---

Mr. Ian Taylor rose--

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman is speaking from the Dispatch Box now.

Mr. Taylor: One speech and I am promoted again--it is a wonderful feeling.

I want to underline what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) says about the year 2000 problem, but there are in fact fewer than 900 days in which to sort it out. I am afraid that for most companies and Government Departments the matter will come to a head a long time before the millennium. It is clear that companies that have audited and corrected their systems will refuse to deal with companies or Government Departments that have not done so. The issue will be whether a company or Department can guarantee that its software, hardware and embedded chips are millennium compliant, and whether that can be guaranteed to a third party. If not, within a matter of months--certainly by 1998--it is likely that that company or Department will be cut out of the supply chain.

Mr. Jones: I absolutely agree. Companies and Government systems need to be millennium compliant at least by December 1998 so that they have a year in which to sort out the problem. The problems will arise before the clock ticks over to 1 January 2000. There is a suspicion that there will be problems on 9 September 1999--9.9.99. I do not know whether hon. Members are familiar with Cobol programming, but there is a system called high values that can be put into a field and puts nines everywhere. Anyone comparing dates against 9.9.99 could run into trouble on 9 September 1999.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that serious and important issue. We shall not resolve it here.

11 Jul 1997 : Column 1216

I notice that, after his illuminating speech, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) has immediately moved to the Front Bench to speak for the Opposition. I welcome him back to that post. I should like to pay him a compliment. It is common practice that the Government are not allowed to see the letters of the previous Administration, but I know from a letter in a computer magazine that the hon. Gentleman wrote to, I think, 130,000 companies encouraging them to take the issue seriously. He added at the bottom of the letter that he hoped that replies would be piling up on my desk. I am saddened not to have had many replies.

I can only allude to the letter, because I have not seen it, but I should like to underline what it said and what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) is saying. I hope that companies throughout the land will take the issue seriously. If they do not act now, they could pay a high price and even be put out of business.

Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister. This is the most serious problem facing business today. If we do not sort it out, companies could go out of business.

In recent weeks, I have met several people at the sharp end of trying to solve the problem, including a member of Taskforce 2000. I do not want to be alarmist, just as the former Minister tried not to be when he gave evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee. Geoffrey Finlay of Alydaar--a company named after a former winner of the Kentucky derby, he tells me--says that there are serious problems, not just in the public sector. The private sector is also in some disarray. An independent report prepared by Spikes Cavell sums up the scale of the problem. It says:

"The IT managers and finance directors of UK companies have not yet sat down to evolve detailed strategies to handle the Year 2000 question."

The report was published just a month and a half ago, in May. It continues:

"The whole initiative is still at the starting gate. Funding requirements have not been quantified or set aside to solve the problem in 82 per cent. of organisations surveyed."

Time is running out. If people do not have their systems fixed before 2000, they could go out of business.The Sunday Times has said:

"Everyone should take the millennium bomb very seriously. Organisations which fail to prepare adequately will be placed at a severe disadvantage. Some will not survive . . . This is a management problem of the highest order."

I hope that business will take note and do something about it pretty quickly.

There is a problem of silence from suppliers. Someone suggested to me that it is a legal problem. Lawyers for suppliers are suggesting that the company should say nothing about the product because otherwise they will be liable. We have to do something about the millennium problem, because fixing it will require a partnership between suppliers and the people to whom they have supplied the products.

There was an appalling report, which I hope is not true, in last week's Computing magazine about IBM's strategy for 2000. It says:

"An internal IBM document seen by Computing, and confirmed by sources at IBM as originating from the company, alleges the company is only targeting a few large users with near-complete year 2000 solutions.

11 Jul 1997 : Column 1217

The document further alleges that IBM has made 'no direct attempt to provide a comprehensive solution that is year 2000 compliant' for the majority of customers and will not guarantee a fixed price or complete solution. An IBM spokeswoman confirmed that IBM had separate strategies for mainframe and other users: 'We rely more on partners when dealing with smaller users'."

I should like IBM to clarify the position because it is the biggest supplier in the market.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The managing director of IBM wrote to me yesterday totally denying that story. I have no brief to speak on behalf of IBM, but I must point out that the company mentioned that all the information it has on how to get rid of these problems is being published on the Internet. It is taking a major role in trying to help people. The article is the usual journalese. It says that an IBM spokesman confirmed that the company had two strategies, one for big users and one for little users. Any sensible company would have two strategies.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that intervention. The Government must take action to ensure that public systems are millennium compliant, but the private sector must take action, too. That involves suppliers and their clients working in partnership to overcome the problem.

This has been a fascinating debate. There are great opportunities in the new information society. There will be hiccups along the way and there will be challenges for us all, but it is an exciting time to be alive. We must make the most of these opportunities and I wish the Minister well in his efforts.

12.15 pm

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): This has been an important debate which, sadly, has been poorly attended. One of the problems with parliamentary practices is that we do not always flag up these debates sufficiently ahead of time to generate the necessary interest. Our parliamentary technology is desperately lagging behind what is necessary for Members of Parliament. If I can transmit that message to those responsible for parliamentary technology, my short speech will not have been totally wasted. One must remember, however, the old cliche that the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons.

The difficulty with the whole information technology debate is that although we are submerged in information, we do not often know what is going on. I receive tons of e-mail, but it does not necessarily tell me anything. All the techno-nerd cliches of the world will not replace the fundamental need for education in the use of information technology. In the context of education, clear and precise language is needed. Unless we restore clarity and rigour in our language, information technology could pile up, one cyber-nerd connecting with another into eternity, without our advancing much further.

A small warning that I put to my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members who have taken part in the debate is that we should not over-worship the power of the English language, powerful as it is. The point about new technology is that it will enable many other languages to retain their character because as technology allows interpretation to take place automatically, it will preserve the integrity of other languages. I welcome that because the world must remain culturally diverse. Although I am delighted that I was brought up speaking English--I have

11 Jul 1997 : Column 1218

tried to maintain that practice--the fact remains that other languages have their rights. Clarity of language is necessary.

I was reading Macaulay for a debate this afternoon with Lord Hurd--one has to read Macaulay early in the morning before entering a debate with Lord Hurd--and I came across a sentence relating to the last great period of Tory rule in the late 17th century. Lord Macaulay said:

"The people of England saw harlot after harlot, and bastard after bastard, raised to the highest honours of the peerage."

I am not sure whether that is parliamentary language, but it may be relevant to debates about the descendants of the people to whom Lord Macaulay referred who seek to thwart the will of the British people. While I am not suggesting that there should be gatekeeping for unparliamentary language, it is rather odd that when I quote from a famous essay by Lord Macaulay that raised not an eyebrow in the 19th century, the language sends a frisson around the Chamber.

Let us have the clearest possible use of English--the strongest, sturdiest, most vigorous use of English--as we set about our information technology policy. It really is vital. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister made many important points about the centrality of information technology for the new economy.

In my constituency of Rotherham, a software firm called Chrysalis has grown from two men and an idea into a firm employing 35 people making advanced video games that are sold overseas. One would not even notice the company as one drives round that great steel and coal town; it is tucked away behind the high street opposite the town hall. However, it makes a great deal of money and adds real value to the economy. That is the future for my constituents.

Even in the steel plants in Rotherham, most of the workers sit in computer sheds using technology where once only brute force and craft skills were required. New skills have been added and constant training is required. That is the way forward.

References have been made to encryption technology, which is also vital. Henry Stimpson, the Postmaster General in America in 1929, when asked whether he would authorise the bugging of mail, said that gentlemen did not open other gentlemen's letters. Certainly the CIA and the other buggers have moved on from that.

The taxation system is based on information, so when it goes into cyberspace, cyber tax evasion will become a reality. The problem of privacy will require sensitive thinking. It will be solved not by technology, but by clear thought, analysis and debate. I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) and the excellent work he carried out in office. He said that there may be distinct points of view between the European Union and the United States and we cannot have a single cultural, technological model.

---