Why is Mary Creagh Still Repeating a False Claim? Who is Advising Defra Ministers These Days?

Andrew Gilruth
Oct 10
3 min read

Members of Parliament are still being told that “the scientific consensus is that repeated burning risks permanently altering the species composition of healthy peatland habitats.”

This week, the Moorland Association received a copy of a letter from Defra Minister Mary Creagh repeating that same statement, word for word, despite it being flatly contradicted by Defra’s own evidence and research.

That one sentence now stands as a case study in how misinformation can become government policy. It is wrong. It is known to be wrong. Its repetition shows the serious failures within Defra’s advice and consultation process.

Where the false claim came from

The wording appears on page 4 of the Heather and Grass Burning Consultation (Defra, March 2025):

“Repeated burning risks permanently altering the species composition and hydrology of peatland habitats.

”It was presented there as settled science, a “consensus”.

Yet there is no consensus and no peer-reviewed evidence supporting the claim of permanent alteration. Even Natural England’s own NEER155 Evidence Review stops far short of that.

If only Defra had checked its own files

Had Minister Creagh’s advisers simply checked Defra’s own research portfolio, they would have found the claim unsustainable.

Defra’s own BD5104 Final Research Report (2019)“Over four years…the species composition of both burnt and mown plots has overall moved closer towards that of the uncut plots.” (p 142) This is a temporary change, not permanent alteration.

Peatland-ES-UK 10-Year Report (Heinemeyer et al. 2023)“Heather-dominated peatlands under previous burn management show clear indication of an overall near ‘active’ bog and near ‘intact’ status considering carbon sequestration, water storage and biodiversity. Whilst burning causes some short-term impacts it can support restoration and ‘active’ bog functions.” (p 17).

So the study found that long-term burning maintained or even restored healthy peatland function.

Natural England’s own report on heather burning (NEER155, 2025)“Repeated burning risks interrupting the trajectory of recovery, resulting in a sustained departure from characteristic peatland structure and function… recovery occurs on varying timescales, ranging from months to decades.” (p 84-85) This urges caution, but not “permanent alteration”.

The Moorland Association warned Ministers

In our consultation response, the Moorland Association directly challenged this misuse of science:

“The consultation is built on a scientifically weak foundation.” (p 4).

“NEER155 should be properly reviewed by a group of independent academics as it is opinionated, biased towards weak scientific studies and inadequate in its methodology.” (p 4).

“The consultation biases the evidence, focusing primarily on short-term findings… while mostly ignoring more robust long-term findings which provide more meaningful but opposing views.” (p 6).

We even highlighted the very sentence now re-appearing in ministerial correspondence:

“Statements by Defra such as these in the consultation document will further reinforce that view: ‘Repeated burning risks permanently altering the species composition and hydrology of peatland habitats.’” (p 62).

No “Scientific Consensus” Exists

The long-term UK evidence, including Defra-funded studies, shows context-dependent and reversible effects of managed burning, not permanent ecological change. Ashby (2020), Evans et al. (2019) and Heinemeyer et al. (2023) all report variation by hydrology, rotation length and burn severity.

Even Natural England’s reviewers concede uncertainty. In its NEER155 report it describes its own definition of “favourable conservation status” as a “judgement rather than a scientific truth.” (p 14, RP2967). That is not consensus, it is interpretation.

Systemic failure in Defra’s consultation process

That a Minister is still repeating this discredited line months later points to a deeper problem:

Evidence assurance has failed.
Internal peer review has failed.
Ministers are being briefed with inaccurate information.

When a falsehood survives through multiple drafts, publications and ministerial letters, it shows that Defra’s internal checks on scientific accuracy are not working.

A call for accountability

The Moorland Association urges Defra to:

Withdraw and correct the statement that there is a “scientific consensus” against burning.
Acknowledge the findings of its own long-term research (BD5104 and Peatland-ES-UK).
Commission an independent review of Natural England’s NEER155 and RP2967 to verify scientific rigour.
Cease circulating inaccurate claims to MPs and the public.

Ministers must stop repeating what isn’t true

The repetition of this false claim by Mary Creagh in letters to Members of Parliament is not a minor slip, it is a warning sign that Defra’s scientific advice system is broken. The department’s own evidence disproves its rhetoric.

As the Moorland Association stated plainly:

“Building a national regulatory policy on such a document undermines the credibility and validity of the consultation process.” (MA consultation response, p 5).

Until Defra corrects the record, Ministers will continue to mislead MPs and the public about one of the most important land-management issues facing our uplands.

If your MP has been sent a similar letter, do let us know - press@moorlandassociation.org.