This sphere is rather difficult and unpleasant for us because of its tragic consequences that inevitably arise after another fire or accident, the causes of which are endless violations of the rules and regulations aimed at preventing such tragedies. Some of these violations are based on frankly criminal corruption component, others - criminal negligence and carelessness, however, and in those and others, our unforgettable Russian “maybe” is a red thread. Perhaps they will not catch it, maybe it will carry it by. Maybe it will somehow manage ... After all, I want to save a little somewhere, a little bit to deceive others, and myself, a little to spit on everything and just relax.
And when we really want something that can stop us? Consciousness? Decency? Debt? Come on, do not amuse yourself with illusions! Someone, perhaps, at times, will suddenly stop the annoying voice of conscience, but the overwhelming majority will habitually dismiss and take the same fatal step towards the coming trouble for those around them, and for themselves and their loved ones.
Well, what is there to slow us down, stop, save? Only system. HARD CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM. When any step to the left, step to the right is “shot on the spot”. For God's sake, do not take these words at face value - this is only an image of a measure of responsibility. He, of course, could have been some other image, but the very measure of the highest responsibility must necessarily be present in this trouble-free system of hard coercion.
The principle of operation of this system is based on the absolutely rational, pragmatic interaction of two independent institutions: the institution state technical supervision and institute private enterprise. Private enterprise here is not a form of ownership, but an individuality, autonomy, and independence of the enterprise (production). The pragmatic effectiveness of this interaction should be ensured by the relevant legislation, which contains special mechanisms of direct personal liability and anti-corruption, if not guarantees, then at least rules and regulations.
The Institute of State Technical Supervision should be well-tuned system of quasi-type, designed. protect us and our national interests in the field of technical security in a wide range of social and production activities.
Protect from what? From entrepreneurial greed, incompetence, dishonesty, stupidity, laziness and carelessness.
And what is the national interest in the field of technical security? This is our life, health, buildings and facilities, property and, finally, a well-established sense of security.
The system of quasi-military type is similar to the military hierarchical structure of civilian civil service with a powerful (command) vertical and territorial-sectoral horizontal. It should be endowed with all the most important attributes of the military sphere, such as: banner, oath, command ranks, insignia, uniform, etc. All this should ensure that the employee is tied to his professional career and the corresponding incentive systems (social package, seniority, awards, promotion, etc.), provided that he fulfills his or her official duty. Employee state supervisors should have appropriate education and certification.
In general, such a system of state technical supervision today already exists and, more or less, functions successfully. This is Rostekhnadzor, which monitors compliance with safety standards in construction and energy. including hydropower, and industry, including nuclear, chemical, oil and gas and other specific industries.
In my opinion, various enterprises and structures of small business should be added to the scope of control of Rostechnadzor, entrusting Rostechnadzor with the function of fire safety supervision, respectively, removing it from the Emergencies Ministry. The meaning of this step is to combine control over technological, energy and fire safety, and in some cases with environmental safety, which in most enterprises are inseparable from each other and should be evaluated as a whole. Accordingly, one linear officer (inspector) could control them. It is clear that this is a debatable question, but it's probably worth thinking about it.
The role of the oversight bodies in the overall national security system is quite comparable with the role of the prosecutor's office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and requires appropriate attention from the authorities and society, especially given the relatively high degree of corruption threats in the performance of their official duties. I am talking about corruption threats from the point of view of the state and society. From the point of view of the direct participants in the corruption process, this is, of course, a typical temptation. The temptation that you need to constantly heroically overcome. And it is not easy, really not easy. To do this, we need the highest human and civil qualities of an individual, and for an ordinary, not an outstanding person, to meet this requirement, it is necessary that this should be facilitated by the environment and conditions in which he must resist this temptation.
As special anti-corruption measures designed to help overcome such a temptation, employees of oversight bodies should be involved. special property declaration system. It:
- Mandatory declaration on all family property (real estate, stocks, cars, bank accounts, luxury goods), which includes, in addition to information about the personal property of an employee, information about the property of the parents, spouse or spouse, as well as all children at the time of entry into service;
- annual declarations of family property changes (new acquisitions, sales, transfers of property from one family member to another, etc.);
- annual declarations on their off-site incomes and, accordingly, on taxes paid from these amounts.
(The issue of property of other close relatives, for example, brothers and sisters, within the framework of this system could be studied separately in the event of corruption suspicions in the supervisory authority or in the process of officially launched investigation into certain individuals.)
The need for such control of all law enforcement officials without exception is well illustrated. history the notorious colonel Zakharchenko with his billions. The system of property declarations of law enforcement and supervisory authorities could operate quite successfully within the framework of the analytical control of the special anti-corruption unit of the FSB and identify real corruption threats already in the early stages.
Another direction in the fight against corruption in supervisory and other government bodies, and hence, in efforts to improve the efficiency of their work, is the so-called replaceable principle in justice or Replacement Justice.
The meaning of the replaceable principle is full compensation of the perpetrators of a crime (inaction) of material damage to the injured party or parties.
For example, after a fire in the Kemerovo Zimnyaya Cherv shopping and entertainment center, the federal and regional budgets, as well as the building owner, suffered material damage to the families of the dead and injured, unless, of course, the court recognized him as one of the perpetrators of the tragedy. Consequently, in accordance with the principle of indemnification, the specific perpetrators of the consequences of a fire established by the court must compensate for all these damages at the expense of their property. The latter, by the way, should be arrested by the court with the beginning of the investigation into the criminal event and be in this status until the final verdict on the case comes into force. The personal property of the suspect, as well as all the property of his family members (spouse, parents and children) acquired during the work of the suspect in supervisory or other government bodies in the absence or insufficiency of the declared incomes of family members for the acquisition of this property. In other words, all family property acquired during the work of a suspect in supervisory and other bodies should be arrested if there is no convincing evidence of his lawful acquisition by the family of the suspect on his own income.
It is clear that this arrested property will not always be enough to compensate for all material damage. and then the court according to national reimbursement legislation will have to determine the priorities of compensation and, by the way, take into account the amount of compensation in the event of a final (final instance) sentence. For example, a person found guilty by a court decision and voluntarily compensating for all the damage at the expense of his arrested property, could well be condemned solely conditionally. And, on the contrary, if such a person found guilty by the court had nothing to compensate for the damage caused, it would be logical to expect the maximum real punishment from the court when sentencing.
However, this is a very special, separate topic of the practical functioning of compensatory justice as such. The meaning of the reparative principle, as one of the ways to prevent corruption, is quite different. Understanding that one of the consequences of condoning a representative of a supervisory authority in the field of providing fire safety or other security may be the loss of property acquired by him, this representative is likely to be cautious to sign, for example, a “readiness” act for a nonexistent or unfinished fire alarm promised him dreaming of circumventing the existing rules of an overly creative entrepreneur.
The same dilemma will inevitably arise before the responsible representative on the part of the entrepreneur. After all, a replaceable principle can inevitably be applied to him. On the one hand, of course, there is a great temptation to pay off the annoying "fireman" and thus solve some of their problems, and on the other, the threat in which case to pay with your family property ... Agree: the replacement principle in jurisprudence acts here insurance for all of us from unscrupulous businessmen and supervisory officials. It's good? Of course, good. So let's think and do something in this direction.
Now a few crucial moments related to the visitor of the institute of state supervision - private entrepreneurship institute.
The main question is: who bears full responsibility for non-compliance with technical safety rules and, accordingly, the requirements of state technical supervision representatives?
The answer is obvious: owner of the company or his authorized representative. Moreover, if the absolute powers of the owner are determined by his documented rights of the owner, the level of rights and responsibilities of the authorized representative of the owner in each case should be specifically stated in a notarized document - a general power of attorney, the relevant body of the joint stock company or government agency that owns this particular enterprise on property rights. The notarization of such a document is necessary in order to not be able to change it retroactively in anyone's interests.
The authorized representative of the owner must act strictly within the framework of the powers granted to him and bear full completeness of property compensation for the damage caused as a result of an emergency situation in relation to all victims, including the owner. At the same time, the legislation should clearly define the priorities for compensation of damage at the expense of the seized property of the perpetrators of the incident. First, the expenses of the budget, the federal and (or) regional, for the liquidation of the consequences of the incident and the payment of compensation to victims should be reimbursed. and only then should the turn of the owner of the enterprise. I suppose that such an approach is sufficiently justified and fair, since the federal and regional budgets play the role here conditional "insurers", moreover, not received from the company again, conditional insurance premiums.
The authorized representative of the owner has the right to impose responsibility for ensuring technical safety at one or another object on one of his subordinates. but this should not exonerate himself. The full completeness of indemnity in this case should fall on all employees of the enterprise, officially responsible for technical safety (each at its own level).
An important problem in a situation of this kind, both on the part of representatives of the supervisory authority and on the part of the entrepreneur is the so-called informal compulsionwhen the superior superior puts pressure on the subordinate, in one way or another, forcing him to violate the established rules. This phenomenon, alas, is not uncommon in real relations between people in all sorts of hierarchical structures. Often, it turns out to be one of the causes of all sorts of emergencies and accidents.
How can a little subordinate person avoid the situation “without guilt of the guilty one” and not shoulder someone else’s responsibility?
Simple options here, of course, no. Here it is necessary either to gain courage and demand from the chief a special written order, or to quit. Another option is for an ordinary (junior) representative of the supervisory authority: to submit an appropriate report through the head of his immediate superior to the management of the supervisory service. The consequences of such a step, alas, may be unpredictable, but, nevertheless, the chance to return to the legal field in this case still remains.
An ordinary senior worker at a production plant, of course, also has such an option, but, honestly, the real chance of successfully implementing it in working order is extremely small.
In any case, each person must himself evaluate his risks, making certain decisions, and the national technical safety system, together with special anti-corruption measures and the reparation principle of justice, should direct everyone who in one way or another comes into contact with this sphere to much greater responsibility than this is the place to be today.