Why Boris Johnson cannot keep ducking the controversy over ‘vaccine passports’ to enter venues

Giving bosses a nod and a wink to press ahead, while leaving it to judges to decide, is a failure of leadership, writes Rob Merrick

The prime minister still appears to have his head in the sand (AP)

The priceless moment when Boris Johnson turned to Chris Whitty and asked “what do you think about vaccine passports” screamed volumes about his utter refusal to confront the controversy.

The chief medical officer could not have been more surprised if asked who should play up front for England with Harry Kane – no doubt thinking this was the ultimate decision for political, not scientific, leaders.

A few weeks on, the prime minister still appears to have his head in the sand – with that familiar procrastination that, fatally, delayed three lockdowns – but this is a big mistake, because the issue will not go away.

To be clear, I am talking about “passports” to enter venues or workplaces in this country, not proof of a Covid-19 jab to travel abroad, which is uncontroversial and easily agreed.

The muddled messages have seen Nadhim Zahawi, the vaccines minister, say talks had started, only for Michael Gove to stamp on the idea – then for the prime minister to brand them “discriminatory”.

So that’s that then? Well no... given that cinemas have begun striking private deals to use proof-of-vaccine technology to make it easier to open up when the lockdown eases.

The idea is also being explored as a precondition for working in a care home and by other employers – a “no jab, no job” policy that is alarming trade unions.

It seems clear the government is happy to give bosses a nod and a wink to impose the rule on their staff, in the same way that health workers must be inoculated for hepatitis B.

But this would be massive expansion of such requirements – and what about people who are unable to receive the vaccine for medical reasons, or who won’t for religious ones?

It is surely a dereliction of leadership to let employers make this decision – or, more likely, judges, when this inevitably ends up in the courts?

The same goes for venues, which would much rather demand vaccination than, as ministers plan, negative lateral flow tests – which are costly, require long delays before entry and are alarmingly unreliable.

As it happens, I agree vaccine certificates will be discriminatory before younger people can also be vaccinated, which may not be until the autumn.

After that... perhaps they still will be, or perhaps – like Israel – the carrot of access to gyms, swimming pools, concerts, restaurants and bars is the best way to get jabs into the group most likely to shun them otherwise?

The point is that we elect politicians to make these vital decisions, not to wimp out of doing so.