Wildfires: The Answers Parliament Has Yet to Receive

Further evidence that wildfire risk is not currently presented on the basis of a consolidated evidence base can be found in Defra’s responses to two Parliamentary Questions published this week.

James Cartlidge MP asked:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many hectares of the English countryside have been burnt by wildfires in the last twelve months; and what the cost was in terms of (a) fighting the fires, (b) loss of economic activity, (c) restoring the landscape and (d) NHS treatment of the effects of smoke pollution as a result of those wildfires.”

Defra’s answer (provided by Mary Creagh MP ):

“Defra does not hold details on how many hectares of the English countryside have been burnt by wildfires in the last twelve months. MHCLG is responsible for fire policy and operations.”

 Shortly afterwards, a second Parliamentary Answer on wildfires was published.

Richard Holden MP asked:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what estimate her Department has made of the level of carbon emissions caused by (a) prescribed burns of vegetation and (b) wildfires during 2025.”

Defra’s answer (provided by Emma Hardy MP):

“The Government remains committed to improving air quality to deliver benefits for public health, the environment, and the economy. This includes reducing carbon emissions.”

Read together, these replies point to a consistent position: no single department appears to hold, or to present, a joined-up assessment of wildfire impacts in England.

That matters, because wildfires are not a narrow operational issue. They affect public safety, public health, carbon emissions, biodiversity, water quality, rural economies and Fire and Rescue Service capacity. Yet when Parliament asked for headline figures and assessments, it was told that the information was not held in one place.

Responsibility versus assessment

Defra’s responses accurately reflect the formal allocation of responsibilities within government. Fire and Rescue Services sit under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). Public health impacts fall under the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). Economic impacts cut across several departments.

However, Parliament was not asking which department owns each strand of wildfire risk. It was asking for an assessment of impacts.

The absence of such an assessment is notable given that wildfire risk is repeatedly acknowledged elsewhere in government policy. The Wildfire Framework for England, the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Programme documents all recognise wildfire as a growing, cross-cutting risk.

What appears to be missing is a mechanism for drawing together the consequences of that risk when policy decisions are taken.

Evidence that already exists

While Defra says it does not hold the requested information, substantial evidence is already in the public domain. Fire and Rescue Service incident records show that England experiences thousands of vegetation fires each year, with severe peaks during dry springs and summers.

Independent analysis indicates that firefighting costs alone can reach many tens of millions of pounds in severe years. Restoration costs following major moorland and peat fires are also well documented. In the Peak District and South Pennines, repeated wildfire damage has required publicly funded landscape-scale restoration costing many millions of pounds.

Health impacts are less systematically quantified in official policy, but the scientific literature is clear that wildfire smoke contains significantly higher concentrations of harmful particulates than smoke from controlled winter burning, with established links to increased hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiovascular conditions.

These impacts are referenced across multiple government-commissioned reports. What is striking is that they are not routinely presented together when decisions affecting wildfire risk are made.

Why this matters now

Defra is currently taking major policy decisions on vegetation management, fuel loads and the restriction of traditional land-management practices. Those decisions are justified by reference to environmental objectives.

However, Parliament has now been told that Defra does not hold even headline figures on wildfire extent, costs or health impacts.

That raises an important policy question: how are the full consequences of wildfire risk being weighed if those consequences are not being assessed in the round?

This is not a question of departmental competence or intent. It is a question of whether relevant considerations are being brought together when decisions with significant real-world consequences are taken.

The gap Parliament identified

Parliament did not ask for perfect data. It asked for indicative figures and assessments.

At present, the answer appears to be that no consolidated assessment exists.

Until wildfire impacts are assessed in a joined-up way, assertions that wildfire risk has been fully considered in land-management policy will inevitably remain difficult to demonstrate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 This article draws on publicly available sources and does not claim to represent official government statistics.

This article is published for public information purposes only and does not seek to influence the current judicial review proceedings or the permission hearing listed before the High Court on 27 January 2026, nor to comment on the merits of those proceedings.

Stay Updated

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