 |
| |
Businessmen are self-regulating
Three days in a row the second reading of the law 'On self-regulating organisations
had been discussed in the Legislation Chamber. '. The debates were initiated by
the Union of Consumer Market Participants (UCMP) and the Duma's Property Committee,
and their representatives and over 30 unions and associations were in attendance.
The ideologists of the federal law on self-regulating organizations (SRO) are
confident that the modern Russian business is already at the level of solving
its own problems without actual interference of the government and in civilized
way. The Russian entrepreneurs has always been able to avoid the state obstacles
without any assistnace , but they often used illegal methods.
It was mentioned at the discussions that the corporate transparency and businessmen's
good reputation businessmen are yet to become a norm in public opinion. On one
side, the integration into SRO is called for in to order to convince the government
that the business will not let it down and it can be entrusted with regulation
functions. On the other hand, when SROs appear, to play dishonest games with each
other will be outdated and non-lucrative.
The law on SRO is a logical result of the concept of deregulating the economy
simultaneously creating more efficient than the existing state ones, mechanisms
for controlling observation civilized norms and rules of the market. The foundation
for this has become a successful self-regulation experience gained by the Russian
market of equities (Market of Equities Law), advertisement market (Advertisement
Law), and arbitrary governance (Law on Insolvency).
As it befits the document, the main tasks of which is to introduce regulating
mechanisms of the economy from below, drafting the Law on SROs was also from the
lower levels and the law itself became a point in the agenda of parliamentarians
upon the initiative of 50 deputates. After the first reading, it became clear
once and for all r for the Duma that the law on SROs should be marginal and the
main issue is to find a compromise between the two SROs categories: sector and
professional.
Ms Olga Barannikova, executive director of the UCMP, one of the draft's developers,
, , believes it is needed to describe the specifics of the sector associations
more clearly, as the law initially puts the emphasis on the professional associations.
Mr. Pavel Dubonos, the Chairman of the Board of Professional Registrars, Transfer-agents
and Depositaries Association (PRTADA), , who also took firsthand part in drafting
the law, trusts that current discussions of the document are already far beyond
the fight with its principal opponents and focuses mainly on amendments.
Meanwhile the opposition to the law exists. The skeptics include, , Mr Oleg Viugin,
the Head of the Federal Service for Financial Markets (FSFM), who beleives that
'SROs will not be able to replace the state regulation as the contracdiction between
them is the regulator, which cannot be resolved solely by transferring the functions.'
But Mr. Alexander Romanihin, the President of the Union of the Oil-Gas Equipment
Manufacturers, , saw SROs as a a hidden mechanism of new transformation of ownership..
In his opinion, 'the capital essential for organization and functioning of SROs
l can perfectly come from the oligarchs who will enforce incorporation into SROs
at their discretion, which in turn will lead to actual market transformation and
unfair competition'.
Pavel Dubonos is positive that the mechanism of applying the law must lead to
a situation where it will be unprofitable not to be SRO. However, the variability
of membership will not affect public juridical organisation on behalf of the RF
(notary, arbitration, registrars) and also in cases when SRO's status replaces
licensing.; For companies in such categories, the membership in SROs should become
compulsory.
The disputes about licensing and state standards are special. It has been proven
from the worldwide experience y that it is effective and logical to develop the
standards from down belowby the same SROs.
"The state, for instance, can barely understand the specifics of the juice
producing line and markets, however, issues licenses and relaxes the standards"
Mr. Valeriy Ostapets, the President of the Russian Union of Juice Manufacturers,
, agreed with the idea.
On the whole, the debaters spoke, the new rights and interests protecting function
is most important for business for relationships with the state when in any conflict
of SRO's participant with the authority, the company itself should oppose to the
state on behalf of this participant.
As Mr.Victor Pleskachevsky, the main ideologists of the law, the chairman of the
Property Committee in the State Duma, believes, "to understand the advantages
which will only be obvious after adopting the draft Law on SROs, the situation
should be viewed from a few points. There are three participants in the economic
sector: consumers, producers and the state. Since the producers responsibility
will increase the consumer will benefit from that, and the producer will have
a so-called vector of conscientiousness. The producer at the same time will get
an opportunity to independently set the standards of the business, systematically
defend itself from the state and consumers. It is beneficial to entrepreneurs:
they accept the responsibility and at the same time receive the opportunity to
defend themselves, the opportunity to openly in civilized way lobby the interests
of business community. When SROs appear the state will retain the supervision
function and all three parties will be winners".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
