My Lords, wildfires are a natural phenomenon and an essential process in some ecosystems. Climate change is driving not only increasingly frequent periods of fire-supportive weather but changes in our vegetation that are probably making it more prone to fire. Wildfires are becoming a persistent and growing risk to life, property and the environment with the impact that they have on carbon emissions, wildlife, humans and their health, insurance, and air and water quality. However, there is no single definition of what constitutes a wildfire, although the National Fire Chiefs Council, the NFCC, has long argued for one. Do the Government agree that a single definition is now a necessity?
By April this year, the total area burned by wildfires in the UK was already higher for the year than any other year’s total over the last decade. As of 4 June, more than 137 square miles—almost the size of the Isle of Wight—had already been burned. It is very hard to put a price on wildfires, but the Moorland Association estimates that the cost this year is already more than £350 million. In addition, as with all fires, there are ongoing legacy costs, which are unquantifiable, such as bare land being eroded and the slowing re-establishment of vegetation and recovery of wildlife at a time when nature is in crisis.
About 90% of wildfires are caused by humans, either carelessly or deliberately. Increasing public awareness of wildfires is a logical next step following the good work of the UK fire danger rating system project and it needs addressing by the Government, local authorities and landowners.
The largest number of wildfire incidents are in major metropolitan areas, with the greatest threat to people, health and livelihoods being the rural-urban interface. Due to wildfires, in July 2022 the London Fire Brigade had its busiest day since World War II, with more than 40 houses and shops destroyed. Wherever fires occur, we are extremely grateful for the courage and dedication of the fire and rescue service—the FRS. A fire can affect many FRS stations. On 10 March this year, a wildfire started deliberately at Canford Heath required the attendance of 13 stations.
This increased operational demand comes when firefighter numbers are down 25% since 2008. The ever-growing costs must be absorbed through core budgets that are already under strain, and there is no dedicated funding for wildfire response. All this, together with a lack of definition, is hindering long-term investment and the prediction, mitigation, control and recording of wildfires and their impact. I ask the Minister: do we really need another major catastrophe before the Government act and the NFCC’s sensible requests are addressed?
I was brought up on the heather hills in Aberdeenshire, so I wish to focus on heath-land and moorland fires, but in England. I have taken part in controlled burns and have helped fight wildfires. I have been fortunate to see and hear the biodiversity that is noticeably abundant on managed, as opposed to unmanaged, moorland.
My Lords, it is a very great honour for me to be standing here today. I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness not only for proposing this debate but for his excellent speech. I agree with every word he said. I also thank my two noble friends who supported me at my introduction, my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord McInnes of Kilwinning. To those two noble Lords, the doorkeepers—I am going to do it in reverse order—the Clerk of the Parliaments and, obviously, Black Rod and many others who have given me invaluable assistance and advice, I give my heartfelt thanks.
I think, before I turn to the substance of this debate, it is customary for me to say a few words about my background. I was born and bred in Galloway. I married Ann, a Galloway girl who was my childhood sweetheart, in 1987. We have three grown-up children, all nicely married, and we have three wonderful grandchildren. Between the early 1980s and 2017, I had an entrepreneurial business career, then, through a rush of blood to the head, at a day’s notice, I stood for Dumfries and Galloway, an SNP seat, in the 2017 general election. Five weeks later, I found myself on a train to Euston with a change of career, and I have not regretted a day of it.
On arrival in the Commons, I sat on the Treasury Select Committee, and after that I joined the Whips’ Office. Then in July 2019, I was appointed Secretary of State for Scotland, a role I held for five years and 10 reshuffles, which I think may be a record in its own right. Following my five years in the Scotland Office, I have many reflections on intergovernmental relations and the devolution settlement. During that time, I certainly put out a number of political wildfires, many of them started by my noble friend Lord Gove. However, I will return to those reflections at a future date.
Turning to the substance of this debate, as noted in my register of interest, I am the proud owner of some heathland and moorland in south-west Scotland and, consequently, this is a subject very close to my heart, because we all know that when accidental fires break out in areas of moorland with, as my noble friend Lord Caithness said, a large fuel burden, the consequences can be devastating for wildlife, biodiversity and the carbon release if that fire gets down into the peatland.
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on securing this important debate. It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Jack and to congratulate him on an excellent and most informative maiden speech. We look forward to hearing from him on many occasions in future. Looking on the internet this morning, I was delighted to see that my noble friend is a former chairman of the River Annan board—another Scottish river on which I have failed miserably to connect with a fish. I declare my interest as a member of the National Farmers’ Union.
In its wildfire rapid response assessment, the United Nations Environment Programme emphasised the importance of auditing full wildfire costs and investing in planning, prevention and recovery—not just response. This is because the costs of wildfire mitigation and prevention are a fraction of those associated with suppression by the emergency services and the economic and environmental impacts of a wildfire. However, no such systematically collected data exists in the UK, and until the direct and indirect costs of wildfires are understood and recorded, their challenge to humanity will be dangerously overlooked.
The costs go far beyond the obvious direct costs of suppression by the fire services. Wildfires impact our health, close roads to traffic, impact schools and businesses, lead to the evacuation of residential areas, damage our infrastructure and homes, impact our water supplies and water quality, and release carbon and pollutants into the atmosphere while destroying crops and killing wildlife. If they occur on peatland, you can add to that list the loss of stored carbon accumulated over millennia.
All these costs are simply not recorded as a matter of course and are therefore not fully accounted for in the decision-making process. Individual assessments exist, such as the £21 million cost of the health impacts from the Saddleworth Moor wildfire of 2018, due to a 300% increase in PM2.5 levels; the £83.5 million insurance payout in 2022 due to farm fires; and the almost £2 million of publicly funded restoration costs lost in the 2018 wildfire on Saddleworth Moor.
My Lords, I am delighted—and surprised—to say that I agreed with a lot of what the noble Earl said in his opening speech. I congratulate him on bringing this topic here. He is absolutely right that wildfires are a natural phenomenon, but the current year is on track to be the worst on record. They used to be a rare occurrence but are becoming much more common. This is due to a combination of factors, including dry and windy weather conditions, abundant vegetation from damp winters, and, of course, the impact of climate change.
The Government need a plan—a strategy. They need practical solutions as well as some answers to practical questions. For example, are the fire services ready and able to deal with wildfires? Do they know the best way of doing it in each circumstance, including the urban/rural divide? Do they have the spare capacity if they need it?
The best way to strengthen our resilience to wildfires is to restore and strengthen our native ecosystems. The problem is that we have some inherent invested practices here in Britain that make it much more difficult to protect our own ecosystems, such as shooting. For example, we have had endless promises about stopping the use of lead bullets. They are highly poisonous and toxic to people, especially if you eat them in pheasants. We have to stop it—and we also have to stop the practice of pheasant shooting altogether. There should be no hunting in Britain; it is a selfish and senseless way of behaving.
For example, the millions of pheasant chicks imported into the UK every year have a detrimental effect on our native ecosystems, wrecking our wildlife as they out-compete native UK birds. Hawks are being shot by gamekeepers, and the chicks of the game birds are put into crowded battery-cage conditions then sent all across the UK to be shot.
It is inherent in our country that people like nature. I know that Labour does not entirely get the concept of nature, but it is important to support and strengthen it. It is obvious that we must act to preserve our peatlands and woodlands without deliberately contributing to their deterioration; the Government must adopt very effective strategies.
My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to have been chosen to join this House. I am deeply grateful for the support and kindness that I have received since I arrived. In particular, I thank my supporters, my noble friends Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lady Finn. I also thank the staff of the House: Black Rod, Garter King of Arms and, in particular, the staff of the Library and the doorkeepers, who have given me invaluable assistance since I arrived.
I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for introducing this debate. Like me, as he referred to earlier, he is a teuchter from Aberdeenshire. He spoke with considerable authority and expertise about a cause close to many of our hearts: making sure that our environment can be preserved and enhanced for future generations.
I come to this House having served an apprenticeship of 19 years in the other place, during which time I spent 13 years as a Minister. I regard this as inadequate preparation for joining this House because, during my time as a Minister, I learned that respect for your Lordships’ House was a precondition of achieving anything in politics. The collective expertise, across party and of no parties, which the House of Lords provides is a huge asset to our constitution; the voices raised and points made in this House undoubtedly enhance the quality of governance that the people of the United Kingdom enjoy.
I am very glad to be speaking in this debate, not just because my noble friend Lord Caithness has devoted time both in government and on the Back Benches to enhancing our environment but because the vital issue of ensuring that we, first, prevent and, secondly, mitigate the impact of wildfires goes to the heart of a series of environmental questions that we face.
In the speeches made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Jack, we saw two apparently conflicting but, to my mind, overlapping points. The plea that I would like to make in this speech is a plea for understanding—understanding of the importance of making sure that our peatland and moorland landscapes are protected, but also understanding between what are sometimes seen as warring interests. Whether it is the Moorland Association, the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust or the many environmental NGOs that sometimes find themselves disagreeing just a little with one lobby or another, all have a shared interest in making sure that we hand on our environment, in what has become a very nature-depleted nation, in a better state to the next generation. That was my mission during my brief time as Environment Secretary. During my time in this House, I hope to work across parties to ensure that we enhance our natural environment, our built environment and the environment that we leave to the next generation.
My Lords, it is a privilege to welcome the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lord Gove and Lord Jack of Courance. They have made extremely important contributions to the work of Conservative Governments over the last 10 to 15 years. It was a pleasure to work with my noble friend Lord Gove when I was the Chief Whip and he brought forward an important Education Bill. There is an old saying: once a Whip, always a Whip. Having been Conservative Chief Whip in this House, both in opposition and in government, I can fairly say that I will be very keenly watching my noble friends to see what their contributions to this House will be. I anticipate that they will keep us not only very interested but very well informed.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on securing this short debate. He has made it clear: wildfires can harm people, property, ecosystems and the environment. The timing of his debate is particularly helpful, since it gives us the opportunity to follow up on questions raised in the Chamber a month ago which the Minister was not in a position to answer then. He courteously gave a commitment to follow up on the questions, so I would be grateful if he could assist by responding to two of them today.
His noble friend Lady Ritchie asked whether the Minister had had conversations with the devolved nations and regions about wildfire prevention and mitigation. He committed to conversations with his relevant counterparts in the devolved departments—he mentioned those in Northern Ireland in particular—to find out how the Government could do things more collaboratively. What progress has been made on that? My noble friend Lord McLoughlin asked whether the Government had considered banning disposable barbecues. The Minister said that my noble friend had made a strong argument and that he would take the issue away and reflect on it. What are the results of that?
During the Whitsun Recess, I spent a family holiday on the south coast at Camber Sands. I noticed that Rother District Council had installed signs at the entrances to paths leading through the dunes to the beach banning both fires and barbecues—not just disposable barbecues but all of them. Does the Minister agree that it is vital to promote public awareness of the dangers of lighting fires or barbecues both in the countryside and at the seaside? Has he met representatives of local authorities to encourage a co-ordinated approach to these dangers?
My Lords, I often walk in the hills—I love them—and the heather, so I have frequently thought about this. In the old days, you would normally find firebreaks burned into them. The trouble is that there has been a big movement from a lot of people who do not really know much about the hills or heather, but because they did an environmental course somewhere, they reckon that all the carbon will be locked up in the peat below. However, the point about burning the heather in strips to get a firebreak is that it has to be of a sufficient width.
Two things have to be done. First, you do the burn in winter. It is a cool burn, and therefore does not burn the roots below and does not touch the peat—it must not, because you want these things to reshoot again. You then have a lot of tall rank heather in which birds can hide and, next to that, new, fresh and regenerated growth of young shoots and insect life on which the birds can feed. If a raptor comes over, it can then shoot inside the cover. That is how it works, and people have known it for years.
Interestingly enough, I was chatting to a gamekeeper on a moor who said something quite funny. Some people from the Environment Agency or somewhere had decided to come out to see the heather themselves and wanted a tour. He took them up and showed them some heather that they had burned two years earlier. There was some lovely growth, and they said, “God, this is just what we want. How can we get this? This is what we need”. He showed them the other part and asked, “Well, have you looked over here?” They said, “Oh God, that’s terrible. It’s all dark and rank, and there is no life under it at all”. What they were looking at was the effect of a proper heather burn. It encourages the wildlife and does not go down into the peat—that is the whole point.
The noble Lord, Lord Jack, mentioned the Mars bar test, which is famous because the burn would not melt one. If you put it just under the surface litter, you would see that the surface litter has not burned and nor has the Mars bar melted. That proves that it is not touching the peat. In contrast, a wildfire goes down into and burns up a lot of the peat; it will be a long time—possibly a century or two—before that is regenerated through normal peat growth.
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on bringing this debate forward. I also congratulate my noble friends Lord Jack and Lord Gove on their excellent maiden speeches. It was a particular joy to serve alongside them in Cabinet—I actually mean that—and I am sure that they will add enormously to the expertise in your Lordships’ House.
Noble Lords have highlighted their own experiences of wildfires domestically and of dealing with them, but I want to draw on an international example that I believe provides some learnings. A few years ago, I went to Seattle to attend a clean energy conference. We flew in overnight and, even from tens of thousands of feet in the air, as you looked out of the aircraft window, you could literally see the ground on fire down in Washington state below. At the time, terrible wildfires were raging across the state; as the plane drew lower, you could make out huge patches of forest on fire. I do not exaggerate when I say that it felt to me like looking into the jaws of hell. When we landed, we experienced the acrid smell generated by the wildfires and pollution; it hung like a heavy, choking cloak in the air.
I met some of the politicians and officials in the state government who were tasked with tackling these wildfires. They told me that, over the years, the fires have become more frequent and ferocious. One of the key learnings was effective preparedness: investing in equipment such as bulldozers and excavators; fitting aircraft with infra-red sensors and fire-mapping technology; recruiting more firefighters; sharing their learnings with other states prone to wildfires; and having in place equipment-sharing agreements with those states as well.
Of course, the wildfires that we experience in the UK are generally not as severe as those in North America—at least, so far—but, as we have heard in this debate, their frequency is on the rise and climate change is making things worse. I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to climate action more generally and to sticking with the aim of achieving net zero by 2050. I also welcome the Climate Change Committee’s progress report on adaptation from earlier this year, which called on the Government to create and implement a cross-departmental strategy with external shareholders in order to identify and mitigate the risks of wildfires.
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to take part in this debate; I congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on securing it. I am a born-and-bred Londoner. Wildfires are not really an issue there, except that things have now become so bad that the urban-rural interface encroaches on London; this led to the London Fire Brigade’s busiest day since the Second World War, which has already been spoken about.
As we know, almost all wildfires in the UK are the result of incidental or deliberate acts by humans and have devastating impacts on local communities and wildlife. This issue was brought to my attention by residents near where I live in Essex, who have suffered greatly from fires. In 2022, Wennington was the scene of a wildfire that burned down 18 houses; at its peak, an area of more than 100 acres was ablaze. Some residents had their homes and all their worldly possessions completely destroyed.
There are various theories about the cause of that wildfire. One that many of the residents believe is that embers from a fire at the nearby Arnolds Field might have started the blaze. Under Arnolds Field are tonnes of years-old, illegally dumped toxic waste. It has been smouldering beneath the surface for decades; the site is now referred to locally as the Rainham volcano. Despite the slightly funny name, this is no laughing matter. The odour from the smoke emanating from the site has been the cause of misery to residents for several years. It has real-life impacts. Throughout the summer, the residents have to keep their doors and windows closed to prevent them choking on the fumes and smoke coming from the site.
However, these measures are not enough to keep residents from feeling the effects. One resident, Ms Pauline Claridge, has lived in Rainham for 15 years and was sadly diagnosed with asthma nine years ago and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease emphysema about five years ago. She believes that her breathing has become worse because of the smoke emanating from these fires.
There is a continuing saga of blame being passed around: the local council is not the landowner, so it thinks the landowner should take charge; meanwhile, the landowner believes that the Mayor of London should take charge. The locals believe that somebody should take charge, because they are suffering. I urge the Minister to write to me so that I can go back to those residents, as they want to know who will take charge of this case. I ask him to take particular note of the Rainham volcano and to learn why the Mayor of London, the local council or the landowner cannot prevent these fires happening and remove the site.
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for bringing it and for his excellent speech. Having recently asked an Oral Question on this matter, I am particularly grateful for the Government’s wildfire strategy and action plan.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jack, not just on surviving 10 reshuffles but on putting out the fires of the noble Lord, Lord Gove. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gove, on successfully passing his apprenticeship. I welcome both to the House and wish them well.
Climate change is undoubtedly the primary driver of the increasing wildfire risk. To date we have been lucky, but we cannot continue to rely on our good fortune. Urgent action is required: we need joined-up plans, dedicated funding and equipment, improved public education, and nature-based land management solutions.
I pay tribute to our fire and rescue services, which are increasingly also our climate change emergency response services. We need to recognise the scale of the challenge and the lack of time we have to prepare. Met Office modelling says that we will have twice the number of summer days with dangerous weather conditions for fire, at under 2 degrees of warming. Extreme weather cycles are adding to the fuel loads that noble Lords have discussed: wet weather increasing growth, followed by extreme dryness and heat creating fuel for fire.
The Climate Change Committee, too, is clear and unequivocal that wildfires are more likely and will become more extreme. The year 2025 is no exception; more than 113 square miles have already been burnt. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness said, that is equivalent to the size of the Isle of Wight. Wildfires are devastating on so many levels. They are devastating to people and property, they are brutal to our biodiversity and they are a direct threat to our net-zero efforts. They kill organisms, alter habitats and release vast amounts of carbon.
We need more considered delivery and comprehensive policies and action plans. Can the Minister provide a clear update on when the strategy and action plan will be delivered? Does he agree that we need better joined-up thinking, not just between departments but between our different regions and nations? That collaboration is essential.
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for securing this debate on government action on wildfires. I am sure he is also grateful for the attention that this debate has attracted.
It is a pleasure to hear the maiden contributions of my noble friends Lord Jack of Courance and Lord Gove. Both bring exceptional experience, ability and knowledge to this House and will be enormous assets to its work. My noble friend Lord Jack has also helpfully highlighted their ability to work together.
In the brief time available, I turn to the subject of today’s debate. In doing so, I bring the Grand Committee’s attention to my register of interests, particularly ownership of unenclosed land used for grazing in Dartmoor National Park and in the Flow Country of Sutherland, both of which are adjacent to the scenes of devastating wildfires over the past few years.
I agree with my noble friends that our current Natural England management regime is often too restrictive on managed burning and, in many cases, prevents a practice that is beneficial to reducing fuel loads and creating firebreaks, an important cycle that allows vibrant regrowth and food sources for our native wildlife. Peatland restoration or rewetting is not the only answer, being applicable to a minority of uplands, and even there it offers only partial protection against wildfires. In drought, when peatland dries out, it becomes porous and very vulnerable to fire.
Will the Minister take this debate to his ministerial colleagues in Defra to reassess the role of Natural England in restricting controlled burning, with the result that fuel load is building to increasingly dangerous levels in our upland landscape at a time when climate change is sharply increasing the occurrence of wildfires? Natural England has no statutory responsibility for wildfire, yet it is being allowed to take decisions that have a direct impact on wildfire risk. As other noble Lords have highlighted, decisions in this area need to rely on science, not opinion.
Will the Government consider proactive measures, such as organising financial incentives from the beneficiaries of reducing wildfires—insurers and infrastructure and property owners—to fund land managers to create firebreaks and manage fuel load to reduce the extent and intensity of these fires?
My Lords, it is a privilege to stand before you today to address the important topic of wildfire risk and the devastating impacts that wildfires can have on our communities. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for raising this important debate and for his invaluable insight in this area. I also welcome the noble Lords, Lord Jack of Courance and Lord Gove, to their places and thank them for their valued maiden contributions, especially in the light of the time restriction of only three minutes.
Before I go further, however, this weekend marks the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I know our thoughts are with the bereaved families, survivors and residents as they remember those who lost their lives. The Grenfell Tower inquiry has laid bare system failures, held government and industry to account and is now laying the foundation for urgent reform. We are determined to ensure that no community ever again suffers the way it has.
I also pay tribute to two firefighters, Jennie Logan and Martyn Sadler, who tragically lost their lives in the line of duty last month in Oxfordshire alongside Dave Chester, a member of the public. Two other firefighters were hospitalised in the same incident. My thoughts are with the families, friends and colleagues who have been impacted by this tragic event. Firefighters and wider fire and rescue service workers act with incredible dedication and bravery every day to protect the public. They will always have our deepest respect and gratitude.
Such events bring the risk we have been discussing into sharp focus, not least as outdoor fires, including wildfires, are expected by many academics to increase in frequency and impact in the future, predominantly driven by climate change. We saw this in 2022, the UK’s hottest year on record, which saw more than 20,000 hectares of land in England burned, the destruction of more than 70 properties across the UK and at least 14 fire and rescue services declaring major incidents in their areas as they responded to numerous concurrent wildfires across the country.
Committee adjourned at 4.54 pm.
A key determinant to any fire is the quantity and type of combustible materials available for burning. This influences fire behaviour and severity and is known as fuel load. The NFCC and private landowners agree that, the larger the proportion of the fuel load that is unmanaged, the bigger the fire and the higher the risk of damage. This is the very thing we all wish to prevent; thus, land management is critical. The FRS states that a flame length of over 11 feet puts people at risk—remember that the flame length on Saddleworth Moor was over 50 feet.
Recently, in the Peak District, due to the terrain, weather conditions and flame length, the FRS withdrew from fires and decided to let them burn themselves out. Why are the FRS volunteers and biodiversity being put at risk like this? The answer is that land managers are being directed by the Government through Natural England—NE—to manage land in such a way that it increases the fuel load.
There is a significant difference between a controlled burn and a wildfire. Controlled fire burns only the surface, not the underlying vegetation or root systems. Furthermore, the latest science shows that, over a 10-year period, controlled fires sequester more carbon than they release. NE used approved controlled burning on Dorset heath-land to restore habitat but, ironically, it is firmly against it on moorland, even though it does not burn the peat. Instead, NE demands the wetting of moorland, but wet moors still burn.
Indonesia is the only country in the world that has tried rewetting at scale and studied its effect on wildfire. Rewetting reduced the number of extreme fire events by 40% and only slightly shrank the area affected by fire by 5%. Of course, rewetting will help in some places but certainly not all. For instance, due to topography, 30% of the Peak District cannot be rewetted. The England Peat Action Plan identified the lack of scientific knowledge around the impacts of changing land managing practices. As a result, IDEAL UK FIRE is researching this, with a report due in 2027. Can the Minister tell your Lordships why Defra has undertaken a hurried eight-week consultation on further restrictions on traditional winter burning before this important report is received and studied? Does the Minister agree that no decision should be taken until we have the science available?
NE looks at facts from a single-issue viewpoint, is wedded to one form of fuel load control and ignored the latest scientific evidence. Its ill-informed evidence review—NEER155—has compromised Defra’s responsibility in the wildfire framework for England and, doubtless, the review of the EIP. I wrote to the CEO of NE in April, asking for an urgent meeting to discuss all this. It is a sorry saga to recount but, briefly, she has not responded to me, and my requests for a meeting have been ignored. That is unacceptable, especially from the Government’s advisers.
I conclude that NE is not fit for purpose. I am not at all surprised that there is a fundamental breakdown in trust with landowners to whom it dictates. Its behaviour is putting humans, our environment and nature at greater risk. Can the Minister tell us why NE is allowed to give instructions to landowners when it has no statutory responsibility for wildfires and, contrary to his recent letter to me, does not employ a single person with specialist knowledge? What action will he take to improve NE’s performance?
While on landowners, let us recall that landowners in England voluntarily spend millions each year on moorland management and promoting biodiversity. In parts of Scotland and parts of Italy and Spain, this is no longer so, with well-documented negative environmental consequences. If landowners withdraw their good will, it will fall to the taxpayer to fund and support biodiversity, and the FRS will have no help and local expertise when the fire occurs.
Many of your Lordships will have received the Wildlife Trust’s brief for this debate. Before it was circulated widely, I managed to get an inaccurate reference to an NE report corrected. I also told TWT that where the ignition source was known it represented less than 7% of upland fires. Significantly, it did not amend its brief further to reflect that fact. Are Ministers aware that not only do some NGOs wilfully confuse controlled burns and wildfires but they are sending out briefs that are more emotionally and politically based than science and fact based?
I thank all noble Lords who are speaking in this debate. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Gove, another Aberdeenshire loon, but nae from the hills, and my noble friend Lord Jack of Courance, in whose former constituency I spent many of my farming days. I am delighted that they have chosen to make their maiden speeches in this important debate. Wildfires are a current and very real threat to us and our environment that climate change will only exacerbate. We all need to do more to rise to the challenge, but we need a more concerted lead from the Government based on further and better scientific evidence advice than they have recently received.
However, it is a common misconception that muirburn is peat burning. It is not. Muirburn is a cold fire. Your Lordships can go online and watch videos of cold fires going across Mars bars that have been laid in the heather and not damaging them or harming them in any shape or form. That is the point. It is a cold burn. These cold fires preserve the peat. They have the dual purpose of preventing wildfires and creating a mosaic of biodiversity that is quite exceptional.
In conclusion, prevention is the best solution to wildfires, and that comes through land management. That means government taking a sensible approach in terms of rules and regulations and not burdening land managers with unnecessary bureaucracy. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to make these observations, and I look forward to playing my part in the work of your Lordships’ House in future.
By bringing these diffuse sources together, the Moorland Association has estimated that, to date, wildfires have cost the UK more than £350 million in 2025, as my noble friend Lord Caithness said—the same amount of money that the Government committed in 2020 to help heavy industry reduce carbon emissions. These costs are a potential avoided loss if wildfire policy is focused on mitigation through managing the fuel load.
I must point out that moorland management, including controlled and specific moor burn carried out by highly trained and skilled gamekeepers, plays a vital role in the prevention and control of wildfires, as was seriously demonstrated in my area of the Peak District earlier this year. That fact needs to be noted and appreciated by Natural England and others.
I point out that, in this debate of 12 speakers, we have four Earls and only two women; it strikes me that this is quite typical of your Lordships’ House. How we will miss our Earls.
What is being touted at the moment is completely the wrong way round, because of the lack of understanding from dogmatic people who say, “It is just about trying to shoot grouse”. It is not; it is also about maintaining the countryside, the heather and the hills.
The people who have lived and worked there for generations know what they are doing. It is about time someone listened to and took advice from them, rather than from some expert who has done a brief environmental course and borrowed a pair of green wellies to do a farm walk then writes lots of stuff about this. What they need to do is read the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust’s work on these sorts of things because it is a charity that does its research regardless of fear or favour; basically, I recommend it to those who are trying to control these things.
I believe that this strategy should include an international component, with UK specialist wildfire experts learning and sharing effective mitigation actions, as well as training jointly with their counterparts in other nations, so that we can help each other when needed. That is currently happening across some jurisdictions. I also think that we need a national wildfire-fighting equipment asset register to allow for more effective sharing of resources across the country when they are needed. I look forward to the Minister’s feedback on these suggestions.
The National Fire Chiefs Council is clear that we are not prepared. Does the Minister agree that we need long-term sustainable investment and that our firefighters need specialist equipment to put out the fires? Do the Government agree that we need a single agreed definition of wildfires, so that we can best track them and find the solutions that we need?
These matters are urgent and critical. We have been lucky to date, but we cannot continue to survive on our luck alone.
In closing, I thank the members of fire and rescue services, gamekeepers, farmers, rangers and wardens who put their own safety at risk to protect infrastructure, property and lives from these devastating wildfires.
This Government are committed to reducing this risk alongside mitigating the impacts they cause. Preparing for the future means not only tackling climate and nature emergencies but adapting to the changes they will bring to our environment. I recognise that wildfire is a complex area that cuts across many areas of interest and responsibilities. While my department, MHCLG, is the lead government department for this risk, we are reliant upon the good work of our partners. They include Defra and its agencies as well as the land management and fire sectors. We are also working with the devolved Administrations and fire services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We need to continue and build our close working arrangements to share best practice learning on tackling wildfires effectively. It is vital that we take a co-ordinated approach to this risk, working in lockstep with our partners to prevent and mitigate the impact on people, property, habitats, livestock, natural capital and wildlife effectively.
To directly answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I have asked the relevant Minister, Alex Norris, to meet with devolved departments. There is no proposal, in addition to the question, to ban the barbecue, but the Local Government Minister and officials are already talking to local government officials.
This Government understand the risks and complexities of this area, which is why my officials have been undertaking extensive engagement with stakeholders to identify policy options to enhance our resilience and responses to the wildfires. This has informed a comprehensive policy-scoping report to inform next steps.
Fire and rescue services are actively preparing for wildfires, as they are required to plan for the foreseeable risks in their area through their community risk management plans. These plans also have regard to the views of other key local responders. Following the events of 2022, the National Fire Chiefs Council—NFCC—has worked to extract learning and good practice from the incidents attended, with a view to shaping the future of wildfire prevention, community education and response. The NFCC is progressing actions that emerged from this, including improvements to training, national resilience and operational response. In 2024, the Government took an additional step by funding a national resilience wildfire adviser. This role is an operational role within the fire services, focused on evaluating what further national capabilities are needed to boost resilience against wildfires and ensure that efforts across the sector are well co-ordinated.
I move to some of the points raised in the debate, starting off with that from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about definition, which was also raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The Government are committed to ensuring that we continue to improve the data collected on wildfires. This will be invaluable in shaping future advice and policy decisions in this space. At present, operational data on wildfires that is collected by the national resilience reporting tool, while a good proxy, cannot be used as an official statistic, as it may be incomplete or inaccurate and is gathered primarily to inform incident response. Improvements are being driven through the introduction of the new fire and rescue data platform—a new incident reporting tool used by fire and rescue services. This will introduce a formal definition of a wildfire, which will enable the Government to collect official data on the number of incidents and publish official statistics.
The noble Earl said that no decision should be made until we have the science available. The Government are alive to this evolving risk, and we are committed to putting in place the necessary measures to mitigate the impacts while driving forward the UK’s resilience and response to the wildfires.
To reassure the noble Earl on the issue of consultation, general consultations generally run between four and 12 weeks as good practice. The eight-week consultation on the proposed changes to the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021 has now closed. Defra is analysing the feedback, which will be used to inform next steps.
A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Jack, talked about land management. As many of your Lordships know, Defra has responsibility for the promotion of wildfire mitigation and adaptation planning to land managers. This is set out in more detail within the wildfire framework for England. Defra colleagues highlight that landowners and land managers are encouraged to adopt good quality wildfire management plans, and use sustainable methods to manage habitat and restore their peatland, as evidence shows—although not conclusively everywhere around the world—that wetter, healthy-functioning peatlands are more resilient to the impacts of wildfire.
I will not look to speak too much on behalf of another department, and I know that the noble Earl has some concerns and reflections, which I will pass on to Defra colleagues, but I am also aware of how important this issue is to Defra across its range of responsibilities. I thank the people there for their invaluable contributions to the wildfire scoping work to date, and my department looks forward to continuing to work with Defra colleagues on this issue.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I return to the point about barbecues. The Government have taken lessons from the devastation we saw during the 2022 wildfire season, working across departments to increase the prominence of wildfire messaging to the public. This 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 website.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, who speaks with great expertise on climate change, that this Government are committed to ensuring that the UK is working with international partners to address wildfire risks. This includes through multilateral forums such as the United Nations. The Government encourage more exchanges on wildfire preparation, prevention, response and recovery, including through initiatives such as the Global Fire Management Hub established by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the UN Environment Programme. The hub brings key partners together to share best practice principles and create greater consistency in wildfire response. The noble Lord asked us to reflect further, and I will do so with my officials.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about national resilience and capability, which is a very important issue. The Government are committed to ensuring that fire and rescue services can draw on national life-saving capabilities, enabling them to respond effectively to large-scale or critical incidents. It is for this reason that the department funds the national resilience specialist capabilities, ensuring that national assets such as urban search and rescue, high volume pumps and CBRN decontamination are strategically located across the country for times of need. In 2024-25, the grant to all fire and rescue services hosting this equipment amounted to £17.9 million. In addition, the department funds the national resilience lead authority in Merseyside with a grant amounting to £16.6 million for 2024-25. For this, it delivers a key range of services, including capability assurance and specialist training.
A number of noble Lords alluded to Natural England. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked a question during our recent debate in the Chamber on the wildfire strategy and action plan. I took away an action to engage Natural England on its use of scientific advice when advising NGOs and other landowners on the risk of wildfire. I was pleased to confirm to the noble Earl that Natural England utilises the latest scientific advice as part of these activities. This is set out in its overarching science, evidence and evaluation strategy. Natural England’s science and evidence work involves assembling and commissioning such advice, then using it to underpin advice, decisions and actions. The strategy also helps to embed and promote its evidence standard.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. Wildfire is a topic that arouses strong emotions. It is part of a range of climate risks we need to adapt to in order to protect our future. I recognise the level of concern out there. We are seeing it in myriad other areas, whether that is flooding or more extreme weather events, or in the impact of global warming on wider geopolitics and the movement of people.
This Government recognise the challenges and welcome the spotlight from this debate. I believe that with the right actions and the right collaboration we can make a difference to how our country manages wildfire, both now and into the future. This will not be an easy task, but we are committed to working through these challenges with our partners. To do this, we will need to take an approach that improves our resilience and reduces the impacts from wildfires, driven through enhanced integration between stakeholders.
We have made good progress in driving improvements in data collection to address gaps; in the way we issue public communications to protect life and property; and in providing funding for a national resilience wildfire adviser in the fire service. The policy scoping work is exploring where we can go further and how we can better work across divides. This is a vital area that I am proud to be delivering. I thank again the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for initiating this important debate, and all other noble Lords for their invaluable contributions.