APPENDIX 31
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Russo-British Chamber of Commerce
I received a suggestion at the hearing of the
Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 2 November, to provide a memorandum
concerning the issue of visas for Russians travelling to the UK.
I said at the time that I doubted whether I could provide a meaningful
document.
As it turns out, comments made since the hearing,
have not been large in number, and there are positive comments
in equal numbers to negative. I take this to be an indication
that many of the problems, which we hear about, while troubling,
nevertheless represent isolated cases. As stated in our submission,
many companies did not respond to our request for comment; that
the majority remained silent, suggests that the majority have
no cause to complain.
Therefore, I do not propose to submit a memorandum
on this issue, on the basis of insufficient material.
Nevertheless, I would like to provide additional
comment in more general terms, regarding my original submission.
It has struck me, on re-reading the document, that the reader
might interpret the content to be largely negative. This was certainly
not the intention, and I feel a need to redress the balance lest
such an interpretation be put on the submission.
We gave detail where possible on the negative
comments made by some companies, in order to present a congent
case, and to back up views. Otherwise, of course, the comments
would be nothing more than unsubstantiated complaining.
We did not however give detail on the positive
experience, and left that instead to brief comments within the
text.
Our experience of working with the Embassy has
a very positive character. There are many instances of cooperation,
and we work particularly closely with the Commercial Department.
We swap information on companies in given sectors,
for example when we know of third party events, in which the RBCC
is not involved, which may be of interest. Equally, the Embassy
sends us information about companies, which may be interested
in our initiatives.
We have also worked very closely on a monthly
gathering of business people, previously run by the Embassy, which
is now coordinated by the RBCC. We hope to continue this cooperation
which has been applauded by the business communities of Russia
and the UK. The Embassy and the RBCC are seen to be working together
at this very visible event.
A recent specific example of successful cooperation
was in connection with the construction industry. RBCC successfully
applied for Know-How Fund backing for an event aimed at making
improvements in the Russian construction infrastructure. As a
result of this seminar, it is looking likely that the Moscow city
Government will adopt the globally accepted "FIDIC"
contract system. Again, this cooperation and progress has been
noted by the construction industry. We have all worked closely
with large companies such as Bovis, Hanscomb, Ove Arup and others.
The RBCC has also set up numerous committees,
for example in construction, education, taxation, tourism. The
Embassy sits on each of these committees and makes valuable contributions
to them. I have given an example above of a project run by the
construction committee. By way of further example, our taxation
committee organised a meeting with the Russian Minister for Taxation,
at which the major financial and auditing companies posed questions
and discussed issues. It is our intention to expand these committees,
and to add further to the activities of those in existence.
Therefore, while not wishing to retract our
previous submission, which was mainly a report of companies' opinion,
we would like to make it clear that our own overall experience
of the Embassy is positive, and that cooperation is proactive
and dynamic. The Embassy have been and continue to be very supportive
of our endeavours to facilitate the infrastructure for the business
community.
I hope this goes some way to redress the balance,
and clarify my position and that of the RBCC.
| 
