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 for Policy Evaluation and Public Works Review [Public process]

Last Updated:

Overview

Material

Related Documents

Meeting Video

Minutes

Director Mori: I would like to thank Committee Member Then, we would like to hold the "Digital Agency Policy Evaluation and Administrative Project Review (Public Process)" in fiscal 2024.

Today's program will be led by Digital Agency Director no Mori. Nice to meet you.

By the way, we are using a web conference system today.

First of all, Mr. Director-General Tomiyasu of the Digital Agency Strategic Planning Group will open the meeting with a few remarks. Mr. Director-General, please.

Director-General Tomiyasu: Thank you very much, Mr. Sato . Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to join us today.

In today's open process, we will have discussions on two projects, gBizID, a corporate common authentication infrastructure, and the base registry project.

The City of gBizID is truly a system that allows corporate representatives, employees, and sole proprietors to log in to multiple administrative procedures systems using a single ID and password by centrally authenticating the subjects of electronic administrative procedures. The base registry project is to develop a database of data that can be referenced in many procedures across systems, such as addresses, locations, and corporate names. Both projects aim to improve the convenience of citizens and improve the efficiency of administrative operations.

I would very much like to receive guidance and suggestions from the experts on policy objectives, target setting and approaches from various perspectives in order to improve the quality of this project. Thank you very much for your time today.

Director Mori: I would like to thank Committee Member .

I would now like to introduce the external experts attending today. A total of seven external experts attended today's open process, including four external experts appointed by Digital Agency and three external experts appointed by the Secretariat of the Cabinet Secretariat Administrative Reform Promotion Office.

First, I would like to introduce Dr. Ichiro Sato, Professor of Information and Society Research at the National Institute of Informatics, who is serving as the Chair of the Advisory Panel for Policy Evaluation and Public Administration Review. Dr. Sato is serving as the Chair of the Panel to facilitate discussions and to coordinate opinions at the end of the meeting.

Next, the next panel of external experts will participate via a web conference system. I will introduce them in the order of the Japanese syllabary.

First of all, Professor Naoko Iwasaki of the Electronic Government and Local Government Research Institute of Waseda University.

Next is Professor Toshiyuki Uemura of Kansei Gakuin Daigaku. Keizai Gakubu.

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

Next up is Professor Munehiko Sasajima of the Graduate School of Information Science at the University of Hyogo.

Next is Vice Chairman of Global Headquarters of BNP Paribas Securities, Member Mana Nakazora.

Next is Yoshikazu Horikawa, Auditor of the Economic Research Institute.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the seven members of the Advisory Board.

I have heard that Mr. Sasajima will be leaving the room at around 10:30 due to some business.

Next, I would like to explain today's proceedings. In today's public process, two projects, the so-called Common Corporate Authentication Infrastructure in gBizID and the Base Registry Project, are being discussed. First, the person in charge of the project in gBizID will explain the project. After that, I would like to receive frank opinions and questions about the project from the committee members. After that, we will make an announcement about 8 minutes before the end of the discussion, and I would like to ask each committee member to make a final comment. After that, on behalf of the committee members, I would like Chairman Sato to compile the comments, and after receiving the approval of the committee members, it will be finalized. Next, we will follow the same process for the Base Registry Project.

In regard to the proceedings, in order to prevent noise and howling, please turn off your microphone. When you speak, please raise your hand or press the Raise Hand button on the system. Then, the chairperson will designate you. Please turn on your microphone and make your remarks. When you have finished speaking, please turn off your microphone again.

From here, the discussion will be conducted by external experts, so I would like to ask Chairman Sato to proceed. Chairman Sato, please.

Chairman Sato: 's National Institute of Informatics. I am pleased to meet you.

First of all, I would like to briefly explain the overview of the public process this time, as there are participants other than the members who have been discussing so far. In Digital Agency, policy evaluation and administrative project review are carried out in an integrated manner. Therefore, although the two systems are different in the first place, since they are doing similar things, they are combined into one. Therefore, the perspectives of policy evaluation and administrative project review are somewhat mixed, but I hope you will understand.

In addition, as I will explain later, before today's public process, I received opinions from each committee member about the project in private twice. At that time, there were projects other than the two projects this time, but I had you discuss and chose the two projects this time, gBizID and Base Registry, which is the background.

So, this is the first one right away. I would like to start our discussion on the Common Authentication Infrastructure for Corporate Users (gBizID).

First of all, I think some of you will be hearing about the public disclosure process for the first time today, so I would like to ask the person in charge of the project to explain the project. Thank you very much.

Director for Policy Planning Yoshida: , and I am in charge of gBizID, Digital Agency.

First of all, I would like to explain the outline of this project using slides. Regarding the outline of the gBizID Common Authentication Infrastructure for Corporate Entities that you have just introduced, as for the purpose of it, I am aware that the number of administrative procedures for each business operator that can be done online has increased considerably. Under such circumstances, managing IDs and passwords for each procedure will impose a heavy burden on business operators who carry out the procedure and will be costly for administrative agencies that manage it. In a sense, by building a single login system called gBizID, business operators will be able to log in to various procedures with a single ID and password, and administrative agencies will not have to develop such a login system individually. In this way, we will be able to improve the efficiency of the system. This is the service we are building.

As for the advantages, as I just stated, you can log in to multiple administrative procedures with a single account. In addition, from this fiscal year, it has become possible to issue an account at identity verification by My Number Card, which has made it considerably simpler to obtain an account, which previously took time due to paper applications. In addition, for gBizID Prime, which is an account for which a representative has been confirmed, two-factor authentication uses a password plus app authentication to confirm the owner's belongings, which is designed with security in mind.

As for the current utilization status of gBizID, as of May, the number of registered users is 1.15 million. In gBizID, the card is issued to both corporations and sole proprietors, and 80% of the accounts are acquired by corporations and 20% by sole proprietors. The annual number of logins is 22 million, indicating that it is being used considerably. The number of linked systems is 188, and in the case of administrative procedures for business operators, there are of course national administrative procedures, but even for administrative procedures for local governments, it is possible to connect our login system to the administrative system of each local government. In addition, organizations such as the Japan Finance Corporation, IPA, and independent administrative agencies are also using these systems.

This service started around 2020, and the number of users has been steadily increasing by about 300,000 every year. As for gBizID, a new service was released in Priority Plan two months ago, and in Priority Plan last year, regarding the use of common authentication and signatures, for corporate electronic authentication, the use of gBizID as a common authentication service is what we are talking about as a government-wide system, and we are trying to expand its use as such.

As I mentioned earlier, the gBizID account was originally issued by mail. This system was established because representatives were confirmed by mailing an application form with a certificate of seal impression from the commercial registration and your actual seal impression affixed. However, from this fiscal year, by comparing the name and address of the person in My Number Card with the commercial statistics, an account can be issued in the shortest amount of time. This has improved convenience. Business operators had complained about the inconvenience when they were in a hurry to get a gBizID to apply for subsidies and could not issue an account by mail. We have improved this part.

Regarding the type of gBizID's account, first of all, we would like you to issue a representative-verified gBizID Prime account. However, in many cases, the actual administrative procedures are carried out by employees, and the larger the company, the more likely it is. Therefore, we can issue a branch account for employees called gBizID Member.

From this fiscal year, we have established an account with administrator rights called gBizID Admin between gBizID Prime and members. The purpose of this was that if we did not have this admin, all representatives had to issue accounts for their employees. However, the operation of this would become quite complicated as a large company, so we have introduced a system in which administrator accounts are issued at each business office or branch office, for example, so that they can issue accounts for their employees.

In addition, for simple services that do not require a identity verification, we have a password-authentication-only service for gBizID entry. For example, in cases where procedures are to be delegated to someone else, we have established whether or not such delegation is possible for each procedure, and if the person to be delegated can also make a gBizID, it is technically possible to enter into such a delegation relationship and apply on behalf of the person.

When a gBizID is issued, various information is registered, but in gBizID, we also have a function to link such account information in the form of APIs. What can be done by utilizing our APIs? For example, in an application form for administrative procedures for business operators, such basic information is input from gBizID to create a prefilled state, which makes it possible to reduce the time and effort of business operators to input information.

In addition, although this is somewhat internal, we are visualizing and looking at the percentage of gBizID accounts acquired and what kind of regional administrative organizations are using gBizID. Therefore, looking at such data, we would like to consider what kind of local governments people will use it in the future.

As for what measures we will take this fiscal year, in terms of improving the issuance flow of accounts, we have received many comments from business operators that they find it difficult to use if the issuance process does not go smoothly, and we will work to improve that.

Also, in terms of improving the account management function, I mentioned gBizID Admin, which is an administrator function. We are planning to make it easier to manage by organizational unit.

In addition, since the administrative service to be connected, gBizID, only has a login function, various administrative procedures systems connect to it. We will introduce service desk tools to make it possible to easily connect to such a connection system. We are also trying to improve UX to pursue user-friendliness, as I mentioned earlier.

In addition, with regard to gBizID, in the future, as commercial registration electronic certification will be certified remotely, we are considering using gBizID because an authentication function will be required there, and we are working to improve it to coordinate the use of such remote signatures. By doing so, we will create an environment in which gBizID can be used not only for authentication but also for electronic signatures.

In addition, in terms of improving the utilization ratio, so far, business operators have taken it smoothly because they need to make a gBizID for this procedure, but from now on, we are planning to promote PR for users. We are just at the stage of conducting a questionnaire survey and sorting it out, but based on the sorting out of such things, we would like to promote public relations for business operators in the future.

That's all from me.

Chairman Sato: , thank you very much.

I would like to move on to the Q & A session. As I mentioned earlier, we held two closed door discussions. During the discussions, Mr. Yoshida, the person in charge, explained the issues and the members asked questions. The members explained the issues very carefully. As a result, the members have deepened their understanding.

Today is a public review, so I would like to present points for discussion based on the questions and answers I have received so far. I think a slide is displayed now, and one of them is how to effectively conduct dissemination and awareness-raising to expand the acquisition of gBizID. I think gBizID had to use gBizID to carry out administrative procedures in a sense, but rather, business operators will find it convenient and use it more actively, and in line with that, we will be required to increase the services provided by gBizID, or to consider and improve gBizID itself.

In the case of gBizID, which started at METI and has since been taken over by Digital Agency, I would like to ask what is expected of gBizID in order to promote it in a sustainable manner. In addition, since gBizID is a certification base, it is necessary to consider the services provided by the certified companies, and it may be difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the certified companies on their own. We have had discussions on these points. If you have any questions or opinions for today's open review, I would like you to do so. It will take less than 20 minutes. As Director Mori explained earlier, Mr. Sasajima will have a class from 10:30. I would like you to ask questions and give your opinions first, and then I would like you to give your opinions to other members.

Do you have any opinions or comments, Mr. Sasajima?

Dr. Sasajima: Thank you, .

This may overlap with some of the points to be discussed. In other words, in order to carry out effective public awareness activities, you mentioned earlier that you would start PR activities as early as this autumn. Have you already decided the policy or concrete contents of the activities?

Director for Policy Planning Yoshida: Regarding this point, we are currently collecting questionnaires from business operators, and we are at the stage of organizing the contents of the questionnaires. Based on the organization of the questionnaires, we are now at the phase of considering what kind of public relations we will use them for.

Dr. Sasajima: Thank you, .

From here, I would like to make a comment. In the material, the companies that have built this certification infrastructure system and the recipients of the funding, such as Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, are mentioned. However, the convenience of this certification infrastructure is very abstract and conceptual, and it is difficult to promote it or make it something that business operators can understand intuitively. So, I think it would be good if you could consider these points together. It would be an idea to appeal to these points in an easy-to-understand manner or to effectively visualize the positive aspects of using gBizID Prime. I personally have the impression that the business operators who have received funding for this system are very good at making conceptual commercials on smart city development, so I thought it would be an idea to consult with them.

These are my comments.

Director for Policy Planning Yoshida: Thank you very much. I recognize that it is important to advance this while discussing with business operators.

In addition, in order to expand the use of the service, we feel that the fact that people have actually connected to it, for example, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in the case of social insurance procedures, or the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in the case of subsidies, and asked them to make a gBizID for the service they have connected to, has led to considerable awareness raising. Therefore, we would like to promote cooperation with other ministries and agencies.

Dr. Sasajima: Thank you, .

You're right. I think it would be effective to have a PR that takes into account the perspective of a place that is close to the user, not a place that is close to the user directly, so I think that direction would be good.

.

Director for Policy Planning Yoshida: .

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

Dr. Horikawa: . Nice to meet you. Due to time constraints, I would like to express my opinion in one go.

I understand that gBizID intends to cover existing systems regardless of their utilization rates. For this reason, even procedures that are used less than 100 times per year are covered as long as they are systematized. In this survey, 61 procedures were covered, of which 53 were services operated by local governments. Some of them were open to closed users, and it became clear that the reason was that they were not used much in the first place. I think it is necessary to consider whether services with few users should be covered by gBizID from the perspective of cost effectiveness.

First, from the perspective of cost, the reduction effect will only occur when the existing certification service is replaced by gBizID. At present, if it is used together in many cases, it will be a double system and the reduction effect cannot be expected, so I think that it is necessary to investigate the situation of combined use first.

Next, from the perspective of the effect, even if it is combined, I think that it will be understood if it is highly convenient for the people. However, if it is combined, it is necessary to make a careful decision whether to target a service with a limited number of users while the reduction effect cannot be expected. Therefore, first of all, although the annual number of users was targeted at the level of 100, I think that it is necessary to verify whether this line of 100 is appropriate in the first place.

Recently, security-related expenses have been increasing, and the cost of updating systems has become a problem. Therefore, even if a policy is intended to improve the convenience of the public, it is necessary to be cost-conscious about the expansion of the system development budget.

Finally, I would like to call for the establishment of an indicator that takes into account cost consciousness from the perspective of the EBPM. This may not be a perspective that has been seen before, but I expect that it will be actively considered.

That's all from me.

Chairman Sato: .

I think it will be difficult for Mr. Yoshida to answer what you just gave me, so I will take it as your opinion, and next, Mr. Uemura, please.

Committee Member Uemura: I think the .

There was no explanation about the review sheet and logic model, but as you can see in the material, it says that the short-term outcome is to aim for the issuance of 2.7 million Prime Accounts for corporations by the end of fiscal 2025. Since the issuance of gBizID accounts requires an application from the corporate side, I think this is an appropriate outcome because it is beyond the control of the government. However, I have a question. Regarding the target of 2.7 million for fiscal 2025, the first question is that I would like to know the basis for this.

As for long-term outcomes, it says that the goal is to achieve 300 linked services, but even if IDs are issued, it is meaningless unless they can be used, so I think it is right to increase such opportunities. However, this also overlaps with the previous question by Committee Member Horikawa, but even if services increase, it is meaningless if they are not used, so I think it is very important to increase the utilization ratio. Therefore, I think it would be good if something like the utilization ratio could be applied as a long-term outcome, but is this possible? This is the second question.

Lastly, I think the dashboard initiative is a very good initiative. It is displayed in various ways by area, but are there any plans to disclose it in the future? I think it is desirable to disclose it, but this is the last question.

That's all.

Chairman Sato: .

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

Director for Policy Planning Yoshida: Of course.

First of all, as for the reason for the target of 2.7 million people, there are about 4 million companies that have actually been issued corporate numbers, and when we look at the companies that are actually active, we are looking at how many companies file tax returns. The number of companies that file tax returns announced by Mr. National Tax Agency is about 2.7 million, and that is one of the targets.

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

Of course, we will promote the use of a single ID and password for various administrative procedures, but I believe it will be necessary to improve it in cooperation with each administrative agency.

Earlier, Mr. Horikawa gave us his opinion that we should reduce the number of places where they are combined as much as possible, but we basically think so, and if there are many certification systems, business operators will also hesitate.

On the other hand, if there is something like an existing authentication system, we need to consider how to switch it from the business operators' point of view. Therefore, we would like to ask the government agencies to provide us with information on their combined use as much as possible.

Regarding the disclosure of the dashboard, our team in gBizID is 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 by the end of this fiscal year, and we would like to proceed with it.

Chairman Sato: .

I would like to add one more point. A dashboard is a website page that visualizes statistical figures of gBizID usage, such as the number of transactions. I think it is important to show such figures when viewing the usage.

As for the opinions and questions from the members, Mr. Hiromu and Mr. Iwasaki raised their hands after this, so please go ahead.

Dr. Utsuro: Thank you, , thank you very much. I don't have much time, so I'd like to make it short.

First of all, I believe that the concepts mentioned in the explanation, such as speeding up the process of sending documents by mail after pressing a personal seal with the My Number system, stopping wasteful procedures, and integrating and collecting multiple passwords for the authentication system because it is difficult to use them, are extremely important and natural. I would like to make two additional points.

My first question is whether or not there will be a difference depending on the size of the company, as I believe the targets are all the same. In other words, for example, in the situation of banks, corporations and individuals are not linked, but if they are linked and there is this linkage, small and medium-sized companies may not like it. However, in that case, if corporations and individuals are equal and the password is opened by My Number, I think that the president and the corporate ID must be linked, but if a password is given to someone other than that person, various questions arise such as whether it is really safe in terms of security. Therefore, please tell us whether or not it is possible to check corporations and individuals, and whether or not you are aware of the size from this perspective.

Another point is my opinion. According to a survey by the Board of Audit of Japan on the My Number system, although it is being used, it has been used quite a lot, and the penetration rate is increasing, but in the end, although there are hundreds of services being used, they are concentrated in about 10 places. I am concerned about that, and this time, we will expand the administrative service procedures to about 300. I understand that it is meaningless unless it is expanded, but in the end, the My Number system clearly shows that the services being used are concentrated. Therefore, for example, if there are currently 1.15 million people and 22 million cases, and each person accesses it 15 times, I would like you to analyze what they are using it for. It is important to analyze what is lacking and why it cannot be done, but if you look at what is being used the most at present and whether there is any bias in the services being used, I think this will be an implication of the My Number system. This is my opinion.

That's all.

Chairman Sato: .

Mr. Yoshida, please answer the questions.

Director for Policy Planning Yoshida: First of all, I believe one of your concerns was that the first point, the linking of corporations and individuals, may reveal personal information. However, when you first obtain a gBizID account, it is issued by checking the four pieces of information in My Number Card, such as the names and addresses of individuals, and it is not linked using the individual number itself.

So, first of all, it is not in a form that the government can track which individuals have an account and what else they are doing as personal procedures. In this case, when you go through the procedures as a business operator, you go through the procedures as a gBizID account. However, when you go through the procedures, you are using My Number Card only to confirm your identity. We believe that this will not lead to abuse of information.

With regard to your second question, I believe your opinion is that it would be better to look at what kind of administrative procedures the use of gBizID is concentrated on. Here as well, we are actually looking at what kind of connection system has many logins as data. Among them, many of the usage guidelines are for social security procedures. Various social security procedures for employees are, for example, handled through the government's general contact system called the e-Gov, or in many cases, through the MHLW's system.

In addition, we believe that the next most common application is for subsidies. We also recognize that if such applications are used in places where they can be used a lot, it will spread awareness of gBizID, and that it is highly cost-effective. Therefore, in the future, we would like to promote it in consultation with other ministries and agencies so that it can be used in procedures that are performed by many such business operators and in procedures that are generally performed by everyone.

Chairman Sato: .

I would like to make a follow-up comment. The first question raised by Mr. Utsuro was, in short, not the so-called four pieces of personal information or My Number, but probably the identification of the electronic certificate issued by My Number Card, as the person is authenticated in My Number Card. In this regard, if My Number Card is used for other administrative procedures, it is obtained, and IDs are obtained in gBizID when applying, so I think it is a matter of linking IDs of electronic certificates issued by My Number Card, and I think that is the intention of the question.

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

Iwasaki: , and I would like to thank you for all the information you have provided.

As you explained, I would like to commend the fact that the number of users has already increased by 300,000 per year. I would like to comment on three outcomes toward the expansion of gBizID's acquisition.

The first point is that although the number of users is regarded as an indicator of service usage, the number of Prime accounts issued by corporations was 2.7 million as of the end of fiscal 2025, and the long-term outcome is also set to be 300 linked services by the end of fiscal 2025. However, since the fiscal year targeted for long-term outcomes is the end of next fiscal year, I think it is better 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 goals that contribute to convenience and quality of service for long-term outcomes. For example, I think it is also important for Public-Private Partnership to consider cost-effectiveness by sharing knowledge with the private sector, such as how much time was saved by using the service.

The third point is that the number of gBizID issued by each local government is visualized, which I think is very meaningful as open data, but I see it with great interest from the perspective of policy evaluation as well, in terms of how to support system strengthening, human resources, budget, and other issues if there are any, which are the reasons why applications are not progressing, and how to lead to increased acquisition.

That's all.

Chairman Sato: .

Next, Committee member Kanbayashi, please.

Mr. Kanbayashi: I don't know much about what you asked, Mr. , thank you very much. This is Kamihayashi.

I have two questions and one comment. My question is about setting the target number, which was asked earlier. There was a reason for setting the target number of 2.7 million systems, but I would like to know the reason for setting the target number of 300 systems.

The other question is that I often used the term "business operators" as the target of user interviews, but I wonder if the government is planning to interview them.

My comment overlaps with Mr. Sora's opinion. As a typical example, it is already recognized that there are social insurance procedures and subsidy applications, so it may be a bit impossible to include them in the outcomes. However, in the case of social insurance procedures, we already know the specific procedures, so we can see how much it has been sped up. In particular, recently, there has been a policy request to increase the number of part-time workers joining social insurance, so we can see whether applications have been made punctually or not. We can see the specific time setting, and although it is related to the earlier word productivity, I think you can see it for specific projects. Therefore, I would like to pick up some typical services and verify how much this certification contributes to them as a specific example. My comment is that it will be easier to understand.

That's all.

Chairman Sato: .

Yoshida-san, I'd like to speak to Commissioner Kanbayashi.

Director for Policy Planning Yoshida: First of all, I would like to ask you about the rationale behind the target of setting the target number of access points at 300. Currently, there are approximately 200 access points, and we are estimating that it would be possible to increase the number of access points by approximately 300 based on how many connections can be made per year.

Regarding the user interview, I would like to ask if there are any plans for a user interview with the administrative authorities. Regarding the administrative part, we usually communicate with the administrative authorities of the system we are connected to, so there are no plans for an in-depth interview at present, but we would like to consider this in the future.

Chairman Sato: .

Are there any additional questions or opinions from the committee members?

That seems to be all right. Therefore, I would like to end our discussion on gBizID. Although we have received quite specific individual opinions from each member, I would like to receive the final opinions on gBizID from each member. From now on, each member will give a brief comment in turn, and I will summarize it. I am sorry to bother you, but could each member give a brief overview of gBizID? Since member Iwasaki, member Uemura, member Kanbayashi, and member Sasajima were able to leave, I would like to receive the opinions on gBizID briefly from member Utsuro and member Horikawa in that order. I am sorry that I hit member Iwasaki first each time, but could you please give me your overall opinion? Thank you.

Iwasaki: .

At this point in time, we are already making progress, and various results have come out, so I would like to receive a final report based on the points that are assumed this time, based on various comments from the perspective of administrative work and policy evaluation.

.

Chairman Sato: Next, Mr. Uemura, please go ahead.

Committee Member Uemura: I think the I think it is an important project. As an administration, I would like to ask you not to create a system that requires multiple costs. The purpose is to use it, so the issuance of IDs is a means. I would like to ask you to develop projects that make use of it a long-term outcome. I think it is more desirable to have convenience and cost reduction effects, but first of all, I would like to ask you about the degree of use.

As for the use of the dashboard, I think it is a very good system for sharing the results with the people of Japan because the progress can be understood very well, so I would like this initiative to be expanded to other projects.

That's all.

Chairman Sato: .

Next, Committee member Kanbayashi, please.

Mr. Kanbayashi: I don't know much about what you asked, Mr. , I think there were several comments, and I hope that you will make steady improvements by incorporating them.

Thank you very much.

Chairman Sato: , a member of the Policy Board, was able to leave the meeting, I would now like to ask Mr. Sora, a member of the Policy Board, to continue.

Dr. Utsuro: Thank you, , I would like you to not hesitate to review things that need to be reviewed as appropriate, such as by company size or which other administrative services should be linked well. As a result, I hope that the utilization rate will increase and awareness will increase as you all say.

That's all.

Chairman Sato: .

Committee Member Horikawa, please.

Dr. Horikawa: .

I expressed my opinion sufficiently earlier. I am repeating myself, but I believe that it is necessary to consider the aspect of cost-effectiveness, as the system budget is expanding, whether to include services for which there is no demand in the first place. Furthermore, I expect that the EBPM will firmly include such a perspective.

That's all from me.

Chairman Sato: , thank you very much.

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

I have received two individual opinions and two general comments. First of all, I have received many common comments from each committee member, which are requests for improvements to individual relationships. I would like to briefly summarize them. Many people have said that while the number of services provided is important, utilization rates and improving convenience are also important. For example, rather than the annual number of users of the gBizID, I believe that the number of users from each business operator will largely depend on the service being connected. However, I have received many requests from committee members, including Mr. Sasajima, Mr. Uemura, and Mr. Sora, to make efforts to increase the utilization rates. I have also received comments from Committee Member Iwasaki, and I believe that Committee Member Iwasaki has stated that convenience in particular is also important.

In addition, Mr. Uemura stated that creating a dashboard is important from the perspective of providing explanations to the public as well as from the perspective of making the usage rate and other information visible. In relation to this, several members stated that it is also necessary to increase awareness.

Also, as a point of concern, when gBizID is educated on the linking of corporations and individuals, even if it is not linked, there will be various problems with My Number Card's identifiers, so I think it will be important to receive a clear explanation in the future.

Also, Mr. Horikawa made an important point, which is that although it is convenient to use gBizID, it is not necessarily appropriate from the perspective of cost effectiveness to use gBizID for services with a small number of users on the side using gBizID.

As I also heard from Mr. Horikawa, there are cases where the cost reduction effect is low in cases where such administrative services are used in combination with multiple regional services, including the so-called gBizID, in cases where personal identification is performed outside gBizID. I think it will be difficult to decide which service should be used, whether it is the existing service or whether it should be used in identity verification. First, we will confirm the status of combined use and consider it including the cost effectiveness. It may be more convenient if it is simply handled, but it is important to consider it including the cost effectiveness. This was discussed in individual discussions. gBizID

As for the general points, which I think are covered quite a lot there, I would like you to improve the KPI or goal setting as appropriate so that the utilization rate and status of utilization are the outcomes, that is, not the number of cases but something related to the users.

Also, this kind of service needs to be well-known, so we need to make efforts to make it well-known. This overlaps with what Mr. Sasajima mentioned in his individual opinion at the beginning. Business operators are included in the users, but as you pointed out earlier, the government is also one of the targets, so I think it would be good to hear the opinions of various stakeholders and proceed with the improvement.

It was a bit of a rough summary, but I thought I had compiled it. What do you think? After this, I will set up the items appropriately. With the content I just mentioned, do you think most of your opinions have been reflected? If there is anything missing, I would like you to tell me now. Thank you very much. Is it alright?

.

Now, regarding the common authentication infrastructure for corporations (gBizID), I would like to conclude my presentation. Thank you very much for your explanation of the common authentication infrastructure for corporations (gBizID).

Director for Policy Planning Yoshida: .

Chairman Sato: .

Now, regarding the next project, let's move on to the discussion on the base registry project. First of all, I would like to ask the person in charge of the base registry project to explain the project. Are you ready for it?

Keninoura Director: Base Registry. Nice to meet you.

Chairman Sato: Prefectural Government.

Keninoura Director: Base Registry In the first 10 minutes, I would like to give you a very brief overview.

As for the next slide, the base registry is a set of data to be referenced in many procedures in a cross-institutional manner, and it aims to improve the convenience of citizens and improve the efficiency and simplicity of administrative operations. Rather than creating a very large database containing anything, we are currently promoting the utilization of data held by the administration and others, and improving the efficiency of our procedures by promoting collaboration.

On the next page, there is a brief summary of the background to this. The base registry project itself has been carried out by Digital Agency since the beginning. At the beginning, we focused on various large areas, but there are also resource issues, and when we look at actual use cases in detail, we find that priority should be given. In that sense, in fiscal 2022, we considered where we should actually focus our efforts, and we decided that we should focus on the three areas we are currently working on, corporate, real estate, and address, and decided to conduct specific detailed consideration of them.

In FY 2023, the use cases, needs, etc. in each field were refined, and how to develop them, as well as some specific institutional responses required in the process of refinement, were made clear. Therefore, a bill was submitted to the Diet, which was deliberated in FY 2024 and approved at the last Diet session. The law itself will come into force next year, and within that, a plan for the development and improvement of the public basic information database will be formulated. A specific plan will be compiled on what kind of system will be created, in what kind of period, and with what goals, and the system will be developed according to the plan.

Next, as I mentioned three things, I would like to briefly explain what each base registry is. On the next slide, as a base registry in the corporate field, we are currently considering the information linkage of commercial registrations. In commercial registrations, corporations basically register various information, but for example, if the address or location changes, the corporation has to rewrite the registered information, and if it is a construction business, for example, it has to change the address for registration and approval procedures submitted to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. In the future, we will develop this base registry so that administrative agencies can see the registered information, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism will see the registered information that has changed, and if it has changed, we will change the procedures, so that users do not have to go through the procedures twice or three times. This is our aim.

Then, the next page is about real estate and address relations. This is the same as the commercial registration I mentioned earlier, first of all, information on real estate registration will be linked, and similarly, when procedures and local governments have to make a business Uwami, they can see the information on the registration online. In addition to promoting database linkage, we are also planning to develop another thing called base registry for address. This is, in addition to the information system called lot number used in registration, we are planning to develop a database by linking so-called addresses.

On the next page, for example, what kind of items are there in commercial registration is on the far left side, and for various procedures, for example, attachment of a certificate of registered matters was required in the past, but if a government office or a local government directly confirms it online, attachment is no longer necessary, or there is "deemed change notification" in the middle part, but this is exactly the information that is necessary when you confirm that no change is necessary when your address, etc. changes, if such information can be used as information, such procedures can be simplified.

In the same way, regarding the real estate registration on the next page, we will conduct a hearing on which ministries and agencies need which information, and it will be the base material for system design while listening to the opinions of user ministries and agencies.

On the next page, I will explain the address relationship. As for addresses, for example, in the case of delivery companies, they create a database for each delivery company, so there is a duplication of maintenance costs. Also, even if the databases are different, it would not be so inconvenient if they could easily match each other, but as for addresses, as I will introduce 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 unified database is very big.

Regarding the next page, there are many difficult issues. First of all, as initial data maintenance, we need to collect high-quality data such as addresses as master data. Next, we need to consider how to link the land lot number system that comes from registration with the address notation, which is also a challenge when we try to go into details. Next, how to update the data. There are local governments at the town and village level that manage addresses, residence indications, etc., but there are many local governments that manage them on paper, for example. We are now specifically considering how to efficiently update information from such sources while listening to the voices of local governments.

On the next page, I talked a little about notation fluctuation, so I show a specific image. Typically, as shown on the left in the green box below, there are variations in the way "Kasumigaseki" is written, and there are even cases where it refers to completely different places in Tokyo and Saitama. I think this is a story from the days of handwriting, but there are also cases where it is not known whether it is "8" or "ha" in katakana, and there may be some mistakes. For example, in Maihama, there is no such address as "Maihama 1-chome." The location of Disneyland, which is everyone's favorite, is sometimes displayed as "Maihama 1-1," but the first "1" in "Maihama 1-1" is not "1" in 1-chome, but "1" in 1 - chi in this case, and that is a display of the location based on the lot number. On the other hand, there are Maihama 2-chome and 3-chome, and the area up to "Maihama 2-chome" is a granularity called Machi-aza and displays residences. This is a name and location system that is completely different from the lot number. In that regard, for example, if only "Maihama 2" is written, it is actually difficult to know whether it refers to 2-chome or 2-banchi. This lot number and residential indication are quite a deep problem. I digress for a moment, but we will proceed with the development while solving these problems.

Next, on the next slide, I briefly introduced the revision of the bill. This time, it is a partial revision of Basic Act on the Formation of a Digital Society and others, and the main points related to the base registry are outlined in red. The first point is to ensure the quality of data. If the data itself is incorrect, the incorrect data will be linked, so it is important to ensure the quality of data.

As for the specific development of the database, we will draw up a plan for its development and improvement. At the same time, the Digital Procedure Law stipulates that the notification of changes, as I mentioned earlier, will not be required. In accordance with this, each ministry and agency will probably have to make such a notification in each laws and ordinances. Therefore, our Digital Procedure Law, in a sense, has established exceptions in a cross-cutting manner. If each ministry, for example, declares in a lower laws and ordinances or a ministerial ordinance that exceptional procedures can be taken in this case, we have amended the law on the basis that we can use the omission of our procedures without the need for individual laws and ordinances amendments.

As for the slide I will introduce next, specifically, what should be done to develop such a database? Typically, procedures that needed to be done many times can be done only once, and this database can be viewed online, so that the attachment of a certificate of something that has been required until now will no longer be necessary, or for activities such as confirmation of registered matters, for example, local governments will be able to obtain documents in the form of an official request by going to a registry office, but now this can be done online. In this way, efficiency and convenience will be improved.

The logic model was not explained in the review sheet, so I will take a screen and briefly explain only the output and outcome. It may be difficult to read because it is a bit small, but typically, database development, and user environment development, for example, creating APIs to link them, or creating GUIs for local government staff to operate, or as I mentioned earlier, laws and ordinances's allowances, as it relates to the Personal Information Protection Act, institutional allowances, and when these things were created, in particular, public relations activities for local governments to promote the use of these things are what we are thinking of as outputs.

The outcome is the number of cases in which each procedure was actually used or utilized. There are many cases, but basically all of them are the same. We estimate the number of cases in which the procedure was simplified, the number of cases in which it became unnecessary, and the number of cases in which the time was shortened, and we multiply them by the hourly unit price to show the amount.

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

Chairman Sato: .

Now, I would like to move on to our discussion. As in the case of gBizID, we discussed the Base Registry twice at the Administrative Project Review and Policy Evaluation meetings. In response to questions from the members, we received careful explanations from Mr. Kenzaiura and the other members of the section in charge.

As for possible issues, as you can see now, what is the setting of appropriate outputs and outcomes for achieving the goals of the Base Registry Project? Also, in creating a common database, I believe the relationship with related administrative organizations, such as statistical data, will become quite important. What is the arrangement of various databases, statistics, administrative procedures, and the coordination of relationships with local governments? Also, the system development and the system for maintaining and operating the database have been raised as major issues. It would be fine to overlap these three points, and I would like to receive opinions and questions from each committee member, including other points. You have already raised your hand on the system, so I would like you to do it in that order. First, Committee Member Uemura, please.

Committee Member Uemura: I think the I see.

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

The second question is about the reduction of administrative burden on the people and the government officials. Can these two be separated? I feel like I should separate them. This is the second one.

This is the third point. Since the utilization of citizens is important, I think it would be better to make the degree of utilization, which is the utilization ratio, the outcome. Is this possible? This is the third point.

Fourth, I would like to know if it is possible to visualize the development status of the database for each gBizID, as I did for each area earlier. This is the fourth question.

Finally, rather than a question, I am a little concerned about the digital transformation of local governments. In real estate transactions, there are many situations where seals are used, and I have a problem that paper media cannot be abolished easily. This is a bottleneck, but as these efforts progress, will seals and documents be reduced more and more?

The last question is a bit of a puzzle, but that's it.

Chairman Sato: .

Please answer, Mr. Gumi.

Keninoura Director: .

Regarding the first outcome, we have set a time limit. In a sense, the total number of procedures currently envisaged has been estimated based on the survey of the scale itself. However, from the beginning, it is unlikely that all of them will reach 100%. In a sense, it will take several years in stages. We also believe that our development schedule will not be able to provide all the functions from the beginning. For this reason, we have set it as it is. There may be questions about the breakdown of this. We are currently working on the details and sorting out the breakdown. If we could have a little more time, we would like to make it in a form that can be disclosed in due course.

I'm sorry, what did you say the second point separates what from what? I'm sorry I didn't catch that.

Committee Member Uemura: I think the is listed as a long-term outcome. Since this refers to the people of Japan and government officials, the people of Japan and government officials have been integrated. Is it possible to separate them? What do you think?

Keninoura Director: I see. Thank you very much.

Now, depending on how the Base Registry procedure is used, depending on the use case, it is possible to separate the breakdown itself. For example, in the case of the previous example, the work of confirming various registration information, etc. online, and the public claim, which had to be viewed online, can be viewed online. And although I mentioned the people, mainly the procedures of business operators, the procedures that business operators had to do directly in the past will be eliminated. It is possible to sort out the breakdown, so we will closely examine the breakdown.

As for the third point, in terms of the utilization rate, it may not be very precise, but I think it is possible to show the approximate percentage of the cases that will be eliminated by the procedures of business operators, so I would like to see how many of the procedures that do not need to be changed are actually being used as much as possible by sorting out the breakdown I mentioned earlier.

And the fourth point is to visualize the status of development. In the database development and improvement plan, we would like to aim to provide these functions in specific fiscal years. Every year, in the form of Digital Agency Priority Plan, we make a plan on what to 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 Digital TV Agency's efforts so far, so among them, we would like to show the progress of development.

As for how to eliminate the final seal, Digital Agency is very enthusiastic about eliminating the seal of Minister Kono, so in a sense, eliminating paper documents is one of the effects of the Base Registry Project. Within the framework of gBizID and related electronic signatures and electronic power of attorney that I explained earlier, there are many online mechanisms that provide the same functions as seals and replace seals more and more. Promoting the use of them will be an initiative to eliminate seals and paper. By providing not only Base Registry but also a variety of functions such as electronic signatures and authentication, they will be eliminated more and more.

Committee Member Uemura: I think the .

Chairman Sato: .

Next, Mr. Sora, please.

Dr. Utsuro: Thank you, .

I was able to omit one question because there was a question on the basis of outcomes, but I think there was another question on the sharing of master data. I think that itself is a very good thing, but considering the problem of vacant houses that has come up recently, I think there will be cases where the data becomes invalid silently. Is there a data check or not? Rather, I would like to know if there is a data check for those that have been checked once. This is my first question. My question is only this.

Another point I would like to make is that it is a very good idea that if you make only one change, it will be automatically accepted as a whole, and I think it is something that should be done as a matter of course, rather than something like a data maintenance in the age of AI.

However, I would like you to pay attention to redundancy. I just did it for gBizID, and the real estate IDs are also progressing separately. I am not sure if there is any overlap with these. So, I would like you to pay attention to that redundancy.

Finally, I agree very much with Mr. Uemura's opinion that the progress should be disclosed. For example, when I hear that the change can be made in one place, I feel that I will be told that I have to check whether all the changes have been made or not, because I have made the changes. Therefore, I am showing the discomfort of the administrative services during the time lag of the past few years. Although it is a different procedure, there are quite a lot of cases where they say they will do it but they are not cooperating at all. If they say they will do it but they can't do it at all, it will only cause distrust among the people. That is why I am aiming in this direction. However, I think that it is more reassuring and will not cause strange misunderstandings if the progress is disclosed to this extent. In that sense, I think it is desirable to know that the administrative services have already been completed in this area.

That's all for my opinion. Thank you.

Keninoura Director: .

In response to your first question about data checking and confirmation, for example, in relation to registration, the original registration itself is kept at the registry office in Ministry of Justice, so we cannot directly check if the house is vacant. That is not the case. The registration information itself should be managed appropriately by Ministry of Justice. We can integrate the registration data with data cleansing, etc., and after that, we will focus on automating it and integrating APIs, etc., as much as possible. Unfortunately, we cannot immediately grasp, confirm, and give feedback on whether the data is correct or not.

After that, when we talked about redundancy, we also talked about real estate IDs and gBizID. I think everyone uses the term IDs, so it may be difficult to understand. Among the ones you mentioned earlier, real estate IDs and this base registry are closely related. With real estate IDs, we will assign IDs to various buildings, which is exactly what we are doing in cooperation with base registry for address. Specifically, for example, when assigning real estate IDs, of course address information is required, so when that happens, you can use our data here, and we plan to use it for real estate IDs in a way that well handles notation fluctuations.

Also, with regard to visibility, naturally the ministries and agencies in charge of the system will need to take institutional or systematic measures in order for us to make use of this mechanism, but Digital Agency will work together to make sure that this happens as soon as possible.

.

Chairman Sato: .

Next, Mr. Horikawa, please go ahead.

Dr. Horikawa: Thank you very much. I understand your explanation very well.

I have to think about time.

Chairman Sato: That's fine.

Dr. Horikawa: , both questions and opinions.

First of all, in the past, at work, I tried to import data from the database held by an incorporated administrative agency into Excel and analyze it, but at that time, which was already 20 years ago, the database itself was a proprietary format of the vendor, and it could not be imported into Excel. It was impossible. In the first place, I have gone into a situation where an incorporated administrative agency could only handle it as a database for its own use.

This is a question, but I assume that the databases held by local governments will be utilized this time, and I would like to know if there are any barriers in the uptake of such databases due to the formats that exist for each organization and each business operator.

Next, as you mentioned in your explanation, the fluctuation of address expressions in the construction of base registry for address is an issue that cannot be solved by systematization alone, as you explained, and it is important for the government to organize and standardize them. Therefore, I understand that now is the time to coordinate with the government at the stage before system development and before designing, and I would like to support what you are doing now.

This is about the EBPM from here, and I think it overlaps a little with Mr. Utsuro's opinion. As you explained earlier about medium - to long-term outcome indicators, it is set that the reduction of the burden on the people and government officials will be improved, but as you have already explained earlier, various issues can be seen. I think it is important to set indicators that show what the issues are for system development and whether they are being overcome or stopped. My first opinion is that I would like you to actively consider this point.

Next, if you look at the history of system development in the past, as you know, each ministry and agency first built a system individually. Then, what is now called the Digi Agency, in the old days, the IT office and administration in Cabinet Secretariat worked together and proceeded to integration. When it comes to integration, as I said earlier, each ministry and agency is systematized with different vendors, and it is not easy. I mean, the existing system does not become an asset. We have repeated a situation in the past where we had no choice but to create a completely new one, a situation of double investment. I think whether or not this base registry will be integrated in the future is still a challenge, but I think it is important to design it with an eye on future integration by making use of the lessons of this history. This is my second opinion.

Finally, I hope that the Digi Agency will incorporate these points into the review sheet with the knowledge of experts so that effective evaluation can be made in terms of EBPM. At the same time, I hope that the Digi Agency will create a review sheet that will be the best practice in system development.

That's all in my opinion.

Chairman Sato: Branch Office, if you have any answers, please.

Keninoura Director: I would like to comment.

I would like to thank you for your opinions on our future efforts.

With regard to your first question, at the moment, if we are to link any information from the local government system to this database, rather than from the local government side, we would like to establish a base registry for address for the local government to use it, so at this stage, there is no activity to connect anything to the local government system to obtain information.

However, what you pointed out at the beginning, i.e., please do it in a data format that can be easily used by administrative agencies such as independent administrative agencies, is another initiative of Digital Agency, which is related to open data. In particular, when administrative agencies make their own data available as open data, they should do it in such a way. We are talking about copyrights, data formats, and other open data initiatives that urge administrative agencies to release more and more data in a form that is easy to use, especially for AI learning data, etc. I hope you will refer to them again.

Also, regarding the shaking of the notation, efforts on the administrative side will be necessary as a matter of course. In particular, in the future, when giving a residence indication when building a new house, we would like to create a world without such shaking by referring to this very base registry for address so that there will be no such shaking or mistakes.

We also talked about the difficulty of updating or integrating systems and the assets of vendors. This is typical in the case of on-prem systems that have been built so far. This is about putting it on the cloud more and more. In a sense, we are modernizing the Architecture itself to make it easier to update, manage, and maintain it. It may take some time, but the philosophy is progressing. This is the same for local governments. It is impossible for over 1,000 local governments to create their own systems. We are trying to create systems that can be used commonly. This is being discussed at the Digital Administrative and Financial Reform Council. I hope you will refer to it. Also, I think it would be good if Director Mori or the secretariat of the Digital would consider this as a project review.

Thank you for your opinion.

Dr. Horikawa: , thank you very much.

Chairman Sato: .

Next, Mr. Iwasaki, please go ahead.

Iwasaki: , thank you very much for your explanation.

I would like to ask you to look at the short - and long-term outcomes and make comments. First, regarding the expression pathway from activities, the units of description for some of the targets and indicators are not clear, so I would like to ask you to describe them.

Second, regarding the basis for calculating whether the estimated long-term outcome target budget amount of 260 million yen is simply added every year, I believe that if the project basically contributes to digital administrative and fiscal reforms, there are expectations for cost efficiency and cost-effectiveness, so I would like you to take that into consideration.

The third question is, from a long-term perspective, as Japan's current situation becomes more serious with a declining birthrate, aging population, and declining population, can you please tell us whether the number of such data will decrease in the long term?

That's all.

Chairman Sato: of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.

Keninoura Director: logic model does not include a breakdown. It is difficult to understand, but the address of 260 million yen itself is based on the assumption that it will increase at the same pace every year for 5 years. I do not include a breakdown, so it may be difficult to understand how the unit price was multiplied. This is not a cost estimate, but if you refer to base registry for address as an estimate of the effect in the procedure, for example, how much time will be saved and how efficient it will be compared to the case where it was done manually. This is a trial calculation, so I would like to make it at a timing when I can publish it after further examination.

Also, regarding your second question about the decrease in data, what do you envision?

Iwasaki: , I would like to ask if you have any thoughts on the long-term perspective of how these projects will evolve given that the overall trend in the number of corporations is expected to decline as the population of Japan continues to decline.

Keninoura Director: I see, I understand. The population is going to decrease, and it is not immediately clear whether this kind of data will decrease. It is not necessarily the case that the number of business operators will decrease as soon as the population decreases. Since construction is progressing to a certain extent, I think there will be mergers and closures. However, I think it will be a while before the trend of data itself begins to decrease, although the trend of data itself will continue to increase and then slow down. I think it will be necessary to make efforts to reduce the procedures themselves or reduce the data itself. Handling data also costs money, and there are server costs, handling costs, communication costs, and so on, so I think that reducing the data itself will be an issue in the future.

Iwasaki: I see. Thank you very much.

Chairman Sato: Next, Committee member Kanbayashi, please.

Mr. Kanbayashi: I don't know much about what you asked, Mr. , I feel that you have already summarized the expected issues and have not received sufficient answers on this point, so please allow me to ask another question.

First, regarding the setting of outputs and outcomes, I have received a lot of comments and questions from you. Please tell us how you plan to measure them. In particular, please tell us how you plan to measure the amount of money that comes from reducing administrative burden.

My second question is about how the Government of Japan will continue to coordinate with relevant administrative agencies. How is the Government of Japan building a relationship with Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications's establishment frame database or Ministry of Justice's Statistical System of Incorporated Enterprises? In particular, you mentioned in your answer earlier that cleansing of registration information is not possible immediately. Is the Government of Japan properly considering cleansing of registration information and feeding it back to Ministry of Justice's registration system in the future?

Intuitively, I think that the purpose can be achieved by improving the existing establishment population database and corporate registration system, but I would like to know the meaning of setting up this base registry project separately.

That's all.

Chairman Sato: of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.

Keninoura Director: It may be a bit out of order, but I will comment.

As for the amount written in the outcome, basically, for example, there was a survey conducted by a think tank in the past on the number of corporate changes, so we basically used the number of changes. If we estimate how long it will take to process each case based on the number of changes, and if it takes, for example, one hour, the unit cost of personnel expenses is calculated by multiplying the unit cost, which is commonly used in Digital Agency, by the time. In a sense, the amount is calculated in proportion to the number of changes. I hope you will understand that this amount is calculated as such.

Then, for example, we talked about the establishment population database in Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. For example, they collect detailed data on sales and the number of people working at each establishment. Therefore, the registration information this time cannot be covered by this base registry alone, but as for the parts that can be linked, for example, the data that can be obtained from the information linkage mechanism of this registration will be given to the other side, and the linkage is being promoted now.

Regarding the cleansing process, as I said I would not be able to do it right away, we will proceed with the cleansing process in a matter-of-fact manner. However, as the cleansing process itself is for data linkage, for example, in the case of residence indication, I believe that the most important thing is to conduct cleansing by changing the expressions rather than changing the content, including such details as separating the data according to the granularity of the address and sorting the data according to a format that is convenient for linkage or using the same full-width or half-width characters for very detailed matters.

Considering that the authenticity or quality of the data itself is registered on an application basis, Digital Agency will not say that something is wrong and revise it on its own, so Ministry of Justice or the administrator of the database will make a decision and decide whether to revise the original document or not. We believe that we will do molding for that purpose to the extent necessary for information linkage, and it is not a work to revise the data itself.

Chairman Sato: , Committee member, are your answers correct?

In terms of the relationship, Mr. Kentaro Kanbayashi, Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, probably intended to say that there are various databases in Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and Ministry of Justice, for example, and as Mr. Hollow pointed out, there is redundancy. There is redundancy between the database of other ministries and agencies and this base registry, and he also asked a rather serious question about where the data should be sent.

Mr. Kanbayashi: I don't know much about what you asked, Mr. You mean you can't leave it to them?

Chairman Sato: That's right.

Constitution Mr. Ura, please.

Keninoura Director: I would like to leave what can be left to you, but as for the registration, you can bring what you can get from the registration to the business office database, but it is probably not enough, so I think that the investigation itself needs to be done.

However, since it is used for another purpose in such a way, I think that it is difficult to be satisfied with all the information of the registration.

Chairman Sato: .

I also have many questions, but I have asked you mainly questions, so I would like to ask each member's opinion on the final base registry as I did earlier, and I would like to compile it again.

So, I made a request earlier from Mr. Iwasaki, but I would like to reverse the order this time and ask for Mr. Horikawa, Mr. Sora, Mr. Kanbayashi, Mr. Uemura and Mr. Iwasaki, in that order. Mr. Horikawa may not have expected this, but Mr. Horikawa, could you please give us some general comments?

Dr. Horikawa: .

I understand that you are already aware of various issues. Since you are the Agency for Digital, I hope that you will create a review sheet that will become a good practice in system development by reflecting them in the review sheet with the knowledge of experts.

That's all in my opinion.

Chairman Sato: .

Next, Mr. Sora, please.

Dr. Utsuro: Thank you, .

I would like you to aim to complete the data once the procedures are completed. Regarding the output and outcome, as pointed out by other committee members, I would like you to review them one by one. I would also like you to add that we should speed up the process a little to shorten the time and achieve it as soon as possible.

That's all.

Chairman Sato: .

Next, Committee member Kanbayashi, please.

Mr. Kanbayashi: I don't know much about what you asked, Mr. . But I would like you to sort out the relationship with other databases in the government based on 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 is almost equivalent, so I think it is better to devise a little more in the way of writing.

That's all.

Chairman Sato: .

Next, Mr. Uemura, please go ahead.

Committee Member Uemura: I think the Real Estate field is a very important project. There are probably many bottlenecks in the process of advancing it, and I think it is a project that needs to be dealt with individually. However, I would like it to proceed by all means, but it is important to have a system that can be used widely and efficiently, so I would like to ask for your cooperation.

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

That's all.

Chairman Sato: .

Committee Member Iwasaki, please.

Iwasaki: .

I regard this project as a major project that will not only improve convenience and efficiency of administrative operations, but also contribute to administrative and fiscal reforms in the medium to long term. I believe that it is the foundation of digital government, including cross-ministerial and public-private data collaboration, improving user convenience, and fiscal reforms associated with eliminating overlapping investments. I expect that the base registry in this Digital Agency will be the latest version of all real-time data, and I would like related ministries and local governments to firmly promote cooperation for that purpose.

As you pointed out earlier about the lack of data correction and the issue of redundancy, I expect that the security measures of each ministry and agency will be fully taken into consideration and that Digital Agency will serve as the control tower for the regulatory authorities.

That's all.

Chairman Sato: .

I am not sure if I can wrap up the general comments I received from the committee members, but I will do it myself.

First of all, Mr. Horikawa mentioned "good practices," which is not as important as the order of his remarks. Mr. Horikawa's rationale is that good practices should be created for local governments, national governments, and independent administrative institutions, including those whose databases are different and cannot be standardized well. On this issue, the issue of address notation has been difficult to address for decades, and even if a law on address notation is established, there are actually local governments that do not comply with it. This is a difficult issue, and Mr. Horikawa used the term "good practices," including the question of how far this can be done with this base registry and whether past mistakes should be repeated.

In addition, I believe that Mr. Hirokazu Utsuro, Mr. Kanbayashi, Mr. Uemura, and Mr. Iwasaki expressed the view that they would like us to closely examine the indicators of output and outcome, especially outcome. If we summarize only one point, I think it would be the reduction of the burden on government officials and, of course, convenience for the private sector. The effect was calculated by multiplying the number of cases by personnel costs. I wonder if it is really good or not. I am also concerned about the cost to develop this database. In particular, local governments and related ministries and agencies need to develop data to create a database for this base registry, and there is a cost involved. I think it is important to consider not only cost effectiveness but also such things.

Next, everyone is particularly interested in real estate, and Mr. Uemura asked 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, but the base registry is to make the registry owned by the government, for example, managed by Ministry of Justice, available to the public, so I think it is a little different from the one for administrative procedures.

The other point is, as pointed out by the hollow member, for example, in the case of addresses, whether it is possible to check whether a house is vacant or not, and how to show it in the Ministry of Justice database, which is a quite difficult issue. On the contrary, 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.

That point was actually pointed out by Mr. Hollow in his individual opinion, and it was pointed out that it would be better to say how far it can be done quite clearly. Relatively speaking, the first vision, especially regarding the base registry, has been included as a goal since the inauguration of Digital Agency, and a fairly large vision was presented and the items were actually reduced. Including such background, I feel that it is important to clarify what can be done and what cannot be done first in advancing this base registry. That is the point from Mr. Hollow's opinion.

With regard to outcomes and outputs, Mr. Uemura stated that it would be necessary to make efforts to visualize the status of utilization on the dashboard and other indicators such as the utilization rate and the number of uses.

Also, Committee member Kanbayashi mentioned the relationship with the relevant government agencies. I do not think that the original division has given a clear answer on this point either. Even if each ministry and agency has developed a database for statistics or for individual reference, for example, in the case of a statistical database, it is very important to reflect the completeness and statistical reality. On the other hand, regarding the base registry, although the term database is used, it seems that it is not necessarily organized as to whether it is a statistical database or a database for individual inquiries. I believe that if this is clarified, the relationship with the relevant government agencies will naturally be organized. I would like to ask for your continued consideration on this point.

As for the third possible issue, the maintenance and management of the database requires a certain amount of time and effort. For example, if the burden on the local government side is increased by the burden of developing the database in order to reduce the administrative costs of the local government, it is completely like putting the cart before the horse. Therefore, I think it is necessary to evaluate or establish a system to appropriately implement such measures including the costs related to the maintenance and operation of the base registry.

I believe that I have covered most of your opinions at this point, but if there is anything missing, please point it out.

Chairman Sato: Well then, since there seems to be no particular opinion, I have just explained in a matter-of-fact manner, but I would like to summarize the above.

Now, I would like to wrap up the Base Registry project. Thank you very much for your detailed explanation of the Base Registry, Mr. Kenzaiura.

I would now like to return the point of order to the Secretariat. Thank you very much.

Director Mori: I would like to thank Committee Member for his lively discussion, and Chairman Sato for his summary.

The opinions and minutes compiled today will be made public on the Digital Agency website after confirmation by the committee members.

In closing, Director-General Tomiyasu would like to make his remarks. Nice to meet you, Director-General.

Director-General Tomiyasu: Thank you very much, Mr. Sato , Chair of the Panel, for organizing this meeting, and thank you also to all the experts for your valuable comments.

As mentioned by the committee members, Digital Agency is taking over what the IT Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Regional Administration Bureau did in the past, and is further strengthening it. We are reviewing the system budgets of each government agency, and are seeking or are in a position to seek common functions and elimination of duplication, as we discussed today.

GBizID and Base Registry, which I explained today, are also projects conducted by Digital Agency, and it is a project that must be used by each government agency and local governments. Today, we also talked about why we want them to use it, of course, but we want them to understand the outcomes by explaining them well, and that's why we want them to use common functions. It is a means, so we are not good at explaining outcomes in such a way. Thank you very much for pointing out various things today. Today, there was a part where we explained the evaluation in terms of the amount of money, but it may be that we explain it in terms of the time saved by the people and business operators. I think it is our challenge to explain the outcomes in terms of the entire system budget. I would like to refer to today's discussion so that we can properly explain the cost-benefit effect. We really think that is a challenge, so thank you for your various discussions and suggestions today. We will make full use of it.

Thank you again.

Director Mori: I would like to thank Committee Member .

This concludes the public disclosure process for the Fiscal 2024 Digital Agency Policy Evaluations and Public Administration Project Reviews. Thank you very much, Committee Members, for the long and lively discussion.

Thank you for your hard work today.

Greater than or