Yelena Vinnik: Leave your address with us after the programme.
A lot of housing has been built in Russia in recent years. The shortage of housing is less important now and the issue has been pushed to the background by another problem – now there is a lack of infrastructure in new residential areas: there are no kindergartens, schools, clinics, or public gardens.
I will just read a couple of messages. Moscow Region: “Why, when building new complexes, residents' needs for schools, kindergartens, or other infrastructure are not taken into account? If you need children, you have to think about their living conditions.”
Another one: “The infrastructure was never built. There is no kindergarten, no schools, and the developer is on the wanted list.”
Mr President, let us go to our call centre, there are many calls on this subject, I know.
Natalya Yuryeva: Colleagues, for starters, I will say that our call centre has just undergone a massive DDoS attack from abroad. Apparently, this is the reason for the disruptions in video calls we encountered.
But we have managed to repel it; the app was restarted and we are continuing to receive calls. The total number is already approaching 2 million.
We really do have a lot of questions about infrastructure. In Vologda there is a dire shortage of kindergartens, especially in the Leningradsky, Okruzhnoi and Gagarinsky districts.
Rostov-on-Don: a problem with the new Suvorovsky neighbourhood, where plans provided for gardens. They are now being replaced with high-rise buildings.
Voronezh, the Protsessor neighbourhood. There are many young families who were promised a school back in 2017, but construction has been put off until 2028. Which school will their children go to for the next 10 years? Who knows.
We also have a video call from Kseniya Bessonova in Krasnoyarsk.
Kseniya, you are on air.
Ksenia Bessonova: Good afternoon, Mr President.
Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.
Ksenia Bessonova: I call on you on behalf of all the residents of the 3rd neighbourhood, who need your assistance for a school, a kindergarten and a park to be added to the neighbourhood. Over 70,000 people live here, in Solnechny, mostly new builds, and mostly young families with small children.
The schools that we do have are crowded with three times more pupils than acceptable. The birth rate in our neighbourhood was the highest in Krasnoyarsk, but the social infrastructure is a real problem. The shortage of places in our schools and kindergartens is estimated at over 3,000.
In 2018 we protected the area where a school and a kindergarten were to be built when we learned that residential buildings would be built there instead. The residents held protests, and the residential construction decision was called off.
But several months ago we learned that the city authorities had issued residential building permits for the remaining part of the municipally owned land in the third neighbourhood where a park was to be created. The problem is that there are no parks or public gardens in the new residential neighbourhoods, that is, in the larger part of Solnechny. Our children have nowhere to go outdoors. Please, help us.
Vladimir Putin: I see that Krasnoyarsk Territory Governor [Alexander] Uss is taking part in this meeting via videoconference. Let him answer your question. I believe that in this particular case he should say how your problem will be settled. This must be done by all means no matter how complicated it may be.
I would like to say the following in this connection. This problem has not appeared because of changes in the housing legislation. And it should have been settled a long time ago.
The example you have provided suggests the opposite, but such problems were usually settled in the following manner: when the construction was co-financed by the future residents, the joint development contracts stipulated the construction of the social infrastructure, such as schools, hospitals and kindergartens.
This does not seem to be your case, though. It is clearly the fault of those who made the construction decision at the local and regional levels. Even the regional authorities are not to blame here, for such decisions are made by the local authorities.
But, unfortunately, this problem will now become more acute. I am talking about this in order to once again draw the attention of the Russian Government and the regional colleagues to this matter. Why?
Because we are converting to new forms of housing construction linked with the decision to alleviate the burden on the people, the risks, rather, so as not to create new problems with unfinished construction projects. Now we are shifting this burden and the risks onto financial organisations, with state support.
I repeat, in the first case, equity construction investors paid for this, one way or another. In the long run, it was included in the overall housing costs. Today, the state, namely, the federal Government or the specific region and municipalities with regional support, are supposed to build the social infrastructure under the law.
This is what the law says, but they still have no source. The Government and Russian regions now have to create a legal system that would make it possible to build the social infrastructure along with housing, and that would also determine the sources of financing for such construction. Now, let us listen to the governor in this particular case.
Pavel Zarubin: Mr Uss, could you make it very brief? Will you solve the problem?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, Mr Uss, go ahead.
Krasnoyarsk Territory Governor Alexander Uss: Good afternoon, Mr President.
Indeed, the Solnechny residential area is far from ideal, and high-density construction is a typical legacy of the 1990s. It is located on the city’s outskirts and, to be frank, it has never been a high-priority area. At the same time, I would like to note that a school and a kindergarten opened there earlier in 2019, and I attended the kindergarten opening.
I was surprised to learn that land plots suitable for construction, including these social projects, were allotted to municipalities for commercial housing construction projects. If so, we will modify this decision. At the same time, I would like to note that the residential area is located on the city’s outskirts, so we will probably find an opportunity to set up a park there.
I would also like to say that this particular residential area is included in our Housing priority project. In this sense, modern urban development approaches can be implemented there, although it is impossible to completely eliminate the legacy that we have received.
Pavel Zarubin: Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: I am sorry, but I would like to address the governor once again. Please go there and talk to the people. Please see what can be done to expand the social infrastructure in line with this woman’s request. If you need any assistance, we are ready to provide such individual targeted assistance. I am confident that Krasnoyarsk Territory can accomplish this task. In any event, please report on this to me separately as soon as possible.
Alexander Uss: All right, thank you.
Pavel Zarubin: We had problems with calls at the beginning, so let us give the call centre another chance.
Vladimir Putin: Let me also respond to some text messages here, or whatever it is on the screen: “When will officials have wages like average workers?” You know, I have seen a lot of such questions. Let us imagine that a minister will receive the wages of an average worker. It pains me to say this, and I would very much like to… Do you remember this famous joke: “We should work not so that there are no more rich people, but so that there are no poor people?” I would like the wages of an average worker to grow.
What can be the problem if we simply decrease the wages of officials, ministers or even top managers at large state companies? We will not find enough qualified experts. They will go to private offices or move abroad, and in the end this will affect the prosperity of Russia and these average workers we are talking about, because there will be no effective decisions, no development plans, and no one to implement them. It is obvious that people should get wages according to their qualifications, according to their professional and personal qualities and, of course, according to the results of their work.
However, I agree with you that the difference must not be colossal. If we turn to top managers at our large state companies, we will see some peculiarities here as well. To tell the truth, I am also rankled sometimes to see their incomes. By the way, I have said this many times. But the thing is, their companies – and this is really necessary – have many foreign experts, and the level of their salaries is comparable to what the top executives get. You see, if we decrease their pay sharply, they will have a deficit of experts, like in healthcare, and the consequences can be dire.
Nevertheless, let me repeat that the difference must not be colossal. I agree with you. We should think about this.
Pavel Zarubin: Tatyana, a call, please.
Vladimir Putin: I am sorry.
Incidentally, in healthcare or education, senior professionals receive ten times more, and I am not even speaking about ministers, ten times more than an average employee at a hospital or an educational institution. Of course, this is unacceptable, and we must definitely focus on this.
Pavel Zarubin: We have a call. Tatyana?
Tatyana Remezova: Thank you, colleagues.
We are receiving very many questions and calls from outside Russia. Let us take a quick glance at them. This map shows those who are trying to connect with us via OK Live. We have calls from London, Paris, Zurich, Hanover and Hamburg. There are plenty of calls from Moldova, Belarus and, of course, Ukraine. Here are just a few examples, and some questions: “Mr President, you said on April 27 that the procedure for granting Russian citizenship would be facilitated for all rather than individual groups of Ukrainians. When will you sign the executive order?” “Will we ever make up with Ukraine? Will we ever restore ties with Ukraine?” A call from Odessa: “Mr President, will you visit us in Ukraine?”
Right now, we have a call from Kiev. They tell me that it is Ukrainian journalist Valery Shvets.
Valery, good afternoon.
Valery Shvets: Mr President, good afternoon.
Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.
Valery Shvets: Do the Minsk talks have a future after the recent elections in Ukraine? As we know, Viktor Medvedchuk has left the negotiating group. He said he would carry on independent talks on releasing detainees regardless of the position of the new Ukrainian authorities. Has Medvedchuk contacted you on the matter of releasing Ukrainian citizens held in detention in Russia?
Vladimir Putin: First of all, we never lose sight of these matters, especially when it concerns the problems of people in distress, those who are in detention or in other places that are no better than a prison.
It is true that Mr Medvedchuk was involved in this process, both at the request of the former President of Ukraine and on his own. But initially he was charged with this job by President Poroshenko. It is also true that Mr Medvedchuk takes all these problems personally, close to heart. He has been here recently, when he again called for releasing the Ukrainian sailors who had been detained during the accident near the Kerch Strait. He also called on us to release several other people who have been sentenced and are serving their terms in Russia. But these subjects should be regarded as a package. Before addressing this matter, we must think about those for whom we care, including Russian citizens, who are suffering the same fate in Ukraine.
Yelena Vinnik: Mr President, we receive many questions through the social networks.
Vladimir Putin: I am sorry; I just saw a question from Yakutia, “When will there be a bridge across the Lena River?”
This is a question that the Russian Government must address together with Yakutia. This is an expensive project. The problem is, there is nowhere to extend this bridge and this future road. This is why we do not believe that there could be a return on this investment. Nevertheless, it will be necessary to address this problem as soon as possible in order for the city to develop.
Now an unusual question: “Where have the Chud people gone?” They have mostly become assimilated. Yes. However, I am sure that they have not disappeared completely. In general, we had many peoples living in the Russian Federation. Some peoples are still there, some are not, but this is all part of our cultural code.
Yelena Vinnik: Let us continue. A question we have received in the VKontakte social network, on the economy: “I would like to ask about the plans to further develop the Russian economy. Will there be a stronger emphasis on a market economy? Will we go back to a centralised economy or will we have a kind of mix, which makes the Russian economy stagnate now?” Vasily Buldakov.
Pavel Zarubin: I have a question from a text message: “Do you understand that we will never have a breakthrough with economists from the 1990s?”
Vladimir Putin: First, we have no economists from the 1990s. Where are they? Name at least one. Maybe Alexei Kudrin, but not completely; and he has also changed and I think he has been drifting towards Sergei Glazyev, because he wants to open our oil treasury and believes that we must raise the cut-off point for oil revenues. However, his own colleagues, his pupils in a way, oppose him and say it will result in inflation, and so on. Let them argue.
But we do not really have any economists from the 1990s. Some ideas, maybe ones regarding monetary policy, are there, we can see that, but the economic system of the 1990s is no longer there. Why? Firstly, we no longer have that level of inflation, which was over 30 percent then, neither do we have that level of debt, which went through the roof. We are not dependent on the IMF. On the contrary, our foreign exchange reserves are growing, exceeding 500 billion dollars by now, and they continue to grow. We have no debt – only, unfortunately, some isolated cases of wage arrears or failure to pay salaries on time.
But none of this is even close to the 1990s, when salaries were delayed for six months, and military compensations remained unpaid for months. Pensions were the only reliable source of income and even they were not paid on time. They were minuscule and were not paid on time. But there is nothing like that now.
However, perhaps something else is more important. The most important thing is that there is no such thing as a pure market economy or a pure command economy, but a mixture of the two is quite possible, as the caller said here, and versions of this can be found around the world.
In general, as soon as any economic breakdowns begin, as soon as problems arise, the role of the state immediately expands. But once savings increase, and the situation calms down, the state immediately withdraws from the economy. This happens everywhere, in all countries. And it always happened here in times of crises.
Countries with mixed economies actually grow faster than others: China, and partly India. In China now, the pace of economic growth is slower than in India, but still it remains one of the drivers of the global economy. And India, too.
What about the Western economies? Look, nobody there objects to strategic planning in industry; on the contrary, they tend to promote it. It is all there, so we need to keep it in mind and use it too.
But the main thing that we need to pay attention to, and yesterday we also discussed this with the Economics Minister, and I completely agree – it is motivation. In whatever system a person works, whether in a planned or in a market economy, it is necessary to ensure motivation. Only then will we be able to solve the tasks facing the country.
Pavel Zarubin: Let us continue. Natalya Yuryeva, please.
Natalya Yuryeva: Thank you.
We are now in our programme’s control room where the technical pulse of Direct Line beats. You can see how cramped and noisy it is. The staff have a lot to do. They receive all the calls, video questions and social media messages.
You can see how many people are now waiting for their chance to put a question to the President. We can see governors waiting. Some of them will have to answer to the President today. I suspect they all are nervous.
Guys, please tell us where the requests on this screen come from?
Remark: A young man from St Petersburg.
Natalya Yuryeva: And here?
Remark: A man from Magadan.
Natalya Yuryeva: Please, let us put Magadan on.
Remark: Attention, Magadan, let’s go.
Remark: We are on.
Vyacheslav Korchanov: Good afternoon, Mr President.
Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.
Vyacheslav Korchanov: My name is Vyacheslav Korchanov.
Here is my question: the mass media regularly tell Russians about another corrupt official being caught. I recall Zakharchenko, the Arashukov father and son, among others; and Zakharchenko’s nine billion is a lorryful of banknotes. Could he really get them without help?
When answering previous questions, you spoke about sources of funding. I have a question: where do these billions come from and, most importantly, where will these confiscated billions go? Who will be or is responsible for this rampant corruption? As the guarantor of law, do you feel personally responsible for this mess?
Vladimir Putin: Firstly, I, of course, feel responsible for this mess. If I did not, you would not know anything, like it happens in some countries still, or like it used to happen here. You know, there is always an alternative. I am often told “Perhaps we can hide this” or “Maybe we should close this?” because there will be questions like yours.
I always have the same answer: no. If we deal with crime, with corruption, with dirty money, we must, firstly, go through with this, and secondly, do it openly. And we will do this and do it openly.
Where does the money come from? Clearly, from corruption schemes and from business. Incidentally, both sides are to blame here: one group of people steal and the other group take bribes. There are bribers and bribe-takers. And the law says so.
Where does the money go? To public revenue, to be sure. Of course, officials, and representatives of law enforcement in particular, are in a special position and they will always be under special scrutiny.
Pavel Zarubin: When you learned about those stored billions, what words best conveyed your reaction?
Vladimir Putin: Sometimes it is better not to say them out loud.
It is not a laughing matter, actually. In fact, when you learn about these billions, there are no words, at least none fit to go into print.
To reiterate: this must not deter us from fighting this phenomenon. Incidentally, this subject occurs in many countries, practically in all of them. Look at the United States, for one, where corruption carries 70, 100, or even 150 years of imprisonment. This is senseless, of course, but the work is carried out in a sufficiently tough manner – and in public. In this country, we will do the same.
Yelena Vinnik: In our country, there are also proposals to punish corruption with life imprisonment.
Vladimir Putin: You see, the thing is you can sentence a person to life, if he or she is advanced in years, but dozens of years will not make that much difference.
Pavel Zarubin: One has the impression that the authorities are stepping up the fight against corruption…
Vladimir Putin: What is important is not even the years of imprisonment. The important thing is the inevitability of punishment.
Pavel Zarubin: The authorities seem to be stepping up the fight against corruption, but it feels as though its scale is only growing.
Vladimir Putin: This is only how it feels. In fact, the number of corruption crimes is declining. And it is declining, I think, largely thanks to our consistent and uncompromising efforts. And we will continue doing this in the future.
Pavel Zarubin: We have promised to this studio before the show that we will give them the floor.
Maria Gladkikh, please.
Maria Gladkikh: Hello, Mr President.
We know that we are living in the Internet era. Actually, we are an Internet generation. All of us have smartphones and our phones can help us order food or cinema tickets, while the navigator will always show us the way. I see a good-looking girl in this room, who is taking steps in this direction.
Vladimir Putin: All girls are good-looking.
Maria Gladkikh: Right, all girls are good-looking, but this girl in a blue dress is General Director of the company Yandex, which, one can say, makes our life easier.
Good afternoon, Yelena. As I see it, you have decided to keep on going because there are so many things around.
Yandex Director General Yelena Bunina: Good afternoon, Mr President.
Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.
Yelena Bunina: This is what I would like to say. Ours is a unique country. It is unique also because the technological services created in Russia are more popular than similar international services. Russia is actually the only country where this is taking place on the open market without any harassment of others.
But we want more at Yandex. We want to become an international high-tech company that hails from Russia, so that our country feels proud of us and the world admires our cutting-edge technological services. This is becoming possible.
For example, our unmanned driving technology is among the best in the world. However, we have a problem with regulatory documents. In the United States, 1,400 self-driving cars are now being tested on the roads, whereas we have only launched the first five. Our legal procedure takes too long.
So here is my question. Do you think our state is capable of taking our legal procedure one step ahead of the other countries, so that we can surge ahead in the new technological spheres and become better than anyone else? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: This is my dream as well. But we should take the specific features of our country into account, as you have said. I love Germany, but you know the saying, “What pleases the Russian kills the German.” But it can be the other way round as well. Suppose we start using drones for postal deliveries, as several countries are already doing. Some people here could use this service, which will be expensive at first, while those who do not have the money will keep looking at the sky for fear that something will drop on their heads. No, any innovation must be well prepared.
On the other hand, we must accelerate to a breakthrough speed. I fully agree with you on this. That you have reached an agreement with your South Korean colleagues, who will create self-driving cars based on your “brains” and products, is a step towards making us proud of you. We are proud of you as it is; yours is a good company. As for whether others admire you or not… at the least, they respect you.
A few words about admiration: it is something to be wary of. Everyone admired Huawei and now it has been swatted, quite unexpectedly. Do you see what I mean? We should remember that, regrettably, unscrupulous methods of competition are very often used.
As for development, you know this terminology: we need to create “sandboxes,” and we are actually doing just this. In Skolkovo, a testing ground has been built where these unmanned vehicles are now broken in. Similar facilities should be built in other regions – and expanded. But of course, we must do it faster. Here I certainly agree with you.
However, there is something else I would like to emphasise, something you also just mentioned. You said that we have an open market, and it is not protected. But your company, Yandex, wonderful as it is, is successfully competing on our market with giants like Google. Yet, this is not without a touch of state support.
Pavel Zarubin: Mr President, there is another good question. You have partially answered it, but it is about summing up. How should life be arranged in Russian technology companies so that our programmers – who are the best in the world, as our young programmers have won almost every world Olympiad – feel better than in Silicon Valley?
Vladimir Putin: We need to create a system of preferences, and we are working on this, including tax preferences. As you may know, high-tech companies enjoy a preferential status when it comes to making contributions to the social funds.
There are other support policies, including direct support: competition for markets, export support and so on. Because we need our high-tech companies, including software developers, to grow from the Russian level to an international one; otherwise we will not achieve full success.
But what is especially important, and what I would like to point out – and here we need to think together with our colleagues from the Government – we need to provide a market for our programmers, especially in sensitive fields: governance, sensitive industries, say the energy sector, the management system, the financial sector, in our large companies – to guarantee sovereignty and ensure security.
And here we have to make decisions at the Government level, which would… Indeed, they might not be very market-based… someone has asked here if we have a market economy or not, or where we are heading. But in this segment, we just need direct Government support to ensure a market for such services.
Pavel Zarubin: There are many business people, and very successful ones, in this studio today.
Nailya, please.
Nailya Asker-zade: Mr President, as it happens, people in China are not only fond of Eskimo ice-cream that you regularly present to the PRC President, but also our glazed biscuits. We will hear this story from our studio guest, who arrived from Penza.
He sells this and other pastries not only in China but also in seven other countries, including Russia. He has a family confectionery factory. Let me introduce Nikolai Kuzyakov.
Nikolai, what issues concern small and medium-sized businesses today?
Nikolai Kuzyakov: Good afternoon, Mr President. I have one question and one personal request to make.
The question is about the oversight authorities. Thank you for what you have done and for extending the oversight holiday. Indeed, there are fewer planned inspections, but, regrettably, many more unscheduled inspections. Three oversight agencies conducted inspections at my company last week.
As a result, they will probably levy 100-percent fines. If they fail to do that, their higher-ups will say that the inspectors botched their job or that there is a corruption component.
Small businesses say that, in principle, it is all right that they come and inspect companies. But they should behave like instructors, assistants and mentors. They should help us and teach us so we could safely phone and consult them.
I have a question to ask you, Mr President. Is there a way to induce the oversight authorities to stop imposing fines or seeking out problems? Why cannot they help small and medium-sized businesses develop?
And another thing. We met once before and you said you would taste Vanya’s Sweets, when you came to Penza. This is the first reason for you to visit us. The second reason is that we have a strong ice hockey school. The city of Penza has produced many national players. You play ice hockey in Sochi. Our governor plays hockey, too. I have a dream: to play with you on a rink in Penza.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you for your invitation. First of all, I will answer a question I saw there: “Are you a Muscovite or a Russian?” I am a Petersburger. I was born in St Petersburg. It is my homeland, which is saying something, as I see it.
The second question is about text messages used for treating children. It would be better to know where this question came from, because it must be connected with a problem somewhere, such as an outpatient clinic or its absence, or even the absence of a rural paramedic centre or an outpatient station. Unfortunately, it is unclear where this question has come from.
Pavel Zarubin: It most likely concerns the collection of funds for a user’s medical treatment.
Vladimir Putin: We need to consider it.
“This never happened under Brezhnev.” No, it never did, but many other things that took place under Brezhnev ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Now to your question about inspections. First of all, there are scheduled inspections. We introduced inspection holidays, but the number of inspections held soared last year because the period of holidays was over.
It is logical that the agencies making the inspections augmented their plans to include the companies they had not inspected for several years. This is why we have extended these holidays for another two years. At the same time, the number of scheduled inspections has decreased by some 11 percent.
What can be done to turn the inspecting bodies and their inspectors into mentors, as you have said, or even assistants?
Actually, you are perfectly right. This is what we want; we would like it to be as you have described it. And this is what we encourage the regulatory bodies, including the prosecutor and tax authorities, to become.
We have proposed a number of measures, including the so-called mirror register, to ensure additional control. You have probably heard about this. If not, I will tell you about it.
The idea is that not only the inspectors or prosecutor offices keep a register of the inspections, but the companies inspected keep a register as well. In fact, this is what our businesses have proposed.
They will keep a register of who inspected whom, the reason for the inspection and their results. This information can and will be submitted to the prosecutor’s offices, which will have an additional source of information about the situation in this sphere.
Pavel Zarubin: Mr President, you said many times that excessive pressure must be lifted from businesses and that there is no need for excessive inspections. You issued instructions and directives. What do you feel like when your instructions are not complied with?
Vladimir Putin: Like anyone else who…
Pavel Zarubin: Where are the boundaries of your patience?
Vladimir Putin: It is not a matter of boundaries of patience; what we need is to achieve a set goal. And then, frankly speaking, I have answered similar questions many a time. The simplest thing I can do is raise a ballyhoo, kick out, fire and throw the book at somebody.
All of these methods can be used in truly outrageous cases, but I also feel responsible when somebody fails to do something.
Yelena Vinnik: Let us give the floor to our guests here. Again, I can see a lot of raised hands.
Pavel Zarubin: About the pressure on business, sorry, I will continue. There is a person here with us who has experienced this very pressure on himself. He spent several months in the remand prison before being acquitted. Meet Alexander Khurudzhi. And now he is also a public ombudsman for the rights of entrepreneurs who are in custody.
Alexander, your question to the President, please.
Alexander Khurudzhi: Mr President, good afternoon.
First, I would like to thank you for having supported me then. And the second point is very important. The number of people ending up in pre-trial detention is on the rise.
We have made progress in improving the business climate; indeed, a lot has been done, but, unfortunately, we have taken a step backwards, and a very big one too, concerning criminal prosecution. Arrest remains the preferred pre-trial restriction, house arrest at best, and, consequently, a business owner cannot continue operating, loses the business, which in most cases goes bankrupt, and people lose their jobs.
We have a specific proposal, and I know that after Titov’s report you spoke positively of it. It is about changing the approach to bail, making bail the predominant pre-trial restriction rather than arrest.
This will reduce the cases of partners or rivals “setting each other up.” So their number will decline from the current level of 12 – by the way, not a single person has escaped – and a procedure will be worked out to determine the size of bail in each specific case. There is international practice: it usually depends on the suspect’s financial position. In our practice, the alleged damage is picked randomly, and in 80 percent of cases the court orders to compensate a fraction of that amount.
Therefore, I have a really big request, as a person who is faced on a daily basis with loads of appeals from business people around the country to help them and give them a chance to be released on bail. So far, none of those released has fled.
Vladimir Putin: I would just like to say, you cannot run away from us, we have a long reach. However, unfortunately, they do run away, you know, and lie low somewhere abroad. And our so-called partners do not seem to be in any hurry to extradite anyone, even in absolutely obvious cases of criminal offences, let alone civil litigation. But this is a separate topic, and it happens that they do extradite someone.
You are certainly right to say that arrests should not be overused, especially in cases of economic offences. Here I fully agree with you. You have probably heard what I said in my Address this year, and this is exactly what I said then.
Can bail be used for pre-trial restriction more widely? Yes, it can, and it should be. Along with house arrest, or travel restrictions – all these options need to be used more widely, I agree.
Yet, it is not possible to exclude arrest from the options altogether – I understand that you do not mean that. But this way wealthy people would be able to avoid arrest indefinitely by paying, so that ordinary citizens now listening to us, and millions of people are indeed listening, would say, hey, this sounds like if he is rich, he can do whatever he pleases, then pay his way out and avoid any responsibility.
This cannot be allowed either. Moderation is needed in everything. And bail should certainly be more widely used as a restrictive measure, I have no doubt.
One of the main problems today is long remand. I have already asked the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Supreme Court to analyse the situation and make some proposals.
There are varying terms; but I would like to adjust these terms and ask both agencies (the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Supreme Court) to submit their proposals by the end of the year, better still by late November or early December.
Yelena Vinnik: Mr President, we also have a request from business leaders to streamline the application of Article 210 of the Criminal Code on criminal organisations, because this article is being actively applied.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, I fully agree. I do not even want to comment on this, just that I agree. We absolutely need to work at the expert level here, including the Legal Department and the Presidential Executive Office, and the Duma members should also think about it.
The current legal procedure prescribed by law is such – and by legal procedure I mean a statement of the essence of the problem – that almost anything can qualify as a criminal organisation, even the board of directors of a company, if at least one of the members has been caught violating the law. And this, of course, is unacceptable; it is an absolutely obvious fact and we need to deal with it and make changes to the current law.
Pavel Zarubin: People have recalled the 1990s several times today. In August, we will mark 20years since the tragic events of August 1999, when militants led by Basayev and Khattab invaded Daghestan. The local residents were the first to stand up to them.
Today, we will not ignore Daghestan, of course. We are in direct contact with our correspondent Alexander Sladkov in Daghestan.
Alexander Sladkov: We are in Botlikh. Hello.
This is an area high in the mountains. It is raining now. We were worried and wondered if we would be able to show the surrounding stupendous beauty. But the clouds are clearing up and you can see the legendary village of Botlikh below.
There was fierce fighting here 20 years ago. This hollow was engulfed in flames. After choosing this spot for our report, we saw shell casings under our feet. Everything reminds you of the war here. These mountains were seized by the militants. Interior Ministry special forces, now the Russian Guard, landed here.
This is Mount Alilen that was stormed by the paratroops; blood was spilled here, there were casualties, but the paratroopers took the height, and the infantry, the gunners, and the airmen were shooting. But the first shot was fired at the militants – there were over a thousand of them, they were international terrorists led by Basayev and Khattab (all sorts came here) – the first shot was fired by the local militia.
We have here with us some participants in those events, people, who despite the danger to themselves and their families, despite the possible negative consequences, took up arms and fought alongside the Russian police, security personnel and the military.
Mr President, they would like to ask you a question.
Question: Good afternoon, Mr President. We remember the day you came to Botlikh by plane at a very difficult time for us. In Botlikh, the local militia was fighting and defending their land and Russia. And now I would like to say the following. We saw wounded and dead militiamen here. But even today – I would like to tell you – they have no status as participants in hostilities. I would like to ask you, Mr President, to resolve this – not for us or for someone else, but for Daghestan and Russia’s future, for the sake of our grandchildren.
One more question. Do you remember how, in a military tent, we raised our glasses to victory? We were all standing next to you and wanted to drink up, but you said – later. Now Botlikh is flourishing; we have gas, running water, and it is beautiful here. Allow us to raise our glasses to your health and to victory. Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: As for toasts, I hope we will be able to do this with you. In fact, it would be interesting to find out whether our latest decisions on Botlikh, agreed upon during my last visit to Daghestan, have been carried out or not.
Regarding those events, they are in my memory for the rest of my life. I remember how the people of Daghestan acted. I remember how all this happened. I remember people coming to me… It might be unusual for the country to hear, but I will recall it, how people from Daghestan addressed me and said, If Russia is unwilling or unable to defend itself or us, give us weapons. I also remember a different situation, when the village heads came to our military – when the forces arrived – and said why aren’t you using artillery? And the Russian commander replied, your houses are there, it would be a shame to destroy them because it takes generations to build houses in the mountains. And I was struck by their reply: don’t feel bad, just do it.
And it was like this not only in Botlikh but also in other villages too. For example, I remember Tsumandinsky District where the local residents simply refused to allow these criminals to enter their area. It was the same in other villages as well; people took up arms and defended their towns, as you said, they defended themselves, their birthplaces and the whole of Russia against these international terrorist groups. These were international groups that were, incidentally, well-armed and well-trained.
The Constitutional Court has passed a ruling on this subject and said that the current law makes it possible to adopt a decision of this kind at the regional level. Well, I understand that the republic just lacks the funds. So, I agree with you and fully support you, that this decision must be made. This is a simple act: the militia members must be put on the list of the law now in effect in Russia, which will immediately give you and your militia comrades the same status as veterans of military operations. I am instructing the Government to do this and do it as soon as possible. The problem is how to compile the lists. But I do not think this will be too difficult. What I mean is that these people, thank God, are alive and in good health, and you will help us with it.
Thank you.
Pavel Zarubin: Let us continue.
Back in 1999, you went to Daghestan as prime minister. The country was falling apart. Several months later, President Boris Yeltsin resigned, shifting the responsibility for the country on to you.
Vladimir Putin: What do you mean he shifted responsibility? He resigned, and I agreed to become acting president. I had to do this.
Pavel Zarubin: If you could go back 20 years, would you make the same decision?
Vladimir Putin: I have said many times that when Boris Yeltsin offered this to me, I replied that I was not ready for it, that I never thought I would do this. But ultimately, I agreed.
As you said, and as the veterans of those hostilities have reminded us, the country was in critical condition. Had the terrorists reached their goals in Daghestan, it would have created system-wide problems for the whole of the North Caucasus and subsequently for the Volga region. This is something we must never forget. But we managed to avoid it; we preserved our sovereignty and territorial integrity, partly due to people like the ones we see on this screen today. Trust me, it was vital to do this then. What mattered was not the combat might of these volunteers, but their spirit and desire to preserve the country. It was a milestone, an absolutely key milestone event. I am deeply grateful to those Daghestanis and to Daghestan for taking a stand, then and now.
Therefore, the only possible answer to your question is, “Yes, of course.” Especially since we did this by working together and with the support of the whole country.
Yelena Vinnik: Mr President, let us listen to those who are here in this room. They have a lot of questions. Olga Pautova, please.
Olga Pautova: Many questions have to do with healthcare. You could see at the beginning of this event, my colleagues showed you hospitals that have many problems. People turn to these hospitals for help, they want to get better. I would like to look at this issue from a different angle: some 1.3 million people who seek medical assistance in Russia every year are terminally ill.
But this does not mean that we cannot help them. I will give the floor now to Nyuta Federmesser, the founder of the Vera Hospice Charity Foundation. Thanks to this foundation, the country has learned about palliative care for the terminally ill. Over the past three months, Nyuta has been travelling across the country and visiting hospices. She knows everything about the problems of palliative care.
Nyuta, please sit down and take the floor.
Anna Federmesser: Thank you.
Indeed, I have been travelling for three months now. This story from Daghestan is incredibly touching – just recently, I have visited Daghestan with the Russian Popular Front’s project called The Care Region – which is why I cannot help but digress from my question and comment on this. These people are absolutely wonderful.
In Daghestan, no one needs a reminder that people should pass away at home and that the elderly should be at home, that this is natural and normal, because everyone there takes people from hospital back home. Absolutely everyone, always. Even if someone passes away at a psychoneurological residential care facility that the relatives took them to back in their childhood, he or she is taken back home.
I have to say that I saw a similar wonderful facility with the Miloserdiye [Mercy] department in the city of Buynaksk; it had a wonderful warm, homey, truly Caucasian atmosphere. But at the same time, there is not a single home-visit palliative care service in Daghestan. They are trying hard to make it happen, want to make it happen and are trying to. We tried as well. I am sure that we will continue working with the governor and the authorities on this.
Just recently, a girl named Patimat was brought there from Moscow. Her mother Marjanat wanted to move there as well, but, let us put it like this, she stayed home in Makhachkala. Unfortunately, only after our appeal to the local authorities was a home-visit care service for her organised, because there is no such system there yet. We will work on it in Daghestan and everywhere possible, because it is very important. Thank you.
My question, however, concerns a completely different topic. When you run around the country like this with three key messages that you have talked about – that there must be accessibility, trained experts and medication supply. It seems that palliative care will become accessible, the experts will, hopefully, complete their training; there will be medicines, the money for medication was allocated, everything was purchased. But why is there such a great number of patients not receiving pain management, why does this suffering remain?
Because there is one more factor that does not deal with the healthcare system directly. This is the medical professionals’ fear of using opioid analgesics. The Interior Ministry says that there are not many cases of prosecuted doctors, medical professionals. Not many cases, but there are some, nevertheless. That is how we work, all of us – you make a public example of one person who is punished, and thousands live in fear.
Prosecution of doctors – medical professionals, not just doctors – is regulated by the Criminal Code, article 228.2, section one. This is a very interesting article establishing criminal liability regardless of consequences, whether any harmful effects followed or not, whether they were dangerous or not. This means, the drug did not find its way to the illicit market, did not cause harm to health, but a mistake was made in the procedure – a mere formality: say, the entry was made at the wrong time, with the wrong pen, the entry form was wrong, the ampoule fell down and rolled under the safe, and it could only be retrieved the next day.
When you ask doctors, “Why are you not managing the pain? There is a patient in pain there”, they reply with “You know how it is with drugs.” I hear this all the time. We held surveys via the Vera and Gift of Life foundations. We have been talking about this for five years, really, each time with another agency, and they keep telling us: “Yes, of course, we must decriminalise this article, we definitely must.” But it seems to me that we need someone on the inside when all agencies come together, who would finally advocate this.
There are other offences in the Criminal Code, such as 228.1 and 229, which concern selling drugs – and this happens, unfortunately, truth to be told, some drugs find their way to the illicit market. If the medical professional is the one to blame, there are other statutes. If we must prosecute medical professionals for formal errors, we will never solve the personnel problem that today’s Direct Line basically began with.
Olga Pautova: Back to the question please, Nyuta.
Anna Federmesser: My question is, essentially, a request. I ask you to support the complete decriminalisation of medical professionals’ liability under article 228.2, because there are other articles for those who really are guilty, and they must not escape justice.
It seems to me that for death to no longer be described in Russia as a “merciful release”, for people to pass away instead of dying in agony, one has to, unfortunately, appeal to Direct Line again, sorry to say.
Vladimir Putin: Yes indeed, this problem is known. You are right, decisions have to be taken. Look, if an ampoule with a narcotic substance rolls under something, as you said, it naturally has to be retrieved, if it simply rolled away. That is the first thing.
The second thing. Unfortunately, there are violations in this sphere as well; there are cases of these medications finding their way to the illicit market, and we must keep in mind that this happens. But you are absolutely right about the fact that it must not destabilise the entire system’s operation.
And when something obviously gets lost, it is not even about the ampoule rolling under something, it can even get stepped on accidentally; sometimes, patients get prescriptions not according to medical regulations – four injections instead of two or three, which is a deviation from the regulation.
And doctors must not be liable for this, you are absolutely right. But here, like in some other cases, the solution, as I see it, is very simple; it does not even require any major change.
One needs to keep a record of such losses or when more is used than the regulation provides for, in some document to be signed by not only the doctor or the nurse, but, say, a hospital administrator or the chief of medicine. We simply need to develop a system for reporting and record keeping.
And if someone tries to cheat under this system, or profit off it, this will be a criminal case that must be dealt with separately.
And Ms Golikova [Deputy Prime Minister] is on the line right now, she is listening, but there is no need for comment. I ask her to pay attention to this and take action, and develop a corresponding proposal.
Yelena Vinnik: Mr President, I would like to say a bit more about the anti-narcotics article.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, just a second, please.
Before we started discussing narcotics, I did not have time to write down the name of the village in Orenburg Region where a school has not been renovated for 50 years. Will you be able to find its name later on?
Yelena Vinnik: Trudovoye village.
Vladimir Putin: Right, Trudovoye. I will certainly discuss the matter with the governor, and, naturally, we will try and help.
Anyuta has discussed doctor training programmes here. This is very important for the sphere you mentioned and also in general. When we talked about healthcare, it goes without saying that, on the one hand, it is necessary to streamline the system for training specialists and constantly improving their skills. On the other hand, there needs to be oversight of advanced training programmes and this entire process. As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Healthcare is now dealing with this matter.
Yelena Vinnik: Once again, speaking of article 228 that deals with narcotics, many people have been sentenced in Russia. And most of them say that police had planted the drugs in order to prove their guilt.
Perhaps it is now time to introduce some amendments to this part of the Criminal Code’s article that stipulates liability for narcotics possession.
Vladimir Putin: Indeed, many people are sentenced for violating statutes on narcotics distribution. Moreover, people sentenced under articles linked with the illegal distribution of narcotics and preparations and their precursors account for some 26 percent of all prison inmates.
Should we liberalise this sphere? I do not think so because this country, our nation and our people are facing a tremendous threat. Anyone illegally possessing, transporting and selling even small amounts of drugs must bear the consequences for this, and there can be no liberalisation here.
On the other hand, we need to establish oversight of the operations of law enforcement agencies, so that they do not violate the law in any way, so that they do not arrest people for the sake of meeting preset targets, and so that there are no incidents like the one involving that journalist that you have mentioned.
By the way, the generals were dismissed for this, and I hope that the required investigative activities will be duly conducted to expose all the culprits who created this abnormal situation.
I repeat, the most important thing is that we need to establish oversight. Therefore, I will think about this, and I will have another conversation with the Prosecutor-General’s Office and the Interior Ministry. Maybe, the Interior Ministry’s internal affairs division should set up an independent specialised office that would monitor this sphere of activity. And the Federal Security Service ought to address this matter more actively.
Pavel Zarubin: Back to the calls.
A word from Tatyana Remezova.
Tatyana Remezova: Three new laws, pased this spring, have sparked a lot of questions and criticism, especially in the internet community. Here is one typical text message about the law against insulting the authorities: “Do the officials differ in any way from other citizens of our country? Are they grown in incubators, or maybe delivered from Mars?”
This topic has also hit the blogosphere. A popular social media person, a founder of the MDK project with 10 million followers, which is a big audience, Roberto Panchvidze, will join us by videoconference. We hope to see him on the screen right now.
Roberto, hello. You are on air, please ask your question.
Roberto Panchvidze: Good afternoon, Mr President.
My name is Roberto Panchvidze, I am the chief administrator and editor of the MDK community.
Since I deal mainly with young people and the internet, I will be more comfortable talking about things I can relate to and what hurts us specifically.
On March 18, you signed a law on disrespect for the authorities. Apart from the media, this affects the internet. In our country, the internet is more than a list of social media or services. The internet in Russia is, first of all, people. People who have a need to speak out, who feel a growing social tension, who are looking for a place where they can let it all out.
So they have been doing this openly and, most importantly, safely on the internet for some time. Now, because of this law, we all as internet users are in great danger. I would like to ask you to monitor the enforcement of this law and take it under control, so the situation with that infamous article No. 282 is not repeated. The prerequisites for this are in place.
Just a few days ago, in Arkhangelsk Region alone, this new law resulted in six people being penalised – six people – because of their comments in a group on VKontakte. One woman was fined because of her comment, I will quote it verbatim: “They’ve got some nerve!”
I do not know what the situation with the other five is, but I would say some clearly defined boundaries are needed, some line drawn between insult and criticism, so that people are able to fully understand and comply with this law, and the authorities will not be able to abuse it. Thank you.
