The British Government’s plan to issue COVID-19 vaccine passports has been a topic of contention since January 2021. For those who await their first or second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, the possibility of a return to normality is undoubtedly at the forefront of their minds.
At the surface level, a vaccine passport would be a form of documentation allowing vaccinated individuals to access goods and services, or travel without restriction. However, the prospect of physical freedom by way of an COVID-19 vaccine passport is not comprehensive. The freedom the certificate denotes is not proportional to the threat it poses to civil liberties.
The possibility of a vaccine certification is intended to provide vaccinated individuals with the security and reassurance that those around them are equally virus free. This presumption of equality is what has been described as facilitating a “two-tiered” Britain. The freedom of the immunity certificates contrasts with the restrictions unvaccinated individuals would have to contend with as a result, which would overtly impact marginalised groups such as those from low-income households and BAME communities. Until everyone is vaccinated, there is no way to create a level playing field from which such certification would be fair: COVID-19 vaccination rollouts have not yet reached all age groups and will not include those individuals who are exempt nor those who have made the decision not to be vaccinated. The COVID-19 vaccine is not legally mandatory as a result of this. Hence, there is no pragmatic way to standardise the immunity certificate without inevitably creating further disparity.
At present, a COVID-19 vaccine passport is being developed with the intention of being trialled at mass events such as concerts and football matches. The certificate would be designed to reduce the need for social distancing and thus promote a revival of the economy. Any such system is not required as of yet for businesses that are soon to reopen. It begs the question as to whether such a system will be restricted to optional events such as theatres, nightclubs, festivals and sports events, akin to Israel’s “green pass” or whether it would become commonplace, impacting access to public services or disrupting necessary activities such as food shopping. The effect of the latter would be detrimental. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has stated that there will be no legal requirement for a COVID-19 passport, and that the system will be time-limited, but important details about its implementation and regulation are missing.
In addition, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has stated that implementing a passport scheme presumes a “lasting immunity”. However, there is little evidence to support this. The ambiguity of this undermines the “freedom” and the confidence that the passport is intended to represent. Therefore, with regard to the regulation of the vaccine passport, there is obvious concern that the certificate will be used by individuals who are not necessarily immune. This could result in the inadvertent spread of the virus, contrary to its very purpose.
The population’s natural desire for normalcy means that the voluntary scheme will attract many people. This in turn will likely lead to a full blown identification system in the UK, if devolved countries also decide to adopt the vaccine passport. The undermining of individual identity with a vaccine passport or identification card is an example of societal retrogression. This has the potential to undermine autonomy and increase state coercion through the deterrence of rights and freedoms, for example by restricting access of services and goods to those who cannot prove their immunity. This prompts questions of how the government will feasibly be able to regulate a large-scale discordant system. There is also the concern that it could lead to self-policing amongst independent owners of services and goods if it does become more commonplace. The vaccine passport may not be mandatory, but if the majority comply, it will be inevitable.
At first glance, the vaccine passport signals a weakening of lockdown restrictions in England and will reduce the need for social distancing, particularly in large groups. Stimulating the economy and encouraging a return to a pre-COVID-19 society is imperative, but the adverse impact that such passports will have is not conducive to our “safe” return and will inevitably create further issues of prejudice and increased marginalisation.
Originally from York, Catriona studied an English literature degree at undergraduate level and then progressed to study her LLB (graduate entry) at the University of Edinburgh. She is passionate about human rights law and intends to start her Human Rights Law LLM in September.