I’ve been following the development of so-called “Health Passports” since last April when the Covid Credential Initiative formed. The COVID Credentials Initiative was launched to use digital identity to address the spread of COVID-19. The aim was to develop “Immunity Passports” and much more. The group included individuals who are part of Evernym, ID2020, uPort, Microsoft, and many more.
My interests are in Data, Analytics, and Business Intelligence. I work for an established UK university in the midlands and have been in the data analytics field for over 16 years, as well as researching about digital identity and the blueprinting of China’s surveillance state. I have a passion for what has been unfolding, the agenda behind the agenda.
Today as I write, I feel a sense of joy, thinking maybe we are going to win this on a domestic front, but its looks like there is no stopping international immunity passporting and that very well will be the march towards the global digital identity and common pass system I have been writing about.
Our report on Covid-status Certification highlights serious ethical concerns in relation to potential discrimination if a Covid Passport system was introduced domestically.
Read the Reporthttps://t.co/s2V9MYmWru pic.twitter.com/SsNEpjtkqx
— PACAC Committee (@CommonsPACAC) June 13, 2021
The government is considering whether UK vaccine passports could be used at big events or if there is another coronavirus wave. A review of the use of the certificates in England is expected to confirm on Monday that they will not be compulsory. But Whitehall sources said they could have a role to play at large events, such as sports matches and concerts, and help prevent closures in a future wave of the pandemic this winter.
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee (PACAC) the cross-party committee appointed to scrutinise Government last night published their report on the UK’s Covid-Status Certification. (CSC) I will highlight the main findings and points: The committee of MPs has warned ministers against introducing the certificates, saying they would be unjustified and discriminatory and that it could create a “two-tier society”.
We have published our report Covid-status Certification
Read it here:https://t.co/xknsV9IImV pic.twitter.com/w509QQCtgc
— PACAC Committee (@CommonsPACAC) June 11, 2021
The Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has effectively called for the certification to be scrapped, saying it should not be a part of the planned rolling back of restrictions on 21 June.
The aim of the scheme is to help “handle COVID-19 from summer onwards” It’s seen as a way out of the restrictions. It would “Play a role in reopening our economy, reducing restrictions on social contact and improving safety”.
“Certificates has been under consideration within Government for at least six months”. On this point the government were looking at certification a lot earlier than six months ago, they were talking about it in April of last year as the article below will explain:
The Key Points Raised:
“Conflicting and sometimes contradictory statements made by Ministers on the possibility of introducing certificates has risked damaging trust in Government”. They only have themselves to blame on this because over Eleven Times the Government Has Ruled Out Vaccine Passports as They Now Say They’re “Considering” Them.
The Committee was surprised at the lack of consideration by the Government of several issues and concerns with their suggested approach, The Committee was struck by the fact that the best assessment the Minister could make in favour of certificates was to say that it was a “finely balanced judgement”. – That was indeed Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
The committee “Found that the Government failed to make a sufficiently strong scientific case for introducing Covid-status certification in the UK. Further, while the Government could not set out to us the exact locations, events and venues which would be included in a Covid-status certification system, there appears to be no scientific rationale for the places they indicated were under consideration and most likely to be included in that system (nightclubs, large events like football matches, and for international air travel) and those that appear to have already been excluded from inclusion in that system (buses, the Underground or pubs and restaurants).”
The committee “Found no convincing scientific case that a certificate system would materially impact any future policy decision regarding social distancing. Instead, we found that a certificate system would likely place new burdens and costs on industries which are already some of the hardest hit sectors of the UK economy and society, and which continue to suffer because of the ongoing measures put in place to combat the pandemic.”
They also noted that “Covid-status certification system would, by its very nature, be discriminatory, and would likely disproportionately discriminate against some people on the basis of race, religion and socio-economic background, as well as on the basis of age due to the sequencing of the vaccine rollout.”
They found: “No justification for introducing a Covid-status certification system that would be sufficient to counter what is likely to be a significant infringement of individual rights.”
In our report on Covid-Status certification we raise concerns that a covid passport would not aid unlocking, but would add new burdens to key sectors of the UK economy and society.
Read the reporthttps://t.co/s2V9MY5l2U pic.twitter.com/CPSZ4qx0Tm
— PACAC Committee (@CommonsPACAC) June 12, 2021
The Government has not established a clear scientific case, nor a good overriding public interest case for the introduction of a Covid-status certification system. And they say, “it is our clear recommendation that the Government should abandon the idea of using a Covid-status certification system domestically.”
And this point is very serious: “The Government decided to pre-empt the findings of both and launched a Covid-status certificate for international travel (via the NHS App), without notifying or consulting Parliament. This could be construed as contempt for Parliament and this Committee, and this policy should have been set out in advance of any decision on the use of a certification system being taken.”
It’s interesting as the Committee took evidence from the public and received over nine thousand written submissions, an unprecedented number for a House of Commons inquiry.
🚨A senior committee of MPs just published an absolutely DAMNING report on Covid passes inc
– lack of a scientific basis
– serious discrimination
– “arbitrary” decisions
– govnt contradictions harm trustImpossible for Gov to proceed on back of this…https://t.co/ocH1309fpj pic.twitter.com/r0bqgefTmz
— Silkie Carlo (@silkiecarlo) June 11, 2021
“The Government’s approach to certification has risked damaging trust in government and in the measures put in place to tackle the pandemic.”
“The two venues that the Minister did identify as being places where a Covid-status certificate may be required for entry were nightclubs and large sports events such as premier league football matches. The Minister told us that his assessment of the cost and benefits were finely balanced.”
In our report on Covid-Status certification we raise concerns that a covid passport would not aid unlocking, but would add new burdens to key sectors of the UK economy and society.
Read the reporthttps://t.co/s2V9MY5l2U pic.twitter.com/CPSZ4qx0Tm
— PACAC Committee (@CommonsPACAC) June 12, 2021
The report goes on to say: “Given the large number of areas where the Government was unable to provide the Committee with information and answers in regards to: criteria against which the efficacy of that system is to be assessed; the cost-benefit analysis proposals; modelling of different scenarios with and without a certificate system, combined with the Minister’s own assessment that the case of a Covid-status certificate system is “finely balanced”, the Committee does not think the Government has made a case for any form of domestic Covid-status certification system.”
We Have published our report on Covid-status certification.
We found the Government made no convincing scientific case and that the success of the vaccine program makes domestic Covid passports unnecessary.https://t.co/URSDkKLNhl pic.twitter.com/FYyxunrcsD
— PACAC Committee (@CommonsPACAC) June 12, 2021
“We recognise the need to formulate an effective lockdown exit, but Covid passports are not the answer.” – Committee chairman William Wragg said: and “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.”
Covid passports not the answer to lockdown exit.
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee call for Government to abandon unjustified plans and says they have not made the scientific case, in its report on Covid 19 vaccine certification published today.
Nail in the coffin? @CommonsPACAC publishes highly challenging report on justification for domestic use of #VaccinePassports in the UK. Also critical of use of NHS app for international travel without government vote given potential data concerns. @AdaLovelaceInst https://t.co/OBjYrBncb3
— Imogen Parker (@ImogenParker) June 13, 2021
The introduction a Covid-status certification system would have a serious impact on businesses and individuals and has the possibility of infringing on our rights and are discriminatory in nature. Considering that, the report and MP’s believe that it would be inappropriate for a system with such a potentially wide adverse impact to be introduced.
If the Government pushes this on Monday, there will likely be a huge public and ministerial back clash and they know it, keep up the fight and raise awareness of the social cohesion and ethical issues and that this type of check point society is not what Great Britain wants or desires.
