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 (12th meeting)

Overview

  • Date and time: Tuesday, August 9, 2022 (2022) from 10:00 to 12:00
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      1. Current Status and Future Plans of Digital Consultation
      2. Holding of the Technical validation and Evaluation Working Group for Technology Map Development
      3. Hearing from related ministries and agencies about visual inspection regulation and regular inspection regulation
      4. Exchange of opinions
    3. Adjournment

Materials

Related Information

Minutes, etc.

Date

Wednesday, August 9, 2022 (2022), from 10:00 to 12:00

Location

Held online

Attendees

Chairman

  • Fumiaki Kobayashi, Senior Vice-

Members

  • Junji Annen (Attorney-at-law, Professor of the Graduate School of Law
  • Tatsuhiko Inadani (Professor, Graduate School of Law, Kyoto University)
  • IWAMURA Arihiro (Managing Director, Japan Business Federation)
  • Takafumi Ochiai (Attorney at law, Atsumi & Sakai, Foreign Law Joint Enterprise)
  • Akiko Sugawara (Managing Director and Head of Policy Planning, Keizai Doyukai)
  • Masakazu Masushima (Attorney-at-Law, Mori Hamada & Matsumoto)

Minutes

Secretariat (Matsuda): Now that it is time, we will hold the 12th Digital Ad Hoc Working Group.

Again, members are invited to participate online.

Regarding the attendance status of the members today, we have not received any information about their absence. However, I have heard that Mr. Sugawara will leave the room early at eleven thirty.

In addition, the related ministries and agencies will participate in the proceedings of the hearing held today on a case-by-case basis.

I would like to begin today's proceedings. I would like to ask Mr. Annen, Vice Chairman, to proceed with the rest of the proceedings.

Thank you, Dr. Annen.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe .

Before we begin the proceedings, Mr. Arihiro Iwamura, a member of the Board of Directors, will attend the meeting from today as a successor to Mr. Nemoto. I would like to have a few words from Managing Director Iwamura. Thank you very much.

Iwamura Member: Good morning. I'm Iwamura, Managing Director of the Japan Business Federation.

I would like to take over the position of Managing Director, Mr. Nemoto, who retired on June 1. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

We have been aware of the movement surrounding the digital consultation, but I have high expectations for a comprehensive review by the digital consultation.

I believe that Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Kobayashi and all other members of the Digital Ad Hoc Liaison Office have made various efforts in the past, and Keidanren will continue to cooperate toward the realization of each request. Thank you very much.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe , thank you very much. Nice to meet you.

Let's get down to business. The 12th meeting has three large clusters. The first is "Current Status and Future Plans of Digital Consultation Efforts," the second is "Holding of the Technology validation and Evaluation Working Group for Technology Map Development," and the third is related to "visual inspection regulation and regular inspection regulation." There are three more clusters. We are planning to hold hearings with the ministries and agencies in charge on "(1) Damage Survey on Issue with Disaster Victim Certificate," "(2) On-site Guidance on Social welfare Facilities," and "(3) Periodic Measurements and Inspections of Air Environments in Buildings."

First of all, I would like to ask Counselor Matsuda to explain "the current status and future plans of the Digital Consultation."

Secretariat (Matsuda): So, let's start on page 3. This is the comprehensive review plan for June 3, which is a set schedule to inspect and review the entire system over three years. In accordance with this, we will be taking concrete steps in the future, and we are organizing the detailed draft. Please go back to page 1.

This is the "Current Status and Future Plans of Initiatives for Digital Consultations." Although there are some details, I would like to briefly explain. 1 is the "Review of law," and we have received requests from the Cabinet Office and each Ministry for additional inspections of the remaining 1,000 provision out of the 5,000 that are listed in the attached table of the Comprehensive Review Plan, as well as the additional 2,000 that may need to be inspected. We are currently coordinating with the Cabinet Office and each Ministry on the policies for the review, and based on the results, we are considering requesting each Ministry and Agency to create a process chart for the review, including the original 4,000, around the end of August or the beginning of September. Regarding the third ○, we will create a process chart for the review, have each Ministry create it, and submit it to the Secretariat by the end of September. Based on the coordination with the Cabinet Office and each Ministry and the consideration by the Working Group, we would like to fix the review process chart by the end of this year. In addition to the above, we are conducting detailed examination of the contents that require revision of the law. The Cabinet Legislation Bureau has been interested in the Comprehensive Review Plan, including quite a few senior officials, and we are providing explanations as needed. In that sense, the Cabinet Office and each Ministry are sorting out what needs to be revised and what can be interpreted, and we have started to communicate with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau.

The second is "Review of Notifications and Notices." We are currently making a list of notifications and notices that are considered to fall under the seven preceding items. We have prepared a draft proposal, but we are also conducting detailed examination of them, and after that, we will deploy this list to each Ministry in autumn and finalize the list of items to be inspected by the end of this year. At the same time, we are selecting items that can be reviewed in a hurry by the end of 2022, and we will process those that can be processed quickly. We will request each Ministry to review these notifications and notices around autumn this year, and we will request them to be reviewed together with the list.

Please take a look at the next page. 3 is "Creation of Technology Map" that supports all of this. At today's Working Group, we are thinking of proposing and discussing a framework and a system for consideration of Technology Map development. After that discussion, we will create a team to develop Technology Map under the Working Group, so we will create a trial version of Technology Map and a technology catalog, and report it to the Working Group. At the same time, we will disseminate information on technical demonstration, propose technologies that can be used for regulation review, and create a consortium for some kind of cooperation between the public and private sectors.

This is the part 4 "Establishment of a System and Process for Confirmation of Compliance with the Digital Principles for law, etc.". Detailed design will be conducted by the end of fiscal 2022, and consideration is currently being conducted in Digital Agency. We are considering formulating specific guidelines on the Digital Principles in the summer of 2023 and incorporating the confirmation process on a trial basis from among the bills to be submitted to the Ordinary Session of the Diet in 2024. I would like to organize this as soon as possible and discuss it at the Working Group.

5 is the "Content of the Review by the Working Group within the Year" based on this. First, regarding ○, at the Working Group by the end of September, where each ministry and agency will submit a draft of the Review Process Chart, as is the case today, in August and September, we would like to advance hearings from each regulation related to the review of each ministries and agencies for the detailed examination of 1,000 and 2,000. After that, after the Process Chart is released at the end of September, in addition to considering the draft of the Process Chart, including whether the schedule is really OK, whether we can move forward a little, and whether we can dig a little deeper into the content, we would like to report and discuss responses to hearings related to the review of notifications and notifications and major requests from the business community, including the digital completion part of the procedures, which is a major Issue, as well as digital legislation and the development of the Technology Map. We would like to set a direction toward the end of the year.

I'm sorry I can't see your face, but that's all from me. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe , I would like to ask your opinions and questions. First of all, I would like to ask one thing about the first review of law. The addition of 2,000 was made by the ministries and agencies in charge, so I think it is an epoch-making thing in the history of regulatory reform. In other words, I think they made this move voluntarily because they themselves are tired of paper work, and I think it is an endorsement of how meaningful the work we are doing at the Digi-cho is.

In addition, whether the revision of the law is necessary or whether it should be interpreted, this is a kind of art world for government officials, but the Digi-cho has accumulated a lot of experience, so I think it is one idea to show that it is possible to interpret this as a general view of the market price, and to show that the revision of the law itself is very time-consuming, so it is possible to show that this is the general view of the market price. Is it possible?

Secretariat (Matsuda): .

In that sense, I believe that what Mr. Annen said can be done in the conclusion, and in fact, there are some that are devised in that way. We hear from various ministries and agencies, so it is basic that we do so after paying due respect to the ministries and agencies in charge of each ministry and agency. However, where other ministries and agencies are doing things this way or are sorting out such things by interpretation, we are actually working on the legal and technical aspects of providing advice and support to each ministry and agency by connecting them side by side, so I would like to make sure that we will do this.

We are very grateful for the number 2,000, but on the other hand, the number of items to be inspected will increase, so we need to do it properly again. There may be motivation from each ministry, but I think there is also the aspect that they are actively working with us by identifying all the items that can be substituted with a certain type of technology, regardless of whether there are any requests for each item. Thank you very much.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe Of course, Mr. Matsuda must be thinking about what I can think of, but I was very encouraged. Thank you very much.

Please give us your opinions and questions from other people. Thank you very much. Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member: .

We are proceeding with the regulatory reform in a very positive manner, and I hope that the Working Group will be able to follow up on each individual item.

I believe that there is a part called administrative reform in the Digital Consultation. Could you tell us how administrative reform will be promoted in the future?

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe , what do you think?

Secretariat (Matsuda): .

I would like to have some additional comments from Councilor Watanabe, but as far as I know, in the June Comprehensive Review Plan, various specific measures such as agile governance and EBPM have been written. Regarding each of these, for example, we will create a database of administrative project reviews and use it in discussions on budgets and so on, and we will create support and frameworks for each ministry to realize agile governance. I understand that we are working on this. If necessary, I believe there are parts that are particularly related to regulation, so I would like to have the Administrative Reform Team report on how they are progressing.

Counselor Watanabe, do you have any additional information?

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. Matsuda explained, the Secretariat for Administrative Reform is currently working to realize the relationship between agile working. In addition to that, for example, in terms of the promotion of specialization-based recuruitment, the National Personnel Authority Recommendations were issued yesterday, and in the report, efforts to facilitate the recruitment of specialization-based recuruitment are being considered in National Personnel Authority, so I would like to report on what can be reported at the Digi-in in the fall.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe , is it all right with your explanation just now?

Ochiai Member: Thank you very much. I'm fine.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe .

Then, I think it would be fine if you could give me your opinions later, but I will go ahead because I have time.

Next, Mr. Suga will explain "Holding of the Technical validation and Evaluation Working Group for Technology Map Development." Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Suga): .

This time, we have made progress in developing a system to create a Technology Map or a catalog, so I would like to report that we would like to proceed in this way.

On page 1, I would like to reflect on what you have discussed so far. First, when we tried to rapidly expand the review of regulation across ministries and agencies, one of the obstacles was technical validation. For example, if we were to substitute safety confirmation work that had been done by people until now with digital technology, it was necessary to verify the effectiveness of the technology before approving the substitution. Instead of conducting validation for separate objects in each ministry and agency, it was necessary to create an environment in which validation could be conducted more easily across ministries and agencies.

If we try to achieve a comprehensive reform of similar regulation on a technology basis across the boundaries of the ministries and agencies responsible for the regulation, it has become clear that the technology that can be used to respond to a specific regulation is actually likely to be applied to other regulation responses and similar business processes. For example, regarding the steel tower inspection by drones, which Senior Vice-Minister KOBAYASHI visited, it is of course possible to apply this technology to the inspection of structures other than steel towers, and I believe that it is necessary to have a forum where experts discuss the extent, applicability, and difficulty of this technology.

On the next page, I put the seven regulations on paper and in-person processes items that we are considering in advance vertically, and the functions that humans actually play in regulation compliance can be abstracted into three or four, so when I put them horizontally, the technologies that can be applied to regulation review are likely to be fairly common and large. I first showed it on a map. I will also show a catalog of cameras, sensors, drones, real-time surveillance, and other technologies that appear in Technology Map, each of which is owned by a company.

On the next page, we have organized the value provided by Technology Map. First of all, I believe that the ministries and agencies responsible for regulation will be able to see what technologies can be used, how mature the technologies are, and what types of regulation need to be added, side by side, based on the direction of digitalization in the same type of validation.

For business operators with digital technology, we hope that they will utilize the technology to grasp business opportunities that have not been unlocked until now and enter the market, or use it as a reliable sales tool because it is in this catalog.

As for regulation target business operators who actually comply with regulation, there are many business operators who are already considering cutting-edge technologies, but I would like to make it easy for you to understand what kind of technologies there is room for in your target regulation, what your neighbors are doing, and who you should approach to access those technologies.

When I asked various experts, they said that the value of this place is quite large. In fact, there are many companies that have no relationship with regulation but have built similar processes in-house to ensure product safety, so I think it will be useful as reference information when they work on DX based on the latest technology. I would like to aim for such a high level.

On the next page, as a related description, the Comprehensive Review Plan also states that a map and catalog will be prepared, and at the Ad Hoc Consultation, Nanba members said that this is important.

From the next page is the specific way to proceed, but I would like to set up a Technology validation and Evaluation Working Group under the Working Group of the Working Group. The WG will organize technologies that can be used for regulation review across the WG, compile a map and catalog, and report them to the Working Group. On the left side of the WG, we would like to formally set up a route for people with new technologies to make specific proposals for maps and catalogs. It is fine to approach without going through the consortium, but if we can visualization the route, it will be easier to access, so we would like to prepare a place like the consortium and propose and provide information on technologies to be included. It is abbreviated as Technology validation and Evaluation Working Group, but the official name will be Technology validation and Evaluation Working Group for Technology Map Development. At this WG, we would like to communicate with each ministry and agency in charge of regulation and confirm the required specifications of specific technologies.

On the next page, as specific matters to be discussed by the WG, we would like to have a thorough discussion of the understanding of technologies, applications to other regulation fields, and scale. I would like to see Technology Map and the catalog be innovation-friendly in terms of specifications and utilization, rather than static tables as shown in the slide earlier. I would like to have a discussion from the perspective of whether it is better to provide information in this way.

The committee members are very close to the area called Regtech in Japan and overseas, so we will be composed of people who are familiar with the trend and experts who can see individual technologies as widely as possible. Depending on the agenda, we may be able to invite related ministries and agencies and related organizations such as Research development Corporation to participate as observers. There are people who are familiar with this story in the Digital Ad Hoc Liaison Office and the Working Group, so we would appreciate it if you could participate as observers.

Regarding the schedule, after this, I would like to make a specific request to the professors who are candidates for the committee, and I would like to ask if the first meeting can be held in September or if it can be held once a month after that.

On the next page, we have already received very interesting points in consultation with experts, so I have posted some comments to show the possibilities. For example, Technology Map should not just be a map, but should create a technology repository first, document it, and then automatically generate and change it in the form of a table of contents on the cover and a collection of links.

For the time being, it would be interesting to create a catalog with a structure in which the results of technical validation, successful examples of utilization, and a brief explanation of how things worked are attached, videos and images of actual movement are attached, minimum sample code is also provided, and specific reference materials are attached, if any.

In addition, there was a person who said that it would be better if Technology Map and catalogs were developed naturally and rapidly, and that a document management system that would be easy to post and edit by receiving pull requests from various users would be necessary in the first place, and that he would like to help.

In addition, for example, regarding the digital completion for the training, basically, we already have a commercial system and we can make a procurement for it, but when we make a procurement, we don't know which one is good, so there are needs to compare the functions and make a validation. These are mixed in the technical validation, and they say that it is not enough to discuss it broadly.

The next three pages are just an image, so please take a look at it. It seems that there are various patterns in how to show Technology Map. I think it would be better to have multiple views, but my hope is that it will be possible to confirm the applicability of technology as an area.

The next page is about the catalog. The EdTech library has quite a few videos and introduces interesting EdTech companies. If we are to configure it as a technology repository based on the comments from the experts earlier, the directories of Microsoft and AWS will be helpful. I would like the WG to consider what kind of output it will be.

Last but not least, it is a consortium. We would like to invite large companies, small and medium-sized enterprises, and companies with deep tech to participate in technology proposals. In addition, we would like to create an environment in which start-ups can easily make technology proposals. Mr. Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has gathered many organizations as a support community in the Start-up New Market Creation Task Force, and we have asked for their cooperation. We hope to make a big move by inviting various organizations to participate.

That's all.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe , thank you very much.

If you have any comments or questions about the current explanation, please let me know.

Mr. Uenoyama, please go ahead.

Uenoyama Member: .

There are two points of impression and comment. First of all, I think that the approach of Technology Map is very good. The reason is that there are various law and regulation, but when viewed individually and specifically, they are currently regarded as different regulation, but when viewed from a technical perspective, there are quite a few things that can be regarded as the same phenomenon when abstracted and generalized. I think that it is extremely effective. In addition, I think that it is very interesting because it is the true pleasure of being a cross-sectional regulatory reform.

In doing so, I would like to tell you that two points will be extremely important from the perspective of advancing this. I think it is very good to make this Technology Map / catalog automatically deployed and operational. However, the way of abstraction of the vertical axis and horizontal axis on pages 8, 9, and 10, which are the design charts of this map / catalog, and the definition of the evaluation functions at the end. In particular, when this is replaced with technology, the definition of quality, cost, or the set of measuring instruments at the end will be really important. Therefore, I think it is necessary to determine the design chart of Technology Map relatively early in the process. The first point is that I think it is being done right now. The second point is close to what I have been saying for a while, but when determining the measuring instruments, we will be talking about the accuracy of 100. It may be difficult to compare it with the accuracy of 100, but it is very important to put the measuring instruments in a place where the accuracy is better than the current operation. I hope that we will proceed with this by holding these two points.

That's all from me.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe .

Suga san, do you have any comments?

Secretariat (Suga): As you said, the discussion of abstraction is interesting, and I feel that the scope of horizontal expansion will be naturally determined by how to abstract, so I would like to thoroughly consider it, and I would like to ask for your cooperation.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe .

Then, Mr. Inadani, Mr. Sugawara, Mr. Iwamura, I would like to hear your statements in this order. Thank you.

Inadani Member: My name is Inadani Nice to meet you.

I was also very motivated and thought it was a very good attempt. In fact, I thought about almost the same thing as Mr. Uenoyama from a legal point of view, and I think it was a problem at this subcommittee several times. I think the point when replacing regulation is that when we calculate the cost and benefit in relation to the purpose and public interest that we wanted to achieve in the regulation, we can say that this is better. Therefore, as Mr. Masushima has said several times, it is important to include the fact that we will be in trouble if we make a Technology Map like we made a stamping machine. In addition, I think it is possible that this is the case when we look at it later. While we are doing it, we often do not notice it. Therefore, the process for dynamically developing Technology Map itself, at that time, we will dig deep into the value of the regulation, which you said is interesting, and if that process is properly incorporated, I think it will proceed very positively.

When making that abstraction, you pointed out that this was a proposal, so I am fully aware that it has not been decided yet. However, from a perspective, I think that many of the things that appear in the map this time seem to focus on so-called action types among abstractions. Therefore, as I said, if you prepare a matrix in which you can copy the purpose, I think it will be very easy to do cost-benefit analysis.

That's all.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe . After all, abstraction burns everyone. That's natural.

What do you think, Mr. Sugawara?

SUGAWARA Member: Thank you, .

I will ask questions from a different perspective from the teachers. Originally, the purpose of creating this Technology Map / catalog was to provide benefits to various stakeholders, as described on page 3. However, I think it is important that it is easy to use for people in the field all over Japan. For example, I think it is important to speed up the introduction by preventing the loss of time and effort in searching for vendors and technologies and in validation. On the other hand, because it is so, it is also important for people in the field to take in what is listed in the map and catalog without any validation. It is necessary to obtain the approval of the government. As an image, are you thinking of a Wikipedia that continues to develop naturally and is easy to post and edit, as shown on page 7? Through this, we have a sense of speed, such as updating technologies more and more, but on the other hand, I think there is an opposite aspect of whether this will make it really correct and safe to use. Therefore, for example, by incorporating a check function such as a regular review committee into this kind of working, I think users will be able to use it with peace of mind.

In that sense, the consortium needs not only technical matters but also opportunities to hear the opinions of people on the ground in the local local government.

Finally, although it overlaps with the opinions of the teachers, I would like to add the viewpoint of abstraction as an opinion because I think it is very important to be able to understand the purpose.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe Thank you very much.

What Mr. Sugawara is saying is a fundamental philosophical problem when making this map. In other words, is it a catalog that says you can feel relieved? Or is it a map that says you can use it at your own risk, even though it is not a very good word because it is a proposal? I feel that there are quite a few ways of thinking about it. If you say you can feel relieved like the former, even though it is a bad word, you will have to put a censor somewhere. I think that is one way of thinking.

Iwamura-san, please.

Iwamura Member: .

I have three points in total, including my impressions, comments, and questions. I believe that Technology Map, which you just proposed, is quite advanced as a method of regulatory reform. I was in charge of regulatory reform 15 to 16 years ago, and I think it has evolved compared to that time. This is my impression.

Next, I would like to make a comment. You have just raised an issue, but I think it is important to some extent to listen to the voices of people who will actually participate, including how reliable the information written here is and how to ensure it. In that sense, we will ask the Digital Ad Hoc Liaison Office to hold a briefing session for member companies, and we will make these efforts known and call for participation. As you have raised an issue, I think it is important to listen to the voices of people who will participate, such as what kind of things will be created. In addition, I would like to express my expectation that we will actively involve startups.

I would like to ask a question. It is meaningless if this Technology Map is isolated ahead of other regions. Therefore, I believe that horizontal cooperation between the so-called Technology validation and Evaluation Working Group and the ministries and agencies responsible for the regulation is important. How should cooperation between the ministries and agencies related to Technology Map be considered? If you have any ideas now, please tell us. For example, please tell us if you have any ideas, such as assigning a person in charge or a contact point in each ministry. Thank you.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe , I would like to hear your statements with Mr. Masushima and Mr. Ochiai, and then we would like to hear your responses and comments from Mr. Suga.
Masushima-sensei, please.

Masujima Member: Thank you very much.

First of all, when I am involved in a committee member, I always market the project, do institutional marketing, and somehow make it successful by involving various people. I am committed to this, but I have started institutional marketing for this general review, and I have heard from people who are interested in various things. I vaguely knew that start-ups who want technology to be adopted are interested in it, but recently, I have been talking about a quite interesting phenomenon. People from so-called large companies want to seek an exit from open innovation in the place newly created by the rule change. I have found that there are quite a few people from large companies who want to engage in the part of the rule change itself. If they are involved in this process, they can gain knowledge and support in the part of the rule change. As a result, I think they are supporting us by asking what kind of start-up technology they are supporting and doing various things. As people who are involved in the process, large companies are committed to open innovation, and I think there are many companies because they are like CVCs these days. I have recently discovered that if we widely market the significance of rule investment, large companies with financial leeway and investment capacity will be involved in this digital regulatory reform. This is one of the shared matters.

My second point is that I wrote in the bulk review section. For example, in local government, how to change the rules and what kind of technology can be used will be discussed at the same time, and at that time, it is obvious that analog is more likely to be used and digital is more likely to cause errors. So, as I said earlier, I will do a little bit of work on how to check it. In short, I thought I would present a mechanism to make sure that the status quo bias is not applied. To be specific, if you put in such an option, such as whether you are being watched in the first place even though you may say that you are doing it with analog, all of that is recorded in digital, so the digital side will win correctly. When we talk about the error rate when all of it is being watched, it is a fair checklist to ask if the error rate of digital is so significantly high. So, I think it is important to make a checklist that corrects the point where the status quo bias is inevitably applied. This is my second point.

My third point is that in the technology catalog earlier, there was a discussion about the endorsement of what is listed here. I feel strange about this. It is said that each technology has a mechanism and an architecture, so there are always things that match and do not match depending on the purpose. I think it is strange to say that you can be assured of what is out of purpose. I just asked you to sort it out by purpose. Among the purposes, there are circumstances on the side of each adopter, and in relation to those circumstances, there are many things that do not work for us but work for us. This is the reason why there are various products of technology, so I think there is no technology that can be used for anything universal. In that sense, I think it is better to avoid a narrative that if you use this, you can be assured. On the other hand, I think how to bring it to adoption is an example of where it has been adopted, or that its adoption record has been properly disclosed. In that case, if the specific problems that we are doing are the same, it may be adopted. I think there are decisions in this field that if it is de facto adopted, it will be safe because others have adopted it. We believe that this is Trust. So, it is better not to put too much emphasis on the security and safety of adoption. I feel that it is more like tech to secure Trust through disclosure and de facto. That is my third point.

That's all.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe . You mean Trust Worthiness. This is difficult.
Mr. Ochiai, thank you for waiting.

Ochiai Member: .

This is from the point that Dr. Masushima discussed at the end. It is always difficult to determine how to ensure reliability. For example, if you look at the process of something, it may be similar as a procedure or regulation, but it may have a different meaning, or the required accuracy may be different in reality.

In that sense, I think you are right that there are some difficulties in using it uniformly. On the other hand, Mr. Sugawara pointed out that if there is nothing, it is difficult to choose. Or, I think there are cases where people do not choose it with peace of mind. Therefore, we will disclose our performance together, or, for example, if we use data, we may create an item that can indicate that we have obtained various qualifications such as P-Mark, ISMS, and Information Bank Certification, even if it is optional.

In addition, I believe that you will make it possible to understand the actual status of use, compare and examine whether the final judgment is used in other cases, and evaluate whether the technology is sufficient for use in this situation. I believe that it is important to disclose information that can be a clue. In addition, at that time, various efforts are being made by the Digi-cho, and as I believe it will be involved in the administrative reform mentioned earlier, as discussed in the Fair Trade Commission for the procurement reform, for example, the development of a support framework in which the central government and prefectural governments provide support may be discussed in the digitalization itself. I believe that even in the Technology Map, there are cases in which it is not necessarily just easy to understand system technology, and cases in which it is necessary to provide support for the handling of equipment and systems such as sensors. If you could consider what kind of system can be created to provide support, it would be easier for users to introduce it.

As for the second point, I think you said that it would be useful for companies to use it, but there are more points to be worked out in relation to local government. In fact, it was discussed at regulatory reform's Digital infrastructure Working, but local government has not been recognized and has not been introduced. I think promotion and appeal to local government is very important.

This may be a small detail, but I think the third point is that I would like you to promote English-language communication. I think it is also important to make this technology available to Japanese people and to give them an opportunity to pay attention to it and deploy it overseas. In the first place, I have heard that the initiatives of the Digital Consultation itself were evaluated by Ministers Makishima and Senior Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Kobayashi when they went overseas. Therefore, I think that if we can tell that there are advanced initiatives in this field by continuing to disclose them, I think that the opportunities will expand for Japanese companies as well, and I think it will be more positive.
I've said many things, but that's all.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe , I don't have much time, but it doesn't have to be exhaustive, so if you have any answers or comments. As far as I heard, your opinions were extremely supportive.

Secretariat (Suga): I again appreciated that you pointed out important matters in an extremely supportive manner.

As for the status quo bias, I heard that there are some people who think this is the only one. For example, when diagnosing the deterioration of equipment, it is not necessary to find rust and cracks or detect cracks up to several millimeters. I think it is necessary to consciously work to return to the purpose of regulation and the interests of protection and law by saying that it is okay if the structure does not break in the first place and it is okay if it can be judged to be deteriorated before it breaks. If we do not do this, there will be a disturbance that the inspection is improper because the method is different even though the inspection is performed properly, so I would like to work on this with awareness.

Regarding the reliability of the map and Trust Worthiness, I once again thought that it is very important how to explain and present the map. I understand that it is useful to accumulate cases by disclosing results, so I hope that it can function as a tool for disclosure while conditioning well.
Many people pointed out that it was local government at the site, and local government was not able to dig out thoroughly, so I would like to consider a system for cooperation.

You also pointed out the cooperation among ministries, but I think it would be better for each ministry to listen to this in a fairly open manner, so if time permits, I will ask each ministry to participate as an observer. Each ministry has a organization that is responsible for Technology validation, so I would like to ask such a validation to participate as an observer, and I hope to be able to join Technology NICT in the future.

As for the support staff, I thought that if sales activities, in which each company sells their technology by saying that it is on this map, expand, like doctors are constantly updating information on new drugs from MRs of pharmaceutical companies, it will penetrate to the point where we cannot devote resources, but if there are places where we are lacking, including that, I would like to take measures firmly, especially Mr. local government.

As for the timing of the dispatch of English, many people have pointed out that this can be a foothold for Japanese companies to enter the global regtech market with technology, and that it should be a field in which Japanese companies are strong. I would like to be aware of such a possibility.

That's all for now.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe We have to expand our business opportunities. Sensors are the last remaining semiconductor sanctuary in Japan. We have to market them vigorously. Thank you very much.

The second half is a hearing. I would like to ask Counselor Watanabe, who is in charge of the proceedings of the hearing.

Nice to meet you, Mr. Watanabe.

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. , I am Watanabe, and I am in charge of inspections and inspections. Nice to meet you.

Now, regarding the first point of the hearings with each ministry, first of all, I would like to talk about the "Survey on the Status of Damage Caused by Issue in the Disaster Victim Certificate."

I would like to ask Mr. Fujii, Planning Officer in charge of disaster risk management in the Cabinet Office. Nice to meet you.

Planning officer Fujii: Mr. Ochiai Cabinet Office. Nice to meet you.

We have prepared materials. First of all, I would like to explain the outline of the systems related to the Damage Recognition Investigation and the Disaster Victim Certificate. The heavy rain that has been continuing since August 3 has caused damage in various parts of Japan. In particular, when damage occurs, it is the characteristic of investigating the damage to houses where people live, certifying the damage situation, and issuing a standard certificate that leads to subsequent support for the affected people. As a basis, as you can see in the parentheses above, Article 90-2, Paragraph 1 of the disaster response Basic Act provides that the mayor of a municipality must conduct an investigation to recognize the damage and issue a Disaster Victim Certificate, which is a document to certify the degree of the damage, as a Issue.

Based on this Disaster Victim Certificate, as shown in * below it, for example, there are benefits such as the provision of support funds for the victims to rebuild their lives, the distribution of relief funds collected from all over Japan, or loans such as the Japan Housing Finance Agency's Disaster Reconstruction Housing Loan. Exemptions and grace periods include tax exemptions, insurance premiums, utility charges, such as sewerage charges and water charges. In-kind benefits include the provision of emergency temporary housing based on the Disaster Relief Act, the provision of temporary housing for those who have lost their homes, and public funds for emergency repairs of homes.

At the bottom, from the left, the procedures are in order. First, the victim applies to the municipality for the issuance of a Disaster Victim Certificate. Based on that, the municipality conducts a damage recognition investigation, which involves visiting the site or using photographs to recognize the extent of the damage. As you can see, there are stages such as complete destruction, large-scale partial destruction, and medium-scale partial destruction, and the degree of damage is determined by looking at the situation at the site, and the victim certificate is issued at the end.

On the next page, although it is repeated, as we are in the middle, we are showing the guidelines for the operation of the standards for damage recognition. Basically, it is the work of municipalities, but there are various technical aspects, so the national government shows some standards or guidelines, and we are actually doing it based on them.

On the next page, there is a specific flow of certification. In the case of an earthquake, taking a survey of wooden buildings and prefabricated buildings as an example, there are two stages, the first survey on the left and the second survey on the right. In the first survey, we basically check the exterior of the building and determine whether it is completely destroyed, large-scale partially destroyed, or medium-scale partially destroyed. If it looks completely destroyed at first glance, it is completely destroyed, and there is a determination by inclination and part below. In the determination by part, 15% of the roof, 75% of the wall, and 10% of the foundation are damaged by looking at the exterior. If it is 50% or more on the right, it is completely destroyed, and below that, various situations are certified in increments of 10%. In the second survey on the right, in cases where the exact location cannot be determined only by the exterior, we enter the building and check the damage status of each component, such as pillars, floors, outer walls, and inner walls, and make a determination by totaling the damage status. The composition ratio of each component is different.

On page 5, this is the case of flood damage. In the case of flood damage, you will be immersed in water, so it is possible to make a judgment based on the depth of flood. However, in the case of inland flood, water will only rise and fall, so external forces will not work and damage to parts will not occur. Therefore, such a judgment is also made on the premise that external forces will work due to the collapse of banks.

On the next page, in order to quickly and efficiency an investigation to determine the damage to this house, for example, on the far left, aerial photographs are used to make a determination based on photographs, and in the middle, as I mentioned earlier, it is possible to make a determination based on the depth of flooding, and on the far right, it is possible to make a determination based on the status of earth and sand deposits if the house is completely destroyed.

Last but not least, there are examples of damage determination surveys using aerial photographs, etc., in which whether or not a flood was caused by a tsunami in the Great East Japan Earthquake in the past has been determined using aerial photographs, and in the case of the torrential rain in western Japan in 2030, if it can be determined to be completely destroyed using aerial photographs, it is determined to be completely destroyed. Second, there is an example using the self-determination method, and it is not half destroyed (partial damage), which is the lowest damage category mentioned earlier. We do not need to make a detailed determination on such a matter, so we issue a disaster victim certificate based on the owner's photograph.

Lastly, as a reference, the Cabinet Office is currently working to systemize online applications and the issuance of disaster victim certificates by convenience store Issue in cooperation with My Number Card in order to lead to the prompt issuance of disaster victim certificates.

That's all from the Cabinet Office.

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. .

If you have any comments or questions about the explanation just given, please let us know.

Uenoyama Member: . Thank you for your explanation.

This is a question that I would like to ask in a simple manner to gain a more specific understanding. I would like to ask what the people who go to see the accident in the event of an accident do on a daily basis, including whether they are specialized in that field. It will be difficult if an emergency occurs, but I would like to ask what it is like since they do not come every day.

My second question is, from the perspective of empowering such work with technology, if there is any data over the past few years on the scale and severity of various accidents, where the volume is skewed, is there any data? I would like to ask these two questions.

Planning officer Fujii: Mr. Ochiai . Basically, municipal officials will go. As I said earlier, there are not necessarily people who specialize in this kind of thing in municipalities, but in many cases, officials related to fixed asset tax will be appointed. Because we conduct much the same thing as fixed asset tax evaluation for houses, officials who are familiar with such things are often appointed. If that is not enough, we will send support officials from all over the country through Mr. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications's coordination and form a team with such people. As a premise for this, as I mentioned earlier that we have presented guidelines, when a disaster occurs, we will quickly hold training sessions for the affected municipalities through the prefecture. So, we will ask them to understand how to recognize damage and the necessary system.

The second question is about the volume of disasters. It can only be said that there are various types of disasters. There are large and small disasters, and there are cases where only several dozen houses were affected. Even in such cases, if it is necessary to issue a housing damages certificate, it will be done by the municipality, or rather, it will be done by the municipality because it is an autonomous office of the municipality. If we say a large disaster, there are cases where tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of houses, which are equivalent to the Great East Japan Earthquake, are affected. It is rare, but in recent years, flood damage has occurred in many places, and it is a sense of volume that disaster certificates are issued on a scale of several Sengen per local government.

Uenoyama Member: When a relatively large accident occurs, is it like an operation in which you go there or go to a place you didn't think at all?

Planning officer Fujii: Mr. Ochiai , that's how it is. Basically, the key to the determination method I explained earlier is to accumulate the facts of damage and make a determination of several tens of percent, and the method of confirmation of the facts, so-called means of evidence, is not particularly limited. So, there are various ways to confirm the facts, such as going to the site, taking photos, or flying a drones. I would like you to make a determination after confirming the exact facts at such places.

Uenoyama Member: .

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. Next, Mr. Inadani, please.

Inadani Member: My name is Inadani . Nice to meet you. Thank you for your explanation.

I have two questions. The first one is, in fact, I feel that it is somewhat related to Mr. Uenoyama's question. The first question is how often the second survey must be conducted first, and the first survey and the second survey, I feel that the first survey can be conducted by using photographs and the like, but is it that the second survey will be conducted because it is quite different from what was presented there, or is it that the second survey will be conducted only when a request is made in particular, and what kind of specific things are being investigated in the second survey?

In addition, I would like to ask about two points. I think it is a matter of municipalities, and it is a regional local government, so how much of a trend is there for the regional local government to actively use such technologies?

Mr. Tsujino: If we can work well with the business of .

As I explained earlier, the basic operation of the first survey is to conduct a survey based on the appearance, etc., and if there is a re-application based on the results of the survey, the second survey will be conducted. There are some local government where the second survey will be conducted, but in reality, it is left to local government's discretion. We have not actually conducted a survey on the percentage of disaster victims who will go from the first survey to the second survey, but according to what I heard from local government, about 10% to 20% of disaster victims will go to the second survey. I have this feeling.

My second question is about how much local government would like to use such technology if it were to do so. When we held a briefing session on the cloud-based disaster victim support system, which I explained earlier in the reference section, about 40% of all local government people participated in it. When we asked people to participate in it, more voices were raised than expected, and many consultations and questions were raised. So, I think that people in local government are quite interested in digitalization, but they still don't know much about it and cannot step in. I don't have specific numbers, but I think that's the general impression.

Inadani Member: My name is Inadani .

In that case, first of all, I am very relieved to know that you are relatively positive about the technical aspects. But another point is that 10 to 20% of the people who reapply are not satisfied with the appearance approved at the first application and apply again. In that case, what are the main reasons, for example?

Mr. Tsujino: If we can work well with the business of

Inadani Member: My name is Inadani .

In that case, since the damage inside the building is visible to the residents, for example, in the case of dissatisfaction, I feel that it is possible to use images. In other words, if you take photos of the building or if you say it is an important part of the structure, you can send it with a drawing or something, which I think will reduce the number of operations to the site. What do you think about that?

Mr. Tsujino: If we can work well with the business of . However, since there are many matters to be investigated, we have not been able to make a validation on how much we can do, so I wonder if we can answer that we can do it immediately at this stage.

Inadani Member: My name is Inadani I see. I understand.

If that is the case, is it correct to understand that there is a possibility that we will move in the direction of doing so based on the applications and data of the people themselves in a sense, once the technical aspects of those matters are in place to a certain extent?

Mr. Tsujino: If we can work well with the business of That's right.

Inadani Member: My name is Inadani I see. Thank you.

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. .

Next, Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member: .

I would like to make three points. The first point is that technology should be used as a premise, and as a response to the reasonable decision not to allow administrative officials to visit, there are examples of the use of self-assessment methods, for example. I felt that they are working positively on this. I think it was good that you said that there are no particular restrictions on the use of technology. Regarding the self-assessment method mentioned earlier, in certain cases, even in the case of a determination that does not lead to semi-collapse, although it is not possible to completely automate all the determinations, by making it possible to respond only in certain cases, I thought that it would be beneficial for the actual victims to be relieved as soon as possible. I do not think that it is necessary to suddenly make automatic determinations or to substitute all technologies in the digital consultation. In that sense, from the point of partial use, it would be good to make it even clearer that AI and various photos can be used. When considering people in local government and others, it would be beneficial for the central government to provide interpretation and organization, so for example, how about writing down the latest technology and AI in the manual?

My second question is that it is necessary to secure a budget in order to advance such initiatives, and within the Digital Policy Coordination, administrative reform and budgeting are also being advanced in conjunction with regulatory reform. As Technology Map was also discussing earlier, I heard that securing a budget for Technology validation is also being considered, and I would like to ask you to cooperate with the Digital Policy Coordination on such matters. What do you think?

The third point is that you introduced the case of self-judgment earlier. Compared to that, I believe that there is a case where we can make a substitute by cooperating with a private business that can reasonably perform the work. Rather than responding by ourselves, if we ask a third party with a certain level of knowledge or a person with a certain position to respond, I believe that the business operators in the private sector can also be utilized to a certain extent. I believe that the digital principles include that the government and the private sector will cooperate in this regard. I believe that it is necessary to utilize the power of the private sector as much as possible in a society with a declining population, so I would like you to work on it during the intensive reform period. private sector

It is longer, but there are 3 items.

Planning officer Fujii: Mr. Ochiai , thank you very much.

Regarding the first point, if it is possible for us to conduct surveys efficiently using digital or technology, we would like to expand it further, and we would like to consider further specifying such matters in the previous guidelines. As a reference material, we have prepared the "Guide to the Implementation System for Housing Damage Recognition Services Related to Disasters", and we would like to expand it horizontally after investigating advanced initiatives in this.

Regarding the second point, it is true that when we discussed how much it would cost to get to such a point, for example, automatic judgment by AI, we had no idea at all, so I would like to discuss various matters with Mr. Digital Agency and others in the future and consider our recognition of such matters.

My third question is about cooperation with private sector. Actually, I did not explain it earlier, but insurance companies enter the area and conduct their own investigation when they pay for their insurance. I wonder if the results of the investigation can be used for our damage recognition. As I said earlier, we believe that the more the means of confirming the facts, the better. Therefore, in order to promote cooperation with such organizations, we have secured the results of the investigation from insurance companies in our budget for this fiscal year, and we are thinking of conducting the investigation. I hope that the results of such cooperation will lead to the efficiency of business and the use of digital technology nationwide.

That's all.

Ochiai Member: Thank you very much. I understand.

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. Next, Mr. Masushima, please.

Masujima Member: .

When I saw this process, I found that I am doing quite a lot of work for insurance companies. It is just like the damage investigation work of insurance companies themselves. They are doing quite a lot of work using technology. Until now, it has been said that insurance companies are doing it on their own, but if the same thing is done by two companies, it is too wasteful. And insurance companies are competing on how fast they pay in such a case. Insurance companies that pay early here are highly evaluated, and they also get the next insurance. So, especially when damage occurs, insurance companies are competing together to pay early. I think there is great interest in making this process go very smoothly. There are many insurance companies, but I would like to see more use made of the cooperation with insurance companies that you mentioned earlier. On the other hand, insurance companies seem to be troubled by the fact that the payment investigation part is not about anything other than costs, and although they have technology, they cannot get evaluation from everyone unless they make it soon. So, it would be very interesting if you could think of a group that would solve their Issue and meet the needs of each local government. In particular, insurance companies now want to be able to pay for these things automatically, so the needs of digitalization are very high, so I think they seem to be a perfect partner. I would be grateful if you could make this process.

That's all. Thank you.

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. , if you have any comments, please.

Mr. Tsujino: If we can work well with the business of Insurance Company, it is not necessary to conduct the same investigation twice, and I think you are right that we can try to solve the cost in various places, and we would like to proceed as much as possible. We will conduct the investigation for that purpose, but on the other hand, there are differences in the purpose of the insurance company, which is to pay the insurance money as soon as possible, and the purpose of using it as the basis for public support on our side, and there are questions of fairness, such as whether people who have insurance will be investigated for damage recognition as soon as possible, and there are questions of how to solve some problems, so I would like to proceed as positively as possible while considering these issues.

Masujima Member: .

When I saw this process, I found that I am doing a lot of work for insurance companies, and it is exactly like the damage investigation work of an insurance company. They are doing various efforts while using technology, and up until now it has been like an insurance company doing it on its own, but it is too wasteful for something that serves the same purpose to be done separately, and since insurance companies must decide how quickly to pay in such a case, the insurance company that pays early here will be highly evaluated and will be able to get the next insurance. In particular, insurance companies will compete with each other to pay early in the event of damage, which is a sound insurance payment practice, so I feel that there will be great interest in making this part go very smoothly. There are several insurance companies, but I would like to see more progress in the approach of working with insurance companies, as you mentioned earlier. On the other hand, for insurance companies, the payment investigation part seems to be nothing but costs, and although they have technology, it is a part that is struggling because it cannot be evaluated by everyone unless it is done quickly, so it will be very interesting if you think about a group that will solve their Issue and meet the needs of each local government. In particular, insurance companies now want to be able to pay for these things automatically, so the needs of digitalization are very high, so I think they can be completely considered as a partner, so I feel grateful if you could be in such a flow.

That's all. Thank you.

Kuroki, Special Guidance Officer for Self-reliance Support: Let me explain. First of all, regarding the law in question, as it is a law to comprehensively support the daily lives of persons with disabilities, here in Article 10 (Reports, etc.), "Municipalities, etc. may, when they deem it necessary to provide Services and Supports for Persons with Disabilities," although it is long, "order a person who employs or was a person who employs or was a person to make a report or submit or present documents or other items, or may have a relevant official question the person concerned or enter a business office or facility that performs the business of the Services and Supports for Persons with Disabilities, and inspect the equipment, books and documents, and other items." This is the provision of the on-the-spot guidance, and as I wrote at the bottom, "It is a provision that enables municipalities, etc. that provide Services and Supports for Persons with Disabilities to collect reports or conduct on-the-spot inspections, etc. as necessary for persons who provide Services and Supports for Persons with Disabilities, persons who employ or were a person who provides Services and Supports for Persons with Disabilities, in order to provide Services and Supports for Persons with Disabilities appropriately."

Based on this provision, on January 23, 2014, we issued a notice on the guidance and audit of our disability welfare service providers, etc. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 10, Paragraph 1, which I mentioned earlier, which is the basis for this provision, "the purpose is to ensure the quality of services, etc. and appropriate benefits by specifying basic matters regarding questions, etc. to be asked by municipalities or prefectural governors to designated disability welfare service providers, etc." Therefore, there is also a guidance guideline, and as a method of on-the-spot guidance, etc., as a "confirmation items, etc. for on-the-spot guidance," it is stated that "on-the-spot guidance will be provided by inspecting relevant documents and interviewing relevant persons based on the Attachment' Main Points and Points of Interest, etc.'. In addition, in principle, items other than the underlined items in the Attachment' Main Points and Points of Interest, etc.' will not be confirmed unless there are special circumstances, and will be confirmed in the' Standard Confirmation Document.'"

Next, as for the current situation, the purpose of the on-the-job guidance that is periodically provided to business offices of disability welfare service providers, etc. is to ensure the quality of services, etc. subject to Self-reliance Support Benefits and to optimize Self-reliance Support Benefits by confirming the status of observance of the designated standards and appropriate compensation claims in response to the submission of documents, etc. and questions, etc. related to Self-reliance Support Benefits.

As for the implementation of guidance audits, as mentioned in the previous notice, it was said that the standard confirmation documents, etc. could not be confirmed unless all the processes were carried out on-site. However, some guidance audits that are periodically conducted at long-term care services business operators in the Health and Welfare Bureau for the Elderly and welfare facilities for the elderly can be conducted online.
In response to this, it is necessary to understand the actual situation of local government and disabled welfare service providers that have adopted online in the future by referring to the efforts of the Health and Welfare Bureau for the Elderly. After understanding it, it is necessary to consider how to use online in guidance and audit by referring to the examples of prior efforts.

In addition, if some of the Standard Confirmation Documents, etc. that are confirmed through on-site guidance can be confirmed even if they are not on-site, it is necessary to validation the effectiveness of online confirmation by hearing opinions from relevant parties such as the local government and the business operator.

In conclusion, as a proposed response to advance to Phase 2, we would like to consider whether or not to partially online the standard confirmation documents, etc. to be confirmed through on-site guidance, after understanding the actual situation of online efficiency and hearing the opinions of the people concerned, in order to validation whether it will be one of the options for office operations, such as shortening the visit time and reducing the number of visitors.

That's all.

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. .

Then, members, if you have any comments or questions, please let us know.

Dr. Annen, please.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe Thank you for your explanation.

There is one thing I would like to ask you about just to confirm the facts. It is "3. Current Status" on page 4. In the second part here, it is stated that some guidance and auditing at long-term care services business operators at the Health and Welfare Bureau for the Elderly and welfare facilities for the elderly can be conducted online. What exactly are you doing online?

Kuroki, Special Guidance Officer for Self-reliance Support: As stated in the next "Again," the Health and Welfare Bureau for the Elderly's notice says that if the content can be confirmed even if it is not in the actual location, it can be online. Therefore, we are only talking about the notice, so we do not know what local government is actually doing in detail. Therefore, we would like to show some detail after conducting an investigation.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe , I imagine it is a document after all. It is a digitalization of a document.

Kuroki, Special Guidance Officer for Self-reliance Support:

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe .

This is what I imagine, but if digitalization is to be expanded in the future, for example, will there be confirmation of the physical condition of facilities and equipment, or hearings from residents, or will there be such things being done in local government? I do not need to ask you to answer at this point, but I would like to ask you to investigate if possible.
That's all.

Kuroki, Special Guidance Officer for Self-reliance Support: Thank you for your valuable opinion. I would like to use it as a reference.

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. , I believe Mr. Health and Welfare Bureau for the Elderly of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare is also present today, but I would like to ask you for any additional comments on Dr. Annen's question about going online.

Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare: Thank you very much. My name is Miura from the Long-Term Care Insurance Guidance Office of the Health and Welfare Bureau for the Elderly. Nice to meet you.

With regard to the content of the long-term care insurance of the Health and Welfare Bureau for the Elderly, we are considering providing guidance in three parts of the entire process of the audit. One is guidance on the implementation status of long-term care services, guidance on the management system such as minimum standards, and guidance on the administration of compensation claims. For example, as you mentioned, it may be difficult to make a digitalization for the standard status of facilities, interviews with residents and users, and guidance on the implementation status of long-term care services. For other parts, if it is possible to make some parts online, it is okay to make them online. However, in order to prevent problems with the security, for example, problems with equipment for making it online from being an excessive burden on long-term care insurance facilities, etc., it is an initiative to allow making it online after mutual consultation between the government and the nursing care insurance facilities.

That's all from the Health and Welfare Bureau for the Elderly.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe Annen.

I thought I could see where Issue was. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. Do you have any other opinions or questions?

Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member: Thank you for your explanation. In addition, we have been discussing in the direction of advancing the phase in the future. Thank you.

At that time, although it overlaps with the part that Dr. Annen mentioned, I would like you to look at the possibility of using digital technology in as wide a range as possible. In that process, the guidance on the implementation status that you just explained may be able to find a scene in abuse that you do not want to show, so in a sense, I think it is necessary to visit the site appropriately without completing it online. On the other hand, I think it is possible to consider using online to increase the number of times of actual guidance if there are cases in which a considerable variety of matters are transition online, or if there are cases in which a sufficient number of people cannot be secured and cannot patrol sufficiently due to, for example, local government. Of course, I think there are certainly areas where field surveys are necessary, but on the other hand, I would like you to consider using digitalization in as wide a range as possible.

Kuroki, Special Guidance Officer for Self-reliance Support: Thank you very much. We would like to take your comments into consideration.

Ochiai Member: .

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. Do you have any other opinions or questions?

If you don't mind, I would like to close the Q & A session here. If you have any additional comments or questions, please send them to the secretariat.

In addition, based on the opinions received from the members, we may ask the members of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare to consider additional measures, so we would like to request your continued cooperation.

Now, I would like to conclude the second part. Thank you, everyone from Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

Now, the third point of the hearing is about "Periodic Measurement and Inspection of Building Air Environment."

Then, Director Takamiya of the Environmental Health Division of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Pharmaceutical and Environmental Health Bureau would like to ask for an explanation. Thank you.

Manager Takamiya: . Nice to meet you.

I would like to explain about "Periodic Measurement and Inspection of the Air Environment of Buildings." Please turn up one sheet of the material, and the second sheet will be the first. Regarding the applicable law, the Act on Securing a Sanitary Environment in Buildings, the content will be explained in the summary material at the back, so the explanation of the excerpt of the article will be omitted. The second and third sheets are excerpts of the relevant parts on laws, government ordinances, and ministerial ordinances.

The fourth page is the purpose and background of the regulation for the periodic measurements and inspections of air environments in buildings. Regarding the "historical background and history," it is said that the weight of indoor environments in buildings in the living environments of the people is increasing amid the increase in the size and height of buildings. Consideration for maintaining the health and ensuring environmental sanitation of people who use buildings is weak, and health accidents such as air conditioning disease caused by insufficient temperature adjustment and an increase in floating dust caused by insufficient cleaning have occurred, and it was necessary to respond to them socially. In 1966, the Environmental Pollution Council issued a report that management standards for air conditioning, etc. should be formulated. Based on this report, the Act on Securing Sanitary Environments in Buildings has been passed in the nineteen seventy.

The "purpose of regulation" is enclosed in the lower square. (1) Regarding the air environment, if sufficient ventilation is not provided, pollution due to dust, formaldehyde, etc., adverse health effects due to carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, and the spread of infectious diseases that cause airborne infection and aerosol infection are feared. (2) If appropriate temperature and humidity are not secured, excessive stress will be placed on users and adverse health effects will be feared. (3) If the maintenance and management of cooling towers, humidifiers, air conditioning systems, etc. are not performed appropriately, microorganisms such as Legionella bacteria will proliferate and health hazards will occur. At the bottom, ○ indicates that in order to prevent the occurrence of such health hazards, the Building Sanitation Act states that in order to maintain and manage the sanitation of indoor environments, air conditioning systems, etc., the status must be confirmed by periodic measurements and periodic inspections, etc., and measures such as cleaning must be taken based on the results.

The fifth sheet is a material that summarizes the structure of the Building Sanitation Act. First, the law specifies the use, utilization, and maintenance of specified buildings and buildings with a total floor area of 3,000 square meters or more, which require concerning hygiene management and special consideration. The person who is authorized to maintain and manage the specified buildings is required to maintain and manage them in accordance with the Building Environmental Sanitation Management Standards. The Building Environmental Sanitation Management Standards are specified in detail by a government ordinance, and the details, inspection items, and measurement frequency are specified by a ministerial ordinance.

The sixth sheet, Periodic Measurement and Periodic Inspection, is the standard for adjusting the air environment. After setting management standards and levels for suspended dust, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and so on on the left, the frequency of measurement in the middle, which is to be measured once within two months, is specified by Ministerial Ordinance. In addition, as for measuring equipment, as written on the right side, this is also specified by Ministerial Ordinance.

The seventh sheet is the standard for air conditioning. In this case, the inspection of the second row on the left, the cooling tower, cooling water, and humidifier, as well as the inspection of the drainage basin below them, is to be conducted once every month or less. This is also regulated by the Ministerial Ordinance.

The eighth and final page is about the current phase and how to proceed with the phase in Issue. The current phase falls under Phase 1 because the Ministerial Ordinance stipulates that measurements and inspections be conducted once a month. We are considering collecting scientific evidence, coordinating with related organizations and institutions, and moving from Phase 1 to the desired phase. In that case, I believe that Issue is concerned about whether or not it is possible to prevent a decline in sanitary standards and health hazards. In addition, I believe that Issue is concerned about whether or not it is possible to manage the accuracy and ensure the authenticity of measured values when measured using automatic measurement technology, rather than periodic measurements such as once a month. I also believe that the supply system of the measuring equipment of the automatic measurement technology and whether or not the cost is appropriate are the points to be checked.

We have been conducting research since fiscal 2022. From fiscal 2022 to fiscal 2005, we are conducting research on validation of building health management methods using IoT. We are inviting experts in building environments, experts in building engineering, experts in industrial health, manufacturers of air conditioning equipment, and manufacturers of measuring instruments. The contents are written in the lower left square. We will conduct a survey of automatic measurement technologies, literature survey or information collection, hearings and questionnaires to experts and companies, and questionnaires and hearings on development trends and introduction examples of automatic measurement technologies. We also intend to conduct a survey of management engineers of specific buildings on their perceptions and needs regarding automatic measurement technologies. Then, in the middle square, we would like to conduct a validation of comparison between automatic measurement and measurement by existing methods in various buildings. We would like to compare the data accuracy, measurement position, and representativity of continuous measurement of automatic measurement technologies. In addition, in the lower square, we would like to study the advantages and disadvantages of measurement by existing methods and automatic measurement, as well as the accuracy of sensors, calibration frequency, degradation status, measurement position, measurement interval, data processing and analysis method, which are necessary for automatic measurement to ensure accuracy equal to or higher than that of measurement by existing methods.

Based on the results of the research, we would like to discuss it at a review meeting with related organizations and institutions and aim to achieve the regulation Objectives by using digital technology. In this field, there are several related organizations related to sanitation of buildings and organizations of business operators who actually perform building maintenance. In addition, we would like to discuss it with related parties such as prefectural governments and ordinance-designated cities, as well as building associations, owners, and organizations that conduct tests and education on environmental sanitation of buildings and local government.

That's all for my explanation.

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. .

So, members, if you have any comments or questions, please let me know.

Dr. Masujima, please.

Masujima Member: Thank you very much for your explanation.

When we went to private business, I thought that people who are engaged in the so-called building-men business are doing the necessary checks based on this law. I am aware that various companies who are doing BEMS and other things are coming here in the field of building maintenance this time, but as a way of entering the rules of digitalization in regulation, I think METI is basically doing plant maintenance, and I felt that it was relatively close to that. For people who are doing it properly, they can automate it and install sensors, rather than doing it once every few months, or they can be exempt from on-site inspections. There was also the idea of incorporating a mechanism that would give incentives to automation by incorporating technology in a relatively similar way, so that a desirable regulation system or a mechanism that would reduce the work of public officials could be introduced. In addition, by collecting data, we can use the data to create a much better state than before. In the case of plants, it was related to insurance, and it seems that METI was taking a stance to bring it to such a phase, so I felt that it would be good to have it like that as a whole. I think you are still considering what kind of things to do in the demonstration, but if there is anything that can be used as a reference, I would like you to use it as a reference. Thank you very much.

Manager Takamiya: As you just pointed out, I would like to proceed with research and examination while referring to METI's plant inspections and other ways of doing things. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. Next, Mr. Iwamura, please.

Iwamura Member: We have been making requests on this issue since fiscal 2019. To be specific, we have been using IoT for measuring equipment, remote inspections, and efficiency simulations using digital twins. We have heard that there are multiple services for numerical measurement and inspection, including startups, and that they have actually started to be used. I think it would be fine if we could do continuous monitoring rather than periodic inspections. As you explained, this is a project that we would like you to do.

In that context, there are plans for 2022, 5, and 6 years, but could you please tell us if it is possible to shorten this by a little?

Manager Takamiya: .

We have received requests so far, and you pointed out that there are startups and so on. In this research project, we would like to hear from experts and companies about development trends and examples of introduction of current automatic measurement technology. If there are such companies and startups, please let us know through the Secretariat.

In the fiscal year under review, the research project has just started. If it is possible to conduct studies with related organizations and organizations in parallel while advancing the research project, I would like to consider conducting studies in parallel. First of all, since the research project has really just been launched, it is difficult to say that it can be moved up a little at this stage, so I would like to consider it in the future.

Iwamura Member: I see. Thank you very much. I will cooperate with you wherever I can. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. Next, Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member: .

I also have one. I believe that you are making positive efforts to promote research in the future. I heard that it is not always the case that the same purpose cannot be achieved unless the same measurement method is used. I think that there are cases in other fields where it is discussed to ensure a certain level of safety by measuring different things. However, I think that there are proposals from business operators about what kind of technology is actually available. If there are proposals, I would like you to consider the perspective of connecting to such a possibility in the form of being able to substitute necessary information without necessarily being bound by the measurement items that were originally set. What do you think?

Manager Takamiya: , I would like to investigate what kinds of technologies there are, and if such technologies or such items as you mentioned appear in the course of research projects or discussions with related parties, I would like to incorporate such items in the review.

Ochiai Member: Thank you very much. I look forward to working with you.

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. Next, Mr. Inadani, please.

Inadani Member: My name is Inadani . Thank you very much.

I thought that this was somewhat related to me, but in terms of the adjustment of the air environment, some of the criteria include a very qualitative concept, such as "if the temperature of the living room is lower than the temperature of the outside air, the difference should not be significant." The first point is that I thought that if Dr. Ochiai said that the goal is to be able to grasp what should be used as an index from the perspective of health promotion and health maintenance as a relatively objective index, it would be better.

Another point is that I did not have much of an image of this, so I would like you to tell me about it. Regarding the standards for air conditioning systems, if digitalization is performed while maintaining this regulation, is this an image of examining the degree of contamination of the equipment? When it comes to suppressing bacterial growth itself, monitoring using IoT and the like is one thing, but I also feel that making the equipment itself less prone to such things is a possible response. If this is a story of using digitalization or IT in the future or high-performance equipment for health promotion, I would like you to tell me briefly what you have in mind at this stage.

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. , Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, if it is difficult to answer immediately, we may ask you to do so again.

Manager Takamiya: What we are considering now is to investigate and research whether it is possible to measure the status of dirt, mold, and bacteria in a digital form. I think what was pointed out was whether it was impossible to think of equipment that would not be contaminated in the first place, or whether there is no equipment now. I think that will be considered from a different perspective from digital.

Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare: Regarding what you pointed out, I recognized that it is inconceivable to make the equipment so that bacteria do not grow in the first place. However, since it is a part that comes into contact with the air in the air, bacteria inevitably grow in the cooling water. In that case, it will be a matter of whether to make the material antibacterial, but I think it is impossible to say at this stage whether such a thing can be made.

Inadani Member: My name is Inadani .

If we were to leave regulation to keep it clean, I just felt that it would be good to use something like antibacterial, as you just pointed out, and make it clear the standard by combining it with digital technology. I'm sorry.

Secretariat (Watanabe): Mr. .

If you have no other comments or questions, we would like to close the Q & A session here. If you have any additional comments or questions, we would like to ask you to send them to the secretariat.

In addition, based on the opinions received from the members today, we may ask for additional consideration, so we ask for the continued cooperation of the people of Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

Now, I would like to conclude the third part. Thank you very much, everyone from Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. Now, I would like to return the proceedings to Dr. Annen.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe , thank you very much.

Mr. Masushima was talking about large companies a while ago. Startups are very good, but I actually totally agree with that. After all, Japan is a society of large companies. I don't think it's a good thing, but large companies are by far the largest concentration of human resources. Therefore, there are many people who have start-up ambitions but are half smoldering with depressed ambitions. I think it would be happier for all people to give such people a place to play an active role or a place to develop their ambitions. However, such people do not come even if we publicly recruit them and ask them if they are smoldering, so we have no choice but to do a head-to-head job. If we ask them if there are any interesting people, I think there will be enough interesting people. As I listened to Mr. Masushima's story a while ago, I fully felt that.

Finally, Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Kobayashi would like to ask you a few questions.

Chairman: Thank you very much to all the members of the Committee and the Secretariat.

I think the Technology Map that you discussed is very important, and I would like to have a lot of your knowledge, and I would like to finish it up so that it can be well abstracted and generalized. You said that this is a burning place, but I would like you to continue to burn firmly and inject your knowledge.

There was a discussion on what to do with administrative reform, but it is very important. I believe that the reason why I originally started this was that the summary of the stagnant growth of this country over the past 20 years has been due to the neglect of these three: institutional theory, resource theory, and especially governance theory of this country and local governments. Various correct arguments can be made, but I believe that the debate on who and how to do it has always been unclogged, and the floating debate has gone somewhere. In that sense, I believe that the Digital Policy Coordination has already won when the resources are prepared here and the staff are gathered, and I believe that such a debate has actually been held until now. In that sense, regulatory reform is also important, but I would like to continue discussions so that we will never forget in the discussions of the Policy Coordination how to make Kasumigaseki, which is moving this country with administrative reform, better. For that purpose, as was mentioned in today's discussion, I believe that it is possible to transform the work of public office as much as possible by utilizing technology, so I would like to advance discussions while connecting regulatory reform to administrative reform on our side.

In any case, we took a break because the report was compiled before the summer, but I believe that we will finally take concrete steps to improve the Technology Map, and that next year the law will be revised, starting with the possible revisions of Cabinet Orders and Ministerial Ordinances. In that sense, as Mr. Masushima has said, I believe it is extremely important for many people to play this role, to do marketing well, and to have many people participate. As Mr. Annemi has said, I believe it is ideal for people to think that there is a chance in that situation, and for a research project by a large company or an initiative by an individual to be spun out and launched into a new business.

So, I would like to share with you that this is the real thing, and I would like to close my remarks. Thank you for your continued support.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe .

Then, I would like to ask the Secretariat to explain about the next Working Group meeting.

Secretariat (Matsuda): The next meeting of the Working Group will be held on Tuesday, August 30 at 10:00. Thank you very much.

As for today's proceedings, I believe that there is nothing that is not suitable for disclosure, so I would like to prepare the minutes later and disclose them after everyone has confirmed them.

In addition, if you do not have any particular objection to today's materials, we would like to disclose all of them on the Digital Rincho website.

Thank you for joining us today.

Vice-Chairman: Mr. Watanabe .

The next 13th meeting will be held on August 30, so we are confident that we will be able to hold the next meeting under Chairman Kobayashi, so this is the end of the meeting. Thank you all for your hard work.