Show the Working

Increase farming budget and focus on smaller farms

Reform UK · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Increase farming budget and focus on smaller farms” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Public finances & the next generation — Hurts

minor · low confidence

The policy commits to increasing the farming budget from around £2.4 billion to £3 billion — a real increase of roughly £600 million — with no stated funding source, which would add to public spending pressures. The effect is modest in fiscal terms but unfunded, and no independent assessment of this specific proposal exists.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the £600 million increase would be offset by savings elsewhere or financed by borrowing — no funding source is stated in the policy or evidenced in the provided research.

Our reading: The policy's core fiscal implication for O12 is straightforward: it commits to spending approximately £600 million more per year on farming than the current budget. The policy text provides no funding mechanism — no tax rise, no cut elsewhere, no borrowing rule. An unfunded spending commitment of this scale, absent any offset, worsens the fiscal position by adding to the deficit or debt, even if modestly relative to total public spending. The criteria for O12 treat unfunded spending symmetrically with unfunded tax cuts: both worsen the debt path if not offset. The magnitude is minor — £600 million is a fraction of total UK public spending (~£1.2 trillion) — and the time horizon is within a parliament. Confidence is low because no OBR or IFS assessment of this specific proposal exists, and there is a non-negligible possibility that the proponents intend to fund it from savings elsewhere; but that is not stated and cannot be assumed. The worsens direction follows from the unfunded nature of the commitment on the evidence provided.

Prosperity & living standards — Mixed picture

minor · low confidence

Increasing the farming budget and targeting smaller farms could modestly boost rural economic opportunity and farm viability, but scrapping climate-related subsidies risks long-term agricultural sustainability. The net effect on broader living standards is likely small and uncertain.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether scrapping climate-related farming subsidies and replacing them with direct payments would undermine long-term agricultural productivity more than the budget increase and small-farm focus would support it.

Our reading: The policy has two main levers relevant to O13: a budget increase targeted at smaller farms, and a shift away from climate-related subsidies toward direct payments. On the upside, raising the budget from ~£2.4bn to £3bn partially closes the inflation gap (AHDB estimated £3.4bn needed), and targeting smaller farms — which represent nearly half of all farms and are noted for productivity and job creation per hectare — could support rural economic opportunity and farm viability. Removing business rates for farm shops could modestly boost local food economies. On the downside, agriculture is only 0.7% of England's GVA, so even a well-designed intervention has a limited ceiling for aggregate prosperity effects. The scrapping of climate-related subsidies is the major risk: critics backed by parliamentary library sources warn this threatens long-term agricultural sustainability, which would eventually undermine the rural living standards and food-sector productivity the policy aims to support. No independent quantified assessment of the net effect exists. The balance of evidence suggests modest near-term rural economic gains from the budget uplift, offset by genuine long-term risks from removing environmental incentives — hence 'mixed', but at minor magnitude given agriculture's small GDP share. Confidence is low because no institutional body has modelled this specific proposal.

Inequality & fair shares — Helps

minor · low confidence

By directing a larger farming budget toward smaller farms, the policy leans redistributive within the agricultural sector and could ease regional inequality in rural areas — but the overall effect on UK-wide income and wealth inequality is modest and the delivery mechanism is unspecified.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the funding actually reaches smaller farms depends entirely on how access is designed; without simplified eligibility criteria, smaller operators have historically been excluded even when nominally eligible.

Our reading: O14 is judged on whether the gap between the richest and the rest — including regional and sectoral dimensions — narrows or widens. This policy has a redistributive lean within agriculture: it directs a larger envelope of public subsidy explicitly toward smaller farms, which are more numerous, labour-intensive, and concentrated in lower-income rural areas. That reorientation, if delivered, would shift support away from the largest landowners (who have historically captured the greatest share of area-based payments) toward smaller operators — a narrowing of within-sector inequality and a modest improvement to regional inequality. The £600 million uplift over the current baseline is material in farming terms. However, two constraints limit the verdict to minor. First, agriculture's share of England's economy is small, so even a well-targeted redistribution within the sector moves national inequality indicators only marginally. Second, the critical caveat is delivery: the evidence shows that smaller farms have systematically struggled to access existing schemes due to complexity, with only 1 in 5 applying under SFI despite nominal eligibility. The policy states intent but commits no specific access mechanism or simplified route. Without that, the redistributive gains could be captured by operators already equipped to navigate bureaucracy. Confidence is low because no independent distributional analysis of this specific proposal is available from institutional sources, and the evidence on delivery risk is real but the counterfactual (large farms continue to dominate subsidy capture) is not directly quantified here.

Community cohesion & belonging — Little effect

minor · low confidence

This farming policy could support rural community life by keeping smaller farms viable and attracting younger people, but none of the evidence provided links it to measurable improvements in social trust, civic participation, or belonging. The cohesion benefit, if real, would be too indirect and small-scale to register at population level.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether keeping smaller farms viable and bringing young people into rural areas actually translates into measurable gains in social trust or sense of belonging, rather than just economic activity.

Our reading: O15 covers social trust, civic participation, integration, and loneliness. This policy's primary levers are financial — a budget increase directed at smaller farms, rural economic activity, and youth entry into farming. The plausible pathway to O15 is that viable smaller farms sustain rural communities, which in turn sustain social fabric and belonging. However, none of the provided evidence measures or projects an effect on social trust, civic participation, or loneliness indicators. The evidence establishes that smaller farms contribute to local economies and job creation, and that attracting young people addresses an ageing sector — but these are economic and demographic findings, not cohesion findings. No evidence unit shows a causal or even correlational link between farm subsidy design and community belonging metrics. Applying the mechanism-plausibility rule: the reasoning that 'rural economic health supports community cohesion' is analytically reasonable but is not supported by any cited evidence firing at scale. The soft-verb/no-deliverable rule also applies to the cultural dimension — 'boosting rural economy and culture' is aspirational with no committed cohesion instrument. The effect on O15 is therefore best characterised as negligible: the policy may have positive knock-on effects, but these cannot be grounded in the provided evidence, and the primary policy mechanism is economic rather than social-cohesion-targeted.

Cost of living — Genuinely contested

n/a · low confidence

A bigger farming budget focused on smaller farms could help keep food production up and prices stable, but whether it would actually lower food costs for ordinary households is genuinely unclear — the evidence does not show a direct link between this spending and supermarket prices.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether increased and redirected farm subsidies would translate into lower food prices for consumers, or simply support farm incomes, is the key question the evidence does not resolve.

Our reading: The policy increases the farming budget by ~£600 million and directs it toward smaller farms. From a cost-of-living perspective, the key question is whether this translates into lower food prices for households. The evidence shows the existing budget has badly eroded in real terms — a 44% rise in input costs means the £2.4bn budget is worth far less than in 2019. Topping it up to £3bn partially addresses that gap, which could help sustain domestic food supply and moderate future food price pressures. The focus on smaller farms, which are recognised for local food security contributions, and companion proposals like CMA powers for fairer pricing, point in a positive direction. However, none of the provided evidence quantifies a pass-through from this additional subsidy to actual consumer food prices. Farm subsidies primarily support farm incomes and viability — the link to supermarket shelf prices is indirect and contested. No IFS, OBR or similar body has modelled the consumer price effect of this specific proposal. Given the absence of any evidence resolving whether ordinary households would see lower bills, and given genuine uncertainty about the mechanism, a 'too-uncertain' verdict is the only honest one.

Good work & fair pay — Helps

minor · low confidence

This policy would increase farming funding and target smaller farms, which could improve job quality and rural livelihoods — but key details on delivery mechanisms are missing, and scrapping climate subsidies could undermine long-term farm viability.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the budget increase is large enough and well-targeted enough to meaningfully raise pay and job quality, especially given analysts suggest £4 billion would be needed just to meet current statutory targets.

Our reading: The policy would inject an additional ~£600m into the farming budget (above the current £2.4bn baseline), with an explicit focus on smaller farms, rural employment, and bringing younger workers into the sector. Smaller farms are demonstrated job creators per hectare, so targeted support could modestly improve employment quality and security in rural areas. The aim to bring young people into farming addresses a real demographic problem, though the policy provides no specific mechanism beyond a budget commitment. However, three factors limit confidence. First, analysts suggest £3.4bn is needed just to keep pace with inflation, and the NFU estimates £4bn to meet statutory targets — so the proposed £3bn may not even restore real-terms parity, let alone deliver transformative improvements in farm viability or pay. Second, the proposal to scrap climate-related subsidies could undermine long-term farm sustainability, potentially offsetting gains from the headline budget increase. Third, the policy is largely aspirational — 'encouraging', 'boosting', 'bringing young people in' — with no committed delivery instruments for pay improvement or job quality specifically. No independent modelling of this specific proposal is available. On balance, the direction is a modest improvement for O4: the budget increase and small-farm focus are real, and job creation per hectare from smaller farms is evidenced. But the magnitude is minor and the confidence low, given the funding may not restore real-terms baselines, the scrapping of agri-environment schemes creates downside risk, and delivery mechanisms are vague.

Compare all parties on public finances & the next generation →Compare all parties on prosperity & living standards →Compare all parties on inequality & fair shares →Compare all parties on community cohesion & belonging →Compare all parties on cost of living →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home