Press Conference by the Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary

JAPANESE

Opening Statement by Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: First of all I would like to report an overview of the Cabinet meeting that took place today. The meeting approved 11 general and other measures, and also approved the promulgation of legislation, the issuance of Cabinet orders and personnel decisions. There were a number of statements by ministers in the meeting. Prime Minister Kan made a statement on the convening of the Investigation Committee for the Incident at Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO)'s Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station (Nuclear Incident Investigation Committee). Minister Renho made statements on the status of traffic-related accidents for FY2010 and the current status of traffic safety measures and also on the Plan for Traffic Safety Measures for FY2011. The Minister of Finance made a statement concerning the report on the Japan's external balance sheet as of the end of 2010 and the report on the international balance of payments for 2010. Prime Minister Kan also made a statement on temporary acting Prime Minister during periods when the Prime Minister is on an overseas visit.

In ministerial roundtable discussions the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications made a statement concerning a decision on the FY2011 Administrative Evaluation Program.

I would now like to report in further details about the convening of the Nuclear Incident Investigation and Verification Committee, which was approved by the Cabinet today. With regard to the incident at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station, it is important that the investigation is carried out thoroughly in an open and neutral manner that is accountable to the public, with the results being disclosed both domestically and overseas. In addition, it is also necessary to receive proposals on how the lessons learned from the investigation results can be used to ascertain what measures are required to prevent the further spread of damage and what measures are required to prevent a reoccurrence. It is for these reasons that the Nuclear Incident Investigation and Verification Committee has been established based on three fundamental concepts set out by Prime Minister Kan. These concepts are: 1) complete independence from the existing nuclear energy administration; 2) openness in fully disclosing facts both domestically and abroad; and 3) comprehensiveness in examining various areas that may have affected this accident, including technical aspects as well as the way systems and organizations operated. This Nuclear Incident Verification Committee will engage in a wide-ranging investigation of the incident, including the actions of all those concerned without any areas being extended from investigation, including the operator of the power station TEPCO, the various related administrative bodies, and the actions of Cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister. These investigations will be compiled into a detailed report. The Government is also mindful of the fact that the head of this Verification Committee should have appropriate expert knowledge and should also have no conflicts of interest or vested interests with the parties involved in the recent incident. It has therefore been decided to call on Yotaro Hatamura, Professor Emeritus of the University of Tokyo and Professor of Kogakuin University, to head the Verification Committee. Professor Hatamura is well-known as a proponent of and the foremost expert in the “study of failures” that seeks to “learn from failures to find what should be done to prevent the same mistakes from occurring again.” He has a wealth of experience in many previous incident investigations and he is therefore considered to be the most appropriate person to head the Nuclear Incident Investigation Committee. The other members of the Committee will be decided after close consultation with Professor Hatamura, and after due coordination of schedules, it is planned that the first meeting of the Committee will be held in the near future. The Nuclear Incident Verification Committee will require a secretariat and the Government will request a suitable public prosecutor to serve as Secretary General of the secretariat.

Next, I have a report concerning the Okinawa Policy Council. Prior to the Cabinet meeting this morning a meeting of the subcommittee on revitalization of the Okinawa Policy Council was held. This subcommittee was established by the Okinawa Policy Council in September last year and this was the third time for it to meet. Today the meeting first heard explanations from the governor of Okinawa Prefecture and mayors of municipalities in Okinawa concerning their requests for a new revitalization policy for Okinawa. From the Government an explanation was provided on the status of considerations on and the working-level operations relating to the proposal received from Okinawa Prefecture in December last year concerning structures and systems. Following these opening explanations the subcommittee engaged in an exchange of opinions. The Chief Cabinet Secretary, who also serves as the Minister of State for Okinawa Affairs stated that if necessary considerations and coordination would be advanced not merely at the working-level, but also at the policy-making level. He also requested the particular cooperation of other related ministers in these considerations.

The final item I have to report concerns the status of the salary reduction for national public servants. In roundtable ministerial discussions, Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications Katayama gave a report. The Minister reported that as a result of negotiations with the Liaison Committee for Public Sector Workers, which is affiliated to the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (RENGO), the representative of the Liaison Committee had accepted a proposal to reduce the salaries of national public servants as follows. Designated officials and management officials will be subject to a 10% salary reduction, deputy directors and section chiefs will be subject to an 8% reduction and general staff will be subject to a 5% reduction. Bonuses for all personnel and benefits for management officials will all be cut by 10%. Although this is a very severe proposal for the national public servants, the Government believes that they have shown understanding at this time, given the extremely severe situation Japan currently faces. The Government is currently preparing a draft bill for the reform of the National Public Service system. This is a draft bill that will considerably restore the basic labor rights of national public servants and establish an independent structure for labor-management relations. It is anticipated that this draft bill will be submitted together with the draft bill for the reduction of national public servants' salaries. Efforts will continue to be made to engage in negotiations with one more labor union, the Japan Public Sector Union, and gain their understanding.

Q&As

REPORTER: With regard to the Nuclear Incident Investigation Committee, I believe that its secretariat will be located within the Cabinet Secretariat. There are various ministries and agencies that have been involved in the response to the incident and you have already mentioned the matter of parties with vested interests. I have also understood your point about the appointment of a public prosecutor to the position of Secretary General. What other structures will you have in place to ensure impartiality and what about the composition of members?

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: The membership of the Investigation Committee will be decided in consultation with Professor Hatamura and maybe other Investigation Committee board members once they have been decided, but what is the first priority is to ensure that the secretariat is composed in such a way that it thoroughly respects and fulfills the three principles I have mentioned just a little while ago. The Government believes that every effort must be made to ensure that the secretariat is composed in such a way to eliminate any vested interest or actions that may be perceived as being collusive. The membership of the committee is being selected based on these principles. As the Prime Minister is leaving for overseas today and the Chief Cabinet Secretary is busy with the Special Diet Committee on Disaster Reconstruction, it has been left to me among the people in the Cabinet Secretariat, to engage in a thorough check of this process, but I am about the only person who has not been involved to a great extent in the response to the incident, so perhaps it is appropriate.

REPORTER: With regard to the responsibilities of ministers concerned, what sort of measures are you considering for the Investigation Committee, for example if the Committee requests a representative of TEPCO to attend, but the request is denied?

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: Ultimately as the ministers concerned possess various authorities and powers, if it is necessary for them to exert such powers in the course of the investigations of the Committee, then they would do so. On that basis I believe that the representatives of TEPCO will provide their cooperation to the investigations of the Committee, including board members and the secretariat.

REPORTER: The Investigation Committee is to be headed by Professor Hatamura. Has he met in the past with the Prime Minister or with Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano and other persons who were involved in the response to the incident?

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: I am not aware that Professor Hatamura has met with the Prime Minister previously and the same goes for the Chief Cabinet Secretary. I am not fully certain of this, but am offering my supposition. As for myself, for example, although I have never really met Professor Hatamura in person, I have seen him on one or two occasions at meetings or symposia that have been hosted or attended by him.

REPORTER: Once you have created this Investigation Committee I expect that it will compile a final report. What are your expectations for when such a final report or an interim report would be issued?

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: I think that is a hard question to answer at the current point when the Investigation Committee has not even been initiated. Above all, I think it is common knowledge that the response towards the incident and measures to bring it under control are still in progress and therefore a clear target cannot be set out. The Investigation Committee is being initiated under these circumstances and therefore when you ask for an estimate of when a final report will be issued the only answer I can give you is that it is unclear at the current time. However, I believe that the board members of the Investigation Committee will naturally disclose a report or interim report at the appropriate time, given the tremendous public concern and attention given to the incident at Fukushima and the wide-ranging interest and opinions of the international community.

REPORTER: TEPCO released data analysis results for Units 2 and 3 at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station on May 23. In their report it states that these units are in the process of melting down. Of course, from now on NISA will be conducting their own analyses of this data, but I would like to know what effect this will have as of right now on those in the disaster-affected areas and the populace at large.

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: Yesterday evening TEPCO submitted a report evaluating and analyzing the cause of damages at its facilities and the safety situation at its nuclear reactors, based on the record of operations from Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station and other records of the incident. While I do think that analyses of Units 2 and 3 were included in that report, NISA is currently conducting an examination to confirm the report's content. I have heard that the organization plans to gather information on the issues and make what they come to understand public as soon as possible. So I would like you to please direct your inquiries regarding the detailed content of the report or an evaluation of that to NISA. As for the effect on those in the disaster-stricken region, I am a complete layman on the topic of radiation. As such, my consistent stance on these issues has been that I should not make any wild guesses. I shall maintain that stance.

REPORTER: I am asking about the investigation and verification though.

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: What?

REPORTER: I am asking about the Investigation Committee. Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano has been saying that information will be made public as much as possible. I think that we could debate the merits of making information public in terms of whether it would allow for a more accurate verification however. How do you intend to make the investigation process public?

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: What?

REPORTER: How do you think you should publicize this?

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: I want the Nuclear Incident Investigation Committee to first make a decision on that. Personally, this incident is one that has attracted a lot of major attention internationally and I think that there are many with a great amount of specialized knowledge ready to give us advice and submit proposals to us. I think that we will probably proceed forward while keeping in mind the fact that the world is watching us. Of course, it would be misleading to say “we will do this much,” but given the current situation, just as the Prime Minister mentioned while issuing his public request today, I think that everything that can be done will be done and as quickly as possible.

REPORTER: Sorry to change the topic, but I would like to ask about the Okinawa Policy Council. Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano once said something to the effect of “we will proceed forward at the political level in the future” regarding the systematic requests he has received from the Prefecture. On which topics do you think you will be proceeding forward with at the political level?

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: I believe that would be those items that will require a political decision. I don't remember everything, but for example, Okinawa asked for the establishment of comprehensive and special zones, or to use the different phrasing from what has been used in the past, the creation of a “one country two systems” situation, or they asked for package grants that allow for a greater degree of freedom in terms of how they can be spent. These were included among the five requested items. Basically, these issues are difficult to handle given current laws, or at least given the way the law is currently interpreted. We will thus naturally need to have a political decision, either to change the laws, or to make special laws in the case of Okinawa. This will be discussed at the political level, and based on those discussions I think we will have to make a decision about what we will do. This is what I think he meant.

REPORTER: I believe that the Government has said that it will create a draft policy for Okinawa development by sometime this summer. Does this mean that you will make a political decision by August, or does it mean that you will be debating the issue this summer with the intention of actually enacting legislation next year?

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: I do not think that we have attached a number to the timeframe for that like you said we have.

REPORTER: Returning to the topic of the Investigation Committee into the nuclear incident, as it proceeds it seems like we may run into quite a few matters about which little to no records were kept, and that we will thus need to rely on the memories of those who worked at the stations. I think that given such conditions, it will be difficult to sort the truth out of the matters that cannot be confirmed. I would like to know your opinion on how the investigation should proceed in instances when there is no record of what exactly happened.

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: Professor Hatamura is a professional among professionals. I don't think you need to worry about that.

REPORTER: I think that comprehensiveness has been highlighted as an important concept for the investigative committee. Does this mean that the Government expects the committee to investigate into even Japan's future nuclear energy policy and the pros and cons of its policy up until now?

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: Regardless of our expectations, the committee is investigative in nature and so I think that it obviously must look into the historical background of the incident. For example, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) was given its current position in the government during the Hashimoto reforms between 1998 and 2000. In addition, the committee will also naturally need to investigate how the current relationship between NISA and policy promotion and regulations came about. So although we will be leaving the decision of how far back into history the committee should investigate up to its members, given the comprehensive nature of its investigation I expect that historical issues will fall within the scope of its work. Of course, we can't really say anything until the committee actually starts its investigation.

REPORTER: Concerning the third-party committee to be established for TEPCO, I would like to know about when you will be announcing the formulation of an investigation committee, and what your view on who should be on the committee is.

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: The Chief Cabinet Secretary and his staff are all currently working diligently on this. I don't think the announcement is too far off. The committee will need to thoroughly investigate the financial and managerial situation at TEPCO and move toward minimizing the burden these issues place on the general populace as much as possible. I think we will soon see the announcement and formulation of this committee and start of work.

REPORTER: I would like to return to the topic of the Okinawa Policy Council. I believe that today the political side issued answers regarding the state of discussions on the Prefecture. Among those answers was one that basically said that in establishing the Okinawa Promotion Plan, the Council will consider the nature of the Prefecture's principle role and responsibilities of the national government. Just reading the text, this seems incredibly obvious. What is the meaning behind the Government taking this kind of attitude when issuing answers?

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: That is why I said in response to the previous question that we need to have a thorough discussion at the political level. It has to be the kind of discussion that can get us to our final destination. It's a bit how to put it? I think this is a difficult problem. We need to soon begin debate at the working or political level. I'm getting a little off track here, but the two issues on the table are regional sovereignty, or ‘decentralization negotiations,' and support from the central government. These issues ceaselessly come up when we discuss the recovery and reconstruction operations after the Great East Japan Earthquake. In other words, to take the discussion to its logical end, many are saying that the local areas should form a plan and the central government should put up all the money for it, and that we shouldn't say anything about that. This kind of extreme discussion is sometimes held when we are in this kind of post-disaster situation, within the context of decentralization. On the other hand, as long as we are talking about the public's money, if the public fund is used in a wrong way after the Government distributes it, whoever is responsible for that needs to absolutely rise to that responsibility. Therefore, the other extreme of this issue is that the central government will be giving money under very strict regulations on subsidies established by such legislation as the Act on Regulation of Execution of Budget Pertaining to Subsidies, etc. So we find ourselves in this debate in which we need to pay close attention to the strings we attach to subsidies, as we do not know how the money is going to be spent, and we need to also carry out adequate investigations. Meanwhile, the current trend is to focus on the opinions and requests of ordinary citizens and local residents. I don't want to say that they can use the money however they want after drawing up a plan, but I do think we need to construct a system that will give a high degree of freedom as to how money is used. Recently there has been a fairly large rift between these two sides on this point. If we could just move a little or come to some kind of compromise―and this compromise might also be a legal one, it may not actually be able to bring an end to all the discussions. As for the issue of development, as our closest Prefecture to Asia, Okinawa is in a sense a keystone of Japan. I think we need to have a debate on how to coordinate Government support and the plan being principally, or independently, developed by Okinawa, in order to have the Prefecture develop in the correct way.

REPORTER: As Mr. Tanigaki implied at the end of yesterday's meeting of the Special Committee on Reconstruction from the Great East Japan Earthquake, opposition parties are considering submission of a bill to the Diet calling for a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister. What do you think about the fact that we are seeing this kind of movement not even three months after the earthquake?

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: I have consistently avoided proactively offering any comments about such things. My opinion is that I think many members of the public as well must also be wondering whether or not now is really the time for that kind of debate.

REPORTER: Concerning TEPCO's scheme for compensation, right now debate on how to earn cooperation from financial institutions…

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: What?

REPORTER: Cooperation from financial institutions…

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: Cooperation.

REPORTER: Yes. Right now there is debate on how to earn the cooperation of financial institutions, for debt relief or other matters. What do you think should be done regarding cooperation from financial institutions in order to earn the understanding of the public?

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: Well, I think this will be debated going forward. It's just that, and I think this has been reported on, the debts listed in TEPCO's financial statements are a really uncertain matter and this is a time of emergency. And we have not yet seen a definitive conclusion among experts as to how far we can currently ascertain the effect that compensation is going to have on that debt or how much the cost of operations at the Fukushima nuclear power stations will have on the company's finances. I think that given the circumstances, going forward each stakeholder, whether they are a stockholder or a financial institution, should debate what they want to do. For that reason, the Government has also been calling for the quick formation of a third-party committee. Just exactly what is the state of TEPCO's finances and operations? Once we know that I think that we must somehow think whether the cooperation of all the stakeholders must be sought or not I think this is the kind of debate we need to have.

REPORTER: I have a question on the rubble removal work which you commented on during a TV program earlier. While the work is being carried out under the direct authority of the Government, the reality is that hardly any of the intended progress has been made. What do you think can be done to speed up the work?

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: This also relates to what Ueno-san, I believe, asked a moment ago. As you all are aware, for the municipal offices, removing rubble is not like removing any other type of general waste considering its volume and quality. It is not an easy task. The current laws assume that the rights and responsibilities for this work lie with the municipalities. However, the financial support scheme for the municipalities was initiated on the basis that neither the municipality nor prefectural governments have the financial resources for this work and indeed a scheme was created in which most, if I recall, around 99% of the cost will be shouldered by the Government. However, it reiterates that the work will be carried out by the municipalities. Nevertheless, if this is virtually impossible for the municipality, then it can commission the prefecture to carry out the work on its behalf. The scheme was changed to allow for this. And most of the municipalities have commissioned the prefectures to carry out the work on their behalf. The question is, are the prefectures able to do this? As Murakami-san (a reporter) said a moment ago, based on the current situation, some are asking whether the work can't be done a little more quickly or precisely. At the same time, moving forward, that is, during the stages after the rubble is deposited at temporary storage sites, there is the question of whether the medium-term and final removal work can be carried out without changing the existing framework a little more. This question has been raised by many people in those communities, and by going to those areas and examining the situation from here, we also share the same view. The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) also feels the same way. However, the MOE is not in the same situation as, for example, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) with regard to roads. MLIT oversees national roads and provides supplementary aid for prefectural programs and supplementary aid to municipalities. In other words, in the case of roads, there are three organizations implementing programs. However, for waste, it is stipulated that the organization to implement programs should be either the municipality or the prefecture. Or otherwise, the waste may be disposed of voluntarily. Under the existing framework, the system at the very least is not designed to allow MOE to commission or implement any programs for this. Should MOE do so? Can the work not be done if the MOE does not do it? And does the law need to be revised so that the MOE can do it? Will a special measures law or the like be necessary or not? Does such an arrangement exist or not? We are discussing these questions now. Unless we do this quickly and arrive at a conclusion, and as Murakami-san said a moment ago, unless the rubble is removed promptly as soon as possible and proper medium-term and final removal work is carried out, the fact of the matter is that the reconstruction work will end up being nothing but talk. Based on such risks, we are currently discussing the issue by thinking about how, through what sort of framework, work can be carried out.

REPORTER: On a related note, at yesterday's meeting of the House of Representatives Special Committee on Reconstruction from the Great East Japan Earthquake, the opposition parties expressed the view that the early passage of the second supplementary budget was necessary. You have said to date that the second supplementary budget needs to also build upon the opinions of local communities. At this point in time, what are your views on the passage of the second supplementary budget during the current session of the Diet?

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: As I have also said elsewhere, I too believe that generally speaking, unless the budget is specified under the second supplementary budget, we cannot embark on the reconstruction process. Or we cannot all cooperate or move the reconstruction process towards a certain vision. Likewise, unless the proponents of the second supplementary budget give a specific explanation about how much funding is necessary for such and such item in units of such and such billions of yen or so many billion yen, I don't think there is really a point of repeating the words “second supplementary budget” over and over again. However, I presume there is probably a need for the budget. Nevertheless, as I've been saying from before, even for waste disposal, can the 360 billion yen which has been allocated for waste disposal be put to use? As for the funding for emergency employment measures, 50 billion yen have been allocated for a program for which each prefecture still has approximately 15 billion to 20 billion yen left. By when should all the funds be expended? I believe it is better if the funds are used up. I believe this is a good thing since that means that that many more programs are being undertaken and are helping those who lost their jobs, at least with their daily livelihood. However, with the second supplementary budget itself, although I believe it is better if it is another one gigantic-sized budget, I am a little concerned as to whether or not we have the enforcement capacity. We cannot simply just come up with a quantitative figure for the second supplementary budget. We have to also consider its enforcement aspects hand in hand. Even if we come up with a supplementary budget which is so large that it makes the Government burp, if any of that money goes unused and is carried over into next year's budget, we will be in a strange situation. And I don't think that we can say something like that won't happen.

REPORTER: I would like to take this opportunity to hear your thoughts a little more. The Chairman of Nippon Keidanren yesterday criticized the Prime Minister's announcement about separating the power generation and transmission operations of power companies, commenting that the Prime Minister's motives are impure and tangled up in the compensation issue. Please tell your thought on this at the moment.

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: I am no expert on this issue, and I think non-experts should not make too many comments. As I mentioned earlier, concerning the incident itself, we need to examine its history. The financial and managerial situation at TEPCO leading to this incident is also something that has been fostered over a number of years. This perspective should be included in the review. The objective fact of the matter is that one of Japan's top-ranking companies has been reduced to asking for public assistance overnight. What do we need to consider here? TEPCO truly supported the foundation of the Japanese economy by ensuring a stable power supply. The company single-handedly supported, or controlled in a certain sense, the entire power supply of the Tokyo Metropolitan Area and the Kanto Region, which together account for 40% of Japan's GDP, whether you like it or not. Now that TEPCO is requesting assistance from the Government, we need to consider why things have turned out this way as well as the need to minimize the burden borne by the public and the issue of what is accepted internationally. That is how I see the problem, but I have no definite stance on the issue right now.

REPORTER: This is the first time you appeared for a press conference in about four months. I would like to hear your comments about holding a press conference today. Also, former Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) leader Ichiro Ozawa is holding his birthday party today. Your long-time rival is now...

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: Excuse me?

REPORTER: Your rival...

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: Who are you calling my rival?

REPORTER: Mr. Ozawa. He has been banned from the Party and is trying to overthrow the current administration. Given the circumstance, how do you think he can be so outright about his birthday celebration? I want to hear about these two points.

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: Since part of my job is to hold press conferences, I have no particular comment about having one today. I have read news reports about Mr. Ozawa's birthday party, but all I have to say on the issue is that I suppose he does have a birthday.

REPORTER: I believe you said on a television program the other day that all kinds of compromises will be needed over the next six months or year for recovery and reconstruction. Do you think “compromises” here include modifications to the form, framework or composition of the government? How do you see the matter?

DEPUTY CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY SENGOKU: What I was basically speaking about was policy compromises. We must prioritize recovery and reconstruction first and foremost by taking steady steps forward toward the conclusion of the incident at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station and advancing reconstruction step-by-step. To this end, I think we should also be able to reach major compromises on other political issues. It goes without saying, but what I was trying to say was that I would like to ask for cooperation of the opposition parties.