Skip to main content

This page has been translated using TexTra by NICT. Please note that the translation may not be completely accurate.
If you find any mistranslations, we appreciate your feedback on the "Request form for improving the automatic translation ".

Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Working Group Legal Affairs digitalization Study Team (2nd)

Overview

  • Date and Time: Monday, February 28, 2022 (2022) from 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      1. Existing systems, etc. related to legal affairs
        1. Legal Work Support System (e-LAWS)
        2. Public Comments
        3. Regulation Policy Assessment
      2. Process and System for Confirmation of Compliance with law's Digital Principles
      3. Draft investigation items for overseas cases
    3. Adjournment

Materials

Related Information

Minutes

Secretariat (Suga) : As it is scheduled, the second meeting of the "Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Working Group Legal Affairs digitalization Review Team" will be held.

I'm Suga. Nice to meet you, too.

Today, all members are participating online, but first of all, I would like to ask Senior Vice-Minister for Digital Affairs Kobayashi, who is the chairman of this review team, to give an address before the second meeting is held.

: Thank you very much for your cooperation, members and all the related ministries and agencies.

Today is the second session, and in particular, I would like to consider the process and system for confirming compliance with the law Digital Principles. Prior to that, I would like to deepen our discussions with you while learning about existing initiatives from Mr. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.

Thanks to this, the Working Group of the Ad Hoc Committee as a whole is making progress, and each ministry and agency is proceeding with the check of the existing law. When we think about the future, it is necessary to confirm the conformity of not only law but also a wide range of notifications, etc., and how to check the new law that will come out in the future. However, I believe that there will be some existing law that must be checked again every time technology advances, so I believe that it is necessary to continuously review them. I believe that we must draw a firm conclusion on who will do these things, when they will be done, and how they will be done, so I would like to hear the wisdom of all members.

In any case, I believe that this initiative will make it easier for technology to implementation in this country in a sustainable manner, and that a society in which technology is easy to implementation can realize an extremely diverse and fair society. I believe that this is an important discussion that will lead to the creation of the next Japan, and I ask for your continued cooperation.

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you very much.

With regard to today's agenda, I would like to move on to the first item on the agenda, although it is a little crowded. First, the Secretariat will explain about the legal work support system, commonly known as e-LAWS, for about 10 minutes.

Mr. Yagyu, please.

Secretariat (Yagyu) : I'm Yagyu from Digital Agency. Nice to meet you, too.

Now, I would like to explain the efforts of e-LAWS.

At the first review team, there was a request to show the flow from the creation to the promulgation of law as a premise, so I would like to explain about that as well as e-LAWS.

As you explained earlier, e-LAWS is a legal work support system, so it is commonly called e-LAWS. This time, I would like to explain mainly about the law database of e-LAWS.

In the upper picture, I think it says "e-LAWS law Database" in the middle. First of all, e-LAWS has the law Database. Based on this law Database, as shown in the upper left corner, each ministry and agency will actually create a bill.

So, first of all, we will use e-LAWS to confirm what the current provisions are. In addition, we are using e-LAWS to search for examples to check various examples and similar uses of words. Using that, the Legislative Bureau will conduct an examination.

As for the examination, although it is written as paper, recently, especially since last year, the Legislative Bureau has been softening considerably, and it has become a situation where the examination is conducted by web conference. Although this is gradually changing, the final Director General of the Legislative Bureau is paper, but the Legislative Bureau actually conducts the examination of the law proposal.

If the Government decides on the bill at the Cabinet meeting, it will be submitted to the Diet in the middle of the next section. It will be submitted on paper, which is called a perforated article, and it will be discussed in the Diet using a paper printed version.

The documents that have been deliberated and approved by the Diet will be submitted to the Printing Bureau as data, and the paper documents will be published in official gazettes.

What was promulgated in official gazettes is commonly known as a "revised text," so it is reflected again in the e-LAWS. A so-called "merged text" is created and stored, and it is circulated as a series of flows.

The e-LAWS database is provided to the people of Japan through e-Gov.

Next, I would like to briefly explain what law is doing.

It is often called "kaimebun" or "," but I would like to explain what it is. To put it bluntly, it is called the verbatim revision method. The verbatim revision method is to specify which part of the target law is to be changed and how it is to be changed, and to change it in this way.

What it is like is written on the side, but this is when the Act on National Holidays was changed, and it is written on the left in the form of a revised text. It is written that "in Article 2, Marine Day,' July 20' is changed to' the third Monday of July.'" It is expressed in the form of a revised text that "July 20" is changed to "the third Monday of July." The actual law is in the revised text on the left, but the promulgation of this law will change the world from the current world to the world of after amendment. This is exactly the form of the law revision. How to draft this is in the form on the right.

It is true that it is not possible to write a revised text all of a sudden, so the reality of current Japanese legislation is that a partially revised law is being created through the work of arranging the current version of the law before the revision and the figure of after amendment in the form of a new version in a comparative table and creating a revised text from the differences. I have introduced this along with an explanation of e-LAWS as basic knowledge.

Next, I would like to return to the explanation of e-LAWS. On the next page, we will talk about the efforts of e-LAWS. Regarding the efforts to develop and improve the functions of law Database, there were various errors in the bills during the 2021 ordinary session of the Diet. Therefore, we are working on the basis of the "PT for Prevention of Recurrence of Errors in Bills," which was created by the government. The third PT was held in December last year, and it is the material submitted there.

Amidst this, as stated in the section on immediate efforts, we are working to develop accurate and reliable law data for e-LAWS. Although you pointed out harshly about laws and government ordinances at the first meeting, there were actually places where e-LAWS data was not used because it was thought that e-LAWS data was incorrect. Therefore, we just compared the data of e-LAWS with the data of Gyosei, and carried out the work to match them. If they are different, we went back to official gazettes and carefully examined them. law

Next, the laws and cabinet orders that were actually scrutinized have already been scrutinized, and the Ministerial Ordinances and Regulations will be completed by the end of the fiscal year.

From April 2022, the Ministry of Justice will maintain the cleaned data as the data owner, and we will continue to ensure the accuracy of the data.

In terms of how the Ministry of Justice will actually manage and update the data, it is a review of the flow of data update operations in (ii). As I will explain in more detail on the next page, we are considering speeding up data disclosure with the cooperation of the Printing Bureau.

As you can see in the materials, the law will eventually be promulgated in official gazettes, and it is written in the upper right corner that the law was promulgated in official gazettes. It is exactly what was promulgated in official gazettes that is the correct law. Therefore, based on the data for creating the official gazettes, the e-LAWS data will be prepared, and the e-LAWS data will be accurate and correct. This is the mechanism we created.

So, in the middle on the left, there is e-LAWS. As each ministry and agency submitted law's draft to e-LAWS, the Printing Bureau will create a draft for official gazettes based on it. Using the submitted data, the Ministry of Justice will create XML data for law. Based on the created data, the Ministry of Justice will create the integrated text for e-LAWS in the same XML format and store it.

In particular, with regard to laws, the Ministry of Justice will create this integrated data during Diet deliberations, so when the law is enacted, the data will be updated in e-LAWS as soon as possible, and if there are no amendments made by the Diet, we would like to reflect it in the database as much as possible on the same day as it is promulgated.

On the next page, this is exactly what e-LAWS is working on, and what e-LAWS would like to do in the future. In terms of mid-to-long-term efforts, as stated in the third document, it is stated that the business flow of e-LAWS will be reviewed in the mid-to-long-term as well, and this is what the administration is thinking about.

Although the entire workflow of the legislation will be reviewed, e-LAWS itself was initially introduced from the perspective of Reform of Working Practices, and I believe that it is necessary to also aim at improving the convenience of utilizing law data when considering the functions of e-LAWS.

In particular, we will update the law Database. We will make it as quick as possible to disclose the text after it has been integrated. In addition, we will enrich the semantic information of the law Text. There are various contents in terms of semantic information. There are various contents, including those that seem to be easy to do to some extent, such as citations, and those that are quite difficult to do, such as the content and content of individual texts. I believe that we should strive to enrich each of these.

Furthermore, I believe it is necessary to consider what should be done to make it easier to coordinate with notifications and circulars regarding law.

In response to such policies, we are actually considering how to implement e-LAWS in fiscal 2022. As you have visited us this time, we are considering measures with the cooperation of the Administrative Management Bureau of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and other people in the public authorities. While the purpose is to improve the convenience of using Reform of Working Practices and law data, we would like to carefully listen to what general users, ministries, agencies, and the Cabinet Legislation Bureau who can use it want, and then consider what we will do.

In addition, I briefly explained the workflow for updating the law database, which will start in April this year, and based on the status of implementation, we would like to work on whether it can be further accelerated.

Furthermore, with regard to the sophistication of the law database, in addition to the enhancement of semantic information, we would like to consider creating a database on an article-by-article basis for those that are currently stored only on a law-by-law basis, including linking them with various related information.

In addition, as you pointed out at the first meeting, the system will be meaningless unless it is used by the Cabinet Office and each Ministry. Therefore, we will conduct a fact-finding survey on legislation and operations at each Ministry, and we will work to expand the functions of e-LAWS while firmly considering what kind of system is desired, which is truly related to user needs.

Through such efforts, you mentioned the importance of KPIs in the first round, and we would like to consider what kind of milestones we will actually place in the future, including such things, so we would appreciate if you could give us various insights.

That's all from me.

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you very much.

I would like to have a time for exchange of opinions and questions and answers after I have introduced three existing systems.

Next, Mr. Mizuno, Director of the Investigation and Legislation Division of the Administrative Management Bureau in Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, is here today. Please explain the public comments in about 10 minutes.

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (Manager Mizuno) : I am Mizuno, Director of the Investigation Law Division at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Administrative Management Bureau. I am pleased to meet you today.

Please take a look at the first document on the screen. First of all, the Public Comment Procedure is regulated by the Administrative Procedure Act.

The purpose of the Administrative Procedure Act is to protect the rights and interests of the people by ensuring the fairness and improving the transparency of administrative management, and it stipulates the rules for administrative dispositions and administrative guidance.

Along with this, public authorities has established a public comment procedure as a rule for establishing orders such as cabinet orders and ministerial ordinances.

Regarding the public comment procedure, when public authorities establishes an order, it will present a draft of the order in advance and widely solicit opinions from the people on the draft. Based on a Cabinet decision in 1999, it was to be carried out for orders, etc. related to the establishment, revision, or abolition of regulation, but due to the revision of the Administrative Procedure Act in 2005, it was positioned as a procedure based on the Administrative Procedure Act.

Unlike the previous Cabinet Decision, orders, etc. that are subject to the public comment procedure include those that are not related to the establishment, revision, or abolition of regulation. Specifically, in addition to Cabinet Orders, Cabinet Office Ordinances, ministerial ordinances, and rules established by the Committee, as well as public notices that specify the requirements for disciplinary actions, the Guidelines for Administrative Review when taking disciplinary actions against applications, the Guidelines for Disciplinary Actions when taking Adverse Dispositions, and the Guidelines for Administrative Guidance when providing administrative guidance to multiple persons who fall under certain conditions are subject to the Guidelines.

In addition, although it is written at the bottom, the rules established by local governments and certain orders that establish public authorities's internal organization and mutual relationships are not covered.

In addition, even if it is subject to the order, in the case of a highly urgent or minor change, the prior public comment procedure is exempted, but the reason why the public comment procedure was not carried out after the establishment of the order, etc. will be publicly announced.

This is the investment performance. I am sorry that the number is a little old, but when the implementation status survey was conducted in 2017, a total of 999 public opinion solicitation procedures were conducted.

Looking at the flow, first of all, public authorities, which establishes orders, etc., creates a draft of the order, etc., and makes it public, and widely seeks public opinion.

Regarding the proposal to issue a public notice here, the law requires that the content be specific and clear. Looking at the actual operation status at each Ministry, I believe that it is customary for a Cabinet Order to issue a public notice at the stage when a person has been examined by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau and has been appointed as the Executive Director.

In addition, if it is a ministerial ordinance or less, it depends on the case, but in the case of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, if a ministry or agency conducts public comment procedures, it is decided by the head of the department.

The image of the actual solicitation is as shown on the next page, but it is an example in the case of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. When the public comment procedure is carried out, a press announcement is made like this, and a comparison table of new and old orders to be specifically enacted is posted.

In addition, as is clearly stated in the Administrative Procedure Act, public notice of proposals for public comment and public notice of the results are to be made uniformly in e-Gov.

In addition, it is also stipulated by law that the period for submission of opinions must be no less than 30 days from the date of public notice, except for unavoidable circumstances.

During this period, the Japanese people will submit their opinions on the draft orders. I stated earlier that there were 999 public comment procedures in 2017, of which 804 opinions were submitted and the total number of opinions submitted was 47932. The average number of opinions submitted per public comment procedure is 48, and some of them are not opinions, so if we look only at the opinions submitted, there are about 60 opinions per public comment procedure.

In this way, the opinions submitted by the people of Japan must be considered by public office. The purpose of the public comment procedure is to clarify the process of the establishment of such orders, etc., so that public office will understand the diverse opinions and information of the people of Japan, and if the content is appropriate, it will be utilized. I would like you to understand that it does not mean that there are many or few opinions submitted, but that the so-called majority rule has been introduced.

In addition, orders will be established through such public comment procedures. If it is a Cabinet Order, it will be decided by a Cabinet decision. If it is a Ministerial Ordinance or lower, it will be promulgated to official gazettes after the approval of the minister or the head of the department. At the same time as the promulgation, the results of the submitted opinions, the way of thinking about the opinions, what kind of consideration was given to the opinions, and if the public comment procedures were not implemented, why the public comment procedures were not implemented will be made public.

As for the announcement of the results, please open the third sheet. As you can see, the submitted opinions, views, and whether or not amendments have been made are listed in the form of a list. This will also be posted in e-Gov.

In this way, the public comment procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act is a system to ensure the fairness and transparency of administration by widely soliciting the opinions of the people before establishing orders. In the case that an application is refused or an adverse disposition is made based on an order established in this way, for example, we are responsible for the Administrative Appeal Act, which is an ex post facto remedy procedure, but we are responsible for and operate the Administrative Appeal Act together with the Administrative Procedure Act, which is a prior procedure, because it contributes to the protection of the rights and interests of the people.

It's very simple, but that's all from me. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you very much, Mr. Mizuno.

Next, I would like to ask Mr. Tsuji, Director of the Policy Evaluation Division of the Administrative Evaluation Bureau in Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, to explain about the policy evaluation of regulation in about 10 minutes. Thank you.

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (Director Tsuji) : I'm Tsuji, Director of the Policy Evaluation Division, Administrative Evaluation Bureau. Nice to meet you.

Today, I would like to explain the current status and systems of policy evaluation in regulation.

First, on page 1, regulation self-tasking risk assessment is a mechanism to conduct policy evaluation on the impact and other matters when each public authorities intends to newly establish, revise or abolish regulation.

First, I would like to explain the background of the introduction of the so-called RIA (regulation Impact Assessment), which was incorporated into the three year Plan for Promoting the Opening of regulatory reform and private sector to the Environment in 2004 to be introduced in Japan based on overseas trends and international efforts. The RIA was launched in October 2007.

As for the legal framework, based on the so-called Policy Evaluation Act, which is related to policy evaluation by public authorities, and Article 3, Item 6 of the Enforcement Order of the said Act, each public authorities is obliged to conduct prior evaluation, that is, self-tasking risk assessment before deciding on policy, when a regulation is newly established, revised or abolished by law or government ordinance.

In addition, regulation by law or government ordinance is subject to the obligation of prior assessment, but for less than that, voluntary efforts are required.

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications is responsible for formulating and revising evaluation guidelines as the competent government agency for the policy evaluation mechanism, inspecting the implementation status of evaluations in each public authorities, and conducting training for officials in charge of each ministry.

Please see page 2. There are two main purposes of the regulation Policy Evaluation. First, by predicting the impact of the introduction of regulation, that is, the effects and burdens that will occur, we will provide information that contributes to the consideration of the content of regulation, such as whether or not to establish, revise, or abolish regulation. Second, by providing information on the necessity and impact of regulation, we will fulfill our accountability to the people and others. These are the purposes of the regulation Policy Evaluation.

In the evaluation, the effects and costs, and the benefits and burdens of the introduction of regulation are compared and analyzed, and whether the effects can justify the costs is evaluated. It is ideal to evaluate in this way, but in reality, for example, it is not easy to quantitatively show the effects of regulation, so each ministry and agency is working hard to evaluate them.

Next, on page 3, I would like to explain the main flow of the policy evaluation process in regulation. Normally, when introducing a regulation, each public authorities first examines the content of the regulation, hears the opinions of the Council, etc., and if a law or a cabinet order is to be revised, it is reviewed by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau. As for the draft of the cabinet order, it is subject to public comment as explained by the Administrative Management Bureau earlier. After that, a cabinet decision is made. In the case of a draft law, a public comment may be made, but usually, a cabinet decision is made without a public comment, and the draft law is submitted to the Diet for deliberation.

Regarding the preliminary assessment of regulation, a draft of the assessment report will be prepared in each public authorities in parallel with the review process of regulation by each Ministry, and it will be brushed up along with the progress of the review. Finally, the assessment report will be decided and published before the Cabinet decides the draft law for regulation by law, and before the draft government ordinance for regulation by government ordinance is submitted to the Public Consultation.

In addition, as I will explain later, when considering the introduction of regulation, each public authorities is to self-inspect whether or not it is considering the introduction of digitalization based on the perspective of regulation. In parallel with the creation of the Assessment Report for digitalization, a checklist for Okinawa Prefecture will be created.

The evaluation report and the checklist for digitalization prepared by the Cabinet Office and each Ministry are submitted to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Administrative Evaluation Bureau, so Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications will review the content of the submitted evaluation report after the fact and make suggestions for improvements. In addition, the evaluation report and the checklist received by Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications are also sent to the regulatory reform Promotion Office of the Cabinet Office, so that they can be used for discussions at the regulatory reform Promotion Conference and other meetings. This is the process.

Page 4 is about the items of the preliminary evaluation of regulation. When each public authorities conducts the evaluation, it is decided to first consider the purpose, content, and necessity of regulation, the evaluation of the impact of the introduction of regulation, the relationship between cost and effect, and the comparison with alternative plans, and to include them in the evaluation report and make it public.

Next, on page 5, regarding the checklist for digitalization that I briefly touched on earlier, in June 2020, the regulatory reform Promotion Council decided on "regulation and Systems in the Digital Age," which showed the criteria for the categorization and specific review of regulation and systems. Based on the items (1) to (5), which actually show more detailed criteria, in the regulatory reform Implementation Plan decided by the Cabinet in July 2020, it was decided to develop procedures to evaluate whether or not a design is a system based on the viewpoint of digitalization based on the above criteria when a is newly established or its content is changed. regulation

In response to this, the regulatory reform Promotion Office of the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Administrative Evaluation Bureau worked together to create a template for the checklist and jointly issued an administrative communication to each ministry in January 2021.

As a result, from fiscal 2021, when considering the introduction of regulation, each public authorities will use a checklist to self-inspect whether or not the system design has been implemented based on the viewpoint of the digitalization, enter the results of the examination in the pre-assessment document, and send the assessment document and the checklist together to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.

Page 7 is an image of the checklist. Items (1) to (5) on the left describe the criteria for the review of regulatory reform arranged by the digitalization Promotion Council. When considering the introduction of regulation, each public authorities will first be asked to determine whether or not the regulation falls under the criteria for the review. For example, in the safety regulation at the top, there are two columns with a red frame on the right, and in that case, there will be a "○" in column A on the left. For regulation that is considered to fall under the criteria with a "○" in column A, next, whether or not regulation using digital technology will be introduced will be checked in column B. visual inspection regulation

If there is a "○" in column B, it means that we have decided to introduce regulation using digital technology. Therefore, in the assessment report of regulation to be prepared at the same time, you will write that the content of regulation uses digital technology, and the impact assessment of regulation will be conducted based on the content.

If column B is "X," it means that the design using digital technology will not be made. In this case, the evaluation report of the regulation shall describe the comparison with the alternative means, and the reason why the regulation using digital technology was not made will be explained in the report.

This checklist will be submitted to regulation together with the Prior Assessment Report of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, and Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications will send it to the Cabinet Office to be used for discussions at the regulatory reform Promotion Conference and other meetings.

In addition, since the introduction of the checklist in fiscal 2021, 42 checklists had been submitted by February 18. Of these, five were marked with a "○" in column A, and three were marked with a "×" in column B.

Finally, page 8 is the material submitted to the first Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee meeting in November last year, which reported on specific examples of the consideration of regulation and systems in the digital age.

Today, for your reference, as a specific image of regulation's policy evaluation, I have attached an example of the Prior Assessment Report on the Introduction of the "Act on Management, etc. of Deposit and Savings Accounts by Use of Personal Numbers Based on the Will of Depositors," which is under the jurisdiction of Digital Agency. In fact, this regulation is from fiscal 2020, so a checklist for digitalization has not been prepared, but I have attached it because I would like you to understand that this is the image of the Evaluation Report for regulation.

That's all for the explanation.

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you very much, Mr. Tsuji.

Then, Members, we have about 30 minutes for Q & A and exchange of opinions on the three existing systems, e-LAWS, Pub Rice, and regulation Policy Evaluation, which I have explained so far. If you have any questions or opinions, please raise your hand.

Mr. Yasuno, please.

Yasuno Member : Thank you for your explanation. I understand very well.

I would like to ask about e-LAWS.

Regarding the purpose of this meeting, which is to make Japan a single source of truth and a reliable source of information, I understand that there are probably two problems. The first is that there is an inconsistency, and the second is that there is a lead time until the update.

In order to improve this, I would like to understand the current situation of each. Regarding the first inconsistency, I heard that there were various differences when I checked with Gyousei. I understand that the revised text is basically well written and has a logically unique format. Then, I was curious about where and how many errors occurred. If there are things that happen very often in a specific situation or that happen often in a specific law, I thought I could think of a way to deal with them. This is the first one.

The second is the lead time, and I wonder if this is a kind of KPI with a time lag between the promulgation and the actual update of e-LAWS, but I would like to ask how long the delay is, and which process is the dominant process for the delay.

Secretariat (Yagyu) : Thank you very much.

First of all, with regard to inconsistencies, I believe there are many cases in which there are mistakes at the confirmation stage, rather than some characteristics.

The reason why this is happening is that we basically left the confirmation to each ministry for a while. There was a time when we had each ministry create and confirm the data after it was integrated into e-LAWS, so I think it was a burden on each ministry to do so. However, it is said that there were cases where the person in charge failed to confirm or the characters were wrong.

In order to prevent such a situation from occurring, starting in fiscal 2022, the Ministry of Justice will use a specialized agency to comprehensively confirm such cases, and highly accurate data will be updated.

As for the current lead time, I don't have it in my data either, but I think it is true that it is quite empty. If you don't do it well, it will be empty for several months.

In regard to this, the mechanism of e-LAWS itself is basically a scheme in which each ministry properly maintains the data, so if each ministry does not update the data one by one, it will not be reflected in the final analysis, and it will inevitably take time. In the worst case, it will be extended by one or two months in a busy place, but from April, the Ministry of Justice will do it all together, and I believe that the Ministry of Justice will firmly manage the integration of data as the data owner, and that will enable us to drastically reduce lead time.

However, we do not know how much the lead time will be reduced unless we actually try it, so we will assess the situation from April, and if there are any bottlenecks, we will review them or take other measures to speed up the process.

I am very sorry that you have not answered some of the questions, but that is all.

Yasuno Member : I understand very well. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga) : Mr. Yagita, please.

Yagita Member : I am Yagita from Legalscape. Thank you very much. I understand very well. I would like to make three points.

First of all, as you said earlier, there was a mistake at the confirmation stage, or you said that the process was to confirm by each ministry and agency, so I wonder if something can be done systematically. I think there was a diagram on page 3 of the materials I mentioned earlier, but if the digital original copy could be made public using the exact same data as when the official gazettes text was made, there should be no mistakes.

I believe that the premise for this is that the promulgated law and the penetration law can be converted by machine processing, and if this can be done, I wonder if the exact same text as that promulgated in official gazettes can be published on e-LAWS. In that case, I wonder if it is possible to realize something that, in principle, cannot be made by human error.

Although it is close to this point, I think the second point was from the perspective of speeding up. In order to speed up, I think the arrows in this figure represent data conversion, and I think that thoroughly reducing the part of this conversion that requires human intervention will contribute to speeding up considerably. If possible, it will take less than one second by machine processing, so I will identify which part is actually performed by human intervention.

As a method, I think it would be best to change the operation itself so that it does not require manpower, rather than to systemize it so that it does not require manpower, premised on the current operation. It may be a little in-depth, but if it is time-consuming to create a revised sentence, I think it would be best to make the flow so that it is not necessary to create a revised sentence in the first place. I think it is difficult, but in that way, I was thinking that it would be good to consider which part requires manpower and which part may be eliminated first.

My third question is, as I mentioned earlier, as long as there is law data that is integrated in XML, that is, data in which the text of after amendment is properly written, I think that the revised text of law can be automatically created.

At the lower left of the figure, at the beginning, the draft of the law is entered in the form of a word processor file, and I think that it is entered into the general editing system. If XML is created at an early timing, it is possible to create a pair of the revised text and the inserted text at the same time. From there, it is possible to create the law system and the composition data. In the course of making and correcting the official gazettes system and the composition data, if the two are made and corrected in a compatible manner, the possibility of mistakes or discrepancies will be eliminated. In addition, I think that all of these can be done almost automatically, so it will be considerably speeded up.

It's a little long, but that's all.

Secretariat (Yagyu) : Thank you very much.

Exactly what you pointed out is what we are also thinking about as a problem awareness, and as I mentioned earlier that we are going to do this time, we think that we should do it for the purpose of improving the convenience of using law Database, and we are also getting inspiration from that.

We believe that it would be good to have a digital original from the beginning, so we must aim for that in the end. In that sense, while there is talk of computerizing official gazettes as an outlet, we are thinking about what kind of data we need from the downstream, which has been in the process of making it, but we need such data from the process of actually producing it as official gazettes, and on the contrary, we need to think about what kind of process should be used to make it. I believe that what the members said is really under consideration. In that sense, I believe that systematization of human intervention will be one of the major factors in speeding up the process going forward.

My second question is that in the revised text, it would be sufficient to create such integrated data from the beginning. Your point is quite reasonable, but on the other hand, there are actually cases where the revised text is drawn with a picture. In particular, in the case of a revision of the Appended Table or a revision of such a table, how to identify the revised parts in terms of data is something that we need to consider how to hold the data so that we can do it well.

With that in mind, the first thing we need to do is to give priority to how we will ultimately create clean data as an outlet, and in order to create such data, I would like to repeat what I have been saying earlier, but I would like to start from the back calculation of what should be created in the upstream process. Therefore, I believe that we will consider how to create the revised text that you pointed out from the beginning in the future in Issue.

In addition, it is a matter that we do not need to do in the first place in the revised text. The issue of whether it is okay to do it by the new and old methods, or whether it is okay to decide on the world after integration in the first place, is probably related to the discussions of the Diet, so we are also discussing whether such a world is more efficient. We are also working on it step by step, and we are thinking that we can move forward step by step while looking at what will eventually allow us to go to such a big world.

I am sorry to say that all of these matters will continue to be under consideration, but we are fully aware of the issues pointed out by you, and I believe that this is the best course of action.

Yagita Member : Thank you very much. I understand.

Secretariat (Suga) : Then, I would like to ask the members of the Fujiwara and Horiguchi Committees to raise their hands in this order.

FUJIWARA Member : I'm Fujiwara. Thank you very much. I understand very well.

Regarding e-LAWS, I was actually going to say almost the same thing as Mr. Yagita's. Let me add a little bit. When we think of e-LAWS as digital principles, there is no such thing as paper, so we need to change the fact that official gazettes is printed and distributed on paper. I think e-LAWS will be computerized, but it does not mean anything unless people can see it. I think it is absolutely necessary to keep it human-readable, so I think it is a question of how to make it.

In the end, if there are new digital data, it is easy to understand the differences by computer, and I think it is a form of how to make it understood by humans, so I think it is easier to come up with a solution by thinking from such a perspective.

In that sense, the current comparison table is certainly easy to understand, but I often hear from people who have been inside that it is quite difficult to make that, so I think it is better to say that it is not necessary to make it into the exact same shape as that.

In the second half, the relationship between Pub Com and regulation Policy Evaluation, these two have a similar aspect of conducting various evaluations of New law. On the other hand, from a legal standpoint, Pub Com is very important, but in fact, regulation Policy Evaluation is almost never seen. I think that it is quite important to have the eyes of third parties, and in that sense, I think it is important for us. In that sense, the content of Pub Com is very important, and depending on the answers, there are places where the extension of New law can be understood, so I think that it must be made properly searchable in the same way as law.

However, when it comes to the policy evaluation of regulation, it is natural that we do not see it in a sense. Since the system is centered on self-evaluation, the thoughts of those who planned it will naturally appear there, and I think that it will be basically the same as what appears in other materials for the outline. In that sense, I think that it is true that we do not see it.

On the other hand, in relation to this talk, when I think about the process of confirmation of the conformity of the digital principles, I think it is quite related, and of course, those who are planning it do so while paying attention to it, but I have a sense that the confirmation process basically has to be viewed by a third party, and digitalization and mechanization of the process as much as possible matches the digital principles, and in terms of the conformity of the digital principles, new technologies are coming in and new cases are being updated, and it is quite difficult for people from each ministry and agency to follow up on this, so I was thinking that Mr. Digital Agency must be viewed in that sense as well, while watching it vaguely.

That's all.

Secretariat (Suga) : May I have your answers one by one?

Secretariat (Yagyu) : Regarding e-LAWS, I believe that the new and the old will be included in the future. The final form that we should aim for is that when we create a new version of the current text data, the differences will be spewed out. If we write a new version, the differences will come out on their own. I think it will be the best in the future. There are places where we would like to aim for such a picture in the future, but there are also places where we will advance step by step. Therefore, what the members pointed out is what we should aim for. We are doing so. Thank you very much. law

Secretariat (Suga) : Mr. Mizuno, Manager, you said that the results of Pub Rice are important and should be searchable. What do you think?

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (Manager Mizuno) : This is Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Administrative Office.

Regarding the search for the publication of the results of Pub Com, the results are currently published in e-Gov, so I think some ingenuity may be possible within that scope, and I would like to consult with Mr. Digital Agency on this matter.

Secretariat (Suga) : It is around the format. Thank you very much.

Mr. Tsuji, what is your policy evaluation?

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (Director Tsuji) : I'm Tsuji.

Currently, the Cabinet Office and each Ministry are making the digitalization Checklist by themselves. The Issue or problem with the current system is that the timing at which the Cabinet Office and each Ministry make and submit the Checklist is basically around the same time as the timing at which policies are decided, and even if the regulatory reform Promotion Office of the Cabinet Office checks the Checklist, the policies have actually been decided. If a third party check is to be made, I think one way to consider is that Digital Agency or the Ministry will carefully look at the Checklist before making a decision.

That's all.

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you.

Thank you for waiting. How is it, Mr. Horiguchi?

Horiguchi Member : This is Horiguchi.

Regarding e-LAWS, I would like to talk about the points you explained earlier and other points pointed out by the members.

We have been working on the demonstration experiments of legislation and the creation of documents within ministries and agencies through the digitalization of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and other ministries and agencies.

From this perspective, I believe it is necessary to understand the current situation before we can improve the functions of e-LAWS or envision what can be done in digitalization. In particular, I believe it is extremely important to consider how to use existing assets in terms of the functions that exist in e-LAWS and why those functions are not used.

To give an example, in e-LAWS, as far as I understand, there is a function that can automate the insertion of revised sentences. Although it exists as a function, there is a possibility that general users do not know about it, or there is a possibility that the function has room for improvement. I believe that it is necessary to consider measures such as automation and improvement after fully understanding this.

In addition, the requirements required by the user are different in the part related to the creation, from the part related to the efficiency of the database, the part related to making the database correct, and the part related to work, creation of documents, creation of bills, and creation of documents related to bills.

In the creation of documents, extremely high consideration is required in terms of usability because of the need for extremely long working hours and the need to view a large amount of related documents. On the other hand, I believe that it should be noted that the requirements for the system required for the software will change, such as the need for accuracy in the database.

That's all.

Secretariat (Yagyu) : Thank you very much.

We are aware of the issues that you have mentioned. I was introduced to e-LAWS by Member Horiguchi. We have already completed the implementation of e-LAWS, including the function of preparing revised documents. However, the accuracy of e-LAWS is still insufficient compared to the level of actual examination by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, so we must consider expanding the function.

In this context, I think it is necessary to clearly understand the needs of those who create documents for a long time, including the needs of users and what functions and interfaces are desired.

On the other hand, both the ministries that will be creating the documents and the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, which will be another player, as well as the examiners, will listen carefully to what functions they want to be placed in e-LAWS, and we will do so. In the end, we will need to carefully separate the needs of the users who will operate the documents, including the people of Japan and legal tech, and we will need to seriously investigate what functions are necessary from that perspective, including from the perspective of Reform of Working Practices, and we will do what we can to get down to earth. We will listen carefully to what each ministry has to say with the cooperation of the Government Administration and implementation Bureau.

Therefore, I believe that you are aware of various difficulties in demonstration experiments, including those in Issue, and I would appreciate if you could give me various advice on that, including reviewing e-LAWS.

That's all from me.

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you.

Then, Mr. Watanabe and then Mr. Tsunoda, in that order, please.

Watanabe member : Thank you for your cooperation. I am Attorney Watanabe.

Today, Mr. Digital Agency and Mr. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, thank you very much for your explanation despite your busy schedule. In particular, regarding e-LAWS, as I commented last time in the information from 2021 years ago, I would like to once again express my respect for the very significant efforts you are making today.

I would like to make two comments and one question on e-LAWS, one on Pub Rice, and one on pre-assessment.

First of all, I would like to ask a few questions about the figure on page 2 regarding e-LAWS. Here, the icon of the Diet is shown in the area of "Creation and Examination of Bills," followed by "Establishment and Decision," and I believe that the arrow connecting the two is shown in the materials. I understand that the process of submitting the arrow to the Diet is still carried out on paper, but I would like to know the reason why it is on paper or the legal basis.

The second is page 4 of Mr. Yagyu's document on e-LAWS. I am particularly interested in how the text will be translated into English because I am working for a foreign-owned company. I also think that the translation of the promulgated text can be automated.

Currently, a part of the English translation of law has been made public. In this digitalization, please tell us whether the English translation of Japanese law, digitalization, is under consideration.

Next, with regard to the Public Comment, as Mr. Fujiwara commented earlier, I believe that it is important not only to make a prior assessment of whether or not the Public Comment actually conforms to the Digital Principles, but also to state the ministries and agencies' thoughts on whether or not the Public Comment conforms to the Digital Principles, for example, on the occasion of the Public Comment, and to obtain opinions and checks from the people and business operators. For example, in the Public Comment, although it is a ministerial ordinance, I would like to ask your opinion on whether it is difficult to create a mechanism in which we, lawyers, and other people in private sector can review the conformity of the Digital Principles.

Finally, regarding the pre-assessment of law, I understand that Mr. Tsuji just said that the pre-assessment is an image that Mr. Digital Agency will have. Is it quite difficult to check the conformity of the digital principles in advance using the current pre-assessment system under the current system? I am sorry for my lack of study, but I would like to ask you some questions.

That's all.

Secretariat (Suga) : Since there are many, I will answer once.

Please start with Mr. Yagyu in order.

Secretariat (Yagyu) : With regard to e-LAWS, I understand that they are being submitted to the National Assembly on paper. There may be something to it, but as far as I know, there is probably no legal basis for it. If there is anything, I will correct it again.

Regarding English translations, I believe that the Ministry of Justice has created a database of English translations of law. Regarding this, the Ministry of Justice has conducted a survey on what each ministry will translate each year, and each ministry and agency is working on it one by one every year. To tell the truth, each ministry and agency is actually working on it in the form of outsourcing, so each ministry and agency is actually translating law as much as possible into English while keeping a balance with the budget. Regarding this, rather than a mechanism, a policy of translating as much as possible into English has been decided, and each ministry and agency is working on it one by one.

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you.

What do you think, Mr. Mizuno?

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (Manager Mizuno) : This is Mizuno of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Administrative Management Bureau.

You just asked us if we could also check the compliance with the Digital Principles when conducting public comments. Our Administrative Procedure Act aims to contribute to the protection of the rights and interests of the people, and it provides for prior procedures for administrative dispositions and administrative guidance to be implemented by public office. Therefore, from our perspective, it is difficult to incorporate the Digital Principles as a legal institution under the Administrative Procedure Act.

However, we believe that it is very important to check the conformity to the Digital Principles, so if the Public Comment Procedure is being conducted, whether or not to check the Digital Principles at the same time is a question of the mechanism in the process of how to confirm the conformity to various Digital Principles in the future, so we would like to have a broad discussion with you.

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you.

Next, Mr. Tsuji, could you please give us your answer?

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (Director Tsuji) : As I mentioned earlier, the Policy Evaluation Mechanism is a mechanism in which each ministry implements self-tasking risk assessment. Within this mechanism, the Administrative Evaluation Bureau, as the competent authority for the Policy Evaluation Mechanism, is responsible for ensuring that the policy evaluation conducted by each public authorities is accurately conducted in accordance with the Guidelines. However, I believe it is quite difficult for the Administrative Evaluation Bureau to make a judgment on the pros and cons of introducing regulation.

Amidst this, with regard to the current checklist, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications is not checking the content of the checklist itself, but is checking whether the content of the EIS is consistent, premised on the content of the checklist submitted by each Ministry. To be honest, it is quite difficult to see whether the judgments of each Ministry are correct under the current system.

In addition, in terms of our system, actually, there are only about three people in our bureau who are in charge of policy evaluation in regulation, so I think it is difficult to look at law in such a situation.

That's all.

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you.

Then, in consideration of time, I would like to have a comment from Mr. Tsunoda at the end.

TSUNODA Member : Thank you very much, everyone. I learned a lot from your various opinions.

I have one question about e-LAWS, and I would like to comment on e-LAWS. In addition, as you mentioned earlier about the law English translation site of the Ministry of Justice, it was actually the team I used to belong to at Nagoya University that originally translated the law English translation database, so I would like to talk about the situation around development.

First of all, I would like to ask a question about e-LAWS. There is a fear that there may be errors in the first place when submitting a document in word processor data. From that point on, if it is really well made, I think e-LAWS is actually mechanically made to work well to a certain extent. Therefore, I feel that the various problems may be caused by problems that already existed at the time of submission of the first document. That is my question.

Next, I have three comments on e-LAWS. There are technical members, so I would like to talk about it a little. First of all, I think that it is possible to make a revised sentence easily in the case of the pattern shown in the previous example, and such a thing is certainly relatively easy to make. I have analyzed hundreds of all the patterns of how to write a revised sentence in my paper, and I have registered them in the repository of Nagoya University, so you can see them. However, what I could not enumerate was the revised sentence of the table part called Appendix, which I mentioned earlier, and I think that the only way to make this is to gather many programmers and think about it.

Another difficult typical example is that there are supplementary provisions in law, and such provisions as when the law will be effective are frequently added, but there are frequent cases in which such provisions are written and the supplementary provisions concerning the revision and the effect are revised before the revision is made in the next law. In mathematical logic, it becomes like higher-order predicate logic, so it is easy to fall into a situation that is difficult to handle even in principal. This is a point that must be dealt with manually, and even if digitalization is made, it will be a problem.

Also, even for the rewrite rules of the revised text that I summarized, when they are actually applied, there is a conflict of rules, and there are quite a few patterns that can be applied to either way of writing the revised text. When I asked the Cabinet Legislation Bureau about what to do about it, there was a response that either way would be fine in the end. Amidst this, I think that the problem of how to unify digitalization must be considered from both technical and institutional perspectives. I would like you to recognize this situation. It is a detailed story, but I don't think it is necessarily a technical story because it is before the specifications are decided.

Finally, about the law English translation site, around 2008, a team from Nagoya University, to which I belonged, received an order for a development of this system. The team had been working on the project with people from the Cabinet Secretariat for several years before receiving the development. At that time, it was found that every ministry and agency had a few English translations of important dictionaries, and the project was advanced with the concept that all of them could be collected and made into a database. The project was advanced with the cooperation of the people from the Cabinet at that time, and eventually, the Cabinet decision was made and the project was to be under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice. At that time, English dictionaries from each ministry and agency were translated separately, so different English words were used even if they were the same Japanese word, and there was a lack of uniformity. Even so, let's all work within this range, so we decided to standardize the English law on the Ministry of Justice's law English translation site in the form of a, and we asked them to translate it into English by referring to it. Even now, about 20 law teachers may have gathered and decided that the English translation should be like this. Like this, quite troublesome things were being done behind the scenes. law law law

I agreed with your earlier comment that it would be better to be somewhat aware of the English text in order to dig up problems in digitalization. I thought that such difficult language coordination between ministries and agencies, which translation words to use, and the style of translation, such standardization, would be quite important in digitalization.

Therefore, even though the ministries and agencies are vertically divided, I thought it would be better for Mr. Digital Agency to be the center of the coordination, because they can be connected horizontally.

That's all. Please answer only the points of the question.

Secretariat (Yagyu) : Thank you very much.

I would like to ask whether there may have been a mistake at the time of submission. I believe that there may have been an additional article written after the part to be amended. Therefore, after all, when Article 1 is amended and Article 4 is added, whether Article 4 is written based on Article 1 or there may have been a mistake.

There is a legal examination support system owned by the Legislative Bureau, and we are checking it. In the end, we are checking it by simulating the data after the revision is incorporated. In that sense, I think it is still one Issue whether the world of after amendment can be reflected clearly in the world where the revision is incorporated at the time of the first submission. I think that is because we are just writing a revised text and not directly manipulating the database.

Therefore, although this is being done on a fictitious basis, we are aware that this is a factor that has led to mistakes in various areas, which is probably called a failure. We need to consider this in the long term, including the system of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau and e-LAWS cooperation with them.

That's all from e-LAWS.

TSUNODA Member : Thank you very much.

So am I.

Secretariat (Suga) : I believe that the other points were explained by Mr. Tsunoda, who is a more knowledgeable expert than the Secretariat, so I will end the question-and-answer session here. I am sorry that it has passed the appointed time. I would like to ask all of you in Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications to leave the room. Thank you very much.

Next, I would like to ask the secretariat to explain the second item on the agenda, "Process and System for Confirming the Conformity to law's Digital Principles."

Secretariat (Yagyu) : Next, I would like to explain. It is a material called "Process and System for Confirmation of Compliance with law's Digital Principles."

I would like to turn over one page, and this is the second page. It is for the digitalization of legal affairs that you saw, including the first one. This time, the dotted orange line connects what I would like to work on, which I would like to explain in this document.

It is necessary to confirm the compliance of the new law with the digital principles at the time of establishment, and to update existing laws, so this is a material that shows the place we are aiming for.

I would like to ask you to review the materials that were presented in the hearings at the previous, second, and third sessions of the Working Group. These materials map the digital technologies that are currently being implemented, various digital technologies that are emerging, and where digital technologies can be used in regulation.

In addition, you just mentioned an update, and it will be necessary to actually review the suitability of the new law based on such technology mapping, so I have attached this as a document.

Next, from the next page, I would like to explain the points this time.

First, I am placing two O's. As Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Yohei Kono said in his opening remarks, in order to ensure thorough implementation of the Digital Principles, if a new law is formulated or the law Amendment is made, I believe it is essential to confirm the conformity to the Digital Principles. Therefore, I am writing about Priority plan at the end of the year that this process will be included.

However, I would like to ask if this alone is sufficient. Regarding notifications and notices based on law, some are not accompanied by the establishment of a new law, and some are newly issued within the existing law, so I am writing this as a matter of awareness that it is necessary to confirm such notifications and notices in order to ensure compliance with the Digital Principles.

Furthermore, as digital technology is always advancing day by day, it is necessary to constantly update the existing law in accordance with the evolution of digital technology, rather than just doing it once. Therefore, I am writing that it is essential to continuously inspect and review the existing region.

I believe that this is a shared awareness of the issue, including among the members. However, since the confirmation process for new law is written in Priority plan at the end of this year, I would like to once again share an outline of this with all of you. Based on this, I believe that it will be necessary to conduct not only the confirmation process for new law, but also related notifications and notifications, as well as the confirmation and inspection process for the suitability of existing law on a regular basis.

I would like to state that there are three main points for consideration. Due to the time, I will explain them on the next page.

In terms of the positioning of each point in the life cycle of law and others, I am just listing the points I mentioned earlier. Regarding the digital principles, as digital technology progresses day by day, the embodiment of the digital principles will change in the sense of the embodiment to realize it, but I would like you to look at the new law and others. First, each ministry and agency will make policy planning. Each ministry and agency will first consider what kind of regulation procedures will be established, but it is naturally necessary to make each ministry and agency fully aware of the digital principles at an early stage and to consider them properly. Therefore, regarding how to ensure the compatibility of the digital principles, I think one of the points is that it is necessary to specifically show each ministry and agency that they will do this.

There are various laws, government ordinances, ministerial ordinances, public notices, notifications, and interpretative documents, etc., but as they are being made into rules, how to draft them, and at the stage of drafting the rules, as you have discussed various matters such as the prior assessment of regulation, it is necessary to firmly determine at what stage the confirmation will be made as a process. By institutionalizing it, it is necessary to ensure it, which is the point (ii).

With regard to Point (iii), we believe that this is a very important point, but it is not about whether it is okay to just create rules, but whether it is really being properly enforced depending on the situation in which laws and regulations are actually enforced. Therefore, at the stage of enforcement, forms and the like, and systems and the like are necessary if digital technology is actually used. In addition, I believe that we must also review such systems, including the system of ministries and agencies based on the digitalization, and the way of doing business, BPR. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to firmly create such a process on the execution side, including Digital Agency, which is responsible for the system, as a mechanism for how to optimize such related ministries and agencies.

With regard to the existing law, I believe that it is necessary to conduct a rolling review of the rules and to introduce various mechanisms, including systems, for the execution of the agreement.

Please continue to see the next page. In fact, what kind of Issue is there for each issue is extracted. Although I have not said Issue for Issue 1, it is said that specific guidelines for confirming compliance with the Digital Principles should be issued. Who will issue them? By formulating them at the Digital Policy Consultation and Digital Agency and announcing them in advance, I believe that predictability can be secured for each ministry and agency that plans and drafts policies, as well as for the people of Japan.

Regarding point (ii), there are differences between the new law and the existing law, but who will check and review them? Will the Digital Agency actually do it, or will each ministry and agency, which has individual responsibility, do it? Even if each ministry and agency does it, will it be done by the coordinating department, such as the Secretariat, or will it be done directly by the department in charge? There may be various players, and this is the Issue of the main body.

I believe it will be a parallel process between the main body and Issue. In terms of how much should be done in the case of actually handling goods other than those from law, I believe it is necessary to consider how much should be done in Digital Agency, how much should be done in each ministry, including the organizational aspects of Digital Agency, and how much should be done in each ministry's organizational aspects, including the division of roles, and what kind of players will do and how they will be divided.

Furthermore, in terms of the timing, laws, cabinet orders, and ministerial ordinances, as you explained earlier, including laws, cabinet orders, and ministerial ordinances other than the Legislative Bureau, the drafting processes are different. Therefore, when a new law is made, the timing at which confirmation can be made as a significant timing depends on the individual. Therefore, we must consider the timing at which the confirmation can be made.

In the case of an existing law, unlike a new law, it is one that already exists, but I believe there are various timings at which it will be reviewed again. In that sense, in the sense of the royal road, we will respond to the progress of digital technology, but the problem is that the situation such as technological trends and the utilization of digital technology is changing day by day, so how to catch up with such things is necessary on the other side. We must consider a means to grasp it.

Furthermore, it will be implemented in response to the voices of the people and others. As I explained earlier that the execution aspect of policies is also important, I believe that it will be a major opportunity to include the voices of the people who are actually the targets of policy execution and the business community, as well as the voices of end-users who actually want to change the policy. Therefore, it is necessary to periodically review the policy in response to the voices of the people and others.

Furthermore, although it is vaguely written as "periodic implementation," when a new law is created, it is necessary to periodically confirm whether it is really being implemented properly at a certain stage, and I believe that what kind of opportunity will be used to implement this is one of the major considerations for Issue.

With regard to Issue (iii), as I mentioned in the Issue of execution, in terms of actually realizing the digital principles, it is necessary to make a firm commitment to what kind of procedures, what kind of system will be established, and what kind of system will be established.

In this regard, Digital Agency, which advocates digital principles, will play a central role in considering the system, system, and procedures. Digital Agency is the main player in this regard, and I believe that it is necessary to discuss this matter with the budget authorities and draw up rules to some extent on how to actually proceed.

We will firmly respond to such matters, firmly implement BPR, and properly maintain the system. I explained the specific guidelines I mentioned earlier, and Digital Agency has issued basic policies for the maintenance and management of information systems. I believe that we can ensure the realization of the digital principles in terms of execution by formulating rules at the same time, and I would like you to discuss what we should do about this.

It was a rush, but that's all from me.

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you.

We are a little pressed for time, so I would like to explain Material 5 first, and then exchange views together at the end.

I would like to hear an explanation from Mr. Nakura of the Secretariat.

Secretariat (Nakura) : I am Nakura of the Secretariat. Nice to meet you.

At the previous meeting, you expressed the opinion that overseas cases should be investigated when considering the digitalization of legal affairs. In response to this, the scope of countries to be investigated by the Secretariat and the proposed survey items that may be helpful if this item is investigated are summarized in the table shown now. The vertical axis shows the country names and the horizontal axis shows the proposed survey items.

First, on the vertical axis, there are 13 countries that are currently being considered for the survey. Regarding the selection criteria, I listed eight countries that are said to be so-called advanced countries in digital government and five other countries that I believe will be of reference.

For your reference, the term "advanced digital government countries" refers to eight countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, Estonia, Singapore, China, India, Denmark, and South Korea. In addition, five countries: Germany, France, the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand are listed because there are reference cases.

Next, on the horizontal axis, "legislative support system" refers to whether legislative work is systematized.

The "law revision method" refers to whether the revision of the law is carried out in the form of a revised text.

The "law Public Notice Method" is considered to be that all countries basically publicize their law by official gazettes, but it refers to whether the official gazettes is issued on paper or electronically, and in the case of an electronic official gazettes, whether the official gazettes is legally effective.

The "location and organization of the official law data" refers to whether there is master data of the rules, how much of the laws, government ordinances, ministerial ordinances, public notices, etc. are described in the master data, and if there is master data, which organization manages it.

The "Habitat of private sector's law Collection" refers to the extent of the area that the government is responsible for managing.

The "digitalization, etc. that specifies the law for legal affairs" refers to whether the legislative procedures and the content of the new law are required to be compliant with the digital principles under the law.

Finally, "Efforts such as Rules as Code" is mainly described in terms of what technical efforts are being made by each country.

As some of you may already know, I would like to explain the concept of Rules as Code. According to the OECD report, Rules as Code generally refers to efforts to formulate rules not only in natural languages but also in a machine-readable form. Therefore, this item is described mainly for the purpose of investigating whether there are efforts to formulate law in a programming approach.

Finally, with regard to the content currently shown in the table, I have put a double circle on the part where I believe that the country in question is implementing more advanced initiatives than Japan. On the other hand, the simple single circle is shown for your reference, although it cannot be evaluated to be particularly advanced compared to Japan.

Please note that the parts of the table that are currently left blank are simply because the corresponding items were not found in the survey at this point in time, and it is not concluded that there are no notable efforts by the country.

I'm very sorry for the rush, but that's all for my presentation.

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you very much.

It is a bit of a lot, so I may have been too greedy today, but I would like you to input this as it was made by the secretariat based on the previous point.

Well, we have less than three minutes left to exchange opinions, but if anyone has any comments, please raise your hand.

Then, Mr. Yoneda, please.

YONEDA Member Yoneda: Regarding the process and system for confirming compliance with the Digital Principles, there are cases in which new ones will be created or existing ones will be reviewed. It is said that those that are actually being implemented or those that have begun will be implemented in response to the voices of the people, but I think the statement is too vague about where it will be taken. I thought that the classification could be made a little clearer, such as receiving it in Digital Agency or receiving it in each ministry and agency, so I would like to ask how consideration is being made on this matter.

Secretariat (Suga) : Mr. Yagyu, this is undecided, isn't it?

Secretariat (Yagyu) : That is one aspect that I wanted to point out. When it comes to widely receiving the voices of the people, it is the ministries and agencies that actually associate with the end users, so in that sense, the ministries and agencies may be the easiest to pick up on, but on the other hand, there are some cases where it is difficult to tell the ministries and agencies, so I would like to ask what kind of mechanism should be established.

Is it better to receive it from each ministry or directly in Digital Agency? If it is received by each ministry, there are points that can be reflected in daily improvements, but on the other hand, if it is received by Digital Agency, there are points that can be skewered and skewered, and I think that where to receive it is a big Issue or a point that should be considered, so I would like to hear your opinions on this point.

Secretariat (Suga) : At the breast level, there are various ideas, such as whether you can use an idea box, how about putting it on Pub Com, and how about doing an undercover survey like Michelin. I would like you to discuss them here.

YONEDA Member : Thank you.

Secretariat (Suga) : Dr. Watanabe, please.

Watanabe member : I'll finish it in 30 seconds.

In conclusion, I think Mr. Digital Agency is good. First, there are fluctuations in the interpretation of digital principles themselves, so I think Mr. Digital Agency, who can show a unified interpretation, is the most suitable. Second, since the dissemination of best practices is the most important, I think it is the best for the people that Mr. Digital Agency takes on this new function in terms of information aggregation.

That's all for short.

Secretariat (Suga) : Thank you.

Even if you ask me if there is anything else, I think it will be at this time. I am very sorry.

Lastly, if there are any comments from Senior Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Kobayashi, would that be okay?

, Senior Vice-Minister for Digital, Kobayashi: That's fine. There were many points of discussion, and I think we received specific opinions, so let's do our best.

Secretariat (Suga) : When the Secretariat creates the draft, I would like to ask the members of this Review Committee to cooperate from the beginning as the Secretariat. For example, I would like to ask you to cooperate in creating materials together on the matter of reviewing the legal affairs by BPR based on the calculation of how to put the law data on e-LAWS at the same time as the promulgation. I would like to ask you to be specific. Thank you very much.

Now that it's time, that's all for today's agenda. As for the handling of the minutes and materials, I would like to do the same as before.

That concludes today's meeting. Thank you very much for your participation.

()