Proceedings of the House of Councillors Special Committee on Administrative Reform, May 18, 2006

Original publication date: May 18, 2006

Regarding Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (VISIT)

Fukushima Mizuho

Next, the dealings from the public to the private sector, I want to ask about these.

First I'll ask about the VISIT system. Are there any countries other than the U.S. where people are fingerprinted upon entry and departure?

Minister of State (Sugiura Seiken)

The only country where foreigners are required to have their fingerprints taken upon landing examination is the United States.

I also understand that in the EU, they are currently discussing a law which would introduce a new system requiring foreigners to submit fingerprints when applying for a visa.

Fukushima Mizuho

But right now, it's only the United States.

Now, Accenture is the company responsible for software to handle all biometric information (fingerprinting, etc.), as defined by the bill for revision of the immigration regulations in Japan which was just passed. This is the same company that is implementing the US-VISIT program in the United States. This company made a successful bid of 100,000 yen. Once again, this company won this contract for a bid of only 100,000 yen, is this correct?

Minister of State (Sugiura Seiken)

The company named Accenture was incorporated under Japanese law as a Japanese company. I've heard that this company has expanded its business into 48 countries, and I've been told that it is not based in the U.S., that it is headquartered in Bermuda; the American section is also under the same umbrella. (Maybe that is excessive information.)

The 100,000 yen contract that was awarded yesterday is for a study on the introduction of a new system. As a result of a general competitive bidding, this was the amount that was awarded.

Fukushima Mizuho

100,000 yen is an extremely odd amount of money. The analysis charts for key challenges of the immigration authorities and resources of the Justice Ministry are talking about securing interoperability with related institutions from across the world.

The exact same company who is doing the US-VISIT program in the U.S. is going to manage fingerprinting in Japan. At the U.S. Congress House Appropriations Committee on June 9th, 2004, Democratic congresswoman Rosa DeLauro voiced criticisms about this Bermuda-based company. This multinational corporation ― maybe better to call it a "stateless corporation" ― is enrolled in the tax haven island of Bermuda. It was established after Enron and Andersen. The U.S. government is spending over a trillion yen on US-VISIT. Isn't this a bit strange? That is the argument she was putting forward. In 2004 ― sorry, this is what I was saying a moment ago ― in 2004, in the U.S., congresswoman Rosa DeLauro was making this argument, and on June 9th, 2004, in the House Appropriations Committee, an amendment to prohibit contracts between the Homeland Security Department and foreign corporations was passed with a vote of 35 to 17. However, despite this, the contract for America's US-VISIT program was awarded to Accenture anyway.

In the U.S. as well, there is a debate about whether this is a good thing, America's information going to a stateless corporation. In fact, it has been said that America is backing this project up, so we might ask: why has Accenture been awarded this contract in Japan? Information from the Justice Department describes the security of interoperability between institutions at home and abroad, information exchangeability, compatibility and sharing; it is talking about securing interoperability between institutions at home and abroad, this is how it is written here. If the same company takes on this project, then our information will be leaked everywhere, this is what I am extremely concerned about.

Now, I want to ask a question. This company Acccenture has, in the same way, been in charge of software for other government offices in Japan. What kind of places are these?

Minister of State (Sugiura Seiken)

I don't know anything about other government agencies, but about the procurement of computer products and related services in the public sector of this country, government policy is clear, and it has to comply with international competitive bidding standards based on competition involving no special treatment, with fairness and transparency. We cannot reject bids just because they come from foreign companies or pertain to foreign goods.

Accenture Japan Ltd. is, in terms of Japanese law, a company incorporated in Japan, it does pays its taxes, it is a Japanese corporation and also pays local taxes. Now, while it is true that as a multinational corporation it has expanded into 48 countries, the section that controls these operations is located in Bermuda, I think it is affiliated with the Bermuda-based headquarters. As I understand it, this is the way the corporation positions itself.

Fukushima Mizuho

Please answer my question.

Please name the Japanese public offices whose information Accenture Japan Ltd. is in charge of administering as a result of this negotiated contract.

I am asking this question.

Minister of State (Sugiura Seiken)

Who are you directing your question at? Are you asking me?

Fukushima Mizuho

No, only someone from the Justice Ministry can answer this question.

Chairperson (Otsuji Hidehisa)

We are changing the speaker. Cabinet Secretary Councillor Andou.

Representative for the government (Andou Tomohiro)

I will answer the question.

As I know it, Accenture Japan Ltd. has been commissioned to government agencies such as for example the Imperial House Agency, the Japan Fair Trade Commission, the Ministry of Justice and the National Tax Agency.

Fukushima Mizuho

According to the records of government and public offices for the fiscal year 2005, it has been commissioned for the Imperial Household Agency, the Fair Trade Commission, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Finance, and the National Tax Agency. Among these there is a contract with the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Justice deals with information for prosecution cases, lots of extremely delicate information. This is extremely sensitive fingerprint information for immigration control and it will be handled, as a result of the recent Immigration Law, by Accenture. The Justice Ministry is also involved in this.

Why is a multinational, foreign company handling this information for the Imperial Household Agency? Why is it handling information for the Fair Trade Commission? And the National Tax Agency, this is all extremely sensitive information. I am really extremely worried that all this very important, sensitive information of Japanese citizens, by being interchanged, or shared, with foreign countries, might be leaked.

The various agencies, including the National Tax Agency, that you listed up, and also ones that you didn't include, or the ones that I just listed up, that's all of them, right?

Representative for the government (Andou Tomohiro)

I will answer the question.

About the points you just brought up in your question, under the government policy, digitalization in ministries and agencies has been in progress for some time. However, about the Ministries who have placed those orders, the ones that we know of are the Imperial Household Agency, the Fair Trade Commission, the Ministry of Justice, and the National Tax Agency.

Fukushima Mizuho

They are all dealing with extremely important information.

And what do you think of this, Prime Minister? This company, who is in control of system compatibility, in the United States or across multiple countries, will have access to prosecution information and Justice Ministry information. According to this document, it doesn't have to restrict its operations to within the Justice Ministry. What do you think about this?

Prime Minister (Koizumi Junichiro)

Well, I ― what is the name of this company, Accent? Accenture? I really don't know. I don't know what kind of company this is, but I understand that it complied with requirements of competitive bidding carried out in a fair manner. The question of whether a negotiated contract is a good thing has been discussed in the national diet. There are positive aspects of negotiated contracts. I think that in some cases competitive bidding is the best choice. However, since, as a rule, this is not always the case, we have debated the issue in this committee and other places, and many different arguments have been put forward.

In terms of the problem we are discussing today, we also need to take into account the criticisms that may come up regarding barring foreign corporations from Japanese government agencies. In the end, fairness, transparency, security of the nation, I think that these are questions requiring that comprehensive judgements be made.

Fukushima Mizuho

That's not the point. The role of Accenture in the Justice Ministry was to be an advisor. Itself acting as an advisor, it was then awarded the contract for 100,000 yen. This is a really strange story. This is after all extremely sensitive information of Japanese citizens that is being commoditized. To take an extreme example, someone from some administrative institution in the United States would become able to access this information about Japan, this is what I am afraid of. For this reason, cases in which dealings from public to private are carried out by a foreign company, to put it into extreme terms, these dealings from public to private are to be handled by America, by U.S.A. It is this issue that I think is extremely critical.

Next, according to the Washington Post, it was reported that the company AT&T ― in Japan this would be something like NTT ― handed over the records of 2 trillion phone calls to the American government since Sept. 11, 2001, about 500 billion phone calls in 2005 alone. President Bush didn't deny this. Japan has created and is in the process of creating various systems, such as Japan's Juki Net [resident registry network], N-System, etc., that follow in the footsteps of those used in the U.S. I am extremely concerned that the surveillance society is expanding further and further.

Japan's Conspiracy Law is currently being debated in the Lower House Committee on Judicial Affairs. From the perspective of a legal expert, the Conspiracy Law poses extremely serious problems. Without having actually done anything, a person can be sentenced, with respect to 620 different criminal offences, just on the basis of something they have agreed to or on the basis of something they have said. How do you present findings in court about something that that you did not actually do? Charges of systematic obstruction by force [Soshikiteki Iryoku Bougaizai/組織的威力妨害罪], or for example spreading rumours like Livedoor did, these are all targets of the Conspiracy Law. A person can be convicted of a criminal offense for trying to drive up stock value by making their company's data look better, even if they never actually carried out any actions. In terms of contemporary criminal law, I don't know how you can substantiate this kind of allegation in court. About this law, this Conspiracy Law, both left wing as well as right wing groups ― and it was also mentioned in Tokyo Newspaper ― police detectives are also against it, people are saying that it's going to cause real problems. Opposition to the Conspiracy Law has come from both the left and the right, from practising police officers, opposition parties, and even from members with the ruling party itself; everybody is voicing concerns about this law.

Prime Minister, regarding this Conspiracy Law, who on earth wants this law? I don't think this kind of law should be passed in the final term of the Koizumi administration. What do you think, Prime Minister?

Minister of State (Sugiura Seiken)

Madam, you are a lawyer so I assume that you understand this issue very well. Regarding the Conspiracy Law that you just mentioned, the conclusion of the Convention Against Trans-National Organized Crime already approved in the Diet...

Fukushima Mizuho

Please get to the point.

Minister of State (Sugiura Seiken)

It was concluded. The conclusion of the convention was necessary in order to co-operate with the international community in combating organized crime such as terrorism and in protecting Japanese citizens against serious organized crime.

Also, about the law, there have been concerns expressed, however I believe that we have obtained an understanding from various groups on its substance. At the present time, both at the meeting of the Committee on Judicial Affairs and within its administrative board, discussions are ongoing. The ruling party submitted amendments in response to government proposals, and I understand that currently, consultations are going on to discuss incorporating as much as possible parts of those Democratic Party amendment proposals in subsequent re-amendments of the bill.

Already deliberations are close to conclusion. At the administrative board meeting, the topic is being discussed, and, since the Japanese people have voiced concerns about this, I am hoping that we can come to a conclusion and put into place the re-amendments.

Fukushima Mizuho

You are speaking of international terrorist organizations, but this legislation is not limited to cases which are international or cross-border in nature. It also covers domestic concerns, cases such as theft, larceny, and so on. What you are describing is different from the actual legislation.

And also, Prime Minister, other committee members brought up issues related to the problem that we were discussing a moment ago about the restructuring of American military bases. Social inequality is increasing and welfare is being cut back. When elderly people in Japan are hospitalized, they have to cover expenses for their accommodation and meals as if they were staying in a hotel. Meanwhile, if American forces transfer to Guam, the Japanese government covers expenses for the construction of 80 million yen houses ― and this is construction expenses alone. These are very luxurious homes they are talking about, that's what they will build. School expenses will also be covered. In some cases, they will foot the bill for utilities as well. You say small government, small government, but you waste huge amounts of money, I don't understand this at all. You speak of small government, small government, and meanwhile you are trying to create an immense surveillance society, this I also can't understand.