Wildfires

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Grand Committee

Asked by

[The Earl of Caithness]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to (1) reduce the risk, and (2) mitigate the effects, of wildfires.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

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.

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.