Visit to Nikolaev Minister of Transport and communication of Iosif Vinsky who took place on April 24, commented the People's Deputy of Ukraine, the head of the regional organization of Party of Regions, ex-the Minister of Transport Nikolay Kruglov.
- In advance I will specify: my assessment of this visit doesn't depend on party accessory. And from the professional point of view I can tell: it I was unsuccessful public relations - an action.
And, internal problems here are felt. Zadyrko's team - Vinsky existed from the moment of their collaboration at socialists, and now she continues to act.
In this sheaf they also arrived that once again emphasizes public relations - an orientation of this visit, instead of its professional validity and readiness. Because Gena the same professional in transport, as I, for example, in aero - space branch.
Besides loud and pleasant statements and promises visit of the minister didn't leave behind anything. We didn't see any document though visit of the minister of branch to the region has to be prepared so that on the eve of or during its business trip certain concrete official documents would be published.
If it, of course, not simply trip to look and have a rest. But we so got used - to wait for something from visit of the high official. Because it is valid, all funds are accumulated above, and then are distributed in a manual mode. It didn't turn out, except promises it didn't turn out anything.
Why I consider, what it is empty promises? I have on the bridge the whole folder of correspondences with ministers of the same Cabinet. In the beginning we were told that it is the internal, municipal bridge, that is, a problem local, instead of state. The Ministry of Finance which beat off from this project within 4 years took an uncompromising stand. The last real document on the bridge - a rejection of its project from consideration at meeting of Cabinet of Ministers.
To speak about bridge construction without the Japanese credit - in general it is incorrect: in the country of money isn't present, already openly say that began to fill with a problem the Pension fund.But also on condition of external financing of construction of a motor transportation outcome, it is necessary to solve at the expense of what this credit will be repaid. Thus, there is a question of "availability at a price" of the bridge.
We passed in due time all ways, considered all possible options. To us then spoke: for this purpose there is no necessary legislation, and it is the truth. Really, to make driving through the bridge paid, or on any site of the road, it is necessary to adopt the separate law concerning this concrete object. Without having made even decisions on resumption of negotiations with the Japanese party according to this project, the government blocked consideration of such bill.
During a trip of the Prime minister to Japan of any steps about it too it wasn't made, though Japanese, and the Turkish organizations which counted on in a row in construction, are very interested in construction of such object - they quite recently built the similar bridge in Kazakhstan.
So on what the minister counted, making such promises? On the budget (and it is more it to count there is nothing), so the budget for a year is accurately painted. The bridge there isn't present. At the disposal of Cabinet of Ministers of April 15 about the approval of the list of construction objects and reconstruction of highways of nation-wide and local value.
On the Nikolaev area road "Odessa-Melitopol" reconstruction on several sites with proyektno - prospecting works on 48,2 million UAH is provided. On local roads 18 million UAH - on bridge construction through Bakshal's river on the road "Timkovo - the Balt - Pervomaisk - Domanevka - Aleksandrovka" and 5 million UAH on bridge construction through the river Visun on the highway "Kazanka — Bereznegovatoye — Kaluga" are provided. In total.
Therefore everything that it was told by Vinsky about construction of the bypass bridge it is simple game. And if to consider that we are involved in elections, and next year of anything, except similar public relations - actions, we shouldn't wait.
Now as for ports. In what main problem? We have Black Sea ports (Odessa, Ilyichevsk, Southern), the Crimean ports, Nikolaev and Kherson.
On the power and a demand it is possible to say that the Odessa and Nikolaev ports are of interest. But if to the Odessa ports the straight line way, to the Nikolaev ports can be passed through the channel, for what considerable collecting is paid, there are rules of calling, the restrictions, etc. And thus identical rates of processing of freights in ports work.
It means, our ports are put in obviously unprofitable, unequal conditions, channel collecting hangs on our ports heavy freight. Thus where it leaves? Anywhere - on Danube — the Black Sea channel construction, for example. At existing poverty of fixed assets in our ports. Here about what it was necessary to speak - about creation of equal conditions for work of ports. For what the channel serves? For ports, instead of for "The delta - the pilot". Into it after all not on walk come, not to drive, on it go to ports.
And today this monster, this, it is possible to tell, the natural monopolist, wound cost and earns profit which allows it to update fixed assets and also to spend on the party. Earns on our ports. It turns out that our ports at the expense of the profit finance construction on Danube.
To me speak: it is the state task. I agree, but then the state has to take care of that our ports thus didn't suffer that were in identical conditions. It is possible to make it? Certainly, it is possible. But for this purpose it is necessary to work, make calculations, to gather to officials and dockers and to solve this problem. Here that waited from the minister, here for what conversation.
One more question: the stevedoring companies in ports. To them, to the commercial enterprises, gave moorings in the state ports. Yes, they attract freights, work though the law on them isn't adopted yet. But somebody counted, looked where they are registered where there are the taxes, what profit leaves ports?
The port displaces the social sphere, explaining it to that to it it any more on a pocket. Thus the port increased cargo handling. Means, there are inside economically not balanced, not settled problems. Unless it wasn't necessary to speak about it during visit of the minister? And such questions set. For example, we know that inhabitants of Odessa just like that to us don't pass anything. The regional customs always was in Odessa.
And so, container freights are checked at gradually in the ratio to 5% from total. When the Nikolaev ports began to process container freights, there was an internal order under which 100% of the Nikolaev container freights are subject to check. And what means to check? To unload it and to ship back, these are additional expenses and an extra time. Yes, so more in the world doesn't become anywhere, and in our state becomes.
In Ministry of Transport, in its sea part, work, generally natives of Odessa, but the minister it is obliged to be equidistant from all ports and as равнозаинтересован in development and profitability of each port. And the existing distortion has to be eliminated.
- But you understand that, at least, before the termination of presidential and parliamentary elections anybody won't do it.
- Then in what the idea "public relations - actions" consisted? It is personal public relations, it is public relations under creation of new party which Vinsky already declared in due time?
- It was attempt пропарить itself. As it we observed in Gena Zadyrko's performance: here what minister at us, here what he at us good, he even carries out the duties. He even tried to act as his lawyer: when I told that I want to look as the minister will keep the promises, Gena right there rushed on protection of the boss.
How in the fable - "For what, without being afraid of a sin, the cuckoo praises a rooster? That he praises a cuckoo". It is possible to tell anything, one is obvious: the will of the minister is necessary, and it isn't present.
There is very big desire to adopt the law on ports. In it very big freedom is given to chiefs of ports. In principle, the scheme changes: there is a port administration, at which on balance of the building and a construction, including moorings and all the rest which it can lease or transfer to using. That is, it is direct transition to the stevedoring companies.
And further … If to speak frankly, it is necessary to say and that there is a kickback - from 3 to 4 dollars from ton of the processed freights. In our country about 120 - 125 million tons of freights are processed. Increase it on 3 and receive about 400 million dollars. On election campaign. That is why, when the minister changes, chiefs of ports and the chief "The delta - the pilot" which is some heads higher change at once.
Because here the real amount of works - how many washed, deepened, lifted soil, to what distance brought, etc. it is almost impossible to count. From here and a fight between certain forces for spheres of influence in Ministry of Transport. Schemes are known and накатаны. But from - for it our region receives less resources which it could use for the socially - economic development.
- And "spots" on the water area - NGZ, "Nibulon" and, judging by hints, still someone?
- It is the biggest nonsense from everything told by Vinsky.Such things in principle are inadmissible for the statesman if he considers itself(himself) as that. The minister would have to know that on those whom he so called, about 30% of freght traffics are necessary already. From 30 to 40 million tons of freights it is processed there.
And it is taxes, workplaces and the solution of social problems. And main thing: in them there is a requirement, they are demanded. Besides, the state didn't spend for their creation kopeks. The local councils interested in development of the territories, were cleverer than those who sits in Kiev.
They on the lawful bases allocated the land plots near reservoirs, leased or sold, and then on these sites was are constructed that has demand including outside Ukraine. These are private structures, they have an opportunity to establish the tariffs, there are cargo owners who want to work through these private structures.
In what conflict? Water and waterways have to be state, and ports and terminals can be private. On the terminal there is no captain of port, non-state.
Around the world safety of navigation in ports and out of them are the state functions, and the state functions we have no right anybody to report.
The terminal differs from port that supervision of safety of navigation in the water area of the terminal is assigned to any of the nearest ports the order of the minister or the order of Cabinet of Ministers. And in the bill on ports we say that the state function has to be accurately allocated.
It is for this purpose offered to allocate a kapitaniya, we "pull out" it from port. Because it is impossible to achieve the normal competition of ports and terminals, the normal relation to terminals if the captain of port sits on a salary in the state port.
That is, financial position of this captain depends on commercial activity of this port. Therefore the task is set: the kapitaniya is allocated and works as independent government institution and is financed at the expense of the state budget, due to port collecting.
That is, the more will be calling not in one, and to all ports which are in a zone of responsibility of allocated state structure, the will be financial opportunities more.
As for such relation of the minister to terminals and non-state ports, I, frankly speaking, as the expert in a marine law was jarred on by his statement.Because the person doesn't understand a ravnopravnost state and private собственновти which is fixed in our Constitution.
Of that is the official afraid? He is afraid of restriction of the real or far-fetched rights. The more the official has rights "пущать or not пущать", the it is more than corruption. "пущать - not пущать" it is necessary to pay for everyone.
And no minister wants to lose this right, differently he doesn't understand, why he then is necessary, or why for it it is necessary.
Yes, I understand that there are problems of relationship between Vadatursky and the ministry. Vadatursky can have purposes, at the ministry the, but the problem has to be solved.
He wants to make water area deepening? Within the current legislation allow it to make deepening. If you are afraid that when it will make dredging works only for the means, then will take on balance the artificial construction created thus, will have legal proceedings, and it becomes its property, then sign the contract: borrow at it money, give guarantees that you will return, but deepen a bottom.
The ministry after all agrees that dredging works there need to be carried out. But agrees in principle and sometime. And insufficient depths disturb already today. Concerning the beginning of vessels of the Ministry with NGZ for moorings, - for God's sake, but "the train already left", there are moments of terms of limitation period.
Here and it turns out: there was a visit, there were scandalous statements, there were loud promises. There left the minister - and didn't remain anything.