Clean Up Waterways and Support British Farmers
Labour · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Labour’s policy “Clean Up Waterways and Support British Farmers” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Good work & fair pay — Mixed picture
moderate · low confidence
The policy could meaningfully boost British farmers' incomes through a £2.5 billion public procurement shift toward local food, but land-use changes risk squeezing some upland and tenant farmers. The net effect on farm workers' earnings and security is genuinely uncertain.
The evidence
- The policy sets a target for half of all public sector food purchases to be locally produced or environmentally certified. — labour.org.uk (manifesto) — “set a target for half of all public sector food purchases to be locally produced or environmentally certified”
- The UK public sector spends approximately £5 billion annually on food and catering in England. — ukfoodsystems.ukri.org (media) — “The UK public sector spends approximately £5 billion annually on food and catering in England”
- Achieving the 50% target could direct around £2.5 billion annually to sustainable or local food, boosting farm incomes. — dynamicfood.org (media) — “Achieving the 50% target could mean around £2.5 billion is spent on sustainable or local food annually”
- The land-use framework risks upland farmers being disproportionately harmed by environmental land requirements, potentially reducing food production in those areas. — nfuonline.com (media) — “The NFU fears that upland farmers might be "sacrificial lambs," disproportionately affected by requirements for land to be used for environmental and climate benefits, potentially leading to a reduction in food productio…”
- Tenant farmers, who are highly productive, could be negatively impacted and pushed out by land-use changes without adequate safeguards. — resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “tenant farmers, who are highly productive, could be negatively impacted and even pushed out by land-use changes without adequate safeguards”
- Implementation of unified procurement standards is complicated by the decentralised nature of public procurement. — ukfoodsystems.ukri.org (media) — “The decentralised nature of public procurement, with entities like the NHS comprising 22 independent trusts and complex school food systems, can make it challenging to set and enforce unified standards”
- Bovine TB currently costs taxpayers £100 million annually and leads to the slaughter of over 20,000 infected cattle each year, damaging farm businesses. — theguardian.com (media) — “Bovine TB currently costs taxpayers £100 million annually in cattle compensation and leads to the slaughter of over 20,000 infected cattle each year”
- The policy commits to working with farmers on Bovine TB eradication measures to end the badger cull. — labour.org.uk (manifesto) — “work with farmers on Bovine TB eradication measures to end the badger cull”
- The new TB strategy shifts focus to cattle-based measures, noting cattle transmit TB to other cattle 15 times more often than badgers do. — theguardian.com (media) — “The new strategy acknowledges that cattle transmit TB to other cattle 15 times more often than from badgers, shifting focus to cattle-based measures”
Biggest unknown: Whether the land-use framework's environmental requirements will displace enough farm production — especially in upland areas and among tenant farmers — to offset the procurement gains.
Our reading: This policy touches O4 primarily through its effects on agricultural workers and farmers. On the upside, redirecting up to £2.5 billion of public sector food spend annually to local or environmentally certified producers represents a significant and direct income boost to British farmers and the rural economy. If implemented, this is arguably the most concrete wage-and-income lever in the policy for food-sector workers. On the downside, the land-use framework introduces real risk: both the NFU and the Resolution Foundation — credible, independent voices — flag that upland and tenant farmers could be squeezed by environmental land obligations, potentially displacing productive farming and harming livelihoods in those communities. These are not fringe concerns. On Bovine TB, ending the badger cull in favour of vaccination is broadly consistent with scientific evidence that culling has limited TB control value, and resolving bTB faster would reduce the £100 million annual cost burden and 20,000-cattle-per-year slaughter that currently damage farm finances. However, cattle vaccination cannot roll out until 2030 at earliest. The procurement target's delivery is also uncertain given the fragmented nature of public sector buying. Overall, the direction is mixed: a substantial potential gain for many farmers through procurement reform, offset by credible structural risks to upland and tenant farmers from land-use changes. The time horizon is long-term, since the procurement shift, land framework, and TB eradication strategy all operate over years to decades. Confidence is low because the size of each effect depends heavily on implementation detail not yet fixed.
Clean environment & nature — Helps
moderate · moderate confidence
This policy tackles water pollution through tougher enforcement, introduces land-use planning to balance nature and food, and shifts away from badger culling toward vaccination — all of which point toward environmental improvement over time. The main caveat is that enforcement strength and land-use framework delivery are uncertain, and tighter regulation could deter the private investment needed to actually fix water infrastructure.
The evidence
- Regulators will get new powers to block executive bonuses and bring criminal charges for water pollution — labour.org.uk (manifesto) — “giving regulators new powers to block executive bonuses and bring criminal charges for pollution”
- A land-use framework will be introduced to balance competing demands on land — labour.org.uk (manifesto) — “introduce a land-use framework”
- The policy aims to end the badger cull in favour of eradication measures with farmers — labour.org.uk (manifesto) — “work with farmers on Bovine TB eradication measures to end the badger cull”
- 0% of England's river stretches are currently assessed as being in good overall health — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “0% of England's river stretches are in good overall health”
- The Environment Agency and Ofwat have already been criticised for failing to secure compliance from water companies — publications.parliament.uk (government) — “The Environment Agency (EA) and Ofwat have been criticised for failing to secure compliance from water companies”
- The Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 has already led to bonus bans for ten executives from six water companies — theguardian.com (media) — “has already led to the banning of bonuses for ten executives from six water companies in June 2025 due to serious sewage pollution incidents”
- The policy aims to end the sewage crisis by 2030 — labour.org.uk (media) — “The policy aims to end the "sewage crisis" by 2030”
- More robust regulation may deter major investors in infrastructure at a time when the UK needs private finance for green energy and other projects — blogs.lse.ac.uk (academic) — “more robust regulation and increased density in regulation might deter major investors in infrastructure, at a time when the UK seeks private finance for green energy and other vital projects”
- The Act lowers the standard of proof for minor to moderate water company offences and allows regulators to recover enforcement costs — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “The Act also lowers the standard of proof for minor to moderate water company offences to a civil standard and allows the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales to recover costs from water companies following enf…”
- The Land Use Framework aims to balance food production, nature recovery and climate, but the NFU fears upland farmers could be disproportionately harmed — nfuonline.com (media) — “The NFU fears that upland farmers might be "sacrificial lambs," disproportionately affected by requirements for land to be used for environmental and climate benefits”
- The framework commits to maintaining overall food production by increasing farm productivity — defraenvironment.blog.gov.uk (government) — “The framework commits to maintaining overall food production in England by increasing farm productivity”
- Scientific evidence from the Randomised Badger Culling Trial found culling increased bTB in surrounding areas by 29% — researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk (government) — “while proactive culling reduced bTB incidence within cull areas, it led to an increase of 29% in surrounding areas”
- The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB concluded that badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to controlling cattle TB — researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk (government) — “badger culling "cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB"”
- The new eradication strategy shifts focus to cattle-based measures, as cattle transmit TB to other cattle 15 times more often than from badgers — theguardian.com (media) — “cattle transmit TB to other cattle 15 times more often than from badgers, shifting focus to cattle-based measures”
- Cattle vaccination from 2030 depends on a 'Diva' test to distinguish vaccinated from infected animals, which is currently a regulatory requirement — theguardian.com (media) — “The introduction of a "Diva" test, which can distinguish between vaccinated and infected animals, will be crucial for the successful rollout of cattle vaccination from 2030”
Biggest unknown: Whether stricter water company regulation deters the private investment needed to fund infrastructure upgrades, potentially slowing actual water quality improvements despite stronger enforcement powers.
Our reading: The policy operates across three environmental channels: water quality, land use, and wildlife/TB management. On water quality, the baseline is dire — 0% of England's river stretches are in good overall health, and regulators have historically failed to secure compliance. The Water (Special Measures) Act is already operational, with bonus bans in place. Criminal liability and cost recovery powers represent a meaningful tightening of the enforcement regime. Near-term gains from deterrence are plausible; longer-term improvement in actual water quality depends on whether companies invest in infrastructure upgrades. The projected risk is that tighter regulation deters private investment at a time when that investment is needed — a real tension flagged by the LSE, not a fringe concern. On land use, the framework's environmental intent is genuine and the framework is already finalised. But delivery is contested: the NFU and Resolution Foundation flag risks to farmers, and the land-sparing vs land-sharing debate is unresolved. The framework's environmental upside is real but conditional on implementation quality. On the badger cull, the scientific evidence is relatively clear: the RBCT found culling increased bTB in surrounding areas, and the Independent Scientific Group concluded culling cannot meaningfully control cattle TB. Ending the cull and shifting to vaccination and cattle-based measures aligns with the weight of published scientific evidence, removing an ecologically costly practice. The 2030 vaccination rollout depends on the Diva test being deployable, which is a genuine near-term constraint. Overall: the policy's direction is toward environmental improvement across all three channels, with moderate confidence. Effects are predominantly long-term given the 2030 timelines and investment dependencies. The investment-deterrence risk on water is the most material caveat that could blunt the magnitude of improvement.