What Happened During the House of Lords Heather Burning Debate?

The House of Lords debated the government's new restrictions around controlled burning on deep peat on Thursday 30th October 2025. We have summarised the debate below.

You can also watch the full debate (it's around 85 minutes long) and download the transcript.

What the debate was about

The House of Lords held a debate on 30 October 2025 on the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. The Motion to Regret, tabled by the Earl of Caithness, challenged the Government’s decision to extend restrictions on controlled burning over deep peat.

The new rules lower the peat depth threshold from 40 cm to 30 cm and expand coverage to about 676,000 hectares of upland England. From this season, land managers must apply for a Defra licence to burn vegetation on those areas.

The regulations are intended to protect peatlands and reduce carbon emissions. Opponents in the debate argued that the move will increase wildfire risk, damage biodiversity, and harm rural livelihoods.

Concerns raised by peers

1. Increased wildfire risk

Several peers warned that banning or restricting prescribed burning would lead to heavier fuel loads and more severe wildfires.

• Earl of Caithness said uncontrolled fires now pose a major risk to “biodiversity, livelihoods, and human health.”

• He cited a study showing that 96 % of wildfire area in Scotland occurred outside land managed by muirburn, suggesting managed burning reduces fire risk.

• The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) had warned the Government that restricting burning could lead to “larger, more intense wildfires,” compromising firefighter and public safety.

• Peers highlighted this year’s figure of 48,000 hectares burned by wildfire — seven times the long-term average and more than double 2022.

The Earl of Shrewsbury warned that with more homes now built near moorland, uncontrolled fires threaten lives and infrastructure, citing the Wennington (2022) and Saddleworth Moor (2018) fires as examples.

2. Loss of expertise and local partnership

The Earl of Caithness said the Fire and Rescue Service relies heavily on gamekeepers and farmers for skills, equipment, and local knowledge when tackling moorland blazes. Without controlled burning, he argued, that partnership would weaken.

The Earl of Leicester agreed, calling it “folly to discard centuries of experience” in managing fire safely.

3. Practical and procedural problems

Peers criticised the timing and bureaucracy of the new licensing system:

• Regulations took effect the day before the start of the burning season, while applications can take up to 12 weeks to process.

• Many sites also require SSSI consents from Natural England, which may take months, effectively halving the legal burning window.

• The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) said Defra had failed to consult properly on key changes and warned of “significant practical difficulties” for land managers.

  
  

4. Questions about scientific evidence

Peers said the scientific basis for extending the ban remains contested.

• The Earl of Caithness criticised Defra’s evidence review (NEER155) for examining only the effects of burning, not the effects of not burning.

• Earl of Leicester cited Professor Andreas Heinemeyer (University of York), whose studies found that cool, rotational burns can raise the water table and support carbon balance when properly managed.

• He described such burns as “cool” enough to leave even a Mars bar un-melted - removing rank vegetation while leaving peat intact.

5. Biodiversity and land management impacts

Several Lords said rotational burning creates a mosaic of habitats benefiting moorland wildlife:

• Golden plover, curlew, lapwing, and other waders depend on a patchwork of heather ages for nesting and feeding.

• Without management, old heather and Molinia (purple moor grass) can dominate, reducing biodiversity and grazing value.

The Earl of Lytton warned that replacing fire with mechanical cutting risks soil compaction and higher carbon costs from machinery.

6. Air quality and health

The Government had suggested tighter burning limits would improve air quality. Peers disputed this, arguing that wildfire smoke poses far greater risks than short, managed burns.

• The Earl of Caithness cited the Saddleworth Moor wildfire, where PM2.5 pollution exceeded WHO limits for days and caused £20 million in health costs.

• He asked what data Defra had on prescribed burning’s air-quality impact versus wildfire smoke; no figures were provided during the debate.

7. Rewetting and peat restoration

The Government’s policy of rewetting peat was questioned.

• The Earl of Caithness noted that “most of our peatlands cannot be rewetted” because of landscape and climate constraints.

• He asked whether wetter peat will be sustainable under projected drier summers.

The Earl of Lytton added that some uplands have shallow soils or mineral podzols where rewetting “is simply not possible,” meaning fire will remain a necessary management tool.

8. Liability concerns

Peers raised legal questions about who would be responsible if Natural England’s restrictions increased fuel loads leading to wildfire damage on neighbouring land. The Government did not offer a clear answer.

The Government’s response

Responding for the Government, Lord Katz (Labour) said the regulations aim to protect peatlands - “the UK’s rainforests” - which store carbon, regulate water, and support biodiversity.

He argued that:

• 80 % of England’s peatlands are degraded, and rotational burning is one contributing factor.

• Wet peatlands are more fire-resistant, while repeated burning dries peat and increases long-term vulnerability.

• Alternatives such as cutting, grazing, and rewetting are still allowed, and burning licences remain available “where no feasible alternative exists.”

• The licensing system has been simplified, and burning may still be approved for wildfire prevention, research, or conservation where justified.

On wildfire strategy, Lord Katz said Defra and the Department for Levelling Up are working on a national wildfire framework and action plan in partnership with the NFCC.

On costs, he said a full impact assessment was not required because expected business impacts are below £10 million per year, though he acknowledged year-one costs could reach £1.2 million.

Why it matters

This debate highlights a central challenge in upland policy: how to balance peatland protection with wildfire prevention and rural management.

• England’s moorlands are vital for carbon storage, water quality, biodiversity, and rural employment.

• The outcome of these regulations will shape how land managers can reduce wildfire risk, protect wildlife, and maintain traditional moorland landscapes.

• With wildfires already affecting tens of thousands of hectares annually, the consequences of these rules, positive or negative, will soon become evident.

What happens next

The Motion to Regret was withdrawn, so the regulations remain in force. The Government has promised to:

• Continue working with the National Fire Chiefs Council and rural stakeholders on wildfire strategy.

• Review the operation of the new licensing system and its timing.

• Support peatland restoration through environmental schemes and carbon-credit incentives.

Managed burning, when done responsibly, remains a proven tool for protecting moorland habitats and preventing devastating wildfires. The coming season will test how effectively government policy now balances those priorities.

📧 Keep Updated on All Moorland Issues - Sign Up For Our FREE Weekly Newsletter.