| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ian Pearson (Dudley, West): May I press the Minister further on the issue of ministerial responsibility? As a non-lawyer, I was wondering whether he could explain who in government is responsible as the final arbiter of whether public interest immunity should be claimed? Is it the relevant Secretary of State, or is it the Attorney-General? Is there not an obligation to adhere to the advice of the Attorney-General?
The Attorney-General: The ultimate responsibility is the Minister's, but the Minister will act on advice. If the advice is cogent and appears to be in accordance with the law as it is then understood, the Minister will be likely to follow it, as my right hon. Friend followed the advice that I gave him on that specific occasion. Ultimate responsibility for a decision on whether to claim public interest immunity belongs to the Minister. In future, as I have explained, the matter will be a lot easier, because, first, after ex parte Wiley, the Minister has a much wider discretion; and, secondly, the new approach focuses the mind so very clearly on the test of real harm.
18 Dec 1996 : Column 959
Points of Order
4.8 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for giving you only relatively short notice of my point of order, but it is on a serious matter that has been brought to my attention. Yesterday, I tabled four questions. The first was to the Lord Chancellor's Department, asking whether the new Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland had ever been a Mason or a member of the Orange Order.
The other three questions were to the Home Office. Two were on the intolerable strip searches to which Miss Rosaleen McAliskey has been subjected in Holloway prison, and the fourth was on why prisoners may receive The Times but not The Irish Times, The Daily Telegraph but not the Belfast Telegraph, the Daily Mail but not the Irish News, and The Sun but not the News Letter.
Those questions were accepted--although not in that form--by the Table Office and were sent to the Stationery Office, where they were received by those appointed by the House to accept and to check such questions.
Those questions did not appear on the Order Paper. When I asked at the Table Office--I apologise again for giving such short notice--I was informed that they had been lost by the privatised HMSO. In my experience of almost 31 years as a Member of Parliament, that has never happened before. Those at the Table Office were most apologetic, but the matter was not their responsibility.
My point of order is to ask whether you, as Speaker and therefore champion of the House and protector of our rights, have received an apology from the newly privatised HMSO for that flagrant dereliction of its duty, and whether apologies will be received by the other hon. Members who suffered as a result of that dereliction. How shall we be protected in future? We table questions not only for our interests, but for the interests of the general public and those asking us to make their opinions and voices known.
Madam Speaker:
I had some indication of this matter only while I have been in the Chair since 2.30 pm, so I have not been able to follow through any investigations. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that several questions--not only from him but from other hon. Members--were missing. As far as I can understand, this is an unprecedented lapse. I assure him that, as soon as it was noticed, investigations were put under way.
The hon. Gentleman can be assured that, as soon as I have the opportunity this afternoon when I leave the Chair, I shall want to follow through personally on the investigations to see what happened. The hon. Gentleman and the other hon. Members, whose identities I am not aware of at this stage, will certainly receive an apology. We must learn from these mistakes.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon):
On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the controversy that arose last night as a result of the votes in the House on Monday evening. There appears to have been nothing less than a conspiracy to pervert the outcome of the votes. If such behaviour goes on with impunity, does it not give a green light to people to follow similar practices in future? Surely the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
Madam Speaker:
Similar points of order have been put to me yesterday and this morning. The Speaker has
18 Dec 1996 : Column 960
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At 12.30 pm today, the Leader of the House gave an interim report on the appalling events in Lima last night, saying, among other things, that British subjects could be involved. As the issue involves the safety of embassies around the world and the problems of copycat action, it is a matter of considerable importance, not only to Japan and Peru. Have you received a request from the Government to make a statement on the issues?
Madam Speaker:
The direct answer is no, I have not, but of course we still have the day's proceedings to go through. Should the Government feel it necessary or right to make a statement, we can always deal with that later in the day.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray):
On a different point of order, Madam Speaker--please excuse my voice. May I express to you, in your role as the much valued and respected protector of all Members of Parliament, my concern about developments in the business of the House over the past 10 days?
On 5 December, reported in column 1203 of Hansard, the Leader of the House said--we appreciate the fact that he now gives us much longer notice of business--that there would be a debate on the Protection from Harassment Bill. It was agreed through the usual channels that the debate would last only one day. That seemed appropriate, because it would have allowed me to attend the inaugural meeting of the Highlands and Islands Convention.
On 12 December, the Leader of the House announced that there would be a debate on the common fisheries policy. I challenged that--as reported in column 425 of Hansard--because every hon. Member from the highlands and islands of Scotland has a clear interest in the common fisheries policy, which has implications for our constituencies. I understand from my investigations that it was subsequently decided through the usual channels that two days would be required to discuss the Protection from Harassment Bill, but I had no notification of that, as a Member of Parliament from the highlands and islands.
I had to make a difficult decision on Monday. Fortunately, there was no fog or frost, and we managed to get back to Westminster via normal channels, without having to charter a Royal Air Force plane, in order to vote.
Would you, Madam Speaker, look at the conflicting responsibilities that are placed on individual Members? The issue did not concern individual constituencies; it was a general issue for all Members of Parliament from the highlands and islands. What action can be taken to ensure that we are never placed in the same ludicrous position again, especially in the light of subsequent events? As you know, I had raised points on the matter in the House before those events occurred.
Madam Speaker:
I very well remember the hon. Lady raising the issue in business questions. As she will appreciate, the matter is for the usual channels,
18 Dec 1996 : Column 961
Madam Speaker:
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1996.
Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996.
Theft (Amendment) Act 1996.
Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Act 1996.
City of Edinburgh Council Order Confirmation Act 1996.
Edinburgh Merchant Company Order Confirmation Act 1996.
Scottish Borders Council (Jim Clark Memorial Rally) Order Confirmation Act 1996.
Western Isles Council (Berneray Causeway) Order Confirmation Act 1996.
Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Forsyth and Mr. David Maclean, presented a Bill to require the notification of information to the police by persons who have committed certain sexual offences; to make provision with respect to the commission of certain sexual acts outside the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 13th January, and to be printed [Bill 66].
Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East):
I beg to move,
The cause of such Doomsday predictions is the inability of the majority of computer systems to recognise 2000. That is because they use, as we all do, two digits for the year of the date instead of four. Thus, today's date is written as 18/12/96, rather than 18/12/1996.
Unless they are properly reprogrammed, computer systems will recognise 2000 as 1900, or simply reset to some other date. That will mean that they will no longer deliver what they are programmed to deliver, and because so much of our daily lives depend on computers, the result will be, to use a tabloid word, catastrophe. As no one who has looked into the bizarre problem in any detail has so far suggested otherwise, the matter must be of urgent concern to the House.
When the matter was first raised on the Floor of the House in my question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister just a year ago, it was greeted with expressions of ridicule and disbelief. One year later, many written questions to Ministers in every Department, follow-up questions where appropriate, and my Adjournment debate on 6 June have contributed to increasing coverage in specialist computer magazines and the national press.
Many hon. Members are now aware of the issue, and realise that there is a real problem that must be addressed. I especially appreciate the interest of the hon. Members who attended my briefing meeting last Wednesday, and the fact that the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has issued a briefing note, No. 89, on "Computer Systems and the Millennium". That is in the Library, and I recommend it as essential background reading.
The briefing note refers to some of the forecasts of the danger of failure to ensure that computer systems are millennium-compliant. Consequences could include payroll systems collapsing so that workers cannot be paid; financial records losing track of investments; invoicing systems failing to generate bills, or charging 100 years' worth of interest; telecommunications networks failing; and problems with supply in utilities such as gas and electricity.
We must also take into account the possible unpredictable behaviour of embedded microchip systems in places such as elevators, bank vaults and medical equipment, and in Government systems such as those responsible for benefit payments, for maintaining criminal and medical records and for revenue collection.
In response to my Adjournment debate in June, my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology talked about the action that the Government were taking on their
18 Dec 1996 : Column 963
My hon. Friend gave the House two especially telling warnings during my Adjournment debate. He said:
Like the Government, I do not want more regulation and red tape to be imposed upon businesses. Some concern has been expressed that my Bill might add to the many burdens that already fall on them. However, it should not add to the burden, because it merely clarifies an existing duty for directors of companies and their auditors to give shareholders in the annual report a true and fair assessment of the company as a going concern for the foreseeable future.
As the future is uncertain, that usually means looking no further than 12 to 15 months ahead. However, the effects of the unique problem that I am talking about can be assessed now, and a view taken on whether the company will be a going concern in the year 2000 if action is not taken now. Indeed, action must be taken now. It will be no use trying to solve the problem in 1999. Most information technology projects take several years to implement, and this will be the largest information technology project that firms will ever have undertaken.
For instance, British Telecom intends to spend hundreds of millions of pounds simply to ensure that its telecommunications system will work in three years' time. Auditors who sign company accounts for the financial
18 Dec 1996 : Column 964
My Bill is designed to avoid the prospect of huge numbers of legal cases in the new millennium, with costly attempts to determine who is to blame for companies' failure.
The Bill will require companies to conduct audits of the capacity of their computer systems to deal with calendar dates after 31 December 1999 and to report both on the audit and the actions that their directors propose to take in consequence. It is an amendment of the Companies Act 1985, which is the principal company statute in force, and of the duty to prepare a director's report. Both obligations are placed on directors rather than companies.
If the House were to allow me to introduce the Bill today, there may be enough time for it to be given the Royal Assent in the spring, so that it could apply to company reports for the financial years ending in 1998 and 1999. That might be sufficient, with the work of TaskForce 2000 and other initiatives by the private sector and the computer industry, to avoid much of the incalculable chaos that is predicted if too little is done.
I accept that there is a cost to checking computer systems for their millennium compliance but the cost of non-compliance, which may mean going out of business, is far greater. This is a race against time. There are only 750 working days left. The problem is one of the greatest challenges facing business management. Like the change in the millennium, it cannot be avoided. That is why I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill.
4.16 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require companies to conduct an audit of the capacity of their computer systems to deal with calendar dates after 31st December 1999 and to report both on those audits and on the actions their directors propose to take in consequence.
The aim of the Bill is to avoid for this country much of the widespread chaos and confusion that it is being increasingly predicted will occur throughout the world at the turn of the century, in just three years' time. I am grateful to hon. Members of all parties who have so willingly offered to sponsor it.
"some companies will go out of business if they have not tackled the problem, or not ensured that their suppliers have tackled it . . . it is a management problem that must be dealt with at the top . . . The Government cannot do it for them. It is no use companies coming to us in 1999 and saying, 'The Government have not fixed it.' The Government did not install the computer software. Failure to deal with the problem could lead to commercial collapse".--[Official Report, 6 June 1996; Vol. 278, c. 818-9.]
My Bill is designed to avoid such commercial collapse. Even responsible companies that have taken the necessary action will find that others with which they have dealings, such as their suppliers, will not have taken action, which will make all those in the supply chain vulnerable to business failure. Truly the chain will be only as strong as its weakest link. I do not believe that all the warning, advising and cajoling in the world will be enough to ensure that the new millennium will begin trouble-free.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |