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 System Reform Study Meeting (2nd)

Overview

  • Date: December 5, 2023 (Tue) from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      1. The Future of review of digital legislation and the Status of Efforts by the Legal Affairs digitalization
      2. Regulations on paper and in-person processes Review Process Chart for Seven Items Follow-up Status
      3. Revision of the regulations on paper and in-person processes Inspection and Review Manual in local governments
      4. Status of Efforts towards digital completion of Administrative Procedures
      5. Action Plan for Development and Cooperation of Public and Private Sector Data in the AI Era
    3. Adjournment

Materials

Minutes

Secretariat (Dai): Now that it is time, we will begin the 2nd Digital System Reform Review Meeting.
This time, members are invited to participate online.

In addition, regarding the attendance status today, I heard that the members of Ochiai and Masushima left the office in the middle of the day.
I would now like to invite you to discuss today's agenda.
We would like to ask the chairman to proceed with the subsequent proceedings.
Thank you, Dr. Annen.

Chairman: Let's get down to business. Today's agenda is five fold:

First, the future of review of digital legislation and the status of efforts by the Legal Affairs digitalization.
Second, the follow-up status of the regulations on paper and in-person processes Review Process Chart for the seven items.
Third, revision of the regulations on paper and in-person processes inspection and review manual in local governments.
Fourth, the status of efforts toward the digital completion of administrative procedures.
Fifth, an action plan for the development and cooperation of public-private data in age of AI.

These are the 5 items.

First of all, I would like to ask Mr. Nakano, Director of the Secretariat, to explain the "future of review of digital legislation and the status of efforts by the Legal Affairs digitalization."

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much . I would like to explain the future of review of digital legislation and the status of efforts by Legal Affairs digitalization.

With regard to the background of the consideration of digitalization, etc. for legal affairs, we have been receiving discussions since before Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee was progressively reorganized, and the Digital Legal Working Group was held on October 27 and November 29 under the Digital System Reform Review Committee.

In regard to the matters to be explained today, I would like to explain the future of review of digital legislation and the status of digitalization's efforts in legal affairs.

First, I would like to talk about the future of review of digital legislation. This is the so-called Digital Legislation Bureau process, and the history of review of digital legislation up to now. Since August 2022, each National Diet session has been inspecting the existence of regulations on paper and in-person processes for the bills scheduled to be submitted. After that, a total of three inspections have been conducted, including the bills scheduled to be submitted to the ordinary Diet session this year and the bills scheduled to be submitted to the extraordinary Diet session this year, which are currently being compiled.

In addition, in June this year, the Basic Act on the Formation of digital society was amended, and in the revision of Priority plan, which was approved by the Cabinet, review of digital legislation was positioned as a national policy, and this effort is being made continuously and autonomously.

On page 5, I would like to ask about the plan for review of digital legislation in the future. Until now, the guidelines for review of digital legislation have been revised for each Diet session in which a bill is submitted, but as I explained, this process seems to have taken root considerably, so we will revise the guidelines as necessary in the future. We would like to continue to confirm the provisions that designate regulations on paper and in-person processes, floppy disk, and other media, which are representative of the seven items, and the provisions that specify administrative procedures for which information systems are expected to be developed.

In addition, on page 6, the ministries and agencies responsible for the bill, as well as Digital Agency, are working to confirm provision, which may be related to regulations on paper and in-person processes. In order to check regulations on paper and in-person processes, each ministry and Digital Agency may use the efficiency Tool alpha version created in Digital Agency. At present, in review of digital legislation, employees of each ministry and Digital Agency are writing "inspection," "auditing," and "entry," which are listed in the guidelines, here as a partial example, but we are searching for multiple keywords in the files of each bill to be submitted and each draft article, searching for each keyword one by one, checking them in visual inspection, and checking whether there are provisions related to regulations on paper and in-person processes.

With the α version of the regulations on paper and in-person processes Inspection Tool, we will search a plurality of search words in a lump, for example, this is one example, and a list of 109 locations for inspection and 27 locations for investigation will be displayed, and the draft articles will be highlighted in yellow to make it easier to inspect whether there are any locations that may fall under the category of regulations on paper and in-person processes. This is what the people of private sector specialists in Digital Agency and administrative personnel are working together to create, and we would like to expand this. It is quite basic, but we would like to improve the tool as necessary in the future.

Next, I would like to explain the status of efforts of the Legal Affairs digitalization. On page 8, Daiichi Hoki Co., Ltd. and FRAIM Co., Ltd. are currently engaged in investigation and demonstration projects as projects of the Digital Agency. They are mainly engaged in these six items. This is a project until the end of the fiscal year, so I will introduce it today as an interim report, but I would like to briefly introduce it.

First, on page 9, I would like to give an overview of the business analysis of legal affairs. It has been pointed out that, despite the various developments in digital tools, legal affairs may be carried out by enormous manual labor, human resource management, and work premised on paper. We are working to understand and analyze the actual situation of the burden, such as inefficient methods on the ground. Specifically, we are conducting hearings, and as I am writing a list here, it is said that a total of five laws, such as bundled laws and tax laws, have their own characteristics, so we are conducting hearings on these laws and compiling what kind of Issue they are at the present time.

One more thing, on page 10, we would like to prototype the system in an agile manner. We are prototyping the editor and repeating the user development. So, once in September, we will create a revised text to be used in actual legislative affairs. We are implementing the user testing using such an editor prototype. We would like to utilize this for future testing with the participation of officials from each ministry and agency who have experience in legislative affairs. We are implementing the user development using such an editor prototype.

One more thing, on page 11, it is about the public API for law and other data. In the e-Gov law Search, we disclose base registry law data that can be accessed by the people of Japan, and we are expanding the functions of the public API. I would like to explain this later at the Hackathon.

The other one, on page 13, is about the public UI of law and other data. The law data is not just a row of character strings, but how to make it easier to see in the viewer is what we will consider about the public UI.

The other is an overview of the validation of architecture and data structures on page 14. There is a mechanism called Git that is widely used for version management in the development of software. For example, we are conducting a validation on whether it can be used for version management for provisions that have not been implemented in the law.

Lastly, on page 15, regarding the survey and research on the current status and future of digital legislation, we are working to refine the roadmap. This is based on the situation in foreign countries, and we are thinking that we could eventually aim for a digital twin world where we can simulate how the world will change if law is revised.

Finally, I would like to introduce the law API Hackathon, which is being held here. On page 17, it was held from November 10 to 17, and 56 people from 14 teams participated. On the 17th, representatives from each team gathered, made presentations, and held an awards ceremony. There are three awards in total, and Mr. Masushima, who is also present today, was appointed as a judge for the Business and Legal Awards.

I would like to briefly introduce each of the three awards.

On page 18, the first is the law Dissemination and Research Promotion Award. This is on the lower right. When you ask a question such as a situation in which you are likely to divorce your wife, a concern about child support for your two children, or if you could give me advice, generative AI is used to determine the law to be searched and keywords based on the user's question and generate an answer. The proposal using this law API prototype was commended as the law Dissemination and Research Promotion Award.

On page 19, the second is the Business and Legal Award, which was highly evaluated by Mr. Masushima. We often browse the reference text of law, but for practitioners, we have added a pop-up display function for the reference text to the e-Gov law search screen, which pops up when you hover the cursor like this. In order to make use of the existing UI and search function, we have not built an independent site, but development it as a browser extension.

On page 20, the last award is the Technology Utilization Award. This is to automate the examination of whether the design of a building conforms to the Building Standards Act from the stage of the text of the law. An examination program is generated from the text of the generative AI using the law, and is used for automatic examination. The AI that generates the examination program from the text of the law is fine-tuned to improve the performance against building-related laws and regulations. It was created by combining a BIM model that represents the 3D structure of a building, materials, and the UI for the visualization.

On page 21, I would like to talk about the results of the law API Hackathon and the future. In the future, we would like to understand the needs for expanding the law API functions. Although we did not understand this, we were able to understand the needs for acquiring law data in plain text, not in XML or JSON, in the development we actually received at the Hackathon. We would like to realize a highly convenient environment for utilizing law data by reflecting it in future surveys and the law API prototype development in demonstration projects, and connecting it to the law API function expansion implementation in the future.

Second and third, we would like to continue to foster support for law and Technology private service using development Databank through open discussions.
Although it is simple, I will explain it to you.

Chairman: .
If you have any comments or questions about the current explanation, please let me know.
Then, I would like to take the floor in the order of Mr. Inadani and Mr. Uenoyama.

Inadani Member: I think it was very good to know that very valuable and important efforts are progressing very smoothly.

I am an amateur, but I think the hackathon is very important. I also have a point because I am a jurist, but I feel that people who operate Japanese law are quite used to Pandekten and other readings unique to lawyers. When I look at law again as data with an amateur eye, I can see that it is actually quite difficult to use, and I think that there is a possibility that one important clue will be born when I think about how to promote the creation of laws in digitalization in the future. I would like to advance this initiative from such a perspective.

In addition, I sometimes think that the current generative AI is still not able to accurately use the terminology of the articles of the law. I think that by adding learning well, words such as articles can be used in the future. We need to consider whether or not this is the meaning I mentioned earlier, but if we can consider this point, I think automation will progress further, so I would like you to work on such a point.
That's all. Thank you.

Chairman: .
Then, I would like to hear your statement first, and then I would like to hear the response from the secretariat. Member Uenoyama, please.

Uenoyama Member: I am Uenoyama . To be honest, I was surprised and pleased that very important and complex efforts are advancing so much, and that very advanced efforts are taking place in the case of the hackathon I mentioned earlier. The first part is that if you are doing public relations here, it would be good to do more.

In addition, although I have not caught up with it, I would like to know what you want me to see. If there is any material that can show which part of the so-called law Affairs is being implemented and the positional relationship between the whole and the efforts being made, it would be very helpful if you could give it to me separately. When I started the efforts, I remember that there were quite a few stakeholders and there were various complicated workflows, and I was happy to know which part of the work is progressing and which part will be a challenge in the future.
That's all from me.

Chairman: .
That's true. It would be better if I can see the map or the current location.
Then, please go in the order of Masujima member and Ochiai member.

Mr. Masashima: It is an idea of how to get something done by people who do not have the authority to do so in showed us their efforts, and I thought that the fact that very important efforts, which the government has not done so much before, are advancing very well is Mr. Digital Agency's true ability. I feel that it is very wonderful that the approach is also in a very agile manner, and in any case, implementation is the first to turn it around faster and faster.

I am aware that Mr. Digital Agency will probably be working as a consultant to help with initiatives that various ministries and agencies have ownership of, so I would be very grateful if you could make efforts to spread the ideas to such organizations as Mr. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism, and the Financial Services Agency.

Second, I am very pleased that you have highly evaluated the Hackathon. In a sense, I think that rotating the Hackathon is one of the know-how. This time, I saw that the project was collected and operated very well, so I feel that it would be good if you could use this format in various places.

As for generative AI × law, which I mentioned earlier, I worked on the law API this time, but I think there are many other themes about how to use this data. Maybe, it doesn't have to be a hackathon that goes to development, but it can be a Ideathon. I think there are a lot of things in the digital world that can be realized by receiving reactions from external users in various places. I thought that if you take over this format carefully and use a hackathon, a Ideathon, or something like this as an application of measures in various places, you will achieve very good results.

That's all.

Chairman: screening.

Mr. Masashima: It is an idea of how to get something done by people who do not have the authority to do so in Thank you very much. I had a great time.

Chairman: That was good. It felt really fun.
How about you, Ochiai member?

Ochiai: I believe that it is extremely important to take into account the efforts made in the law API Hackathon is very important. I believe that Dr. Masushima appreciated it based on various needs, but I think it would be very good if we could work on it while thinking about what users can use it for in the end, what will be made easier by it, and whether it can be automated in a way that is good for users or can lead to real-time performance of various operations. If we discuss this within public office or among lawyers, there are inevitably weaknesses in such areas. Among digital principles, cooperation with private sector is also an important principle, and I think it was written under the principle of GtoBtoX. I believe that incorporating the power of private sector is one of the initiatives of Digital Agency, not just connecting with API, so I would like to see such initiatives continue.

Another point is that even within review of digital legislation, I think the biggest goal is to have each ministry and agency voluntarily implement inspections related to digital and improvements in usability as much as possible in the future. We are discussing it at the regulatory reform Promotion Conference and other meetings. If we strike one by one, I think the number we can strike per year will be like this. If we strike, I think we will never be able to handle 1,000 or 10,000. In that sense, as Mr. Masushima said earlier, I would like to see the culture of each ministry and agency, or the fact that we need to actively work on it, understood well. I believe that administrative reform is the biggest goal since the launch of digital broadcasting, so I would like to ask for your continued support.

Chairman: .
If it's not Category Buster, even if the time of promulgation has come, it will never be over. That's right.

Mr. Nakano, I would like to ask for a response from the Secretariat.

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much Thank you very much for your valuable opinions.
Professor Inadani's Hackathon, the opinions of people from private sector who are not familiar with law, will be a great clue, as you say. There are data structures and items that we thought were disclosed. There are also things that we did not explain enough about provision and the attached tables. We are learning a lot from them, and we would like to learn from exchanges with people who are not very specialized in law.

In addition, while we are actually conducting experiments, it is quite difficult to create a text in generative AI, although it is surprisingly possible to create an abstract or a figure, and it is quite difficult to create a text. I would like to consider whether it is possible to create such a text by linking with law Database using API, although it may be a medium - to long-term consideration.

In addition, I received a letter from a member of the Uenoyama Committee. In terms of the overall picture, the Printing Bureau is actually creating the official gazettes that will be issued in law at the end, and some of them are cooperating with it. I would like to send you materials on the overall picture later.

In addition, Mr. Masushima, thank you very much for your examination. We would like to continue to take over the Agile and Hackathon formats. There are other regions in Digital Agency that are holding Hackathons, and the Cabinet Office and each Ministry are working on these initiatives, including digitalization, which is in charge of legal affairs, in Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, the Printing Bureau, and the Legislation Bureau, so we would like to work together to spread these initiatives.

Finally, as you said from the Ochiai members, it is important to use the power of private sector, and we would like to continue to work together, including the people of specialization-based recuruitment in Digital Agency, and it is also important to reform the front. Therefore, we have introduced an automatic examination tool this time, with the intention that each ministry and agency will make efforts autonomously. Although we are requesting each ministry and agency to make efforts autonomously in the guidelines, we would like to create an environment in which each ministry and agency can easily make efforts with a reduced workload by using such a tool. Please continue to provide guidance.

Although it is simple, I would like to make a statement.

Chairman: .

Mr. Masashima: It is an idea of how to get something done by people who do not have the authority to do so in , and I forgot about it a while ago. There are things that Mr. Digital Agency should do, but there are things that Mr. Digital Agency should not do, or there are things that private sector should do. For example, it is very wonderful that API has been released, but if API has been released, it should be a story that private sector can do more and more. I am aware of the problem that it is right for Mr. Digital Agency or the ministries and agencies to allocate resources to improving UI, and we should also consider it. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much Thank you very much. If you don't mind, I would like to explain it to you.

You are absolutely right. First of all, we have already made the law API available to the public, and I am aware that there are many people in law who are development a browser system based on the private sector API.

On the other hand, in the form of the e-Gov law Search, we are making law data available for free as a national base registry as soon as possible. At present, if you search civil or criminal laws on search engines, etc., it will basically lead to the e-Gov law Search. We are working to improve the UI of the e-Gov law Search, which is provided to the people of Japan as a government, with the help of the knowledge and technology of the UI of the people of private sector.

I don't know if you answered the above, but I would like to explain it.

Mr. Masashima: It is an idea of how to get something done by people who do not have the authority to do so in UI, and there was a desperate request to spread accurate data, for example, in the case of an architecture-related theme that appeared at the Hackathon, if this mechanism could somehow be extended to regulation. This kind of thing cannot be done in private sector, but the government is working to get local local government to do their best and provide the necessary tools. This is what Mr. Digital Agency and the government want to do, and private sector is thinking about it. This is my first point.

People in private sector are providing various services that are convenient in the UI, and I think it is up to the private sector side to decide whether to provide it for a fee or to provide it for free and attract customers there and develop another charging model. For example, the government side will be pleased to bridge the gap where people are providing such services using the law API, and connect them to the law side, although it is not like powered by private sector API. On the other hand, I have a sense that it may be different that the government side will be able to improve the functions more and more. Of course, the general idea of providing free and high-quality products to the people, who are the users, is true, but I have a sense that a line must be drawn between what private sector will do and what it will do. I have a feeling that there are parts that must be considered fairly carefully, so I have raised an issue.

Chairman: .

It is certain that it is not a task that can be accomplished by the Government alone, and I have a feeling that the work of the Target Company and others is connected to what Mr. Masashima just said.

Mr. Nakano, this is a very big theme, but if you have any opinions, please let me know.

Secretariat (Nakano): Thank you very much .

I think you are absolutely right. First of all, in terms of resources in Digital Agency, it is difficult for us to provide the things that are being developed by people in private sector or that were mentioned in this Hackathon. At the very least, what has been published and promulgated in official gazettes as law is a revised text, and we believe that it is our responsibility as a country to provide an integrated text. In this regard, we are conducting the e-Gov law Search in order to provide the law database itself to the people of Japan. In this case, for example, there is a problem of how far we can respond to the matter of not being able to see the past, but I believe there is a certain need.

On the other hand, if it is a project proposed by the people of bSJ, rather than a project we are working on to improve base registry, it will be done in the market in the field of legal tech for the people of private sector by utilizing it. One of our purposes is to create a field in which the people of law are working by updating the private sector database accurately and as quickly as possible. Therefore, I myself would like the people of private sector to be the main people in this area, and as you pointed out, I would like to divide the roles.

Chairman: .

Member of Ochiai, please.

Ochiai: I believe that it is extremely important to take into account the efforts made in the Mr. Masushima talked about regulation earlier, and I think that it is probably necessary to that extent in order to reduce it to actual operation. In the sense of the overall roadmap, which was also mentioned by Uenoyama Member before that, first of all, law will be dealt with, and law and government and ministerial ordinances will be developed as necessary, and then, it will be decided in what form they will be developed, but it will be decided how to organize documents such as notices, and I think there will be regulation at another level, so I think it will be very difficult to determine how much can be done.

However, when we discuss the examples of the Fire Defense Law and other matters at the regulatory reform Conference, we say that we do not know the implementation guidelines of regulation or local government, and we do not disclose information about what the standards are. If there are parts that are difficult to structure, it is quite meaningful to visualize them first. I think that the use of generative AI in Digital Agency is being considered, but I don't think that we can expect that the actual extent of the need for structuring will change to some extent.

In that case, even if it is not completely structured, we will make it clearly visible so that we can provide it in some form. Depending on the location, we may have to leave the further processing to the ingenuity of the private sector side, especially in niche areas, so I think it would be good if you could gradually expand it including such things.

Chairman: .

Although I am on the user's side, I had the impression that it would probably not be easy to use in practice unless there were at least notifications at the national level and regulations in regulation and public authorities at the local level, and I understood what the Ochiai members said.

Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Now, let's move on to the next agenda. Agenda 2 and 3. Counselor Dai of the Secretariat will continue with the explanation, and after that, we will have a Q & A session.

This is about the "Follow-up Status of the seven item regulations on paper and in-person processes Review Process Chart" and the "Revision of the regulations on paper and in-person processes Inspection and Review Manual in local governments." Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Dai): . I would like to explain. These two agenda items will be similar to the report on the work of the regulations on paper and in-person processes Review. Due to time constraints, I will explain these two items together.

First, I would like to ask about the follow-up status of the regulations on paper and in-person processes Review Process Chart for the seven items.

This is page 1. We conducted a follow-up as of the end of September. As you are aware, at the end of last year, we finalized a so-called road map. Based on this, we asked each ministries and agencies to work on it, and there were 991 projects that had been completed as of the time immediately before the follow-up, and there were about 614 road maps that had been cut off until September 2023. We conducted an investigation on the implementation status of these projects as they were subject to this follow-up.

Next, it is page 2. As a result, of the 614 cases, 559 cases were reported to have been completed, and for those reported to have not been completed in time, we confirmed and adjusted when they would be completed one by one, and 55 cases were newly set as completion dates. In addition, at the same time, there were about 51 cases reported to have been completed ahead of schedule, although the review was scheduled to be completed later on the schedule.

Now that we know the results, if we combine the reviews that have been completed with the previous ones, the review of 1,601 provision has been completed so far.

Next, page 3. In regard to how the review will be conducted in the future, this is a table of the overall figures. The red frame shows 1,601 items that have been reviewed so far, and the blue frame below on the right side shows the total number of items that need to be reviewed. During 2023, there were a little more than 1,000 items that were subjected to regulation of so-called floppy disks and other media, and basically all of them were brought here. Also, by the end of March next year, and by June next year, which is our target for clearing out regulation, there are around 1,800 items each, and each ministries and agencies is currently working on them, so we will continue to follow up on them.

On the last page of the document, I would like to give an example of the regulation that was reviewed this time. It will take time to explain this, so I will omit it this time. If you look at the entire document, as we expected, by issuing administrative communications and notifications, we were able to clarify the points where it was okay to use digital instead of analog methods, and most of the matters that were dealt with in the review process were based on this.

That's all for the explanation of the first case.

The second matter is the revision of the regulations on paper and in-person processes Inspection and Review Manual in local governments. At the previous Review Meeting, I reported on the results of the local governments Survey on the regulations on paper and in-person processes Review in Issue. As I stated at that time, based on the results of the survey, we are currently working on revising the manual, and it will be published around the end of this year, so I would like to report on the status and content of the manual.

As stated in the upper box on page 1, in November last year, we released the 1.0 edition of the manual as a reference for local local government residents to voluntarily review their regulations on paper and in-person processes. We received opinions that we would like to see specific regulation to be reviewed and to share specific examples of reviews by preceding organizations. Based on these opinions, we conducted the survey that I reported last time, and this time, we wanted to share and expand the survey nationwide, so we included the contents of the survey in the revision.

In addition, we are making revisions and additions to the content to reflect the state of the country's efforts since the manual was released in November last year, such as the formulation of the schedule, the passage and promulgation of the Omnibus Act, and the announcement of the Technology Map Declaration.

There are about 4 points of revision at the bottom.

First, we shared a list of the results of the model local government and examples of reviews. Second, we organized and enriched the search keywords that would be used when conducting the model regulations on paper and in-person processes search, and developed and enriched the criteria for judging whether or not the model city is a model city, the concept of judgment, and the perspective.

Third, regarding the sharing of trial calculations of the effects of technological substitution, the Government of Japan is also conducting trial calculations and making an interim report. Using the same method as that, we are conducting trial calculations of what effects can be expected when the regulations on paper and in-person processes Review is conducted, and we are stating that we will share the details of the calculations.

Fourth, we are revising the content to reflect the status of national efforts and new initiatives.

Through such efforts, we would like to further promote the regulations on paper and in-person processes Review efforts in local governments throughout Japan.

On page 2, I would like to summarize the outline of the 2.0 edition as a whole, and the parts in red are additions and revisions. If you have time, please take a look at this.

That's all for my explanation.

Chairman: .

Mr. Dai, I believe that the people of Model local government are, of course, actively reading and utilizing the report, but even so, it is 15. It is a vague way of saying that there are 1,700, but how many people are reading and utilizing the report, and how should the Government of Japan and Digital Agency approach it?

Secretariat (Dai): To be honest, it is hard to believe that so many people, for example, more than one thousand people, are actually watching it, but I don't think there are that many places where people are interested in watching it. In terms of how to expand it, I would like to think about how to achieve it, not only by simply saying that we have made it, but also by seeing it and using it, and by reviewing regulations on paper and in-person processes according to the situation of each local government. At that time, we need to be aware of our activities, listen carefully to the responses to them, and connect them to actual local government activities.

Chairman: , I understand. Thank you very much.

Please give the floor in the order of Mr. Ochiai and Mr. Inadani.

Ochiai: I believe that it is extremely important to take into account the efforts made in the local government. The regulatory reform Promotion Council has also prepared a written opinion on the review of local rules, and this year, there were several issues related to this, and such discussions have also taken place in relation to drones.

In that sense, I feel that it has not been fully established how we will thoroughly implement this. I believe that it is a summary to the extent that it is not the main purpose of local autonomy to be particular about the system and form to a certain extent, overcoming the fact that there was a wall of local autonomy. I believe that the timing is right for us to create a means to further enhance the effectiveness of the system.

For this reason, if it is an individual theme, for example, when it is reviewed, there may be a reason why it is necessary to respond by, for example, urging it to be revised in accordance with this manual. When individual measures are reviewed, I think that ministries and agencies are also relatively good at making it possible for ministries and agencies to use it, and that local government reviews it vaguely and aimlessly, but I don't think they are good at it, and I don't think they can be reviewed without something.

In the case of individual measures, of course, this is also the case, but once we make sure that people understand why we need to review it, in short, if we do not do local government DX, there is a possibility that we will not be able to continue our business as local government in the future, and I think we will include a story that part of the solution to that is here. Originally, we had discussed cashless payment before due to this issue.

That said, in the end, without some kind of incentive, cashless payments progressed at the same time. Including that, I believe it is important to brush up on the content itself, as it is an initiative that has just begun. I believe it would be good to implement initiatives to encourage local government to make decisions.

At this point, I do not have any particular comment on the content itself, so I made a statement from the perspective of further progress.

Chairman: .
The secretariat will summarize the comments later.
Member Inadani, please.

Inadani Member: I understand that this is a very important initiative, and I understand that you organized it very carefully.

I would make the same comment as Mr. Annen and Mr. Ochiai, but I also feel that there is a problem of whether it can be done in the first place, as well as whether it refers to other advanced initiatives. If it turns out that we are going to copy and paste the initiatives of local government that are working well, I feel that it will be a more important problem whether it can be said that it is in a state that meets the true purpose of local autonomy in the true sense, or whether it is a measure that is pasted because only the authority remains as a formality.

From a broader perspective, when we are talking about a digitalization where no one will be left behind, if only a specific local government does not have the capacity to make progress, there will be inconveniences and disadvantages from the residents' perspective in the first place, and in addition, the area will not be connected to other area in cyberspace, for example, and will not be able to develop its business well, which may be disadvantageous. Regarding what has been said to be the same anywhere to some extent at some timing, from the perspective of ensuring that no one will be left behind, we will consider a method in which the country will do it all at once. In that case, in relation to such efforts, I thought that there are places where progress cannot be made unless we look at local autonomy in the digital age once again as a phase. It may be a rough discussion, but I would like to comment only on that point.

That's all.

Chairman: .
Mr. Masashima, please.

Mr. Masashima: It is an idea of how to get something done by people who do not have the authority to do so in . This is basically a marketing idea. In short, I think it is basically the same thing as what business operators are doing to make people who do not have the duty to buy buy. If so, there are people who adapt early, people who follow, a late majority, and an laggard, and I think it is an idea of carefully overcoming this.

Of course, it is connected to things like Issue Kin, and if you want it, you can do it. If you have money, you can do it, but if you don't, I think you can use such a marketing concept and communicate with the right people at the right time.

However, I don't have the resources to ask Mr. Digital Agency to do anything and everything, and I honestly feel that he has what to do, and there are probably many similar things. I would like Mr. Digital Agency to do something new by changing digital values a little, but there are many things that are difficult to reach in a local local government, so I felt that I wanted to do a development somewhere, such as a development that is a method of applying marketing methods and spreading them in a local local government, and what kind of ministry should do it and what kind of mechanism should be used. I felt that I wanted to do a review somewhere. I may not be Mr. Saegusa, but I feel that the same issues are being raised in many different situations, so I felt that I wanted to take them up at once, and I wanted to think about what should be done like this with my awareness of the problem.

That's all.

Chairman: . Please give us your ideas.

What do you think, Counselor Dai?

Secretariat (Dai): .

What you pointed out is quite reasonable. To be honest, I think it is a very difficult issue for the Government of Japan, especially for Digital Agency, how much authority and resources local government has, and how Okinawa will actually act in the absence of such authority and resources.

However, as long as the Government of Japan has set a goal of promoting it while saying so, something must be done. As one of the efforts, we are sharing know-how in the form of a manual, and introducing good practices of people who are actually working in the same local government. In this way, we are recommending it in a sense, and depending on the situation, we are implementing a method to encourage it.

However, from now on, we may go beyond the framework of the former Digi-in, but we can think of some kind of incentive, such as a budget, and what I recommend is, as Mr. Masushima said at the end, why don't we try the same way as our reform this time, in which we would like to move local government across all ministries and agencies by utilizing marketing methods and the like. In such a case, of course, we will include the idea of trying the same way for each specific administrative operation, but I don't know which government should do it, but I think there is a possibility of development such a method across all ministries and agencies.

In this regard, first of all, as the successor to the Digi-in activities in Digital Agency, we will start by sharing and using what we have cultivated so far as possible, and then we will conversely clarify the limitations, and then we will summarize the voices of the local governments who have actually done it, and connect it to the next step. Therefore, if necessary, I can only think of the idea of steadily involving other departments and other ministries and agencies, and I think it would be fine to proceed in such a way.

Chairman: .

There is no other way than to tackle it with the whole government.

Next, I would like to move on to the fourth item on the agenda. I would also like to hear an explanation from Mr. Dai on the "Status of Efforts towards digital completion of Administrative Procedures."

[The "Status of Efforts toward digital completion of Administrative Procedures" is not disclosed.]

Chairman: .

Now, I would like to move on to the fifth item on the agenda. It is about the "Action Plan for the Development and Cooperation of Public and Private Data in age of AI." Mr. Mukai, Planning Officer of the Secretariat, would like to give an explanation.

[The "Action Plan for the Development and Cooperation of Public and Private Sector Data in the AI Era" is not disclosed.]

Chairman: Then, thank you very much for handling 5 very large items.

Finally, I would like to hear a few words from Director General Tomiyasu.

Director-General Tomiyasu: Thank you very much, Mr. . Although there were some parts that we were not aware of, I believe that you have provided us with various knowledge.

First of all, with regard to Agenda 1, "The Future of review of digital legislation and the Status of Efforts by the digitalization for Legal Affairs," I believe that it has been established to a certain extent through the holding of three sessions of the Diet, including the extraordinary Diet last year, the ordinary Diet, and the extraordinary Diet. I would like to continue to firmly implement this as Digital Agency's work.

In addition, the law API Hackathon, for which Dr. Masushima was also a judge, was a new attempt, and I think it had a good reputation in various ways. As was the case today, I thought it would be a development story in various ways, such as the enhancement of the content and the spread of this method, so I would like to work on it firmly.

In the second agenda item, "Status of Follow-up on the seven point regulations on paper and in-person processes Review Process Chart," I would like to confirm the progress of the process chart for approximately 10,000 regulations on paper and in-person processes sites that was compiled last year. I reported that the status was as of the end of September. There are still many items that will expire at the end of this year, March next year, and June next year. I believe that some will depend on the success or failure of the technical demonstration that you explained at the previous Review Meeting, and some will be difficult to adjust. Therefore, I would like to continue to work steadily on this matter. In addition, I believe that I will receive the support of the members of the Review Meeting. Thank you very much.

In addition, regarding Agenda 3, "Revision of the Manual for Inspection and Review of regulations on paper and in-person processes in local governments," we will revise the manual this time, and I believe that this is exactly how Issue will implement it. We would like to think about this while thinking about it, so I would like to consult with you in various ways. Thank you very much.

The fourth is "Status of Efforts for digital completion of Administrative Procedures." We have come to this point to compile this by the end of the year. As we discussed today, the issue of Issue of tangible objects is currently being sorted out as an inseparable issue. However, we would like to recognize whether digitalization will resolve this issue or whether it will be resolved through legal considerations as Issue in the future.

Regarding the final "Action Plan for the Development and Cooperation of Public and Private Sector Data in the AI Era," we will compile it in the future, so I consulted with you today about the direction. Based on the discussions I received today, I would like to further scrutinize the action plan and compile it, so I would like to ask for your advice.

Thank you very much for your time today.

Chairman: , thank you very much.
Then, we would like to have a business-like announcement from the office.

Secretariat (Dai): Finally, I would like to explain the schedule of the next review meeting and how to handle the minutes.
The secretariat will contact you later about the schedule of the next review meeting.

In addition, if there are no objections to today's agenda 4 "Status of Efforts for digital completion of Administrative Procedures" and agenda 5 "Action Plan for Development and Cooperation of Public and Private Data in age of AI," we will keep the proceedings closed to the public, but for other agenda items, we will prepare minutes later and make them public after everyone checks them.

The materials, except those related to Agenda 4 and Agenda 5, will also be disclosed on the website of the Digital System Reform Review Committee.

That's all for the explanation. Thank you for joining us today.

Chairman: With this, we conclude the 2nd Digital System Reform Review Meeting. Thank you very much.

End