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.