Press Conference by Shizuka Kamei, Minister for Financial Services

(Excerpt)

(Tuesday, April 13, 2010, from 9:35 to 9:49)

Q.

During the Cabinet Office's Policy Meeting held this morning, the issue of money lending was brought up in the discussions, in which a flurry of concerns were raised in regards to the full enforcement of the revised Money Lending Business Act expected in June. May we assume that there will be no changes whatsoever in your plan to fully enforce the revised Act in June, even if a flurry of concerns or objections are raised by members of the Democratic Party in the upcoming FSA's Policy Meetings?

A.

The other day, I was given an explanation by the Money Lending Business Act Project Team about the progress of its studies and its approach to date. I told them that they are on the right track overall. As it is important to clarify each and every decision on how to implement the Act from the standpoint of borrowers to prevent as many borrowers as possible from falling into distress, I believe what they are doing is fine overall. We will therefore proceed without rewriting the Act. While I have been aware for some time about various opinions expressed at the Policy Meetings, I have yet to hear what kinds of opinions were expressed today. We will carefully listen to their opinions, but at this stage, [we are going to go with] the report made by the Project Team the other day, as it has been compiled by putting our ideas, or should I say, thoughts into shape in consideration of the opinions expressed at the Policy Meeting.

Q.

Although you say the report was made "in consideration of the opinions expressed of the Policy Meeting", some members of the Democratic Party argued in the meeting that there is no point holding such a meeting when a conclusion has already been drawn. The fact that Policy Meetings had been held 9 times was one of the major justifications you mentioned in the postal reform debate, so it seems inevitable that some members of the Democratic Party are expressing their frustration when they think their opinions not being reflected at all in the policy decisions. What are your views on this?

A.

No, haven't Policy Meetings been held a number of times?

Q.

It has been held at least once.

A.

It is not just once, it has been held a number of times.

Q.

That is since the submission of the "Chairperson's Proposals".

A.

I am telling you that we started listening to opinions way before the submission of the "Chairperson's Proposals". According to what I have been told, it is not just once. I have been told that meetings were held a number of times. I have been informed that the Project Team is preparing a draft in consideration of various opinions expressed at such meetings.

While I believe various ideas expressed so far have their own grounds respectively, the point is that we should judge them from a broad perspective.

Q.

Unlike the usual discussion to date of the Policy Meeting, opinions expressed at today's meeting were neither about the impact on borrowers nor about the content of measures themselves for relaxing the Act. Instead, many of them seemed to be objections or cautious views, casting doubts on whether such measures can be taken on time by June. Is it possible to create a system in which such measures would fully function? What about the timing?

A.

You can say the same thing whatever the case may be. It is always our responsibility to create such a system with the aim of enforcing an Act. It is not a question of whether or not it could be created; it must be created. The point is to make utmost efforts towards that end.

Q.

It has been reported in the news that in the postal reform bill, a notification system may be adopted for any new business that the Post's two financial subsidiaries would like to launch. Please share your thoughts with us on this matter.

A.

I think that in this day and age, it would be difficult for the postal business to properly fulfill universal services without having an edge as a private enterprise. It should not be suffocated by tight restrictions. On the other hand, however, the government is requesting that it provides universal services, so in view of their fulfillment, it is not coherent to completely eliminate the government's involvement in Japan Post's business. Here, the key lies in determining how to find a balance in these matters, when a request is being made by the government. An idea that I have come up with is currently being compiled properly in the form of provisions of the bill under my instructions. You may assume that introduction of the notification system to Japan Post does not mean that the decision it makes independently will become a reality as per the notice, if it is not reflective at all or disregardful of the wishes of other private corporations or entities in the same line of business, or disregardful of the government's judgment of such matters.

Q.

Does it mean that a two-tiered approach would be taken, in that there would be an underlying notification system, while a framework to ensure a certain degree of fair competition (equal treatment) would be established as well?

A.

It may be a matter of semantics, but we would like the framework to properly reflect the concept of appropriateness in terms of accountability of the postal business with respect to the government, the private sector and the general public.

(End)