End second-class British citizenship

• British nationality law is in need of a comprehensive overhaul

• Residual classes of British nationals—namely, British Overseas Citizens (BOCs), British Nationals (Overseas) (BN(O)s), British subjects, and British protected persons—continue to be treated as second-class citizens and denied the automatic right to live in the UK.

• Immigration and nationality fees, first introduced in 2003, have gone up at a rate of almost 20% per annum, or over 15-fold. Application fees—totalling up to nearly £15,000 for a family of four—can be as much as ten times the Home Office’s processing costs.

• Fees should be dropped: no British national should pay to become a British Citizen.

• Report backed by Hong Konger rights group Hong Kong Watch and Co-Chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China Iain Duncan Smith.

A new paper by the neoliberal think tank the Adam Smith Institute, argues British citizenship law is out of date and in need of a comprehensive overhaul, and that there are classes of British nationals without full automatic residency and work rights in the United Kingdom that amount to second class citizenship. There is widespread public support for long-term British residents to become citizens, the think tank argues, with acquisition of British citizenship seen as part of successful integration.

However in recent years Windrush migrants, armed forces veterans, residual British nationals and other long-term United Kingdom (UK) residents have all been victims of immigration and nationality requirements and fees that are inflexible, over-prescriptive and extortionate. Immigration fees, first introduced in 2003, have risen 15-fold since then with a family of four looking at shelling out £15,000 to become full British citizens. 

Many of those forced to pay such fees have been living in the UK for decades, or were born under British rule overseas. The think tank argues that it is wrong to subject harsh tests to people who, by right or service or decades lived, are already part of the UK’s national community. Instead, the report’s authors argue that the Government should equalize the status of everyone whose Britishness the UK has acknowledged through partial citizenship or national status, and that fees are waived for. 

The call comes as Hong Kongers with British National (Overseas) status gain residency and work rights in the UK and after a number of recent scandals such as Windrush citizens being denied citizenship and ex-military personnel unable to stay in the UK despite years of service to the Crown. 

Recent Chinese moves to remove recognition of BN(O) passports raise fears of further moves to remove rights of movement and citizenship of those that take up the right to work and live in the UK, and the free market think tank says that to leave Hong Kongers in the UK without full residency would in effect leave them stateless,and stuck in limbo.

The report makes three recommendations to the Government should it wish to fulfil the United Kingdom’s historic duties and better facilitate integration:

1. Make physical residence requirements for citizenship simpler and more flexible—nationality law should not duplicate pre-settlement residence tests that can be adequately addressed in the Immigration Rules;

2. Reduce immigration and nationality fees, including abolishing fees for armed forces veterans, NHS key workers, residual British nationals and children; and

3. Provide British citizenship to all residual classes of British nationals, who should be privileged over foreign nationals in all pathways to British citizenship.

Former Conservative Leader and Co-Chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) Sir Iain Duncan Smith, says:

“The UK government has made a generous offer to allow BNO passport holders in Hong Kong to come to the UK and reside here in the UK. However the process of registration, as pointed out in this excellent report by the Adam Smith Institute, is still too complex and too difficult. The report makes two sensible recommendations; first to automatically confer British citizenship on residual classes of British nationals - which they point out was the case for Falkland Islanders in 1983 and second, by making it easier for British nationals to register as British citizens.

"Both these seem reasonable and should be adopted by the government so that we are able to offer a welcome and a proper home for those fleeing persecution as is the case for the Hong Kong Chinese.”

Co-Author of the paper Andrew Yong, a human rights lawyer and Director of GlobalBritons, says:

“As Britain strikes a renewed path as an independent nation with a global outlook and history, it is time to reassess how we recognize through citizenship those—such as long-term Commonwealth migrants, British armed forces veterans and residual British nationals—who by ties of history and service are in all important respects already part of our national community. We believe that there are simple steps that we can and should take to make the pathway to citizenship simpler, fairer and more consistent with the principles of the British nation.”

Johnny Patterson, Policy Director of Hong Kong Watch, says:

"The introduction of the BNO policy provides the perfect opportunity for the rationalisation of British nationality law. 

The idea in this report of one bespoke 'Global Britons' category fits the bill. It is an historic injustice that those holding British nationality overseas - whether that is BNOs or British Overseas Citizens - are subject to such stringent immigration fees and sometimes tougher visa requirements than foreign nationals. No British national should pay to become a British citizen."

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Matt Kilcoyne: matt@adamsmith.org | 07904 099599.

Henry Hill is a freelance writer and News Editor of ConservativeHome. 

Andrew Yong is a human rights lawyer and director of GlobalBritons, who advocate for equal citizenship rights for all British nationals.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

Stop-gap budget doesn't cover the hole in businesses' budgets

As Kate Forbes MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Finance, unveiled the Scottish Government’s budget, the ASI’s Head of Government Affairs John Macdonald offered his verdict:

"The SNP has tried at every turn to make the emergency of the pandemic about the urgent need for independence. So it is on one hand unsurprising it would use its budget announcement to do the same, but on the other beggars belief it would criticise the Prime Minister for treating the Union as urgent. 

"Kate Forbes announced a barrage of spending based on borrowing made by the British government on their behalf and are continuing with plans to pump up public sector pay. It’s a kick in the teeth for private sector workers and business owners who can’t make ends meet with government restrictions on trading still in place.

"Scottish businesses heard a lot of lovely words about supporting businesses but many local authorities are still to even open application processes for firms to get the support they need to survive this pandemic. That means businesses going to the wall, it means creditors losing out, workers losing their jobs, and it means a risk of economic catastrophe on top of tragic loss of life. 

"At the end of the day, this budget was a stop-gap and doesn't cover the hole in businesses' own budgets. The real event will be in a month’s time with Rishi Sunak, when we see how British taxpayers’ combined strength can deliver to support and restart the Scottish economy." 

For further comment or to arrange an interview, please contact Matt Kilcoyne via 07904099599 or email matt@adamsmith.org

Vaccination acceleration worth a shot

• More British civilians have died from Covid since February than were killed in the entire Second World War.

• Every additional week of the pandemic costs the taxpayer £6 billion, while reducing economic activity by £5 billion.

• The UK has fallen behind Israel, who are vaccinating at a rate 10-times faster than Britain. 

• The huge costs of the pandemic justify a “war effort” to accelerate vaccinations and end the crisis.

• If the Government wants to rapidly speed up vaccinations, protect the vulnerable and end the pandemic they should set a target of six million doses per week.

• Acceleration of the UK vaccination programme could help save up to 50,000 lives.

• To manage this the Government must drop its centralised command and control method and fully utilise the private sector, armed forces, and volunteers. This should include the pharmacy network who are experienced in administering flu jabs, use of drive-in centres and repurposing closed premises, with 24/7 vaccination services.

The COVID-19 pandemic rages on with an average of over 40,000 daily new confirmed cases in the United Kingdom (UK), an all-time high. Over 400 people a day die with the virus, and lockdown measures necessitated by the virus continue to cause further harms. The fastest and safest way out of this crisis, the Adam Smith Institute argues, is mass vaccination.

Despite being the first country in the world to begin vaccinations, the United Kingdom has fallen behind and at the current rate Phase 1 (one dose for vulnerable groups) will not be completed until late 2022. Meanwhile even on the current Government target of 1m doses a week Phase 1 will not be completed until August 2021. The report’s authors argue the Government and devolved administrations should adopt a far more ambitious target of 6 million doses a week administered across the UK.  

This slow rollout is incredibly costly. Every additional week of the pandemic costs the taxpayer £6 billion, while reducing economic activity by £5 billion. The free market think tank argues there are also countless harder to quantify costs, such as declines in pediatric vaccinations, cardiovascular admissions, cancer treatments and endoscopic services, and mental health.

Since November the daily average deaths from COVID-19 in the UK has reached over 400 people with over 75,000 confirmed deaths since the pandemic began. More British civilians have died from Covid since February than were killed in the entire Second World War. The Adam Smith Institute says that an acceleration in the vaccination programme could help to save up to 50,000 lives. 

Israel shows that this acceleration is both possible and desirable. Israel has managed to vaccinate at a rate 10-times faster than the UK per head and has over 12% of its population already vaccinated with a first dose.

The huge costs of the pandemic justify a “war effort” to accelerate vaccinations and end the crisis, report authors Matthew Lesh, James Lawson and Jonathon Kitson say. They argue that with such a national priority the full power of the private sector, armed forces, and volunteers should be utilised along with the pharmacy network who are experienced in administering flu jabs, the use of drive-in centres, 24/7 services and accelerated acquisition and recognition of further vaccines. 

The Adam Smith Institute offers up a series of easy to implement ideas: 

1. Armed Forces and Reservists

Distribution - Vaccination centres & overall logistics capabilities

Call on the Armed Forces to support the vaccination effort, using existing buildings or constructing field hospitals where necessary to expand the number of vaccination centres. Military logistical experts are already working with the NHS at a top planning level, but should be running the logistical effort. If we are going to tackle this like a war, let the people who know how to fight one do it.

2. Pharmacies 

Distribution - Vaccination centres & skills

The centralised network of vaccine distribution allows the most vulnerable to get the vaccine first. However, pharmacies could extend vaccine centre capacity significantly (while being guided by the same Phase 1 priority groups). Government could allow pharmacies to purchase vaccines, and/or distribute them to pharmacies as extra vaccination centres. Pharmacies broke records last year when it came to flu jabs (distributing 1.7 million vaccines in two months) and are well placed to distribute COVID-19 vaccines.

3. Hospitality and other venues

Distribution - Vaccination centres 

Some pubs and bars have already offered their venues as vaccination clinics (e.g. BrewDog). With most hospitality venues closed due to Government restrictions, they can be used to help remove the bottleneck on vaccination venues.They also benefit from commercial grade refrigeration (most of which will now be empty) which could be used to store the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine at the required 2-8 degrees celsius. Venues that are not typically used for vaccinations could be overseen by local medical professionals serving as devolved management. To incentivise participation, the Government could compensate venues and/or provide opportunities for former/furloughed staff members (see “Jabs Army” and logistics volunteers below). Venues not commonly used for vaccinations may need to be granted immunity from lawsuits (except for cases of gross misconduct) as well as support for insuring their premises for this purpose.

4. Public venues

Distribution - Vaccination centres 

Places of worship, public housing, community centres, sports stadiums, school gyms, etc., provide further venue capacity. Particularly while stadiums and schools are closed, their car parks/grounds/pitches (ideally) and halls (properly ventilated) offer clear opportunities to distribute vaccines. Venues not commonly used for vaccinations may need to be granted immunity from lawsuits (except for cases of gross misconduct) as well as support for insuring their premises for this purpose.

5. Drive-in centres

Distribution - Vaccination centres & safe waiting areas

Following best practice from around the world is having someone else learn hard lessons for you. Israel’s drive-in centres reduce the problem of aerosol transmission risk within waiting rooms. Guidance on what constitutes a safe clinical area could be temporarily updated to make it clear this is an acceptable alternative.

6. Mobile vaccine centres

Distribution - Vaccination centres and hard to reach patients

Mobile vaccine centres - flu jabs have been in the past distributed by private companies which turn up to private sector organisations and vaccinate whole offices. Although offices are for the most part closed, the idea of mobile vaccine centres should be used to reach more isolated populations. At a small scale, this could entail converted food vans with sufficient refrigeration. 

7. 24/7 services 

Distribution - Vaccination centres & staffing

The vaccination programme should expand to 24/7, and funding should be made available to staff vaccination clinics with overtime payments and night shift subsidies. This will also reduce potential wastage when it comes to unused vaccines, not used due to missed appointments and clerical errors.

8. Walk-in services for “spare” appointments/doses

Distribution - Wasted appointments/doses

There will be unused doses for a variety of reasons. If there are spare does at then end of a given period (day, week) and vaccination centres are not running 24/7 the Government should allow walk in clinics, perhaps time limited beyond the 8.00am-8.00pm window of vaccination. This will reduce the risk of vaccinations expiring due to clerical or logistic errors.

9. Extend criteria

Distribution - Maximum appointments 

The NHS is currently providing vaccines largely to the first two priority groups, which includes those aged over 80, care home residents and healthcare workers. While these groups should continue to be prioritised, as there are more vaccines on the way it will be necessary to drop this stringent criteria. Initially this could include offering vaccinations to all those aged over 55, and vulnerable younger individuals, followed by allowing any individual regardless of age.

10. “Jabs Army” and logistics volunteers

Distribution - Staffing

Hire furloughed staff providing additional income, and paying a premium above furlough. Hospitality staff who are unable to work due to Tier 3 and above lockdowns would be an obvious pool of workers.These volunteers could either be trained to administer vaccines and/or take on logistics roles. Building up this additional staffing capacity will take time, particularly if onboarding requirements are too onerous (see below).

11. Volunteer vaccinator onboarding requirements

Distribution - Staffing

Retired doctors and nurses have complained that there is too much bureaucracy when they have attempted to sign up to help the vaccination programme. Unless a medical professional has been struck off, they should be allowed to return to support the vaccination programme. Unnecessary requirements will cause delays, and in any event the rehired medical professionals will be working with current members of staff who are already aware of the requirements such as fire safety. 

12. Increase payments to GPs and local health professionals

Distribution - Staffing and venue

GPs are currently paid £12.58 per dose to deliver vaccines, to allow for extra training, post-vaccine observation, and other associated costs. Nevertheless, the costs to GP remain substantial considering they must provide staff from their existing workforce. A simple way to encourage more focus and effort on vaccinations would be to substantially increase the payment per dose. This will ensure GPs put as much effort as possible into providing the all-important vaccinations.

13. Online booking platforms

Distribution - Appointment friction

Vaccination is currently booked mainly by GPs sending letters. The NHS should explore an online booking system(s), perhaps using ‘Commercial-off-the-shelf’ solutions rather than trying to develop its own system. They could commission existing private sector operators with experience in booking systems to develop the system.

14. Reward Attendance

Distribution - appointment no shows

If “no-shows” prove to become a problem and a bottleneck to meeting targets, rewards could be provided for attendance, paid either after both doses, or only after successfully completing a full 2 dose vaccination course. The configuration would depend on the volume of “no-shows” for appointments at each stage. For traditional vaccination centres this would likely be a cash reward/voucher, but for re-purposed hospitality venues could be a shared reward (e.g. a takeaway pint).

15. Online delivery of vaccines (home injection kits)

Distribution - vaccination centres 

If distribution remains a bottleneck despite all other measures a more radical option to consider would be the use of home injection kits delivered online, for those willing and able to do so. Given the small risk associated with allergic reactions and the requirement to self administer the vaccine, this initiative could be limited in scope, only to those of high COVID-19 risk, who have experience of self-injecting (e.g. diabetics), without any history of allergies, upon completion of a self assessment form. The injection itself would then be supervised online over a video call, as well as patient wellbeing after the  injection is completed. Supervisors would have patient details and a fast-track line to dispatch an ambulance in any rare cases of an adverse reaction.

16. Marketing

Distribution - Appointment booking

As with other critical phases of the pandemic, the Government should explore the full range of marketing opportunities to build up awareness and understanding of the vaccination programme, counter misinformation, and encourage a constant stream of fully booked appointments, so that supply of patients does not become the main bottleneck. 

17. Prizes

Distribution - incentives

Awards for the best employees and centres. Centres which consistently are vaccinating at higher rates should be financially rewarded, and exemplary service by individuals who are finding ways to vaccinate as many as possible should be recognised. 

18.  Crowdsourcing

Distribution - idea generation

There is a huge reservoir of talent and ideas in the country. Unfortunately, most of these people do not have time or ability to influence the Government, but online platforms could be utilised to crowdsource new ideas, locations and incentive systems to improve the rollout. A £5m prize fund could be established to compensate winning ideas that are successful. There should also be a system of reporting blockages and shortages, anonymously.

19. Oxford AstraZeneca

Pfizer

BioNTech

Supply - Delivery times and volumes

Further clarification of delivery schedules and negotiation of increasingly rapid supplies. If necessary, the Government should pay a higher per dose supplement for accelerating the delivery schedule. Support could also be provided to unblock supply chain issues (e.g. around glass vials), with Government underwriting purchase commitments or making prepayments if necessary. 

20. Market commitments

Supply - input materials

There have been concerns throughout the pandemic that input materials are a bottleneck to manufacturing vaccines. The Government should support pharmaceutical suppliers in reviewing their supply chain, and potential sources of delay. Where necessary, Government should support the secondary markets, pre committing to purchase input materials above market rate or otherwise incentivising a market response.

21. Moderna vaccine

Supply - Pharmaceutical suppliers

Grant immediate approval of the Moderna vaccine for order and distribution (given its approval by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, while UK processes complete)

22. Novavax vaccine

Supply - Pharmaceutical suppliers

Proactive planning for and stockpiling of the Novavax vaccine (pending completion of its phase 3 clinical trials and UK approval processes)

Report author and ASI Fellow James Lawson, says:

“Vaccinations are the fastest and safest way out of this miserable crisis. We are moving too slowly, Israel is now vaccinating ten-times faster than the UK per head. Central planning has failed, instead Boris should summon the spirit of Dunkirk against the virus — Britons of all backgrounds should offer up our time, premises and skills to speed up the supply and distribution of the vaccine to bring an end to this pandemic. It’s certainly worth a shot”

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Matt Kilcoyne: matt@adamsmith.org | 07904 099599.

James Lawson is a Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute. He is also a business advisor, supporting executives to transform their operations through AI and digital technologies.

Jonathon Kitson is an independent researcher and forecaster. He has written on defence procurement, forecasting and vaccination strategy. He tweets @KitsonJ1.

This paper is written in a personal capacity and does not reflect the views of these authors’ employers or clients, past or present.

Matthew Lesh is the Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

Embrace AI to kickstart 4th industrial revolution

• Widespread concerns about the impact of AI on jobs are driven by the Luddite Fallacy: assuming that robots and workers are competing for a fixed number of jobs in a static economy.

• Estimates suggest as many as 40% of jobs are at high risk of automation.  However these projections vary widely and are unclear on actual job losses or timelines. This creates unnecessary fear around the technology and fails to look at the net impact on employment.

• AI could mean a 4th Industrial Revolution, boosting innovation from driverless vehicles to accelerated vaccine development. 

• AI is critical to boosting the UK economy post COVID-19, creating new jobs, boosting productivity and increasing purchasing power.

• £1 billion of the Department for Work & Pensions’ circa £175 billion budget should be used to fund policy experiments in welfare such as a lifelong learning voucher scheme or a Negative Income Tax to allow people displaced in jobs to find new training and employment.

• To remove regulatory barriers to technological progress, the Government should set up a £5 million ‘Office for removing barriers to Artificial Intelligence’ (ORBI) and pass an ‘Unleashing Artificial Intelligence Act’ (UAI Act).

• UK Government should expressly rule out populist and unworkable Robot Taxes.

Over the last decade, artificial intelligence (AI) research and development has surged. This has been driven by the wider adoption of machine learning techniques in business, hardware improvements, and a greater willingness to invest. In the last six years, over three thousand AI startups have received venture capital funding, totalling over $66 billion.

With this rise though have come calls for restraint in the development of AI and warnings about the consequences of the technology’s adoption. This includes concerns about a full-scale apocalypse driven by AI. Science and technology leaders like the late Stephen Hawking, and Elon Musk even have warned of an existential threat to humanity. Other doomsayers also assert a more imminent threat: AI will bring the collapse of our economic order, driven by mass unemployment.

A new paper by the free market think tank the Adam Smith Institute argues that these worries are unfounded and predicated upon a well established mistake: the Luddite Fallacy. 

The economy is often thought of in static terms. This means people assume that robots and people are competing for a fixed number of jobs. It feels intuitive:  if work that

used to be completed manually is now automated, there is less need to employ a person. Moreover, if many positions are automated, this suggests that displacement of existing workers will result in mass unemployment and wage reductions. If large numbers of jobs are at high risk of automation from AI then the result would be widespread unemployment.

But this analysis is fatally flawed.  There is no finite number of jobs. As old jobs, especially dull and mundane ones are automated, new and better jobs can be created.

People can be paid better and do more interesting work. We can use labour resources more efficiently and to generate greater economic value. It is easy, the report’s author argues, to see how work is being automated but harder to conceive of the new opportunities and future jobs. It’s also easier for politicians to blame others (competitor countries, technologies, immigrants, etc.) than to focus on creating an environment that facilitates job creation.

Nevertheless, there is still a need to consider how AI could change the nature of the labour market. There is consensus about the huge scope for automation. However, the report argues, there is a lack of precise forecasts and a lack of recognition that losses because of automation do not necessarily translate to significant unemployment, as it will take time for businesses to adopt AI and new jobs will be created. 

Technology progresses faster than regulation, creating a ‘pacing problem,’ while a regulatory vacuum hinders progress in technology. The precautionary approach feeds this vicious cycle, but the think tank argues it can be fixed by the implementation of a permissive regulatory environment, like the UK has pursued in fintech, or which Estonia has now for AI.

The Government’s announcement of a new centre dedicated to artificial intelligence as part of a Defence spending boost last week is welcomed by the think tank but it warns that the UK is not currently positioned to lead in AI or ready to address the potential jobs impact from its implementation.

The report argues that the Government should set up a £5 million ‘Office for removing barriers to Artificial Intelligence’ (ORBI) and pass an ‘Unleashing Artificial Intelligence Act’ (UAI Act). The Office would remove impediments to artificial intelligence and make permissionless innovation the legal default. This approach could be expanded to other areas of regulation.

The report suggests the Government should set aside £1 billion of the Department for

Work & Pensions £175 billion budget, to enable policy experiments such as a lifelong learning voucher system or trials of a Negative Income Tax. 

Poorly thought out populist policies such as Robot taxes should be rejected utterly. They are poorly conceived, would hinder progress, and would be ineffective in a globalised economy already making mass use of technology in the workplace. An ideal tax is targeted at an activity that we want to discourage; technological advancement is no such activity.

Discouraging the use of robots would limit gains in productivity and overall output, making us all worse off. The Adam Smith Institute argues that it would be better to embrace higher output, and if necessary, redistribute afterwards once we are wealthier through more general increases in revenue.

AI has the potential to transform our world, but only for the better if it is embraced rather than resisted. Technological progress is key to growth and increased overall prosperity is the most likely scenario as AI develops, the think tank argues. 

Report author and ASI Fellow James Lawson, says:

“I know first hand AI’s huge potential to transform our lives for the better, creating jobs and driving innovation. 

“We should address people’s concerns about the impact on jobs, without resorting to excessive doom and gloom. The most likely scenario is that AI will create more jobs that it destroys, make us more prosperous and enable us to help anyone who loses out.

“The Government’s announcement last week of a dedicated AI centre is positive, but there is much more work to do if we really want to boost our economic recovery and position the UK for global AI leadership.”

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Matt Kilcoyne: matt@adamsmith.org | 07904 099599.

James Lawson is a Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute. This paper is written in a personal capacity.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

Rishi cannot tax our way out of debt or spend our way out of a recession — Adam Smith Institute

Following the spending review by the Chancellor, the Adam Smith Institute’s Deputy Director Matt Kilcoyne criticises the public sector spending splurge:

“The Chancellor set out plans for big-spending and big-borrowing to get the country through the pandemic, and set the course for the country in the years ahead. It is necessarily expensive to confront the Covid-19 pandemic. But this public sector spending splurge fails to put the United Kingdom onto a strong fiscal footing for the recovery. Rishi Sunak cannot tax our way out of debt or spend our way out of a recession. 

“Increasing departmental budgets as the economy shrinks is just spending money we don’t have. It is fair that while private sector wages have fallen, public sector wages do not rise. Every public sector worker does not automatically deserve a pay rise while the rest of the UK loses out. 

“Raising the minimum wage during a recession will hit the most vulnerable the hardest by preventing businesses from hiring out-of-work Brits. It risks fewer jobs and hours for the lowest skilled, young, and minority workers. For the party of business, the lack of thought about their needs and the increase in costs they’re facing coming from the government, this is a massive and unforgivable oversight.”

For further comment or to arrange an interview, please contact Matt Kilcoyne via matt@adamsmith.org or 07904099599

UK Free Speech Under Threat

Government should introduce a United Kingdom Free Speech Act modelled on the First Amendment of the USA

• Existing laws, as applied, have created categories of “speech crimes” for offensive but otherwise benign political speech.

• There is mounting evidence that existing law is capable of being applied, and is actually applied, in an overbroad fashion which was not contemplated by its drafters.  e.g. the treatment of Darren Grimes in June of this year

• The poor drafting of existing law means that as social attitudes shift, broader categories of speech are criminalized as “offensive,” “distressing” or “hateful.” 

• British citizens face emerging threats to freedom of expression posed by the Law Commission and “Online Harms” proposals, as well as the Hate Crime (Public Order) (Scotland) Bill. 

• Scottish Hate Crime Bill threatens sharing of potentially offensive Internet memes and freedom of speech in the home

A new paper released by free market think tank the Adam Smith Institute argues that freedom of expression is under significant and severe threat in the United Kingdom, both at the Westminster level and with a Bill currently progressing through the Scottish Parliament.

The think tank argues that there should be no right to not be offended, no right to prevent others from expressing ideas that one finds uncomfortable or dislikes, in positive law. With online life becoming everyday life for most people overreaching legislation risks snuffing out free speech, with the report author arguing that “the only way free inquiry will survive is if the police have no role in the regulation of political speech.” 

Freedom of expression is fundamental to life in a free and democratic society. It reflects our underlying moral right to think and express ourselves, even when it offends, disrespects or annoys others. It is, the Adam Smith Institute argues, what allows us to be individuals and the ability to express contrarian ideas allows us to explore controversial and important topics and strive for better understanding of the challenges we face. Censorship impedes this process.

Currently the UK has significant challenges to freedom of expression via the Public Order Act 1986, Communications Act 2003, Section 127 and Malicious Communications Act 1988, Section 1. The think tank argues that proposals by the Law Commission, the Hate Crime (Public Order) (Scotland) Bill, and ‘Online Harms’ in discussion at Westminster represent emerging threats to the principle. 

Both these existing laws and the new ones under discussion go against the British principles regarding free speech built up in political and legal case law that guard freedom of expression “not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.” (Handyside v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72.) 

Dramatic action is required if the UK’s rapidly-evolving statutory speech regime is

to avoid being used as a sledgehammer to crush dissent, the report’s author argues, saying that Parliament should create an “inviolable liberty that protects political expression of any type that falls short of direct incitement from state interference.” 

The report lists a number of cases raised in recent years that have raised eyebrows over the scope of free speech in the UK including: 

• Bethan Tichborne, who was convicted of a public order offence for yelling at then-Prime Minister David Cameron, at a public event, that he had “blood on his hands” for cutting disability living allowance.

• In 2014, Eurosceptic EU Parliament candidate Paul Weston, who was arrested on suspicion of violating the Public Order Act for quoting Winston Churchill verbatim. 

• Darren Grimes, a conservative commentator, who in this year was investigated and threatened with an interview under caution by the Met for having conducted an interview with historian David Starkey in which Starkey — not Grimes — made highly offensive comments about slavery. After public outcry the investigation was dropped.

All of these individuals were subjected to mandatory interactions with law enforcement pursuant to the provisions of the Public Order Act 1986, which the think tank argues  excessively criminalizes offensive speech. 

The Report is especially cogent for Scotland where the Hate Crime Bill is currently going through the Scottish Parliament. The think tank recommends that Scottish Parliamentarians remove references in the Bill to “insulting” material and the word “abusive” in response to the experience of English magistrates in using and overbroad and imprecise use of the terms. The report’s author also recommends defining precisely the terms “threatening” in the proposed law to avoid cases arising where highly offensive but non-threatening speech meets a highly sensitive listener.

Meanwhile at Westminster the debate over Online Harms continues to raise substantial free speech concerns with the “Duty of Care” requirement for online companies that allow their users to interact with one another unsupervised. This would, the report author argues, “impose a duty on interactive computer service providers to prevent users’ feelings from being hurt.”

Much of the substance of both bills is already covered under existing legislation (including legislation covering terrorism and child sexual abuse) but the Government’s inclusion of ‘legal but harmful’ under the proposals risks creating an expansive, and poorly-defined, set of speech, with no legal definition, that an independent government regulator could deem “harmful” and force online service providers to remove from the Internet. 

To resolve the growing threats to freedom of expression, the Adam Smith Institute argues that Parliament should immediately:

1. Remove all references to “abusive” or “insulting” words and behaviour from Parts I and III of the Public Order Act 1986;

2. Replace the Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 with (a) a provision that limits the scope of the existing rule to “threatening” only and (b) a new rule that addresses meaningful stalking and cyberstalking threats which cause or intend to cause substantial emotional distress, modelled after 18 U.S. Code § 2261A;

3. Repeal the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and replace it with a stalking statute; and

4. Introduce a United Kingdom Free Speech Act.

Report author and Legal Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute Preston J. Byrne  said:

“Basic political liberties including freedom of speech have been progressively eroded in the United Kingdom since 1997. Currently the Scottish Parliament and the Law Commission propose speech regulations which would be a more natural fit for Orwell’s Airstrip One than Churchill’s England. The sun is setting on the Enlightenment, and if Parliament does nothing to preserve free speech now we may lose it for generations.”

Andrew Rosindell M.P. said:

“Throughout history, societies have disagreed about the path forward. Ultimately there are two ways of resolving disagreements: violence, or free and open debate.

“For centuries our great nation has navigated choppy waters because of our commitment to the latter. With the flourishing of a free press, free speech, and a free economy, this nation has gone from strength to strength.

“The battle to preserve free speech is one every generation must fight. I fear that at the moment we are not doing enough to win this battle, as extremists from both ends attempt to stifle open inquiry. I fully endorse the work of organisations such as the Adam Smith Institute to re-examine our laws and norms in this matter of vital importance."

Darren Grimes, said:

“I back this vital Adam Smith Institute report and argue that the police investigation into an interview broadcast on my channel, with threat of arrest, should terrify anyone that cares about freedom of expression. This was an unprecedented use of public order legislation to target a member of broadcast media.

“As the report argues, through its current crop of laws, the United Kingdom is placing power in the hands of the easily offended, who can silence their opponents by threatening to report them to the police for daring to express unpopular opinions, challenge consensus or for daring to have uncomfortable conversations. This places an obvious chilling effect upon free, open and robust dialogue. 

“In the Miller v Humberside and College of Policing in the High Court earlier this year, a Judge likened police action over a tweet to the Stasi, the Cheka and the Gestapo. We can reverse this dangerous trend and restore trust and confidence in British policing by amending the law and reducing the police’s ability to criminalise people for expressing a view.

“Let’s get the law back to policing our streets, not our tweets.” 

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Matt Kilcoyne: matt@adamsmith.org | 07904 099599.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

Fives Eyes at the front of the queue for trade

Following the news of the Canada-UK rollover and announcement of a bespoke FTA to be negotiated in 2021, Deputy Director Matt Kilcoyne said:

"The days of being told continuity and bespoke deals in record time would be beyond the capability of the UK are long gone. This deal is a sensible stop-gap but the bigger news is the confirmation of a bespoke free trade agreement to be negotiated next year. Canada joins the rest of our Five Eyes allies now firmly at the front of the queue. As we leave the EU we find firm friends welcoming Britain on the global stage."

For further comment or to arrange an interview, please contact Matt via matt@adamsmith.org or 07904099599

Not getting to grips with the virus is costing country dearly

In response to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's expansion of corporate welfare into the Spring Matthew Lesh, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, said:

"The failure to control the virus is costing the country dearly. Consumer activity is falling as case numbers rise and lockdowns are instigated. We risk firm after firm failing and a cascading credit crunch as unpaid debts mount up.

"The Chancellor’s furlough extension is to avoid unnecessary economic scarring; however, it also risks propping up companies that are not profitable in the longer run. At some point, we must allow the economy to adjust, firms to fail and new ventures, and new jobs.

"The Chancellor should immediately release, and if it does not yet exist commission, the underlying economic modelling to justify these decisions. The shroud of secrecy must come to an end."

For further comment or to arrange an interview, please contact Matt Kilcoyne via Matt@adamsmith.org or 07904099599.

Build build build and beat the Germans (again)

• Seizing the chance to reform England’s planning laws could boost GDP by over 20%, meaning the UK economy overtaking Germany in value added per head

• The total value of the UK’s housing stock exceeds the cost of replacing it today by £3.7 trillion pounds

• Much of the current resistance to the proposed new housing targets comes from lack of clarity over what targets will be in each area and fear of new developments forced on residents

• Introduce micro democracy to provide popular, and beautiful housing with gentle densification

A new paper released today by London YIMBY, the grassroots campaign to end the housing crisis, and free market think tank the Adam Smith Institute, argues that the planning system has “failed young people” by not providing plentiful and high quality housing. This has limited job opportunities and undermined our most productive firms. 

While the report praises the Government’s White Paper on planning reform, noting the aim to streamline decision making and move democracy up front in the planning process, author John Myers warns that all previous reform attempts have failed, and clever ideas will be needed. It suggests radical, popular ways for local people to take back control from planners and give themselves more power to develop their own properties.

Unlike all the other laws governing property and markets, the planning system is not designed to achieve win-win outcomes for existing and potential new home owners. The planning system protects homeowners from unwanted nearby developments. But, with homeowners approximately two-thirds of voters, this has meant a blocking majority in many parts of the country to the developments many young people need to access the housing market. 

The shortage of permission to use land for housing in the places people want to live and where the most productive jobs are has hobbled Britain’s economy and inflated the price of housing. The lack of housing is now so severe that the total value of the UK’s housing stock exceeds the cost of replacing it today by £3.7 trillion. 

Countries such as Switzerland have a more responsive housing supply because local government and local people have much stronger incentives to allow more housing. The answer, the report argues, is ‘micro democracy’ provided by street and block votes (mooted in the Government’s White Paper). This would provide enormous benefits for existing homeowners, who could take back control from the planners and opt for gentle densification of their street that boosts the value of their property while guaranteeing high quality design. This would help turn NIMBY arguments upside down with developments becoming a win-win for existing and incoming homeowners.

Street votes are an idea backed by a broad cross-section of organisations, including the Centre for Cities, Create Streets, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the effective giving organisation Founders Pledge. The potential of street votes is also shown by the previous examples of residents agreeing to densification, Myers argues. In Primrose Hill, London, twelve terrace owners agreed to add an additional story simultaneously in 2018. Near Clapham Junction, in 2017, homeowners agreed to demolish their existing block of eight flats and replace them with a bigger, high quality building holding twice as many homes. One-third of new homes in Tel Aviv last year came from similar redevelopment.

The Planning for the Future White Paper represents, the think tank argues, a “once in a lifetime opportunity to do what governments have failed at for seventy years”.

In a year when the economy has shrunk by record levels as governments have locked down communities in response to the ongoing pandemic, it is the ability of planning reform to boost GDP and government revenues without raising taxes that is perhaps most striking. The report argues that fixing England’s planning system could increase GDP by at least 20% over a decade, allowing the British economy to overtake Germany’s in value added per head.

This is, the think tank argues, a prize that should be in the sights of every policy maker looking at planning reform. To get there the Government could rapidly pilot community-led intensification through design codes set at the level of individual blocks and streets, to help achieve the targets in a popular and durable way. 

Report author John Myers recommends three ways to increase the supply of housing in high price areas while maintaining public support:

1. Implement street and block votes: Street or block residents should be able to set design rules to ensure high quality and, if they choose, graceful densification. If a street opts for greater density, all the homeowners can benefit from a capital gain in the value of their property. That would ensure building is win-win for residents, enabling the Government to reach ambitious targets. 

2. Enable land value tax on future large sites: Allowing councils to gradually introduce a land value tax on future large sites would give councils and local people more confidence that targets will not be missed for reasons beyond their control. 

3. Publish target allocations: Publish indicative allocations of the proposed new local housing requirements, showing how they will be adjusted for constraints such as green belt and historic properties.

Report author co-founder of London YIMBY, John Myers said:

“For decades we have failed young people and anyone unable to achieve their dreams because of expensive housing. Planning reform in this Parliament is a once in a lifetime opportunity to do what governments have failed at for seventy years: end the housing shortage and the endless cycle of failed planning reforms. We need to build on the ambition in the White Paper and make new housing win-win. That will ensure high-quality new homes become abundant.”

Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute Matthew Lesh, said:

“The planning system is a national scandal. It has provided neither plentiful nor high quality housing. It has just driven up the cost of living and, by reducing mobility, blocked access to jobs. This is a huge deal for the broader economy. Fixing the planning system could help the British economy leave Germany's in the dust in just a decade, and repair the economic damage from the pandemic.”

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Matt Kilcoyne: matt@adamsmith.org | 07904 099599.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

An updated statement on the Chancellor's updated statement

The Adam Smith Institute recognises the need for new financial measures to support areas put under harsher local restrictions.

Following Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s updated statement today, Matthew Lesh, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, said:

“The failure of the Government’s test, trace, and isolate regime has led to renewed restrictions. If the Government is going to restrict the activities of private businesses during a pandemic to stop the spread of a virus, it is right to provide financial support.

“This is, of course, hugely costly and will add mountains to the debt. Nevertheless, it is a one-off expense, at a time of low interest rates, that should have a  longer-term benefit of fewer firms closing, securing the basic relationships in the economy and protecting jobs.

“At some point we will need to allow firms to fail, people to start new ventures, capital to reallocate, and new skills to be built and jobs created. The Government cannot and should not save every job at any time. But Tier 2/3 restrictions are not the time for creative destruction.”

Notes to editors: 

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Matt Kilcoyne: matt@adamsmith.org | 07904 099599. 

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.