tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/fact-check-uk-15076/articlesFact Check UK – The Conversation2019-12-13T11:55:40Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1285652019-12-13T11:55:40Z2019-12-13T11:55:40ZUK election 2019: public resistance to factchecking<p>Factchecking journalism has been a feature of UK elections since Channel 4 News launched its <a href="https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck">FactCheck</a> in 2005. However, in the 2019 campaign, it has achieved a new prominence. This became particularly clear in late November when the Conservative Party press office renamed its Twitter account Factcheck UK. The stunt itself arguably <a href="https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2019/an-unexpected-lesson-learned-at-the-first-uk-general-election-debate/">reflected mainstream political awareness</a> of the potential influence of factchecking.</p>
<p>Analysis of the 2019 campaign is still at an early stage, but preliminary findings suggest that it still faces challenges in popular reception. I found similar reactions in my <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9783030305727">research on the 2017 election</a>, which examined the remit of fact-checking, its role in media debates and its reception on Twitter. </p>
<p>The three main national factchecking organisations – FactCheck, the BBC’s <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/reality_check">Reality Check</a> and independent charity <a href="https://fullfact.org/">Full Fact</a> – have been more active in live factchecking the televised debates with short items on rolling blogs, but less markedly so in terms of full articles explaining their factchecking verdicts: from my initial content analysis, 109 to date compared with 121 in 2017 (though each item might check multiple claims). </p>
<p>But in a significant departure from recent elections, both of the main broadcaster-based factcheckers have been given regular slots on flagship news programming, while Full Fact director Will Moy has made appearances on ITV and Talk Radio. This suggests that public interest in factchecking has overcome concerns that it is just <a href="https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759477.001.0001/acprof-9780199759477">not interesting enough</a>.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, I found in <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9783030305727">my research</a> that for some people encountering factchecking journalism on Twitter, the very idea of journalists ruling on the truthfulness of what a politician says is a subjective endeavour. They, therefore, often instinctively perceive the verdict to be biased. This is to confuse questions about determining truth with ethical questions of impartiality. In many cases, of course, this is simply an expression of their <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/">lack of trust</a> in mainstream media in general and the BBC in particular.</p>
<h2>‘Calling out’ bias</h2>
<p>Labour’s claim that the Conservatives would send Trump £500 million a week in extra drug costs for the NHS provides a good illustration of the manifestation of these issues this election. In response to <a href="https://twitter.com/BBCRealityCheck/status/1193922353383825408">Reality Check’s factcheck</a> on the claim, I counted 16 replies – almost one in ten, according to Twitter’s count of 172 replies – that referenced the spat over archive footage <a href="https://fullfact.org/online/boris-johnson-remembrance-wreath/">inserted into coverage of Johnson</a> at Remembrance Day. Their intention would appear to be to undermine the credibility of the BBC as an arbiter of truth.</p>
<p>Three Twitter users replied to mock it as ironic or nonsensical, implying that the BBC could not be trusted to reflect “reality”. Responses included:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1193957035941023744"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1193958720365039617"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1193953419616112641"}"></div></p>
<p>However, other Twitter users reacted negatively directly to the interpretive verdict that Labour’s claim was based on an “unlikely” scenario made by both Reality Check and Full Fact.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1193967140761673729"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1193944084274176002"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1197508636429426688"}"></div></p>
<p>The trouble is that Labour’s claim is based on a prediction of the outcome of US trade negotiations and its impact. These are not, strictly speaking, hard facts as they have not yet occurred. Instead, they are based on, and extrapolated from, facts that are, to a greater or lesser extent, explored in the articles linked to from all three factcheckers’ tweets.</p>
<p>In these articles, the factcheckers explain where the claim came from – Andrew Hill, a contributor to a <a href="https://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/on-demand/70263-001">Channel 4 Dispatches investigation</a> – and how it was calculated. <a href="https://fullfact.org/health/500-million-nhs-drug-prices/">Full Fact</a> checked the figures Hill extrapolated from and linked to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and NHS sources. Whereas, <a href="https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-will-the-conservatives-send-trump-500-million-a-week">FactCheck</a> linked to Hill’s report, and <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50295231">Reality Check</a> just set out the numbers. </p>
<p>Reality Check spoke directly to Hill and reported his acknowledgement that the figure is a “worst-case scenario” to illustrate what is at stake. While Full Fact described it more negatively in their headline as a “fairly extreme scenario”. </p>
<p>Reality Check pointed out that only 9% of drugs come directly from the US but couldn’t be sure what that meant for the estimate. Only FactCheck set out in any detail what is known about the US negotiating position and advantage and political pressures in both countries. Full Fact relied entirely on a single expert source, the Nuffield Trust, for its judgement (which was based on past trade deals, not current political intentions).</p>
<p>Taken together, all of the information presented helps the reader to judge how reasonable the claim is, though none are exhaustive. All give a clear sense that prices might go up, but it’s hard to say by how much and, more implicitly (or explicitly in FactCheck’s case), that Labour have overstated the certainty of a rough estimate of a hypothetical situation.</p>
<p>The terminology of a “factcheck” leads some to reject the verdict because it does not correct the figure – as it would with a factcheck of a factual measure or observation. For example, as one <a href="https://twitter.com/strimmer01/status/1193950065536249857">tweeter</a> noted in response to Reality Check: “This isn’t a ‘factcheck’ as you’ve not provided any alternative factual numbers. This is purely a BBC ‘opinion piece’. And … it doesn’t feel very impartial!”</p>
<p>On the other hand, Labour opponents, this time replying to <a href="https://twitter.com/FullFact/status/1192879206994079744">Full Fact</a>, argued that an unproven statement was false and demanded a stronger judgement:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1193186615822340101"}"></div></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1192881284936327169"}"></div></p>
<p>This (perhaps selective) desire for clear verdicts reflects an impulse by some Twitter users to weaponise factchecking as a campaigning tool. My research on the last election found that the most widely shared factchecking tweets were those that included a verdict, and especially verdicts critical of the Conservatives, such as <a href="https://twitter.com/BBCRealityCheck/status/863713626884112384">Michael Fallon misstating the previous manifesto promise on army numbers</a> (retweeted at the time by 909 people), and, to a lesser extent, favourable to Labour, such as <a href="https://twitter.com/FactCheck/status/871745769480564738">Jeremny Corbyn being judged right on police cuts</a> (retweeted by 604 people at the time).</p>
<p>However, while we all bring our political beliefs, values and attachments to our reading of media messages to some extent, it is not incompatible with a serious consideration of the arguments and evidence. My research has found that some Twitter users raise sensible criticisms of the factchecks, and this holds true for the above example. For instance, several highlight the issue that only 9% of drugs are sourced directly from the US (mostly attributed, interestingly, to broadcaster Andrew Neil rather than Reality Check, some even in reply to Reality Check). Others draw their own conclusions based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.</p>
<h2>How factcheckers can respond</h2>
<p>There is little that factcheckers can do about public scepticism when it is driven solely by motivated reasoning or the use of Twitter as a platform to propagandise for a favoured party. They can, however, respond to some of the more reasonable concerns about impartiality in interpretive judgements.</p>
<p>The example above highlights a particular problem with factchecking predictions, because they are by their very nature uncertain and contestable – and not in themselves factual. But they are also completely central to the decisions that voters need to make in an election. Factchecking journalism that restricted itself narrowly to the facts that politicians draw on, without explaining the extent to which those facts actually support the argument they are making, would be of no practical use.</p>
<p>The central problem, then, is that factchecking is not a very good description of what factcheckers actually do. What they do at their most effective, is assess the strength of arguments. FactCheck’s Twitter bio reflects this remit succinctly: “Testing the claims of people in power,” whereas Reality Check claims to “cut through the spin and concentrate on the facts” which gives a narrower perception of their legitimate remit. </p>
<p>Similarly, Reality Check is more cautious about going beyond statistical conclusions. It, therefore, leaves out the more complex political context that is needed to substantiate a judgement on political claims – whether they are serious attempts to indicate the outcome of proposed policies, or more speculative or rhetorical extrapolations. Greater clarity about the relationship between facts and arguments and exactly how this supports the verdict could increase voters’ confidence in the valuable work that factcheckers do.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128565/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jen Birks is a paid up but not active member of the Labour Party.</span></em></p>Factchecking became politicised during UK election campaign. But what does it really add to public awareness?Jen Birks, Assistant Professor in Media and Political Communication, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/953872018-04-23T15:07:20Z2018-04-23T15:07:20ZFact Check: does coffee cause cancer?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215952/original/file-20180423-133881-4xj6sy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>While plaintiff offered evidence that consumption of coffee increases the risk of harm to the fetus, to infants, to children and to adults, defendants’ medical and epidemiology experts testified that they had no opinion on causation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>California Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle, <a href="http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/03/29/coffee.proposed.stmt.of.decision.after.trial.pdf">proposed ruling</a> on Council for Education and Research on Toxics vs. Starbucks Corporation et al, March 28 2018.</strong></p>
<p>A California judge <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/03/29/coffee-must-carry-cancer-warning-california-judge-rules/?utm_term=.9758d1ee38ef">recently ruled</a> that Starbucks and other coffee companies in the state must serve the drink with a cancer warning. The legal issue comes from the presence of acrylamide in coffee. This chemical is typically found in many foods with a high carbohydrate content that are exposed to high temperatures, including cakes, potato crisps, bread and cereals. <a href="https://academic.oup.com/carcin/article/28/3/519/2476708">Evidence shows that acrylamide</a> is <a href="http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/latest_classif.php">probably a human carcinogen</a>, a cancer-causing substance.</p>
<p>The acrylamide in coffee is formed early in the roasting process, which turns the fresh green beans the dark brown colour we are familiar with and gives coffee its deep bitter flavour. Once inside the body, acrylamide can be converted to another compound, epoxide glycidamide, and both of these chemicals can bind to and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X08005024?via%3Dihub">damage our proteins and DNA</a>. Damage to DNA can be the first step in the development of cancer, and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17492525">acrylamide also interferes with DNA repair</a>.</p>
<p>The problem with the recent court ruling was that person bringing the case only needed to show there were trace amounts of acrylamide in coffee in order to succeed. This is where the reality of our lifestyles makes the ruling seem over-cautious.</p>
<p>Nobody disputes that coffee contains acrylamide or that acrylamide causes DNA damage, but it’s how much you consume that is important. The risk is really related to the total sum of exposure over a lifetime, but <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027869150900564X">one estimate</a> suggests an 80kg adult consuming less than 208 micrograms of acrylamide a day should not have any increased risk of cancer.</p>
<p>The main lifestyle choice that exposes people to toxins is smoking. Each cigarette contains around <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18718145">2.3 micrograms</a> of acrylamide, among a cocktail of other carcinogens. But all the foods we roast or fry to get delicious caramelisation also contain acrylamide. So non-smokers’ lifestyles are not acrylamide-free, with 5 micrograms in a slice of toast or 7 micrograms in a bag of potato crisps, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/mnfr.200500029">as examples</a>.</p>
<p>A cup of coffee fits into our daily acrylamide exposure at around <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf0349634">0.9 micrograms to 2.4 micrograms</a> per 150 millilitre cup. But every cup also contains a <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/19/11/19180">diverse array of anti-oxidants</a> and <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5024.long">other compounds</a> thought to have positive health effects (outside of pregnancy).</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215953/original/file-20180423-133865-13q1nrs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215953/original/file-20180423-133865-13q1nrs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215953/original/file-20180423-133865-13q1nrs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215953/original/file-20180423-133865-13q1nrs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215953/original/file-20180423-133865-13q1nrs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215953/original/file-20180423-133865-13q1nrs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215953/original/file-20180423-133865-13q1nrs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Warning: a tiny amount of carcinogen ahead.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The same group of scientists (working for the World Health Organisation), who classified acrylamide as probably carcinogenic, found there was <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147020451630239X?via%3Dihub">no conclusive evidence</a> that drinking coffee caused cancer. In fact, they suggested coffee drinking may <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147020451630239X?via%3Dihub">protect against</a> liver and endometrial cancers and <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cas.13328">more recent studies</a> have supported this idea. In 2016, the WHO took coffee <a href="https://theconversation.com/raise-a-cup-of-coffee-who-no-longer-says-it-can-cause-cancer-60096">off its list</a> of possible carcinogens.</p>
<p>Scientists’ original concern over coffee drinking followed studies that suggested a <a href="http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol51/">possible link with bladder cancer</a>. But closer analysis of the data and <a href="https://journals.lww.com/epidem/Abstract/2017/09000/A_Prospective_Investigation_of_Coffee_Drinking_and.8.aspx">larger scale studies</a> showed that the original research was confused by not taking account of smoking habits. It’s possible that coffee drinking interacts with smoke carcinogens to increase the risk of bladder cancer for smokers. In non-smokers, there is no robust evidence of a link between coffee and bladder cancer.</p>
<p>If you’re still worried about the acrylamide in coffee, it’s worth noting that <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/mnfr.200600069">less acrylamide</a> seems to make it into the cup when the coffee is filtered than made using the espresso method. The choice of beans and roasting time might be important too since Robusta contains <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/mnfr.200600069">more acrylamide</a> than Arabica, and darker roasts <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/mnfr.200600069">contain less</a> than lighter ones.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Acrylamide isn’t good for you but the amount present in coffee makes no observable contribution to cancer risk. There is no strong evidence for a link between drinking coffee and developing cancer. While there have been occasional studies suggesting an increased risk in bladder cancer, overall the vast majority of rigorous studies suggest that if coffee drinking has any effect at all it actually offers a mild protective effect from some cancer types.</p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Annie Anderson, professor of public health nutrition at the University of Dundee</strong></p>
<p>This article provides a fair, evidence-based reflection on coffee and cancer with a focus on acrylamide. The science sources cited are robust and the case well made for coffee being one source of acrylamide, which is the one component indicated as a carcinogen. The work from the WHO scientists is particularly notable in this respect.</p>
<p>Acrylamide is a nasty carcinogen and keeping intakes down is highly recommended, as a UK government report <a href="https://cot.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/finalacrylamidestatement.pdf">recently reaffirmed</a>, and <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/351/bmj.h4501.full.pdf">especially for pregnant women</a>.</p>
<p>Coffee is one source among many (others are mostly high starch foods cooked at high temperature). Cutting back on these foods is all well and good but the amount of acrylamide we consume is probably more determined by what the food industry feeds us, the raw ingredients it uses, the cooking temperatures in processing and so on. Worrying about the relatively small amounts of acrylamide consumed through coffee is not half as helpful as what the industry action could do. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k322">Recent research showing</a> a link between ultra-processed food and cancer risk means we need to think way beyond coffee and remember that, as part of a plant-based diet, it may actually be protective against at least two cancers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95387/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Baker receives funding from the charities York Against Cancer and the Wellcome Trust. While he has no financial interests in the coffee industry, he does drink several cups a day.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Annie Anderson receives funding from Scottish Government, MRC, WCRF,,NIHR, FP7 and is co-director of the Scottish Cancer Prevention Network and has an interesting relationship with coffee due to caffeine sensitivity.</span></em></p>A California judge ruled coffee should carry a cancer warning label but the evidence says something very different.Simon Baker, Bladder cancer researcher, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/950032018-04-13T10:34:55Z2018-04-13T10:34:55ZFact Check: does the UK government need parliament’s approval for military intervention in Syria?<blockquote>
<p>I think if she did ask for a vote then she would win it but I don’t think she needs to ask for it, no … Legally the crown perogative allows the government to take military action without parliament … The idea that parliament has to vote is a new one. Politically it may make sense but she doesn’t need to have it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Tom Tugendhat, Conservative MP and chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, when asked if the prime minister, Theresa May, would need approval from parliament for military intervention in Syria, on <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09y6zfp#play">BBC Radio 4</a> on April 12.</strong> </p>
<p>The UK government is planning to participate in military action against the Assad regime in Syria. Not only is this policy itself a source of controversy. So is the basis on which it might be undertaken. Reportedly, prime minister Theresa May is contemplating acting without first seeking the express approval of parliament.</p>
<p>From a legal perspective, May is on firm ground. The authority to deploy the armed forces is derived from a set of powers known as the <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN03861">royal prerogative</a>. Once exercised personally by monarchs, much of the prerogative has now in practice come under the control of ministers, and in particular the prime minister. The prerogative is not generally subject to direct parliamentary control. There is no obligation, under law, for a government to obtain the express consent of parliament for military action. For instance, the UK entered World War II in 1939 without specific parliamentary authorisation in advance.</p>
<p>However, parliament has always played an important role in overseeing government engagement in military conflict. Ministers remain answerable for all their actions, regardless of the particular authority under which they are exercised. The Commons is responsible for providing the government with the money it requires for its activities, including armed conflict. In the extreme, MPs can remove a government if it is behaving in a way they disapprove of.</p>
<p>Moreover, many observers and participants in the political process take the view that a constitutional convention – that is, a political rule lacking direct legal force – has now developed in the area of armed combat. They believe that, if it is practical to do so, a government should secure the express approval of the House of Commons before commencing hostile military operations.</p>
<p>As the quote suggests, this development is relatively new. Its earliest origins lie in Tony Blair’s decision to twice seek <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/18/iraq.iraq6">express consent</a> from the Commons for his policy in advance of the invasion of Iraq of 2003. An important milestone came in August 2013 when the government asked the Commons to approve a motion that referred to the principle of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783">military action against Syria</a>, but was defeated. The prime minister of the day, David Cameron, responded by stating that he accepted the will of parliament on this matter and would not pursue such a policy.</p>
<p>However, as is sometimes the case where conventions are concerned, how it should apply in any precise circumstance can be difficult to establish with certainty and in a way that commands wide agreement. In March 2011, the UK government held a debate and vote in parliament over operations in Libya, but only after they had commenced. The government initiated no debate or vote over its deployments in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/29/uk-troops-sent-mali-confirms">Mali</a> in January 2013. Some parliamentarians and campaigners argue in favour of a war powers act they hope would clarify the position and place a legal obligation upon government to involve parliament. But it has not yet come about.</p>
<p>Ultimately, then, the decision May faces over whether to go to parliament before acting is of a political nature. But if a sufficient number of parliamentarians take the view that May is flagrantly violating convention regarding their rights to consultation, this political decision could have damaging political consequences.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>In strict legal terms, the statement is correct. The only likely negative consequences for taking military action in Syria without first seeking express approval from the Commons would be political in nature. Yet, under the UK system, an action may be lawful but at the same time unconstitutional, that is to say in violation of a convention. Arguably, a convention exists in this area. However, as the statement correctly argues, it is “new”, with its earliest origins lying in 2003. It remains loosely defined and open to interpretation, though nonetheless of immense significance to the conduct of parliamentary government.</p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Aidan Hehir, Reader in International Relations, University of Westminster</strong></p>
<p>The fact check is correct that the UK government does not require parliamentary approval prior to the initiation of airstrikes. Nonetheless, to proceed without parliamentary approval would be a break with the convention established in 2003. Acting without consulting parliament would thus technically be legally sound, though politically highly contentious. </p>
<p>Such a move would, however, be indicative of the government’s very fragile majority in parliament and their own lack of faith in their capacity to secure parliamentary approval. In this respect, acting without the assent of parliament is illustrative of both the government’s inherent weakness, and the lack of consensus within parliament and among the general public around the need to launch airstrikes. </p>
<p>It must also be remembered that while initiating airstrikes without parliamentary approval may well be legal under UK law, in the absence of Security Council authorisation, airstrikes against Syria would be <a href="http://opiniojuris.org/2018/04/12/the-coming-attack-on-syria-will-be-unlawful/">a flagrant violation of international law</a>, which supersedes domestic arrangements. An attack against Syrian and Russian forces would enable both states to invoke their inherent right to self defence – as set out in <a href="http://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml">Article 51 of the UN Charter</a> – which could lead them to legally strike back against those whose launched the airstrikes.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/syria-could-a-new-foreign-military-intervention-be-illegal-94838">Syria: could a new foreign military intervention be illegal?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95003/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government is planning to take part in military action in Syria. But does it need MPs to consent beforehand?Andrew Blick, Lecturer in Politics and Contemporary History, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/896642018-01-08T12:06:55Z2018-01-08T12:06:55ZFact Check: are there more beds available across the NHS?<blockquote>
<p>We have put extra funding in. There are more beds available across the system, we’ve reduced the number of delayed discharges of elderly people who would otherwise have been in NHS beds rather than in social care.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>British prime minister, Theresa May, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42552159">in comments to the BBC</a> on January 3.</strong></p>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/bed-availability-and-occupancy/">NHS statistics</a>, there were on average 139,935 beds available in NHS hospitals in England between July and September 2017. This is actually 2,526 fewer beds than in the same period in the previous year, when there were on average 142,461 beds available. The drop was the highest in the acute sector, where there were 1,736 fewer beds. However, there was a reduction across all settings, including mental health, learning disabilities and maternity.</p>
<p><iframe id="Jl5x8" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Jl5x8/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>This drop follows a <a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/hospital-beds">long-term trend of decreasing hospital beds</a> – not only in the NHS but in most developed countries. This is expected and on its own not necessarily a concern. Models of care are changing and the average length of stay in hospital has <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjhjenK58DYAhULJ8AKHU3oDs4QFggtMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigital.nhs.uk%2Fmedia%2F32943%2FHospital-Admitted-Patient-Care-Activity-2016-17-Summary-Report%2Fpdf%2Fhosp-epis-stat-admi-summ-rep-2016-17-rep&usg=AOvVaw37DaQDpbNvkd6YRin4rPbi">decreased substantially</a> in recent years, from just over six days in 2006-7 to just under five days in 2016-17. Many operations such as hernia or gallbladder stones removal used to involve several days of stay in hospital and are now performed as <a href="http://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/902322?path=/bmj/351/8019/Feature.full.pdf">day cases</a>.</p>
<h2>Drop in bed-blocking</h2>
<p>While May did say there are more beds available, the Department of Health told The Conversation she was referring to a reduction in bed blocking. This is when patients stay in hospital even though they are medically fit to be discharged, commonly because of a lack of nursing home places or other suitable discharge arrangements. The number of beds occupied because of this – called delayed transfer of care (DToC) – <a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/delayed-transfers-of-care/delayed-transfers-of-care-data-2017-18/">decreased</a> from 6,455 in October 2016 to 5,487 in October 2017, creating an overall gain of 968 beds. Despite this, DToC remains a big problem: it is still much higher than the long-term average, and in October 2017 there were 1,834 more beds blocked than there were in October 2010.</p>
<p><iframe id="xsTJd" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/xsTJd/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Also very relevant is the bed occupancy rate – the percentage of all beds that are not occupied and available for patients to use. The NHS recommends the occupancy rate to be no more than 85% – this is considered the safety threshold. According to the latest <a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/bed-availability-and-occupancy/">statistics</a> for overnight bed use for the period between July and September 2017, this rate was surpassed, standing at 87.1% for all settings and 88.9% for acute care. This is only a small improvement on the rates from the same period the previous year.</p>
<p>In the 2017 autumn budget, an additional £337m of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/22/budgets-16bn-cash-boost-for-nhs-less-than-half-of-experts-advice">emergency winter funding</a> was announced for the NHS, which a Department of Health spokesperson said would be used to open up 2,800 additional acute and non-acute beds. But even if the number of beds increases following the implementation of the recent <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/02/nhs-hospitals-told-to-take-unprecedented-measures-amid-winter-crisis">ad-hoc solutions</a> including cancelling planned operations, this is not enough to stop NHS hospitals breaking under the winter pressure. Particularly so as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/13/nhs-faces-acute-and-growing-staffing-shortage-warns-agency">staff shortages</a> are bigger than ever and most hospitals are under severe <a href="http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2017/03/27/lillie-wenzel-the-impact-of-nhs-financial-pressures-a-mixed-picture/">financial pressure</a>. </p>
<p>The current winter crisis does not come as a surprise, but it’s a consequence of years of shrinking services. Anything the government does now to relieve the crisis is most likely to be too little too late for the current winter.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>May’s statement is not supported by the currently available data. The total number of available beds actually reduced compared to the same period in 2016. While there was indeed a reduction in bed blocking, this remains well above the long-term trends. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Mireia Jofre-Bonet, professor in economics, City University of London</strong> </p>
<p>The verdict of this fact check is correct. The number of beds in the NHS in England <a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/bed-availability-and-occupancy/bed-data-overnight/">has not increased</a> from 2016-2017 but rather gone down slightly. This, combined with a reduction in the number of delayed discharges, could allow for the prime minister’s claim of “more beds available across the system”. But the very small improvement in the speed of patient discharges plus the increased demand faced by the NHS means that the shortage of beds has got worse, not better. A growing and an ageing population have translated into a larger and more complex mix of patients and <a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/hospital-activity-funding-changes">an increased need</a> for healthcare resources.</p>
<p>May’s statement that “we have put extra funding in” can also be scrutinised. Although there have been nominal increases of funding in health in recent years, NHS spending per person is <a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-11/The%20Autumn%20Budget%20-%20joint%20statement%20on%20health%20and%20social%20care%2C%20Nov%202017.pdf#page=10">set to fall</a> by 0.3% in 2018-19 compared to the year before, according to the joint report of the King’s Fund, Nuffield Trust and Health Foundation. This is currently complicated by an <a href="https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/nhs-in-numbers#resources">extreme shortage of personnel</a> in the NHS.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The Conversation checks claims made by public figures and prominent commentators in public debates. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert then reviews an anonymous copy of the article. Please get in touch if you spot a claim you would like us to check by emailing us at uk-factcheck@theconversation.com. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89664/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katja Grašič receives funding from the National Institute of Health Research and the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme but the views expressed are her own.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mireia Jofre-Bonet has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p>Theresa May claims there are more beds available across the NHS than there used to be.Katja Grasic, Research Fellow, Centre for Health Economics, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/882752017-12-05T11:09:56Z2017-12-05T11:09:56ZFact Check: does the north of England now get as much transport spending as the south?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197290/original/file-20171201-10116-1fabz7e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>When you include those centrally funded and locally delivered projects, this government is spending more per head on transport in the northwest than we are in the southeast.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/government-invests-in-northern-transport-infrastructure">Chris Grayling</a>, Secretary of State for Transport, 21 September 2017</strong></p>
<p>There is a widely held view, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2016/jul/06/investment-transport-north-england-eu-referendum">fuelled by the media</a>, that the north of England is hard done by when it comes to transport spending. Over 70,000 people recently <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/30/north-of-england-transport-investment-petition-chris-grayling-electrification">signed a petition</a> to the transport secretary, Chris Grayling, calling for more investment in transport in the north. Grayling has <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/government-invests-in-northern-transport-infrastructure">responded by saying</a> the figures used to make this assessment are misleading, and that the northwest region now receives more transport spending than the southeast. </p>
<p>The issue of transport spending is awash with statistics. A recent <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8130">House of Commons document</a> confirmed that public spending on transport in absolute, per person and modal average terms is higher in parts of the north than in the southeast region outside London but not in the capital itself. In the 2015/16 financial year, transport spending per person was £401 in the northwest, £380 in Yorkshire and the Humber, and £299 in the northeast. For the southeast, it was £365 per head, while for London it was £973. </p>
<p>The think tank <a href="https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/new-transport-figures-reveal-london-gets-1-500-per-head-more-than-the-north-but-north-west-powerhouse-catching-up">IPPR North has estimated</a> that from 2016/17 onwards, the figures will be £680 for the northwest, £190 for Yorkshire and Humber, and £220 for the northeast. The southeast will get £226 and London £1,940.</p>
<p>So Grayling is right to say the northwest is doing well right now compared to the southeast (not including London), which is receiving similar amounts to the other northern regions. But this ignores the fact that London still receives far more than any other part of the country.</p>
<p>The problem with these kind of figures for individual years is that they can skew the overall picture of spending. For example, money for large infrastructure projects such as Crossrail in London and the southeast, and Manchester’s Metrolink programme, tend to be allocated to the particular years when the projects are completed.</p>
<p>Looking at all the spending data over a longer period of time is a better indicator of the gap between north and south. In terms of total transport spending, the southeast has actually <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8130">received 13% more</a> than the northwest since 2011/12. And looking at bus and rail services, London has <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8130">received over five times</a> more public spending in the last five years than the northwest.</p>
<p>But the real picture is even more complicated than this. Transport infrastructure in London is not just for Londoners. Many people in the southeast benefit hugely from London transport spending, especially those who commute in every day. Yet people from elsewhere in Britain also benefit when they visit, as do millions of international tourists.</p>
<p>London is very different from the other English regions, with much greater population density and a more mobile workforce. Its transport serves a different, wider purpose and also benefits from local government funding because of devolution. So a like-for-like comparison is inherently misleading.</p>
<p>The government’s recent budget has also gone some way to further reducing the north-south divide. The northeast will receive £337m <a href="http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/337m-grant-new-metro-trains-13940460">for new rolling stock</a> on the 40-year-old Tyne and Wear Metro network. Greater Manchester <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/ba9f13fe-cf99-11e7-9dbb-291a884dd8c6">has been promised</a> £240m to ease road congestion. <a href="https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/national/1-7bn-to-boost-transport-links-between-city-centres-and-struggling-suburbs-1-8866458">A £1.7 billion fund</a> will improve links between city centres and suburbs across the country. But the lack of news about the much-needed modernisation of the Manchester to Leeds transPennine route put on hold earlier this year is very disappointing, and Leeds still desperately needs a new mass transit system.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>It might come as a surprise for those in the northwest and Yorkshire to hear that they get about the same amount of transport spending (or more) than the southeast, but at the moment it is technically true. The northeast, meanwhile, remains the poor relation in every measurement of spending. But these simple facts don’t take account of the much higher spending in London or the very different circumstances by which this money is allocated.</p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Derek Robbins, Senior Lecturer in Transport and Tourism, Bournemouth University</strong></p>
<p>This is a comprehensive review of current transport investment and expenditure, well illustrated by published data. It can be difficult to separate data from political spin and government PR, which have the unnerving tendency to portray funding that has already been allocated as if it were newly announced. But the underlying premise of this article that transport investment in the northwest and Yorkshire has increased is well made.</p>
<p>I take greater issue with the conclusion that recent announcements have gone some way to further reducing the north-south divide. As the article illustrates, long-term investment is a better indicator, and the north still has some considerable catching up to do. The new projects are only a first step. I would also describe the lack of progress towards a modernised and reliable transPennine rail route as more than disappointing, given that it is an essential investment for future economic growth in the north.</p>
<p>While I also accept that London is different, I think the benefits of the capital’s transport links to the other English regions can be easily overstated.</p>
<p><em>This article was amended on 12 December 2017 to clarify that IPPR North estimated London transport spending for 2016/17 at £1,940 per head, not £1,040 per head as previously stated.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88275/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government claims figures showing the south gets more than the north are misleading.Colin Bamford, Associate Dean, Business School, University of HuddersfieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/883352017-12-01T12:02:47Z2017-12-01T12:02:47ZFact Check: do tourists visit Britain because of the royal family?<blockquote>
<p>The royals draw millions of tourists every year.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5100249/Royal-Family-richer-67billion.html#ixzz4zdNS29lA">The Daily Mail</a>, November 20, 2017.</strong> </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Royal family are so important for tourism in London. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>A spokesperson for VisitBritain, quoted in the <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/meghan-markle-prince-harry-wedding-deliver-2bn-boost-uk-economy-1649101">International Business Times</a>, November 27, 2017.</strong> </p>
<p>Regardless of whether you are a royalist or not, the royal family undeniably attracts public interest around the UK and internationally. Visits and tours by the royals generate extensive media attention – as well as tourists. </p>
<p>Love it or hate it, the pomp and pageantry associated with British royalty, whether routine events such as <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=trooping+the+colour&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=hyUgWpPZOKmV8QeIwLqoAQ">trooping the colour</a> or anniversaries such as the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012, are rarely found in any other country. These public ceremonies, in addition to parts of the estates owned by the royal family, are important in attracting tourists.</p>
<p>When Prince William married Kate Middleton in April 2011, the UK’s Association of Leading Visitor Attractions <a href="https://twitter.com/alva_uk/status/935420910043123712">claimed</a> it: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Saw an additional 600,000 people come to London for the weekend, 60% from UK, 40% from overseas, spending £107m … The value to ‘brand Britain’ due to global media coverage was approximately £1 billion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>VisitBritain reported that, globally, more than <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140722183820tf_/http://www.visitbritain.org/mediaroom/archive/2011/vbrwwedding.aspx">two billion people</a> watched the wedding ceremony, with its content aired by key broadcasters internationally. It wasn’t just visitors to London that increased – the Office for National Statistics reported that during April 2011, an <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9071757/Royal-wedding-leads-to-tourism-boom.html">extra</a> 350,000 visitors travelled to the UK compared to 2010. Tourism also flourished on the island of Anglesey in Wales, where the royal couple lived after the wedding. Tourism managers said William and Kate brought priceless publicity and some tourism businesses <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-13191745">reported a 20% increase</a> in business in 2011.</p>
<p>The queen’s official residences also <a href="https://d9y2r2msyxru0.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/resources/RoyalColl_textwithcover_lr_dps.pdf">attract significant numbers of visitors</a>: 2.8m people in 2016, with the top three being Windsor Castle (1,432,260 visitors), Buckingham Palace (576,995 visitors), and the Palace of Holyroodhouse (392,260 visitors). These statistics corroborate <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140722183820/http://www.visitbritain.org/mediaroom/archive/2011/vbrwwedding.aspx">research by VisitBritain</a> in 2011 which showed that more than 60% of overseas visitors who come to Britain are “likely” to visit places associated with the royal family.</p>
<p>Britain is recognised as a world-class destination for culture and heritage. Although VisitBritain does not collate statistics on the royal family as an attraction, in a <a href="https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/statistics_on_the_effect_that_th">2012 response</a> to a freedom of information request under its former name as the British Tourist Authority, it estimated that those visitors to the UK who are attracted by British culture and heritage spend in the region of £4.5 billion annually, out of a total overseas visitor spend of £17 billion. Approximately £500m of that £4.5 billion is attributed to attractions and events connected to the royal family, past and present.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>There is an absence of data as to whether tourists go to the UK specifically because of the royal family. However, while tourists might not be primarily attracted to the UK solely by the monarchy, the spectacle of royal events and access to parts of the royal estate across the UK enables VisitBritain and other national tourism agencies to build on Britain’s tourism appeal which blends heritage, pageantry and the contemporary. In this way, the relationship between royalty and tourism has an important economic and <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Royal_Tourism.html?id=qou1sRFH01oC&source=kp_cover&redir_esc=y">destination marketing</a> dimension. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Liz Sharples, senior teaching fellow (tourism), University of Portsmouth</strong></p>
<p>It is not difficult to agree with the verdict of this fact check, although, as it points out, data specifically identifying “royalty and monarchy” as the main motivator for travel is hard to pinpoint.</p>
<p>VisitBritain <a href="https://www.visitbritain.org/sites/default/files/vb-corporate/Documents-Library/documents/Regional_Activities_report_FINAL_COMPRESSED.pdf">states</a> that 64% of visitors going to Britain plan to visit famous monuments and buildings with over a third of tourists visiting London listing a tour of Buckingham Palace as a bucket list activity.</p>
<p>In contrast, Republic, an anti-monarchy pressure group, <a href="https://www.republic.org.uk/what-we-want/monarchy-myth-buster/its-good-tourism">challenges</a> the view that the British monarchy is good for tourism and argues that other attractions pull in more visitors. In 2016, for example, the British Museum was the UK’s most visited attraction, and according to <a href="http://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=423">data</a> from the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, more people visited Chester Zoo and Kew Gardens than <a href="https://d9y2r2msyxru0.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/resources/RoyalColl_textwithcover_lr_dps.pdf">Windsor Castle</a>.</p>
<p>However, with the current slump in the pound and the spring wedding of Prince Harry to American Meghan Markle, it is almost impossible not to agree that tourists (particularly those from the US) will be drawn – by royal invitation – to Britain in 2018.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88335/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Two tourism experts assess the evidence on whether visitors are drawn to the UK by the monarchy.Claire Haven-Tang, Reader in Tourism and Management, Cardiff Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/875432017-11-15T17:31:03Z2017-11-15T17:31:03ZFact Check: was it right to kill Lilith the escaped lynx?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194854/original/file-20171115-19841-1p4u3jn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lynx on the loose.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>The safety of the public was paramount and therefore once the lynx had strayed over to a populated area of the community it was necessary to act decisively.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Statement from <a href="http://www.ceredigion.gov.uk/English/Resident/News/Pages/Update-on-the-Lynx-.aspx">Ceredigion County Council</a> on October 10, 2017.</strong></p>
<p>An escaped lynx was recently destroyed by experts working on behalf of Ceredigion County Council in Wales after attempts to recapture it failed. Some people have <a href="http://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/article.cfm?id=117494&headline=Killing%20of%20escaped%20lynx%20has%20sparked%20outrage&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2017">responded angrily</a>, arguing that officials should have tranquilised the animal rather than killing it. <a href="http://www.ceredigion.gov.uk/English/Resident/News/Pages/Update-on-the-escaped-Lynx.aspx">The council claimed</a> it had done all it could and was left with no other option. So was there a way Lilith the lynx could have been saved?</p>
<p>Zoo animals all receive a danger category for their potential to cause serious harm. Animals such as tigers, lions, elephants, and lynx are classed as <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69596/standards-of-zoo-practice.pdf">Category 1</a>, the most dangerous animals, due to their natural behaviour and predatory way of life. Animals which may cause slight harm or injury are classified as Category 2, and those which are no threat to the public get classed as Category 3.</p>
<p>Within the UK, zoos are licenced by <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/zoo-licensing-act-1981-guide-to-the-act-s-provisions">local authorities</a>, who conduct inspections on a regular basis to ensure the health and safety of the animals, staff and the public that visit them. Safety from the animal enclosure side of things is always viewed to reduce the likelihood of the public getting in, and the animals getting out.</p>
<p>But zoos are home to some incredibly smart animals which are able to notice small gaps in the gates and doorways or when electric fencing may not be working efficiently. More often than not, animals that manage to escape their enclosures have noticed these holes before the keepers. </p>
<p>Zoos practice <a href="https://www.aazk.org/wp-content/uploads/Animal-Escape-Preparedness.pdf">animal escape drills</a> at least twice a year and in the event of an animal escape from its enclosure, these drills are put into practice and ensure the safety of every visitor and member of staff on site.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HSQklvzNNDY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Every effort is usually made to recapture the animal but of course, it very much depends on the species. An animal such as a penguin for example would likely follow a trail of fish back into its enclosure and would not cause too much disruption. Some animals actually get quite scared when they realise that they are outside of their home and in a world that they do not know and make their own way back without much encouragement at all. </p>
<p>In the recent case of the lynx from <a href="https://www.borthzoo.co.uk/">Borth Wild Animal Kingdom</a>, the animal not only managed to escape its enclosure, but the perimeter grounds of the zoo, too, which placed a lot more public at risk and with little control over the situation. The local authorities and police were notified and the zoo made every effort to recapture the lynx, reportedly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/07/lillith-the-lynx-blamed-for-seven-sheep-deaths-in-north-wales">including using traps</a> and following it with a drone equipped with a thermal imaging camera.</p>
<p>Animal tranquilisation is always discussed but with any animal, including the lynx, there is no way of telling how the animal may react to this and if it may make the animal more aggressive or react in a way that is not expected. This could cause further harm and situations that are unable to be prepared for. The decision was finally made to humanely destroy the animal, as the potential risk to the public was too great. In this situation, there are not many options, and human life and safety has to be the highest priority.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The council and local police made the right call. Human life has to come first. Every effort had been made to recapture the animal, and there was nothing more that could have been done. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Dr Paul Rees, Senior Lecturer in Wildlife, University of Salford</strong></p>
<p>The author of this fact check is right. The owners of Borth Wild Animal Kingdom had a legal obligation to prevent the escape of the lynx under the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/37">Zoo Licensing Act 1981</a> and the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/zoos/index_en.htm">EU Zoos Directive</a>. They failed to do this and then failed to recapture her. The local authority had no choice but to shoot the animal.</p>
<p>What’s more, releasing or allowing a non-native species into the wild is an offence under <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/section/14">section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981</a>. This law protects our native biodiversity.</p>
<p>Lynx are classified in the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/secretary-of-state-s-standards-of-modern-zoo-practice">Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice</a> as category 1 (greater risk), that is “likely to cause serious injury or be a serious threat to life”. Although reports of attacks on humans by lynx appear to be rare, a pet lynx was reported to have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/02/atlanta-woman-hospitalised-siberian-lynx">attacked a woman</a> who was feeding it in Atlanta in 2014.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87543/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ceredigion County Council in Wales claims it had no choice. What do the experts say?Samantha Ward, Lecturer Zoo Animal Biology, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/867292017-11-09T12:03:29Z2017-11-09T12:03:29ZFact Check: Is freezing human eggs really ‘extremely unsuccessful’?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192862/original/file-20171101-19845-w3xwjl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">IVF</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/362617520?src=Pe2L4DlobAa2f_Y6bSbO2A-1-26&size=medium_jpg">vchal/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>Freezing eggs is extremely unsuccessful. Although it’s never admitted, it is true from the national statistics, how poor the chances of pregnancy are afterwards. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Lord Robert Winston, speaking on BBC Radio 4’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09bxk94#play">Today programme</a> on November 1.</strong></p>
<p>In the UK, if a woman wants her eggs frozen, she is given a course of drugs to help increase the production and maturity of her eggs. About 15 eggs are collected for freezing, preferably using a fast-freezing process called vitrification, which is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/nov/06/hope-or-hype-the-chilling-truth-about-freezing-your-eggs">thought</a> to be more effective than slow freezing. </p>
<p>Freezing can preserve eggs for up to ten years – this is the time-limit placed on storage by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the agency that regulates fertility treatments in the UK.</p>
<p>The cost of freezing eggs in the UK ranges from £2,500 to £5,000 (plus storage fees).</p>
<p>Despite the fact that the process of freezing eggs seems to be <a href="https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/22/4/440/2573626">increasingly</a> effective, it nevertheless appears that fertility expert, Lord Winston, is correct when he says that freezing eggs is extremely unsuccessful, given that the birth rate using these eggs is about <a href="https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/fertility-preservation/egg-freezing/">14%</a>. But there’s more to the story. </p>
<p>The low success rate Lord Winston appears to be referring to is the number of live births that result from thawing frozen eggs. His office pointed The Conversation to a written question he recently submitted in the House of Lords on the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Lords/2017-10-24/HL2485/">issue</a>. </p>
<p>The truth is that fertility experts are actually quite good at freezing eggs. It is the combined processes of thawing them – at which point some don’t survive – and then using in vitro fertilisation (IVF), that makes the success rate so low. But IVF isn’t that successful even when fresh eggs are used (about a <a href="https://www.hfea.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-press-releases/2016-news-and-press-releases/new-report-shows-ivf-cycles-are-on-the-rise-but-few-involve-frozen-eggs/">27%</a> success rate).</p>
<p>And there’s more to the story. While the HFEA reports that the number of women freezing their eggs has <a href="http://ifqtesting.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-website/1111/hfea-fertility-treatment-trends-and-figures-2014.pdf">risen year on year</a>, the number of frozen eggs that are thawed and used in IVF, in the UK, <a href="http://ifqtesting.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-website/1111/hfea-fertility-treatment-trends-and-figures-2014.pdf">remains very low</a>. This means that not only is the <a href="http://ifqtesting.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-website/1111/hfea-fertility-treatment-trends-and-figures-2014.pdf">14%</a> success rate based on a small sample, it may also reflect the fact that doctors in the UK don’t get much practice at conducting this procedure. </p>
<p>So, although the current success rate is low, it is likely to improve with time. Women who freeze their eggs now may see success rates increase by the time they want to use their eggs. And for many women – including those undergoing chemotherapy – freezing their eggs offers a glimmer of hope that wouldn’t have been possible a little over three decades ago.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>So Robert Winston is right, in a sense, but, as always, there is more to the story.</p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Sarah Martins da Silva, consultant gynaecologist and senior lecturer in reproductive medicine, University of Dundee.</strong></p>
<p>It’s not difficult to agree with this verdict. And John Appleby is right to point out several fundamental issues with Lord Winston’s opinion that freezing eggs is extremely unsuccessful. </p>
<p>Egg freezing has been used since the late 1990s for women of a childbearing age about to undergo chemotherapy or radiotherapy. But eggs are notoriously difficult cells to preserve using traditional freezing techniques due to their low surface-area-to-volume ratio, and high risk of ice-crystal <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.9.2338">damage</a>. And poor egg survival resulted in low pregnancy and live birth rates using these slow-frozen eggs in fertility treatment ten to 15 years ago. </p>
<p>However, assisted reproduction is a fast-moving speciality, and the introduction of vitrification (the fertility laboratory equivalent to freeze-drying) was a game changer. By late 2012, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology announced that egg freezing was no longer considered an experimental technique. This followed results from four randomised controlled trials that demonstrated that IVF using vitrified/warmed eggs produced <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.028">similar fertilisation and pregnancy rates</a> to IVF using fresh eggs. </p>
<p>While egg vitrification was initially reserved for fertility preservation for women with serious medical problems, it has evolved to play an important role in fertility preservation for transgender people, egg preservation for egg donor programmes, and – perhaps more controversially – “social egg freezing”, whereby a woman chooses to freeze her eggs with a view to deferring having a family rather than a medical need to do so. </p>
<p>It’s also worth noting that serious female illness is associated with poorer egg quality, which reduces success of fertility preservation treatment. This is independent from the technology applied to freeze eggs, but one which continues to significantly influence data on outcomes from egg freezing in this group of women. Conversely, the largest series to date of over 3,500 egg-recipient treatment cycles using vitrified donated eggs from healthy women, shows a thaw survival of over <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.020">90% and a clinical pregnancy rate of 48%</a>. </p>
<p>The author is correct: the UK has relatively limited experience of fertility treatment using vitrified eggs. But the global viewpoint is that this is a robust technique and a valid option, although certainly not perfect. Numbers are just too small to judge egg freezing as “extremely unsuccessful”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86729/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John B Appleby has received funding from the Wellcome Trust. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sarah Martins da Silva has previously received grant funding from MRC, Tenovus Scotland and Chief Scientist Office. </span></em></p>Two experts check Lord Winston’s claim.John B Appleby, Lecturer in Medical Ethics, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/856152017-10-17T10:40:25Z2017-10-17T10:40:25ZFact Check: are there over a million foreigners living illegally in Britain?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190376/original/file-20171016-30954-16749k0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Britain's immigration system is under close scrutiny. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">via shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>There are probably over a million foreigners here illegally at the moment. There’s a large number, so no one could ever remove those really.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>David Wood, former director general of immigration enforcement, Home Office, <a href="http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/million-plus-illegal-immigrants-unlikely-to-ever-be-removed-mps-told-11364219578181">speaking</a> to MPs on the Home Affairs Select Committee on October 10.</strong> </p>
<p>Details on the numbers of unauthorised people living in the UK are thin on the ground. Over ten years ago, a <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/illegalimmigrantsintheuk/migrantpop_in_uk.pdf">Home Office report</a> estimated the population present in the UK without authorisation as between 310,000 and 570,000 – with a “central” estimate of 430,000. </p>
<p>A later estimate by researchers from the <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/illegalimmigrantsintheuk/irregularmigrantsfullreport.pdf">London School of Economics</a> in 2009, published by the Greater London Authority, had a higher range with a potential top estimate of 719,000 and a lower one of 373,000. Its central estimate was 533,000. </p>
<p>On the – rather dubious – basis of drawing a rough line between these numbers over time, and projecting it onwards and upwards, you could guess that we are now nearer a range with a high estimate of around a million. But these are the maximum figures, and the lower end of the range is equally possible. </p>
<p>These estimates have been <a href="http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/irregular-migration-in-the-uk-definitions-pathways-and-scale/">criticised by experts</a> and comparisons are difficult because they use different statistical techniques and varying definitions for which population they are measuring. As the Office for National Statistics <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/illegalimmigrantsintheuk">conceded</a> in a Freedom of Information response in 2015: “The methodology behind this work requires huge assumptions thus making the estimates largely uncertain.” </p>
<p>Statements such as Wood’s are inflammatory because of the perception that the people he is referring to are a dangerous, criminal element within society. There have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/06/illegal-immigrant-label-offensive-wrong-activists-say">long been calls</a> to stop using the term “illegal immigrant” because of the way it dehumanises and conflates the breaking of immigration rules with criminality.</p>
<h2>Who is ‘illegal’?</h2>
<p>The complexity and increasing restrictions on entry and residence in the UK mean that people can become “illegal” rather easily, and in <a href="https://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/downloads/policy_reports/irregularmigrants_fullbooklet.pdf">myriad different ways</a>. This can even be unintentional, in the case of those people born to foreign nationals with irregular status. A 2012 <a href="https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/project/undocumented-migrant-children-in-the-uk/">report</a> by the University of Oxford’s Centre on Migration, Policy and Society estimated that 120,000 irregular migrant children live in the UK. </p>
<p>It is misleading to conflate these kinds of situations with those in which foreign nationals have committed serious crimes and thereby become eligible to be removed from the country. A recent <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b094mhsn">BBC Panorama expose</a> on immigration detention showed how terrible the situation can get when we treat all those that fall foul of the immigration and asylum system like criminals.</p>
<p>Information about those deported from the UK is a bit more readily available, but not entirely straightforward. The Migration Observatory, which recently provided a <a href="http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/deportations-removals-and-voluntary-departures-from-the-uk/">useful summary</a> of the latest data, claims that administrative removals, forced deportations, and voluntary return of immigrants have hovered around the 40,000 a year mark since 2010. </p>
<p>Within this figure, total forced deportations are falling while voluntary return is increasing, perhaps reflecting success for the <a href="https://theconversation.com/even-before-brexit-theresa-mays-laws-made-britain-a-hostile-place-for-migrants-62467">“hostile environment” strategy</a> begun by Theresa May when she was home secretary. Yet the strategy of making the country an unpleasant and difficult place to live for those deemed unwanted by the state arguably has negative impacts that outweigh the benefits. For example, <a href="https://www.jcwi.org.uk/sites/jcwi/files/2017-02/2017_02_13_JCWI%20Report_Passport%20Please.pdf">research</a> into the impacts of landlord checks – designed to target irregular migration – found it leads to increases in discrimination against all other foreign nationals and those from British black and minority ethnic groups by landlords.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Ultimately there is very little solid evidence on irregular immigration into the UK and so it would be impossible to verify Wood’s claim. The most authoritative research on different migrant populations is usually derived from ten-yearly census data. This can throw up surprising things, such as in 2001 when the census revealed there were a million fewer people living in the country than <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/oct/01/britishidentity.johncarvel">previously thought</a>. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Nando Sigona, senior lecturer and deputy director of the Institute for Research into Superdiversity, University of Birmingham</strong></p>
<p>It’s hard to see a solid base for David Wood’s claim. The author of this fact check is correct in pointing out the several ifs and buts that inform such estimates. Caution is particularly important in this area due to the highly politically charged climate that surrounds the debate on undocumented migration in the UK. Wood’s claim is particularly questionable for two substantial reasons. First, it was recently revealed that the UK had <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/cd0da692-8820-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787">vastly overestimated</a> the number of students overstaying visas – a group assumed to make up an important segment of the undocumented population in the UK. </p>
<p>Second, UK borders proved to be effective in limiting unauthorised entry at the peak of the refugee and migration crisis. The number of asylum applications increased <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7203832/3-04032016-AP-EN.pdf/">only marginally</a> in the UK while it was booming in many EU member states, so it is fair to assume that unauthorised entrants make up only a marginal segment of the UK’s undocumented population.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The Conversation is checking claims made by public figures and prominent commentators in public debates. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert then reviews an anonymous copy of the article. Please get in touch if you spot a claim you would like us to check by emailing us at uk-factcheck@theconversation.com. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85615/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alex Balch is co-director of the Centre for the Study of International Slavery (CSIS), a collaboration between the University of Liverpool and the International Slavery Museum.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nando Sigona receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). </span></em></p>We asked two academics to check the claim, made by a former top official at the Home Office.Alex Balch, Senior Lecturer, Department of Politics, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/836662017-09-13T08:41:36Z2017-09-13T08:41:36ZFact Check: does immigration have an impact on wages or employment?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185305/original/file-20170908-32276-xae7cu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is the jobs glass half full or half empty?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">via shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>When I was business secretary there were up to nine studies that we looked at that took in all the academic evidence. It showed that immigration had very little impact on wages or employment. But this was suppressed by the Home Office under Theresa May, because the results were inconvenient.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Vince Cable, leader of the Liberal Democrats, in a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/sep/06/pmqs-home-office-immigration-leak-reaction-politics-live?page=with:block-59afcd61e4b066447a05c3bf#block-59afcd61e4b066447a05c3bf">statement</a> on September 6.</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is quite a lot of evidence that if we have too many low-skilled workers coming in, one of the effects is to depress the wages of those at the bottom end of the wage scale.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Damian Green, first secretary of state and minister for the Cabinet Office, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b092jw7q">speaking</a> on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on September 7.</strong></p>
<p>The effect of immigration on wages and employment has been the subject of <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/files/Migration-FactSheet.pdf#page=10">numerous studies</a>, both <a href="http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/">in the UK</a> and <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/%7Euctpb21/doc/CDP_11_08.pdf">internationally</a>. Research for the UK points to no convincingly large negative effects of immigration on <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa015.pdf#page=10">average wages</a> of <a href="http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_08_06.pdf">British-born workers</a>. This is largely in line with the <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w16736.pdf#page=12">predominant</a> (though not <a href="https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2017/06/immigration-economics">uncontroversial</a>) finding of studies done in other countries.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Documents/workingpapers/2015/swp574.pdf">Some studies</a> have pointed to the possibility of effects on the <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/%7Euctpb21/Cpapers/CDP_03_08.pdf">distribution of wages</a>, holding wage growth back at the lower end and pushing wages up at the higher end. However, authors of studies which have suggested this have emphasised that the negative effects are <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/impact-of-immigration-on-native-wages-infinitesimally-small-a7545196.html">small</a>. While recent immigrants as a whole have typically been <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa015.pdf#page=6">highly qualified</a> relative to the skill level of the UK labour force, the location of such effects may have to do with the fact that they tend to work initially in <a href="https://blog.oup.com/2012/07/what-effect-does-immigration-have-on-wages/">lower paid jobs</a>.</p>
<p>Evidence for harmful effects of immigration on employment is <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/287287/occ109.pdf">also slim</a>. Most studies have failed to find <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/%7Euctpb21/Cpapers/ecoj_1038.pdf">clear evidence</a> of <a href="https://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/090112_163827.pdf">a link</a>.</p>
<p>One exception, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/24/debate-immigration-britain-puts-gdp-ahead-people/">sometimes cited</a> by advocates of tighter immigration policy, is a 2012 Migration Advisory Committee <a href="http://cream-migration.org/files/MAC_report_jan2012.pdf">report</a> that found some association in particular of non-EU migration with employment of non-immigrants during one period of downturn, though the study itself emphasises that <a href="http://creamcomments.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/16th-january-2012-some-thoughts-on.html">the evidence</a> is <a href="http://cream-migration.org/files/MAC_report_jan2012.pdf#page=124">not very robust</a>.</p>
<p>Overall the Migration Advisory Committee itself <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/333083/MAC-Migrants_in_low-skilled_work__Full_report_2014.pdf#page=289">concluded</a>: “Evidence to date suggests little effect on employment and unemployment of UK-born workers, but that wages for the low paid may be lowered as a result of migration, although again this effect is modest.”</p>
<h2>Impervious political debate</h2>
<p>Despite the weak evidence, harmful labour market effects continue to be emphasised in political debate, for example by Theresa May both when she was <a href="https://theconversation.com/fact-check-is-there-zero-economic-benefit-from-high-immigration-48704">home secretary</a> and now as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/08/vince-cable-urges-pm-to-lift-lid-on-eu-immigration-reports">prime minister</a>. (The same is true <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-06/don-t-believe-what-jeff-sessions-said-about-jobs">in the US</a>). </p>
<p>Some may feel it is obvious that the expansion of labour supply that follows from immigration must harm competing workers. But this ignores the many ways in which immigration can also lead to expanded labour demand – through immigrants’ spending on goods produced locally, through the complementary skills they bring into the country, through encouraging changes in the pattern of production or encouraging inflow of capital, and so on. For all of these reasons, it is quite compatible with standard economic theory to find that immigration might have <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/0deacb52-178b-11e6-9d98-00386a18e39d">little or no effect</a> on wages or employment. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Vince Cable’s understanding of the preponderance of academic evidence on the labour market effects of immigration is accurate. There is little persuasive evidence that immigration has substantial harmful effects on average UK wages or employment. Damian Green is correct to identify effects on the least well paid as being of greatest concern but evidence suggests these effects are not large. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Jonathan Wadsworth, professor of economics at Royal Holloway, University of London</strong></p>
<p>According to standard economic textbooks, the purported effects of immigration on the existing workforce are undoubtedly negative – like the minimum wage. How so when the academic evidence – as accurately outlined in this fact check – does indeed suggest that, contrary to standard texts, immigration does not have any large significant effect on employment either in aggregate or among groups supposedly most at risk? Nor does immigration appear to depress wages of native-born Britons much. The recently resurrected <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Documents/workingpapers/2015/swp574.pdf">study</a>, cited by politicians and the media could not determine whether its findings of a small negative wage effect apply to UK-born people or immigrants or both. </p>
<p>Politicians and the media making disingenuous, selective or, at best, misinformed interpretations of academic studies do not help. There is also a lot of dross out there and sifting through it is not always easy, for anyone, politicians and the media included. Ultimately, continued dialogue and engagement between academia and the outside world can only help understanding and inform policy making.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The Conversation is checking claims made by public figures and prominent commentators in public debates. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert then reviews an anonymous copy of the article. Please get in touch if you spot a claim you would like us to check by emailing us at uk-factcheck@theconversation.com. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83666/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Preston has been part of teams receiving funding from the Home Office, Migration Advisory Committee and Low Pay Commission for past research on migration.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Wadsworth was on The Migration Advisory Committee from 2007- 2016 and has been on the NHS Pay Review Board from 2016 to the present. </span></em></p>Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable claims there is no evidence that immigration impacts wages. Is he right?Ian Preston, Professor in the Department of Economics, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/815302017-07-26T10:08:53Z2017-07-26T10:08:53ZFact Check: is being in the single market dependent on membership of the EU?<blockquote>
<p>The single market is dependent on membership of the EU. What we’ve said all along is that we want a tariff free trade access to the European market and a partnership with Europe in the future.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2017/jul/23/being-in-single-market-is-dependent-on-eu-membership-says-corbyn-video">speaking to</a> the BBC’s Andrew Marr show on July 23.</strong></p>
<p>As a description of the law, Jeremy Corbyn’s assertion is wrong, and has been so for almost a quarter of a century. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement">European Economic Area Treaty</a> (EEA) entered into force in 1994. This provides full membership of the single market for countries which are not members of the European Union. At present, these are Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. Switzerland also has access to some aspects of the single market under a series of treaties. In the current Brexit negotiations, if the UK expresses a wish to exit the EU but remain in the EEA – or reach a separate similar arrangement – it is clear that this would be facilitated and welcomed by the 27 remaining EU states.</p>
<p>Since it would clearly be impossible to complete the huge task of negotiating permanent trading arrangements between the UK and the EU by mid-2019, when Article 50 negotiations on the UK’s exit will end unless there is unanimous agreement to extend them, a transition agreement needs to be reached. </p>
<p>The cabinet is reportedly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/21/michael-gove-says-cabinet-is-united-on-brexit-transition-period">united</a> on the need for such an arrangement. This may well involve continued temporary large-scale membership of the single market, without EU membership. </p>
<p>The prime minister, Theresa May, has signalled there will be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/21/government-working-hard-avoid-brexit-cliff-edge-business-theresa-may-cbi">no “cliff edge”</a> for businesses, which is likely to mean no abrupt exit from the single market. Various UK government “red lines” concerning immediately restricting immigration and the role of the EU Court of Justice appear to have softened to allow at least temporary continuity after Brexit. The chancellor, Philip Hammond, is <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/1afeb7aa-6d33-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa">reportedly seeking</a> a transition period of at least two years during which the UK would have an as yet undefined but very close associate relationship with both the single market and the customs union.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"889044935269154817"}"></div></p>
<p>Corbyn, who later in the same interview said EU membership and single market access were “inextricably linked”, perhaps deserves credit for understanding that staying in the single market implies adhering to the EU’s four freedoms – of goods, people, services and capital. His Brexit-requires-single-market-exit approach is consistent with <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/07/jeremy-corbyn-wholesale-eu-immigration-has-destroyed-conditions-british">with his personal opposition</a> to what he calls “whole-scale importation of underpaid workers from central Europe in order to destroy conditions” and his endorsement of “tariff-free trade access to the European market”. </p>
<p>His approach involves dubious assumptions, however. It is not clear all Brexit voters opposed the single market. In blaming deteriorating working conditions on migration from central Europe, Corbyn takes no account of the employment-boosting <a href="https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-jobs-are-dependent-single-market/">effects</a> of the single market. His faith in the ability of tariff-free trade to safeguard British prosperity also seems unconvincing: the economic success of the EU’s single market has involved many policies that go well beyond the abolition of tariffs across the bloc. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Corbyn’s assertion that single market access depends on EU membership is factually incorrect. His Brexit-requires-single-market-exit philosophy also involves several dubious assumptions. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Billy Melo Araujo, Law Lecturer, University of Belfast</strong></p>
<p>This review is factually correct. However, being in the single market as a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) does differ from full EU membership. For example, it shouldn’t be overlooked that in addition to complying with EU rules on free movement, EEA members must also comply with EU legislation regulating the internal market – but are not subject to common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy. They must pay budget contributions and are subject to the jurisdiction of the European Free Trade Association Court. </p>
<p>It’s also worth pointing out that being in the single market does not mean being part of the customs union. This means that if the UK were to remain in the single market as an EEA member after Brexit, it would still be able to conduct its own trade policy, including the power to negotiate its own trade agreements.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The Conversation is checking claims made by public figures and prominent commentators in public debates. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert then reviews an anonymous copy of the article. Please get in touch if you spot a claim you would like us to check by emailing us at uk-factcheck@theconversation.com. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81530/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Billy Melo Araujo is the recipient of a British Academy grant.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gavin Barrett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn insists the two are inextricably linked. He’s wrong.Gavin Barrett, Professor at the Sutherland School of Law, University College DublinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/810412017-07-19T11:09:44Z2017-07-19T11:09:44ZFact Check: can Wales and Scotland block the Brexit repeal bill?<blockquote>
<p>The Scottish and Welsh governments cannot recommend that legislative consent is given to the bill as it currently stands.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Nicola Sturgeon, first minister of Scotland and Carwyn Jones, first minister of Wales, in a <a href="http://gov.wales/newsroom/firstminister/2017/170713-joint-statement-from-first-ministers-of-wales-and-scotland/?lang=en">joint statement</a> published in reaction to the publication of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill on July 13, formerly known as the “Great Repeal Bill”.</strong> </p>
<p>Despite Scottish and Welsh dismay at the draft text of the repeal bill, as a matter of law, the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales cannot block the passage of the bill by withholding their consent. </p>
<p>The bill <a href="https://theconversation.com/law-expert-where-the-brexit-battles-over-the-repeal-bill-will-be-fought-in-parliament-80980">would allow</a> Westminster to convert EU law into UK domestic law in the UK. But the devolution legislation is unambiguous: the conferral of law making powers to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast “does not affect” the power of the parliament of the UK to make laws for <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/28">Scotland</a>, <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/32/section/107">Wales</a> and <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/47/section/5">Northern Ireland</a>. </p>
<p>So even if one of the devolved legislatures were to withhold consent, the Westminster parliament could still enact the bill.</p>
<p>The question of the devolved legislatures’ consent arises because of the “Sewel convention” – a political rather than a legal rule – whereby the UK parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the devolved legislatures. The convention takes its name from Lord Sewel, former minister of state in the Scottish Office, who “announced” the convention <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980721/text/80721-20.htm#80721-20_spnew2">during the parliamentary debates</a> on the Scotland Bill in 1998.</p>
<p>After Scotland’s 2014 independence referendum, the Sewel convention was put on a statutory footing in <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/11/section/2">Scotland</a> and later <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/4/section/2/enacted">Wales</a>. It has not been put on a statutory footing in Northern Ireland. </p>
<p>In the case <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-at-stake-in-the-supreme-courts-brexit-ruling-70928">brought by Gina Miller</a> in 2016 over whether the government or parliament had the power to trigger Article 50 to begin the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the UK Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-judgment.pdf">held</a> that this statutory recognition did not signify any change in the convention’s status. Its application is therefore a matter for the political process rather than the courts.</p>
<p>The UK government accepts that the Sewel convention applies to the repeal bill. In all such cases, the convention has been scrupulously observed by successive UK governments since devolution almost 20 years ago. Although the UK government could in theory disregard it by pushing through the bill without Scottish and Welsh legislative consent, it is unlikely to want to do so as it would lay itself open to the charge of acting unconstitutionally. In Scotland, it would also risk strengthening the case for a second independence referendum. </p>
<p>The parliamentary arithmetic in any event points in the same direction. To be able to proceed without the devolved legislatures’ consent, the UK government would need to be confident of a majority in the House of Commons, which cannot currently be guaranteed. The search will therefore be on in the coming weeks for some form of agreement whereby their consent can be secured. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The devolved legislatures cannot block the bill but the need for their consent means that they have a considerable degree of leverage – much more so than if Theresa May had secured a landslide majority in the June election. It is likely the devolved nations will seek to exploit this leverage to the full. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Richard Wyn Jones, Professor of Welsh Politics and Director, Wales Governance Centre, University of Cardiff</strong></p>
<p>There are few phrases more over-worked by journalists and commentators than “constitutional crisis”. Nonetheless, the now very real possibility that the devolved legislatures in Cardiff and Edinburgh will refuse to give their consent to the <a href="http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/europeanunionwithdrawal.html">European Union (Withdrawal) Bill</a> – the legislation formerly known as the Great Repeal Bill – raises the spectre of a clash between levels of government that may actually deserve the label. As a matter of law, the author is correct that the UK government can simply ignore the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales. But as the piece suggests, the political reality is that doing so would further weaken May’s already enfeebled administration.</p>
<p>Is compromise possible? There is genuine annoyance in both Edinburgh and Cardiff at the way they believe the UK government has failed to engage with their proposals on Brexit in a serious manner. But it’s about more than lack of engagement. Central government, on the one hand, and the devolved governments, on the other, seem to have fundamentally different understandings of what devolution means. It’s hard to imagine how clever re-drafting of the bill alone can bridge the gap between them. With the bill set to be followed by further Brexit-related legislation that will whittle away at the powers of the devolved nations, we are entering a very difficult – and yes, crisis-ridden – period for the state’s territorial constitution.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>The Conversation is checking claims made by public figures and prominent in public debates. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert then reviews an anonymous copy of the article. Please get in touch if you spot a claim you would like us to check by emailing us at uk-factcheck@theconversation.com. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81041/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Page receives funding from the British Academy /Leverhulme. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Wyn Jones was previous the holder of a Economi and Social Research Council Knowledge Exchange Fellowship focusing on constitutional change.</span></em></p>We asked two constitutional law experts to explain what would happen if Edinburgh and Cardiff refuse to give legislative consent to a bill.Alan Page, Professor of Public Law, University of DundeeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/809332017-07-17T10:16:06Z2017-07-17T10:16:06ZFact Check: would banning zero-hours contracts harm more people than it would help?<blockquote>
<p>So while Matthew’s report is clear that many workers value the flexibility that zero-hours contracts offer them, and that banning such contracts altogether would harm more people than it would help, it is important that we continue to ensure that employers do not use these contracts to exploit people.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Theresa May, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/we-have-to-invest-in-good-work-theresa-mays-speech-at-taylor-review-launch">speaking</a> at the launch of a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/626772/good-work-taylor-review-modern-working-practices.pdf">report</a> by Matthew Taylor on working practices in the UK on July 11.</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/contract-types-and-employer-responsibilities/zero-hour-contracts">Zero-hours contracts</a> allow employers to hire workers ad hoc without guaranteeing them a minimum number of hours a week. There were <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/contractsthatdonotguaranteeaminimumnumberofhours/mar2017">905,000 people</a> on zero-hours contract between October to December 2016, but they remain controversial. The Labour Party has promised to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/29/election-labour-mcdonnell-corbyn-zero-hours-economy">ban them</a>, but the government remains committed to keeping the rules that allow this kind of casual employment. </p>
<p>In her comments, the prime minister was referring to a section in the Taylor Report on zero-hours contracts, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/good-work-the-taylor-review-of-modern-working-practices">which states</a>: “To ban zero-hours contracts in their totality would negatively impact many more people than it
helped.”</p>
<p>The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy confirmed to The Conversation that this statement was based on a Labour Force Survey <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/contractsthatdonotguaranteeaminimumnumberofhours/mar2017">published</a> in March 2017 – also mentioned in the Taylor Report – which found that “68% of those on zero-hours contracts do not want more hours”. </p>
<h2>Scant evidence</h2>
<p>Apart from this 68% figure, the Taylor Report provides few other clues to the assumptions underpinning the claim. Yet how many would prefer to work the same number of hours but with contracts that offered them greater certainty? If employers were required to provide a guaranteed minimum number of hours, what impact would that have on overall employment and the employment opportunities open to workers with different circumstances? These questions have received insufficient attention.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178113/original/file-20170713-32666-inojq6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178113/original/file-20170713-32666-inojq6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178113/original/file-20170713-32666-inojq6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178113/original/file-20170713-32666-inojq6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178113/original/file-20170713-32666-inojq6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178113/original/file-20170713-32666-inojq6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178113/original/file-20170713-32666-inojq6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">One in seven care workers were employed on zero-hours contracts in 2016.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">via shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Taylor Report mentions that almost a fifth of people on zero-hours contracts are in full-time education. A ban on zero-hours contracts might make it more difficult for some of these individuals to combine paid work and studying, but we do not know what percentage would simply seek a more regular part-time job. </p>
<p>A similar issue arises in relation to those with caring responsibilities: for some, zero-hours contracts might provide a good means of fitting work around care commitments, but what percentage would prefer a contract that offered greater certainty? Evidence relating to these issues is lacking.</p>
<h2>How to measure cost and benefits</h2>
<p>The lack of detailed, regularly collected and nationally representative data about the consequences of zero-hours contracts for workers, and employers, limits our ability to debate the pros and cons of a complete ban. Respondents to the Labour Force Survey are asked whether they are employed on a zero-hours contract, but are not asked about the consequences for their well-being, job satisfaction and quality of life. The <a href="https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/">Understanding Society Survey</a>, which does examine issues such as well-being and quality of life, does not explicitly ask respondents whether they are employed on a zero-hours contract. </p>
<p>The costs and benefits associated with zero-hours contracts potentially extend beyond those who are employed under such contracts. For workers with families, the uncertainty associated with zero-hours contracts may have implications for the well-being and standard of living of all household members. These wider consequences would presumably need to be taken into account in any assessment of whether a ban would harm more people than it would benefit. </p>
<p>To fully assess the claim we would also need to define what we mean by negative and positive impacts. And to consider whether the nature and scale of harmful and beneficial effects resulting from a ban might vary between different groups. For example, might the potential “harm” to a student resulting from a loss of flexibility be outweighed by the potential benefit – in terms of increased financial security and reduced anxiety – to an older individual from having a more reliable income? And might that potential benefit be considered even greater if that individual has children? </p>
<p>Even if it were true that a ban on zero-hours contracts would hurt more people than it would help, that would not necessarily be sufficient grounds for retaining zero-hours contracts. We would also need to consider the nature and consequences of the gains and losses in order to assess the overall impact on society.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>In the absence of evidence that would enable us to more accurately assess the potential positive and negative impacts of a ban on zero-hours contracts, the claim that a ban would hurt many more people than it would help surely amounts to speculation rather than hard fact.</p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Keith Bender, SIRE chair in economics, University of Aberdeen</strong></p>
<p>Overall, I agree with the verdict. There is little data in the Taylor Report to support the government’s claim. The key question when looking at costs and benefits is “compared to what?” The 68% figure mentioned in the report can be contrasted with further data from the March 2017 <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/contractsthatdonotguaranteeaminimumnumberofhours/may2017#what-are-the-characteristics-of-people-employed-on-zero-hours-contracts">report</a> from the Office for National Statistics showing that over 90% of those not on zero-hours contracts do not want more hours – a sizeable difference. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?uri=/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/contractsthatdonotguaranteeaminimumnumberofhours/may2017/686d148d">graph</a> below shows that zero-hours workers are much more likely to want an additional job, a replacement job with more hours or more hours on the current job. It may be that a zero-hours jobs are better than no job, but in terms of hours, these ONS statistics suggest that they do not compare favourably with other types of contracts.</p>
<p><iframe id="309Le" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/309Le/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>I agree with the author that more research needs to be done in this area to draw any conclusions. Key to that will be understanding the “voluntariness” of zero-hours contracts – understanding who wants them because of desired flexibility and who are forced into them because of a lack of other types of contracts.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation is checking claims made by public figures and prominent in public debates. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert then reviews an anonymous copy of the article. Please get in touch if you spot a claim you would like us to check by emailing us at uk-factcheck@theconversation.com. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80933/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Heyes receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, the British Academy, the International Labour Organization and the Trades Union Congress. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Keith Bender does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Two experts assess the prime minister’s claim and what the evidence says about the impact of a ban.Jason Heyes, Professor of Employment Relations and Director of the Work, Organisation and Employment Relations Research Centre (WOERRC), University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/796802017-06-27T10:32:20Z2017-06-27T10:32:20ZFact Check: is it bad for your health to eat food fried in olive oil?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175185/original/file-20170622-11971-vz9x2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/465334490?src=0NYo3zWI40WcaK86s-jHbg-1-0&size=medium_jpg">DenisFilm/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It recently has been suggested that <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/nutrition/everything-you-know-about-cooking-with-oil-is-wrong/">using vegetable oils to fry food may be bad for your health</a> due to the production of toxic chemicals called aldehydes during the heating process. Aldehydes are simple organic structures – compounds which contain a carbon-oxygen double bond – and are abundant in nature. They are formed in the human body in small amounts as <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1006844222963">by-products of normal fructose and alcohol metabolism</a>. Consumption of dietary aldehydes is thought to <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440591002183?journalCode=itxc20">contribute to human diseases</a> including diabetes and heart disease. But what about olive oil? Is it classed as a vegetable oil, and is it safe to fry food with it?</p>
<p>Around <a href="https://agrotypos.com/2015/08/28/the-olive-oil-market-in-the-united-kingdom/">half of UK households</a> now use olive oil, which demonstrates a sizeable shift in our oil use in recent years. This may be in part because olive oil consumption is <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26148926">frequently linked to good health</a>, and forms a central component of <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/what-is-a-Mediterranean-diet.aspx">the Mediterranean diet</a>. The Mediterranean diet is itself known to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24476641">reduce the risk of disease and early death</a>. Olive oil, produced by pressing olives, is commonly used across the world in food preparation, whether for frying, drizzling or as a part of a salad dressing. It is therefore classed as a vegetable oil, as it is produced from vegetable matter, as opposed to animal fats such as lard or goose fat.</p>
<p>Of the vegetable oils that have been tested for heating-induced aldehyde content, olive oil actually performs reasonably well. Researchers from the University of the Basque Country <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408440591002183?scroll=top&needAccess=true">analysed olive, sunflower and flaxseed oils</a> for their aldehyde content after the oils had been heated to 190°C. They found that heating the polyunsaturated sunflower and flaxseed oils produced greater quantities of aldehydes more quickly, whereas heating monounsaturated olive oil created fewer aldehydes and much later in the heating process. </p>
<p>This is thought to be because of a structural difference, with polyunsaturated oils containing more regions ripe for chemical reaction. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33675975">Experiments performed for BBC’s Trust Me I’m a Doctor</a> confirmed this, suggesting that heating olive oil, butter and goose fat produced similarly lower levels of aldehydes. These experiments collectively suggest that if you are going to fry, choosing olive oil is one of the better options.</p>
<p>Importantly, very little is known about what constitutes a low or high dose of aldehydes in food in humans. There is <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC508674/">some data from animal studies</a>, but the conclusions we can draw from them are limited. If olive oil is used to shallow fry foods for short periods, it is unlikely that your body would be exposed to greater concentrations of aldehydes than it normally would as a result of your body’s normal metabolic processes, mentioned earlier.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>While there are clearly healthier ways to cook foods, frying food with olive oil is unlikely to be significantly bad for your health. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175818/original/file-20170627-24782-1x2pp9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175818/original/file-20170627-24782-1x2pp9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175818/original/file-20170627-24782-1x2pp9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175818/original/file-20170627-24782-1x2pp9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175818/original/file-20170627-24782-1x2pp9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175818/original/file-20170627-24782-1x2pp9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175818/original/file-20170627-24782-1x2pp9x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Smoke points increase with olive oil quality.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/253044214?src=Y5MFVGdifakymebRBsj_1g-1-6&size=medium_jpg">Dusan Zidar/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Rachel Adams, senior lecturer, Cardiff Metropolitan University</strong></p>
<p>Heat causes chemical changes in all oils and this alters their aroma, flavour and nutritional content. Overheating oil during cooking will result in a dirty smoky kitchen, poor tasting food and the creation of harmful chemicals. </p>
<p>Olive oil is no different from other oils. If you burn it (heat it above its smoke point) it will taste bad and it will contain harmful chemicals. Smoke points tend to increase with olive oil quality, as the free fatty acid content tends to decrease and the antioxidant content increases. The high antioxidant content of olive oil could even reduce the amount of harmful chemicals produced during cooking. When cooking with olive oil, any potential harms can be reduced by using high quality oil and making sure you keep the oil below its smoke point; it will also make your food taste nicer.</p>
<p>So I agree with the author: frying in general is not the healthiest way to prepare food, but if you are going to fry then frying in olive oil is not a bad choice. If cooking with olive oil was that bad for you there would be population-based evidence to support the argument.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79680/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Heating oil creates chemicals that are said to be harmful. Here’s how olive oil performs.James Brown, Lecturer in Biology and Biomedical Science, Aston UniversityRachel Adams, Senior Lecturer in Biomedical Science, Cardiff Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/798032017-06-26T13:28:17Z2017-06-26T13:28:17ZFact Check: is the type of cladding used on Grenfell Tower actually banned in Britain?<blockquote>
<p>My understanding is that the cladding in question, this flammable cladding which is banned in Europe and the US, is also banned here. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Philip Hammond, the UK chancellor of the exchequer, <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/cladding-used-on-grenfell-tower-is-banned-in-britain-chancellor-philip-hammond-claims-a3567541.html">speaking about</a> the Grenfell Tower fire on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show on June 18.</strong> </p>
<p>After the devastating fire at Grenfell Tower, the Metropolitan Police is <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40380584">considering</a> whether to bring manslaughter (or other) charges relating to the tower block’s insulation, which it says failed safety tests. The cladding on another 11 high-rise buildings <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/government-tests-on-tower-blocks-reveal-combustible-cladding-10923147">has also</a> failed fire safety tests, according to the communities secretary, Sajid Javid. </p>
<p>Cladding is being added on tower blocks built in the 1960s and 1970s such as Grenfell Tower to improve the thermal performance of the flats and in some cases prevent material deteriorating and falling from the existing facades. These flats are often homes to some of the poorest in society and improving the facades may cut their energy bills to less than a half. This also means that they can adequately heat their homes to avoid condensation and mould growth inside.</p>
<p>The existing buildings have concrete or blockwork walls with a thin layer of insulation on the inner surface. The thermal improvement is achieved with a layer of insulation placed on the outer surface of the existing external wall where it is not impaired by condensation. Because of this, it is necessary to shelter the insulation from the weather. This is done with an outer layer of panels, called the rainscreen. A cavity is left between the insulation and the rainscreen to drain any water that passes joints in the rainscreen.</p>
<p>Fire may spread extensively up the wall if the insulation is combustible, if smoke and flame can travel up the cavity or if the rainscreen is combustible. In practice, fire barriers are placed in the cavity at each storey to prevent the movement of smoke and flame and separate the insulation into storey-height portions. This limits any spread of fire through the insulation which should be of limited combustibility in high rise buildings.</p>
<p>Many materials have been used for rainscreens in the UK, ranging from lightweight metal panels, through composite boards and terracotta to natural stone on upmarket city offices. Aluminium composite materials (ACM) are used as a lightweight economical solution that can be readily formed into different shapes with different surface finishes. </p>
<p>ACM comprises two metal skins (normally of aluminium) bonded on to a core of sheet material. Manufacturers make three grades of these material: polyethylene core (PE), which has the worst performance in fires and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/cladding-in-2014-melbourne-high-rise-blaze-also-used-in-grenfell-tower">has been linked</a> to major fires in other countries, and two higher-performance grades of material (FR and A2) which are based on cores with a mineral content and perform better in fires.</p>
<p>A polyethylene core will melt and catch fire, burning rapidly with a heat output in excess of 125 MJ/m2 – similar to the effect of burning an equivalent volume of diesel fuel. A fire will then spread rapidly up the façade while burning droplets may fall from the building and spread fire downwards. The loss of the rainscreen in a fire makes the fire barriers in the cavity ineffective and the insulation is more likely to burn and contribute to the fire spread.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175021/original/file-20170621-4662-eioyjt.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175021/original/file-20170621-4662-eioyjt.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175021/original/file-20170621-4662-eioyjt.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175021/original/file-20170621-4662-eioyjt.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175021/original/file-20170621-4662-eioyjt.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175021/original/file-20170621-4662-eioyjt.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/175021/original/file-20170621-4662-eioyjt.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Illustration of rainscreen and cavity.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What the regulations say</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200135/approved_documents/63/part_b_-_fire_safety">Building Regulation part B</a> in England requires that all insulation and filler materials – a term that is not defined – in the wall of a high-rise building are of limited combustibility. The ACM panels do not fulfil the role of insulation and have no particular insulative properties. It is commonly argued, then, that they are not fillers. This confusion and the resulting loophole in the regulations mean that polyethylene core ACMs have been used on high-rise buildings ostensibly in compliance with Building Regulation B, as is the case at Grenfell Tower.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200135/approved_documents/84/regulation_7_-_materials_and_workmanship">Approved Document 7</a> of the Building Regulations requires that: “Materials are of a suitable nature and quality in relation to the purposes and conditions of their use.” This fitness-for-purpose is not well defined in the regulations. However, the manufacturers of ACM state that the PE version is not <a href="https://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/pdf/Our%20fire%20solutions_BR36EN_012017.pdf">suitable for use</a> above ten to 15 metres on a building because of its fire risk and also make mineral core alternatives that are suitable. </p>
<p>Regulations differ from country to country, even across Europe to the extent that building regulations in Scotland differ from those in England. European cladding consultants have expressed concern to me about the use of these materials in their countries.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Hammond’s claim that the type of cladding used on Grenfell Tower is banned in the UK is nearly correct because of the less well-known Approved Document 7. But neither this document, nor Building Regulation B specifically bans the use of PE core ACM panels.</p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Masi Farjadmand, senior lecturer, Department of Property and Construction, University of Westminster</strong></p>
<p>This article contains certain amount of information from publicly available materials which are generally correct. I have no specific objections to the opinions expressed in it and the verdict is accurate. Vertical spread of fire from outside a building is a result of many factors. The material used for cladding and its combustibility is only one. The gap allowing the fire to move from one storey to the next, mostly upwards and sometimes down, is an important factor. </p>
<p>Approved Documents 7 and another British Standard Online document – <a href="http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030268793">BS 8000-6</a> – a code of practice for slating and tiling of roofs and claddings – provide general guidelines, as do all other standards. The cladding used for Grenfell Tower is not illegal to the letter of the law, but it may not comply to the spirit of either the law or the regulations. This will be a matter for investigators to determine. In the case of Grenfell Tower, many aspects of fire safety and fire engineering contributed to the spread of fire and the cladding is only one of them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79803/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Ledbetter works for the Centre for Window and Cladding Technology (CWCT), a not-for-profit information and training body that was formerly part of the University of Bath. CWCT has over 300 subscribing member companies from throughout the cladding supply chain and is independent of the views of any one member. Harley Curtain walling, which provided the cladding for Grenfell Tower, used to be a subscribing member of CWCT before the company folded.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Masi Farjadmand does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We asked two experts to examine what the buildling regulations say.Stephen Ledbetter, Senior Lecturer, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/769162017-06-14T07:59:34Z2017-06-14T07:59:34ZFact Check: is China dumping steel?<blockquote>
<p>We are continuing to act, when necessary, against unfair trading conditions in the steel sector, and against foreign dumping.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>European Union Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem speaks after the EU introduced new <a href="http://www.financialexpress.com/industry/eu-slaps-china-with-new-steel-anti-dumping-duties/710666/">duties on steel products from China</a> on Friday, June 9.</strong></p>
<p>China’s hold over the international steel market is pretty clear. It produces <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7317">half the world’s steel</a> and in 2015, finished imports from China to the EU were <a href="http://www.eurofer.org/News%26Events/PublicationsLinksList/201605-AnnualReport.pdf">up 140% on 2013</a>. Imports now account for a quarter of the EU market, and at the same time, prices for a range of major EU <a href="http://www.eurofer.org/News%26Events/PublicationsLinksList/201605-AnnualReport.pdf">product classes have collapsed</a>. </p>
<p>This trend, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-steel-exports-plunge-amid-new-tariffs-1481180615">replicated to differing degrees worldwide</a>, has <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/04/07/donald-trump-executive-order-steel-dumping-xi-jinping-china/">led to accusations</a> in the US and elsewhere that China is selling its steel at a loss, or more accurately in this case, keeping costs artificially low so that other producers cannot compete, in a practice widely known as “dumping”.</p>
<p>In the EU, tariffs have dented Chinese imports but it’s a bit like plugging one leak only to find another. Chinese imports are replaced by products from places like Iran, Russia and Ukraine. Imports from Iran have <a href="http://www.eurofer.org/News%26Events/Press%20releases/Press%20Release%20%20European%20trade%20defence%20ef.fhtml">increased almost tenfold since 2012</a>. The EU has numerous trade defence measures on other nations, and not just on a range of Chinese steel products.</p>
<p>In the UK, imports are also on the up. According to UK trade association UK Steel, imports accounted for 60% of UK demand in 2015, up from 57% in 2012. Chinese steel imports accounted for 11% of 2015 UK steel demand, up from 2% in 2011. UK imports from the EU remain twice as high <a href="https://www.eef.org.uk/uk-steel/news-blogs-and-publications/publications/2017/mar/key-statistics-2016">as from the rest of the world</a>, but no one can escape downward pricing pressure from such a huge player.</p>
<p>The World Trade Organisation defines dumping as state interference in the market: protection leading to subsidised exports at prices below real market costs. Specifically, dumping occurs when a country’s average export price over time is less than a reasonable price for the same product when sold at home. This <a href="https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/19-adp.pdf">characterisation of dumping</a> is based on market prices rather than production costs – UK Steel contends this is unrepresentative. </p>
<p>Why would China be dumping steel? Well, the European trade body, Eurofer, estimates that China’s excess production – what it makes beyond the level of domestic demand – is as much as double total EU demand. In short, it has a lot to sell. Eurofer also believes that China exports steel <a href="http://www.eurofer.org/News%26Events/PublicationsLinksList/201605-AnnualReport.pdf">at below production costs</a>. According to UK Steel, Chinese producers lose US$34 on every tonne produced. International steel trade associations <a href="http://www.eurofer.eu/Issues%26Positions/Trade/ws.res/Steel_Industry_Adjustment_Policy_Comments_Appendix.fhtml/Steel_Industry_Adjustment_Policy_Comments.pdf">also believe that China sells below</a> its normal domestic price and cost.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168739/original/file-20170510-28095-dnerv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168739/original/file-20170510-28095-dnerv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168739/original/file-20170510-28095-dnerv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168739/original/file-20170510-28095-dnerv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168739/original/file-20170510-28095-dnerv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168739/original/file-20170510-28095-dnerv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168739/original/file-20170510-28095-dnerv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168739/original/file-20170510-28095-dnerv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.worldsteel.org/media-centre/press-releases/2017/march-2017-crude-steel-production.html">worldsteel.org</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One consultant, <a href="http://www.thinkdesk.de/index.php?id=71">Think!Desk</a>, has argued that due largely to coke and labour costs, the production costs of a typical Chinese steel factory are marginally (€30 per tonne) less than those of European producers. As China, however, imports around half its iron ore, this advantage is outweighed by shipping costs. </p>
<p>The analysis concludes that compared to the EU, the cost base of Chinese steel benefits from preferential treatment on tax arrangements, bank loans, land use rights, environmental standards, import substitution subsidies and grants and unpaid dividends. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>In short, Chinese steel may not possess a “natural” cost advantage, but does operate at artificially depressed costs levels. In other words, <a href="http://www.eurofer.org/News%26Events/PublicationsLinksList/2015011901-ChinaSteelStudy.pdf">China is dumping steel</a>.</p>
<p>But the issue of dumping is not simply technical and legal; it is political and ideological. International trade associations argue that state intervention in China’s steel industry leads to massive oversupply and damages global market discipline. The demand is made that China relinquishes state ownership and control of its steel industry: a dramatic call, unlikely to be heeded. </p>
<p>And for all the protests in the UK, the irony is that British steel workers would likely support a form of Chinese-style intervention as part of an industrial strategy to reinvigorate the prospects for British steel.</p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Ray Hudson, Professor of Geography at Durham University</strong></p>
<p>The author is absolutely right that the issue of dumping is political and ideological, not simply technical and legal. At issue is the conceptualisation of dumping – does it relate to selling below production costs or below market prices? </p>
<p>In this article, the definition of dumping as <em>“keeping costs artificially low so that other producers cannot compete”</em> raises the thorny question of what a “natural” production cost would be and how it would be defined. The other option, to define dumping as <em>“when a country’s average export price over time is less than a reasonable price for the same product when sold at home”</em>, rests on the nebulous definition of “reasonable”.</p>
<p>Markets are always political constructions, so there is no natural market price to use as a reference point. Countries and companies always have strategies in mind for product pricing. So when this piece arrives at the conclusion that China is indeed dumping steel, we should consider whether Beijing (or Tehran, or Moscow…) is simply setting steel prices at a level which harries the competition and drives trade its way, much like major capitalist enterprises do the world over when they seek to compete and enhance market share.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76916/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Politicians in Europe, the US and the UK have blamed steel industry woes on artificially cheap imports.Ian Greenwood, Associate Professor in Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/787812017-06-07T11:45:36Z2017-06-07T11:45:36ZFact Check: are only one in eight counter-terrorism referrals to Prevent made by Muslims?<blockquote>
<p>We need to get the Muslim community itself to sign up to the Prevent programme. Only one out of eight referrals to Prevent come from within the Muslim community. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Paul Nuttall, leader of UKIP, speaking during the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08t0l7v/bbc-election-debate-2017-live-with-mishal-husain">BBC Election Debate</a> on May 31.</strong></p>
<p>Paul Nuttall’s comment about the number of referrals under the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prevent-strategy-2011">Prevent</a>, used a statistic that was incorrectly quoted and dropped into the debate without context. The only publicly available statistic – quoted in <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/muslims-stay-silent-on-extremism-tip-off-scheme-r8mjg3ncg0j">The Times</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/25/prevent-programme-lacking-referrals-from-muslim-community">The Guardian</a> in December 2015 – stated that out of 3,288 referrals to the Prevent programme in the first half of 2015, only 280 or 8.6% came from within the Muslim “community, family, friends and faith leaders”. Using Nuttall’s comparison, this would make it one in 12 referrals. </p>
<p>The figures were provided by the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) in response to a freedom of information request and refer to the first half of 2015. They are not official published government data. Other information is <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/counter-terrorism-statistics">held</a> by the Home Office on the gender, age, ethnicity and religion of people arrested under counter-terrorism legislation, but it does not publish data on those who make the referrals. </p>
<p>When I asked the NPCC, its press office stated that: “Those figures were given out under freedom of information requests” – but the information provided cannot be found on the relevant <a href="http://www.npcc.police.uk/FreedomofInformation/FOIandSubjectAccessRequests/FOIDisclosureLogs.aspx">part of its website</a>. </p>
<p>It should also be noted that referrals are made in line with Prevent legislation to the police, MI5, and on the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/report-terrorism">online anti-extremism website</a>, and not to what Nuttall calls the “Prevent programme”. If an individual is deemed vulnerable to all types of extremism and terrorism, they may be referred to what’s called the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/channel-guidance">Channel</a> programme. Between 2007 and 2014, other <a href="http://www.npcc.police.uk/FreedomofInformation/NationalChannelReferralFigures.aspx">data published by the NPCC</a> indicates there have been a total of 3,934 referrals to Channel and that 56% of those referred between April 2012 and March 2014 were recorded as Muslims.</p>
<p>UKIP were contacted twice for comment by The Conversation about Nuttall’s claim, but didn’t respond.</p>
<h2>Missing context</h2>
<p>Nuttall’s claim also misses much of the context surrounding the available statistics. It is not clear how the religion of the person making the referral to the Prevent programme was determined. The Times article assumes that “community, family and friends” will be, by default, Muslims. However, use of the terms “community” and “friends” indicates a wider pool of informants. </p>
<p>The statistics also have to be considered within the context of the number of Muslims that can potentially report radicalisation, extremism and terrorism. If 8.6% of all referrals did come from the local community, this represents a high number of reports coming from the Muslim population, as the <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/articles/religioninenglandandwales2011/2012-12-11">2011 census</a> states that Muslims make up only 5% of the British population. </p>
<p>But looking at the number of referrals made to the Prevent programme is not indicative of its success or failure. Salman Abedi, who detonated a suicide bomb in Manchester in late May, was <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/security-services-missed-five-opportunities-stop-manchester/">reported to authorities</a> on several occasions by members of his community and friends, but this did not prevent the attack. Further focus needs to be placed on the intelligence processes.</p>
<p>However, there has been a marked deterioration in attitudes towards the Prevent strategy. A 2011 NPCC report <a href="https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/new-research-indicates-muslim-communities-welcome-engagement">stated</a> that “Muslims welcome engagement”, but increasing terror attacks have caused some to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/17/society-of-mosques-to-boycott-anti-terror-prevent-programme">question</a> Prevent amid claims it is targeting Muslims.</p>
<p>Another NPCC research <a href="http://www.npcc.police.uk/ACT%20Campaign/NPCC%20Counter%20Terrorism%20Research%20Key%20Findings.pdf">report</a> on counter-terrorism published in January 2017 highlighted concerns raised by Muslims and other ethnic minorities over anonymity and fear of unfair treatment by the police. Growing disdain has been shown for the continuing need for the Muslim population to apologise for terrorist attacks, when the rise of the far-right has not stimulated the same response. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The statistics quoted by Nuttall are incorrect, misleading and divisive. By claiming that Muslims are not doing enough he implies that the Muslim population knows more than they are letting on and are able to do something about it. This is not an internal problem for Muslims alone. Placing the responsibility of reporting suspicion on the Muslim population demonises them and makes them the only actors responsible for stopping future attacks.</p>
<p>Understanding that Muslims – like any other group, religious or secular – are part of the larger population will help to contextualise any statistics provided on their participation in counter-terrorism programmes. Assumptions that the Muslim community is cohesive and aware of the actions of every other Muslim must also be dispelled. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>Sarah Marsden, lecturer in politics, philosophy and religion, University of Lancaster</strong></p>
<p>The author is right to point out the difficulty in unpacking the statistics on the Prevent policy and its implementation. A primary source of information on Prevent referrals comes from freedom of information requests. These respond to specific queries rather than systematically reporting data. This makes it difficult to make sense of a complex picture, and allows people like Paul Nuttall to make political capital against a backdrop of unclear information.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, there are more up-to-date figures than the article suggests. More <a href="http://www.npcc.police.uk/Publication/NPCC%20FOI/CT/043%2016%20NPCC%20response%20att%2001%20of%2001%2014042016.pdf">recent statistics</a> suggest that as many as 10,250 people have been referred to Channel between 2007 and March 2016. Approximately 70% of these are for what is defined as “international (Islamist) extremism”. Of these, the <a href="http://www.npcc.police.uk/Publication/NPCC%20FOI/CT/097%2016%20Channel%20Referrals.doc">majority</a> have been referred by statutory bodies, and notably, over 4,800 have come from the education sector. However, it is not clear what role individuals outside of these institutions play in what is a maturing system for managing <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-happens-to-people-who-are-suspected-of-being-radicalised-53652">Channel referrals</a>. For example, a parent may tell the person at a school who is responsible for Prevent that they are concerned about a child. The referral may then be taken forward by the school, but its origin would have been from a member of the community.</p>
<p>But the author is right to challenge the assumptions that sit beneath Nuttall’s criticism of Muslim communities. Placing responsibility for reporting those who may be involved in terrorism with Muslim communities is deeply divisive. It overlooks the responsibility we all share to prevent terrorism, and the not insignificant challenges facing efforts to identify those who may be “at risk” of radicalisation. It also risks stigmatising Muslims, many of whom are distrustful of Prevent because of the perception that it unfairly targets their communities. Indeed, this scepticism may be a more powerful explanation for reporting patterns than any unwillingness to take responsibility for community safety.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78781/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We asked two academics to check the claim made by UKIP leader Paul Nuttall.Sameera M. Khalfey, Research Fellow in Defence, University of PortsmouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/786912017-06-06T15:50:55Z2017-06-06T15:50:55ZFact Check: do the niqab and burqa prevent intake of vitamin D from sunlight?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172241/original/file-20170605-31047-4kjmn9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Group of women wearing burqas.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7120404">Nitin Madhav/Wikimedia Commons</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>UKIP would like to ban the burqa and niqab being worn in public because <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39693154">it says</a> they “are barriers to integration”. However, UKIP is also concerned about the health of women who wear these garments as – according to its <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/3944/attachments/original/1495695469/UKIP_Manifesto_June2017opt.pdf?1495695469">manifesto</a> – they prevent the “intake of essential vitamin D from sunlight”. As part of The Conversation’s Fact Check series, we asked two academics to check the science behind the claim.</em></p>
<p>The niqab and burqa, worn for cultural or religious reasons, cover the wearer’s body and face. They are made of opaque material that greatly reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the skin and hence the amount of vitamin D that the body can generate. However, this is not a problem as vitamin D needs can be satisfied by <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56070/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK56070.pdf">diet and supplementation alone</a>. </p>
<p>There are a number of peculiar aspects of vitamin D that are necessary to understand so that deficiency is avoided.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vitamins-minerals/Pages/Vitamin-D.aspx">Vitamin D, the “sunshine vitamin”</a>, is unusual among vitamins. All other vitamins can only be obtained from diet, but vitamin D can also be made in the body. Synthesis by the body is dependent on a step requiring sunlight, specifically ultraviolet (UV) light reaching the skin. Without sunlight on the skin, little vitamin D will be made by the body.</p>
<p>For many reasons, people may not get enough sunlight. This can be because of the clothing they wear, because they have darker skin, because their jobs keep them inside, because they live at latitudes where the sun remains low in the sky, or because they purposefully keep out of the sun because of the known dangers of excessive sun exposure, namely skin cancer. <a href="http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/72/3/690.full.pdf+html">Obesity</a> also decreases the ability of the body to use vitamin D. Clearly, there are many reasons why vitamin D deficiency may occur.</p>
<p>But restricting sunlight does not cause a problem if a person gets enough vitamin D from their diet or supplementation (vitamin D pills). There are high levels of vitamin D in foods such as oily fish, and smaller amounts in liver and egg. In some countries, foods, such as breakfast cereals and milk, are fortified with vitamin D. If a person doesn’t get much sunlight, they will need to consume enough foods high in vitamin D or take vitamin D supplements. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172437/original/file-20170606-3686-129ti6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172437/original/file-20170606-3686-129ti6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172437/original/file-20170606-3686-129ti6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172437/original/file-20170606-3686-129ti6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172437/original/file-20170606-3686-129ti6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172437/original/file-20170606-3686-129ti6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172437/original/file-20170606-3686-129ti6z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">You can avoid vitamin D deficiency by taking supplements.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cod-liver-oil-omega-3-gel-142484191?src=pd-same_artist-142484185-ZTeHxwWkVIsy2kwauC88Ig-1">R_Szatkowski/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Without vitamin D, serious health problems are inevitable. Vitamin D is essential to control the correct levels of calcium in the body, necessary for good bone health. Deficiency of this vitamin is the cause of bone weakening and deformities, such as <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Rickets/Pages/Introduction.aspx">rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults</a>.</p>
<p>Rickets are a problem in <a href="https://theconversation.com/vitamin-d-needed-to-fight-comeback-of-childhood-rickets-19729">many parts of the world</a>, including places with an abundance of sun but where people are not exposed to enough sunlight. Vitamin D deficiency occurs in countries where wearing of the niqab and burqa is prevalent, such as <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4949819/">Saudi Arabia</a>, but also in countries like <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2265.2011.04320.x/abstract;jsessionid=7041A7D96DFB1370FF8D9E103D96D5BC.f03t03">Australia</a> where sun exposure is reduced for other reasons, such as effective public health campaigns about skin cancer. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The niqab and burqa do prevent the intake of vitamin D from sunlight. But problems only occur when the person is unaware of the potential damage due to lack of sunlight and does not redress this by increasing their vitamin D intake through diet or supplements.</p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><em>Zaki Hassan-Smith, honorary senior research fellow, University of Birmingham</em></p>
<p>I agree with the author’s analysis. Setting the claim in the context of scientific evidence here is important for a meaningful examination of the manifesto claim. </p>
<p>Covering the skin is one of a number of risk factors for vitamin D deficiency, and, indeed, in the UK in winter there is <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-vitamin-d-and-health-report">inadequate sunlight for vitamin D production</a>. In summer the level of exposure varies according to a number of factors from skin type, latitude, altitude to time of day. Most of the UK population is at risk of low vitamin D for <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28334220">some of the year</a>. If we extrapolate the findings of a recent European study, over <a href="http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/103/4/1033.long">30m people in the UK</a> are estimated to have vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. And our recent study of 116 UK-based healthy volunteers found that <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0170665">only 14%</a> had normal serum vitamin D concentrations. So, the premise of the UKIP statement that wearing a niqab or burqa is an important risk factor for vitamin D deficiency is questionable in settings such as the UK, as, for most of the year, no one else is making any vitamin D via their skin. </p>
<p>Recent guidance from NICE on the prevention of vitamin D deficiency recommends that those “at risk” should take daily vitamin D supplements. Evidence-based public health measures on vitamin D are welcome, and universal supplementation strategies in at risk groups <a href="http://adc.bmj.com/content/97/11/952.long">can be effective</a>. Nobody needs to suffer from vitamin D deficiency, regardless of what they wear.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation is checking claims made by public figures and in the public domain. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert then reviews an anonymous copy of the article. Please get in touch if you spot a claim you would like us to check by emailing us at uk-factcheck@theconversation.com. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78691/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We asked two experts to check a claim in the UKIP manifesto.Peter McCaffery, Professor of Biochemistry, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/787822017-06-05T13:37:39Z2017-06-05T13:37:39ZFact Check: have the Conservatives protected police and counter-terrorism budgets?<blockquote>
<p>In counter-terrorism policing, we have protected those budgets and we’re currently protecting police budgets. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Theresa May, the Conservative prime minister, <a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/SkyNews/status/869288605432168448/video/1">during</a> the Sky/Channel 4 election interview on May 29.</strong></p>
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FConversationUK%2Fvideos%2F771654133002929%2F&show_text=0&width=560" width="100%" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The terrorist <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34818994">attacks in Paris</a> in November 2015 had international implications for policing, illustrating that whatever happens globally affects you locally. Following the attacks, EU heads of state approved a Europol initiative to <a href="https://www.europol.europa.eu/about-europol/european-counter-terrorism-centre-ectc">establish</a> the European Counter Terrorism Centre in January 2016. Its aim was to perform a similar role to the UK’s Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre based in MI5 headquarters, which has been in operation since 2003. </p>
<p>In the UK, this <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34922126">coincided</a> with a spending review and autumn statement, in which then-chancellor George Osborne pledged to protect police budgets in real terms, and increase counter-terrorism budgets by 30%. It was this decision that the Conservative party confirmed to The Conversation that May was referring to in her election interview. </p>
<p>While Osborne’s decision in 2015 to protect police budgets was extremely welcome within a service that was anticipating further cuts, work by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has catalogued how total police spending had already <a href="https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9224">fallen by 14%</a> or 3.7% a year in real-terms between 2010-11 and 2014-15. Looking at the government’s new commitment, the same researchers have indicated that police budgets are estimated to remain “broadly flat” in cash terms between 2015-16 and 2016-17. </p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-y6OxH" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/y6OxH/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Osborne’s protection of police budgets was also conditional. All police forces were expected to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-offices-settlement-at-the-spending-review-2015">increase their firearms capability</a>, as a means of meeting the terrorist threat. </p>
<p>Forces also receive a counter-terrorism grant, but all forces receive varying amounts depending on the policing budget formulas. While the total grant stood at <a href="https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091126/wmstext/91126m0002.htm#09112624000433">£579m in 2010-11</a>, it dipped slightly to <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Lords/2015-02-04/HLWS226/">£564m in 2015-16</a> and rose to <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-02-01/HCWS446/">£633m in 2017-18</a>.</p>
<p>The key partner in counter-terrorism is the security service, MI5, which since 2004 has witnessed <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3509869.stm">enhanced</a> budgets and expansion. In the wake of the London 7/7 attacks in 2005, regional Counter Terrorism and Intelligence Units were also established across the country. Although these are made up of a number of different security agencies, they are effectively led by the police. </p>
<h2>Numbers down</h2>
<p>After the election of the Conservative-led coalition government in 2010 and May’s appointment as home secretary, the police service sustained sequential cuts to funding. This <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/08/theresa-may-police-years-budget-cuts-come">resulted</a> in the loss of 17,000 police officers by December 2015. In the Sky/Channel 4 interview, May admitted that the number of police had decreased from 141,850 in 2010 when the Conservatives came in to 124,000 in 2017. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"869288605432168448"}"></div></p>
<p>Given the reductions in police staffing levels, police forces have been forced to reduce their support functions, such as Intelligence Units. For example, Merseyside now has one centralised Intelligence Unit rather than one in each division. My understanding is that these cuts have had direct implications for frontline work, especially neighbourhood policing. </p>
<p>Yet neighbourhood policing had been the one policing strategy that the police service got <a href="http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/uploads/catalogerfiles/neighbourhood-policing-past-present-and-future---a-review-of-the-literature/neighbourhood_policing_past_present_future.pdf">right</a> in recent years: increased visibility, modest reductions in crime and disorder and the fear of crime, have culminated in the public feeling safer. Due to the cuts overseen by May’s Home Office, that key element which can help defeat terrorism is almost a distant memory.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>May is correct to say that counter-terrorism budgets have been protected – since November 2015 – but this includes the security service not merely the police service. The police endured successive reductions in budgets after 2010, which she oversaw as home secretary. Remember that between July 2011 and August 2014 the threat level was set at “moderate” and counter-terrorism policing did not have the profile it does currently. May’s agenda during this time was to impose sequential cuts to funding and impose changes to working practices, the fruits of which are now being witnessed in neighbourhoods.</p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><strong>James Mehigan, lecturer in criminology, The Open University</strong></p>
<p>This is a well thought through and clear analysis of the funding of anti-terrorism work under the Conservative governments. It is right to say that you cannot simply point at the sections of the police which work directly on terrorism and state that those have maintained their funding. This does not look at the whole picture of anti-terrorist policing. The struggle against terrorism goes beyond the Security Services and police anti-terror units. It requires community engagement and intelligence gathering through other aspects of police work including neighbourhood policing. </p>
<p>The author is right to point out that long-term cuts affect this important work. Without proper grassroots policing “top end” anti-terror work would be less effective. Austerity has reduced the number of officers available to do this essential work and this makes it harder to fight terrorism.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78782/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Mehigan is a member of the Police Action Lawyers Group and the Policy Council at Liberty.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Williams does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Theresa May says they have. But let’s take a closer look.Peter Williams, Practitioner Fellow in Policing, Liverpool John Moores UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/778192017-05-24T15:44:27Z2017-05-24T15:44:27ZFact Check: do the police spend over a million hours a year fighting cannabis?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170622/original/file-20170523-5749-1wxrhqa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Counting the cost.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>One million police hours fighting a cannabis market that is out of control. Time to regulate it. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Nick Clegg, former Liberal Democrat leader, commenting on <a href="https://twitter.com/nick_clegg/status/864084105897676800">Twitter</a> on May 15 on the party’s election pledge to legalise cannabis.</strong></p>
<p>According to the authoritative <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/drug-misuse-findings-from-the-2015-to-2016-csew">Crime Survey for England and Wales</a>, 6.5% of 16 to 59-year-olds use cannabis. But fewer people are using cannabis <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/drug-misuse-findings-from-the-2015-to-2016-csew">than in 1996</a>, when information first became available. </p>
<p>While much of the debate surrounding cannabis use has focused on the extent of potential harm to users, recently demands for a change in the law have focused on the benefit to the criminal justice system that legalisation might deliver. </p>
<p>The Liberal Democrats claim that a legal, regulated market for cannabis will save 1.04m police hours annually (just over half of this they calculate is spent on supply). Their calculations – which they shared with The Conversation – are based on <a href="https://data.gov.uk/dataset/criminal-justice-statistics/resource/1ded397e-aa3b-44c7-bc55-891c49019312">Ministry of Justice (MoJ) figures</a> of police caseloads for drug offences in 2015. They also use Treasury <a href="http://www.tdpf.org.uk/sites/default/files/Treasury-cannabis-regulation-CBA.pdf">estimates</a> of the number of hours police officers of different ranks (constable, sergeant or inspector) need to spend per case of cannabis possession or supply (updated from a thorough Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) <a href="https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civil/Beckley_Foundation/Cannabis_Cost_Benefit_Analysis_Report_w_New_Foreword_110915.pdf.pdf">study</a>). The graph below shows the amount of time spent across officer ranks on each outcome for possession or supply of cannabis.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ERmpG/4/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="363"></iframe>
<p>Cannabis is a Class B drug in the UK, possession of which can lead to five years in prison and an unlimited fine or both. Supply and production <a href="https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing">can be punished</a> with up to 14 years in prison and an unlimited fine or both. In practice, and based on MoJ 2015 figures, three quarters of a total of 75,207 cases of cannabis possession are dealt with by warnings (51%, including khat), penalty notices (11%) or cautions (13%). By contrast, 81% of all Class B drug supply arrests end up in court. </p>
<p>Data on the amount of actual police time spent fighting cannabis supply, however, are fuzzy. Treasury estimates do not differentiate between the time spent by police on cautions and preparation for court. The MoJ police caseload figures (which list 12,040 cases in 2015) also refer to the supply of <em>all</em> Class B drugs, not just cannabis. Nevertheless, if supply cases are comparable to possession, cannabis should account for around 84% of Class B drugs supply – or a little over 10,000 cases.</p>
<p>The Liberal Democrats also propose that they “will make cannabis safer by limiting THC content” – the drug’s psychoactive element. The ISER and Treasury studies <a href="http://www.tdpf.org.uk/sites/default/files/Treasury-cannabis-regulation-CBA.pdf">suggest</a> the limit could be set at 10%, but after legalisation there would still be an illicit trade in cannabis over this limit and, as happens with cigarettes, for cannabis under this limit to still be sold on the black market. So the police will need to remain active to enforce the regulatory regime, as well as policing the supply and possession of higher potency cannabis, including skunk, which would remain illegal and according to the <a href="http://www.dldocs.stir.ac.uk">Home Office Cannabis Potency Study 2008</a> dominates the market. These factors would be expected to reduce the proposed savings on police time. </p>
<p>Because it is currently unknown how much time exactly the police spends fighting cannabis supply (rather than all Class B drugs) and because, even after cannabis legalisation, a large part of the illicit market for the drug is likely to remain, the Liberal Democrats’ alleged savings of just over half a million hours in relation to <em>supply</em> offences (precisely 553,840 hours, calculated as 12,040 caseloads multiplied by 46 hours) are overly ambitious. Indeed, reasonably expected savings from releasing police time from supply offences for cannabis under 10% THC content may be completely offset by the additional demands triggered by cannabis legalisation.</p>
<p>In the last ten years, 15% to 25% of the cannabis possession police caseloads ending in cautions and court preparations <a href="https://data.gov.uk/dataset/criminal-justice-statistics/resource/1ded397e-aa3b-44c7-bc55-891c49019312">refer</a> to under 18-year-olds.</p>
<p>As the Liberal Democrats would still need to police the use of cannabis by this age group, their calculations, based on all caseloads, are already overestimated by 50,414 hours, the time the police spent in 2015 dealing with under 18-year-olds. This is the sum of 21,310 hours for 2,130 cautions and 29,104 hours for 1,819 court preparations for non-adults. </p>
<p>Following legalisation of cannabis use for adults, however, the proportion of under-18s who are cannabis users may decrease. This expectation is in line with examples from the effect on under-18s of policy initiatives on <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03039.x/full">banning smoking</a> or <a href="http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.697684">alcohol consumption</a>. </p>
<p>Post legalisation, however, overall demand for cannabis is <a href="https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civil/Beckley_Foundation/Cannabis_Cost_Benefit_Analysis_Report_w_New_Foreword_110915.pdf.pdf">expected to rise</a> by between 9% and 24%. There is also evidence of a link between cannabis use and shop-thefts, other <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19485560903054762">acquisitive crimes</a> and <a href="http://www4.ntu.ac.uk/apps/news/187447-15/Revellers_face_brunt_of_violent_crime_study_suggests.aspx">violence</a>. Greater cannabis use will also <a href="https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civil/Beckley_Foundation/Cannabis_Cost_Benefit_Analysis_Report_w_New_Foreword_110915.pdf.pdf">likely increase</a> alcohol consumption and arguably alcohol–related offences. </p>
<p>There is <a href="http://www.tdpf.org.uk/sites/default/files/Treasury-cannabis-regulation-CBA.pdf">mixed evidence</a>, however, about the role of cannabis as a gateway drug for harder drugs but, if confirmed, cannabis legalisation may lead to a rise in still illegal harder drug use and associated offences. All these will pose additional demands on policing in indirect ways and further reduce savings on police time.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The police spent nearly a million hours fighting cannabis in 2015, on the assumption that cannabis supply caseloads accounted for 84% of all Class B drug offences. A regulated and licensed cannabis market will definitely release police time with regards to enforcing possession of low potency cannabis. </p>
<p>But the overall 1.04m police hours the Liberal Democrats claim would be saved in police time by legalising cannabis is vastly overestimated because of the questionable estimates relating to supply offences. Discounting the 553,840 hours the police spent in 2015 enforcing the supply of Class B drugs offences – time which would still, at least in part, be required to regulate the sale of low potency cannabis and enforce the ban on the supply and possession of high potency versions of the drug – and the 50,414 hours spent policing cannabis possession among under-18s, which would also remain illegal, the hours potentially saved total under half a million. </p>
<p>There are, however, other potential positive policy outcomes from legalisation, such as a predicted fiscal benefit from tax revenue of between £541m and £768m – and overall savings to the health and criminal justice systems predicted at anywhere between £19m and £71.6m by the Treasury and ISER. The full extent of the reduction in police time arising from the legalisation of cannabis, however, is still very much open to conjecture.</p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><em>James Mehigan, lecturer in criminology, Open University</em></p>
<p>This is a logical and fair discussion of the available data on this topic. The point the Liberal Democrats are making, that in a legalised-cannabis- world police would have more time to deal with more serious offences, is a strong one. But quantifying exactly how much extra time they would have in such circumstances is fraught with difficulty. It is right to say that any form of legalisation will inevitably leave some cannabis criminalised and therefore subject to regulation by the police. This regulation will use up at least some of the freed hours. The Lib Dems have chosen a figure for freed hours at the high end of the scale and while the data doesn’t neatly allow us to be precise about the figures, the author’s calculation that it would be significantly lower is reasonable.</p>
<p>The question may be slightly bigger than just police hours, however. Possession of cannabis is a gateway offence that often introduces young people to the criminal justice system <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10610-012-9191-1">and its many deleterious effects</a>. Legalising it may alleviate pressure on other aspects of the criminal justice system (such as probation) and allow young people to more effectively enter the jobs market without the stigma of a criminal conviction. The economic impact of this cannot be measured in the abstract.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation is checking claims made by public figures and in the public domain. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert then reviews an anonymous copy of the article. Please get in touch if you spot a claim you would like us to check by emailing us at <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-factcheck@theconversation.com">uk-factcheck@theconversation.com</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77819/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andromachi Tseloni has received research funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the College of Policing, Higher Education Funding Council for England, and Home Office Police Knowledge Fund, and Drinkaware. She is a member of the Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership Board. This article does not represent the views of the research councils.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Mehigan is a member of the Policy Council at Liberty and the Police Action Lawyers Group'</span></em></p>The figures don’t really add up.Andromachi Tseloni, Professor of Quantitative Criminology, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/777422017-05-22T08:28:58Z2017-05-22T08:28:58ZFact Check: have the Conservatives always been the low-tax party?<blockquote>
<p>When people come to look at this decision on June 8, they will have a choice between a Conservative party that has always been a low-tax party … and a Labour party that is about raising taxes, that is about higher taxes for the future.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Theresa May, Conservative prime minister, in an <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08plldm/the-andrew-marr-show-30042017">interview</a> with the BBC’s Andrew Marr on April 30. May <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/10318089/bbc-news-channel">repeated</a> the claim during her press conference to launch the Conservative party manifesto on May 18.</strong></p>
<p>The history of tax and spending levels is more complicated than a politician’s slogan can capture. As the graph shows, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative governments from 1979 undoubtedly slashed income tax rates.</p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-U0Fyw" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/U0Fyw/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>Thatcher inherited from Labour a basic rate of income tax at 33%, and a higher marginal rate which could reach <a href="https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn25.pdf">as high as 98%</a>. By 1988, she had cut that higher rate dramatically to 40% and the basic rate to 25%. But this tax cut was partly offset when her government raised the indirect tax, VAT, from 8% to 15%. This is a less egalitarian way of taxing, because, unlike income tax, everyone pays at the same rate.</p>
<p>May says Labour is “about raising taxes”, but, as the graph shows, the 1997 New Labour government in fact maintained the lowered basic income tax rate, and indeed reduced it further. Economic boom times in the early 2000s enabled Tony Blair’s government to both <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-july-2016">raise</a> public spending and keep taxation relatively low.</p>
<p>Labour’s historical appetite for endlessly higher tax and spending levels is somewhat exaggerated. There has always been a strong co-existing strain of fiscal prudence among progressives, dating back to the frugality of Victorian liberalism. The Labour chancellor, Denis Healey, was <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-july-2016">reining</a> in public spending even at that high point of enthusiasm for the state in the late 1970s.</p>
<p>The Conservative desire to cut taxes is also complicated by the fact that it co-exists with its more paternalist, <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2017/05/one-nation-under-may">one nation</a> instincts. Under Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden, the party certainly <a href="https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn25.pdf">did keep tax levels lower</a> in the 1950s, for instance, than Labour is likely to have done.</p>
<p>But the significant rise in tax and spending under Labour’s Harold Wilson in the 1960s had already begun under Conservative Harold Macmillan, who recalled vividly the stark inequality of the 1930s’ depression in his own Stockton-on-Tees constituency, and was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/23/supermac-kynaston-harold-macmillan-review">determined</a> never to return to it.</p>
<p>May herself has on several occasions drawn <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37556019">a distinction</a> with her predecessor, David Cameron, in insisting that the state could be a “force for good”. If she wins the election, this tonal shift is likely to compete intriguingly with any aspiration to dramatically cut taxes, especially in relation to spending on the NHS.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"864405814160896001"}"></div></p>
<p>Economic context is also everything. A recent <a href="https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN_182.pdf">report</a> from the Institute of Fiscal Studies shows that due to the recession, government revenues actually fell under the supposedly more red-blooded Labour prime minister Gordon Brown, by 5.5% in 2009-10. Revenues then rose as a share of national income under the Conservatives, as they sought to fight off the deficit. Revenues are currently forecast to increase to roughly pre-2008 levels by 2020.</p>
<p>What the Conservatives can plausibly argue is that by their austerity policy since 2010 of significantly cutting <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-july-2016">public spending</a>, from 45.2% to 40.1% of GDP, they kept taxation (or alternatively the deficit) from rising higher still. </p>
<p>It is also true that given Jeremy Corbyn’s plans outlined <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017">in the Labour manifesto</a> to significantly raise both corporation tax and higher income tax rates for those earning above £80,000, the distinction between the parties on tax and spend is presently greater than is the recent historical norm.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>It is, in the end, broadly fair for Theresa May to say that the Conservative party, both historically, and in recent times, has been inclined to somewhat lower spending, and so levels of tax than Labour, and to a lesser extent the Liberal Democrats. But it is also fair to say the Conservatives tend to overplay the extent of this difference. The exclusive focus on tax is also a bit like looking at only one dimension in isolation of a three-dimensional, interconnected policy challenge. The other dimensions are the need for well-funded public services, which excessive tax cuts can undermine, and economic growth, without which tax receipts fall, and which is arguably left less certain in the context of Brexit. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><em>Katherine Cousins, doctoral researcher in taxation, University of Sheffield</em></p>
<p>I agree with the verdict. Historically, although periods of lower income tax have on the whole tended to coincide with periods of Conservative government, it is difficult to demonstrate that this is to a great enough extent, or indeed consistent enough, to conclusively point to the Conservative party as a low-tax party. </p>
<p>The author points to the accompanying rise in VAT across periods of lower income tax. We can see this pattern from the very beginning of the modern Conservative movement; upon the scrapping of the <a href="https://archive.org/details/historyoftaxatio02doweuoft">first income taxes in 1816</a>, the Tory government instead turned to significant increases in expenditure taxes to address the high national outlay. Perhaps, then, a low tax policy is not, and has not been, universal across all branches of taxation.</p>
<p>Theresa May’s claim is by no means incorrect, or without substance. However, as the author has pointed out, it is unclear whether it is conclusive, or accounts for a complete picture of Conservative fiscal policy.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation is checking claims made by public figures and in the public domain. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert then reviews an anonymous copy of the article. Please get in touch if you spot a claim you would like us to check by emailing us at <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-factcheck@theconversation.com">uk-factcheck@theconversation.com</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77742/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Theresa May claims the Conservatives have historically been a party of low taxes. Is she right?Jeremy Nutall, Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities, Kingston UniversityKatherine Cousins, Doctoral Researcher, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/778162017-05-18T10:51:17Z2017-05-18T10:51:17ZFact Check: if 30% more people under 25 vote, could the Conservatives lose the election?<p>An article <a href="https://www.indy100.com/article/30-per-cent-more-young-people-voted-tories-will-lose-on-8th-june-general-election-corbyn-labour-lead-7723671">on The Independent</a> is being widely shared on <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/social-barometer-week-two?utm_term=.hovw97ev8B#.dcvZgvLlVO">social media</a> suggesting that a 30% increase in turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds would make the election of a majority Conservative government on June 8 rather unlikely. It followed a <a href="https://twitter.com/diponte/status/860185498714869765">tweet</a> by Alan Firth, a linguist at Newcastle University, commenting on an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/04/students-go-vote-dont-gift-tories-victory?CMP=share_btn_tw">article</a> by the vice president of the National Union of Students, Shelly Asquith. When contacted by The Conversation, Firth said that the calculations made in The Independent article reflected his own.</p>
<p>For the purpose of this fact check, we will look at whether the Conservatives could lose if turnout of those under 25 were to increase by 30 percentage points. To check whether this really could happen, we need to answer four questions. </p>
<p>First, what are the turnout rates among younger and older voters? The <a href="http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/data-object/version-3-0-2015-face-to-face-post-election-survey/">2015 British Election Study</a> (BES) shows that 57% of 18 to 24-year-olds claimed to have voted in 2015, compared to 76% of people over 25. These figures overestimate actual turnout rates because some people say they voted when they did not (and all surveys tend to over-sample voters). </p>
<p>Because of this, the BES <a href="http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/bes-vote-validation-variable-added-to-face-to-face-post-election-survey/#.WRrTTdy1tpg">“validates” votes for some people</a>: it checks whether people actually voted. When it did this for 2015, it found that 10% of 18 to 24-year-olds claimed to have voted but did not, while 3% of people over 25 did the same. So if we correct the turnout figures to reflect this, then 47% of 18 to 24-year-olds voted at the last election compared to 73% of those over 25. This gives us a good indication that there is a real difference, a bit shy of 30%, between older and younger voters’ likelihood to vote.</p>
<p>The second question is whether young people and older people vote very differently. Again, the <a href="http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/data-object/version-3-0-2015-face-to-face-post-election-survey/">2015 BES</a> is helpful for showing the longstanding differences between age groups in Britain in vote choice. The graph below shows that younger people are less likely to vote Conservative than older people.</p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-eTR6E" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/eTR6E/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The third question is whether those who did not vote would behave the same way as those that did? The second graph shows the parties that non-voters in 2015 said they would have supported if they had voted, excluding those who said “don’t know”. It appears that the Conservatives actually have less potential support among young non-voters than they do among young voters. </p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-4jvKQ" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/4jvKQ/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>On the face of it then, increasing turnout rates by 30 percentage points among 18 to 24-year-olds should bring voters into the electorate who are quite unlikely to vote Conservative.</p>
<p>But the impact of increasing turnout for those under 25 depends on what proportion of the electorate they make up – my final question. According to the <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011census/2011ukcensuses">2011 census</a>, 18 to 24-year-olds make up less than 12% of the electorate. </p>
<p>Imagine that turnout did increase for this group by 30 percentage points, and imagine that only 16% of those previous non-voters voted as they said they would after 2015 and opted for the Conservatives. The Conservatives would get a lower share of the vote, but this effect would be fairly small: the party’s overall share of the vote would fall by slightly over one per cent. This is because anything that affects only 3.6% of the electorate (30% of the 12% of the electorate under 25) can never lead to large shifts in aggregate vote shares.</p>
<p>On the whole, younger non-voters, like everyone else, are also probably more likely to vote Conservative than they were in 2015. A sizeable minority would also pick a party which will at best win one or two seats (according to the 2015 BES, 19% of under-25s voted for UKIP, the Greens or another small party). Taking this into account, the actual effect in first past the post constituency contests would be even smaller.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Even on the generous assumptions here, there really is no way that increasing turnout among such a small number of people – however distinctive their party preferences – can make much difference to an election in which the Conservatives have a poll lead of <a href="https://ig.ft.com/elections/uk/2017/polls/">nearly</a> 20 percentage points over their nearest rival.</p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><em>Ben Bowman, Teaching Fellow in Comparative Politics, University of Bath</em></p>
<p>Predicting elections based on polls is a tricky business, but the calculations and arguments made here are logical. Like The Independent, I’m not entirely sure where Alan Firth has got his 30% claim from because I don’t see it in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/04/students-go-vote-dont-gift-tories-victory">the original article</a> by Shelly Asquith.</p>
<p>Is such a rise possible? About <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high">64% of young people voted in the EU referendum</a>, up around 20% on recent general elections. A further increase would require grassroots organisation to include the most marginalised: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/15/number-of-school-leavers-on-electoral-roll-in-england-falls-25">25% of school leavers have fallen off the electoral roll</a> since registration rules were changed in 2014, with black and minority ethnic communities hit hardest.</p>
<p>A word of caution is required, then: a 30% rise would require a groundbreaking social movement, but it would bring along older voters, too. I do not see such a movement yet, and so I agree with the author’s conclusion nationally, and locally as well. Labour will gain <a href="http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/pvsh4yddit/InternalResults_170420_Demographics_W.pdf">about twice as many young votes</a> as the Conservatives but has not done enough to organise this support. For instance, a lot of students vote (69% of students voted in the 2015 general election) and their votes <a href="https://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/blog/young-vote-2017-stat-attack">could swing many marginal seats</a>. However, 60% vote in their home constituencies rather than at university and so their vote is diluted. If young people are to be Labour’s base, organising students should be bread-and-butter stuff for party organisers. They might still do it, but the clock is ticking.</p>
<p>Until then, this fact check holds water. The big swing in this election has been UKIP voters to the Conservatives, and there just aren’t enough young people to counterbalance that without a broader movement to Labour and organisation in key marginals.</p>
<p><em>The Conversation is checking claims made by public figures and in the public domain. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert then reviews an anonymous copy of the article. Please get in touch if you spot a claim you would like us to check by emailing us at <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-factcheck@theconversation.com">uk-factcheck@theconversation.com</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77816/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Tilley receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). The views expressed in this article do not reflect those of the research councils. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Bowman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We asked two experts in youth politics to check the claim that has been circulating on social media.James Tilley, Professor of Politics, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/775332017-05-17T15:29:56Z2017-05-17T15:29:56ZFact Check: could Labour raise £19.4 billion by reversing Conservative corporation tax cuts?<blockquote>
<p>The plans will be funded from the £19.4 billion that will be raised by reversing the Conservative Party’s cuts to corporation tax.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>A <a href="http://press.labour.org.uk/post/160492246769/labour-will-transform-education-for-the-many-not">Labour party press release</a> on May 9, 2017, detailing how the party would fund its plans to increase school spending.</strong></p>
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FConversationUK%2Fvideos%2F762532567248419%2F&show_text=0&width=560" width="100%" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The Labour party has cited its pledged increase in corporation tax as a way to fund a number of <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Funding%20Britain%27s%20Future.PDF">manifesto commitments</a>, including those on education. </p>
<p>Labour’s assertion that they can raise £19.4 billion is founded upon <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/direct-effects-of-illustrative-tax-changes">HMRC’s April 2017 estimates</a> – known as a “ready reckoner” – that a 1% increase in the rate of corporation tax would raise an additional £2.6 billion a year in 2020-21 (and £2.7 billion in 2021-22 when accounting for growth). </p>
<p>Yet Labour plans to do more than simply reverse the Conservative plan to cut the main rate of corporation tax to 17% by 2020, from its current rate of 19%. Instead, Labour would increase the main rate to 26% by 2020-21 and reintroduce a small profits rate for small businesses of 21% by the same year. </p>
<p>This would mean that under a Labour government, the main rate of corporation tax would be 9% higher by the end of the next parliament than currently planned, and 4% higher for small businesses.</p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-GEnUz" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/GEnUz/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The split between revenue raised through the main rate and the small profits rate was roughly 63%/37% in the last year when both rates existed, according to the <a href="https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9207#_ftnref7">Institute for Fiscal Studies</a>. Applying this ratio to a calculation using the £2.7 billion figure from HMRC above would add an extra £4 billion for the 4% increase for small companies’ profits, and £15.3 billion for the 9% increase for the main rate. This would mean that in 2021-22, the extra revenue would be £19.3 billion. </p>
<h2>Changing behaviours</h2>
<p>Based on this information, the £19.4 billion figure does seem reasonable. However, the increase in revenue would be dependent on the behaviour of companies not changing in the face of such a marked rate increase. <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2296498?&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">Previous academic studies</a> have shown how both individuals and organisations change their financial behaviour when relevant taxes are introduced, abolished or altered. </p>
<p>These changes in behaviour can take two main forms. Changes in tax planning could push companies to minimise their taxable profits in the UK. While changes in strategy and investment could make companies invest less in the UK, which would affect economic growth – and tax returns through corporation tax.</p>
<p>This means that the amount raised through corporation tax can be unpredictable and shows no immediate association with the underlying rate of tax. There is evidence of this in UK corporation tax receipts <a href="http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/onshore-corporation-tax/">over recent years</a>. While the main rate of corporation tax has continually decreased since it was introduced in its current form in 1973, the receipts generated have remained generally buoyant.</p>
<p>No tax exists in a bubble. Even if a company does not take any steps to counteract the change in tax rate and pays an increased amount of corporation tax, this will reduce its post-tax profits which will affect either its customers (in the form of increased prices), employees (through decreased wages), or shareholders (through decreases in dividends). Decreases in consumer spending, wages and dividends are then likely to result in decreases in tax receipts from excise duties, VAT, income tax and national insurance. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>While Labour claims that the Treasury will have an additional £19.4 billion to spend by increasing corporation tax to 26% by 2022 makes statistical sense, these headline numbers could only bear fruit if companies don’t change their behaviour and there is no impact on other taxes. History teaches us that these are large assumptions to make, and so there can be no guarantee over future levels of corporation tax receipts. </p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><em>Eamonn Walsh, Professor of Accounting, University College Dublin</em></p>
<p>I agree with this verdict. If anything, it is too restrained. No change in corporate behaviour is probably untenable – all the more so when new administrations in <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/24/emmanuel-macron-unveils-plans-slash-taxes-public-sector-jobs/">France</a> and especially the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/26/trump-tax-proposal-corporate-tax-rate-15-percent">US</a> are seeking to cut corporate tax rates to below 26%. Inevitably, international companies that can actively manage the geography of their profits will reconsider their internal arrangements and this will result in erosion of the UK corporate tax base.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77533/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Labour has pledged to raise the rate of corporation tax to 26% by 2020. How much could this raise?Gavin Midgley, Teaching Fellow in Accounting, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/773362017-05-11T09:06:26Z2017-05-11T09:06:26ZFact Check: are there 6,500 more doctors and 15,000 more nurses since Jeremy Hunt became health secretary?<blockquote>
<p>Since I’ve been health secretary we’ve got 6,500 more doctors, we’ve got 15,000 more nurses. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Jeremy Hunt, health secretary, speaking on the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08q4gkm/the-andrew-marr-show-07052017">BBC’s Andrew Marr</a> show on May 7.</strong> </p>
<p>During his interview on the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08rlz0b">Andrew Marr show</a> on May 7 Jeremy Hunt claimed that, since he became secretary of state for health in September 2012, 6,500 more doctors and 15,000 more nurses are now working for the NHS. </p>
<p>While the Conservatives did not respond to a request for comment on the figures, <a href="http://content.digital.nhs.uk/searchcatalogue?productid=24876&topics=1%2fWorkforce%2fStaff+numbers&sort=Relevance&size=10&page=1#top">official NHS figures</a> bear out Hunt’s claim. </p>
<p>In August 2012, the month before Hunt took office, there were 106,689 hospital doctors and 304,476 nurses and health visitors working for the NHS. The most recent figures, for January 2017, show that 113,111 hospital doctors are working for the NHS, an increase of 6,422 – just under 6,500. The number of nurses and health visitors now stands at 319,876, an increase of 15,400. So Hunt can rightly claim that there are more doctors and nurses working for the NHS since he has been in his post. </p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-11qDy" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/11qDy/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="300"></iframe>
<p>Though factually correct, these figures paint a rosy picture of the employment situation in the NHS in two ways. First, the number of staff working in the NHS varies month-by-month, peaking during the winter months and at its lowest point in August. So Hunt’s August to January comparison gives the most generous impression of the rise in employment. It would be fairer to compare numbers for the same month. This makes little difference for the rise in the number of doctors, but matters a lot for nurses. By comparing January 2012 to January 2017, the NHS has only 5,322 more nurses. </p>
<p>Second, while staff numbers have risen, they haven’t risen fast enough to cope with the increase in demand for NHS care. The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/602309/58551_NHS_PRB_Accessible.pdf">NHS Pay Review Body</a> estimated that, in 2015, the NHS was already short of almost 30,000 nurses. The shortfall is likely to get worse, particularly if the next government continues to restrain nursing pay growth to <a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/fyfv-tech-note-090516.pdf">1% a year</a> and because some NHS staff from other European Union countries already appear to be returning home as a consequence of the <a href="https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhealth/640/64006.htm#_idTextAnchor019">referendum</a> on the UK’s membership of the EU. </p>
<p>Does Hunt have a plan to address this increasing shortfall? Neither the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news-parliament-2015/nhs-staff-numbers-report-published-15-16/">Public Accounts Committee</a> nor the <a href="https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldnhssus/151/151.pdf">House of Lords Select Committee</a> think so, having harshly criticised the NHS for its poor workforce planning, particularly given the government’s plans for a seven-day NHS and in the light of Brexit.</p>
<p>The NHS cannot cope with the pressures it faces simply by employing a few more doctors and nurses. Instead it needs to train and retain enough staff to meet current and future demands. The <a href="http://www.health.org.uk/publication/short-supply-pay-policy-and-nurse-numbers">evidence</a> suggests it isn’t doing so. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Jeremy Hunt’s claim about the increase in the number of doctors and nurses is true – but the increase still leaves the NHS short staffed.</p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><em>Roger Watson, professor of nursing, University of Hull</em> </p>
<p>This fact check is very fair in that it acknowledges the truth in Jeremy Hunt’s claims but also takes into account some other factors that have a well-known impact on NHS staff numbers. Nursing employment fluctuates seasonally and, as researchers such as Jim Buchan have <a href="http://www.health.org.uk/publication/staffing-matters-funding-counts">emphasised</a>, the NHS workforce goes frequently from “boom to bust”. Whatever the numbers employed, the NHS remains short of nurses by any reckoning and – although this is not picked up in the fact check – the shortages are not spread evenly across the UK. Despite the hope that EU nationals will be given the right to remain in the UK after Brexit, the effect that leaving the EU will have on the nursing workforce is unknown and unlikely to be positive.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77336/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Street has received project funding from the National Institute of Health Research, the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme, and the European Union. The views expressed are his own.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katja Grasic has received project funding from the National Institute of Health Research and the Department of Health's Policy Research Programme. The views expressed are her own.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roger Watson has received funding from the Department of Health. The views expressed are his own. </span></em></p>We asked two academics to check Jeremy Hunt’s figures.Andrew Street, Professor, Centre for Health Economics, University of YorkKatja Grasic, Research Fellow, Centre for Health Economics, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/767162017-05-08T09:37:02Z2017-05-08T09:37:02ZFact Check: are fewer people switching gas or electricity company?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167207/original/file-20170428-12970-1gnaa39.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">via shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>We wanted to see more competition. We wanted to see more people able to switch between energy users [sic], that, over the last three or four years has not happened. This is a market that is not working perfectly and therefore we are intervening to make markets work better.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Michael Fallon, defence secretary and former energy minister, speaking on the BBC <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08n1xr8">Radio 4 Today programme</a>, on April 24</strong></p>
<p>The Conservatives are expected to outline an election pledge to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/23/tory-energy-bill-cap-will-save-families-100-damian-green-says">introduce a cap</a> on energy prices in their manifesto. The reason – as outlined by Michael Fallon – is that not enough people are taking advantage of cheaper energy prices from alternative suppliers. </p>
<p>The Conservative Party press office pointed The Conversation to recent <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/quarterly-domestic-energy-switching-statistics">government figures</a> to back up their claims about what are known as “sticky customers”. A spokeswoman said: “Whilst we have started to turn around falling numbers of people switching since 2013, approximately 70% of people still don’t switch and the level is below what it has been recently.”</p>
<p>So, how many people are actually switching? The <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/retail-market-indicators">most recent figures from Ofgem</a>, the energy regulator, show that the number of domestic consumers switching their gas or electricity supplier has increased rather than fallen over the last year or so: 30% of domestic consumers switched in 2016, up from around 24% in 2015. The number of people switching from one of the big six energy companies to small suppliers who tend to be new entrants to the energy market increased from a tiny percentage in 2010 to 41% in 2016 for both gas and electricity respectively.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167199/original/file-20170428-12984-tf8rxn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167199/original/file-20170428-12984-tf8rxn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167199/original/file-20170428-12984-tf8rxn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167199/original/file-20170428-12984-tf8rxn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167199/original/file-20170428-12984-tf8rxn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167199/original/file-20170428-12984-tf8rxn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167199/original/file-20170428-12984-tf8rxn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">More people have begun switching.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/retail-market-indicators#thumbchart-c6191152955871075-n95441">Ofgem</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So the picture painted by Fallon is wrong. People are switching – not everyone, but an increasing minority, and they are often moving to new entrant companies.</p>
<p>But what is a high enough level of switching? A <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/54e75c53ed915d0cf700000d/CMA_customer_survey_-_energy_investigation_-_GfK_Report.pdf">2015 survey of domestic consumers</a>, conducted as part of a lengthy <a href="https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/energy-market-investigation">Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) investigation</a> into the energy market, compared the energy sector with other major markets. It found that 27% of consumers changed electricity supplier between 2012 and 2015, compared with 52% who had changed their car insurer. However, only 24% had changed their mobile phone provider, and only 12% had changed their mortgage or current account. So why aren’t the Conservatives also thinking of intervening in the mobile phone market or other markets, where consumer engagement is lower than energy?</p>
<p>Ofgem published a <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/consumers/household-gas-and-electricity-guide/understand-your-gas-and-electricity-bills/energy-plans-what-standard-variable-rate-tariff-and-how-does-it-compare">league table</a> of major suppliers’ energy tariffs allowing consumers to check the sort of savings they might make if they switched. But some people simply don’t want the hassle of switching. Others may not be driven by price in relation to their energy bills – for example, they may prioritise buying renewable electricity rather than the cheapest electricity. More information is unlikely to have much of an impact on these consumers.</p>
<p>Capping energy prices on some or all of the available tariffs would tend to level the playing field between different energy suppliers, so reducing price differentials and therefore any incentive to switch. In other words, the two policy measures would not seem to fit together and a cap on energy prices could actually see a drop in switching. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Fallon’s claim that people aren’t switching enough is wrong on the basis of the most up-to-date figures. Energy markets aren’t perfect, but intervening to cap energy prices and encourage switching are like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. </p>
<p>Competition may help make energy more affordable, but relentlessly driving down prices is not the way to encourage investment in new energy capacity or the development of more sustainable ways of producing and using energy. The focus on energy caps and switching is too narrow and too short term to contribute to the development of a sustainable energy system.</p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p><em>Michael Waterson, professor of industrial economics, University of Warwick.</em></p>
<p>There is much here to agree with. More people are indeed switching energy supplier, and small and medium-sized suppliers are finally making an impact. Capping energy prices is not a good way to encourage switching. However, it is clear that many people are not engaged with this market and, at the same time, spend considerable amounts on energy, making it a political issue. But politicians’ headline-seeking “solutions” are unlikely to create workable outcomes. Really we need to understand more how to encourage consumers’ active search in products where the link between what you pay and the services you get for that payment is opaque. </p>
<p><em>The Conversation is checking claims made by public figures. Statements are checked by an academic with expertise in the area. A second academic expert then reviews an anonymous copy of the article. Please get in touch if you spot a claim you would like us to check by emailing us at <a href="uk-factcheck@theconversation.com">uk-factcheck@theconversation.com</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76716/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bridget Woodman is involved in an EU funded Horizon 2020 project on developing Local Energy Markets which is led by the UK energy company Centrica.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Waterson has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council in the past for energy switching work and currently receives funding for work on electricity at the upstream level (bulk energy storage) from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. The views in this article do not reflect those of the research councils. </span></em></p>The Conservatives claim the energy market is broken. Are they right?Bridget Woodman, Course Director, MSc Energy Policy, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.