The Online Safety Bill is an illiberal mess

In response to the news that the Government is introducing the Online Safety Bill in Parliament today, our Head of Research, Daniel Pryor, said:

"The Online Safety Bill was an illiberal, incoherent, anti-innovation mess when it was first introduced as a White Paper in 2019. After nearly 3 years of Parliamentary debate and scrutiny, it is still an illiberal, incoherent, anti-innovation mess.

Wrong-headed rules on "legal but harmful" speech, more regulatory burdens and the threat of enormous fines for tech executives will scare platforms into being more censorious, hurt competition and ruin the internet for millions of Brits. Politicians still don't understand what they're trying to regulate and without major change to this Bill, we will all suffer the consequences of their good intentions."

Notes to editors:

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact our press line, emily@adamsmith.org | 07584 778207

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.

Help Ukrainians by Reforming the UK’s Immigration System

Boost the UK’s economy and cripple Putin’s war machine by making it easier for Ukrainians and high-skilled Russians and Belarusians to come to the UK, says think-tank

• Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is causing immense suffering for the people of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus.

• An influx of workers from these countries would bring huge economic benefits to the UK.

• An exodus of skilled workers from Russia and Belarus would undermine their economies and build domestic pressure to sue for peace.

A new report, Let Them Come: How the UK Can Help Ukrainians, from the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) argues that the Government should temporarily waive visa requirements for Ukrainian refugees, and make it far easier for highly skilled Russians and Belarusians to come to the UK. This would boost the UK’s economy and international standing, whilst crippling Putin’s war machine and undermining his credibility. 

Report author, Ben Ramanauskas, makes the moral and economic case for encouraging immigration from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. Ukranians are fleeing from intolerable conflict, whilst Russians and Belarusians are being driven into poverty and are subjected to imprisonment by their authoritarian governments. These migrants could be welcomed to safety in the UK, where they could also contribute positively to the economy. The UK has a shortage of people studying and working in STEM; a gap which could be plugged, bringing with it additional benefits of boosting innovation in sectors such as engineering, technology and Artificial Intelligence. 

As the paper outlines, encouraging highly skilled workers to leave Russia and Belarus would precipitate a decline in productivity and a negative effect on tax revenues in these countries, putting further pressure on Putin’s regime to end the conflict. This would also garner support for the UK and would encourage Russians and Belarusians to play a leading role in the world as part of a liberal, rules-based order. 

The report makes three recommendations:

1. Temporarily waive visa restrictions for all Ukrainians, and carry out security checks once they have safely arrived in the UK, rather than before. Temporary protection should last for at least five years.

2. Make it easier for highly skilled Russians and Belarusians to come to the UK by adding a ‘Target Nation Status’ characteristic to our points-based system, worth 20 points. Remittances should be banned in order to undermine the economies of these countries. 

3. Create a ‘Liberty Pass’ which would provide a fast tracked £1,875 payment to attract highly skilled immigrants from countries involved in the current conflict and potentially other repressive regimes. 

Daniel Pryor, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute said: 

“The UK's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine has so far been positive but doesn't go far enough. Morally, economically and politically, there is a strong case for following the EU in temporarily waiving visa requirements for all Ukrainians. We should also rob Putin's regime of its best and brightest by doing more to attract highly skilled Russians and Belarusians—who have been properly vetted—to our shores. Now is the time to act decisively as Global Britain.”

Ben Ramanauskas, report author, said: 

“The illegal invasion of Ukraine has brought death, destruction, and misery to its people. As such, it is only right that the UK takes a leading role in offering refuge to the people of Ukraine. The Government should go further than its current plan by waiving visa requirements and giving every Ukrainian the opportunity to live, work, study, or claim benefits in the UK for up to five years, with the option to apply for permanent citizenship. 

We should also take this opportunity to reform the UK’s immigration system. The UK should become more welcoming to refugees while also making it easier for talented workers from oppressive regimes to move here. Such a move is not only morally right, it will bring huge economic benefits to the UK, demonstrate to the world that Britain believes in freedom, and weaken the regimes of tyrants such as Putin.”

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Emily Fielder, emily@adamsmith.org | 0758 477 8207.

Ben Ramanauskas has worked in numerous roles including public policy, academia, and most recently as an adviser to the UK’s Secretary of State for International Trade.

The report is now live on the Adam Smith Institute website and is available here. 

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.

Privatize space to boost discovery and alleviate poverty

International treaty outlawing property rights in space is unfit for modern world

• Recent technological progress makes space ownership debate more pressing

• The time has come to shift away from a national to an individual focus in space

• A clear system of property rights in space would present vast benefits to humanity

A new report, Space Invaders: Property Rights on the Moon, from the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) argues that creating a clear system of property rights in space could turbocharge scientific discovery and give all of humanity a greater stake in space exploration.

The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty (OST), which remains in place as the vanguard of space regulation, forbids 'national appropriation' and also, by effect, individual appropriation in space. Although major players in space exploration have recently called for change—with some nations pushing unilaterally for it through domestic legislation—there has been little movement on the ownership question since the OST first came into effect.

Report author Rebecca Lowe takes inspiration from renowned English philosopher John Locke and American political economist Henry George in setting out a detailed framework for how property rights could best be applied to celestial bodies. In an extended case study, the paper explains how rents paid on plots of moon land could be leveraged to benefit the whole of humanity through alleviating poverty on Earth, as well as democratising space travel. 

Under the proposed system, individuals would compete against each other for plots of land on the moon (that have most likely been initially acquired by, or assigned to, particular nations). This competition would consist in paying ‘rent’ for such plots at a rate determined by supply and demand. Rent rebates could be given for improving the condition of land or providing for urgent human needs. Governance would currently depend on international agreement.

The paper concludes by arguing that proceeds from moon rents could be used to democratise space travel, meet current urgent needs and fund future space exploration. It also offers a way of addressing traditional concerns with property rights such as the ‘first come, first served’ problem and the overriding moral priority of addressing urgent human needs.

Rebecca Lowe, report author and former director of FREER, said:

“A clear, morally-justified, and efficient system for assigning and governing property rights in space would present vast benefits that go beyond financial rewards for people who would become owners. Such a system would incentivise responsible stewardship of space, as well as opportunities for new scientific discovery, democratised space exploration, and much more. The creation of such a system is long overdue—progress on this issue is frozen amidst complex legalistic uncertainty. It’s time to find innovative ways to move beyond that.”

Daniel Pryor, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, said: 

“Property rights play a key role in boosting living standards, innovation and human dignity here on Earth. The same would be true if we applied this logic to space, which presents a unique opportunity to start afresh when designing effective rules of ownership. With more countries and companies competing in the space race than ever before, it’s vital for us to move past the outdated thinking of the 1960s and tackle the question of extraterrestrial property rights sooner rather than later.”

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact John Macdonald, john@adamsmith.org | 0758 477 8207.

Rebecca Lowe works on political and economic research issues as a consultant, is the former director of the FREER think tank, and has just finished writing a PhD thesis on moral property rights. 

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.

Resurrecting the Porn Laws will shaft civil liberties

In response to news that the Government is extending age verification provisions in the Online Safety Bill to all commercial pornography sites, Daniel Pryor, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, said:

"The Government seems determined to shaft civil liberties in its misguided crusade against pornography. Age verification is easily circumvented by any tech-savvy teen with a VPN. Adults would be forced to enter personal information like passport or credit card details—a gift to scammers—and would be left at greater risk of being caught with their pants down in the event of a data breach.

The government should focus on weeding out illegal content online instead of punishing law-abiding Brits. Campaigners have beaten off the porn laws before and they'll do so again."

The Adam Smith Institute’s Repeal the Porn Laws campaign sets out broader objections to the new proposals.

Notes to editors: 

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact our press line, john@adamsmith.org | 07584 778207

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.

Disaster corporatism will make us poorer

Government needs shrink in size and scope if UK is to ‘Build Back Better’

• State failure lies at the heart of the Covid story, undermining the case for a greater role for government following the crisis

• Businesses must return to their core competencies and avoid ‘Woke Capitalist’ distractions if UK economy is to recover from Covid crisis

• Proponents of ‘Disaster Corporatism’—who use the pandemic as justification for more state involvement in the affairs of businesses—will undermine prosperity and fuel backlash against market economy

A new report, Capitalism after Covid: The Case Against Disaster Corporatism, from the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) argues that as restrictions across the UK are lifted, businesses and governments must return to their proper roles in order to kickstart the post-pandemic recovery.

Activists, academics and politicians from the political left have led calls for greater government intervention in the economy and a move towards ‘stakeholder capitalism’ in the wake of Covid. But these calls ignore the litany of state failures that characterised the crisis and downplay the risks of the corporatist model, as highlighted by the Wirecard scandal.

Report author and ASI Fellow Matthew Lesh argues that in an era of low public confidence in governments and businesses, the state must focus on effectively delivering essential public services and safety. Companies should stick to traditional profit-driven shareholder capitalism rather than pursuing ‘Woke Capitalist’ social objectives that often require political collective action—and often leave firms facing accusations of being cynical and hypocritical.

Although state support for businesses during the crisis was laudable and effective, this should not set a model for how governments should act during normal times. The growing size and scope of the state have wasted taxpayer money, misdirected economic activity, incentivised cronyism, held back competition, and limited human potential. 

The paper concludes by calling for new settlement between the state and private enterprise. It suggests the Government protects competition and free markets, rather than propping up favoured corporations and unproductive ‘zombie companies’. It asks for businesses to remember that the pursuit of profit is socially responsible: satisfying our desires, providing wages and funding public services.

Alexander Stafford MP, Member of Parliament for Rother Valley, said:

“I welcome the Adam Smith Institute’s ‘Capitalism after Covid’ paper, which highlights the importance of safeguarding and promoting the role of free markets, limited government, democracy, and individual rights in our society. Many on the left are exploiting the pandemic to make the case for a bigger state and restrictions on the private sector. However, this paper argues powerfully that for a successful recovery, we must allow our liberal free market system to flourish by business and government playing their proper roles.”

Matthew Lesh, report author and Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute, said:

“Covid has demonstrated the futility in overdependence on the state. We have grown poorer and millions have died across the world. A smaller, more focused state could be much more effective in tackling the issues we face. On the other side of the coin, to recover we need the private sector to flourish, free from excessively interventionist policies and focused on developing innovative products, creating more jobs and delivering profit for shareholders.” 

Daniel Pryor, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, said: 

“From China’s initial cover-up to the painfully slow rollout of mass testing in the UK, Covid-19 has been a stark reminder of government incompetence. We must learn the right lessons from the pandemic and resist the siren song of ‘Disaster Corporatists’, who would use the pandemic to extend state interference in the economy—making us all poorer in the process. Stakeholder capitalism is a recipe for economic stagnation, rampant cronyism and widespread dissatisfaction with businesses. Government should get back to the basics of providing high quality public services while letting the market do what it’s best at: making us all better off.”   

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact John Macdonald, john@adamsmith.org | 0758 477 8207.

Matthew Lesh is Head of Public Policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs and Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute, where he was formerly Head of Research.

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.

Falling pay gap between CEOs and their employees is nothing to celebrate

Research published today by the High Pay Centre found that the gap between chief executives’ pay and UK average earnings narrowed in 2020.

In response, Daniel Pryor, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, said:

“Most people intuitively grasp why talented footballers get paid a lot and the same rules apply to CEOs. For large companies, a wide array of economic research shows that small differences in top talent have an outsized impact on results. It’s hardly surprising that they’re willing to offer high salaries to attract the very best in an era of global competition. 

It’s vital that British firms have capable leadership: especially as we begin to recover from an economically destructive pandemic. The right decisions at the top mean more innovation, job creation, productivity improvements and wage growth. 

The fact that High Pay Day falls later this year is nothing to celebrate—ordinary Brits aren’t better off as a result. The falling gap between top and median pay seems to have been largely driven by less bonuses being paid out: challenging economic circumstances in the worst months of the pandemic, pressure on firms that received financial support from the government and public relations concerns are all factors that appear to have played a role.”

Notes to editors: 

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact our press line, info@adamsmith.org | 07584667326

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.

Response to Joint Committee on Draft Online Safety Bill report: still gigantic threat to freedom of speech, privacy and innovation

The Adam Smith Institute’s Head of Research, Matthew Lesh, has responded to the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill’s report:

“The joint committee’s recommendations fail to alleviate the gigantic threats posed by the draft Online Safety Bill to freedom of speech, privacy and innovation. The Bill will continue to undermine most fundamental liberties and strangle start-ups in red tape, while failing to address serious crime. The joint committee’s report is based on the entirely incorrect assertion that existing law does not already apply online, it does — the central question is ensuring enforcement not introducing new legislation that undermines our freedoms.

On the removal of ‘Clause 11’:

“It’s welcome that the joint committee is recommending removing ‘Clause 11’, that would have provided extraordinarily broad powers to censor ‘legal but harmful’ speech. But the replacement — defining a series of ‘reasonable foreseeable risks’ — remains worrying. It would still mean speech being less free online compared to offline, particularly with respect to 'psychological distress,’ ‘disinformation’ and speech that a service merely has ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ could be unlawful. Even the new approach, when combined with gigantic fines and potential jail time, will encourage trigger-happy censorship.

On the scope of the proposals:

“Santa Claus is comin’ to town, but that’s no reason to turn the Online Safety Bill into a Christmas tree. The joint committee's recommendations would substantially expand the scope of the legislation from user-to-user services into other areas like scams and pornography. They would also apply much harsher standards to smaller services, thereby undermining start-ups, competition and innovation. The committee even wants to dictate to online services how they can design their services with extraordinary granular detail. If the Bill is to achieve anything, it should be narrowly focused on actual criminal activity, not on side issues.

On age verification:

“The joint committee seems to have short memories with respect to age verification. Just a few years ago the Parliament legislated for, and the government failed to implement, requirements to use a drivers license, passport or credit card to access adult content. Now they want to bring back age verification not only for pornography but also practically any digital service. Age verification raises serious privacy issues and will not prove effective.

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact John Macdonald, john@adamsmith.org | 07584778207.

It’s a snip: UK must embrace GMOs in post-Brexit freedom

Help the environment, farmers and consumers by adopting GMOs as well as gene editing, says think-tank

• £1.7 billion lost to UK farming industry since 1996 due to GMO ban; globally, farmers have benefited £170 billion from GMOs between 1996 and 2018 while consumers save £18 billion per year

• 23 billion kilotons of carbon emissions reduction — the equivalent of pulling 15.3 million cars off the road — and 800 million kgs less pesticide between 1996 and 2018 because of GMOs

• 29 countries allow GMOs and the US approved 70 gene edited varieties in 2020; the UK is falling behind

The UK Government must go further with post-Brexit biotechnology plans by embracing GMOs in addition to gene editing in agriculture, a new report from the neoliberal, free market Adam Smith Institute argues. 

The Institute says that the UK could become a global leader in biotechnology if it diverged from the EU’s unscientific, “hyperprecautionary” approach towards GMOs and gene editing.

The Government has announced plans to reform gene editing regulations with respect to agriculture. The report, Splice of Life: The case for GMOs and gene editing, explains how genetic engineering allows farmers to breed crops with higher yields, thereby reducing fertilizer, water, and land, while boosting farmers’ profits and lowering food prices. 

Boris Johnson, in his first speech as prime minister in 2019, promised to “liberate the U.K.'s extraordinary bioscience sector from anti–genetic modification rules.” However, the current plans will not extend to genetically modified organisms (GMO) or animal gene editing research — which could save farmers hundreds of millions of pounds and improve animal welfare. 

Even without domestic production, the UK imports roughly $140 million worth of soy, vegetable oils and animal feed from the US annually, much of which is derived from GMO plants.

Gene editing techniques, such as CRISPR-Cas9, generally aim to change an organism's existing DNA. By contrast, GMOs are created by moving genetic material between different species. There is no scientific reason why the UK should allow gene editing while continuing to prohibit GMOs.

The author of the paper, biotechnology expert Cameron English, argues that regulation should follow a risk-based approach, based on potential harms and benefits, regardless of how an organism is developed. This argument has been accepted by DEFRA in the case of gene editing in agriculture but has not been applied to gene editing in animals or GMOs, despite compelling scientific evidence for consistency. It would mean assessing based on the end product and not the production process.

The Viscount (Matt) Ridley, Conservative peer in the House of Lords and science writer:

“The government’s sluggishness in embracing gene engineering is disappointing. This technology, in which Britain could be world-leading, provides immense benefits to farmers, consumers and the environment. Yet, as this important new report from the Adam Smith Institute highlights, gene editing will be severely hampered and GMOs will be left behind. Scientific evidence, not activist superstition, should be at the centre of policy making.

Cameron English, report author and Director of Bio-Sciences at the American Council on Science and Health, said:

“The UK’s gene editing liberalisation is an admirable step toward embracing biotech and promoting sustainable agriculture. But it is just a first step. 

“Britain could achieve much more by also allowing farmers to cultivate GMO crops. This would further reduce carbon emissions and pesticide use, while helping to feed more people at a lower cost.

“There is no reason the UK should deny itself the incredible benefits many other countries have experienced by employing this safe, sustainable technology.”

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

“The government is wasting the Brexit opportunity to become world leading in biotechnology. We have the technology to produce more with less environmental impact, boosting British farmers and providing lower prices to consumers. Yet, inexplicably, red tape will continue to entangle our innovators and producers. 

-ENDS- 

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact John Macdonald, john@adamsmith.org | 0758 477 8207.

Cameron English is the Director of Bio-Sciences at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a consumer advocacy group dedicated to promoting evidence-based public policy and refuting health scares. Prior to joining ACSH, Cameron was the Managing Editor at the Genetic Literacy Project.

The report ‘Splice of Life: The case for GMOs and gene editing’ will be live on the Adam Smith Institute website from 10 December at 12:01AM and is available here in advance.

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.

UK should become ‘Singapore-on-Thames’

Boost growth and public services by learning from Singapore’s success, says think-tank

• Singapore spends £3,500 less per person on social spending compared to UK — and yet outperforms the UK in health and education outcomes

• Singapore ranked number 1 in healthcare efficiency, UK ranked 41st

• Since the introduction of Singapore’s ‘Workfare’ scheme, the poorest 20% of households have experienced real income growth of around 40%

A new report from the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) argues that the UK should become more like Singapore to boost economic growth and the quality of public services.

Singapore has achieved impressive growth and rising productivity over recent years, unlike the UK and many other developed economies. This is no small part thanks to Singapore maintaining relatively low taxes and government spending. 

The new report, Singapore-on-Thames: What the UK Can Learn From the Lion City, explains how Singapore spends less on public services without sacrificing quality. Singapore spends less per person on welfare, education and healthcare systems while achieving substantially better results by international comparative measures.

Report author and Singaporean citizen Dr Bryan Cheang explains how Singapore’s public services utilises market principles and emphasises individual responsibility, whilst maintaining equitable access.

The central innovative feature of Singapore’s social security system are Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts. This is a system of compulsory individual savings that can be used on healthcare, housing and retirement. The CPF ensures that citizens directly bear some of the cost of public services. 

Singapore’s “workfare” system encourages people to get back into work after losing a job by equipping them with necessary skills, thereby encouraging self-reliance and responsibility. Singapore’s Government also distributes substantial social security support through civil society groups, rather than central dictat, allowing for more local interventions and identification of those most in need.

Singapore rejected the British colonial legacy of the NHS-style healthcare model after independence in 1965. Singapore’s post-independence leaders not only heavily criticised the NHS model but also replaced it with a system based on market competition and choice. Singaporeans pay for healthcare costs out of their Central Provident Fund savings, providing competition and greater choice. There are also additional state top-ups for those in need.

Meanwhile, Singapore’s education system gives schools and teachers autonomy. It is largely decentralised and has a flourishing private sector which promotes competition and efficiency.

The paper concludes that the UK could improve the quality of public services, such as welfare, healthcare and education, by adopting a more market-centric, decentralised and personal responsibility model exemplified by Singapore:

• (1) Reduce state-spending and taxation to similar levels of Singapore, abolishing tariffs and quotas along with other restrictions on trade; 

• (2) Incentivise greater personal saving or insurance for unemployment, education, retirement, healthcare, and social care; by developing a UK-equivalent of Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts.

• (3) Decentralise the curriculum and encourage further academisation.

• (4) Incorporate market incentives into the delivery of welfare, health and education.

Bryan Cheang, report author and Assistant Director of the Centre for the Study of Governance & Society at King's College London, said:

“The UK is saddled by high taxes and bloated welfare bureaucracy. This strain only worsens with the pressures of Covid and the burdens on the healthcare system. Singapore presents a good lesson in fiscal responsibility and individual self-reliance, one that the UK and European countries sorely need to learn from.”

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

“Britain's policy debates are increasingly narrow, devoid of any interest in fundamental reforms to the size and scope of the state or the way public services are delivered. Singapore not only shows a different way is possible, but also, immensely successful. The Lion Nation has rapidly developed as an open, low-taxing, low-spending state. Services are less expensive and higher quality by using market-mechanisms. ”

-ENDS- 

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact John Macdonald, john@adamsmith.org | 0758 477 8207.

Bryan Cheang is the Assistant Director of the Centre for the Study of Governance & Society. He received his PhD and MA in Political Economy from King’s College London and is a graduate of the National University of Singapore.

The report ‘Singapore-on-Thames: What the UK Can Learn From the Lion City’ will be live on the Adam Smith Institute website from Thursday, 2nd December at 10:00PM and is available here in advance.

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.

A Churchillian Solution for the Covid Debt

Government could use tried-and-tested ‘consols’ to manage colossal Covid overspend

• Covid borrowing has led to record peacetime debt totalling £2.2 trillion

• Emergency Covid spending should be separated from normal public finances

• ‘Consols’—effectively bonds with no fixed repayment date—are the best instrument for this task

• Consols give flexibility on when to repay Covid debt and lock in ultra-low interest rates

A new report from the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) calls on the Government to finance debt accrued from Covid-related spending in the same way as Britain has done for past wars.

Pandemics, much like wars, are one of few occasions where massive extra government spending is justified: even among those who ascribe to free market economics. However, it is an inescapable fact that the government has borrowed over half a trillion pounds—equivalent to around £20,000 per household—to tackle the Covid emergency.

Report authors ASI director Dr. Eamonn Butler and Senior Fellow Gabriel Stein make the case for converting Covid expenditure into ‘consols’ (consolidated annuities)—government securities without a fixed repayment date. 

These instruments were first used in Britain in 1751 to pay for the War of Austrian Succession, and were used again to finance the Napoleonic Wars, and by Winston Churchill in 1927 to refinance World War I debt.

The new report, I Owe You: A Churchillian Solution for the Covid Debt, argues that using consols to finance Covid spending would guarantee manageable debt costs and provide future governments with flexibility on when to repay our Covid debts: ideally at a point when the economy is stronger. 

It is vital that governments recognise consols should only be used in exceptional circumstances. The report suggests distinguishing them from normal borrowing by calling them ‘Covid Emergency Bonds’ and pledging to pay them off as soon as economic circumstances permit: for example, when Covid debt has reached a certain proportion of GDP.

Dr. Eamonn Butler, report co-author and Director of the Adam Smith Institute, said:

“We need to clear the one-off Covid debt out of the way so that the government can focus on—and then fix—its long-term overspending problem. Past generations found a good way to park once-in a century borrowing for wars and emergencies. We can do the same.”

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

“A once in a century pandemic calls for a once in a century approach to government debt. Covid Emergency Bonds have the power to lock in low interest rates while providing greater flexibility to future governments with respect to repayment dates. They’re really a no-brainer in the face of our mounting public debt.”

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Daniel Pryor, daniel@adamsmith.org | 07584778207.

The report ‘I Owe You: A Churchillian Solution for the Covid Debt’ is now live on the Adam Smith Institute website and can be found here.

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.