Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the report by the
Committee on Climate Change Land use: Policies for a Net Zero UK,
published on 23 January, what plans they have to end rotational
burning of peat moorlands.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
() (Con)
My Lords, the Government have always been clear on the need to
phase out the rotational burning of protected blanket bog to
conserve these vulnerable habitats, and we are looking at how
legislation could achieve that. However, real progress is being
made in promoting sustainable alternatives. We have urged
landowners to adopt those alternatives and to continue to work
with us constructively.
(Con) [V]
I thank my noble friend for his Answer and draw attention to my
environmental entries in the register. I recognise that there is
no consensus about this issue, so can my noble friend tell us
what the scientific advice from his department is about this
matter?
(Con)
My noble friend is right that there is much debate around the
issue. That debate has prompted a great deal of research,
particularly over the last decade. The Government have kept
abreast of all the latest scientific evidence to inform our
policy approach. However, overall, the evidence shows that the
burning on blanket bog is detrimental as it moves the bog away
from its original wet state and risks vulnerable peat bogs being
converted to drier heathland habitat. Defra’s view is therefore
that ending burning on protected deep peat is the best approach
for achieving habitat restoration and maximising the full suite
of ecosystem benefits that would arise.
(Lab) [V]
I draw attention to my interests in the register. The Government
hoped for a voluntary surrender of burning consents but no one
volunteered and burning has increased. The heather and moorland
burning regulations are 13 years out of date and do not meet the
Government’s commitments to net zero, to biodiversity or to air
and water quality. I understand that a draft of proposed new
legislation has been prepared, so what conceivable legitimate
excuse can the Minister give us for delaying any further the
legislation that the Government promised to end the rotational
burning of blanket bog by October 2019?
(Con)
We are currently engaging with stakeholders on the content of the
England peat strategy and we expect it to be published later this
year, but, as I said earlier, the Government are committed to
phasing out rotational burning. We are considering all the
evidence to ensure that any legislation actually works. It is
undoubtedly a complex issue and it is important that we take the
right steps to restore and protect this valuable habitat.
(GP) [V]
My Lords, I refer the Minister to page 95 of the report, where
the independent committee says:
“Burning … is highly damaging to the peat, and to the range of
environmental benefits that well-functioning peat can deliver”.
It goes on to say:
“A voluntary cessation of this activity … has not produced the
desired outcome so the practice should be banned across the UK
with immediate effect.”
Does the Minister fully accept and endorse those words? If so,
why in his initial Answer did he use the words “phase out” and
refer to “real progress” from voluntary efforts, which
contradicts what the report says?
(Con)
As I have said, the Government are committed to ending this
practice. We are looking actively at what the best legislative
solution would be. We recognise, as does the noble Baroness, that
the voluntary approach has not worked, so in that regard, yes, I
agree with the statement that she made.
(Con)
[V]
My Lords, we have debated our tree-planting strategy in reducing
our carbon footprint many times in the House. Today’s Question
brings to the fore just how important our peatlands are. Does my
noble friend the Minister have the latest figures on how many
managed estates have agreed to give up their consent to burn and,
in turn, are managing alternatives?
(Con)
The answer is that a significant number have made that decision
voluntarily. I am afraid I cannot provide the precise number so I
will have to write to my noble friend after this session.
(LD)
My Lords, this is an issue that polarises opinion. Considerable
damage was caused by the peat fires on Saddleworth Moor, the
result of arson, and the wildfire on Scotland’s Flow Country.
These fires were not the result of rotational heather burning,
which has many benefits. Before we throw the metaphorical baby
out with the bathwater, it is important to note that, despite
what the Minister says about the scientific evidence, that
evidence is out of date. Does the Minister agree that it would be
better to update the scientific evidence before we decide about
rotational heather burning on peat moorlands?
(Con)
The science continues to evolve; it is not a matter of it being
out of date. The Government are well aware of the wildfire risk
presented by dry conditions on moorlands. Natural England has
carried out a review of the causes, the severity and the
management practices best placed to mitigate that risk, and we
are considering that alongside other evidence. Some of the
clearest evidence that we have is that ensuring that peatlands
are wet and in a natural state is the best way to minimise
wildfire risk. It also tells us that managed burning results in
an increase in vegetation types, such as heather, which have a
higher fuel load as compared with natural blanket bog vegetation.
(Con)
[V]
My Lords, what are the implications for air quality in
habitations following burning of nearby moorlands, and what has
been the effect of such burning on the bird population?
(Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point. There is no doubt that
burning has an impact. If the department has precise data as to
the extent of that effect, I am afraid I have not seen it. Again,
I will have to get back to the noble Lord with that answer.
(CB) [V]
Does the Minister think it wise to allow heather to grow tall and
become an unbroken fire hazard in dry summers? Summer hill fires
can burn for months and destroy millions of tonnes of our peat.
Does he also think it wise to curtail the rotational management
of heather, which provides seeds and green shoots for our highly
threatened curlews, lapwings, merlin, plover and dunlin et
cetera? While burning heather in March, when the peat is sodden
from winter rains and therefore completely safe from harm, may
not be perfect, would it not be wise to find an alternative form
of heather management before doing away with the tried-and-tested
system we have?
(Con)
I refer the noble Lord to an earlier answer I gave on wildfire
risk, which he has raised again. I do not think anyone is
proposing simply allowing the heather to continue growing
uncontrolled. The alternative to burning is obviously cutting.
The department has been looking closely at what the additional
burden would be on business were cutting to be generalised. The
total figure that the department has come up with is £500,000 per
year for the sector. That is based on information provided to us
by landowners and managers.
(Lab)
If the Government have not found a way to table their own
legislation to ban the burning of peat by the end of the year,
will the Minister agree to work with us on a cross-party basis to
deliver a ban in the Environment Bill, which comes to the Lords
in the new year?
(Con)
I would be very happy to commit to discussing and sharing the
evidence we have with the noble Baroness, and to hear whatever
ideas she has on this issue, but we are determined as a
Government to achieve a solution through legislation and other
means. I would be very happy to have those discussions with her
at any time.
(LD)
[V]
My Lords, as the Minister will know, peatlands are one of the
most important terrestrial carbon sinks that we have. Apart from
burning, peat extraction is a major issue for the health of those
peatlands. Will the Government, in their consideration of future
peat management, also ban the use of peat for horticultural
purposes and its import, as the climate change committee has
recommended?
(Con)
It is an extremely important point and an issue I have followed
closely for some time. The noble Lord makes a compelling case. I
shall take his remarks back to the department and share them with
the Secretary of State.
On a related note, the main argument of the upland partnership,
which does not favour a burning ban, is that burning sequesters
carbon in the form of charcoal. That is an area of disputed
science and there are strong opinions on both sides, but it does
not alter our opinion that burning damages the blanket bog
habitat. We think that the best way to meet our nature recovery
and climate targets is through healthy habitats and
well-functioning ecosystems.
(CB)
My Lords, blanket bog, to which the Minister has referred on a
number of occasions, is of course a great method of storing water
and holding it back so that it does not go down into the valleys
and flood towns and villages below. One consequence of draining
sphagnum bog and turning it into heather moor or short grass is
that people in the valleys suffer increased flood risk. Does the
Minister have any figures to hand on the cost to this country of
flood damage in the valleys to people and properties, as compared
with the financial benefit of managing moorland by draining and
having it as heather moor and short grass?
(Con)
It is extremely difficult to attach a particular flooding event
to a particular cause, because there are so many causes, but the
noble Lord is absolutely right that damage to the natural
environment exacerbates flood risk. That is why as part of our
flood strategy, which is being developed, there is a
significantly increased emphasis on nature-based solutions to
flooding. Part of that is planting trees in the appropriate
areas; part of it also is restoring peatlands.
