What Happened During the House of Lords Wildfire Debate?

The Earl of Caithness tabled a question in the House of Lords on 12th June 2025 about reducing the risk and mitigating the effects of wildfires. Watch his opening speech here:

You can watch the debate in full here (approx. 55 minutes long).

You can read a full transcript of the debate here.

Summary of the Debate

The Earl of Caithness opened by warning that UK wildfires in 2025 have already cost more than £350 million - comparable to what the Government committed to decarbonise heavy industry. He stressed that these are not just financial losses, but include the destruction of soil, biodiversity, carbon stores, and habitats.

With over 137 square miles already burned in 2025 - an area larger than the Isle of Wight - the issue is no longer seasonal or exceptional. Wildfires are becoming a persistent, costly, and growing risk to lives, landscapes, and rural livelihoods.

The Earl of Shrewsbury echoed this, citing the £21 million health cost of the 2018 Saddleworth Moor fire and the £83.5 million insurance payout from farm fires in 2022. Yet, no central data is collected to fully track wildfire costs, leading to blind spots in national policy and funding.

Land Management and Fuel Load

Many peers pointed to fuel load - the amount of combustible vegetation - as a key risk factor. Properly managed moorland, with controlled cold burns and firebreaks, reduces this risk. As Lord Jack of Courance (former Scottish Secretary) explained, cold burns do not damage peat and actively support biodiversity by creating a mosaic of habitats.

Yet Natural England continues to oppose controlled burning on moorland. This was widely criticised. Several peers, including the Earl of Erroll and Lord Roborough, stressed that managed burning is backed by evidence and tradition, and prevents the extreme, peat-damaging fires that occur on neglected ground.

Rewetting - Not a One-Size-Fits-All Answer

Multiple contributors challenged Natural England’s push for widespread moorland rewetting. Citing scientific studies from Indonesia, the Earl of Caithness noted that while rewetting reduced the number of extreme fires by 40%, it had minimal impact on total fire area. And with 30% of the Peak District unsuitable for rewetting due to topography, the policy risks being both impractical and ineffective.

A Call for Science-Led Policy

A common thread was frustration with decisions being made before key evidence is available. Several Lords criticised Defra’s decision to launch an eight-week consultation on further burning restrictions, despite the fact that its own research project (IDEAL UK FIRE) will not report until 2027.

Speakers called for decisions to be delayed until this evidence is properly reviewed.

Support for Fire and Rescue Services

Across the debate, there was praise for the bravery of fire crews—but also concern that firefighter numbers have fallen by 25% since 2008. The London Fire Brigade saw its busiest day since WWII during the 2022 heatwave. With climate change fuelling future risks, several Lords - including Lord Sharma - urged more investment in preparedness, training, and shared equipment.

Natural England and Trust Breakdown

A major concern raised was the role of Natural England. The Earl of Caithness said NE has no statutory responsibility for wildfires, yet its policies directly increase the risk. He noted that NE’s advice is increasingly viewed as one-sided, out of touch with land managers, and inconsistent with the science.

Lord Roborough added that NE’s restrictions are causing fuel loads to reach dangerous levels. Several speakers warned of a breakdown in trust, with landowners feeling ignored, dictated to, or demonised - despite the millions they voluntarily spend on conservation each year.

Misinformation from NGOs

The Wildlife Trust was singled out for distributing misleading wildfire briefings, including claims about upland ignition sources that were factually incorrect and not corrected, even when challenged. There was concern that political or emotional narratives are being allowed to trump science and practical experience.

What Does This Mean for Moorland Management?

The Lords debate made clear that traditional land management - especially controlled burning - has a vital role in wildfire prevention. But current policy is moving in the opposite direction, restricting the very tools that rural communities and gamekeepers rely on to reduce risk.

There is growing cross-party concern that decisions are being rushed, evidence ignored, and expertise undervalued. The debate also highlighted the need for better coordination between departments, more support for fire services, and greater recognition of landowners’ contribution to public goods like biodiversity and carbon storage.

Takeaway

If Government wants to reduce wildfire risk, it must start listening to the people who live and work on the land. That means policy based on evidence, not ideology - and restoring trust with those best placed to manage the uplands.

📧 Keep updated on this and all moorland issues - sign up for our FREE weekly newsletter.