NDP scaremongers and falsehoods about passport (Amendment) Bill

Tue, Jun 03, 2014

by HANS KING

PRESS SECRETARY TO PRIME MINISTER OF ST VINCENT AND

THE GRENADINES

SCAREMONGERING AND FALSEHOODS

The opposition New Democratic Party (NDP) continues its nefarious campaign of scaremongering, downright lies and outrageous falsehoods against the Unity Labour Party (ULP) Government. The NDP’s latest despicable, and unacceptable dishonest utterances relate to the Passport Amendment (Bill) 2014, which is currently before the House of Assembly in St Vincent and the Grenadines.{{more}} The NDP’s allegation that the Bill is designed to exonerate or legitimate alleged “corruption” at the Consul General’s Office in New York is ridiculous and unfounded. It has nothing to do with this Office in New York. The NDP’s false allegation is a species of propaganda straight out of the play-book of the Nazi propaganda chief, Goebbels, who took the immoral position that if one repeats a lie persistently the unsuspecting would accept it as the truth. A review of the actual provisions of the Passport (Amendment) Bill, 2014, would reveal a straightforward, sensible piece of legislation in the public interest.

THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

The Passport (Amendment) Bill has six clauses. Its objects and reasons are to amend certain provisions of the existing law to effect a better administration of the issuance of passports and to validate certain passport fees.

Clause 2 of the Bill sets out to amend Section 4 of the existing Passport Act by affirming that three classes of passports may be issued namely: an ordinary passport; an official passport; and a diplomatic passport.

Clause 3 of the Bill sets out to repeal Section 5 of the existing Passport Act by removing the five-year limitation of the life of a passport. The life of the new e-passport is 10 years. These new e-passports were issued from March 2014.

Clause 4 of the Bill contains a new provision. It stipulates that “a passport issued under the Act shall at all times remain the property of the Government.” This is the case universally and such a declaration of membership by the Government had always been stated in St Vincent and the Grenadines passports. The intention in the Bill is to give that declaration the force of law.

Clause 5 of the Bill adds a sub-paragraph to the existing nine sub-paragraphs of offences relating to the issuance, custody and treatment of a passport. This 10th sub-paragraph touches and concerns the matter of the non-reportage by the holder of a passport which has been lost or stolen. The report has to be made to the Chief Immigration Officer or the officer in charge of a police station “as soon as is practicable after the first time the person knows the passport has been either lost or stolen.”

Clause 6 of the Passport (Amendment) Bill 2014 is that on which the Opposition NDP has propagandised falsely and with a scaremonger’s relish. So, let us set out this clause in full with appropriate comments.

CLAUSE 6 OF THE BILL

Clause 6 of the Bill has four sub-clauses as follows:

(1) “Every passport issued for a period of more than five years prior to the Commencement of this Act and the regulations made under the principal Act is declared to be valid.”

Comment: This straightforward provision is to validate all the new 10-year e-passports which have been issued since March 2014 under a decision of Cabinet.

(2) “The fees set out in the Schedule to this Act which were levied, charged, and collected by the Passport Officer prior to the commencement of this Act and regulations made under the principal Act are declared to have been validly levied, charged and collected.”

Comment: I have underlined “the Passport Officer” in this sub-clause for emphasis. Who is “the Passport Officer”? The Passport Act, Section 2, (Chapter 115 of the Laws of St Vincent and the Grenadines, Revised Edition) defines “Passport Officer” as the Chief Immigration Officer. Section 4 of the Passport Act details the appointment of Passport Officer as follows:-

“(1) There shall be a Passport Officer whose function shall be to issue passports and to administer generally the provisions of this Act and the regulations made thereunder.

“(2) The Minister may designate any Consular Office to be an authorised officer for the purpose of issuing passports overseas.”

I note here that under the ULP government since March 29, 2001, no Consular Officer was ever designated to issue passports overseas. Indeed, the ULP government expressly forbad the issuance of any passport overseas by any Consular Officer. A Consular Officer may facilitate a citizen of St Vincent and the Grenadines with the process of obtaining a passport from capital city, Kingstown, but the issuance of passports under the ULP government has been the Passport Officer, that is, the Chief Immigration Officer.

I note further that the validation in Clause 6 (2) of the Bill for the levying, charging and collecting of the passport fees relate to the new passport fees for the new e-passports which are listed in the Schedule to the Bill. Please note that these new fees for the new e-passports were being charged pursuant to a Cabinet decision of February 26, 2014, prior to the commencement of the issuance of the new 10-year e-passports on March 03, 2014.

Clause 6(3) and 6(4) of the Passport (Amendment) Bill read:

“(3) All actions by the Passport Officer in relation to the issuing of a Passport and the charging and

collecting of fees which are validated by subsections (1) and (2) respectively are validated and declared to have been lawful and the Passport Officer and every person acting on behalf of the Passport Officer are freed, acquitted, discharged and indemnified as well against the Queen’s Most Gracious Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors as against all other persons from all proceeding of any kind in respect of or consequent on any such actions.

“(4) All money received by the Passport Office in proponent of the fees validated under sub-section (2) is declared to have been lawfully paid to and received by the Passport Officer and the Passport Officer and every person acting on behalf of the Passport Officer are freed, acquitted, discharged and indemnified as well against the Queen’s Most Gracious Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors as against all other persons from all proceedings of any kind in respect of or consequent on the receipt of such money.”

Comment: Clause 6(3) and 6(4) of the Bill are necessarily consequential upon the validation of the issuance of the passports and the fees in Clauses 6(1) and 6(2). They protect the actions of the Passport Officer and any other person acting on his behalf pursuant to the validation in Clauses 6(1) and 6(2) regarding issuance of the passports and the collection of the fees. It is important to note that the validation of the fees relates to the fees in the Schedule which are the fees for the new 10-year e-passports. So, for example, in the case of the new fee for issuance of a St Vincent and the Grenadines passport in Kingstown is EC$150.00 and in USA, US$150.00, if the Passport Officer or anyone acting on his behalf collects EC$200.00 or US$200.00 respectively, the validation and the indemnity will not, and cannot, be applicable for the excess collection over EC$150.00 or US $150.00 respectively. Any excess collected would subject the collector to civil or criminal sanction.

In the Schedule there are fees charged for the issuance of St Vincent and the Grenadines passports, their replacement and for express service in respect of a new or replacement passport in St Vincent and the Grenadines, USA, Canada, and UK.

Importantly, I should add that the bundle of “indemnities” in Clauses 6(3) or 6(4) of the Passport (Amendment) Bill are neither

novel nor unusual in the validation of the collection of levies, charges or taxes by a government in St Vincent and the Grenadines, including the former NDP administration, or elsewhere. This is normal in any validation of tax administration. Indeed, in some validating statutes there are identical provisions as in the Passport (Amendment) Act. On several occasions the NDP either proposed or supported many Acts of Validation. So, their scaremongering and falsehoods on the Passport (Amendment) Bill

is dishonest politics as the 2015 general elections draw nearer and as the NDP leadership succumbs to the “Internet crazies” who have their own personal agendas against the ULP and Ralph.

FINAL COMMENT

I should point out, parenthetically, that the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote to the Director of Audit and effectively rebutted the relevant Report of the Director of Audit in which it was alleged that the Consulate had collected passport fees in excess of its authority. The Permanent Secretary wrote that the correct passport fees were collected and transmitted on behalf of passport applicants to the Chief Immigration Officer in St Vincent and the Grenadines. The additional charges collected related to payments for transmitting a person’s application by Fed Ex or DHL.