The Earl of Leicester (Con)

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for securing this regret Motion debate on heather and grass burning restrictions as laid out in the Government’s statutory instrument; I support it wholeheartedly. Like the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, I declare my interests: my membership of GWCT, BASC and Countryside Alliance. I also declare an interest relevant to today’s debate: I own and my team manage, under licence from Natural England as a Section 35 approved body, the Holkham National Nature Reserve in North Norfolk. It is the largest and arguably the most important NNR in the country. Indeed, in the years following our resumption of management of the NNR from Natural England, I received three letters from senior Natural England executives congratulating us on the excellent management of the reserve, and in particular on our interventions and the resulting outcomes. We have a team of land managers very experienced in nature conservation, forestry and nature-friendly farming, so although we do not have a current need to burn heather and grass in Norfolk, we are aware of its benefits. I too have spent a good deal of time in the uplands, in the north of England and Scotland, speaking to practitioners of these practices, and I am well versed in the multifarious benefits preventive burning provides in protecting against wildfires, and the biodiversity benefits it provides. I am incredibly disappointed by the content of the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. In fact, by the time I finished reading them my blood was boiling, such was the litany of at best contentious assertions. For a start, I am stunned that no government impact assessment was carried out, as “no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen”. That is a very bold assertion. I hope to demonstrate—as will other noble Lords—how wrong that is, and that the whole premise of this SI is deeply flawed and has already been found to be incorrect following the damage inflicted by two huge wildfires in the uplands this summer. The impact on forestry and biodiversity, and in terms of deep peat carbon loss, has been immeasurable. For the moment—until we are subject to even greater and more dangerous fires—the impact on communities, who, mercifully, were not hit with loss of property or life, has been less. The document also states that the purpose of the SI is to protect 676,628 hectares of peatland habitat by preventing further damage from burning—an increase of 246,000 hectares, as prescribed by the 2020 regulations of the same name. This “protection” is a complete misnomer, because these restrictions will not protect these nature-rich habitats. Some 7,000 land managers have already contributed to the rewetting of the moorland in their management by blocking up drains as required by Natural England. That work did not stop the wildfires. The claim that preventive burning dries up the moors is specious and not based on good science. Professor Andreas Heinemeyer of the Stockholm Environment Institute at York University is the most knowledgeable academic in the sphere of moorland management. His research into grouse-moor cool-burning’s impact on ecosystem services and aspects around alternative mowing, or no management at all, as advocated by this SI, has been broadly ignored. Has the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, ever visited the uplands in February and March to witness how this preventive cool-burning takes place?