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

Motion to Regret

Moved by

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.

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:

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.