Arson increase in London prompts inquiry by fire committee
Iain Hoey
Share this content
Executive summary: London Assembly Fire Committee – Arson in London (3 June 2025)
On 3 June 2025, the London Assembly Fire Committee held a public meeting to examine the recent rise in arson offences across the capital.
The discussion brought together senior representatives from the London Fire Brigade (LFB) and an independent fire and resilience consultant.
The focus was on understanding the drivers behind the 28% increase in recorded arson incidents since 2022 and exploring collaborative strategies for prevention and response.
Attendees and contributors
- Charlie Pugsley, Deputy Commissioner and Operational Director for Prevention, Protection & Policy, LFB
- Pamela Oparaocha, Assistant Commissioner for Prevention and Protection, LFB
- Stephen Mackenzie, Independent Fire, Security and Resilience Consultant
- Assembly Members from the London Assembly Fire Committee
Overview of current trends
According to police data, the number of arson offences in London rose from 1,894 in 2022 to 2,430 in 2024, with the borough of Greenwich reporting the highest proportional increase.
In contrast, LFB data indicated a 10% reduction in deliberate fires over the same period.
The discrepancy between the two datasets was attributed to differences in classification, reporting processes, and the types of incidents included in each system.
The committee requested borough-level data from the LFB to enable a closer comparison with police figures and to identify local trends.
Fire brigade and police collaboration
When arson is suspected, firefighters conduct a first-level investigation at the scene, escalating to LFB’s dedicated fire investigation team in more serious or complex cases.
These teams work in coordination with the Metropolitan Police, who hold legal primacy in criminal investigations.
LFB also deploys fire dogs to help identify ignitable fluids, which supports the scope and accuracy of scene examination.
The importance of a multi-agency approach was repeatedly emphasised, particularly in complex incidents involving multiple agencies, forensic investigators, and civil authorities.
It was noted that routine collaboration also includes joint exercises, engagement with youth and community groups, and partnerships with mental health and social care services.
Data gaps and shared intelligence
Several participants stressed the need for more comprehensive and joined-up data.
In particular, it was argued that arson-related losses recorded by insurers, local authorities, and healthcare providers could offer valuable insights not captured in fire or police data alone.
Demographic patterns were also discussed, with concern raised that gaps in ethnicity, age, and socioeconomic data might be limiting the effectiveness of prevention work.
The use of “heat maps” and localised incident clustering was described as a helpful tool in borough-level risk management, particularly in identifying repeated patterns of deliberate fires in specific locations such as parks, housing estates, or transport hubs.
Fires in prisons
Deliberate fires in prisons emerged as a key area of concern.
Over the past two years, prisons accounted for a large proportion of high-frequency fire locations across London.
It was reported that 13% of primary fires attended by the LFB during this period were in prison facilities, particularly in boroughs with multiple institutions.
Prison staff provide initial firefighting capabilities, but LFB crews are regularly called to support incidents.
The risks of fire setting in these environments were described as complex, involving issues of security, mental health, resource disruption, and inmate ingenuity.
While some systems such as water mist suppression are available, their implementation has reportedly been inconsistent due to cost, maintenance concerns, and policy limitations.
Challenges in repeat offending
The committee explored how repeat arson offenders are identified and managed.
It was confirmed that the fire service does not routinely receive information about individuals with arson convictions following their release from custody, unless a specific risk has been flagged through multi-agency channels.
The discussion highlighted a distinction between opportunistic fire setting, often associated with youth or antisocial behaviour, and more serious or targeted acts linked to organised crime or mental health conditions.
The latter are often more difficult to predict or prevent without sustained inter-agency monitoring.
Trends in wildfires and open land arson
Wildfires and deliberate fires in open spaces were noted to have increased seasonally, often accounting for up to 60% of deliberate fire incidents at certain times of year.
These are especially challenging to investigate due to the lack of defined boundaries, destruction of evidence, and uncertainty around causes, such as the possible involvement of barbecues, discarded cigarettes or intentional ignition.
In response, borough-based patrols and public education campaigns have been implemented in some areas.
The importance of enabling local fire crews to lead tailored interventions was reiterated throughout the discussion.
Security threats and the weaponisation of fire
The potential for arson to be used as a tool of sabotage or terrorism was raised.
Arson was described as a low-technology method that can be used to target infrastructure, public buildings or soft civilian spaces, particularly in light of evolving global security concerns.
References were made to incidents across Europe potentially linked to state-backed actors, and to UK guidance on hostile fire use.
It was argued that fire safety and counterterrorism planning should be integrated across sectors and supported by updated legislation, threat assessments, and better coordination with intelligence agencies.
Youth intervention and prevention strategies
Youth engagement was a major focus of the meeting.
One-quarter of deliberate fire incidents involve individuals aged 17 or younger.
The LFB’s longstanding fire setters intervention scheme was presented as a successful model, with over 4,000 referrals since 2001 and a reported reoffending rate of under 10%.
The programme includes specialist support for neurodivergent young people and works closely with schools, families and mental health services.
It was confirmed that LFB does not currently operate a centralised arson reduction team, instead relying on station-level staff to identify and respond to risks using standardised toolkits and referral processes.
Community engagement and mental health
Several speakers highlighted the increasing intersection between arson, mental health and self-harm.
In some cases, individuals experiencing a mental health crisis have set fires as a means of self-injury.
These incidents have serious psychological impacts on first responders and underline the importance of post-incident reviews, safeguarding processes and trauma-informed support.
Concerns were also raised about the challenges of care-in-the-community models, particularly when individuals with known fire-setting behaviour are returned to general housing with limited oversight.
Examples were shared of targeted use of suppression systems in vulnerable households, but uptake of such technologies has reportedly been limited due to cost and lack of procurement support.
Public messaging and social media
The influence of social media on fire-setting behaviour, particularly among young people, was briefly discussed.
While no specific evidence was presented, there was agreement that prevention messaging needs to evolve with online trends and that digital content can both educate and glamorise unsafe behaviours.
Examples of past campaigns, such as “Fire Kills” and educational materials aimed at schools, were cited as models worth revisiting.
The importance of consistent messaging and collaboration with central government, broadcasters and tech platforms was acknowledged.
Fire suppression and funding challenges
Fire suppression technologies, including retrofitted systems for domestic settings, were viewed as valuable tools for reducing the impact of arson, especially in high-risk or vulnerable buildings.
However, concerns were raised that cost barriers and fragmented procurement have prevented wider adoption.
There were calls for further research into the cost-benefit case for suppression systems and a need for stronger engagement from insurers and housing providers in funding and implementing protective measures.
Some participants proposed the reinstatement of national-level research initiatives to evaluate risk mitigation strategies more comprehensively.
Conclusion and key takeaways
The meeting concluded with a summary of the key issues:
- Disparities in fire and police data require better alignment and joint analysis.
- Prisons have emerged as a concentrated risk area for deliberate fires.
- Arson may increasingly be used as a tool for disruption, requiring greater preparedness.
- Youth engagement and early intervention remain essential to long-term risk reduction.
- Mental health-related arson presents a growing challenge in prevention and response.
- Fire suppression systems offer protective benefits but face funding and adoption barriers.
- A more centralised and research-driven national strategy could support local efforts.
Committee members welcomed the ongoing efforts of the LFB and partner organisations and called for sustained political and financial support for both operational response and long-term prevention work.
Arson increase in London prompts inquiry by fire committee: Summary
The London Assembly Fire Committee held a meeting on 3 June 2025 in response to rising arson offences in London.
Police data shows a 28% increase in arson cases across the capital from 2022 to 2024.
Greenwich recorded a 67% increase, the highest among all boroughs.
The London Fire Brigade stated that its internal data shows a 10% reduction in deliberate fires during the same period.
The committee requested borough-level data from LFB for comparison with police figures.
The London Fire Brigade identified prisons as key hotspots, representing 13% of primary fire locations over the last two years.
Fires in open land were noted to account for up to 60% of deliberate fire totals during certain months.
The LFB outlined collaboration processes with the Metropolitan Police during arson investigations.
Fire investigation dogs are used to detect accelerants and define the scope of fire scenes.
The Fire Committee heard that arson incidents are difficult to investigate in large or open environments.
The LFB operates a fire setters intervention scheme focused on education and early intervention.
A quarter of all deliberate fire incidents involve individuals under the age of 18.
Over 90% of those referred to the scheme reportedly do not reoffend.
The Fire Committee also heard calls for better integration of insurance and emergency data.
There was discussion about the potential for a national arson prevention mechanism.
Mental health, community support, and social media influences were also raised during the session.