The government commission gave negative feedback on most of the initiatives of the Duma opposition

The Government Commission on Legislative Activities approved on Monday a new batch of responses to the initiatives of the Duma opposition. Most of them did not find support in the Cabinet. Thus, the idea to expand the rights of parents to child benefits was rejected due to a similar government bill already adopted in the first reading, and the proposal to strengthen criminal penalties for actions “on instructions or in the interests of a foreign state” in wartime was rejected due to the recent tightening of penalties for sabotage activities.

A group of deputies from A Just Russia – For Truth, led by its leader Sergei Mironov, proposed adding to Art. 267 (rendering unusable means of transport or means of communication) and Art. 281 (sabotage) of the Criminal Code with a new qualifying feature: “committing unlawful acts on the instructions or in the interests of a foreign state opposing the Russian Federation during martial law, in wartime or in conditions of an armed conflict or during combat operations.” But the legal commission considered this idea redundant, recalling that the commission of any crime during the mentioned period is in itself recognized as an aggravating circumstance. In addition, responsibility for sabotage activities has already been significantly tightened, the Cabinet notes. Let us remind you that the amendments adopted in the spring increased the maximum penalty for this crime from 15 to 20 years in prison.

Nina Ostanina (Communist Party of the Russian Federation) proposed maintaining the right to a monthly child benefit in the event of an increase in the income of able-bodied family members during the period for which it was assigned. Now the right to a single benefit arises if the average per capita family income does not exceed the regional subsistence level per capita. According to the commission, the proposed changes are not consistent with the principle of targeting social assistance. In addition, the Duma is considering government projects that would preserve the right to benefits if the parent receiving it went to work before the child was one and a half years old (in early November, these initiatives were approved in the first reading). The commission made the same argument in its response to the bill of Sergei Leonov (LDPR), who came up with the idea of ​​maintaining a monthly child benefit for parents working remotely.

LDPR deputies, led by leader Leonid Slutsky, proposed giving single parents with two or more children under 18 years of age the right to annual paid leave at any time convenient for them until the youngest child reaches 14 years of age. The Commission responded by pointing out that many support measures are already provided for parents with many children, including single ones: they have the right to annual paid leave and additional unpaid leave, they cannot be fired at the initiative of the employer, forced to go on business trips, forced to work overtime and etc. And the LDPR initiative, according to the government, may even worsen the position of these citizens in the labor market, since “it will not encourage employers to hire them.”

Yaroslav Nilov (LDPR) has developed amendments that allow car owners to receive compensation under a compulsory motor liability insurance contract for damage caused by the actions or inactions of government agencies, local governments and utility organizations, and for the insurer to collect insured amounts from such structures. The Legal Commission considered that these changes do not relate to the subject of regulation of the law on compulsory motor liability insurance, and the implementation of the initiative will lead to an increase in insurance rates. In addition, government agencies will have to allocate additional funds to cover new costs, and the financial and economic justification does not say anything about this, the review notes.

Deputies Sardana Avksentyeva and Grigory Shilkin (“New People”) proposed to put the heads of municipalities and local deputies on an equal footing with federal and regional civil servants in the event of conscription for military service upon mobilization: the heads would have to retain their positions for the duration of their service, and the powers of the deputies would be suspended before returning from the front line. The commission, however, drew attention to the fact that in the case of heads of administrations and civil servants, different procedures for appointment and removal from office apply, and it is impossible to equalize them in social guarantees. The situation is even more complicated with elected officials, whose lack of an employer “will create legal uncertainty.” In addition, the review emphasizes that concluding a military contract is voluntary, therefore “retaining the powers of the head of the administration for the period of military service seems inappropriate.”

Finally, the same “New People” have prepared a project giving local authorities the right to limit the speed or prohibit the use of electric scooters and other rental personal mobility devices, as well as to hold a referendum on this issue. The Legal Commission in its response indicated that the traffic rules establishing the speed limit should be the same for everyone, and restrictions regarding only rental vehicles “will create an imbalance of legal regulation and may lead to an unreasonable restriction of the rights of individuals.” In addition, regions already have the ability to introduce restrictions by installing road signs, the government recalled.

Ksenia Veretennikova