Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I'd like to thank you for your good work. Some of you are working for the council full time and others part time. We consider this work very important and see real benefits from what the Expert Council has already done or is going to do in the near future. Thank you once again for being so helpful.

Second, I think Mr Abyzov (Mikhail Abyzov, Minister of the Russian Federation) has already become used to his role. Even now when we have a moderator he still continues directing the process – inconspicuously, but he's still in charge. This is important because this is an entirely new job. Nobody has done it before and the operation of this mechanism will impact the effectiveness of the entire Government.

Third, we are already seeing how this works because at each meeting of the Government we hear the following phrase: "The programme in question (or the issue in question) has been reviewed by the Open Government or discussed by its Expert Council. Thank you very much for this work. Let's thank Mr Abyzov and all those who worked on this. The document has been improved and so on and so forth." We hear this every week and this speaks volumes. I'm sure everyone remembers the expert council on industrial safety, where we achieved impressive results together. Now the draft law is at the advanced stage of discussion. In my own position, I've already got used to looking for one phrase in the expert assessment of documents I receive. I'm referring to the mention that such and such document has been reviewed by the Expert Council of the Open Government... If it's there I can sign off on the document. If not it may be sent for further discussion.

This has become a convenient mechanism, a bureaucratic mechanism but a very effective one. By the way, the first document came from [the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment]. I remember it well – it was an annual report on Russia's environmental condition. It so happened that an annual report that was supposed to become a public tool did not go through any public mechanisms. In fact, it was sent for assessment to the Open Government and amended accordingly. These are real results.

I think during the next stage of our work we'll draw conclusions from the lessons we learned in the first months of doing this. We are gradually improving coordination of our work and cooperation with ministries. It is very important to order the professional assessment that was mentioned here. We must also receive expert assessment of the proposed decisions. It should be based on common sense. Experts should decide whether any resolution or document fits in with the various directions of the Government's work. We should get or hope to get new ideas and initiatives. During the next stage we should get an assessment of whether this particular decision works in practice, and this is the most important point. Are these decisions working? Have they changed what we wanted them to change or is everything pretty much the same? What should be done to improve things? All these elements are crucial.

As it has already been said, we count on you as our personnel reserve in all aspects of the Government's work – anything linked with the state. Needless to say, experts should not always be convenient for the bodies of power, including the Government. I think that the majority of members of the current Expert Council is more or less convenient for the Government and this is good – it is also good that the majority of the members but not all of them are. This is the first point. Second, when the council is expanded it should get a large number of experts that would not be so convenient – they would express alternative, provocative or even opposing views. The same is true of particular government bodies. Of course, it is nice to work with convenient public councils and convenient experts, but this does not always produce good results. It is important to hear what all of them say and I hope that my colleagues will listen to all opinions and adopt a constructive approach even to the most unpleasant views if they are expressed appropriately.

It is very important to be proper in our joint work. Otherwise, the improper presentation of a proposal could ruin the effect that it could have produced because it would be rejected for this reason. We should consider this in our joint work.

You know the priorities of the Government and I won't repeat them. You have plans of work drafted in line with these priorities and the tasks set forth by the President. We have a very busy schedule and you – at least those who are ready – will have to keep up with it. I hope we will manage.