Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s opening remarks:

Good afternoon, friends and colleagues, 

Today we are going to talk about using modern IT tools to improve the system of government administration and to establish a comfortable and, in the true sense of the word, a friendly atmosphere for interaction between the government and citizens. It is no coincidence that we met at the Novosibirsk Academic Town Technology Park. There are 13 of these high-tech parks in Russia. Is that number correct, Mr Shchegolev (addressing Igor Shchegolev, Minister of Communications and Mass Media)? We allocated 5.5 billion roubles in direct government financing for their construction in 2007-2011. We plan to invest an additional 6-6.5 billion roubles over the next three years.

Just like at other similar facilities created with the direct financial support of the state, they have managed to combine research and business, to build an innovation chain from concept to the actual high-tech product. No doubt, this goes for IT projects as well, where we have tangible, recognised successes and brands that are popular worldwide. I have just heard a very interesting story about this. I would like to thank everyone for the presentation and the information.

I hope that our developers will keep coming up with new interesting and useful software, and that they will take them to the global market and assume leading positions in the world. I suggest that we discuss this goal and the government assistance at today’s meeting. When we were looking at the displays, our colleagues spoke about their achievements. They have identified a number of problems which they think are relevant and important, and they expect assistance from the government in resolving them. I suggest discussing this in greater detail now.

First, I would like to talk about profit tax breaks. We have just covered them, as well as insurance payment rates, when we spoke in another building. Residents of technical economic zones enjoy such tax breaks now, as I have already said. I would like to ask Ms Nabiullina once again to look into the possibility of applying these tax breaks to software technology parks. We are aware of the stance that the Finance Ministry has adopted. Some of their experts believe that we should not establish a competition-free environment. If we provide tax breaks to software technology parks, then other companies that are working in the same industry, but outside of such technology parks, will find themselves crowded out from the market, because they will not enjoy such tax benefits. Anyway, Mr Siluanov and Ms Nabiullina, please look into this matter once again. Perhaps there are solutions that will not be harmful to the economy in general. We should also consider support of domestic companies that are patenting their products both in Russia and abroad. Let me emphasise that the government is interested in our producers owning the greatest possible number of patented techniques and is certainly prepared to provide financial and legal assistance.

In addition, I believe that competitive Russian software products and IT tools should enjoy a priority status in government contracting. We have just spoken about this as well, and I have made my position known. As you are aware, we did this for many products during the crisis when we created preferences for our producers. I believe that we should certainly help our producers in such an important, sophisticated and high-tech sphere. We should proceed cautiously, so as not to destroy the competitive environment altogether. We cannot shut down our market to foreign manufacturers, either.  However, let me repeat that we can use technical regulations and other tools to give you preferential treatment. It will be the right thing to do if our infrastructural monopolies, state-run companies or companies that are partially run by the state disclose information with respect to the number of the Russian software products that they are using. This is an absolutely clear and fair requirement. The Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Industry should come up with appropriate proposals and instructions for these companies.

I’d like to emphasise once again that we are ready to give every support to the IT sphere, all the more so since the demand for its high-quality, cutting-edge developments is steadily growing both in this country and abroad. This applies both to private companies and government organisations.

Large-scale IT penetration of government bodies is a serious resource for consolidating the national economy and enhancing the country’s investment appeal. One of the main conditions for this is the effective modernisation of the social sphere and fundamental changes in healthcare, education and the social protection system. In addition, it is obvious that the broad introduction of information technology will make interactions between the authorities and people simpler and more transparent and spare people the need to visit all kinds of offices. And, finally, I’d like to emphasise that this is a real and very effective anti-corruption measure.

On the whole, we are talking about the development of an effective and modern government administration mechanism designed to meet the needs of people, society and the national economy. To resolve all these tasks we are transitioning government agencies to new, high-tech forms of work and creating branch and interdepartmental systems of electronic interaction.

A large-scale project entitled Electronic Government occupies a special place in efforts to streamline government administration and we are implementing it at all levels of government throughout the country.

All federal government bodies and agencies switched to electronic interaction on October 1 last year. In rendering more than 330 government services, officials can no longer demand that people present documents with the information that is already contained in other federal departments and databases. They must perform all the necessary formalities independently, using their interdepartmental channels. 

Much has been done to make these databases compatible so that departments could develop proper electronic communication. Now departments access the system from 50,000 to 100,000 times per week. This has already relived tens of thousands of people of the need to rush around different offices. But this is just the tip of the iceberg because major daily services are provided to people at regional and municipal levels. I’d like to mention in this context that, starting on July 1, all regions and municipalities of the country must switch to electronic interdepartmental communication. This is a tremendous undertaking because the bulk of services are provided at this level. On the whole, the process is on schedule and is free of any excesses. I’d even note some leading regions – the Volgograd, Samara and Tyumen regions. Regrettably, some regions are lagging behind – the Nizhny Novgorod and Vologda regions, Adygea, Yakutia, and the Chukotka Autonomous Area.

I’d like to ask the heads of these regions to determine reasons for delays and fix everything promptly. All delays on the current timetables must be fixed in two weeks. Please report back to the government on the results.

Our leading colleagues whom I’ve mentioned should not relax their focus on the issue.

By March 1, 14 primary government services should be transferred to electronic interdepartmental interaction under personal responsibility. Our colleagues in the regions should understand that without their direct, personal attention to these issues we will not be able to carry out this work in time.

I’d like to make a special point that for electronic government to be useful, people should know everything about it. They should know what government and municipal services they can use, what documents they must present and what information officials are obliged to find independently. By July 1, this information must be placed on all bulletin boards in federal and municipal institutions, on departmental websites and, of course, in the media. I’d like to emphasise that people have the right to decide themselves whether to use modern electronic tools for accessing services or to access them in the old way. We cannot impose any restrictions here because far from everyone has access to the internet, while older people prefer to receive these services in government institutions. In this context, we must continue developing the system of multi-functional centres acting on the one-stop or one-window principle.

We recently discussed this issue in the government. If fact, we have not one window but one door, because people enter a room through the door and see many windows. But this is not too bad for a start. Of course, it would be better to receive everything from one window and not to queue even in one room but let’s have at least one door for starters.

I’d like to add that the provision of government services to the public is an important but not the only area with the IT potential in government administration. We must continue streamlining the work of government bodies, reduce the time for making decisions and enhance their quality, and use IT in tenders and government purchases.

We must also ensure protection against so-called dirty data – incomplete or incorrect information. On one occasion, such mistakes in the databases of different agencies charged millions of people with false tax debts. Departments must themselves put things in order in their electronic archives to protect people from financial and bureaucratic trouble and wasted time.

I’d also like to note that modern technology is an effective way of enhancing the transparency of federal and municipal agencies. It can be used to develop public mechanisms of oversight over government activities at all levels. I think we must make as open as possible the information that is accumulated in the departmental databases, of course, with the exception of information that is classified or intended for internal use only. Incidentally, our small and medium-sized private companies often lack this information that is vital for drafting long-term plans and determining investment priorities. And, finally, it is important to make sure our IT spending produces tangible economic results – the saving of resources and noticeable growth of labour productivity in government administration. This will allow people to see real changes and encourage them to suggest ways of making IT in government administration more convenient.

In this context I’d like to recall a proposal to involve people in developing and testing sites and information products of government agencies. They must be convenient and user-friendly. Moreover, society is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and people as well as different public and professional groups have new requirements. It is obvious that they must have an opportunity to formulate their ideas and suggest what additional government services they need and in what form. This public audit model is already operating on the government’s open portal, where people discuss major legislative initiatives, express their opinion and suggest their own ideas. As you now, I have even proposed that people could initiate legislation in this way but we will have to work on this. I think this proposal is quite realistic. I’m convinced that people must be fully-fledged architects and builders of the electronic government edifice.

In conclusion, I’d like to make one more remark. Considering the scale and importance of these tasks, we must consider the appointment of a competent and responsible person to supervise IT introduction in each department and region. These appointees must bear personal responsibility.

* * *

Vladimir Putin's comments:

In response to the remarks by Natalya Kaspersky, Director General of InfoWatch about the need for a further reduction in the threshold on the number of staff employed by IT companies, which would entitle it to receive discounts on its insurance premiums

Vladimir Putin: Let's simply lower this threshold. That's possible after all.

Natalya Kaspersky: Lowering the threshold is great. In fact small companies are at more of a disadvantage here than larger ones.

Vladimir Putin: Ms Kaspersky, I am fully in agreement with you but let's lower this threshold even further. Ms Nabiullina told me that we have already lowered it, so why not go one step further.

Anton Siluanov: Three times.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Siluanov tells me we've lowered it three times. But as regards the fiscal side of things in loss-making enterprises, how can we further the fiscal interests of the state, when an enterprise returns a loss year after year.

Elvira Nabiullina: That's normal for startups.

Natalya Kaspersky: In the first place, these enterprises are operating in the high-tech sector.

Vladimir Putin: I can accept that it’s true for the first year, but for how long then ?

Natalya Kaspersky: That depends on the product. Some products take years to develop, if we take on a very complex project, like for instance a complicated corporate system.

Vladimir Putin: So what should we do about it? We can’t spell out regulations for every single product in the law since newer and newer products are constantly being produced. How can we both further the fiscal interests of the state and ensure the efficient working of startup companies?

Natalya Kaspersky: I think that certain criteria also need to be introduced. After all, we've managed to identify the developers, so we are talking about an enterprise that creates its own products.

Vladimir Putin: Let's think it through together. Perhaps you could come up with a proposal. When do we need to do this if we want to avoid falling under the knife of the fiscal authorities?

Natalya Kaspersky: Up to five years, we believe, something like three to five years; I mean that within five years, as a rule, companies either start to make money or go under.

Vladimir Putin: Okay. Good, let's see what we can do here. Agreed.

Natalya Kaspersky: Thank you.

In response to the remarks by Pavel Frantsuzov, acting Vice-Rector for Strategic and Innovative Management at the Siberian State University of Telecommunications and Information Sciences, about the establishment of a federal research centre at the Novosibirsk Academic Town under the direction of a single state agency

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for the information and proposals. I should say that on the whole we are moving roughly in that direction. You also know about the setting up of a network of federal universities, research universities, about grant support for individual educational institutions, but not just for educational institutions: there are also the so-called mega-grants which, just as you are proposing, individual scientists, both Russian and foreign scholars, regardless of their nationality, can compete for. Dozens of these mega-grants have already been handed out to various universities all over Russia. I agree with you: this approach generates interesting work. Groups of interested senior students and postgraduates congregate around these scientists. The students are keen to learn from them and work together to create a final product, and, this is the most important thing, to put together a finished product that can be put on the market. That's how the work comes together.

Pavel Frantsuzov: Mr Putin, may I add a few words?

Vladimir Putin: Certainly.

Pavel Frantsuzov: The programme of super-grants is a way of attracting foreign scientists for a set period of time. I was talking about something else, about tenure positions for professors. These are two different things. The programme of research universities exists, but in effect it just singles out those universities where scientific work is progressing better than in others. That's all fine, they should be singled out. But hand on heart, the Novosibirsk State University (NSU) has earned its status as a research university. But the credit for this does not belong to the NSU alone, the credit also belongs to the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences, in other words the research university is not the NSU but the Academic Town. And if we succeed in bringing it all together, I mean all the separate elements of the Academic Town and if we make it work as it should, then this system will be ten times as effective.

Vladimir Putin: No doubt if you had let me finish speaking, that was precisely what I was going to say. As regards tenure positions for professors, that is also an option, but that shouldn't detract us from trying to get hold of those things which we have the most pressing need for right now - a more highly mobile workforce and research staff. We have to attract the people we need today for specific research areas. Because you can see this better than I can, even though I have many personal and professional contacts in the scientific sector. We both know that every scientist, like every person in general, reaches a peak, then he sort of goes downhill. That is why we have to establish a system where we take the people at the peak of their creative potential and move off in cutting-edge directions, and we have to create these cutting-edge directions for them to go. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a base of high-quality specialists who we can and should invite, and for life, of course. But this system of mega-grants is designed to establish these schools. It is working and has attracted Russian scientists as well those from abroad. Half of our mega-grants go to Russian scientists who have never gone abroad. A portion, about 50%, goes either to foreign scientists or to Russians who moved abroad at one time or another and are coming back. Admittedly they may not be working here all year round, but the rules stipulate they have to work here for at least three months of the year, and in reality it's usually longer than that. Typically for up to six months or even more, but one does not rule out the other. Overall the approach is more or less the same as what you are proposing, in essence. Similar.

As far as the establishment of this kind of structure in Novosibirsk goes, the kind you talked about, let us work it through, I have nothing against that. On the contrary, also in this draft protocol we will, together with you, stipulate an assignment for the Ministry of Education and Science and together with the other participants of the process, and together with the regional leaders we will work this project through. It is already a very attractive proposal in itself. And it does not rule out what we are already doing today, starting to do and will continue doing with these mega-grants, it doesn't rule anything out. I mean you have this fantastic base here. Of course it has to be structured and used more effectively, I'm not arguing with that.

In response to comments by Pavel Frantsuzov on the US practice of awarding military development contracts to engineering and technology universities

Vladimir Putin: As far as military procurement is concerned, this is primarily about research and development. That is true and we should think about opportunities in this area.

In response to the comments by Valentin Makarov, President of RUSSOFT Association, about the establishment of a single body responsible for supporting foreign economic activities and access to global markets; about simplifying the procedure for importing single high-technology products into Russia

Vladimir Putin: Let's do this. We need your views on specific directions, about the import of single products which you need in order to advance your own products. And here we have to understand what the specific obstacles are right now, today, which specific regulations are holding back progress. That's the first point.

As for a special body, we'll have to think about that. We set up this support foundation, as you know. That is only the first step, previously we didn't have anything in this area. Now it is established and has money at its disposal. Naturally this support fund is for the export of high-technology products. We're not talking about supporting the export of oil or gas or metal products of any kind. But here too you noted that not all these high-tech products need this kind of state support, but only those few with some kind of competitive advantage, products with some kind of unique feature that are capable of making a breakthrough on the global market. We have to work out what specifically we should support with the limited resources currently at our disposal. What are we talking about? What products do we want to support – all of them or just certain special groups? And if only specific groups, how do we have to single them out and decide which ones? How do we work out what we need to support in practice? You mentioned other issues too but said that you were ready to go through everything in more detail. Let's have your proposals. The same applies to organising work with associations and specific manufacturers. On the whole, it seems to me that the Economic Development Ministry, the Ministry of Industry and Trade and the Finance Ministry are in constant contact with all sectors of business, with representatives of all business sectors. If you think that not enough is being done here, that we need to build some kind of special relationships with a body that, let's say, you represent, manufacturers...

Valentin Makarov: Not just with one but with all of them.

Vladimir Putin: All right, with all those working in this sector, let's do that. We'll gladly do that. We would be grateful if you yourselves could come up with some proposals of how we can work together.

In response to the comments by Ruslan Gattarov, member of the Federation Council, about how users must be registered to take part in online voting on draft laws

Regarding registering, that goes without saying. In my article I did in fact start talking about this. I can't remember exactly but I think there is something about it, I made that proviso. I understand that this issue may cause concern, that wild proposals could be thrown at the State Duma, which are unrealistic, complicated and without financial backing. I don't think that will happen because any legislative initiative is designed to regulate its adoption into law and then is designed to regulate certain public relationships and that usually affects the interests of other groups, relatively speaking. Say we want to raise the number of working hours in the week: that straight away affects workers. Employers are in favour, the trade unions are against. And we instantly get two diametrically opposed views on the same issue. Instead of 100,000 or 200,000 we'll get 500,000 responses or even one million voting against the proposal. The lawmakers just have to be governed by what we call social justice. The same goes for the regulation of the economy directly, say, and the social sphere in a broad sense. So this does not worry me; on the contrary I believe that this will make our citizens true participants in the running of the country and the regulation of the economy and of the social sphere.

 * * *

Vladimir Putin's closing remarks:

Esteemed colleagues, I think it is time to wrap things up. We have made good progress. I would like to thank you all and say that we have a draft protocol to which we will be adding those proposals we have discussed here today. I think they are very interesting. And we should make every effort to ensure that what we have been discussing today does not sink without trace, is not forgotten about, but worked through. Let's do everything we can to make sure these ideas are put into practice. Thank you very much. Good day.