Although not yet passed at this session, the draft Law on State Compensation was hotly discussed by National Assembly deputies in the hall, throughout the morning of November 8. According to the draft, the Law on State Compensation stipulates the State's responsibility to compensate individuals and organizations suffering damages caused by the State's administrative management, litigation and judgment enforcement activities; procedures for settling compensation for damages; compensation costs and the responsibility to repay the civil servants who caused the damages.
Discussion opinions all affirmed the need to promulgate this law, but also determined that this is a very complicated draft law.
Confused from the name
Most opinions do not agree with the name of the Law on State Compensation. “The name of the law must be easy to recognize, all citizens must understand when reading it, State compensation will be misunderstood as citizens must compensate the State when causing damage”, delegate Ho Thu Hang (Vinh Long) emphasized.
"In my opinion, the name should be the Law on State Compensation Liability or more concisely the Law on State Compensation," delegate Hang suggested.
Delegate Chu Son Ha (Hanoi) also suggested that the name of the draft law should be changed to Law on State Compensation Liability. “This name is clear and consistent with the scope of regulation stipulated in Article 1 of the draft law,” said Mr. Ha.
The scope of the bill is also the content that the delegates focused on analyzing. Delegate Le Van Cuong (Thanh Hoa) found it "not convincing" if the scope of the bill does not include compensation in civil, administrative, labor cases and in legislative and regulatory issues, because our current economic conditions and staff qualifications do not allow it.
According to delegate Cuong, such a regulation will not promote personal responsibility and the responsibility of state agencies for damages caused by themselves.
Don't let "ants sue potatoes"
Many delegates commented that the draft law is not strict in regulating the obligations and responsibilities of the State compensation settlement agency as well as regulations on the responsibilities of other entities, regulations on compensation responsibilities, time limits for consideration and decision on compensation, etc.
Questioning the mechanism to ensure proper implementation of tasks, powers, responsibilities and obligations of compensation settlement agencies, delegate Vu Thi Thuy Loan (Tien Giang) suggested: to have high feasibility and not be compared to the image of "an ant suing a potato", this bill should simplify compensation procedures for victims.
The bill stipulates that the injured person has the obligation to prove the actual damage that has occurred to him or her. Many delegates are concerned that such a general provision will be very difficult for the injured person.
Delegate Nguyen Dinh Quyen said that there needs to be special characteristics "because on one side is a huge State apparatus, on the other side is me, alone, and yet I have to present all the evidence to prove that the State is wrong, this is not a normal civil relationship, but a very special civil relationship".
One issue that many delegates expressed opposing views on the bill is the regulation on liability for compensation for damages caused by public servants who fail to perform their public duties.
The draft law does not stipulate this because the professional qualifications of the majority of cadres and civil servants, especially at the district and commune levels, are still limited, and the conditions for performing public duties are still inadequate.
Delegate Le Van Cuong (Thanh Hoa) proposed that this issue should be included in the draft law, because "we cannot tolerate the incompetent apparatus causing damage, reducing people's trust in the State, without taking responsibility or being punished."
Considering it so obvious that there is no need to argue, delegate Nguyen Dinh Xuan (Tay Ninh) analyzed: doing or not doing is both an administrative act. Your duty is to make an administrative decision, but you do not make it, then that is a wrong act and you must compensate.
Therefore, in the event that a State agency or individual, civil servant or official fails to perform a task within their function or authority when they have sufficient conditions to perform that function or task, or when they know it is necessary, it must also be considered a factor that requires compensation, if it causes damage to citizens.
