Online Safety Bill: Frightening and historic attack on freedom of expression

In response to the Government’s publication of the Online Safety Bill, the Adam Smith Institute’s Head of Research Matthew Lesh said:

“The Online Safety Bill is an incoherent train wreck. The inclusion of ‘lawful but still harmful’ speech represents a frightening and historic attack on freedom of expression. The Government should not have the power to instruct private firms to remove legal speech in a free society.

“The scope of these proposals is practically limitless, encompassing everything from ‘trolling’ to ‘fraud’ and ‘misinformation’. It will threaten privacy by age-restricting the entire internet: requiring websites to gather drivers’ licenses and passports to ensure services are age-appropriate. The vagueness of the legislation means there will be nothing to stop Ofcom and a future government including any additional measures in future.

"The costs to businesses will be huge, with the Government's impact assessment indicating that the proposals will cost £2.1 billion, with an extraordinary £1.7 billion expected to be spent on content moderation. These costs will be crippling for start-ups and scale-ups, cementing the power of Big Tech.

“The bill needs a serious rethink. There needs to be a mandate on Ofcom that prevents the issuing of guidance that infringes on legal speech, open to arbitrary interpretation under the current proposals. There also needs to be a much greater focus on the perpetrators of unlawful behaviour. The proposals will not see a single extra penny dedicated to law enforcement or prosecuting serious online crimes.

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

"Nutty nanny statism": Government plans to ban 'junk food' advertising online and after 9.00pm

In response to the Government maintaining plans to ban so-called ‘junk food’ from online advertising and before 9.00pm on television, the Adam Smith Institute’s Head of Research Matthew Lesh said:

“The ad ban plan is nutty nanny statism. It will do nothing to reduce obesity while savagely striking at struggling hospitality businesses and hurting the public.

“The measures will apply to a shockingly large array of foods. It will be illegal to advertise online British favourites like fish and chips, scotch eggs or even a Full English breakfast; takeaways would be unable to post images of their food online; descriptive words like ‘delicious’ will be banned. Thousands of restaurants, which have been kept alive thanks to online delivery, will no longer be able to advertise online to find new customers, hitting small businesses the hardest. 

“The ban will even make it harder for the public to discover new restaurants and food delivery services, taking joy out of our lives.

“It’s all pain for no gain. By the Government’s own calculations banning online advertising will reduce children’s calorie consumption by just 2.8 calories per day—having no impact on obesity.”

Click here to learn more about the ASI’s research on the Mad Ad Ban Plan.

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

UK Gov will miss Brexit chance to make 2030 smoke free

• Despite decades of public policy aimed at reducing smoking, there remain 7 million smokers in the UK (14.1% of adults, down from 14.7% in 2018)

• According to ONS data the average annual decline in the smoking rate from 2011 to 2019 was 0.76 percentage points.

• The UK’s public health consensus in favour of e-cigarettes as a smoking alternative has played a significant role in accelerating the decline in smoking rates over the past decade

• But for the first time since e-cigarettes were introduced to Great Britain their use has declined from 7.1% to 6.3% of the adult population.

• The Cochrane review found that for every 100 people using nicotine e-cigarettes to stop smoking, 10 might successfully stop compared to just 6/100 using nicotine replacement therapy or 4/100 with no support or behavioural support only.

• Even with the current rate of decline, the Government’s ‘2030 smoke-free’ goal will be missed.

• Brexit and the new Tobacco Control Plan “provide once-in-a-generation opportunity to create and implement evidence-based policy” says Rt Hon David Jones MP

• Any missed Brexit opportunities to reduce restrictions on sale and advertising of alternative products risk lives lost to smoking related illnesses.

In the UK, around 78,000 people die every year as a consequence of smoking with and many more live with the misery of debilitating smoking-related diseases. While the number of smokers has fallen in recent years the Government is not on track to meet its target of being ‘smoke-free by 2030’, which means having an adult smoking prevalence of 5% or less.

Even under optimistic assumptions, the Government will miss its target by a whole percentage point on current trends. This is the warning today by the free market think tank the Adam Smith Institute in a new report. Previous forecasts have predicted an even higher degree of failure, with Cancer Research UK suggesting that England would hit the target 7 years behind schedule while Scotland was only predicted to reach the target in the latter half of the century.

The neoliberal think tank argues that decades of policies designed to reduce smoking prevalence are at risk have only started to bear fruit after a squeeze on incomes against inelastic consumption of nicotine via higher taxes was also met with options to switch away from cigarettes to less harmful alternatives such as e-cigarettes.

It is the poorest that will suffer, they argue and are joined in that opinion by the Rt. Hon. David Jones MP who argues that “poorer communities across the country are being left behind, and the problem, currently, is only getting worse.”

The free market think tank says that the government has so far failed to make the best use of Brexit to reduce the barriers to products like e-cigarettes that are proven to reduce the harms of smoking.

Over the past decade the success of our harm reduction approach has seen an average annual decline in the smoking rate from 2011 to 2019 of 0.76 percentage points.

More worryingly the recent spate of people quitting cigarettes during the pandemic is likely to be short-lived and a result of young people having reduced time to spend with friends and at events, falling disposable incomes and job insecurity, and COVID-related health worries — all of which are both intended to be reversed by the government and society at the end of the pandemic. The free market think tank says that even in the best case scenario where these COVID-induced quits are long-term — a questionable assumption since young people tend to relapse at higher rates — they represent a one-off event rather than shift in the overall trend. 

E-cigarettes’ reputation as an effective way to stop smoking is borne out by the evidence. In October 2020, a Cochrane medical science research review of 50 completed studies summarised that “for every 100 people using nicotine e-cigarettes to stop smoking, 10 might successfully stop, compared with only six of 100 people using nicotine-replacement therapy or nicotine-free e-cigarettes, or four of 100 people having no support or behavioural support only.” A wide consensus of UK public health bodies and NGOs also maintain that they are significantly less harmful to health than tobacco cigarettes.

The Adam Smith Institute argues that the recent plateauing of e-cigarette use by smokers since 2016 — hovering at just under two-thirds of all adult smokers and despite the fact that almost all (94%) of smokers having heard of of e-cigarettes — means nearly one-third of UK smokers have still never used the UK’s most popular (and arguably most effective) quit method. 

When Britain left the European Union powers and advertising rules over nicotine products like cigarettes, cigars, vaping, and heated tobacco returned to the Westminster level from Brussels. With that came a chance to reform things like warnings to be product rather than sector specific, advertising alternative products within cigarette packets, and nicotine levels in certain products that are both safe and more likely to act as a direct replacement for long-term smokers. With no movement shown in the 13 months since, and despite a cardio-vascular disease pandemic, the think tank warns that the opportunities of Brexit are being squandered. 

However, the Government can signal their intent to continue the liberal approach to regulation, product development and access at the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control’s COP9 later this year — the UK’s first time unbound by the EU’s common position. 

If the Government is to achieve its target of a sub 5% smoking rate by 2030, it will best do so by continuing and expanding a liberal and consumer-welfare focused approach to access of alternatives to smoking, as well as seizing the opportunities that Brexit presents. 

Report author and ASI Head of Programmes Daniel Pryor, says:

“For a decade, the UK has been a world leader in using tobacco harm reduction to encourage smoking cessation. But until now, EU restrictions limited how far we could pursue this path. If the Government doesn't take advantage of Brexit to change its approach to vaping and other low-risk smoking alternatives, they'll miss the Smokefree 2030 target and squander a golden opportunity to help British smokers make the switch.

“We need to make these changes now. Many smokers aren’t switching to safer alternatives like vaping because of widespread misperceptions about relative risk or because they are simply unaware that other options exist. Others are put off by outdated product rules and even outright bans on things like snus that our newfound Brexit freedom gives us the opportunity to revise. 

“Global Britain should also leverage its newly independent position to push for the World Health Organisation to adopt a more sensible approach to reduced-risk products at COP9 later this year: especially in light of our decision to increase their UK taxpayer funding. If we don’t make these changes now, what was the point of Brexit?”

Notes to editors:  

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

The report ‘The Golden Opportunity: How Global Britain can lead on tobacco harm reduction and save millions of lives’ is available here.

Daniel Pryor is Head of Programmes 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.

1000 Statutory Instruments Last Year Wrapped Britain in Red Tape

• Red tape costs businesses £100 billion a year, a substantial portion of which is spent simply searching for the law.

• There were 1,000 new regulations or ‘statutory instruments’ in 2020, as Covid-19 and Brexit led to the proliferation of new rules

• 329 were Covid 19-related with an average of 8 per week after 6 March 2020

• Post-Covid and post-Brexit prosperity depends on reducing, simplifying, and that starts with properly cataloguing the law with reference to relevant cases.

• Citizens and companies should be able to search for laws pertaining to an issue and see relevant case law and statutory instruments updates on legislation.gov.uk with all new rules added via accessible website, data feed (XML, JSON), and PDF formats.

The rule of law and Britain’s economic prosperity is being undermined by excessive legislating and regulating, a new report from the free market think tank the Adam Smith Institute claims.

The quantity of law has grown unchecked and often even unspecified, making it impossible for citizens and businesses to discover the rules let alone follow them. The growing red tape burder undermines the rule of law and the United Kingdom's economic prosperity. This is the dire warning by report author Robin Ellison — a Visiting Professor in Pensions Law and Economics at The Business School, City, University of London.

Worse still, the Institute says that the United Kingdom lacks a depository of all laws and regulations. Judges and lawyers, let alone citizens and businesses, often complain about the difficulty ascertaining the state of the law. The inability to identify the law has led to unfair application including common sentencing mistakes.

Citizens must comply with an ever expanding array of legislation, regulations known as ‘statutory instruments’ (of which there were over 1,000 in 2020), imported European Union legislation, and tens of thousands of pages of materials issued by dozens of regulatory agencies. 

In 2017 the National Audit Office estimated the cost of regulation in the UK to be around £100bn. Searching for what are the applicable rules in any given situation will be a material part of the total regulatory burden. This includes the cost of compliance officers, legal  advisers, subscriptions to services such as WestLaw, LexisNexis and Halsbury, and compliance support organisations. 

The extent of legislation and regulation creates substantial economic costs, including pushing up prices for consumers, reducing wages for workers and creating disproportionate burdens on small businesses.

The Institute is calling for all types of law, including legislation, regulation, and departmental guidance to be reduced, simplified and catalogued. They are also calling for new rules such as one-in-three-out, targets for reductions in restrictive clauses (known as RegData) and extensive sunsetting rules.

To reduce the cost burden of red tape as far as possible, the Institute argues that Ministers should be required to assess all possible consequences of laws coming in, with rules required to have externally validated cost calculations. This would represent an upfront cost to Whitehall’s operations, but hopefully avoid passing on unintended costs to the private and public sectors implementing the rules in full.

The free market think tank also says that Britain has lessons to learn from her fellow English language parliamentary democracies Australia and New Zealand. Publication of laws in the antipodean states are accompanied by explanatory memoranda, parliamentary debates  and other documents designed to help the user understand the purpose and thinking behind the laws in place, as well as the politics of the Chamber during decisions. While debates prior to broadcast or written records of debate are not easily added to laws, new laws could see the addition of relevant information added from the Parliament’s extensive modern record keeping to ensure citizens are well informed well past the date of a law’s Royal Assent.

Report author Robin Ellison, a Visiting Professor at City, University of London, says:

“It has become unfair to expect citizens to understand the law. There is so much of it and it’s constantly changing — and, adding insult to injury, there isn’t even a reliable depository of the rules we expect citizens to follow. This severely undermines the rule of law and hamstrings businesses with huge red tape costs.

“Brexit offers a unique opportunity to simplify and improve our legal system, whilst saving money and improving access to legal information. There is a desperate need to both clarify what is the law, and reduce its complexity and length.”

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

“Covid has highlighted the dire consequences of lawmaking that is rushed, incoherent and easily misunderstood. We expect every citizen to follow the law, but make that practically impossible by its length, complexity and lack of depository. When even judges and lawyers struggle to identify the law you know there’s a problem.

“The constant proliferation of new laws, regulations and guidance is creating extraordinary burdens on citizens and businesses. For Britain to recover from Covid and succeed after Brexit there is a desperate need to cut the red tape that is strangling British businesses and make the law easily understandable by all citizens.”

Notes to editors:

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.

The report Ignorantia legis: How the growing red tape burden undermines the rule of law and economic prosperity will go live on the Adam Smith Institute website at 10pm (UK time) on Thursday 8th April 2021.The report can be accessed via the link here.

Robin Ellison is a Visiting Professor in Pensions Law and Economics at The Business School, City, University of London, a consultant with Pinsent Masons, and author of numerous books on pensions law and on regulation.

How Coronavirus impacted law-making:

In total there have been 329 Coronavirus-related Statutory Instruments laid before the UK Parliament in 2020. There have been an average of eight per week since 6 March. Covid 19-related statutory instruments represented about a third of all SIs during 2020, using powers from 109 Acts of Parliament including the Saint Helena Act 1833, the British Settlements Act 1887 and the Colonial Probates Act 1892. Two hundred and twenty six were made under the ‘negative procedure’, so that they became law unless a motion against them was carried, which in any event requires the Government to grant time for such a motion to be debated. One hundred and forty five of the instruments breached the 21-day rule and came into force less than 21 days after they were laid, and 42 came into force even before they were laid. 

Some of them were prepared so quickly that they had to be corrected within days. The Statutory Sick Pay (General) Regulations 1982 were amended twice within four days. On 2-3 September 2020 the ‘protected areas’ covered by the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020 were amended twice in 12 hours. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020 were amended by three different SIs made in two days on 22-23 September 2020.

Super duper deduction by dishy Rishi

In response to the Budget 2021, Deputy Director of the Adam Smith Institute Matt Kilcoyne spoke about some of the biggest changes announced.

On the headline grabbing super deduction, a policy the ASI has championed, and other rates reliefs:

"Rishi Sunak's super deduction will induce investment into Britain’s factories and help businesses bounce back and Britain’s economy boom as we leave the pandemic behind. We'd estimated at 100% full expensing would be worth over £2,214 per worker, going beyond that is a bold move to help the private sector build the recovery. It will benefit most those areas that have been left behind in recent decades. It is the most serious attempt to rebalance the economy a Chancellor has made and it is truly welcome.

"Rates relief and employment support will be welcome while the ability to operate and raise revenue remains suppressed even as we leave lockdown. But the success of vaccines means the economy will reopen and activity will return; the government cannot continue propping up our economy indefinitely. Moving forward, the strategy should be to get the state out of the way, by lowering taxes to encourage investment and cut red tape that hurts entrepreneurs."

But on the silliness of the Mortgage Guarantee:

"The Chancellor was right to say that the state should not be borrowing to pay for everyday public spending. But it’s hard to square that circle with a new commitment to guarantee mortgages of first time buyers. This is a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guarantee to boost the demand side — without a credible plan to boost supply of new homes in the places people want to live we’ll just end up with another housing bubble and the risk of boom and bust.

"Keir Starmer was right to remind the Conservative Party that the proper basis on which to make tax decisions is economics not the political cycle."

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