-
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs
Committee call for Government to abandon unjustified plans and
says they have not made the scientific case.
-
disproportionality discriminate on basis of race,
religion and socio-economic background
-
Strong concerns over data protection
Proposals for a Covid-status certification system to be used
domestically have been slammed by a cross-party group of MPs,
with them calling for plans for their introduction to be
scrapped.
Covid-status certification would certify as Covid-safe people who
have had the vaccine or a negative test. The Government began a
review on the idea in March to decide if they were an appropriate
tool to help reopen the economy. A decision must be made by
Monday over whether the next phase of lockdown easing –
originally planned for 21 June – should go ahead. Today’s report
casts fresh doubt on the notion that Covid passports could play a
role in that.
In their latest report, the
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs
Committee (PACAC) said that the Government has so far
failed to make the scientific case in favour of the system. The
Committee found little evidence that the introduction a
Covid-status certification regime would actually increase public
confidence.
Furthermore, the Government came under fire over their choices on
which locations would and would not be included in the programme.
The Committee heard that in terms of transmission, small,
enclosed spaces where people congregate posed the greater risk
than events like football matches which people attend less
regularly and are out in the open. However, the evidence obtained
over the inquiry suggests that pubs and restaurants are among
those being considered for exemption, while football grounds
would be included. The Committee labelled such decision-making as
“largely arbitrary”.
Among MPs’ concerns was that the scheme would “disproportionately
discriminate” on the basis of race, religion, age and
socio-economic background. In effect, many from these groups
could be excluded from participation in parts of the economy and
society as it reopens under a certification system.
The Committee also questioned the value of establishing a
certification process given the likely cost of doing so and the
success of the vaccine rollout. The efficacy of the vaccine on
new variants too means that any potential benefits will only
decrease as the number of people currently vaccinated against it
rises. 61% of the UK have so far received one dose of the vaccine
and 43% have had both jobs.
Any system of Covid certification also raises issues concerning
privacy and data protection, the report warned. Witnesses to the
inquiry told the Committee that not only would the database carry
sensitive personal information linked to medical records but it
could also be open to hacking. Considering their resemblance, MPs
also brought attention to fears that the certification system
could provide a back door for the introduction of ID cards.
Weighing up costs and concerns of a certification programme, with
Michael Gove’s own assessment of the argument as ‘finely
balanced’, the Committee said that there is no justification for
the introduction of a domestic Covid passport system to aid
reopening.
, Chair of PACAC said, “We recognise the
need to formulate an effective lockdown exit, but Covid passports
are not the answer. We are entirely unconvinced by the case for
their introduction. Although it is a tool that is being sold as
and built with the intention of being for the universal good, it
has the potential to cause great damage socially and
economically.
As vaccine uptake statistics indicate, any Covid certification
system will be a discriminator along the lines of race, religion
and age.
Finally, the success of the vaccine rollout and their efficacy
calls into question the value of a certification regime. It would
be established at great cost for rapidly diminishing returns.
Frankly, the Government needs to scrap any idea of introducing
Covid passports. They are unnecessary and there is no
justification for them in the science and none in logic.”