Starmer is right: domestic vaccine passports would be un-British as a solution

First, let me make it clear that I am very pro-vaccine. I’m so pro-vaccine that in the winter I trained to be a volunteer vaccinator and can now be found at the mass vaccination centres in Thanet and Folkestone sticking needles into the arms of the British public. I wanted to be part of the solution.

I feel very strongly that domestic vaccine certification, or domestic vaccine ‘passports’, are not part of the solution, however. I believe that Labour should join the Liberal Democrats and some on the Conservative benches to oppose this policy.

We need to move forwards together. The government should be concentrating on encouraging and incentivising mass vaccine take-up, so that herd immunity is achieved by vaccine. Needing domestic vaccine certification because you have failed to convince or encourage certain groups about vaccine safety or efficacy is a failure of government and a failure of communication.

If domestic vaccine certification is pushed forwards, it almost certainly couldn’t happen before the end of October, when all eligible adults will have been offered their second doses. We have seven months until that point. Anything introduced sooner would sow further divisions in a society where some younger people already feel they have sacrificed a lot to protect those older and more vulnerable than them. Everyone must move forwards together, with the same criteria. We must move as one nation.

The current government discussion is of e-certification linked to, or similar to, the NHS app. For those without smartphones, this leaves them in a bit of a pickle. You could enter a secure code into a government website and print off a time-limited certificate (a bit like you do when hiring a car abroad), but this will be forged quicker than Dominic Cummings can drive to Barnard Castle – and anyway, most people don’t have printers. Or you could go to a testing centre, twice in three days to qualify for 24 hours of freedom. This sounds horrendous.

All I can think about is my 80-year-old neighbour John, who walks to the micropub near us most evenings. He doesn’t have a smartphone or a printer, and he doesn’t drive. Throughout lockdown, he has missed the pub and the community it brought him so much. He will have had his jabs, but won’t be able to produce a smartphone app or a time-limited generated e-code to prove it. He thinks he’ll be able to produce a signed piece of paper by his doctor – but it won’t be like that; anything that could be forged so easily wouldn’t be worth the paper it is printed on. There are thousands and thousands of Johns in my corner of the country alone.

Then, of course, there are those who can’t take the vaccine. Those allergic to components in the vaccines, pregnant women, women trying to become pregnant, etc. Some breastfeeding women are choosing not to take it, as the leaflet you are handed at the vaccination centre if you are breastfeeding, says “There are no data on the safety of Covid-19 vaccines in breastfeeding… Despite this, COVID-19 vaccines are not thought to be a risk to the breastfeeding infant.” Lack of studies and data doesn’t reassure people a lot. These studies should be done and published as soon as possible.

So those without smartphones or printers could be left behind. Those belonging to certain groups in society could be left behind. Those with certain health conditions will be left behind. It becomes a scheme that discriminates against those in certain groups (the poor, those of certain ethnicities, those with health vulnerabilities, pregnant women, women feeding babies, older people less likely to own the necessary technology). It sows further division in communities where the focus should be on cohesion.

I haven’t explored the civil liberties aspect of this discussion too much. I do feel that papers, especially health papers, being demanded by establishments is a slippery slope when we are on our way to immunity as a nation, or as near as can be hoped for. Given that no vaccine is 100% effective in presenting transmission, it would seem to me that if they wish to reopen mass events, everyone should have to prevent a negative test result taken within 24 hours of the mass event.

Otherwise, Covid-safety measures should continue in businesses until such a point as the death rate is so low, it becomes a communicable disease that we accept and that the NHS can deal with in perpetuity without being put under excessive pressure. Permanent papers should be resisted at all costs. This still would have to be a temporary measure, with all focus being on building up herd immunity through vaccination.

It is un-British to leave people behind, to isolate people, to shame people into action. It is un-British to demand papers to be seen when going about ordinary, daily business. It is un-British to give some people greater freedoms than others by law.

Today, many vaccination centres have closed down for a month due to supply issues. When they get back up and running again, I can’t wait to be there, getting as many injections as possible into the arms of the under-50s. We must encourage everyone to take up their jab: this is the simple, fair way that we enter a restriction-free, Covid passport-free Britain.