperity of our rural communities and natural environment.

I turn to some of the further points raised in the debate. I will attempt to answer the questions posed but, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, if I do not answer every one, I will reflect on Hansard and undertake to write.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised the issue of liability; I thank him for giving me advance notice of this. As I previously mentioned, burning is not the only tool to manage vegetation and other methods of land management are not being restricted through these regulations. The Government recognise that, in certain limited circumstances, prescribed burning may need to be used, which is why wildfire mitigation is included as one of the grounds on which one can apply for a licence to burn on peatlands.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, also asked about air quality. I do not have all the data that he requested to hand so I will have to write to him, but it is worth noting, as he said, that large-scale burning of vegetation, including of heather, releases vast amounts of smoke into the air, often impacting on local cities, towns and villages. These huge plumes can travel long distances, impacting air quality and containing harmful pollutants, such as particulate matter, both PM2.5 and PM10. As your Lordships know, PM2.5 is considered the most serious pollutant for human health, because the tiny particles can penetrate deeply into the human body, bloodstream and major organs. This is why we take this very seriously.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, also asked about wildfire and a joined-up approach. As I previously mentioned, the MHCLG is the lead government department for wildfire. With support from Defra, we are carrying out a number of workshops aimed at scoping out a wildfire strategy and action plan. The MHCLG is considering next steps and will continue to work closely with Defra in the next phase of its proposals. Defra, however, is the key stakeholder in the wildfire framework for England. The department’s responsibilities are laid out in that framework, the aim of which is to mitigate the impact of wildfire across England, including on moorlands. I hope that goes some way to assure the noble Earl that the Government are taking a joined-up approach to the serious and important issue of wildfire.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, also mentioned Scotland and its delay. Moorland burning is a devolved matter, and the decision made by the Scottish Government reflects the current situation in Scotland, but it is worth pointing out that the proposed regulations in Scotland are not restricted to peatlands, so will have a much greater impact on land managers and their ability to use prescribed burning as a land management issue.

The noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Leicester, asked about the effectiveness of alternative land management practices. It is fair to say that the Government’s position on the impact of burning on the health of peatlands is long established, as is the commitment to phase out rotational burning. Through the licensing scheme, land managers can demonstrate why the alternatives—restoration or cutting—are not practicable.

Several noble Lords raised issues around the scientific evidence that these regulations are based on or that has been taken into account. In particular, the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, mentioned the evidence of Andreas Heinemeyer. I reassure the noble Earl that his research was included in Natural England’s recently published evidence review, which I referred to earlier—NEER155. Although there has been much debate in this area, the strength of the collective evidence shows that burning contributes to peatland degradation by negatively impacting its hydrology and species balance. This compromises its ability to deliver the multiple environmental benefits that it can provide when in a healthy, functioning state.

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

Professor Heinemeyer’s research shows that there is actually a higher water table where controlled burning takes place, which is contrary to what the Minister just said.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I appreciate that intervention and may address some of that in my answers. I believe that this also relates to the Mars bar test, which was a new phenomenon to me, but we will come to that.

The noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Lytton, talked about the timing of this SI. It is worth saying that the legislation has been laid to come into force in time for the 2025-26 burn season, to ensure a greater level of protection for England’s valuable peatlands at the earliest opportunity. To allow sufficient time for comprehensive public consultation and a comprehensive analysis of responses, it has not been possible to lay the SI sooner.

This leads on to the consultation itself, which many noble Lords, including the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Shrewsbury, raised. I want to be clear that the consultation was open for eight weeks, from 31 March to 25 May earlier this year. It received 1,861 responses, mostly from the public but also from academics and bodies such as the NFCC. The response demonstrated broad support for expanding protections to all upland peatlands in less favoured areas and lowering the peat depth threshold from 40 centimetres to 30 centimetres. Indeed, most respondents opposed burning due to concerns about climate change, biodiversity, and loss of air and water quality. There was backing for mandatory fire training and improved licensing processes. I wish to make it clear that a minority of respondents were opposed to the proposals, citing, as many noble Lords have today, concerns of increased wildfire risk from higher fuel loads of vegetation that cannot be managed through burning.

The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, asked if I had visited the uplands in February and March. Sadly, I have to tell him that I have not. Maybe one of the noble Earls who contributed to the debate might wish to issue an invite—I am sure that it would be a very pleasant trip. On the serious point he was making, upland peatland habitats are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of burning. While winter burns tend to affect mainly surface vegetation rather than peat itself, rotational burning makes it difficult to restore blanket bog to its natural hydrology. He mentioned the Mars bar test, which we contend does not take into account the long-term impacts of burning, which encourages new heather growth. Heather’s deep roots dry out peat and form woody flammable material, which increases long-term vulnerability to wildfires.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned disposable barbecues. While I will not be tempted to go down the road of bans, as he did, we must recognise the importance of good public education, which was at the heart of his contribution. Clearly, a significant cause of wildfires is ignorant, foolhardy behaviour by people who should know better. The Government recognise that good communication can shape public behaviour and decrease the chances of wildfires starting. We took lessons from the devastation we saw during the 2022 wildfire season. That is why we worked across departments to increase the prominence of wildfire messaging to the public. This has included developing government social media messaging around periods of high wildfire risk and including wildfire as part of the Cabinet Office’s newly developed resilience websites.

I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord that officials are exploring other ways we can expand the use of our well-established Fire Kills campaign to deliver targeted messages and resources to the public. The benefit of utilising Fire Kills is the partnership approach with local fire and rescue services, with all activities and resources designed to best support their local prevention delivery. I hope that provides him with some assurance that we absolutely understand the risk of the use of disposable barbecues and other materials that can inadvertently cause fire. We will take action to ensure that the public are educated on it.

I hope I have answered most of the questions. I have possibly missed one out from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, on SFIs. He will know that SFIs now have more than 39,000 multiyear live agreements and are not only delivering sustainable food production and natural recovery for today and the years ahead but putting money back into farmers’ pockets. I am not sure I have any more detail on that to hand, which he requested, so I will write to him. I will be very happy to undertake to write to him also on the questions that he began his contribution with on the carbon code.

Having said all that—and having probably taken more time to answer noble Lords’ questions than was warranted—I ask the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to withdraw his regret Motion.

15:15

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, bringing their experience and knowledge to make it a very useful debate. It was wonderful to hear about Exmoor. It was very interesting to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, who mentioned Wennington, an extremely different part of the country, about 15 miles behind where the Minister is sitting now, where 18 houses were burned, leaving devastation to people’s property. It shows what an important subject this is.

I find it difficult to understand why Natural England listens so carefully to my noble friend Lord Leicester when it comes to his nature reserve at Holkham but does not listen to him when it comes to his expertise on moorland. My noble friend Lord Blencathra quite rightly wages war against disposable barbecues. I would just question one thing. He said that all wildfires are started by human stupidity. Most are, but some are started quite deliberately. The yobs go out and think it is fun to light a fire, and that it will not go very far, and they suddenly find it is out of control and they cannot do anything about it but scarper. It is the fire and rescue services and good locals who have to pick up the bill.

My noble friend Lord Roborough mentioned the Flow Country fire in 2019, which has special interest to me, as I was living up there at the time. The Minister also raised it. It is worth pointing out what my noble friend Lord Roborough said: that fire doubled Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions for the six days of burning. The Minister said that the fire was not so strong where wetting had taken place, which had helped. At the Langdale Forest fire, the fire was not so strong where rotational heather burning had taken place. Why is one good and one bad? It is a totally illogical position for the Government to take.

The Minister said how important peat was. We all knew that peat was very important long before Defra was even thought about. The Minister mentioned NEER155. I confirmed to the Minister that that took some scientific evidence but did not take any scientific evidence on the impact of not burning. It is a biased report and has been highly criticised by those who know.

The Minister said that there was no impact assessment because the costs were not going to be over £10 million. But hang on, the health costs of the Saddleworth Moor fire were £20 million by themselves. How can the Minister possibly say that these regulations, which are going to increase wildfires, are not worthy of an impact assessment?

I finish by thanking the Minister for what he said. He ended by talking about the consultation. I am not at all surprised by the result of the consultation. We can all devise questions to get the answer we want. That is what Defra did in this case. Given that it is Thursday afternoon and there is another piece of business, I will withdraw my Motion and, once again, thank all noble Lords for taking part.

Motion withdrawn.