Connect with us

Published

on

A typical family farm would have to put 159% of annual profits into paying the new inheritance tax every year for a decade and could have to sell 20% of their land, according to new analysis.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in her 30 October budget farms would no longer get 100% relief on inheritance tax, and from April 2026 will have to pay 20% tax on farms worth over £1 million.

The announcement has sparked anger among farmers who argue this will mean higher food prices, lower food production and having to sell off land to pay for the tax.

Politics latest: PM has no plans to meet Taliban at climate summit

Ministers said the move will not affect small farms and is aimed at targeting wealthy landowners who buy up farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax.

However, analysis by the Country and Land Business Association (CLA), which represents owners of rural land, property and businesses in England and Wales, found a typical 200-acre farm owned by one person with an expected profit of £27,300 would face a £435,000 inheritance tax bill.

The plan says families can spread the inheritance tax payments over 10 years, but the CLA found this would require an average farm to allocate 159% of its profits each year for a decade.

To pay that, successors could be forced to sell 20% of their land, the analysis found.

Farmers protested against the plan outside a farming conference in Northumberland. Pic: PA
Image:
Farmers protested against the plan outside a farming conference in Northumberland. Pic: PA

The CLA said their model shows how family farms, which are mostly asset-rich but cash-poor, would be forced into a cycle of stagnation, asset sales or debt to cover the tax.

This would threaten the long-term viability of the UK’s rural landscape and food security, the association said.

The government has said other tax relief will still apply to farmers, so if a married couple owns the farm they can pass on the land and property valued up to £3m to a child or grandchild tax-free.

This is made up of the £1m each of agricultural property allowance plus £500,000 each in standard tax-free allowance for passing on an estate worth less than £2m to children or grandchildren.

The CLA’s analysis found a 250-acre arable farm owned by a couple with an expected annual profit of £34,130 would still face an inheritance tax bill of £267,000 – 78% of its profit each year over a decade.

Read more:
Most farmers unaffected by tax change, IFS says
Inheritance tax change could be Reeves’ ‘pasty tax’

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Farmers feel ‘betrayed’ after budget

Gavin Lane, deputy president of the CLA, said: “Either the government isn’t being honest with the public about the true impact of these reforms, or they don’t understand the nature of rural businesses.

“I’d like to believe it is the latter and that they are prepared to listen to our input rather than continually trying to dismiss it.

“While they frame this as a tax on the wealthy, the reality is that ordinary family farms will be hit just as hard.

“Asking farms to use their income to pay a huge capital tax bill over 10 years, if indeed it is possible, will threaten the future of investment and the viability of the business.”

File pic: iStock
Image:
File pic: iStock

The Treasury said the change will make inheritance tax relief “fairer, protecting small family farms”.

An explanation of the plan on the government’s website said the top 7% (the largest 117 claims) of agricultural property relief claims account for 40% of the total relief, costing the taxpayer £219m.

The top 2% of claims (37 claims) account for 22% of agricultural property relief, costing £119m, it says.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

“It is not fair for a very small number of claimants each year to claim such a significant amount of relief, when this money could better be used to fund our public services,” the website adds.

It also says the chancellor announced £5bn to help farmers produce food over the next two years, alongside £60m for the Farming Recovery Fund to help farmers recover from the impact of flooding.

Sky News has contacted the Treasury for a comment on the latest analysis.

Continue Reading

UK

England warned it faces six million new cancer cases by 2040 – with these areas worst hit

Published

on

By

England warned it faces six million new cancer cases by 2040 - with these areas worst hit

More than six million new cancer cases could be diagnosed in England between now and 2040, according to leading charities.

This would equate to a diagnosis every two minutes, which is up from one every four minutes in the 1970s.

A coalition of more than 60 cancer charities, known as One Cancer Voice, is warning the government must take urgent steps to tackle cancer care in England – including faster diagnosis targets and better prevention policies.

The analysis carried out by the charities is based largely on pre-pandemic data and suggests cases will increase by 14.2% over the next 15 years, with diagnoses of some of the most common cancers reaching all-time highs.

This includes over a million new prostate cancer diagnoses, and more than 900,000 for breast cancer by 2040.

The research also finds regional variations:

• South East – over a million diagnoses

• North East – 865,000

• East of England and the South West – 722,000

• London – 714,000

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Man loses voice box after late cancer diagnosis

Six key demands

These figures starkly set out the need for change, and the timing of their release is significant.

Later this autumn, the government is expected to publish its long-awaited National Cancer Plan.

These leading charities have combined forces to put pressure on ministers ahead of its publication, demanding six measures which they say must be implemented if cancer outcomes are to improve:

• A pledge to meet all cancer waiting times by the end of parliament in 2029

• A new earlier diagnosis target, with improved screening programmes

• The introduction of strong cancer prevention policies

• Addressing inequalities in patient care

• Improving access to clinical trials for cancer patients

• Better support for people to live well with and beyond cancer

‘A defining moment’

The pandemic had a huge impact on cancer care in the country, and an ageing population adds further pressures.

But the most recently available data, which is around a decade old, suggests the NHS is still lagging behind many comparable countries.

The chief executive of Cancer Research UK, Michelle Mitchell, described the national plan as a “defining moment”.

“If the UK government delivers an ambitious fully funded strategy, we could save more lives and transform cancer outcomes, propelling England from world lagging to among world leading when it comes to tackling this disease,” she said.

Read more:
Are we are entering ‘golden age’ of cancer treatment?

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “This government is prioritising cancer care as we turn around more than a decade of neglect of our NHS.

“We’re already making an impact, with 95,000 more people having cancer diagnosed or ruled out within 28 days between July 2024 and May 2025, compared to the same period the previous year.

“This will soon be supported by our new National Cancer Plan, setting out how cancer care will improve over the coming years.

“We’re also making it easier for people to get tests, checks, and scans with DIY screening kits for cervical cancer, new radiotherapy machines in every region, and by creating the first smoke-free generation.”

Continue Reading

UK

Nigel Farage has a new ‘leave’ campaign – here’s how it could work and how it might impact you

Published

on

By

Nigel Farage has a new 'leave' campaign - here's how it could work and how it might impact you

Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.

The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.

In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.

Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.

What is the ECHR?

On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.

It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.

The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.

The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.

Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.

Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
Image:
Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR

To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.

There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).

The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.

ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.

Read more:
Why Farage’s small boats plan is not actually about policy
Legal expert explains if Farage deportation plan would work

The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
Image:
The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP

How is it actually used?

The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.

The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.

The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.

An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.

All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.

The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.

Read more: Asylum seekers in charts and numbers

Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
Image:
Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP

How could the UK leave?

A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.

At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.

The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.

Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?

Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.

It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.

The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.

Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
Image:
Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR

How would the UK’s human rights protections change?

Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.

For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.

Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.

Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.

The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.

Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
Image:
Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA

How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.

Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.

He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.

Continue Reading

UK

Scientists hail ‘sci-fi’ treatment for babies with rare condition

Published

on

By

Scientists hail 'sci-fi' treatment for babies with rare condition

The mother of a baby whose stomach and bowel “moved into her chest” has hailed new research aimed at treating her daughter’s rare condition.

Amelia Turner was given life-saving surgery at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) when she was a few days old.

She suffered from severe congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) – a potentially fatal condition affecting one in every 3,000 babies.

The condition means the diaphragm – the muscle between the abdomen and the chest – has not fully developed.

As a result, organs that are supposed to sit within the abdomen could move into the chest space and crush fragile growing lungs. It means babies don’t have enough space to grow fully formed lungs.

Current treatment for severe CDH involves surgery while the baby is in the womb, with surgeons delicately placing a surgical balloon into the baby’s windpipe to stimulate the lungs to grow. This only increases survival odds to 50%.

Amelia was born with severe congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Pic: Georgia Turner/PA
Image:
Amelia was born with severe congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Pic: Georgia Turner/PA

‘A complete whirlwind’

Amelia’s mother, Georgia Turner, 26, from London, said finding out she had the condition made her pregnancy “a complete whirlwind”.

“The team hoped Amelia’s condition would only be moderate,” she said. “Unfortunately, after Amelia was born, the clinical team told me how serious her condition was as her bowel and stomach had moved into her chest.”

Amelia spent four months recovering on the neonatal unit at GOSH, then another three months at her local hospital, before she could go home for the first time.

The “cheeky” 17-month-old needed a second surgery after her CDH reoccurred when she was 15 months old.

It’s hoped new research will not only make treatment less invasive and significantly increase survival rates but also lower the chances of relapses.

Read more from Sky News:
TikTok puts hundreds of UK jobs at risk
‘Headphone dodgers’ targeted by new TfL campaign

Georgia Turner with her daughter Amelia. Pic: Georgia Turner/PA
Image:
Georgia Turner with her daughter Amelia. Pic: Georgia Turner/PA

Science-fiction made real

A system developed by experts at GOSH and University College London in the UK, and KU Leuven in Belgium, would see treatment delivered straight to a baby while still in their mother’s womb.

It would see nanodiamonds used to transfer a hormone, known as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which stimulates lung growth.

It was tested on lab-grown mini-lungs, using 3D printing to simulate compression, as well as rats with the condition.

One of the experts, Dr Stavros Loukogeorgakis, a GOSH surgeon, said: “Nanodiamonds, 3D-printing and growth hormones in the womb all sounds a bit science-fiction. But this research is really showing us what is possible.”

He said the treatment could be available to families in as little as five years.

Ms Turner said: “New research like this is great to see how experts are trying to make the treatment for CDH more successful for all children, and less invasive.

“Hopefully better treatments will also prevent relapse cases like Amelia.”

Continue Reading

Trending