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 ".

2024 (2024) Third Expert Meeting on Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review [Disclosure Process]

Overview

Materials

Related Materials

Conference Video

Minutes

Mr. Mori: Thank you very much for your active discussions, Mr. Now, we would like to hold the 2024 "Digital Agency Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review (Disclosure Process)."

Today's proceedings will be led by Mr. Mori, Counselor of Digital Agency. Nice to meet you.

Please note that we are using a web conference system today.

First of all, at the opening of the meeting, Mr. Tomiyasu, Director-General of the Digital Agency Strategic organization Group, will give an address. Mr. Director-General, I would like to ask for your cooperation.

Director-General Tomiyasu: Mr. Satoh organization. Thank you very much for taking the time to attend today.

In today's disclosure process, we will discuss two projects, gBizID, which is a common corporate certification infrastructure, and the base registry project.

GBizID allows corporate representatives, employees, and sole proprietorships to log in to multiple administrative procedure systems using a single ID and password by centrally authenticating those subject to electronic administrative procedures. The base registry project is to develop a database of data, such as addresses, locations, and corporate names, that can be referred to in multiple procedures across systems. Both projects aim to improve convenience for citizens and efficiency administrative operations.

In order to improve the quality of this project, I would like to ask for guidance and suggestions from various perspectives on policy objectives, target setting, and approach methods. Thank you very much for your cooperation today.

Mr. Mori: Thank you very much for your active discussions, Mr. .

I would now like to introduce the external experts who are attending today. A total of seven external experts, four appointed by Digital Agency and three appointed by the Secretariat of the Headquarters for the Promotion of Administrative Reform of the Cabinet Secretariat, are attending today's disclosure process.

First, I would like to ask Professor Ichiro Sato of the Department of Information and Social Research of the National Institute of Informatics, who is a member of the Advisory Council for Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review, to chair the meeting. I would like to ask Member Sato to proceed with the discussion as chairman and to summarize your opinions at the end.

Next, the following external experts will participate in the web conference system. I will introduce them in order of the Japanese syllabary.

First, Professor Naoko Iwasaki of the local government Institute of E-Government at Waseda University.

Next, Professor Toshiyuki Uemura from Kansei Gakuin Daigaku. Keizai Gakubu.

Next is Professor Ryo Kambayashi of the Faculty of Economics at Musashi University.

Next, Professor of the Graduate School of Information Science at Hyogo Prefectural University, Committee Member Munehiko Sasajima.

Next, Mr. Mana Nakazora, Vice Chairman of the Global Headquarters of BNP Paribas Securities (Japan) Ltd.

Next, Mr. Yoshikazu Horikawa, Auditor of the Economic Research Institute, General Incorporated Foundation

Today, I would like to thank all of the seven members of the Committee.

In addition, I have heard that Committee Member Sasashima will leave the room at around 10:30 due to some reasons.

Next, I would like to explain today's progress. In today's disclosure process, we are taking up the two projects of the Common Certification Infrastructure for Corporations, so-called gBizID and the Base Registry Project. First of all, the person in charge of the project in gBizID will explain the project. After that, I would like to hear frank opinions and questions about the project from the members. After that, we will make an announcement approximately eight minutes before the end of the discussion, so please give your final comments. After that, on behalf of the members, I would like to ask Chairman Sato to summarize the comments, and confirm them after the approval of the members. Next, we will follow the same flow for the Base Registry Project.

With regard to the proceedings, in order to prevent noise and howling, please set the microphone to off. When you speak, please raise your hand or press the hand raise button on the system, and the chairman will designate you. Please turn on the microphone when you speak, and turn it off again when you finish speaking.

Now, we will start the discussion by external experts, so I would like to ask Chairman Sato to proceed. Chairman Sato, please.

Chairman Satoh: . Nice to meet you.

First of all, as this is a public process, people other than the members who have discussed so far are participating, so I would like to explain just the outline. In Digital Agency, policy evaluation and administrative project review are integrated. Therefore, although the two are different systems in the first place, they are similar, so they are combined into one. Therefore, policy evaluation and administrative project review are somewhat mixed, but I would like you to understand them.

In addition, as I will explain later, before the disclosure process today, we received opinions from each committee member on the project in private twice. At that time, there were projects other than the two projects this time, but we had discussions with all of you, and selected gBizID and Base Registry for the two projects this time.

Now, I would like to start the first discussion on the Common Certification Infrastructure for Corporations (gBizID).

First of all, I think some of you will hear the disclosure process for the first time today, so I would like to ask the person in charge of the business to explain the business. Thank you.

Mr. Yoshida: Thank you very much for your visit to .

First of all, I would like to explain the outline of the project using slides. Regarding the outline of the gBizID Corporate Common Authentication Platform that you introduced, I understand that there is a considerable increase in the number of administrative procedures for each business operator that can be performed online. In such a situation, managing IDs and passwords for each procedure is burdensome for business operators who perform the procedures and costly for public authorities who manage them. In this regard, in a sense, by building one login system called gBizID, it is possible for business operators to log in to various procedures with one ID and password, and public authorities does not need to log in to each login system separately. In this way, efficiency of the system will be possible. That is the service we are building. development

The advantage is that, as I just mentioned, you can log in to multiple administrative procedures with one account. In addition, since this fiscal year, it has become possible to issue this account by identity verification by My Number Card, so it has become quite simple where it used to take time to obtain the account itself in the form of paper application. In addition, for the account called gBizID Prime, for which the representative has been confirmed, we have taken a measure to confirm and authenticate the property by password plus app authentication in the form of two-factor authentication, which is a method that seems to take security into consideration.

In terms of the current utilization status of gBizID, as of May, the number of registered users is 1.15 million. In gBizID, it is issued to both corporations and sole proprietorships, and 80% of the accounts are acquired by corporations and 20% by sole proprietorships. The annual number of logins is 22 million, and it is used quite a lot. The number of linked systems is 188, and in the case of administrative procedures for business operators, there are naturally national administrative procedures, but in the case of administrative procedures for local local government, this login system can be connected to the administrative procedures system of each local government and used. In addition, organizations such as the Japan Finance Corporation, IPA, and independent administrative agencies are also using this system.

This service has been launched since around 2020, and the number of users is steadily increasing by about 300,000 every year. In gBizID, a new service was launched in Priority plan the month before last, but in Priority plan last year, regarding the use of common authentication and signatures, we are talking about the use of gBizID as a common authentication service for corporate electronic authentication for the entire government system, and we are working to expand the use of this service as such.

As I mentioned earlier, gBizID's account was originally issued by mail. This was because we had a system in which we confirmed representatives by mailing an application form with a seal impression of the commercial registration and an actual seal. However, from this fiscal year, we have been able to issue an account in the shortest possible time by comparing the name and address of the person in My Number Card with that of commercial statistics. This has improved convenience. Originally, when we were in a hurry to obtain a gBizID for subsidy application, we could not issue an account by mail, and we had been scolded for such inconvenience, so we have improved that.

As for the type of gBizID account, first of all, you need to issue an account called gBizID Prime, which is obtained by confirming the identity of the representative. However, in many cases, the actual administrative procedures are performed by employees, especially in larger companies, so we can issue a branch account called gBizID Member for employees.

From this fiscal year, we have created an account with administrator privileges in the form of gBizID Admin between gBizID Prime and members. To explain the purpose of this, when there was no admin, the representative had to issue an account for the employees. However, the operation of this account becomes quite complicated as it becomes a large company, so we have introduced a mechanism in which an administrator account is issued for each office or branch office, for example, and that person can issue an account for the employees.

In addition, we have a simple service that does not require identity verification, which is called gBizID Entry, and we also have a service that requires only password verification. For example, in the case of procedures that are performed on behalf of someone in the form of delegation, we have set whether or not such delegation is possible for each procedure, and if the person to be delegated takes a gBizID, it is possible to form such a delegation relationship and apply on behalf of someone.

When a gBizID is issued, various information is registered, and gBizID also has a function to make a data connections of such account information in the form of an API. Regarding what can be done by using this API, for example, it is possible to reduce the time and effort of business operators to input information by creating a prefilled state by flowing basic information from gBizID into an application form for administrative procedures for business operators.

In addition, although it is an internal matter, we are monitoring the percentage of gBizID accounts acquired and what kind of area public authorities uses gBizID while visualization. Therefore, we would like to consider what kind of local government people will use it in the future while looking at such data.

In terms of what kind of initiatives we will be taking this fiscal year, in terms of improving the flow of account issuance, many business operators say that it is difficult to use the account if the issuance does not go smoothly, so we will try to improve that.

In addition, we are planning to improve the account management function so that the administrator function called gBizID admin, which I mentioned earlier, will be easier to manage on a organization basis.

In addition, public service and gBizID, which are connected only by the login function, are connected to various administrative systems, and we will introduce a service desk tool that will make it possible to connect easily to such a connection system, and as I mentioned earlier, we will also improve the UX in order to pursue ease of use.

In addition, with regard to gBizID, in the future, as the Commercial Registration E-Certificate will be converted into a remote certificate, an authentication function will be required there, so we are thinking of using this gBizID, and we are also working to improve the cooperation in the use of remote signatures. In this way, we will create an environment in which gBizID can be used not only for authentication but also for electronic signatures.

In addition, with regard to improving the utilization ratio, up until now, the operators have been doing well because they need to make a gBizID for this procedure. Going forward, we will promote PR for users. We have made a survey, and we are at the stage of organizing it, but based on the organization of such matters, we will promote public relations for the operators.

First, that's all for my presentation.

Chairman Satoh: .

Now, I would like to move on to the question and answer session. As I mentioned earlier, we held two closed-door discussions, during which Mr. Yoshida, the person in charge, gave an explanation, the committee members asked questions, and the person in charge gave a very detailed explanation, which has deepened the understanding of the committee members.

Today is a public review, so I would like to present some points based on the questions and answers you have asked me so far. I think you are on the slide now, but one is how to effectively carry out public awareness activities to expand the acquisition of gBizID. In a sense, I think gBizID has to use gBizID when conducting administrative procedures, but rather, it is necessary for business operators to consider it convenient and use it more actively, and along with that, it is necessary to increase the number of services provided by gBizID or to consider and improve gBizID itself.

In addition, gBizID was started by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and has been taken over by Digital Agency. What is required for sustainable gBizID? Since gBizID is a certification infrastructure, we need to consider the services of certified companies, but I think it is difficult to evaluate the effects of certification alone. We have discussed these points, but I do not mind if they overlap, but I would like to ask for questions and opinions from the members today as a public review, and I would like to ask for a little less than 20 minutes. Counselor Mori also explained earlier that Commissioner Sasajima has a class from 10:30, so I would like to hear questions and opinions from Commissioner Sasajima first, and then opinions from other members.

Then, Mr. Sasajima, do you have any opinions or comments?

Commissioner Sasajima: Thank you, .

Although it overlaps with the presumed issue, in short, in terms of conducting effective public awareness activities, in your explanation earlier, you explained that PR activities will begin as early as this autumn. Have you formulated a policy or specific content on this?

Mr. Yoshida: Thank you very much for your visit to In this regard, we are currently taking a questionnaire from each business operator, and we are at the stage of organizing the contents of the questionnaire. Based on the organization, we are in the phase of considering what kind of public relations we will connect it to.

Commissioner Sasajima: Thank you, .

From here on, I would like to make a comment. The company that creates the certification infrastructure system, or the destination of NTT and others, is mentioned in the materials. The convenience of such a certification infrastructure is very abstract and conceptual, so it is quite difficult for PR or business operators to intuitively understand it. So, I would like to ask you to consider such a matter together. I personally have the impression that the business operators who are the recipients of the system spend money on gBizID Prime are very good at commercials related to conceptual matters such as smart cities development. I thought it would be an idea to consult with such a company.

These are my comments.

Mr. Yoshida: Thank you very much for your visit to . I recognize that it is important to proceed with this project while discussing it with business operators.

In addition, when expanding the use of the gBizID, we feel that the fact that people are actually connected to the system, for example, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare for social security procedures and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry for subsidies, and the fact that people are asked to make a reservation for the connected service has led to considerable spread and awareness, so we would like to promote cooperation with other ministries and agencies.

Commissioner Sasajima: Thank you, .

As you say, I think PR that is directly close to the user, or that includes the viewpoint close to the user is effective, so I think that direction is good.

.

Mr. Yoshida: Thank you very much for your visit to .

Chairman Satoh: Next, I would like to ask for your opinions and questions in the order you raise your hands on the online system. Mr. Horikawa, please.

Commissioner Horikawa: Thank you very much, . Nice to meet you. I would like to express my opinion at once due to the time.

I understand that gBizID intends to cover existing systems regardless of their utilization rates. Therefore, even if the number of uses is small, it will be covered if it is systematized. When we surveyed procedures with an annual use of 100 or less, 61 fell under this category, and 53 of them were services operated by local governments. Some of them are open to closed users, and it became clear that the reason was that the use was small in the first place. It may be necessary to consider whether to cover services with few users by gBizID from the perspective of cost effectiveness.

First of all, from the viewpoint of cost, the reduction effect will occur only when the existing certification service is replaced by gBizID. If there are many cases in which the existing certification service is used in combination with the existing certification service, it will be a dual system, and the reduction effect cannot be expected. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the situation of the combined use first.

Next, from the perspective of the effect, even if it is a combined use, if it is highly convenient for the people, I think it will be understood. However, if it is a combined use, whether or not to target services with limited users will require careful judgment because the reduction effect cannot be expected. Therefore, first of all, we targeted a level of 100 users per year, but I think it is necessary to make a validation on whether or not this line of 100 users is appropriate.

In recent years, the cost of security has increased, and the cost associated with the renewal of the system has been regarded as a problem. Therefore, even if the policy is to promote the convenience of the people, it is necessary to make cost-conscious decisions against the expansion of the system development budget.

Finally, I would like to call for the establishment of indicators that take into account cost awareness from the perspective of EBPM as well. This may be an unprecedented perspective, but I hope that active consideration will be made.

That's all from me.

Chairman Satoh: .

I think it will be difficult for Mr. Yoshida to respond to what I have just received, so I will take it as your opinion. Next, Mr. Uemura, please.

Committee Member Uemura: I believe that the .

There was no explanation of the review sheet or the logic model, but as stated in the materials, the short-term outcome is to aim for 2.7 million Prime Accounts issued by corporations by the end of fiscal 2025. Since the issuance of gBizID accounts requires an application from the corporation, I believe that this is an appropriate outcome because the administration cannot control it, but I have a question. My first question is about the twenty twenty-five target of 2.7 million, and I would like to know the basis for this.

As a long-term outcome, it says that we aim for a cooperative service of 300, but even if an ID is issued, it is meaningless if it cannot be actually used, so I think it is right to increase such opportunities. However, as it overlaps with Commissioner Horikawa's question earlier, it is meaningless if the service is not used even if it increases, so I think it is very important to increase the utilization rate. Therefore, I think it would be good if a utilization rate could be applied as a long-term outcome, but is it possible? This is the second question.

Last but not least, I think the dashboard is a very good initiative. Various things are displayed by area, but are there any plans to disclose such things in the future? I think it is desirable to disclose them, but this is my last question.

That's all.

Chairman Satoh: .

Mr. Yoshida, I have a question. Could you answer it?

Mr. Yoshida: Thank you very much for your visit to Of course.

First of all, in terms of the basis for the target of 2.7 million, there are about 4 million corporations that actually have a corporate number issued, but when we look at the corporations that are actually active, we see how many of them file tax returns. The number of corporations that file tax returns announced by the National Tax Agency is about 2.7 million, and that is one of the targets.

We have received opinions, including from Mr. Horikawa, that it is important to increase the usage ratio, and we believe that this is an extremely important point. However, rather than gBizID alone, I believe that it is necessary to consider whether the online application procedure itself, which is the actual connection destination, is properly recognized, and whether everyone wants to use it.

Naturally, we will make it possible to use a single ID and password for various administrative procedures and spread it, but I believe that it will be necessary to enhance this in cooperation with each public authorities.

Earlier, Mr. Horikawa expressed his opinion that we should reduce the number of combined use systems as much as possible, but we basically agree with that. If there are multiple authentication systems, business operators may be confused.

On the other hand, if there is an existing certification system, I believe that we must proceed while considering switching it from the perspective of business operators. Therefore, I believe that we will also call on business operators to consider whether it is possible to bring together as many as possible those that are using both systems in each public authorities.

Regarding the disclosure of the dashboard, we in the gBizID team are currently considering the scope of information that can be disclosed, and we are currently considering whether such a dashboard can be disclosed on the Digital Agency website within this fiscal year, so we would like to proceed with that again.

Chairman Satoh: .

If I may add one point, a dashboard is a web page that can be viewed based on a visualization of certain statistical figures such as the status of use of gBizID, for example, the number of uses, and I believe that it is important to present such data when looking at the status of use.

With regard to the opinions and questions from the Committee members, I would like to ask the Committee members to raise their hands.

Hollow Member: Thank you, . I don't have much time, so I would like to go quickly.

First of all, as you explained, the concept of speeding up the procedure of pressing a seal and sending it by mail by creating the My Number, stopping unnecessary things, and integrating and collecting passwords for authentication systems because they are difficult to use. I believe these concepts are extremely important and natural. In addition, I would like to make two points.

First of all, I believe that the targets this time are all the same, but I would like to ask you whether there are differences depending on the scale and what you think. In other words, for example, in the situation of banks, corporations and individuals are not linked, but if there is a link, small and medium-sized enterprises may not like it. However, if that happens, corporations and individuals are equal and open the password here with their My Number, I think the president and the corporate ID will work together, but if that happens, if the password is given to someone other than that person, there are various questions about whether it is really okay in security. Therefore, please tell us whether or not it is possible for corporations and individuals to cross paths, and whether you are aware of the scale from this perspective.

Another point is an opinion. According to a survey by the Board of Audit on My Number, although it is used, it has been used a lot and the penetration rate has been increasing, but there are hundreds of services that are used, but in the end, they are aggregated into about 10 services. I am concerned about this, and this time, I would like to expand the public service procedures by about 300. I understand that it is useless unless we expand them, but in the end, it is clear from My Number that the services used are concentrated. Therefore, for example, if there are 1.15 million people and 22 million services, and each person accesses 15 times, I would like you to analyze what they are used for. What is insufficient is also an important analysis, but I think that if you look at what is used the most and whether there is any bias in the services used, it may be an implication from My Number. This is an opinion.

That's all.

Chairman Satoh: .

Mr. Yoshida, please answer your questions.

Mr. Yoshida: Thank you very much for your visit to : First of all, I believe that one of your concerns is that personal data may be identified by the first link between corporations and individuals, but in this regard, when you first acquire an account in gBizID, the four pieces of information in My Number Card, such as the names and addresses of individuals, are confirmed and issued, and the personal numbers themselves are not used to link them.

Therefore, first of all, it is not possible for the Government to follow up on who the person who took the account is, in other words, what kind of personal procedures they are doing. Therefore, when you take procedures as a business operator, you need to take procedures in the form of an account in gBizID. However, when you take procedures, you use My Number Card only to confirm that you are the person in question, so we are thinking that it may lead to such abuse of information.

With regard to your second question, I believe you are of the opinion that it would be better to look at what kind of administrative procedures the use of gBizID is concentrated in. In this regard, we are actually looking at what kind of connection system the number of logins is high. Among these, there are many guidelines for the use of social insurance. For example, various social insurance procedures for employees are carried out through the government's general contact system called e-Gov, or through the system of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

In addition, I believe that the next most common application is for subsidies. We also recognize that it will be widely recognized in gBizID by being used in places where many people use it, and that it is highly cost-effective. Therefore, in the future, we would like to advance it while consulting with other ministries and agencies so that it can be used in procedures that are generally performed by everyone, which are frequently performed by business operators.

Chairman Satoh: .

I would like to make a supplementary note. The first question by Mr. Holloway is, in short, not 4 information or My Number in personal data, but probably personal identification is performed in My Number Card, so the identification of My Number Card's electronic certificate is acquired by using My Number Card in other administrative procedures, and ID is also acquired at the time of application in gBizID, so I think it is a matter of linking by ID of My Number Card's electronic certificate, so I think he is asking with that intention.

As I have time, I would like to ask your next opinion. Mr. Iwasaki, please.

Commissioner Iwasaki: . Thank you very much for your cooperation.

As you explained, I would like to evaluate the fact that the number of users has already increased by 300,000 per year. In addition, I would like to comment on three points regarding the outcome of gBizID's expansion of acquisition.

The first point is that the number of users is considered to be an indicator of the status of service utilization. The number of Prime Accounts issued by corporations is 2.7 million by the end of fiscal 2025, and the long-term outcome is also set at 300 linked services by the end of fiscal 2013. Since the end of next fiscal year is the target year for the long-term outcome, I think it is good to look a little further ahead.

Second, regarding the setting of short-term outcomes, even if the number of uses is appropriate, I think it is appropriate to set targets that contribute to convenience and service quality for long-term outcomes. For example, I think it is important to share knowledge with private sector on how much productivity has increased and how time has been shortened by using services, and to consider cost-effectiveness.

The third point is that the number of gBizID issues is visualization for each local government, and I think it is very meaningful as open data, but I am watching it with great interest from the perspective of policy evaluation in terms of how Issue can be supported and lead to the expansion of acquisition if there is a system strengthening, human resources, and budget as factors that prevent applications from advancing.

That's all.

Chairman Satoh: .

, Mr. Kanbayashi, may I ask a question?

Mr. Kanbayashi: I'm not quite sure about what you asked about, Mr. . This is Kamihayashi.

I would like to ask two questions and one comment. The question is about the setting of the target number in the previous question. There was a basis for setting the target number of 2.7 million, but I would like to know the basis for setting the target number of 300 systems.

Another question is whether an interview with the government is scheduled, although the term "operator" is often used as the partner of the user interview.

The comment overlaps with Mr. Kubo's opinion, but since it is already recognized that there are typical cases of social insurance procedures and applications for subsidies, it may be a little difficult to include them in the outcome. In the case of social insurance procedures, since the specific procedures are already known, it is possible to know how much faster they are. In particular, there is a policy request that we need to increase the number of part-time employees joining social insurance, so it is possible to know how much time is set to determine whether applications are made punctually and properly. It is also related to the word productivity, but I think it is possible to know about specific projects. Therefore, the comment is that it may be easier to understand if we pick up some typical services and make a validation on how much this certification contributes to them as specific examples.

That's all.

Chairman Satoh: .

Yoshida-san, may I speak to Commissioner Kanbayashi?

Mr. Yoshida: Thank you very much for your visit to First of all, I would like to ask why the target of 300 access points is being set. In this regard, since there are currently about 200 access points, we are estimating that it will be possible to increase the number of access points by about 300 based on the number of access points per year.

I would like to ask if the administration has no plans for user interviews. As for the administration, we are also communicating with people in public authorities who are connected to the system on a regular basis, so we do not currently have any plans for detailed interviews, but we would like to consider this in the future.

Chairman Satoh: .

Do you have any additional questions or comments from the members?

It seems to be all right, so we have finished the discussion on gBizID. We have received quite individual and specific opinions from each committee member, but I would like to have the final opinion on gBizID from each committee member. From now on, each committee member will make brief comments in turn, and I will summarize them. I am sorry to bother you, but could you give us your general comments on gBizID? Committee Members Iwasaki, Uemura, Kanbayashi, and Sasajima were excluded, so I would like to have your opinions on gBizID in this order. I am sorry to have assigned Committee Member Iwasaki first every time, but could you give me your general comments from Committee Member Iwasaki? Thank you.

Commissioner Iwasaki: .

At this point in time, progress has already been made and various results have been achieved. I would like to have a final report based on various comments from the perspective of administrative projects and policy evaluation based on the issues assumed this time.

.

Chairman Satoh: Next, Mr. Uemura, please.

Committee Member Uemura: I believe that the I think it is an important project. I would like to ask you not to create a mechanism that costs twice or three times as an administration. Since the purpose is use, ID issuance is a means. I would like to ask you to develop such a project by using use as a long-term outcome. I think it is more desirable to have convenience and cost reduction effects, but first, I would like to ask you to consider the degree of use.

In addition, since the progress of the utilization of the dashboard can be clearly understood, I think it is a good mechanism to share the results with the people, so I would like to see this initiative expanded to other projects.

That's all.

Chairman Satoh: .

, Mr. Kanbayashi, may I ask a question?

Mr. Kanbayashi: I'm not quite sure about what you asked about, Mr. , and I hope that they will be incorporated and further improved.

Thank you very much.

Chairman Satoh: , member of the Advisory Committee, has left the Committee. Next, I would like to ask you to be a member of the Advisory Committee.

Hollow Member: Thank you, and which public service should be connected well. As a result, as you are saying, I hope that the utilization rate will increase and the recognition level will increase.

That's all.

Chairman Satoh: .

Mr. Horikawa, please.

Commissioner Horikawa: Thank you very much, .

I have given my full opinion earlier. Once again, whether or not to cover services that are not in demand in the first place, I think the aspect of cost effectiveness is necessary amid the expanding budget for the system. Furthermore, I expect that such a perspective will be firmly included in EBPM.

That's all from me.

Chairman Satoh: .

Then, based on the opinions of each committee member, I would like to summarize it.

There were two parts, individual opinions and general comments. First, I would like to say that there were many requests for improvement in individual relations from each committee member. Let me summarize it briefly. Many people said that when it comes to services, the number of services is important, but it is important to improve the utilization ratio and convenience. For example, rather than the number of annual services in gBizID, how many services each business operator will use will depend on the services they connect to, but I believe that many committee members said that they would like to make efforts to increase the utilization ratio, and I believe that this was also the opinion of Committee Members Sasajima, Uemura, and Kumora. In addition, I recognize that Committee Member Iwasaki said that convenience is also important.

In addition, Commissioner Uemura said that creating a dashboard is important from the perspective of explaining to the people from the perspective of visualization including such utilization rates. In addition, in relation to this, several members said that it is necessary to raise the level of recognition.

Also, as a point of concern, regarding the linkage between corporations and individuals from the Advisory Committee, when educating gBizID, there will be various problems with My Number Card identifiers, even if they are not linked, so I think it will be important to clearly explain this in the future.

In addition, Mr. Horikawa made an important point. It is true that it is convenient to use gBizID, but it is not necessarily appropriate from a cost-benefit perspective to use gBizID for services that are not frequently used by gBizID users.

In addition, as I was also told by Mr. Horikawa, in the case of public service, where identity verification is performed in addition to gBizID, if multiple identity verification methods are used in combination, including so-called gBizID, the cost reduction effect may be low. I think it is quite difficult to decide which one to move to, whether to use the existing one or to move to gBizID, but first, we would like you to confirm the status of the use of the existing one and consider the cost effectiveness. If we simply respond, the convenience may be improved, but we have had individual discussions on the importance of considering the cost effectiveness.

In addition, I think that the general points are covered there, but I would like to request that the KPI or target setting be improved as appropriate so that the utilization rate and the utilization status are used as the outcome, that is, the outcome is not the number of cases but the people who use them.

Also, we need to raise the profile of these services, so we will make efforts to raise their profile. This overlaps with what Mr. Sasajima said in his individual opinion at the beginning, but users include business operators, and as you pointed out earlier, the administrative side is one of the targets, so I would like you to make improvements while listening to the opinions of various stakeholders.

It was a bit of a mixed answer, but I thought I had compiled it. What did you think? After this, I will set the items appropriately, but are your opinions mostly reflected in the content I just mentioned? If there is anything that is missing, I would like you to tell me about it now. Thank you. Is it okay?

.

Then, I would like to summarize the common corporate certification platform (gBizID). Thank you very much Mr. Yoshida for explaining about the common corporate certification platform (gBizID).

Mr. Yoshida: Thank you very much for your visit to .

Chairman Satoh: .

Now, regarding the next project, I would like to move on to a discussion on the base registry project. First, I would like to ask the person in charge of the base registry project to explain the project. Are you ready?

Councilor . I am in charge of the Digital Agency Base Registry. Nice to meet you.

Chairman Satoh: .

Councilor Base Registry in the first 10 minutes.

As for the next slide, the base registry is a set of data that is referred to in a large number of procedures across systems. It aims to convenience the people and efficiency and simplify administrative operations. Rather than creating a database that can contain anything extremely large, we are currently working on it with the main objective of promoting the efficiency of our procedures by further utilizing the data currently held by the government and promoting cooperation.

On the next page, I will briefly summarize the history up to now. The base registry project itself has been conducted by Digital Agency since the beginning. At first, we tried to focus on a wide range of areas, but there are resource issues, and when we actually looked at use cases in detail, we found that there were areas that should be prioritized. In that sense, in fiscal 2022, we decided to consider what areas we should actually focus on, and to consider whether we should focus on the three areas we are currently working on, corporate, real estate, and address, and to conduct specific and detailed examinations on them.

In fiscal 2023, the use cases, needs, etc. in each field will be refined, and how to improve them will be developed. In this process, some necessary institutional responses have been identified. Therefore, we submitted a bill, deliberated the bill in fiscal 2024 and this fiscal year, and approved it at the recent National Assembly. The law itself will come into effect next year, and in that process, we will create a plan to develop and improve the public basic information database. We will compile a specific plan on what kind of system will be created, for what period, and with what goals, and we will develop it accordingly.

Next, I have mentioned three things. I would like to briefly explain what each base registry is. On the next slide, we are now considering information linkages, a commercial registration, as a base registry in the corporate field. In this regard, corporations basically register various information, but if, for example, their address or location changes, the corporation has to rewrite the registration information, and at the same time, for example, in the case of the construction industry, the procedures for registration and permission sent to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism have been changed. Now, we have to do this, but in the future, we will develop this base registry so that public authorities can see the registration information, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism will go to see the changed registration information, and if so, the procedures will be changed, so we aim to create a mechanism that does not require users to go through the procedures twice or three times.

Then, the next page is about real estate and addresses. As with the commercial registration I mentioned earlier, first of all, we will link the information of real estate registry. Similarly, when the procedure or local government has to make a business Uwami, the information of the registration can be viewed online. We will promote database cooperation. In addition, we will develop another database called base registry for address. In addition to the information system called parcel number used for registration, we will develop a database in the form of linking so-called addresses.

On the next page, for example, on the far left side, there is what kind of items are included in the commercial registration. In response to this, various procedures are arranged. For example, in the past, it was requested that certificates of registered matters be issued, but if public office and local government directly confirm online, the attachment will not be required. Or in the middle part, there is a description of "Deemed" of notification of change, but if the information necessary for confirming that change is not required when the location, etc. changes, can be used as information, such procedures can be simplified.

Similarly, regarding real estate registry on the next page, we will conduct hearings on which ministries and agencies have needs to use which information, and will proceed with system design while listening to the opinions of user ministries and agencies. This will be the base material for that.

On the next page, I will explain the relationship between addresses. Regarding addresses, for example, in the case of delivery companies, each company creates a database, so there is one reason that there are overlapping maintenance costs. In addition, even if the databases are different, it is not so inconvenient if they can be easily matched with each other. However, as for addresses, I will introduce you a little later, there is a fluctuation in notation, and it is very difficult to match between different databases. Therefore, I feel that the merit of creating a unified or centralized database is very large.

Regarding the next page, even so, there are many things that are quite difficult. First of all, as the initial data, high-quality information such as addresses should be collected as master data, and how to link the system of lot numbers from the so-called registration with the notation of addresses, there is Issue if we try to go into the details. And how to update the data. There are things such as addresses and residence indications that are managed by local government at the level of town names, but there are many Mr. local government who manage them on paper, for example, and we are currently considering how to efficiently update information from such sources while listening to the voices of local government.

On the next page, I have talked about the fluctuation of the notation, so I have shown a specific image. Typically, as shown on the left side in the green below, the word "Kasumigaseki" has variations depending on how it is written, and in some cases, it refers to a completely different place in Tokyo and Saitama. Also, I think it is a story from the era of handwriting, but there are cases in which it is not clear whether it is "Hachi" or "Ha" in katakana, and there may be some cases in which it is wrong. In addition, the parcel number and the residence indication are difficult to understand for people who do not know them, but for example, in the famous Maihama, there is no address "Maihama 1-chome." Your favorite Disneyland may display the address as "Maihama 1-1." The first "1" of "Maihama 1-1" is not "1" of 1-chome, but "1" of 1-banchi here, and that is the indication of the address based on the parcel number. On the other hand, there are Maihama 2-chome and 3-chome, and the first "1" of "Maihama 2-chome" is the granularity called Machiji, and the residence is indicated. The name and the location are assigned by a system completely different from the parcel number, and in that regard, for example, if only "Maihama 2" is written, it is actually not clear whether it is 2-chome or 2-banchi. The parcel number and the residence indication are quite a deep problem. I digress a little, but we will proceed with the maintenance while resolving such matters.

As for the next slide, I briefly introduced the revision of the bill. This time, it is a partial revision of the digital society Formation Basic Act, etc., and it is largely related to the base registry, which is circled in red. The first point is to ensure the quality of data. If the data itself is wrong, the wrong data will be linked. Therefore, it is important to ensure the quality of data.

In addition, we will create a maintenance and improvement plan for the development of a specific database. At the same time, it has been decided in the Digital Procedure Act that the notification of change as I mentioned earlier is unnecessary, and in accordance with it, each ministry and agency has decided that such a notification must be made in each law. Therefore, we have revised the Digital Procedure Act in a way that it is possible to use the omission of our procedures without the need for individual law revisions if each ministry and agency declares that it can take exceptional procedures in this case by, for example, a subordinate law or ministerial ordinance.

As for the slides I will introduce next, in terms of what would be good if we developed a database like this, typically, it would be done once instead of multiple times, and by making it possible to view the database online, it would be possible to eliminate the need for certificates that had been asked to be attached, or it would be possible for local government to confirm the registered matters by, for example, going to a registry office and obtaining documents in the form of official requests online, which would improve efficiency and convenience.

Since I could not explain the logic model on the review sheet, I would like to take a look at the screen and briefly explain only the output and outcome. It may be a little small and difficult to read, but typically, we will improve the database and the use environment. For example, we will create an API for cooperation or a GUI for local government employees to operate. We will also create an institutional allowance for law, which is related to the personal data Protection Act, as mentioned earlier. In addition, we will promote the utilization of local government and others by conducting public relations activities to let them know when this was created. We are thinking of these as our outputs.

The outcome is how many cases were actually used or utilized in each procedure. There are many of them, but basically the same thing is written in all of them. We estimate the number of cases in which the procedure was simplified, or the number of cases in which the procedure was no longer necessary or the time was shortened, and multiply it by the hourly rate to obtain the amount, and present it.

That's all I have to say. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me in your comments. Thank you.

Chairman Satoh: .

Now, I would like to move on to the discussion. As with gBizID earlier, we have held two discussions on the base registry at the Administrative Project Review and Policy Evaluation meetings, and we have received careful explanations from the division in charge, including Mr. Sakuura, regarding questions from each committee member.

As for possible issues, as I believe you are indicating now, what is the setting of appropriate outputs and outcomes to achieve the goals of the base registry project? In addition, I believe that the relationship with public authorities, for example, statistical data, is quite important in creating a common database. How is the arrangement of the relationship between various databases, statistics, administrative procedures, and local government arranged? In addition, the system for system maintenance and database maintenance and operation has been raised as a main issue. I would like to hear opinions and questions from each committee member, including those that overlap with these three points and others. We have already raised our hands on the system, so I would like to ask you in that order, but first, Mr. Uemura, please.

Committee Member Uemura: I believe that the .

Thank you for explaining the logic model. The short-term outcome is the number of procedures for efficiency, and the long-term outcome is the reduction of the administrative burden on the people and administrative officials. For example, the target for 2026 is 100 procedures and 260 million yen for the reduction of the administrative burden. What is the basis for this? This is the first one.

My second question is that the reduction of administrative burden is for the people and administrative staff. Is it possible to separate the two? I feel that it is better to separate them. This is my second question.

This is my third question. Since the use of the Internet by the people is important, I think it would be better to use the rate of use, which is the degree of use, as the outcome. Is it possible to do so? This is my third question.

Fourth, I would like to ask if it is possible to visualize the progress of the development of this database by area, as I just conducted a gBizID. This is my fourth question.

Last, rather than asking a question, I am a little concerned about this. I am involved in DX in a local local government, but I have a problem that I can't abolish paper media because there are many cases where I need to affix my seal to real estate-related transactions. This is a bottleneck, but if such efforts proceed, will the number of seals and documents be reduced rapidly?

Last but not least, that's all.

Chairman Satoh: .

I would like to ask for an answer, Mr. Ryuura.

Councilor .

The first outcome is set in terms of the number of years. In a sense, the total number of procedures currently expected is estimated by examining the scale itself, but since all of them will not be 100% from the beginning, it will take several years in a phased manner. In addition, I believe that our maintenance schedule will not be able to provide all the functions from the beginning. Therefore, we have set the outcome in this way. You may have a question about the breakdown of this, so we are currently working on a more detailed breakdown, so if you give us some time, we would like to make it public sometime.

Excuse me, did you say that the second point is to separate what from what? I'm sorry I missed your point.

Committee Member Uemura: I believe that the . It is possible to separate the people and administrative personnel, which are integrated. What do you think?

Councilor I understand. Thank you very much.

Now, depending on how the procedures of the Base Registry are used, and depending on the use cases, it is possible to separate the breakdown itself. For example, in the case of public authorities, in the earlier example, it will be possible to go online to check various registration information, etc., which had to be done online in the form of official requests, and it will be mainly the procedures of the business operators, such as citizens, but it will be mainly the procedures of the business operators, and it will be possible to separate the breakdown where there are no longer any procedures that the business operators had to do directly, so we will proceed with detailed examination of the breakdown.

Third, in terms of the utilization rate, it may not be very precise, but I think it is possible to show the percentage of the number of cases that will be eliminated through the procedures of the business operator. As we sort out the breakdown I mentioned earlier, I would like to try to determine the percentage of the procedures that do not need to be changed and the number of cases that are actually used.

The fourth is visualization on the status of development. We would like to aim for the provision of such functions in which fiscal year in the database development and improvement plan. Every year, in the form of Digital Agency Priority plan, we make a plan on what we will do for the next year's efforts, and at that time, in the form of an annual report, we report on the results of the Digi-cho's efforts so far. Among them, I would like to show you how much development has advanced.

As for how to eliminate the last seal, Digital Agency is very enthusiastic about eliminating Minister Kono seals, so in a sense, eliminating paper documents is one of the effects of the base registry project, and as I explained earlier, gBizID and its related electronic signatures and electronic power of attorney systems, and online mechanisms that provide the same functions as seals are still appearing in many cases. I believe that promoting the use of online mechanisms will be an initiative to eliminate seals and paper. In addition to the base registry, we will provide a variety of electronic signatures and authentication functions, and I believe that they will be eliminated.

Committee Member Uemura: I believe that the .

Chairman Satoh: .

Next, Mr. Hollowa, please.

Hollow Member: Thank you, .

There was a question about the basis of the outcome, so I omitted one. Another question, I think, is the sharing of master data. I think that in itself is a very good thing, but considering the problem of vacant houses that has come up recently, I think there are cases where the data becomes invalid without saying anything. Is the data checked or not? I mean, please tell me whether the data is checked or not for the one that was taken once. That is the first question. That is all I have.

In addition, I would like to express my opinion that it is very good that if I tell only one place to change, everything will be automatically passed as data. It is not so much a data maintenance of age of AI, and I think that it is something that I would naturally like to have done.

However, I would like you to be careful about redundancy. We just did gBizID, and real estate ID is also advanced separately, so I think there is something that I don't know well if there is any overlap with these. So, I would like you to be careful about redundancy.

Finally, I very much agree with Mr. Uemura's opinion that the progress should be disclosed. For example, I heard that the change could be made in only one place, but I feel that I would be told that I would not know whether or not all the changes have been made because I made the change. So I have been shown a lot of discomfort in public service during the time lag of the past few years, and although it is a separate procedure, there are quite a few cases where they say they will make the change but do not cooperate at all. I think that will happen someday, but saying that they cannot make the change at all will only cause distrust among the people, so I am aiming in this direction. However, I think that it is safer to disclose the progress to this point, and it will not cause a strange misunderstanding. In that sense, I think it is desirable to know that this public service has already been completed in area.

That's all for my opinion. Thank you.

Councilor .

With regard to the first question, I would like to answer about data checking and confirmation. For example, in relation to registration, the original of registration itself is in the registry office of the Ministry of Justice, so it is not possible for us to directly check whether or not this is a vacant house. The information for registration itself must be appropriately managed by the Ministry of Justice. We have data cleansing and other methods to link the data for registration, but after doing so, we will focus mainly on promoting API cooperation and other methods by automating as much as possible. So, if we can grasp, check, and feedback all the way to whether or not the data is correct in the first place, I regret to say that we cannot do so immediately.

Since then, there have been talks about redundancy in real estate ID and gBizID. I think it is difficult to understand because everyone uses the word ID. Among those mentioned earlier, the base registry has a close relationship with real estate ID. real estate ID is also assigning IDs to various buildings and so on, which is exactly what we are doing in cooperation with base registry for address. To be specific, for example, when real estate ID is granted, address information is naturally required, so we plan to use our information in that case, and we will use it in real estate ID in a way that responds well to the fluctuation of the title.

This is also the case with visualization. Of course, in order to use this mechanism, the ministries and agencies responsible for the system will need to take institutional or systematic measures, but I would like to ask them to do so as soon as possible. Digital Agency will work together to do our best.

.

Chairman Satoh: .

Next, Mr. Horikawa, may I ask you a question?

Commissioner Horikawa: Thank you very much, . I understand very well by listening to your explanation.

Because of time.

Chairman Satoh: That's fine.

Commissioner Horikawa: Thank you very much, , both questions and opinions were expressed.

First of all, in the past, I wanted to import data from a database owned by an incorporated administrative agency into Excel for analysis. At that time, 20 years ago, the database itself was in a proprietary format, and I could not import it into Excel. It was impossible. In the first place, I entered a situation in which I could only handle it as a database for my own use.

I would like to ask a question. This time, I am assuming that the database owned by the local local government will be utilized. If there are any barriers to the uptake of the database, such as the format used by each organization and vendor, I would like to ask you something.

Next, as you explained, the fluctuation of address notation in the construction of base registry for address cannot be solved only by systematization, as you explained, and it is important to organize and standardize it on the administrative side. Therefore, although you are currently working on this problem, I understand that coordination with the administration before system development and before design is the most important part of the national system, and I would like to support what you are working on.

This is a EBPM story, but I think it overlaps with the opinion of the Hollow Member. You just explained about the medium - to long-term outcome indicators. It is set that the burden on the people and administrative personnel will be reduced. As you have already explained, various Issue can be seen. Since it will be utilized only after overcoming the Issue, I think it is important for the System development to set an indicator of what the Issue is, whether it is overcoming it or not. My first opinion is that I would like you to actively consider this point.

Next, if we look at the history of system development in the past, as you know, each ministry and agency built the system first. After that, what is called the Digi-cho today, in the past, the IT Office of the Cabinet Secretariat and the Executive Office worked together to integrate the system. When they try to integrate the system, as before, each ministry and agency are systemized by different vendors, and it is not easy. I mean, the existing system does not become an asset. It seems that there is no choice but to create a completely new system, and there have been repeated situations of double investment in the past. I think it is still only Issue that will integrate the base registry in the future, but I think it is important for design to make use of the lessons of history and to look ahead to future integration. This is my second opinion.

Finally, since we are Digi-cho, we would like to reflect these points in the review sheet with the knowledge of experts, so that we can make an effective evaluation in EBPM. At the same time, I hope that you will create a good practice that such a review sheet is the best in System development.

That's all for my opinion.

Chairman Satoh: , if you have any answers, please.

Councilor : I would like to make a comment.

Thank you very much for your comments on our future efforts.

With regard to your first question, at this point in time, the question of whether any information from the local government system will be linked to this database is not from the local government side, but rather from base registry for address, which will be used by local government. Therefore, at this point in time, there is no activity to connect anything to the local government system to obtain information.

However, as you pointed out in the beginning, there are other efforts in Digital Agency related to open data. In particular, when the data owned by the government is made into open data, there are talks about copyrights and data formats that say that it should be done in this way. There are also efforts on open data that say that it should be done in a way that is especially easy to use and easy to use as AI learning data. I would like you to refer to those.

In addition, with regard to the fluctuation of the title, it is of course necessary for the administration to make efforts. In particular, in the future, when giving residence indications when a new house is built, in order to eliminate such fluctuations and errors, we would like to create a world without fluctuation of the title by referring to this very base registry for address.

Also, we talked about the difficulty of system renewal or system integration, the assets of vendors, and so on. This is typically the case when servers and so on have been built on-prem. This is to put them on the cloud more and more. In other words, we are working to modernize the architecture itself to make it easier to update, manage, and maintain. It seems to take a little time, but the philosophy is moving forward. In addition, it is the same in local government. It is difficult for local government, which has more than 1,000 systems, to create their own systems. Therefore, we will develop systems that can be used in common as much as possible. This is also being discussed by the Digital Administration and Finance Reform Council, so I would like you to refer to it. In addition, I think it would be good for Counselor Mori or the Secretariat at the Digi-Cho to think about working on this as a project review.

Thank you for your comments.

Commissioner Horikawa: Thank you very much, .

Chairman Satoh: .

Next, Mr. Iwasaki, please.

Commissioner Iwasaki: .

I would like to ask for your comments on the short-term and long-term outcomes. First, regarding the expression path from the activity, there are some cases where the description units of the target values and indicators are not clear, so I would like to ask you to describe that point.

The second point is that the target budget amount for the long-term outcome is 260 million yen each year, so regarding the calculation basis for whether or not it is simply added, I think that if the project basically contributes to digital administrative and fiscal reform, there are expectations for cost efficiency and cost-effectiveness, so I would like you to consider that point.

Third, I would like to ask if the number of such cases will decrease in the long term as the declining population in declining birthrate and aging population becomes more serious from a long-term perspective.

That's all.

Chairman Satoh: ?

Councilor : I am sorry that the target of the base registry for address Logic Model is not written in the breakdown. It is difficult to understand, but the 260 million yen in the address itself is assumed to increase at the same pace every year for five years. Since the breakdown is not written, it may be difficult to understand how the unit price was multiplied. However, this is not a cost, but an estimate of the effect. It is a trial calculation of how much time can be saved and how much time can be saved in efficiency compared to, for example, doing it by hand. We would like to make it available to the public after detailed examination.

Also, what did you imagine that the data for the second point would decrease?

Commissioner Iwasaki: Amid the development of a society with a declining population in the future, it is predicted that the number of corporations will trend downward in the future as a whole. I would like to ask if you have any thoughts on the long-term perspective of how this kind of business will flow.

Councilor : I see, I understand. The population will decrease, and it is not immediately clear whether this data will decrease. However, it is not always the case that the number of business operators will decrease immediately after the population decreases, and construction will progress to a certain extent, so I think there will be consolidation, but the data itself will continue to increase, and the increase will slow down. I think it will be a while before the data itself starts to decrease, but I think it will be necessary to make efforts to reduce the number of procedures or the data itself. It will cost money to handle the data, as well as server costs, handling costs, communication costs, and other costs, so I think it will be Issue to reduce the data itself in the future.

Commissioner Iwasaki: I understand. Thank you very much.

Chairman Satoh: , Mr. Kanbayashi, may I ask a question?

Mr. Kanbayashi: I'm not quite sure about what you asked about, Mr. I have already asked Mr. Sato to summarize the expected points, and I feel that he has not provided sufficient answers on this point. Please let me ask you several questions.

My first question is about the setting of outputs and outcomes. I have received many comments and questions from you. Please tell us how you intend to measure them. In particular, please tell us how you intend to measure the amount indicated from the reduction of the administrative burden.

I would also like to ask a specific question about the second point, which is continued coordination with public authorities. How are you building the relationship with the business establishment population database in Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications or the corporate statistical system of the Ministry of Justice? In particular, in your response earlier, you said that it is not possible to cleanse the registration information immediately. One question is whether you are properly thinking about cleansing the registration information and feeding it back to the registration system of the Ministry of Justice in the future.

Intuitively, I think that the purpose can be achieved by improving the existing business establishment population database and corporate registration system, but the question is, please tell me the meaning of setting up this base registry business separately.

That's all.

Chairman Satoh: ?

Councilor : It may be out of order, but I would like to make a comment.

As for the amount of money written in the Outcome, basically, for example, there was a survey by a think tank in the past on how many changes there are in corporations, so we basically use that number. Based on the number of cases, we estimate how long each process will take per case. For example, if it takes one hour, the unit cost of labor costs is commonly used in Digital Agency, so we multiply that unit cost and convert it into the amount of money by the time. In a sense, the amount of money is essentially proportional to the number of cases, so I would like you to understand that this amount of money is calculated in that way.

Then, for example, we talked about the business establishment population database in Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. It collects quite detailed and detailed data such as sales and the number of people working for each business establishment. Therefore, the registration information this time cannot be covered only by this base registry, but for the parts that can be linked, for example, the data obtained from the information linkages mechanism of this registration will be handed over to them. We are now working on cooperation.

In addition, as for cleansing, I may have said that it cannot be done immediately, but the cleansing itself will be proceeded with in a calm manner. However, since the cleansing itself is for the sake of data connections, for example, in the case of residential indication, the data is divided in a separate form according to the town name and the granularity below it, and the data is rearranged in a format that is convenient for cooperation. In addition, in the case of very detailed description, I think that the cleansing of changing the expression is the largest rather than changing the content.

Given that registration is based on application, it is not the case that Digital Agency will correct the original documents by itself, saying that there is nothing wrong with the original documents. Therefore, the MOJ or the database administrator will make a decision on whether to correct the original documents or not. We will mold the original documents to the extent necessary for information linkages, and we do not intend to correct the original documents.

Chairman Satoh: , are you all right with your answer now?

In terms of the relationship, for example, there are various databases in Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and the Ministry of Justice, and as a hollow member pointed out, redundancy has been found in the database. I think it was a rather serious question about whether the database in other ministries and agencies and the base registry have redundancy, and which database will be used for the. Kanbayashi

Mr. Kanbayashi: I'm not quite sure about what you asked about, Mr. ?

Chairman Satoh: That's right.

Please, Mr. Tanoura.

Councilor : I would like to entrust what I can, but in terms of registration, what can be obtained from registration can be brought to the business office database, but I think that it is not enough, so I think that the investigation itself needs to be done.

However, they are used for other purposes in such a way, so I think it is difficult to say whether the registration information is sufficient.

Chairman Satoh: .

I would also like to ask various questions, but I have just asked you mainly questions, so as before, I would like to ask each member's opinion on the final base registry and summarize it again.

So, I made a request from Commissioner Iwasaki earlier, but this time I would like to reverse the order and ask for Commissioner Horikawa, Commissioner Hollowa, Commissioner Kanbayashi, Commissioner Uemura, and Commissioner Iwasaki in that order. Commissioner Horikawa may not have expected it, but Commissioner Horikawa, please tell us your general opinion briefly.

Commissioner Horikawa: Thank you very much, .

I understand that you are already aware of various Issue. Since you are a Digi-cho, I would like to expect that you will create a review sheet that will be a good practice in System development by reflecting them in the review sheet with the knowledge of experts.

That's all for my opinion.

Chairman Satoh: .

Next, Mr. Hollowa, please.

Hollow Member: Thank you, .

I would like you to aim to complete the data once you complete the procedures. As other members pointed out, I would like you to review the outputs and outcomes one by one, and I would like you to add that I will speed up the process and shorten the time to achieve the goals as soon as possible.

That's all.

Chairman Satoh: .

, Mr. Kanbayashi, may I ask a question?

Mr. Kanbayashi: I'm not quite sure about what you asked about, Mr. , but I would like to ask you to organize the relationship with other government databases with more objective information.

The other is the relationship between the number of cases and the amount of money. If it is a linear relationship, it will be almost the same, so I think it is better to be more creative in writing.

That's all.

Chairman Satoh: .

Next, Mr. Uemura, please.

Committee Member Uemura: I believe that the Real Estate field is a fairly important project. While proceeding with the project, there will probably be many bottlenecks, and I think that there are many cases where we need to respond individually. However, I would like you to proceed with the project by all means. In that case, it is important to create a mechanism that can be used widely and efficiently. I would appreciate your cooperation.

There have been various discussions on the outcome, but I think it is necessary to show the source and calculation method of how to calculate the effect of reducing the administrative burden. The same applies to the degree of use, but please consider creating and publishing a dashboard.

That's all.

Chairman Satoh: .

Mr. Iwasaki, please.

Commissioner Iwasaki: .

I view this project as a major project that contributes not only to improving convenience and efficiency of administrative management, but also to administrative and fiscal reform in the medium to long term. I believe it is the foundation of digital government, including cross-agency, public-private data connections, user convenience, and fiscal reform associated with the elimination of overlapping investment. I expect that the base registry of Digital Agency will be the latest version of all real-time data, and I would like to see the cooperation of related ministries and agencies and local government to that end.

You just pointed out that there are no amendments to the database and that there is redundancy. In light of the quality and significance of the database, I expect that the security measure of each ministry and agency will be fully taken into account and that Digital Agency will function as the control tower as the supervisory authority.

That's all.

Chairman Satoh: .

Now, I have received the general comments from each committee member, and I am not sure if I can summarize them, but I will summarize them myself.

I will summarize it in the order of your remarks, so it is a little different from the significance, but first of all, Commissioner Horikawa mentioned good practices. I think Commissioner Horikawa's rationale is to create good practices, including the fact that data cannot be shared well due to differences in databases, including local government, the government, and independent administrative agencies. Speaking about this matter, I think Commissioner Horikawa said the word good practices, including the fact that we have been struggling with address notation for decades, and even if a law on address notation is created, there are actually local government that do not comply with it, and it is a difficult problem. I think Commissioner Horikawa said the word good practices, including the fact that how far we can do it with this base registry, and whether you can do it without repeating the mistakes of the past.

In addition, I believe that Mr. Kubo, Mr. Kanbayashi, Mr. Uemura, and Mr. Iwasaki said that they would like us to carefully examine the outputs and outcomes, particularly the indicators in the outcomes section. If I were to summarize just one point, I would say one is the reduction of the burden on administrative staff and the convenience of private sector, of course. Among them, the effect was calculated by multiplying the number of cases and personnel expenses. I wonder if that is really good, and I am also concerned about the cost of developing the database. In particular, local government and the related ministries and agencies need to develop the data for creating the database for the base registry, which also costs money. Therefore, I think it is important to look at such things as well as the cost effectiveness.

Next, in terms of real estate, there is a particular interest from Commissioner Uemura in whether the number of seal procedures can be reduced. I think this is not a problem of the base registry, but a problem of other administrative procedures. The base registry is intended to make it easier for the government to use, for example, the registry managed by the Ministry of Justice, so I think it is a little different from the registry of administrative procedures.

In addition, as pointed out by the Advisory Committee, for example, in the case of addresses, it is quite difficult to check whether or not a house is vacant and how to show it in the database of the Ministry of Justice. On the contrary, there are such points because there are very high expectations for the base registry. Therefore, I think it is better to be able to do that as much as possible, but I think it is also important to clarify what the base registry can do and what it cannot do.

Actually, the Hollow Member pointed out that point in the individual opinion, and it was pointed out that it would be better to say quite clearly how much can be done. Comparatively speaking, the initial vision, especially regarding the base registry, has been mentioned as a goal since the establishment of Digital Agency, and a quite big vision was issued, and it was decided to actually reduce the items. Including such a background, I feel that it is important to clarify what can be done and what cannot be done first in order to proceed with the base registry. This is what the Hollow Member pointed out.

With regard to outcomes and outputs, I believe that there are various indicators such as the utilization rate and the number of cases in the dashboard, and I believe that it will be necessary to make efforts to visualization such indicators.

In addition, Mr. Kanbayashi mentioned the relationship with the relevant public authorities. I do not believe that there was always a clear answer from the original division. Even though databases have been developed for each ministries and agencies to determine whether they are for statistics or for individual reference, in the case of databases for statistics, for example, it is very important to reflect the actual situation in terms of coverage and statistics. On the other hand, regarding the base registry, the term database is used, but it seems that whether it is a database for statistics or a database for individual inquiries is not necessarily organized. If this is clarified, I believe that the relationship with the relevant public authorities will be organized naturally. I would like you to continue to pay attention to this point.

The third possible issue is that maintaining and managing the database takes a certain amount of time and effort. For example, although it is said to reduce the administrative cost of local government, it is completely putting the cart before the horse if the burden on local government is increased by the burden of maintaining the database. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to evaluate or create a system to ensure that the maintenance and operation of the base registry is properly carried out, including the costs related to such places.

I believe that we have covered all of your opinions in this way, but if there are any points that are missing, please point them out.

Chairman Satoh: Well, since there seems to be no particular opinion, I have just explained in a roundabout way, but I would like to summarize the above.

Now, I would like to summarize the business of the Base Registry. Thank you very much for your explanation of the Base Registry.

I would now like to return the proceedings to the Secretariat. Thank you.

Mr. Mori: Thank you very much for your active discussions, Mr. . Also, Mr. Sato, thank you very much for your summary.

Regarding the opinions and minutes compiled today, we plan to publish them on the Digital Agency website after confirming them with the members of the Committee.

Finally, I would like to give an address by Director-General Tomiyasu. Mr. Director-General, nice to meet you.

Director-General Tomiyasu: Mr. Satoh , Chairman, thank you for your summary. In addition, thank you very much for your valuable comments, experts.

As I heard from the members of the Committee, Digital Agency is in the position of continuing what the IT Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Regional Bureau have done in the past, further strengthening them, reviewing the system budgets of each ministry, and requesting or seeking the common functions and de-duplication that I discussed today.

The gBizID and Base Registry that I explained today are projects implemented by Digital Agency, but they are projects that must be used by each ministry and everyone in local government. Of course, we talked today about why we would like them to use them, but we need them to fully explain and understand the outcomes, and that is why we want them to use the common functions. So, public office is not good at explaining the outcomes of such things. Thank you very much for pointing out various things today. Today, there are parts that are explained in terms of monetary evaluation, but it may be that we will explain them in terms of time that will save the people and business operators, and I think that how to explain the outcomes in the entire system budget is our Issue, so I would like to refer to today's discussion and explain the effects of cost-effectiveness properly. We also believe that Issue is really there, so thank you for your discussions and suggestions today. I would like to make full use of them.

Once again, thank you.

Mr. Mori: Thank you very much for your active discussions, Mr. .

With that being said, I would like to conclude the publication process of the 2024 Digital Agency Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review. Thank you very much, Members, for your lengthy and active discussions.

Thank you for your time today.

End