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

Lord Katz Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.