---

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

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.

3 pm

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.